Al Gore’s back in the public eye, promoting his new book, which naturally raises the question: which mainstream press outlet will be the first to do a vapid hit piece?
Today we have our answer: The New York Times, which has run a truly absurd and embarrassing piece from John Broder. It casts about desperately seeking something sinister about the fact that Gore invests in clean energy technologies. Listen to this piece of dark insinuation:
Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.
Gore is “positioned to profit,” you understand. No wonder he’s dedicated most of his adult life to schlepping around the world giving a slide show to tens of thousands of people! It was all to marginally increase the return on his future investments! Diabolical.
Who is saying this absurd crap? “Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first ‘carbon billionaire’ ...” Critics like loony Rep. Marsha Blackburn and denialist propaganda hack Marc Morano. These are the people driving the NYT news operation now.
But look down toward the bottom. No, farther ... farther ... farther ... yeah, waaay down in the second-to-last paragraph:
“I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,” Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.
So all the money from Gore’s investments is invested in a nonprofit to fight climate change. He’s not “positioned to profit.” He’s not “poised” to become a “billionaire.” The entire premise of the story is false. I’m sure the tiny percentage of readers who make it down this far in the story will be delighted to discover they’ve completely wasted their time.
To summarize: Professional Gore haters, who make their living peddling lies, cast an absurd charge against Gore. The charge goes in the headline. It goes in the first paragraphs of the story. Then in paragraph 32 it’s revealed that the charge is baseless. And John Broder wasn’t embarrassed to have this appear under his byline.
Oh, and to state the obvious: even if it were true, nobody but a professional Gore hater could possibly find anything wrong with someone investing in the very solutions they say are necessary to save the world. The non-Gore-demented might even find that a perfectly predictable way for a capitalist to respond.
As this Daily Kos diary points out, this seems of a piece with the New York Times’ stated desire to be more “tuned-in” to Fox and right-wing talk radio. Apparently in our new media age, a baseless charge from ‘wingers is in and of itself justification for an extended story on the nation’s most precious news real estate. Welcome to the future.
Four stories that should have changed the media narrative ... but didn’t
Why senators don’t see the clean energy boom
Comments
View as Flat
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 1:13 pm
03 Nov 2009
Where are more leaders like Al Gore who are willing to openly support science that is being presented in the solid scientific observations and consensually validated empirical data of the IPCC? The pivotal climate change conference in Copenhagen is to occur next month. Look at the disarray in which we find ourselves now and how far we have to travel in a short time to reach legally binding commitments that move the human community away from precipitating some unimaginable sort of global ecological wreckage.
What would the world we inhabit look like if scientists like Galileo had chosen to adopt a code of silence and maintain the gag rule promulgated by the rich and powerful in his day. In such circumstances, Galileo as well as scientists today would speak only about scientific evidence which was deemed by the super-rich and powerful Masters of the Universe among us to be politically convenient, religiously tolerable, economically expedient, socially correct and culturally prescribed. Scientists would be effectively breaching their duty to science and humanity to tell the truth as they see it, as best they can report it.
Science must overcome silence, lest everything our leaders say they are trying to preserve and protect could be ruined.
Perhaps there is something in the great work of Al Gore, the scientists of the IPCC, and the leaders at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference that will give Galileo a moment of peace.
Permalink
isaacschumann Posted 1:16 pm
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
Mike_G Posted 5:39 pm
03 Nov 2009
There's nothing wrong even if Al Gore does become a billionaire from green tech investments. That kind of thing is exactly what will turn the tide.
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 7:54 pm
03 Nov 2009
The story did seem to leave some wiggle room - it quoted Gore saying that every penny he's made from his investments has gone to the ACP, but didn't say whether a) that included any salary, etc from Kleiner Perkins, nor b) whether he intended this allocation to continue into the future.
So the article didn't try very hard to address the concerns of "critics".
(p.s. yo, Al - could you please give Michael Tobis some pilot project funding?)
