Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

20

[ZEE]

go to hell

[Theben]

Gate du jour:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

You may note that the "response" predates the "gate du jour", so I'm kind of wondering how this is breaking news... unless of course the point is just to throw stuff out there and see what sticks.

You did notice that surveys in 2007 found that, after accounting for improve monitoring, no increase in activity was discovered? They said that themselves! They aren't denying it!! What they did say was that hurricane intensity has increased since the 70s, and that it trends with warmer ocean temperatures.

The ONE thing you guys have hooked this latest "scandal" on is 1 line:

"It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity."

So in other words, there's a CHANCE that there has been SOME actions, by humans, that have led to increases in oceanic temperatures which MAY affect hurricane intensity. And the likely reason for the ambiguity is that real scientists never say they're sure of something because that would make it a scientific law. And before you say the obvious, climatologists never say AGW is 100% certain in literature. They'd probably say about 95% +/-.

The sheer intellectual dishonesty from the skeptic crowd is all to apparent. Still it makes good theatre.

[Theben]

Damn, I should've followed your links the 1st time. I would've known how biased they are.

This site is devoted to a AGW skeptic and shows bias in its language:

Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel

Note he wasn't forced to resign... he chose to in order to avoid having further charges of bias thrown at the review process. This in the article.

Apparently they're having a hard time finding impartial scientists whose pockets and labs aren't lined and wallpapered with multi-million dollar AGW 'stimulus' grants. Tends to skew a man's viewpoint, I would think.

This... is an Opinion piece, ffs. It notes that his work is publicly funded. Horrors.

How does it feel to be a tool, Lotus?

[Theben]

Looks like IPCC has added an africagate to their collection of gates :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-the-IPCC.html

This article has no citation and...

Booker's scientific claims, which include the assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder"[14] were also critically analysed by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act[15] of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".[16]

Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have also been criticised several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[17]

In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal[18] after Booker wrote an article suggesting that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk"[19], and in 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[20] after Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within Artex textured coatings posed "no health risk".[21]

In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[22]. In the article[23], published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[24], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

In December 2008, an article by Booker was published in The Daily Telegraph, 'Facts melted by 'global warming''[25] and subsequently in The Australian, 'More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice'.[26] The article claims that "Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." The claims were disputed by others, as an explanation for the apparently anomalous figures was provided on 13 December, before Booker's article was published on 21 December.[27]

Think Booker will pass a peer review?

[Theben]

Why is it that you and Oerdin blah

If all you're saying is that they Violated an FOI request (due to harassment), and that Jones lost data that is nonetheless retrievable at U.S. sites, then fine. If you're going further and saying this proves the skeptics are right, then you're dumber than a box of rocks, and that's being insulting to rocks. A cursory look at skeptic "science" has no review process and many contain "helpful info" that is extremely subjective and leads the reader in the direction the author wants them to go. There is purposeful omission of data, and sometimes they just make stuff up and worse.

I noted also that- as far as criminal actions- you don't seem too concerned with the illegal theft of personal emails.

As for the claim that all this is crap when it comes to alleging bias on the part of researchers, I'm not really sure that claim can be made with any great credibility in a profession that should be built on a foundation of letting data speak for itself.

Well that's just it, they don't do the research, they correlate the data that is sent in to them. Even in the event they fubared everything the data is still present and can be independently reviewed... and has been and found to still be sound.

Here's some meat to chew on in the meantime, wrt "dutch and africa-gate" :

Spoiler:

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level". This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read "55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding". It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.

Some other issues

African crop yields: The IPCC Synthesis Report states: "By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%." This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says: "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." The Agoumi reference is correct and reported correctly. The Sunday Times, in an article by Jonathan Leake, labels this issue "Africagate" – the main criticism being that Agoumi (2003) is not a peer-reviewed study (see below for our comments on "gray" literature), but a report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network, funded by the US Agency for International Development. The report, written by Morroccan climate expert Professor Ali Agoumi, is a summary of technical studies and research conducted to inform Initial National Communications from three countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is a perfectly legitimate IPCC reference.

It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continues with "However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006)." Some examples thereof follow, and then it states: "However, not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms." (Incidentally, the Benhin and Thornton references are also "gray", but nobody has complained about them. Could there be double standards amongst the IPCC's critics?)

