More Collapsing of the Alarmist AGW Concept
Posted by greg2213 on January 30, 2010
Catastrophic Warming was never a theory, in any scientific sense, and was shown to be a bad (wrong) hypothesis just by looking at data from several tens of millions of years ago when CO2 levels were far higher than now.
Finally the (mainstream) media is starting to notice inconvenient truths about the whole issue.
You know about glaciergate, here’s more: Times Online (UK:) Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen – the chairman (Rajendra Pachauri) of the leading climate change watchdog (IPCC) was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit…
China Daily: Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC? – “Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three “human” errors, isn’t it time scientists gave its work a serious review?”
Times Online (UK:) Indian glaciologist criticised by IPCC chief joins calls for resignation – Rajendra Pachauri falls out of favour in home country, as scientists and campaigners add to pressure on him to step down…
Hilarious Article in the Irish Times: Deniers winning climate change war. Why hilarious?
- deniers are “winning the propaganda war” which reads to me that the alarmists admit to using propoganda.
- “…acknowledged that scientists were “lousy” at communicating their ideas to the general public…” They’ve never had to, Al Gore and the media do it for them. The entire MSM, celebrities, and many governments are on the alarmist side and they are losing the propoganda war? Must be some seriously bad science on the alarmist side, I think. With that much ammo on their side I think the alarmist case must hold about as much water as the flat earth argument.
- “…the reality that man-made climate change was an accepted fact among climate scientists…” Not a reality, except among a small group of CSs. Now, if he dropped the “man-made” part we would all be in agreement. Climate change happens.
- ““Not having being brought up in the literary and debating societies, scientists are not very good at winning arguments…” Maybe HE isn’t, but see above about which side the media is on. It would help of they had good arguments and didn’t have Al Gore and the media making their arguments.
- “…that argument (no warming, even cooling) could be easily refuted by looking at temperature changes since 1980, which would show that temperatures have been on an upward trajectory.” Temps head up (slightly) till 1998 then level off. Where’s the warming, Doc? And which part of it is different from previous warming periods? No warming for 12 years and we should be worried, because…?
- I don’t think the good Dr. understands (nevermind respects) the skeptics arguments. Maybe that’s his problem.
- This is kind of like Kerry, Hansen, and others complaining about being censored while on the Leno show.
Greenpeace is also a source for the IPCC: Not the there is necessarily anything wrong with Greenpeace, but they are an advocacy organization, not a scientific one. The IPCC report should clearly state that some of their conclusions were based on reports from advocacy groups.
A little more pn Greenpeace and the IPCC: Greenpeace Experts Direct Parts of UN IPCC AR4 Report
And to sum up some of the problems, here’s an editorial by Nature (the “science” journal) with translation, and appropriate corrections, by the Air Vent: The Politics of Nature
JoNova has a video of Obama’s SoTU address and argues that the crowd is laughing at Obama’s “climate change” remark, not with it. I’m not sure I agree. Here’s the video.
Oh yeah, a certain well-known terrorist believe in man made climate change, too. Or he believes that this is a way to get his remarks back into a highly sympathetic media. “Oooo… he believes in CC, we’ll run the article!”
And people wonder why we’re not willing to give up our economies on the IPCC recommendations? The Catastrophic warming idea is dead. Let’s bury it and move on.
For more links see the previous post: Is the AGW Scare Collapsing?
Update: More stuff
- UK Independent: Professor in leaked email scandal tried to hide fact that numbers he used were wrong – The “climategate” controversy intensified last night when the senior British scientist at its centre, Professor Phil Jones, faced fresh accusations that he attempted to withhold data that could cast doubt on evidence for rising world temperatures.
- UK Guardian: Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws – Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based
- A Phil Jones paper acknowledges Chinese Urban Heat Island effect. That 1C per century doesn’t sounds like much until one realizes that the entire claimed 20th century warming is ~0.6C. (More on UHI: check the appropriate section of this (2006) climate model scorecard.)
- IPCC Uses NY Times as a source.