Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-27-10, 01:08 PM   #1
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition)

Time again for a new Global Warming Thread.

This edition is named in recognition and in honor of the great whitewashing of CRU and Michael Mann accomplished by numerous "investigations" during the time of TO&OGWT Part 9.

Part 9 Here.

Mods, please close Part 9.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-10, 01:12 PM   #2
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 31,539
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Mods, please close Part 9.
I even fixed the typo in your thread title.
__________________
"Fifth Element may be as dumb and artless as Johnny Mnemonic, but since a frenchman made it it must be ART!" -Pants
"...I think it's a low blow to draw attention to wendersfan's drunken state. " - dork
"Just because their victims are still alive doesn't mean they didn't commit murder." - grundle
"You concentrate on the sad wanna be hooliganism and let us worry about the actual soccer." - rocketsauce (final score: Columbus 2-Chicago 1)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-10, 01:15 PM   #3
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by wendersfan View Post
I even fixed the typo in your thread title.
Argghh! I looked back and found it. Thanks. Fast closing of the old one too.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-10, 01:18 PM   #4
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Program note:

Global warming, whole hour on Hannity tonight, 8:00pm CDT Fox News Channel.

I'm not a big Hannity fan but he did a good job when he did this another time.

Edit:



Quote:
Controlling your carbon footprint has become a global fad, but is it all just a con job? And how much green is it costing you? Sean investigates the truth behind the billion dollar industry!
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-27-10 at 04:28 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-10, 01:49 PM   #5
Admin-Self Banned
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Between the moon and NYC
Posts: 27,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Man, I wanted to start the part 10 thread.
__________________
"Redistricting has made a tiny slice of ideological activists the power brokers in who gets sent to Congress."

www.endgerrymandering.com
Gerrymandering in the US
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-10, 02:08 PM   #6
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinVega View Post
Man, I wanted to start the part 10 thread.


VinVega
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-10, 10:24 AM   #7
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The Hannity show last night, The Green Swindle, was excellent, better than I thought it would be.

The first part is available:



I assume the rest will be available soon.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-10, 07:01 PM   #8
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Dr Roy Spencer finally gets his paper published. Very harmful to climate models and CAGW.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/...-is-published/

Quote:
Our JGR Paper on Feedbacks is Published
August 27th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

After years of re-submissions and re-writes — always to accommodate a single hostile reviewer — our latest paper on feedbacks has finally been published by Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR).

Entitled “On the Diagnosis of Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing“, this paper puts meat on the central claim of my most recent book: that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. As a result, the climate system has given the illusion of positive cloud feedback.

Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.

While the paper does not actually use the words “cause” or “effect”, this accurately describes the basic issue, and is how I talk about the issue in the book. I wrote the book because I found that non-specialists understood cause-versus-effect better than the climate experts did!

This paper supersedes our previous Journal of Climate paper, entitled “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration“, which I now believe did not adequately demonstrate the existence of a problem in diagnosing feedbacks in the climate system.

The new article shows much more evidence to support the case: from satellite data, a simple climate model, and from the IPCC AR4 climate models themselves.

Back to the Basics

Interestingly, in order to convince the reviewers of what I was claiming, I had to go back to the very basics of forcing versus feedback to illustrate the mistakes researchers have perpetuated when trying to describe how one can supposedly measure feedbacks in observational data.

Researchers traditionally invoke the hypothetical case of an instantaneous doubling of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere (2XCO2). That doubling then causes warming, and the warming then causes radiative feedback which acts to either reducing the warming (negative feedback) or amplify the warming (positive feedback). With this hypothetical, idealized 2XCO2 case you can compare the time histories of the resulting warming to the resulting changes in the Earth’s radiative budget, and you can indeed extract an accurate estimate of the feedback.

The trouble is that this hypothetical case has nothing to do with the real world, and can totally mislead us when trying to diagnose feedbacks in the real climate system. This is the first thing we demonstrate in the new paper. In the real world, there are always changes in cloud cover (albedo) occurring, which is a forcing. And that “internal radiative forcing” (our term) is what gives the illusion of positive feedback. In fact, feedback in response to internal radiative forcing cannot even be measured. It is drowned out by the forcing itself.

Feedback in the Real World

As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.)

Unfortunately, there is no way I have found to demonstrate that this strongly negative feedback is actually occurring on the long time scales involved in anthropogenic global warming. At this point, I think that belief in the high climate sensitivity (positive feedbacks) in the current crop of climate models is a matter of faith, not unbiased science. The models are infinitely adjustable, and modelers stop adjusting when they get model behavior that reinforces their pre-conceived notions.

They aren’t necessarily wrong — just not very thorough in terms of exploring alternative hypotheses. Or maybe they have explored those, and just don’t want to show the rest of the world the results.

Our next paper will do a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the satellite-based feedbacks and the IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks from year-to-year climate variability. Preliminary indications are that the satellite results are outside the envelope of all the IPCC models.
I would bet the "hostile reviewer" was one of the Team or someone at CRU. But all the opposition probably made this a stronger paper in the end. It will probably be very hard to attack.

Skeptics have long thought CO2 warming caused negative feedbacks and now they are providing evidence. If they are right (which I strongly think they are) it's a knockout punch to CAGW and the models that produce it in the virtual world.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-10, 11:43 PM   #9
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,152
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
The Hannity show last night, The Green Swindle, was excellent, better than I thought it would be.

