climate change and how the left has been misleading public

[Ethnic]

So anything that conflicts with your beliefs is gossip?

[Jovial Monk]

anything that doesn’t contain data and purports to be scientific is gossip!

[HIGHERBEAM]

The Living Planet
Top Science Body Cools on Global Warming

Graham Lloyd and Matthew Franklin
The Australian
Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:00 CDT

There are gaps in scientific understanding making predicting the extent of climate change and sea level rises impossible.

That's the claim of Britain's highest scientific authority, the Royal Society.

The society's revised Guide to the Science of Climate Change has been interpreted as a retreat from politics by an organisation regarded as the world's most authoritative scientific body following the scandal that engulfed the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The society's new guide does not dismiss climate change or the need for co-ordinated global action to combat it.

However, it undercuts many of the claims of looming ecological disaster that have been made in a bid to gain public support for political action.

The opposition seized on the Royal Society's shift to demand Julia Gillard accept that views on climate change differ.

Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said: "This is a reminder on why Julia Gillard is wrong to vilify people who have the audacity to disagree with her views.

"We respect the right of individuals to make up their own minds based on their own assessments."

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the Royal Society's switch would not have any influence on the government's push to put a price on carbon.

"The government accepts the climate science," Mr Combet said.

"The debate has moved on.

"We must now get on with the job of reducing carbon pollution and reforming our economy."

The society's report was written by a panel of prominent scientists chaired by professor John Pethica.

The reworking was in response to pressure from 43 fellows who argued the society had gone too far.

Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, said the society's statement was a "wonderful breath of honesty and fresh air from an organisation that has been politicised".

"Science is always uncertain," Professor Plimer said.

"Science doesn't work by voting.

"It is not a democracy, it works on evidence."

Despite the uncertainties, the Royal Society concludes that there is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming over the past half-century.

"It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made," Professor Plimer said.

"Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected."

On sea level change, the society said it was likely that, for many centuries, the rate of global sea-level rise would be at least as large as the rate of 20cm per century that has been observed.

However, it said there was insufficient understanding of the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica to predict how much the sea level will rise above that observed in the past century.

The society's cautious approach is in contrast to the UN's 2007 IPCC report.

(The report said that "many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s").

Also to predictions by former US president Al Gore in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth that the collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or West Antarctica could raise global sea levels by six metres, flooding coasts and creating 100 million refugees.

The Royal Society says the greatest gap in understanding is being able to accurately model clouds and their impact on reflecting heat.

The strength of the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans, which take up about half the emissions from human activity, is poorly understood, it says.

And there is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.

The Royal Society says that high-performance computers are expected to improve confidence in regional predictions.

There is also a possibility that unknown aspects of climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.

Comment: The cracks in the facade are appearing when even the Royal Society expresses some uncertainty about climate change. They still cannot quite bring themselves to actually bite the hand that feeds them through research grants, but they are slowly moving closer to admitting that climate change is not man made.

As I have said all along climate change is a natural process and we have been thru it before and it is just a beat up by the looney left.When the climate change advocates scientist's are backing away from climate change the truth is finally coming through.

[Outlaw Yogi]

anything that doesn’t contain data and purports to be scientific is gossip!

Which is precisely what you post ... material devoid of data .. thus by your own reckoning is gossip.
I note that your quotes from supposedly 'scientific' sources are never referenced, so are uncheckable.
Where as the actual satelite data I mentioned but admittedly failed to go find the link for can be found via rather simple searches.
I tracked it down several years ago when a SMH opinion writer published completely bogus charts claiming solar radiation had increased, which where contradicted by the satelite data.

Would it be paranoid if I suspected Johovah's Monkey was really just Deepshit's new sock puppet?

[Outlaw Yogi]

As I have said all along climate change is a natural process and we have been thru it before and it is just a beat up by the looney left.When the climate change advocates scientist's are backing away from climate change the truth is finally coming through.

Of course its natural, and yes this planet has been through it numerous times previously, but what is not natural is the rate of heating and it was happening long before it became a political issue between scaremongers and denialists.
Meteorologists and climatologists are not backing away from the science, they're just not admiting that things are far worse than their prior predictions.
It truely amazes me that halfwit fluffy bunnies can remain in denial mode over global warming/climate change as numerous parts of the world are litterally being submerged/swamped.
In the not too distant future all you denialist fluffy bunnies will have to run away from the coast to seek shelter inland, and I'll be waiting for you. Set foot on my mountain and I'll put you in the stew pot.