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 11:31 am
06 Nov 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/planet30/browse_thread/thread/1d1b4d65093247a
Permalink
Glauke Posted 1:39 am
04 Nov 2009
But I do wish Broder would also take a look at who pays inhofe and morano.
Permalink
llogan Posted 8:28 am
04 Nov 2009
Gore says sea levels will rise 20' by the end of the century. The IPCC has reduced their prediction at every session and now says only 1' 5". Who is right? Gore uses James Hansen to promote 20', and Hansen is paid handsomely for his efforts ($250,000 personal grant from John Kerry). The leading expert on sea level rise, Nils Axel-Morner, says 8" and that Gore is leading the world's greatest hoax.
Gore cannot speak freely in the UK. The London High Court found his presentation was 'political in nature, not scientific, and created for the purpose of a political outcome.' An Inconvenient Truth cannot be shown in the UK school system without a 50-page 'teacher pack' that warns parents and children of the inaccuracies in his presentation. (Yes, there are many.) If Gore speaks too publicly, the government is ready to bring him before the court for offering a "false prospectus." This is when you encourage investment in an enterprise or undertaking you know to be false.
Gore refuses to debate. His speaking contract forbids journalists from asking questions, unless Gore chooses the journalist. If he's 100% right, why not take tough questions or hold your 'facts' up to a debate?
The IPCC? It is a governmental panel seeking a transfer of funds between nations. They review science, but there's 52 writers -- government officials and NGOs, not scientists -- who create the Summaries. Every session has produced a scientific scandal, when the key foundations were later shown to be false. Most recently, the entire foundation of the 2001 session was shown to be created using cherry-picked data. This is the infamous Briffa affair, which you will find covered in scientific circles but not the NY Times. Over 400 scientists have left the IPCC in protest of misrepresenting their studies.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 4:03 pm
04 Nov 2009
It is old stuff, but you got all those dated talking points right. Must have a good memory, or are reading the archives.
Of course, you cannot support any of those strawmwn with facts... But neither could anyone else a few years ago when those particular fallacies were all the rage in the denier media.
Permalink
b e r n a r d o Posted 12:13 pm
04 Nov 2009
Yes, Hansen was recognized with one of these Heinz Awards from John Kerry's wife Teresa Heinz. But that was how long ago? 2001. Since then Hansen has been outspoken in support of a carbon tax and against cap and trade -- views that put him at odds with the agenda to address climate change as put forth in Kerry's proposed legislation.
LLogan, maybe I've missed your previous commentary in regards to IPCC, but if you make such strong accusations, I think your point would have greater strength if you provided a reference and/or link for such charges. I'll try to look up the matter you refer to, but if anything, I've gathered that the ultimate IPCC report has been criticized at times for being to conservative in regards to the risk it puts forth for the likelihood and severity of greenhouse gas related chaos. My recollection is quite superficial on the matter, but if anything, I'd hazard that these govt. officials and NGO types that you refer to are responsible for toning down the IPCC reports.
Cheers,
Permalink
llogan Posted 11:30 pm
04 Nov 2009
With respect to Hansen, he received the $250,000 grant in 2004 and promptly endorsed Kerry, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist. Hansen conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue—- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.
Dr. John Theon, Hansen's supervisor, declared at the International Conference on Climate Change this past March (I was in the audience) that Hansen was an embarrassment to the department and should have been sacked years ago. Addressing a ballroom packed with scientists at a keynote luncheon, Dr. Theon said it was only upon his retirement that he was now professionally safe to confess he was fearful of reprimanding Hansen owing to Hansen's powerful protectors in Washington. The most notable protector, of course, being one Al Gore, who's given Hansen air cover for years. Hansen is 'very convenient' for Mr. Gore. Gore invests in green companies, to which Hansen says we must give indulgences and subsidies. Now, that's convenient!
Dr. Nicholas Drapela at Oregon Sate expressed his outrage and disappointment in Hansen in his testimony presented to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Quoting here, “My dear colleague Hansen has finally gone off the deep end. When you have dedicated the bulk of your career to a cause, and it turns out the cause has been proven false, most people cannot bring themselves to admit the truth. His are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.”