The first part is available:



I assume the rest will be available soon.
I really dislikE Hannity as well, but that is excellent.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-10, 03:25 PM   #10
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Here's the whole Hannity Green Swindle show:











__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-10, 03:40 PM   #11
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

So many scams, so little time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...am-of-all.html

Quote:
The Clean Development Mechanism delivers the greatest green scam of all
Even the UN and the EU are wising up to the greenhouse gas scam, "the biggest environmental scandal in history", says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00PM BST 28 Aug 2010

It is now six months since I reported on what even environmentalists are calling "the biggest environmental scandal in history". Indeed this is a scam so glaringly bizarre that even the UN and the EU have belatedly announced that they are thinking of taking steps to stop it. The essence of the scam is that a handful of Chinese and Indian firms are deliberately producing large quantities of an incredibly powerful "greenhouse gas" which we in the West – including UK taxpayers – then pay them billions of dollars to destroy.

The key to this scam, designed to curb global warming, is a scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), set up under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and administered by the UN. It enables firms and governments in the developed world to buy "credits" which allow them to continue emitting greenhouse gases. These are sold to them, through well-rewarded brokers, from firms in developing countries that can show they have nominally reduced their emissions.

Easily the largest and most lucrative component in the CDM market is a peculiar racket centred on the manufacture of CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, classified under Kyoto as greenhouse gases vastly more damaging than carbon dioxide. The way the racket works is that Chinese and Indian firms are permitted to carry on producing a refrigerant gas known as HCF-22 until 2030. But a by-product of this process is HCF-23, which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. By destroying the HCF-23, the firms can claim Certified Emission Reduction credits worth billions of dollars when sold to the West (while much of the useful HCF-22 is sold onto the international black market).

Last year, destruction of CFCs accounted for more than half the CDM credits issued, in a market that will eventually, it is estimated, be worth $17 billion. Of the 1,390 CDM projects so far approved, less than 1 per cent accounts for 36 per cent of the total value.

Even greenies have become so outraged by this ridiculous racket that the Environmental Investigation Agency has described it as the "biggest environment scandal in history". Two weeks ago the UN announced that it is suspending payments to five Chinese firms pending an investigation, with a view to a major reform of the system. Last week the EU'c climate change supremo, Connie Hedegaard, said she would be asking her officials to prepare a proposal whereby these particular CFC payments might be halted after 2013.

The CDM system itself, however, will still be in place, and we will all contribute through its chief source of revenue, the EU's $100-billion-a-year Emissions Trade Scheme (which we pay for in various ways, not least through our electricity bills). We here in Britain also have the special privilege of knowing, as I reported in February, that we are now chipping in £60 million to buy additional CDM credits through our taxes – so that the politicians and civil servants in government offices can keep warm by continuing to pump out emissions much as before.
Nothing seems to work as well for scams as GHG (greenhouse gas) trading. There was the VAT scandal and now this. And when you buy your carbon credits from Al Gore's company (like he does) to save the planet, you know you are making Al even richer but do you know if that tree really gets planted (not that it would do any good)?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-10, 04:21 PM   #12
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 24,989
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
And when you buy your carbon credits from Al Gore's company (like he does) to save the planet, you know you are making Al even richer but do you know if that tree really gets planted (not that it would do any good)?
But do you care? You have paid the "Pope" his dispensation, and will clearly be forgiven and go to "heaven." Al will tell you so.
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 11:34 AM   #13
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Where it all happens - SoCal
Posts: 19,763
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Oopsie..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

Quote:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and "a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology".

The Himalayas hold the planet's largest body of ice outside the polar caps - an estimated 12,000 cubic kilometres of water.

They feed many of the world's great rivers - the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra - on which hundreds of millions of people depend.

'Catastrophic rate'

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035," the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

"I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future," says Mr Cogley.

He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.

The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".

When asked how this "error" could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.

But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.

'Alarmist'

Recently India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.

He accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

India says the rate of retreat in many glaciers has decreased in recent years

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as "voodoo science" and said the IPCC was a "sober body" whose work was verified by governments.

But in a joint statement some the world's leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: "This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology... has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected."

Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused "some major confusion in the media".

"Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.

"From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century."
__________________
"Kneel Before Zod"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 01:49 PM   #14
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

In a not particularly surprising ruling a judge has ruled against Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli but left the door open.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/v...ase-ar-479707/

Quote:
Judge rules against Cuccinelli in U.Va. case
Cuccinelli

Credit: TIMES-DISPATCH

A judge ruled against Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli today in the dispute involving a climate change scientist.
By Jim Nolan
Published: August 30, 2010

A judge ruled today that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli hasn't shown the University of Virginia has documents relevant to his fraud investigation against former U. Va. climate scientist Michael Mann.

In a six-page decision, Albemarle County Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. also ruled that the attorney general also has not sufficiently "stated the nature of the conduct" believed to constitute possible fraud by Mann alleged to satisfy the requirements of the law under which the office can issue a civil investigative demand for information from the university.

"However, the University of Virginia is a proper subject for a CID and the attorney general may investigate grants made with Commonwealth of Virginia funds to professors such as Dr. Mann," Peatross ruled. "Accordingly, the court sets aside the CIDs in their entirety without prejudice to the Commonwealth to proceed according to law," the decision states.

Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic, had issued the demand to U. Va. under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

Cuccinelli said in a statement that he will revise his demand to conform with the judge's order. He said he will examine the decision before deciding whether to appeal aspects of the ruling.