Chapter 9.4 to us sounds like a balanced discussion of potential risks and benefits, based on the evidence available at the time–hardly the stuff for shrill "Africagate!" cries. If the IPCC can be criticized here, it is that in condensing these results for its Synthesis Report, important nuance and qualification were lost – especially the point that the risk of drought (defined as a 50% downturn in rainfall) "could be exacerbated by climate change", as chapter 9.4 wrote – rather than being outright caused by climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts-spin

[DinoDoc]

If all you're saying is that they Violated...

Apparently I'm saying that you lack the ability to read posts because I've been quite clear in what I've been saying. The CRU has been found guilty of violating the law in the course of its work risking criminal sanction (an allegation that really isn't in dispute the reason for such an act is irrelevent) and this would seem to lend at least some credence to claims of bias on the part of the Research Unit. I thought it odd that you never bothered to deal with that in your rebuttal of the -gates.

I noted also that- as far as criminal actions- you don't seem too concerned with the illegal theft of personal emails.

Because I'm not sure it was an illegal theft based on the UK's Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

[HalfLotus]

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the emails were illegally hacked. It's been an assumption from day one, and parroted by every media outlet. They may have been hacked, or it may have been an insider who couldn't take the lies any longer. The IPCC has certainly had its share of disgruntled scientists who don't want to participate in their advocacy and alarmism.

So far, the police investigation has got nowhere. It is not even clear whether the crime of computer data interception has actually occurred.

Further, the claim that a statue of limitations is preventing FOI prosecution appears to be a mistake at best, and a conspiracy at worst. Conspiracy is the Telegraph's word, not mine.

There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.

Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.
...
The real mystery therefore is how the Commission came to misread the very Act which brought it into being. Undoubtedly a successful prosecution involving such world-ranking scientists would be extraordinarily embarrassing, not just to the Government but to the entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty?

[HalfLotus]

In a sign of the times, a horse named Globalwarmnsceptic won her first race by over 6 lengths last Sunday.

[Theben]

Apparently I'm saying that you lack the ability to read posts because I've been quite clear in what I've been saying.

Oh, I read what you wrote. I just noticed that your POV was skewed towards the writings of HL et al., and thought it credible enough to claim bias on your part.

One can always assume bias on the part of any individual, and especially someone who has worked in a given field for as long as Jones has. On top of that he's had direct access to the data wrt AGW, and the data shows probable causation. I would assume that he has a predisposition, but not bias. Either way that's immaterial. Skeptics need to show whether or not his alleged predisposition/bias has affected the work he's produced... the burden of proof is on them and so far I haven't seen any. And don't throw out "it's so obvious", I want hard facts.

Quite honestly, for all the bluster the skeptics have spewed all they have to show is 1 guy who overstated glacial melt in the Himalayas (which are still shrinking, just not as much as he said) and a guy who lost or discarded original data (there are copies) and at worst tried to hide it by avoiding an FOI request. Regardless of what happens to him neither case shows proof that the results were affected by their actions, let alone disproves AGW.

Because I'm not sure it was an illegal theft based on the UK's Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

That wouldn't apply unless the person was both working for the IPCC and was a receipt of the emails. While the 1st is possible, the 2nd appears unlikely. And while I'm not up to speed on British law, obtaining evidence via illegal activity will get it thrown out of court here.

[BlackCat]

Skeptics need to show whether or not his alleged predisposition/bias has affected the work he's produced... the burden of proof is on them and so far I haven't seen any.

Quite true - wonder why you haven't if there are any.

Oh, wait, they can't get the data they need to check his findings because he wont release them.

Nothing to see here, please carry on

[Theben]

FOI the American sites.

Nothing to see here, please carry on

Shoulda said that in the 1st post.

[BlackCat]

FOI the American sites.

They did, but couldn't get all - that's why they tried the same at CRU when it became possible. Unfortunatedly that turned out to be impossible.

Just a note - wrenching data out of american sites isn't actually easy.

[Theben]

I guess our emails have better encryption.

[ricketyclik]

In a sign of the times, a horse named Globalwarmnsceptic won her first race by over 6 lengths last Sunday.

Well there you have it. Game set and match to the sceptics. Who cares about scientific consensus?

I hope that all you "independently minded" sceptics can face yourselves when you finally realise you've been hoodwinked by propaganda emanating from the likes of Exxon, furthering their cause at the expense of the well being of your descendants.