You may recall Hansen as the scientist who claimed the Bush administration was gagging him -- all the while as he was granting over 1,400 press appearances. As his scientific predictions have failed year in and out, it's clear that Hansen is a greater politician than scientist.
I obtained much of my knowledge of the IPCC through correspondence and meetings with quite a few climate scientists who are listed as 'authors'. They describe the sessions as sitting in a room and handing their research over to an assistant who walks down the hall, where the bureacrats do a review. Then the assistant comes back with, "No, that won't do. It doesn't fit the narrative we've already written 6 months ago for the Summary. Please be so kind as to make these changes in your research findings." And this is why scientists have threatened lawsuits to get their names off the reports as 'authors', since their findings were not represented properly. (The IPCC has refused to remove many well-known authors who are demanding this. It allows the IPCC to maintain some high profile names. "Well, you did participate, even if we didn't use your research properly.)
With respect to the IPCC summary writers (government bureaucrats and NGOs), being more conservative than the scientists, here is what the what the scientists wrote for the 1995 IPCC Draft Report:
1) None of the studies have shown any clear evidence of climate changes due to greenhouse gases.
2) No study has positively attributed any climate change to anthropogenic causes.
3) Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate are reduced.
However, here's what the Summary Report stated:
'The balance of evidence suggest a discernible human influence on global climate.'
The 2001 IPCC report reprinted the famous 'hockey stick' 6 times, more than any other graph. Prof. Mann's hockey stick and the more recent data from Biffra showing no Medieval Warming Period were shown to use fraudulent data, cherry picked to get a desired result. (This is not my opinion, but the Wegmen report and the NSF report.) The graph was pulled for the 2007 report. Biffra's case has been a MAJOR scandal in the scientific community, as it undermines vast portions of the case for anthropogenic global warming. No, you won't read about this in the NY Times. It's inconvenient for the dogma.
In the past few weeks, Lindzen et al have published the 'observed' tropospheric temperatures against 9 models used by the IPCC. You must remember that the IPCC's case is built on what models 'might be.' They have failed for the past 10 years, when compared to real world observations. These 9 models predicted higher temperature and increased CO2 in the troposphere. Turns out the OBSERVED data went downward, now that we're understanding what is more easily described as 'leakage' into space. This further supports the lack of positive feedback effects of CO2.
Closing on the IPCC, this is a governmental body. It does not do research. It's members fly around the world on junkets, constantly, and as with the Copenhagen treaty, propose large transfers of wealth between nations.
I'm happy to provide further information. I have extensive literature, but citing every reference might be tedious here and there's not a convenient way to send PDFs.
However, you may go to http://www.climateoregon.com and download a 32-page booklet I wrote breaking down the claims one by one.
Permalink
Mike_G Posted 5:16 am
05 Nov 2009
These people seem to know Nicholas Drapela (last letter to editor):
http://media.barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2008/05/07/Forum/Letters.To.The.Editor-3366267.shtml
With regard to item 3, with which I presume you concur: "3) Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate are reduced."
One way of testing this hypothesis is to reduce manmade CO2 emissions and see what happens. Since we're going to run out of fossil fuel at some point anyway, it doesn't hurt.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 8:29 am
05 Nov 2009
You are a conspiracy theorist. You pick up on all the fringe stories printed in the denialist media and present them as facts.
Your story is full of half truths presented with an extreme bias and outright lies. I feel sorry for someone who would spend all that time and effort compiling a 32 page conspiracy.
Just curious, do you receive any money when people visit your website?
Permalink
llogan Posted 9:41 am
05 Nov 2009
Mike G, with respect to the '3 people who agree with me'...
The Petition Project, signed by 31,478 American scientists, 9,029 with PhDs:
"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."
The Manhattan Declaration, with 1,300 endorsers, 197 climate specialists:
"There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change."
