Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
The name of our paper is "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" (Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759-762; 1999). In the abstract, we state: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats" and note that "expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400". We conclude by stating: "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached." It is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the uncertainties in the reconstruction; indeed, that was the point of the article!

The subsequent confusion about uncertainties was the result of poor communication by others, who used our temperature reconstruction without the reservations that we had stated clearly.

source: Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes and Michael E. Mann in Nature 442, 627 (10 August 2006)

That doesn't come as a surprise from Mann-Bradley-Huges who are definitely of bad faith. Apart from his discredited hockey stick, the fact that Mann refused at the begining to communicate datas and methods to hinder any replication of his works is really unconceivable for someone whose research is publicly funded. Here are some examples of why his victimization line of defense is just misleading and dishonnest (you can forget the comments, just look for the press releases to see for yourself).

""""
Some of the "poor communication by others" is conveniently documented at Mann's website for MBH98 and MBH99, he lists various press clippings. Not all the links still work, but some do. Contemporary examples of poor communications victimizing MBH include:

USA Today is one example of "poor communication by others", saying:

The latest reconstruction supports earlier theories that temperatures in medieval times were relatively warm, but "even the warmer intervals in the reconstruction pale in comparison with mid-to-late 20th-century temperatures," said Hughes.

And, of course, the CBC:
Researchers at the University of Massachusetts say the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 was the warmest year of the decade.

I'm sure that MBH took every conceivable step to try to redress these "poor communications by others" and were frustrated when their efforts to ensure uncertainties were emphasized by these publications were rebuffed.

The victimization was not just in the press, but even their own colleagues victimized poor MBH. At CRU, Phil Jones - and I'm sure they felt certain that they could rely on Phil - let them down by saying atthe CRU website:

Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century.

No wonder they feel let down. But one of the worst offenders in victimizing poor MBH was the University of Massachusetts press office, which issued news releases for both MBH98 and MBH99, ( obviously over the vehement protests of Mann et al), claiming that "advanced statistical techniques" were used. The MBH98 news release stated:

Climatologists at the University of Massachusetts have reconstructed the global temperature over the past 600 years, determining that three recent years, 1997, 1995, and 1990, were the warmest years since at least AD 1400.

The researchers were able to estimate temperatures over more than half the surface of the globe, pinpointing average yearly temperatures in the northern hemisphere to within a fraction of a degree, going back to AD 1400. The study places in a new context long-standing controversy over the relative roles of human and natural changes in the climate of past centuries, according to Mann.

Advanced statistical techniques were used to translate the proxy information into surface temperature patterns, so that past centuries could be compared with the 20th century.

The MBH99 news release stated:

1998 Was Warmest Year of Millennium, UMass Amherst Climate Researchers Report
March 3, 1999

AMHERST, Mass. - Researchers at the University of Massachusetts who study global warming have released a report strongly suggesting that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium, with 1998 the warmest year so far.

"Temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented," said Bradley.

Using proxy information gathered by scientists around the world during the past few decades, the team used sophisticated computer analysis and statistics to reconstruct yearly temperatures and their statistical uncertainties, going back to the year AD 1000
""""

Source here.

0 Replies

Okay I'm going to post this and save the link somewhere so I can find it again. This is the current U.S Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works position as of this fall. (It's wrapped in a critique of the propaganda the UN is apparently putting out targeting kids.) It will be interesting to see if the report changes appreciably once the Democrats and presumed AGW advocates take control after the First of the Year.

Majority Fact of the Day
New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006
Contact: Marc Morano ([email protected] ), Matt Dempsey ([email protected] )

Nairobi, Kenya - A new United Nations children's book promoting fears of catastrophic manmade global warming is being promoted at the UN Climate Change Conference in Kenya. The book's main character, a young boy, is featured getting so worried about a coming manmade climate disaster that he yells "I don't want to hear anymore!" The new children's book, entitled "Tore and the Town on Thin Ice" ((http://www.unep.org/PDF/TORE.pdf)) is published by the United Nations Environment Programme and blames "rich countries" for creating a climate catastrophe and urges children to join environmental groups.

The book is about a young boy named Tore who lives in an Arctic village. Tore loses a dog sled race because he crashes through the thinning ice allegedly caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The book features colorful drawings and large text to appeal to young children.

After the boy loses the dog sled race, he is visited by "Sedna, the Mother of the Sea" in a dream. The "Sea Mother" Goddess informs Tore in blunt terms that the thinning ice that caused his loss in the dog sled race was due to manmade global warming.