"While this was not an outright ruling in our favor, I am pleased that the judge has agreed with my office on several key legal points and has given us a framework for issuing a new civil investigative demand to get the information necessary to continue our investigation into whether or not fraud has been committed against the commonwealth," Cuccinelli said

Mann, who is now a professor at Pennsylvania State University, conducted research under five grants while at U.Va. that support the theory that man has had an impact on recent shifts in the earth's climate. The research is among studies that were used to help the Environemental Protection Agency make an endangerment finding on global warming, which will lead to increased regulation on the emission of greenhouse gases.

Cuccinelli has also filed suit against the EPA regulations.
If Cuccinelli wasn't specific enough this is probably the right ruling. It's big that the judge said it was in principle a proper function of the AG office.

Expect to hear many cries of "exoneration" from the CAGW faithful.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 01:50 PM   #15
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

IPCC review pretty critical. Says important reforms needed.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...climate-panel/

Quote:
Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.'s Climate Group
By Jeremy A. Kaplan
Published August 30, 2010

Acknowledging flaws in its reports and growing public skepticism toward the theory of manmade global warming, the United Nations hired an independent review panel in March to audit its climate-science arm. The group found plenty of problems.

The InterAcademy Council, an independent group of scientists representing agencies from around the world, presented the findings of its five-month investigation Monday morning at the United Nations. The group took issue with the structure, methods and leadership of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the group responsible for a 2007 report that erroneously forecast the imminent melting of Himalayan glaciers, the rate of melt of polar ice caps and dwindling Amazon rainforests.

"The IPCC has raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers," said Harold Shapiro, chair of the IAC Committee to Review IPCC and former president of Princeton University. But the controversies that have erupted, and revelations of errors, have put the group under the microscope. "We recommend some significant reforms," he told the U.N.

"The IPCC has yet to review the IAC's findings, so I am not able to comment on its findings," said longstanding chair Rajendra Pachauri in a press conference following the presentation. But he did note that none of the seven reviews of the IPCC to date had found flaws in the U.N. group.

"The scientific community agrees that climate change is real," Pachauri said.

Despite his confidence, the science underlying climate change has come under great scrutiny. Yet the IAC did not spend its time analyzing the accuracy of climate models and climate science.

"We did not redo the science," said Shapiro. Instead, the IAC focused its attention on the procedures and methodologies of the IPCC, suggesting many areas for improvement.

The rate of melt of the Himalayan glaciers was one touchstone among skeptics of manmade global warming that the group addressed. Shapiro explained that many reviewers noted the lack of substance behind the claim, but their criticism didn't make it into the final report.

It appears that editors "didn't follow through carefully enough on what review editors commented," said Shapiro.

The IAC faulted the IPCC for making this type of mistake in several places, noting that the report includes several statements that are assigned high levels of confidence, Shapiro told the U.N., despite a lack of sufficient evidence behind them.

"We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up -- one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment."

Revising and tightening up the complex and lengthy review policy would help to address these issues.

Noted climate skeptic Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, agreed that this type of issue was a problem. "The IPCC report is filled with statements of '90% certainty' without even saying 90% of what or providing any basis for such statements. Yet those pronouncements of certainty were used over and over as though that had been scientifically proven somehow," he told FoxNews.com.

The IAC called for the IPCC to completely revise top leadership, including limiting the duration of people in top positions and "electing a small executive committee to act on its behalf," one that even included non-scientists. This would lend it credibility, Shapiro said.

Questions have arisen about conflicts of interest among top leadership at the IPCC, notably chair Pachauri, who sits on the boards of numerous other climate-related groups. Shapiro stressed that this important issue was one the group did not investigate -- "we didn't consider it our charge to investigate that issue," he replied.

Easterbrook thinks this suggestion may not go far enough.

"The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. This would be a step in the right direction, but if such an executive committee is made up of the same old political cronies, nothing will change," he told FoxNews.com.

The IAC took issue with the IPCC's use of so-called gray literature as well, papers from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources. Such material is explicitly against policy, yet authors of the IPCC's reports do not follow the guidelines for evaluating such sources, explained the IAC.

The group recommended that these guidelines be made more specific -- including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable -- and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that supports the concept of manmade global warming, agreed with the IAC's report, calling it "a great opportunity to strengthen" the group, but not a wholesale call to rework the agency.

"It's a substantial tune up, but not a replacement with a new vehicle," Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the UCS, told FoxNews.com. "All the recommendations I've seen are really spot on. We'll see what happens when the IPCC meets in October."

The IAC's assessment will be used at the Oct. 5 meeting that marks the beginning of the IPCC's effort to put out the next report.

"The IPCC has been successful overall, but fundamental changes are needed," Shapiro said.
One wonders how the IPCC has been so "successful overall" with so many serious problems.

I like how the alarmist Union of Concerned Scientists is first out of the blocks to spin the report as helpful and that it will make the IPCC better. Better than the total biased crap it's been up to now?

Anyway, finally good to see something that's not an out and out whitewash.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 01:52 PM   #16
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod View Post
Good stuff but it's from December 5, 2009. We've had scores of posts on this subject.

It's mentioned in the above post too.

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 10:34 PM   #17
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Wow, the new report on the IPCC slams it pretty hard with a long list of things it has been doing wrong and another long list of suggestions for improvement. It appears the negatives are pretty overwhelming and irrefutable so the alarmists have chosen to use the absorb and deflect defense. Absorb the blows and deflect attention away from the harshness. Pretend the report is "helpful" and mostly favorable.