The IPCC Bali Conference, 2007, an open letter by 103 world climate experts to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, UN: "It is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.
Letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper by 60 prominent scientists: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Report, testimony from "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims -- Scientists Continue to Debunk 'Consensus'".
The GKSS Institute survey in of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries: Only 9.4% "strongly agree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes"
The Japan Geoscience Union: "90% do not believe the UN's IPCC reports on man-made CO2 as cause of climate change."
The APEGGA, including geologists and geophysicists who actually know more than most climate scientists: 68% disagree with the statement "The debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
I referred to Richard Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. The Washington Post had to write, "MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists."
You also said you hadn't heard of my other two references. Perhaps this one: On the cover of the NY Times Magazine this year, Freeman Dyson -- America's most revered physicist -- who said the global warming fears are "grossly exaggerated."
Or, Sir David Bellamy, PhD, 'The UK's most treasured environmentalist', who has served as the president and founder of numerous scientific organizations and is the most awarded environmentalist. Bellamy describes himself as unabashedly as a tree-hugger. Regarding the global warming theory, he said, "What a load of poppycock! Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth."
And yet Scott Pelley, correspondent at 60 Minutes, says, "My team tried hard to find a respected scientist who contradicted the prevailing opinion in the scientific community, but there was no one out there who fit that description." And Bill Blakemore says on ABC News, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found on such [scientific] debate on global warming."
And this is why you're not getting balance.
I'm simply sharing this information. They are data points, not conspiracy theories. However, if you bury yourself in the presentations before the American Litigation Association, of the American Bar Association Conference of 2007, you might appreciate this quote:
"We've put so much pressure on the media that they don't dare contact anyone for an opposing view on global warming."
Permalink
Mike_G Posted 5:14 pm
05 Nov 2009
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/
Permalink
llogan Posted 10:35 pm
05 Nov 2009
It is worth pointing out that global warming alarmists have long been involved in denying that any "Deniers" exist and denying that any contradictory evidence exists. It therefore follows in their minds that great numbers of skeptics cannot possibly exist (as the Petition Project so ably proves) and there is no contradictory evidence, let alone volumes of contradictory evidence can possibly exist.
The Project is extremely inconvenient, which explains why for several years now alarmists and enviro media have convinced themselves it's not real and it must be discredited at all costs. The first attack came on names, by pointing out that signatories included Perry S. Mason (the fictitious lawyer?), Michael Fox (the actor?), Robert C. Byrd (the senator?), John C. Grisham (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
It turns out that all names are legitimate scientists -- except for Geri Halliwell, which was sent in by enviro pranksters and to which the project coordinators admit got by them. In fact, I personally know Dr. Michael Fox, PhD, who is well established in the Pacific Northwest. Perry Mason is a PhD chemist. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
Opponents of the Project sometimes submit forged signatures in attempts to discredit. Usually these efforts are eliminated by the verification procedures. However, the original coordinators admit that some names slipped through and in 2008 did a complete re-mailing to re-verify the list.
Perhaps you should be aware of the quality of other signers: physicist Dr. Edward Teller (remember him?), MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen, University of Wisconsin Professor of Meteorology Reid Bryson, astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, and Princeton Professor of Physics Freeman Dyson are sufficient proof for many scientists that the best and the brightest support this effort. (Bryson and Teller are since deceased.)
One of the leaders and signers of the Project is physicist Frederick Seitz, PhD. Dr. Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. Not bad.
Mike, you attempted to discredit by entire post by a link to a website which has since been itself debunked. You didn't respond to the extensive list of other petitions and letters from scientists who are realists. In any event, even if we throw out the Petition Project, you can't conveniently all the others, such as the US Senate Report. You'll be stunned at the qualifications of the scientists who are skeptics. The link is here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7
Permalink
greenfyre Posted 7:34 am
06 Nov 2009
Are you joking?
The 'Petition Project' remains thoroughly debunked as utter nonsensehttp://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/ , as does Inhofe's Fraud (aka the Senate minority page) http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/not-sparta-inhofe-and-the-400/, and the Manhatten Declaration http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-heartland-institute/, and Bellamy http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/david-bellamy-victim-but-of-who/ and all of your other silly lists, and the misleading and/or bogus claims about scientific opinion http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/survey_climate_scientists_agre.php
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-poll-shows-most-earth-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/
Please learn to use a search engine.
Permalink
bailsout Posted 12:05 pm
05 Nov 2009
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 2:23 pm
05 Nov 2009
I have looked into every one of the claims you make... and found them to be baseless. Your argument is based on fallacies, distortions and outright lies. I am not going to waste my time refuting every specious claim you make on this comment thread.
If you want to know why you are wrong, or think you can convince others with evidence from the refereed science journals try this forum.
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84
You have a political bias and are promoting that agenda. You will not be allowed to make appeals to authority, like citing the Oregon petition, nor will you be allowed to make reference to opinions. Science is not politics, so if you decide to join the conversation there remember to cite your sources (provide links) and make sure your sources are published in peer reviewed journals.
AGW is based on sound physics. There is no debate about it in the scientific community. The open question is not whether atmospheric carbon dioxide increases temperature, that question was answered by John Tyndall in the 19th century. The open question is how much?
You are not "sharing information", you are propagating disinformation.
Bailsout,
Chrichton writes fiction. HIs novel is fiction and bears no resemblence to reality.
The scientific method is based on disbelief. Nothing in 100%, and every assumption is tested and challenged constantly.
Permalink
llogan Posted 5:05 pm
05 Nov 2009
I was simply accused of only knowing 3 scientists who might have a contrary point of view on the degree of cause and effect with AGW. I provided certainly more than 3 with the references utilizing the various petitions, letters and testimony from noted scientists. I am simply pointing out that the science is far from settled. You retorted with questions on my motives, innuendos on money-making, lies, etc. You say you've studied and discarded my claims, but I doubt you've had time to review the extensive scientific references in my booklet. (I've left off the citations in these posts owing to length.)
A political agenda? I did not mention whether the learned professors who caution against AGW alarmism are Republican or Democrat. As 90% of college professors profess to be Democrat, then your suggestion leads to the conclusion that Democrats are leading the charge as skeptics.
The original article on this site had to do with whether the NY Times was unfair to Al Gore -- and that Gore was generously giving his money away to a non-profit. You accused me of slander, but...
From "Green Business UK" / November 3:
AL GORE -- WORLD'S FIRST BILLIONAIRE
"The former US vice president is in line to make a large profit from a firm producing smart meters which monitor household electricity use.
He is a partner in a Silicon Valley venture capital firm which invested 45 million [pounds] in Silver Springs Networks, a small California company.
Last week the US Energy Department announced 2 billion [pounds] in grants and a proportion of that, thought to be more than 305 million [pounds] will to utility operators with which Silver Spring has contracts.
The venture capitalists who invested, including Mr. Gore, now look set to receive a handsome return."
Am 'I' trading in opinion -- or is Green Business UK?!
Yes, there is some very small connection -- as we're now finding out -- with respect to AGW and warming. The issue is whether we will spend trillions of dollars based on computer models, er games, which are rapidly proving incorrect.
With respect to Tyndall, his discovery was that water vapor contributed 95% of the "greenhouse effect" followed by CO2 at 3.62%. The IPCC's absence of a mention of greenhouse gases is quite deliberate, because they have to conceal the fact that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. Tyndall wrote in 1870 that water vapor acts more energetically upon the terrestrial rays than upon the solar rays; hence, its tendency is to preserve to the earth a portion of heat which would otherwise be radiated into space. Remember that CO2 is a trace gas at 0.03811% of the atmosphere. The total human contribution to this trace in the atmosphere is 1% of 0.03811% or around 4 ppmv of 385+ ppm. And, increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not linear, so each additional ppm has far less value than the ppm before it. This is why the alarmism is false.
As you mention the name Tyndall and climate:
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
"I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.
It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns."
Or, this Tyndall Centre mention in the U.S. Senate Report:
"Statistician Lenny Smith of the London School of Economics, who co-authored a study on the uncertainties of climate models for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Oxford, dubbed climate modeling "naive realism." "Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted," Smith said, according to a New Scientist article from August 16, 2007. "They are getting better; I don't want to trash them per se. But as we change our predictions, how do we maintain the credibility of the science?" Smith explained. "We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect," he added. The article noted that Smith believes that the "over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making."
I have no idea why you associate me with Michael Chrichton. Although a great writer of fiction, Chrichton was a noted scientist who testified before the US Senate Michael in 2005, arguing for independent verification of research used for public policy, and criticized the so-called "hockeystick" study, for reasons later confirmed by the Wegman Commission. (So, Chrichton was right.) Chrichton's science speeches are found at: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches.html
Permalink
greenfyre Posted 11:05 am
06 Nov 2009
Irrelevant / misleading / lie much?
Llogan "which are rapidly proving incorrect. "
NOT: This Year's Model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
The Climate Models Have it Right
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-part-3-climate-models-have-it-right
Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2008/Sep08/icecore.html
Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm
Myth: Models are unreliable
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
The 16 Climate Models http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/16-climate-models.html
===========================================================
Llogan "The IPCC's absence of a mention of greenhouse gases"
That would explain this:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
2.3 Chemically and Radiatively
Important Gases ................................................ 137
2.3.1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide .............................. 137
2.3.2 Atmospheric Methane ......................................... 140
2.3.3 Other Kyoto Protocol Gases................................ 143
2.3.4 Montreal Protocol Gases ..................................... 145
2.3.5 Trends in the Hydroxyl Free Radical .................... 147
2.3.6 Ozone .................................................................. 149
2.3.7 Stratospheric Water Vapour ................................ 152
2.3.8 Observations of Long-Lived Greenhouse
Gas Radiative Effects .......................................... 153
========================================================================
Llogan "confirmed by the Wegman Commission"
Despite the cronyism in the stacked Wegman panel, the best they were able to do was note that Mann should have used better statistics, it made absolutely NO difference in the results
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_hockey_stick_is_broken
and how about you properly reference your absurd claims?
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 9:38 am
06 Nov 2009
The IPCC does not ignore water vapor. Water vapor accounts for ~65% of the greenhouse effect. Specific humidity is a function of temperature and is therefore a feedback, not a forcing. You cannot increase the amount of water vapor without increasing temperature.
None of your statements, or the opinions of the scientists you quote are supported in the scientific literature.
The Hockey stick was found to robust. Their were questions raised about the sparseness of proxies, which led the NAS to question the claim that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years. The Wegmon report questioned the statistical method used and found an error. Neither of which had a statistically significant effect on the results. Subsequent reconstructions have shown that MBH 98/99 was accurate and robust.
Cherry picking specious arguments off the internet is not a part of the scientific method.
Your website and booklet is a joke.
Permalink
llogan Posted 2:16 pm
08 Nov 2009
You say the hockey stick was found valid except for some nit-picking and fault Wegman (which was later deemed extremely generous to Dr. Mann, who was gaining hero status among alarmists).
Until the 2001 Third Assessment Report, 700 scientists, in more than 400 institutions, across 40 countries in the past 20 years have contributed to papers saying that the medieval warm period is real, global and noticeably warmer than the present, so nothing is special about today.
The IPCC heavily promoted the hockey stick, more than any graph with 6 color reproductions. After it was shown to be 'flawed,' it has been removed from IPCC publications.
WHY has it been removed if it was validated, as you say? Fortunately, the general "consensus" (oops) has returned to pre-Mann 1998/99 and IPCC 2001, with the return of the acknowledgment of medieval warm period -- with the exception of Mann apologists in blogs and Mann desperate to regain his respectability.
Mann's findings -- a composite of two very different data sets spliced together, later showed to be statistically unsound -- attempted to demonstrate 1/4 less natural variation previously believed, and allowed the computer model attribution studies to allocate a much higher sensitivity to greenhouse gases and hence project more alarming future warming.
The subsequent McIntyre/McKitrick/Senate/Wegman/etc reports showed MBH98 a sloppy, poorly documented paper riddled with simple mistakes from the newly-minted PhD Mann, with simple mistakes, unjustified assumptions, collation errors and incorrect methodology. Data, for instance, reported to be from near Boston actually came from Paris. Central England Temperature data was truncated eliminating its coldest period. Principle component analysis (PCA) had been done incorrectly. At the time, Drs Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a terse reply on the web rejection out of hand the criticism and not admitting to a single error.
The major faults were:
Inappropriate Bristlecone/Foxtail "strip-bark" proxies were used.
Incorrect PCA analysis was used.
Verification statistics for the critical 15th century step were insignificant.
Mann publicly refused to release his computer code, so Congress decided to hold hearings and investigate. Ralp Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences empaneled a balanced group of scientists. A full reading of the NRC panel comprehensive report, rather than the 4-page summary and press reports (generous), leaves no room for any doubt that the studies were invalid. On page 50, the NRC says "strip-bark samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions." In various guises 'strip-bark' Bristlecone/Foxtail samples show up in most reconstructions and are responsible for the sharp up tick in the 20th century.
The most damaging aspect of the 'strip-bark' matter is that when the data for Mann's MBH98 study was finally released, a directory on Mann's ftp server was found with the highly suggestive name "BACKTO 1400-CENSORED." It contained all but 20 of the 212 series used in the published paper. Nineteen were strip-bark and the twentieth was inappropriate for reasons made plain in the later critiques.
Here's the key point I was also making -- NRC, 2006 shows, on page 86 onwards, that the non-centered PCA of Mann does indeed produce 'hockey sticks' from red noise. The NRC panel produced their own worked examples to demonstrate THAT THE PROCESS "MINES" FOR 'HOCKEY STICKS.'
Why would Mann hide the code for the data for 1400? The R2 verification statistics for the critical 15th century state of Mann's reconstruction indicated that the results were statistically meaningless. An examination of Mann's work later showed that he had indeed calculated R2, BUT NOT REPORTED IT. Hmmm. So he knew.
Being polite, on page 107, the NRC (2006) reported, "Uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated." Indeed.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 5:39 pm
08 Nov 2009
There is not one peer reviewed paleoclimate reconstruction that shows the MWP as globally warmer than today.
The MBH98/99 is in the IPCC 4th assessment report. The NAS concluded that due to the sparsity of proxies, especially in the SH, that the claim of warmest in the last 1000 years was overstating the confidence level of the study. Since then, new and more robust reconstructions have confirmed that the last century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. They also applauded the study, being the first of it's kind, was a significant contribution to the scientific body of knowledge. ALL the reconstructions since have a hockey stick shape!
Mann has released his code. The miner and his bean counter made a lot of noise about nothing. All that they accomplished, and what they intended to accomplish, was to create a lot of denier talking points not grounded in reality.
The end result of all the hoopla was an even more robust study that confirms the conclusions of MBH98/99. But go ahead and spout off all the specious arguments surrounding the "controversy".
Permalink
AliCuse Posted 10:02 pm
09 Nov 2009
So if someone says to me: make x, y, and z changes in your life, and by doing so you may or may not help save certain island nations from elimination, but you'll definitely live a healthier, less destructive life... well I'm sold.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 2:26 pm
10 Nov 2009
In politics perception is reality. It is very difficult to discern which side is right or wrong, since so much depends on ideology. This is why the deniers inject politics into AGW, then cry that the science is polluted by politics. It is an argumentative fallacy known as poisoning the well.
Science is easy. The correct argument is supported by empirical evidence and can be demonstrated.
Physics doesn't dither and gravity always wins!
Permalink