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

Are you chanting a mantra ? We have addressed your quote before and it was found to be full of good news for the faithful, if they dont think too much and like to follow blindly.

Cyclops didn't read it, Ionus. He is a blind partisan of the left. He comes from Berkeley. I am sure you know about that institution.

I do not make copies of the posts very frequently, but I have made a copy of the pitiful post written by Monterey Jack where he attempts to try to convince the readers of this thread that the word "trick" as used by Jones does not really mean "trick". It is a word with a special use!
That is one of the most preposterous and self-serving comments I have ever read and shows how desperate the "sky is falling" loonies are at this stage of the game.

There are many many commentators about East Anglia and Paul Jones. A scathing critique of Jones was issued by Paul Monbiot, who can only be described as one of the faithful climate warming advocates.

Monbiot wrote:

Blog home Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignationsThe hacked emails shows that Phil Jones, after 20 years of failing to issue a correction, isn't the only one who should resign
(39)Tweet this (58)Comments (334)
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, who, at the heart of the scandal, failed to make a vital correction for 20 years. Photograph: University of East Anglia

This is a tough time for climate science. The Guardian's new revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia might help to explain the university's utter failure to confront its critics. They could also explain why the head of the unit, Phil Jones, blocked freedom of information requests and proposed that material subject to those requests be deleted. He has been spared a criminal investigation only because the time limit for prosecutions has expired.

The emails I read gave me the impression that Phil Jones had something to hide. Now we know what it might have been. The Guardian has discovered that Jones appears to have suppressed data that undermines a paper he published in Nature in 1990. The paper claimed that Chinese weather stations show that local heating caused by urbanisation has very little effect on the temperature record. It now seems that much of the data they used is worthless and the documents required to validate it do not exist. The paper might be 20 years old, but in a way that makes the scandal worse: Phil Jones has had 20 years in which to issue a correction. Even after the hacking in October last year, he has still not done so.

When the emails were first published in November, I called for Professor Jones's resignation as head of the CRU. Though he has stepped down temporarily, his position is now even less tenable. The longer he leaves it, the worse this will get.

I believe the head of communications at the university, Annie Ogden, also has to go. She was warned repeatedly that the university's handling of this issue was a catastrophe, and still the policy " of utter passivity in the face of crisis " remains unchanged. Today was a re-run of what happened in December: though the story was on the front page of the Guardian's site at 9pm last night, by 10.30 this morning UEA had still not prepared a response and was unable to answer questions from journalists. As the emails show, climate scientists at the university have been up against a well-armed public relations campaign for many years, but no one at UEA has developed a strategy for responding. Even now the university has failed to make the obvious move: to call in a crisis management team, or at least to hire someone who can show they know how to respond to an emergency.

In fairness, Jones himself responded this afternoon, telling the Press Association that he was confident the 1990 paper, which drew on 42 urban and 42 rural sites, was correct because it was validated by the new data. He said: "I am confident in my mind the site movements that might have taken place at some of the sites were not that important to affect the average of the 42 sites."

The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, is also in hot water. In November he dismissed as "voodoo science" a report for the Indian government showing that the IPCC's date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was wrong. It's now clear that, actually, the IPCC's claim was voodoo science. It reproduced a speculative suggestion " that the glaciers were going to disappear by 2035 " that had not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Pachauri's immediate dismissal of the Indian government's refutation was unscientific as well as wrong.

Now the Sunday Times alleges that he first heard that the glacier date was wrong in November, and failed to act. Pachauri was busy preparing for the Copenhagen summit, so perhaps it's not surprising if he didn't pay much attention, but someone at the IPCC should have done so, rather than letting the issue fester.

Pachauri is also taking a lot of heat for his outside interests, though he insists that the allegations made against him are flat wrong. It's worth remembering that he was appointed to run the IPCC after the Bush administration had his predecessor, Bob Watson, booted out at the behest of ExxonMobil. On 6February 2001, 17 days after George W Bush was sworn in, AG (Randy) Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental adviser, sent a fax to John Howard, an environmental official at the White House. He asked,

"Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"

The US government immediately complied. Once it had extracted Watson, it accepted Pachauri as his replacement. The very qualities which made him acceptable to the climate change deniers in the White House " he wasn't a climate scientist, he had friendly relations with business " are now being used by climate change deniers as a stick with which to beat him.

Damaging as some of this material is, at least people on this side of the climate science fence are able to confront the problem. Both stories " the glacier error and the revelations about the Chinese weather stations " were broken by the brilliant reporter Fred Pearce, who is possibly the world's longest serving environmental journalist, and has spent decades explaining and championing climate science. The IPCC's glacier claim was actually drawn from an article of Fred's, published in New Scientist in 1999. But it was he who exposed the mistake the panel had made.

If they appied the same lack of intelligence to crossing the road they would be road kill on the first attempt. I cant think of any other area of science where there was so much magic and so little facts. What will we think of scientists when there really is a problem but they have cried wolf too often ?