Here's the unbelievable compact response over at surreal climate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...c-report-card/

Quote:
IPCC report card
gavin @ 30 August 2010

The Inter-Academy Council report on the processes and governance of the IPCC is now available. It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes – from suggesting a new Executive to be able to speak for IPCC in-between reports, a new communications strategy, better consistency among working groups and ideas for how to reduce the burden on lead authors in responding to rapidly increasing review comments.

As the report itself notes, the process leading to each of the previous IPCC reports has been informed from issues that arose in previous assessments, and that will obviously also be true for the upcoming fifth Assessment report (AR5). The suggestions made here will mostly strengthen the credibility of the next IPCC, particularly working groups 2 and 3, though whether it will make the conclusions less contentious is unclear. Judging from the contrarian spin some are putting on this report, the answer is likely to be no.
The only people who come in for criticism are the "contrarians" who are putting their evil "spin" on it. Yeah, the report said everything about the IPCC is sweet reason, rainbows and unicorns. Where the hell are those nasty skeptics getting the idea the report is critical?

The conclusion reads, in part:

Quote:
The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below.
This is apparently about the only positive thing in the report. Note that it's general and unspecific to the point of being nothing at all. Note it doesn't say they are right. It says they convinced governments of what the governments wanted to be convinced of. They say they have "raised awareness" (of a non problem). They have raised the level of scientific debate (Huh!?! By declaring the debate is over and their opponents are a bunch of cranks being paid off by Exxon?) They've influenced the science agendas of many nations (they say that as if it's a good thing). It's just saying they seem to be trying to be good guys with commendable goals. While I wouldn't even grant than that much, this is pure fluff. You could say such things about anyone short of the likes of serial killers and child rapists. On the other hand, the many, many criticisms are specific and, well... very critical. Surrealclimate needs to abandon Cloud Cuckooland but I know they never will.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 10:54 PM   #18
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

From Wattsupwiththat.com (go down a little from the beginning of the post):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/3...top-officials/

Quote:
Here are recommendations found in the body of the report:

Governance and Management

The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.

The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.

Review Process

The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.

The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.

Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty

All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.

Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).

Communications

The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.

Additional recommendations:

The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings more transparent.
The IPCC should establish a formal set of criteria and processes for selecting Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.

The IPCC should make every effort to engage local experts on the author teams of the regional chapters of the Working Group II report, but should also engage experts from countries outside of the region when they can provide an essential contribution to the assessment.

The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.

Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.

The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.

The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.

The IPCC should revise its process for the approval of the Summary for Policy Makers so that governments provide written comments prior to the Plenary.

All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.

Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur.

Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).

The confidence scale should not be used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.

The likelihood scale should be stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words to improve understanding of uncertainty.

Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.

The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.

The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.

The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills.

The terms of the Working Group Co-chairs should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.

The IPCC should redefine the responsibilities of key Secretariat positions both to improve efficiency and to allow for any future senior appointments.

The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.

The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat).

The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.
Of course every recommendation implies it is something the IPCC is not now doing. There's a lot there but I think particularly important are that the report sees that the IPCC overstates certainty of things that are very uncertain, ignores and/or quashes dissent, understands the IPCC has done virtually nothing to prevent or even discourage conflicts of interest and has been anything but transparent.

Surreal climate missed all this stuff the evil skeptics wickedly think is kind of important.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-10, 11:11 PM   #19
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Dr Roy Spencer says the IPCC cannot be reformed. It should be disbanded.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/...nnot-be-fixed/

Quote:
Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed
August 30th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a recent opinion piece, Ross McKitrick has argued that the IPCC process needs to be fixed. He correctly points out that, “There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process”.

But I say the process cannot be fixed. DUMP the IPCC process.

The reason why is because the IPCC process was never created to achieve what the U.N. claims, and what most people believe it exists for.

The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.

While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.

Maybe some scientists thought they helped dream up the IPCC to help save humanity from itself. But the process was instigated by politicians and U.N. bureaucrats who misrepresented what they were trying to accomplish. Some people are gifted in their ability to get others to think that they came up with an idea, when in fact they were artfully guided into it.

As someone who watched from the sidelines as a U.S. government employee, I witnessed the mindset, and a few of the central players in action. These are people who think it is their gift to humanity to decide how others should live.

I’m NOT saying that most of the scientists involved in the IPCC effort are of this mindset…although I do find government employees and government-funded researchers (of which I am one) to be rather clueless about what helps, versus what hurts, the human condition.

Darn those pesky unintended consequences!

I am claiming this is the mindset of that handful of politically powerful people who saw a way to accomplish personal goals, and maybe even save humanity in the process. These people never expect that they will ever be required to live under the restrictions placed upon the rest of humanity. They are too important to the process. Sound familiar?

To believe otherwise is to have one’s proverbial head in the sand.

I hate to sound so cynical, but this is how I saw the IPCC process play out. I would personally dread having to be part of that process, because it is only using science and scientists to achieve policy and political goals. I don’t like to be asked to contribute my time when I know I am being used.

In stark contrast to me, John Christy (my boss) has valiantly attempted to change the process from within the IPCC. I think this is a valuable effort, and am glad someone is willing to try.

But I do not see the ultimate goal of the IPCC ever being changed as long as the United Nations and politicians who look favorably upon the UN’s long-term goals are in control of the process and the purse strings. It is as simple as that.
The IPCC has always tried to prove CAGW. It has never been evenhanded. It has pushed everything in that one direction only and every so-called "mistake" has gone one way and one way only. If these really were mistakes, one would expect them to be rather in the neighborhood of 50/50. Or rather a mistake the "right way" is uncritically allowed to get through. A mistake the "wrong way" would be investigated up the wazoo and eliminated sometimes even if it's not a mistake.

The history of the IPCC is undeniably one-sided. That's not science. The rotting IPCC carcass should be dumped and a commitment to real science - truth, no matter what one's wishes are - should be adopted.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-10, 06:48 AM   #20
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Excellent analysis of the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) report:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php...s+News+Blog%29

Quote:
MATT RIDLEY
MUST READ: This Discredited IPCC Process Must Be Purged by Matt Ridley
Tuesday, August 31st 2010, 6:38 AM EDT

We cannot make sane decisions on global warming if the ‘experts’ present us with evidence that is biased

This month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting videos of monkey behaviour. The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests that a body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in his own field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for society are not great — no policy had been based on his research.

Yesterday, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence”, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest”.

Enormous and expensive policy changes have been based on the flawed work of these scientists. Yet there is apparently to be no investigation, blame, suspension or withdrawal of papers, just a gentle bureaucratic fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts.

IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of what is — and is not — known about global warming. The panel boasts that it uses only peer-reviewed scientific literature. But its claims about mountain ice turned out to be anecdotes from a climbing magazine, its claims on the Amazon’s vulnerability to drought from a Brazilian pressure group’s website and 42 per cent of the references in one chapter proved to be to reports by Greenpeace, WWF and other “grey” literature. Yesterday’s review finds that guidelines on the use of this grey literature “are vague and have not always been followed”.

For instance, the notorious claim that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035 seems to have been based on a misprint (for 2350) in a document issued by a pressure group. When several reviewers challenged the assertion in draft, they were ignored. When Indian scientists challenged it after publication, they were not just dismissed but vilified and accused of “voodoo science” by the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

By contrast, when two academics, Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, found a strong link between temperature rise and local economic development — implying that recent warming is partly down to local, not global factors — their paper was ignored for two drafts, despite many review comments drawing attention to the omission. It was finally given a grudging reference, with a false assertion that the data were rebutted by other data that turned out to be non-existent.

We now know the back story of this episode: the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia include this from Professor Phil Jones, referring to exactly this paper: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

(Note that the IPCC had appointed Professor Jones as co-ordinating lead author to pass judgment on his own papers, as well as those of his critics. Learning nothing, it has appointed one of Professor Jones’s closest colleagues for the next report. This is asking not to be taken seriously.) These are not merely procedural issues. They have real consequences for science and society. All the errors and biases that have come to light in recent months swerve in the direction of exaggerating the likely impact of climate change. According to the economist Richard Tol, one part of the 2007 report (produced by Working Group 2) systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change, while another section (written by Working Group 3) systematically understated the costs of emissions reduction. Indur Goklany, an independent science scholar, likewise noticed that the report had quoted a study that estimated the number of people at increased risk of reduced water shortage in the future as a result of climate change, but omitted to mention the same source’s estimate of the number of people at decreased risk. The latter number was larger in all cases, so that “by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people”.

This is not a new problem. The unilateral redrafting of IPCC reports by “lead authors” after reviewers had agreed them, and the writing of a sexed-up “summary for policy makers” before the report was complete, have discomfited many scientists since the first report. It is no great surprise that the “experts” who compiled one part of the 2007 report included three from Greenpeace, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network representatives, and a person each from the activist organisations WWF, Environmental Defense Fund, and the David Suzuki Foundation.

Frankly, the whole process, not just the discredited Dr Pachauri (in shut-eyed denial at a press conference yesterday), needs purging or it will drag down the reputation of science with it. One of the most shocking things for those who champion science, as I do, has been the sight of the science Establishment reacting to each scandal in climate science with indifference or contempt. The contrast with the thorough investigation of the Hauser affair is striking.

Three years ago, not having paid much attention, I thought that IPCC reports were reliable, fair and transparent. No longer. Despite coming from a long line of coal-mining entrepreneurs, I’m not a “denier”: I think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I’m not even a sceptic (yet): I think the climate has warmed and will warm further. But I am now a “lukewarmer” who has yet to see any evidence saying that the current warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending to accelerate.

So I have concluded that global warming will most probably be a fairly minor problem — at least compared with others such as poverty and habitat loss — for nature as well as people. After watching the ecologically and economically destructive policies enacted in its name (biofuels, wind power), I think we run the risk of putting a tourniquet round our collective necks to stop a nosebleed.

Matt Ridley is the author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (Fourth Estate)

The Times 31 August 2010
While this report is welcome, it does not go far enough and the alarmists are still being treated with kid gloves, albeit with a little bit of bite finally. At least things have changed a little and the alarmists aren't getting a totally free pass any more. But instead of the playing field being tilted 95-5 in their favor, it may be down to about 70-30.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-10, 10:12 AM   #21
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Pachauri should go but...

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...ri-resign.html

Quote:
30 August 2010
Should Rajendra Pachauri Resign?
Roger Pielke, Jr

If you want people to take action, then you obviously would make the arguments that require a certain set of actions.
- Rajendra Pachauri, August 2010, Wall Street Journal
I spoke with a lot of reporters today in the US and UK about the IAC IPCC Review report. An overwhelming focus of their interest was on Rajendra Pachauri and his future with the IPCC. The speculation comes from the following statements in the IAC report (PDF, p. 41):
A 12-year appointment (two terms) is too long for a field as dynamic and contested as climate change. . .

Recommendation: The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the time frame of one assessment.
When asked for a specific comment about Pachauri by Seth Borenstein of the AP I said:
"It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head"
I followed this statement by emphasizing that the reforms of the IPCC go well beyond one individual. Removing Pachauri and doing nothing else would do little to fix the IPCC. Conversely, doing everything else recommended by the IAC and leaving Pachauri in place would go a long way to improving the organization. So in many respects I see the focus on Pachauri as a distraction. (Somehow those comments did not find a place in the AP story!)

That said, as I've detailed before (e.g., here and here and here), Pachauri has many issues of potential conflict of interest. He would all but certainly be found to have conflicts of interest under the WMO and UN guidelines that the IPCC is exempt from following. The IAC Review finds the fact that the IPCC has no such guidelines to be unacceptable, recommending:
The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership . . .
Should Pachauri be deemed exempt from the recommended one-term term limit (as some have suggested) then it would not only make a mockery of the report, but also set the stage for a damaging battle over developing conflict of interest guidelines and how those should be applied to existing IPCC officials. The IPCC could of course decide that Pachauri's conflicts do not disqualify him from the position. Any such efforts to circumvent the IAC recommendations would risk further damaging the IPCC.

The bottom line? The IAC Review has unambiguously recommended that the IPCC Chairman serve only one term. Rajendra Pachauri has now served more than one term. On this basis alone he should go. However, even if an exception were made for him, he faces significant issues of conflict of interest that would result in his potential disqualification as the IPCC chair (should the IPCC implement policies anything like those of the WMO or UN or NRC).

If the IAC Review recommendations are to have any meaning at all then Pachauri should go. Talk of retroactive application and grandfathering of the rules are a slippery slope back to the same sort of ad hocracy that got the IPCC into trouble in the first place.
I could not agree more with the bolded part. Pachauri is a clueless horse's ass but the leader of the IPCC doesn't make much difference (unless they would appoint someone who wasn't an out and out alarmist advocate, which they won't do). However, I think there is little chance that the IPCC will actually adopt the reforms (at least in practice, although they may for show). To actually do these things would undermine their goals because the science is and has been going against them for a long time.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-10, 05:18 PM   #22
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Mann/Cuccinelli case far from over.

http://vaquitamlaw.com/2010/07/06/is...y-general.aspx

Quote:
Is UVa Allowing a Political Bias to Inhibit Cooperation with the Virginia Attorney General?
Posted by Zachary Kitts at 7/6/2010 2:56 PM

First, let me say that this is not a political blog. This is a blog dealing with the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and with litigation under the Federal False Claims Act in Virginia Courts.

Let me also say that I have no thoughts whatsoever on the issue of global warming (sometimes also called climate change, depending on whether you believe in it or not). I'm not a scientist, and I haven't ever really given it any thought. In fact, I just learned about two weeks ago that there are two different names for this particular concept, depending on the side of the argument one believes.

Let me also disclose that I think the University of Virginia is a great University, and even if the allegations of research fraud are true, I will still hold UVa in high regard.

So, with all of those caveats out of the way, I am going to do my best to call 'em as I see 'em.

As most of you are aware, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used his powers under the VFATA to serve a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia. He seeks records and other information related to work of a guy named Michael Mann (who is a leading scientist studying climate change a/k/a global warming) while he was a professor at UVa.

The CID was issued based on information from the "Climategate" incident last fall. Climategate involved thousands of emails from Dr. Mann being leaked to the public [Mann was not a part of many of the emails; his share is nowhere near even 1,000 - m]. The emails allegedly show Dr. Mann conspiring to rig research results; apparently, reasonable people can disagree about what is said in these emails.

It is also a fact that if Mann's emails do in fact contain evidence of Mann falsifying research results, he has liability to the Commonwealth under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. This is so because he received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of state and/or federal grants to continue his research while he was at UVa.

So far, so good. It is certainly true that a certain small segment of the scientific community—regardless of political agendas and scientific beliefs, and regardless of race, color or creed—is willing to fudge a little on research results, or on grant applications, or very often on the two things together.

For instance, last week the Baltimore Sun announced that a Columbia, Maryland biotech company paid $934,000 to settle a false claims act lawsuit alleging that it falsified research results and omitted critical data from its research in order to get extended funding for a federal grant.

It is also true that recipients of a CID (like UVa) have nothing to gain and much to lose by pushing back on a CID. A CID is a preliminary tool used by the OAG to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred. The OAG issues these requests prior to filing a lawsuit—it is really an excellent opportunity for a defendant to convince the OAG that there has been no wrongdoing.

I think most defense lawyers will tell you that the opportunity to talk someone out of filing a lawsuit is a great opportunity, and one that does not come everyday and in every kind of case. It is not an opportunity to be wasted. Moreover, it also makes absolutely no sense to waste money by escalating a CID into full-scale litigation.

And here is the real kicker—even if a party fighting a CID wins and successfully quashes the CID, guess what? They may not have to respond to the CID, but they have spent thousands and thousands of dollars, and the winning prize is normally a freshly-filed lawsuit by the OAG. And then, as soon as discovery begins in the case, the OAG will ask for exactly the same materials they requested in the CID. At that point, the defendant will have no choice but to produce the material.

In Virginia state courts, the irony is even thicker, because litigants can serve interrogatories, document requests, deposition notices, and other discovery with the complaint itself.

So, all of this leads me to wonder if UVa isn't playing politics. This is not the first time they have clashed with the OAG this year. While it is beyond the scope of this blog, earlier this year, General Cuccinelli irritated a great many people at UVa and other state universities by advising them as to the current state of discrimination law. He issued the same proclamation that five other AG's have issued confirming that sexual orientation is not a protected class, but for some reason he really touched off a nerve.

Whatever the reason, we have ourselves a full-blown lawsuit down in Albemarle County now folks—stay tuned for more.
This was posted almost two months ago (first I've seen of it) but if it was true then it's true now. This blog is "The first legal blog dedicated to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and Qui Tam litigation in Virginia." One would think there exists a certain amount of legal expertise here.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-10, 04:16 PM   #23
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Alarmists try to get points off of Bjorn lomborg "conversion" story. Only problem is he hasn't changed.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/01/sk...nmentalist-sti

Quote:
Skeptical Environmentalist - Still Skeptical of Carbon Rationing - Never Skeptical of Warming
Ronald Bailey | September 1, 2010

Yesterday, the Guardian ran a puzzling article claiming that Bjorn Lomborg, the self-described Skeptical Environmentalist, has now accepted that man-made global warming is a problem. The subtext being that if this prominent climate change skeptic has come over to the side of alarmism, then surely everyone else must too.

The Guardian (a newspaper that is always careful to make sure the facts never get in the way of a good story) is misleading its readers. Even in his first book, Lomborg clearly acknowledged that man-made global warming is a problem. But Lomborg concluded that other more immediate problems loomed larger for humanity than climate change, i.e., problems like hunger, disease, sanitation, high infant mortality rates, etc. Evidently, Lomborg tried to make this point to the Guardian which does report:
Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."
Just so. Since the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg has organized a series of Copenhagen Consensus Conferences that aimed to prioritize spending on important global problems. Basically, Lomborg's new book (Disclosure: I blurbed it) is reporting the conclusions reached by the economists and other researchers who particpated in the most recent conference which focused on climate change.

The panelist's top two picks for addressing global warming were: (1) spend money to research geoengineering, specifically a project that would whiten marine clouds to reduce warming by reflecting sunlight, and (2) spend money on researching technologies to produce low-carbon energy cheaply. As Reason TV viewers know, Lomborg said all this last year:



So from where did Lomborg get his $100 billion per year on energy R&D figure? From two McGill University economists, Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green, who outlined that proposal in a paper commissioned by Lomborg for his Copenhagen Consensus conference last year. To give you a flavor of the proposal, let me quote at length my reporting on it from my article, "What's the Best Way to Handle Future Climate Change," from last year:
[indent[Climate change is a technological problem. After all, the goal of all carbon rationing schemes—limiting permits or imposing taxes—is to encourage the development of low-carbon and no-carbon energy technologies as substitutes for fossil fuel energy technologies. So why not aim directly at fostering the development of advanced energy technologies? In a fascinating recent report, two McGill University economists, Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green, look at the benefits and costs that an energy technology research and development push might yield.

In the report done at the behest of the Danish think, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Galiana and Green argue that climate change negotiations are engaged in what they call "brute force" mitigation strategies (e.g., carbon markets and/or taxes), and that those strategies have already proven to be losing propositions. "Attempts to directly control global carbon emissions will not work, and certainly not in the absence of ready-to-deploy, scalable, and transferable carbon emission-free energy technologies," assert the authors. "The technology requirements cannot be wished, priced, assumed, or targeted away."

Why won't brute force mitigation strategies like carbon markets and taxes work? Galiana and Green point out that current proposed emission targets imply vastly faster rates of reduction than have been the case in past decades. Consider a global emission reduction target of 80 percent by 2100. That would require carbon emissions to fall by 1.8 percent per year. But say economic growth averages 2.2 percent between now and 2100: That implies a 4 percent average annual decline in the amount of carbon-based fuels used to produce goods and services.

To date, Galiana and Green note, the annual global average rate of decarbonization, the amount of carbon that is emitted per unit of goods and services produced, has been 1.3 percent. To illustrate the economic consequences of trying to boost the rate of decarbonization through brute force mitigation, they generously assume that the decarbonization rate could rise to 3.6 percent annually. But this would still entail a cut in global economic growth from 2.2 percent annually to 1.8 percent. Such a reduction in economic growth would cost an undiscounted $86 trillion in 2100 alone and add up to an undiscounted $2,280 trillion over the next 90 years. And without new low-carbon energy technologies, the authors argue that the assumption of 3.6 percent rate of annual decarbonization is just a fantasy. So the likely economic damages will be even larger. "Climate change is a technology problem," Galiana and Green conclude, "and the size of the problem is huge."

Their solution is spending $100 billion per year on energy research and development financed through a $5 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions that would be funneled into Clean Energy Trust Funds. The tax would be scheduled to double every ten years as a way to give a forward price signal to encourage the deployment of the new low-carbon energy technologies that they hope will emerge from the labs. They calculate that every dollar spent on new low carbon energy R&D would avoid $11 in climate damages.

"It is much easier to spend on R&D than assure the monies are well spent," Galiana and Green admit. They also acknowledge that much current government R&D funding is politically directed and largely wasted. Robert Fri, a former deputy administrator of both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Research and Development Administration, told Chemical & Engineering News: "The government is very good at starting energy projects that it believes will solve energy problems, but it is not very good at generating the intended results."

To overcome this problem, Galiana and Green somewhat naively suggest creating a system of research competition overseen by a panel of independent experts. Oddly, they do not consider deregulating energy markets so as to provide greater incentives for private R&D and investment in new energy production and improvements in efficiency. In any case, Galiana and Green make a very strong case that current energy technologies cannot meet the ambitious emissions reductions goals being advocated by the Obama Administration in the U.S. and by the United Nations bureaucrats at the Copenhagen climate change conference without clobbering the global economy.[/indent]
So to recap: Lomborg has always thought man-made global warming is a problem, but not the biggest problem facing humanity in this century. Lomborg is still against the ruinous carbon rationing schemes of the sort embodied in the UN's Kyoto Protocol. Instead he is advocating that the world spend $100 billion per year on energy R&D which would add up to $9 trillion by the end of the century. Contrast this amount to the more than $2,000 trillion that Galiana and Green calculate that carbon rationing would cost.

But acknowledging and reporting all this would have spoiled the Guardian's sexed up global warming heretic converts to climate change believer storyline.

Many commentators were misled by the Guardian's reporting, but Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy was not among them.
I've always reported that Lomborg essentially believes the IPCC. I think he's wrong in that but he does realize ration'n'tax schemes are prohibitively expensive. Also, the world has much more pressing problems than global warming which, if money were spent on them, would do far more good for a tiny fraction of the cost.

While I don't agree with Lomborg, he is advocating spending less than a half of a percent on the "problem" than what the alarmists schemes will likely cost. Some great conversion!

Now see next post.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-10, 04:23 PM   #24
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Lomborg film coming.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-distributor/

Quote:
ArtsBeat - New York Times Blog
September 1, 2010, 2:58 pm
‘Cool It,’ Film Rival to ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Gets a U.S. Distributor
By DAVE ITZKOFF

The environmental message of former Vice President Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is about to get a little competition at American cinemas. On Wednesday, the distributor Roadside Attractions said it had acquired Ondi Timoner’s documentary “Cool It,” about the Danish statistician and writer Bjorn Lomborg, for release in the United States, just before that film is to make its make its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Mr. Lomberg, the author of the 1998 best seller “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World” and the 2007 follow-up “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” has argued against what he believes are extreme and alarmist scenarios presented by other environmentalists, and urged scientists and governments to pursue practical solutions for global warming using the limited resources at their disposal.

Ms. Timoner, whose previous films include the documentaries “Dig!” and “We Live in Public,” wrote in a statement that “Cool It” “blasts through the polarizing logjam of the climate change debate to bring a solid plan for solutions.” She added that Mr. Lomberg “is fascinating, because in his attempt to make the world a smarter, better, more efficient place, he’s threatened the status quo, and been vilified by both the right and the left simultaneously. His story is riddled with conspiracy, controversy and politics surrounding a subject matter that truly affects us all.”

Roadside Attractions said the film will be released in the fall.
I very much look forward to seeing this film. I know I will disagree with some of it.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-10, 10:50 PM   #25
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,467
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Greenies who have slimed Lomborg for years now try to exploit his "conversion" that isn't.

http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...oming-or-going

Quote:
Bjorn Lomborg gets it coming or going
Thomas Fuller
September 1st, 2010 6:03 pm ET

Bjorn Lomborg is author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, both books about the environment that tried to put global warming into some kind of rational perspective, which God knows it needs.

Yesterday he issued a call for $100 billion a year to be spent fighting global warming, which has got everybody confused.

When Lomborg first came out with The Skeptical Environmentalist, the warmistas swarmed all over him, attacking him viciously and unfairly for daring to criticize their house of cards. They libeled him smeared him and brought him up on trumped up charges to the Danish Science Academy. They acted like scum and convinced me that a group that behaved like that couldn't be right about the science--because if they were right about the science they wouldn't have needed to slime somebody just for disagreeing with them.

Now these same people are left floundering for something intelligent to say about Lomborg's appeal for real money to fight global warming. Never mind that Lomborg always believed that global warming was real and needed to be fought. (He just thought it more intelligent to fight problems that were killing people today first.) Never mind that he was never the type of skeptic that pretended to know science better than the scientists. He stayed classy, they played in the mud, now he's saying something they desperately want to hear, but their past has trapped them into silence.

The skeptics are reacting much better, having read and understood Lomborg's message. They were happy to use his criticism of the establishment, but they knew where his true allegiance lay.

Lomborg's call for $100 billion is quite reasonable. He wants more research into clean energy and a backup plan for geoengineering, raised through a modest carbon tax. (I may call it reasonable because I've been saying the same thing--but I can't claim credit, as people like Lomborg were responsible for much of my interest in the subject. I'm naturally sympathetic to his point of view, at any rate.) [I don't agree with this, of course, but Lomborg has always been up front about everything and I've always respected him. - m]

The alarmist idiotic lie is to say that Lomborg has come out with something new. Apart from having a specific price tag and saying we should start now, it isn't new at all. It's what he always said. And what they tried to crucify him for, because it wasn't alarmist enough.

There are days when I can just about have a reasonable conversation with some of the establishment figures regarding climate change. This isn't one of them. They treated Lomborg like merde, and now are fishing for a way to latch onto his call without unsaying anything. I hope others join me in calling them for the slimeballs they are.
I hadn't really thought of it this way. These people are beneath contempt.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0