"I'm the one who created and cares for the sea creatures - whales and walruses, seals and fish," the "Sea Mother" explains to Tore. The "Sea Mother" then tells the boy she will educate him about the reason the ice is thinning.

The morning after his dream, Tore sets out on a quest for knowledge about the dangers of catastrophic manmade global warming. A "snowy owl" informs Tore that "the planet's heating up" and that both the Arctic and Antarctica "are warming almost twice as fast as elsewhere." [EPW Note: The Arctic, according to the International Arctic Research Center, was at its warmest in the 20th century during the 1930's, and both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding - on balance - Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.] [EPW Note: A 2005 study by Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.]

Next, a polar bear informs Tore that it is hungry because the ice is too thin to stand on and hunt and the bear says that other bears have "starved" because the sea ice went out to sea. The polar bear adds, "We may not have much of a future." [EPW Note: In May of 2006, biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, noted that "of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present." (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419 ] [EPW note: Many scientists dispute the notion that mankind has created a climate doomsday. See: ((http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777))] [EPW Note: The relationship between global warming and hurricanes is currently under debate, with the great majority of scientists believing there is little connection. For instance, 2006 was anticipated to be a record year for hurricanes, but turned out to be one of the calmest seasons in many, many years.] [EPW Fact: Several developing world nations will soon pass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions. China alone will pass the U.S. in emissions in 2009. ]

Finally, the "Sea Mother" tells Tore that the solution to the climate crisis can begin in his Arctic village by "setting up solar panels to get electricity from the sun, and modern windmills to capture the energy of the wind."

The book ends with a section answering the question "What can you do?" The book's answer includes such suggestions as "join or create an environmental club," "only drive cars if you must," and "write to your political leaders."
SOURCE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The book ends with a section answering the question "What can you do?" The book's answer includes such suggestions as "join or create an environmental club," "only drive cars if you must," and "write to your political leaders."
SOURCE

They are helpless in front of the onslaught of facts and cleverly, but oh so nicely, presented opinionMuch of the money that is used to fund these NGO propaganda circuses is donated by well meaning school pupils and other young people, worldwide. "Pernicious" is not a strong enough word to describe the misuse of these funds in support of fundamentalist environmental evangelism.

In the early 19th century, Western nations sent missionaries out into newly discovered Polynesia. Their intentions were undoubtedly benign, but the result was most often a complete undermining of local native culture. Today, Western nations have spawned, and continue to support with tax relief and direct financial contributions, eco-evangelism. As for their former missionary counterparts, organisations like the WWF would like to think that God is on their side. Whether she is or not, many of the activities in which environmental NGOs now engage have become dangerously destabilising of both rational environmental protection and of sensible global governance.

Rarotonga and other South Pacific islands lie within the Pacific political realm of influence of Australia and New Zealand. For the European Union, aided by NGOs, to still be conducting cargo cult exercises in this region in the 21st century is simply outrageous.

And, being Australian, I naturally think that the government should do something about it.

Perhaps they could send a gunboat on any future such occasions; after all, New Zealand sent one to French Polynesia in protest about nuclear tests that were being undertaken there. Rather than carrying ammunition, the ship could be loaded with a cargo of leaflets, computer slide shows and the type of rationalist scientists who are committed to delivering a balanced account of our planet's always-changing climate.
""""
Source: http://abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1657376.htm#

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Disgusting! They would brainwash, with taxpayer's money, third world kids to become green activists and to turn away from technological progress.

I thought the rationale had been to accuse green activists of lobbying for technological progress, which in turn was so expensive that it would ruin the US economy?

I must have missed something.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Disgusting! They would brainwash, with taxpayer's money, third world kids to become green activists and to turn away from technological progress.

I thought the rationale had been to accuse green activists of lobbying for technological progress, which in turn was so expensive that it would ruin the US economy?

I must have missed something.

The core thesis of Minitax's post is I think this

Quote:

. . . .many of the activities in which environmental NGOs now engage have become dangerously destabilising of both rational environmental protection and of sensible global governance.

This is all most of us anti-Kyoto Accord types are asking I think. Let us not let blind faith in environmental fundamentalism shut out identification of problems that may be different than what we think and/or exploration of possible flaws in the current body of thought and/or research to find productive and non destructive ways to address whatever real problems that may exist.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I thought the rationale had been to accuse green activists of lobbying for technological progress, which in turn was so expensive that it would ruin the US economy?

I must have missed something.

That's what they tell you, OE. But I doubt they do think that, especially when the UN book promotes windmills, a 5 centuries old technology.
Here are some excerpts of prominent green activists to show you missed something:

* Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader, Kofi Annan's Adviser, at Rio Earth Day: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
* Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
* John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken
* Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."

0 Replies

minitax wrote

Quote:

here is another example of eco-imperialism:

A significant, if eyebrow-raisingly funny, abuse of language there. It's really rather like "violent pacifists" or "that slutty virgin mary" or "warmongering Desmond Tutuism". Or, one might imagine another children's book where a grizzly bear, busted for ripping the lid off a meat freezer and plowing through the contents, points to a mouse on the floor nearbye and yells "Thief! Just look what he's stealing!"

Some good news for the US...

Quote:

The incoming Democrat, Barbara Boxer, comes from, yes, California, a state that has supplied several of the leaders of the Democrat revolution, including Nanci Pelosi of San Francisco, the new speaker of the House.
So power has shifted at the head of this committee from Republican to Democrat, man to woman, conservative heartland to liberal coast. Most importantly, though, the change of hands marks the transition from global warming denial to global warming activism.

Mr Inhofe has a track record for using his power in committee to block legislation designed to cut the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. He famously said on one occasion that global warming was "the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1948155,00.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

minitax wrote
Quote:
here is another example of eco-imperialism:

A significant, if eyebrow-raisingly funny, abuse of language there. It's really rather like "violent pacifists" or "that slutty virgin mary" or "warmongering Desmond Tutuism". Or, one might imagine another children's book where a grizzly bear, busted for ripping the lid off a meat freezer and plowing through the contents, points to a mouse on the floor nearbye and yells "Thief! Just look what he's stealing!"

Deadly funny post, blatham, as very often.
It must be that my oxymoron is due to the wild anti-green The-Guardian-counterpoint propaganda, like this one (nice book, I recommand)

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6599/093957123401aa240sclzzzdx7.jpg

0 Replies

Quote:

source: wikipedia

0 Replies

You have also eco-fundamentalism like with the British green's Christmas Guide :
Source : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2451053,00.html

Quote:

'TIS THE SEASON TO BE ECONOMICAL IN EXPENDING ENERGY
# Use fewer fairy lights, buy wind-up torches, radios and toys instead of battery-operated models, and select presents that need minimal packaging

# Buy ethical and eco-friendly presents, make fewer journeys and, where possible, keep in touch through the internet instead of enduring or enjoying family reunions

# Leave the car at home. "On the one hand it is only right to spend this time of year in the company of friends and family, on the other hand, we have a duty to spare the Earth's systems any extra burden"

# Avoid air travel where possible. Replace cars with public transport, though this may involve some imagination and flexibility

# It is now possible to see and hear your loved-ones via the internet. "It is certainly worth trying, as the savings in CO2, time and energy are considerable, and one should always be looking for the lowest CO2-cost solutions."

I do like the idea (only the idea) of keeping in touch with my family through webcams instead of "enduring" (sic !!!) family reunions.

http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/vince_astuce.gif

Man, those guys are getting completely crazy.

0 Replies

just on the BBC

Quote:

UN chief Kofi Annan has criticised a "frightening lack of leadership" in tackling global warming, at a major UN climate summit in Nairobi.

Mr Annan told delegates the phenomenon was as grave a threat as conflict, poverty and the spread of weapons.

He said sceptics were "out of step, out of arguments and out of time".

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Man, those guys are getting completely crazy.

Well, business. "The GreenGuide Online" is one of the many businesses by Markham Publishing , who earn their money worldwide with a lot of similar stuff.

I wish, I had had that idea.

But when you now start to go on with such, e.g. posting adverts for magnets which give more mileage per gallon etc - well, we could the mods to move this thread to "Fun and Humour".

Nevertheless thanks for mentioning that green guide, miniTAX: I've just ordered a new evening robe for Mrs Walter from them

http://www.greenguide.co.uk/files/lettuce_PG-13.gif

0 Replies

http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/purljam.gif

A VERY tasty dress indeed. Nice utilitarian idea.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

just on the BBC

Quote:
UN chief Kofi Annan has criticised a "frightening lack of leadership" in tackling global warming, at a major UN climate summit in Nairobi.

Mr Annan told delegates the phenomenon was as grave a threat as conflict, poverty and the spread of weapons.

He said sceptics were "out of step, out of arguments and out of time".

Funny that the blame game that Kyoto is in such a mess goes to the sceptics who are supposed to be an "out-of-arguments" tweeny-weeny minority.

Funny that the "debate is over" but billions of $ are still devoted to do more research, to employ more climatologists, to collect data, to refine and improve the fabled computer models. Rolling Eyes

My model predicts that there will be a surge in the blame-game activity just after the Nairobi conference, followed by an increase of it closely correlated to the rate of industrial CO2 emission from now on to 2067 and then a switch of attention to Venusian disturbances of clowd cover until 2100 after which we'll be invaded by Martians. But I need more fundings to determine wether the future extra-terrestrial governors will impose or not central planning on humans :wink:

0 Replies

It's worse than that Minitax. Here's the latest brainstorm from the scientific community:

Pollution could combat global warming
POSTED: 8:22 a.m. EST, November 16, 2006

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.

Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet.

Reaction to the proposal here at the annual U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend at Moffett Field, California, NASA's Ames Research Center hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off climate change.
MORE HERE
*****************************************
Now if this one catches on, all that effort (which I supported 100%) to clean up the air, water, soil, etc. and has produced some of the healthiest air we've had in Albuquerque in a century could all be reversed.

Then if the scientists who go with the pendulum theory (alternating natural periods of warming and cooling) are correct, it could happen that the pendulum starts swinging back the other way just as they start pumping all those pollutants into the air. And they'll think they did it.

Sigh.

0 Replies

It's not decided until the science stops? Who made up those rules? Certainly scientists didn't. Nor did any thinking person.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote

Quote:

Funny that the "debate is over" but billions of $ are still devoted to do more research, to employ more climatologists, to collect data, to refine and improve the fabled computer models.

By "funny" here, I suppose you mean "inconsistent". Hardly. Would you have it that further research on cardio-pulminary ailments cease?

Not to mention that if there is any predictable claim which has, does, and will emerge from the marketing/PR arms of the energy industries, it is "More research...we need more research."

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Funny that the "debate is over" but billions of $ are still devoted to do more research, to employ more climatologists, to collect data, to refine and improve the fabled computer models.

Funny that the computer models that project how the climate might change based on certain factors are always denounced as "voodoo science", whereas the data from computer models that project how the economy might change if we were to employ certain measures to counteract are always stated as they were hard facts.

And funny that so many people are still working on improving the economic computer models - given that the "debate is over"....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Funny that the "debate is over" but billions of $ are still devoted to do more research, to employ more climatologists, to collect data, to refine and improve the fabled computer models.

Funny that the computer models that project how the climate might change based on certain factors are always denounced as "voodoo science", whereas the data from computer models that project how the economy might change if we were to employ certain measures to counteract are always stated as they were hard facts.

And funny that so many people are still working on improving the economic computer models - given that the "debate is over"....

"Voodoo" science is a bit extreme when attached to research for the sake of research. It isn't so extreme when it appears that the unknown is marketed as an absolute. The objection to the computer models that project how the climate might change is that these models can't produce anything close to accurate results using known data. Thus, it is hard to think that they should be used as gospel when they are doing projections using speculative data.

We do have a rather large body of data to project economic forecasts and experience to back it up; but even here the experts are so often wrong that I pretty much ignore them when doing my own financial planning meager as it is. I, with no particular expertise in this stuff, expect economic conditions to improve each time the government opens up a new trade market or when the people are allowed to keep and spend, invest, save etc. more of their own money. I expect economic conditions to be less favorable, though not necessarily awful, when a trade market is closed or taxes are raised, etc. And I rarely miss when using that kind of information. Many of the 'experts' however rely on their computer models and they miss as much as they hit the mark. Smile

I'm not knocking computers and I don't think anybody objects to ongoing research in matters of climate and global warming. There is nothing we can learn about our climate, world, universe that is not worth knowing.

But Minitax must be given credit for his/her observation. If the "evidence is in and it's a done deal and Kyoto and other extreme measures are known to be 100%necessary to save the planet", why do countries need to invest millions or billions more in research to prove what they say they already know?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But Minitax must be given credit for his/her observation. If the "evidence is in and it's a done deal and Kyoto and other extreme measures are known to be 100%necessary to save the planet", why do countries need to invest millions or billions more in research to prove what they say they already know?

Well, in such a case, people are allowed to spend money on such, invest in new industries, win a lot of money, create new jobs ...

But America isn't leading in eco-technology markets, like windturbines, solar thermal collectors. hybrid cars, clean energy ... right?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know