Cyclops will not admit that the one day conference gathered to hastily try to minimize the self-service and unscientific actions of Jones and his crew at East Anglia is based on the need to cover just before the elections. Anyone except mindless partisans like Cyclops and Monterey Jack can read the exerpt of the committee gathered to "defend" Jones and come away with the notion that they were, at times, "daming with faint praise" and at other times, saying--"What have you done, man?

But there are others--Famous Scientists( of course, Monterey Jack and Cyclops would properly charge that they are "tools" of the oil industry--not very likely.

"The eminent climate scientist, Dr. Hans von Storch, professor at the Meterological Institute in the University of Hamburg, Germany, noted

quote

"I would assume that more interesting issues willbe found of the files and that an interesting debate about the POLITICIZATION of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that the adversaries may check the analysis must be really enforced. Another conclusion cou ld be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should NO LONGER PARTICIPATE in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC"

Correct, Ionus! One of the vital principles attached to anyone who communicates in the media, especially scientists(since their pronouncments can do so much good or, if twisted or manufactured, so much evil) is credibility. Anyone reading about East Anglia and some of the nonsense blurbs coming from the UN is aware that a great part of the climate warming crowd has completely lost its credibility!

No credibility = no power to institute changes

IONUS- The article is too long for me to replicate on this thread, but you may be interested in it since it destroys the Goristas almost totally. You can google it if you wish. It is from the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 1, 2009, entitled
"The Climate Science isn't settled" and it was written by the most eminent scholar, Richard S. Lindzen,Professor of Meterology at the top science school in the USA--M. I. T.

A good deal of the article speaks to the question whether the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks. Lindzen shows that this is "intuitively implausible"

ican-- Thanks for reposting the information about the 400 Scientists. I am sure that you are aware that posters like Monterey Jack and/or Cyclops will attmpt to denigrate all of those scientists because they do not have the learning and the CREDIBLITY of individuals like Jones and Mann. HA!

Massagat, here's a point of clarification.

While the 1st paragraph of what I post about the 400 is repeated, the numbered individual quotes I posted, are posted for the first time. There are more than 460 such quotes of which I have posted 377. The 378th follows.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Thank you <Ican. I overlooked that point. Please keep citing articles from sceintific journals which show that the globalwarmists are egregiously in error!

Massagat, thanks for asking! Yes, I'll keep citing and excerpting from articles which show that the globalwarmists are egregiously in error!

Ican- It will be fun to watch what happens in the House & Senate if and when Obama tells them that the earth is in peril because of "global warming"

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010.

During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010, the net average annual global temperature average temperature increased less than 1°C (1.8°F).

But, since 2003, average annual golbal temperature has decreased alittle: about 0.1°C (0.18°F). Over the same period, while atmospheric CO2 ppm has increased, Solar Iradiance has also decreased.

ican blows another cherry-picked period. He says:

In fact, global temperature actually INCREASED a bit over the period 2003-2009 (may I remind you ican, there's no way to tell anything about 2010 yet, since we're barely a quarter of the way through it.)


Global temperature increased .02 degrees C, while CO2increased, and solar irradiance decreased. Therefore, once again, ican, your "methodology" indicates solar irradiance has no effect on global temperature increase.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

If he had of been referring to 2010 as being included it would have been a 101 year period. He said 1910 TO 2010, he didnt say inclusive.

Will you be forthcoming as to how much this is or will you be withholding information, or perhaps shredding it ?

do try reading the whole post, ionus., Notice the .02 degrees in the last paragraph. Notice also where the figures are (the citation in blue, you know?) ican always refers to intervals that way, and miscounts the years. Refer to any of his previous posts.

So he says it decreased by 0.1 C and you say it increased by 0.02 C. Exactly what tolerance are we looking at here, because I dont see Global Warming justified in either.
I would have written it like this : In fact, global temperature actually INCREASED by .02 degrees C over the period 2003-2009 .
And he is right to do so...from a point in 1910 to the same point in 2010 is 100 years. I dont know how it can be added up any other way.

What were the tolerances for the figures given ? That would have changed throughout the years.

No, ionus, it's not to a POINT in a year. Figures for global average temperature are computed for the whole year, otherwise you run into seasonal fluctuations. And since we haven't finished 2010 it's meaningless to use it as a terminus. Everyone else, except ican would write it 1910-2009 if they meant an interval estarting in 1910 and ending in 2009, not including 2010.
I gave a citation. ican didn't. You guys don't believe HadCrut, even though its figures are in line with the other satellite and temperature data. Which leaves NASA-NOAA., which is where they came from. Temp. averages in tabular data do not as a rule include error bars.

That is a fair point and I accept it.

Again, another reasonable point that I accept.

If we are to quibble over small differences than we require possible error variations to be included.

Ionus- I did not see a comment by Monterey Jack on this peer approved study:

The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.
Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct.