Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Solly]

Originally posted by Sandman


Urban heat islands are a fairly well-studied phenomenon. What exactly is there to explore?

The temperature impact of human land use has not been well-studied.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Odin
Looks like winter has been officially canceled in the Alps...

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2081644.ecehttp://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2081644.ece

In other news it got to 40F today in Fargo, it was up near 50F a few days ago. There is no snow on the ground except for a few patches is shady spots. This is FARGO we are talking about, whe're supposed to be knee-deep in the white stuff and be having -30F wind chills by now. It's almost Christmas and it feels like October.

The Alpes snow condition is no different now than 15 to 20 years ago. And it's no different now than 90 years ago. Every so often the Alpes gets dogged by high pressure at this time of the year and they lack snow.
It's not global warming its simply high pressure and its all happened many times before.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're a dolt.

While it almost pains to admit it, PA is right, this post serves no purpose. Please don't resort to insults, it's not needed.

[Impaler[WrG]]

What's this whole obsession with peer-review? It's is far short of fail-safe.

Cars with brakes still crash, and yet were obsessed thouse brakes as well. The point is that they (brakes and peer-reviewing) greatly decresse the chances of bad outcomes (crashes and crak-pot research). If you dont see this then I agree with KH, though I would refrase it as "Your illogical reasoning show you have no buisness debating this issue".

[Ned]

Well, it appears the reliablity of the IPCC itself may now questionalble. It appears they have no problem with one of its lead scientist basely claiming, as does Gore, that recent hurricanes were caused by GW. This caused a noted hurricane-expert to resign from the IPCC with these words:

"This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."

...

"[Dr. Trenberth] participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy...."

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drogue

While it almost pains to admit it, PA is right, this post serves no purpose. Please don't resort to insults, it's not needed.

I'm not "resorting" to anything.

I'm choosing to succinctly explain to him that his post lacks anything of substance, given its woeful ignorance of standard survey methods and its disregard of any quantitative analysis in favour of a simply-stated and simple-minded hypothesis.

[notyoueither]

will harm the credibility of climate change science

When did climate change begin to rate it's own branch of science?

[Ned]

Well, KH, since you are critical of scientists (or even guys like me) who spout off on their wild theories that have no sound scientific basis in peer-reviewed papers, I would hope that you would join Dr. Landsea in condemning the antics of the IPCC and its leading hurricane scientists who flatly stated, contrary to peer reviewed papers, that the recent upswing in hurricanes was due to GW.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, KH, since you are critical of scientists (or even guys like me) who spout off on their wild theories that have no sound scientific basis in peer-reviewed papers, I would hope that you would join Dr. Landsea in condemning the antics of the IPCC and its leading hurricane scientists who flatly stated, contrary to peer reviewed papers, that the recent upswing in hurricanes was due to GW.

In my Biology class, and I am sure many others, they made us watch Gore's movie on Gobal Warming. I saw the part where he claimed that, and I dont even know where he got that information. He even seemed to blame katrina on Gobal Warming.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, KH, since you are critical of scientists (or even guys like me) who spout off on their wild theories that have no sound scientific basis in peer-reviewed papers, I would hope that you would join Dr. Landsea in condemning the antics of the IPCC and its leading hurricane scientists who flatly stated, contrary to peer reviewed papers, that the recent upswing in hurricanes was due to GW.

I refuse to comment on anything I haven't read. I especially refuse to comment on something passed through at least 2 filters (your report on the report of some dude on the report of some dudes) and possibly three (add a reporter in there somewhere). Frankly, if my position on the certainty of what's been termed the "catastrophic global warming hypothesis" is unclear to you, I suggest you go back and read through my posts in this very thread.

Once more, I'm not your ****ing trained monkey. I don't particularly care for you giving me homework assignments.

Go bother somebody who feels the need to impress you (God knows who, given the esteem you're granted around here) with their diligence at your little research projects.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Look, it's obvious to me as a physicist that human beings put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to dramatically alter the level of atmospheric CO2. This is uttely borne out by experimental data. Human beings have caused an unprecedented rise in global CO2 levels. It's also obvious to me what the zeroth order effect on the global climate must be (given the spectroscopic properties of CO2). It's not obvious to me that there can't be counterbalancing effects, and I think it's utterly ridiculous to rely on climatological models to tell us in any detail what the effects of warming will be. And the data on previous global mean temperatures is crappy enough that it can be interpreted any way you like.

So you'll pardon me if I choose to disassociate myself from any politician who thinks he's qualified to comment on this issue.

[Ned]

KH, You continue to sidestep my well-aimed arrows. You never will concede anything to anybody, it seems.

[Solly]

Originally posted by notyoueither

will harm the credibility of climate change science

When did climate change begin to rate it's own branch of science?

It's been peer-reviewing itself since it's birth.

Get some independent scientists from another field in - the econometricians and engineers, for example. Then we'll see what weak "science" it is based on.

[KrazyHorse]

KH, You continue to sidestep my well-aimed arrows

Which would those be?

Hypothesis: I mock anybody who claims with any certainty that the number and severity of Atlantic/Carribbean hurricanes in 2005 was a direct result of man-made global warming.

Proof:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Look, it's obvious to me as a physicist that human beings put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to dramatically alter the level of atmospheric CO2. This is uttely borne out by experimental data. Human beings have caused an unprecedented rise in global CO2 levels. It's also obvious to me what the zeroth order effect on the global climate must be (given the spectroscopic properties of CO2). It's not obvious to me that there can't be counterbalancing effects, and I think it's utterly ridiculous to rely on climatological models to tell us in any detail what the effects of warming will be. And the data on previous global mean temperatures is crappy enough that it can be interpreted any way you like.

So you'll pardon me if I choose to disassociate myself from any politician who thinks he's qualified to comment on this issue.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Have you ever heard of the phrase "attacking a strawman", Ned? It's when you argue against a point (generally easily disproven) that your opponent is not making in order to appear stronger. My only question is whether you are engaging in such a rhetorical technique or are simply too slow to grasp that I place little to no credence in disaster predictions from climate scientists, and have not argued in favour of doing so once in this thread or any other.

[KrazyHorse]

the econometricians

Why would I want to substitute one set of witch doctors for another?