[HIGHERBEAM]

As I have said all along climate change is a natural process and we have been thru it before and it is just a beat up by the looney left.When the climate change advocates scientist's are backing away from climate change the truth is finally coming through.

Of course its natural, and yes this planet has been through it numerous times previously, but what is not natural is the rate of heating and it was happening long before it became a political issue between scaremongers and denialists.
Meteorologists and climatologists are not backing away from the science, they're just not admiting that things are far worse than their prior predictions.
It truely amazes me that halfwit fluffy bunnies can remain in denial mode over global warming/climate change as numerous parts of the world are litterally being submerged/swamped.
In the not too distant future all you denialist fluffy bunnies will have to run away from the coast to seek shelter inland, and I'll be waiting for you. Set foot on my mountain and I'll put you in the stew pot.

It is good to see you quoting scientific data not just a theory,please put up some sort of reference you use for your opinion.

[HIGHERBEAM]

“Quiet Revolution” now Underway in American Science

It was the shocking revelations of Climategate that persuaded Lewis, on October 29, 2009,along with five other eminent scientists Lewis to pen a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators denouncing government and media propaganda in claiming there was a ‘consensus’ on climate change. With the mantra, “A gaggle is not a consensus” Lewis has since been leading a “quiet revolution” in American science against politicization of climate research. Hundreds of scientists have already signed his petition.

New Climate Book Presents Evidence of Fraud

Michael Mann not only faces condemnation from Lewis and other US scientists but is also implicated in a data fraud investigation currently being carried out by the Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli. As more scientists come forward to denounce those implicated in Climategate it becomes clear that Mann, despite his claims to the contrary, may not enjoy the support of the broader scientific community after all.

As evidence Lewis refers specifically to the newly-published book, ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion,’ by A. W. Montford that attacks key UN climatologist, Michael Mann for fraudently mispresenting data to exagerrate global warming. Lewis comments that the new book “organizes the facts very well.” Montford’s publication is causing a storm among the independent press and scientific community since its launch. Britian’s respected national publication, The Specator, commended Montford for a “brilliant piece of science writing.”

The evidence suggests that Michael Mann was plucked from obscurity by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) soon after obtaining his doctoral degree to be appointed by them not only as a contributor but also a Lead Author to their UN report.

“Greatest and most Successful Pseudo-scientific Fraud”

Lewis, a former member of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, mounts a blistering attack against Mann and that clique of government climate scientists who he accuses of perpetrating,“the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

It was in his IPCC position that Mann published the infamous paper containing the ‘hockey stick’ graph of tree ring proxy data that undermined the established scientific view that the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 BP) was as warm, if not warmer than today.

Despite the severity of the accusations against him Michael Mann has declined to file any legal challenge for defamation in the courts to defend his character.

Skeptics point to the fact Mann had never previously published any peer-reviewed papers involving tree ring analysis thus he was not as qualified for his post as many others. Mann’s findings in Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report, were discredited in the Wegman Report among others.

Lewis laments, “I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist” The ex-APS fellow continues, “Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.”

References:

Lewis, H., 'My Resignation From The American Physical Society,' (October 2010), University of California, Santa Barbara, thegwpf.org, (accessed online: October 9, 2010)

Mann, M.E.,'Get the anti-science bent out of politics,' (October 8, 2010), Washington Post, (accessed online: October 9, 2010)

Barton, J., ‘Committee on Energy and Commerce Report,’ (Wegman report), US Congress, (2005); (accessed online: October 9, 2010)

[Outlaw Yogi]

Went back through saved links to find the Oz satelite I originally obtained the relevant info from.
Global Solar Radiation Archive
which has this http://www.bom.gov.au/nmoc/archives/Solar/ address.
but flips to this
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/ address instead.
Using it now just seems to bring up a very general BOM page.
Basic search turned up a possibly better link.
Satellite Products and Archive
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/satellite/
Bit more searching came up with possibly better page again
Satellite image links
http://www.australianweathernews.com/cu ... ellite.htm

To be honest I'm too lazy ATM to do the in depth researching, but I reckon it'll be in there somewhere. + plus this friend's computer or how he's got it set up isn't the best. Various parts of this page and even more so on my email account page are missing. As in incomplete format or ???

Read one article where some character named Wilson at NASA's Goddard whatever it is reckons the solar intensity is increasing by 0.05% per decade, so possibly supporting the Sun worshiper's argument over the gas demoniser's position on the topic, but as I stated previously the years in which the recorded maximum heatwave events occured all happened during a dimming or down turn in solar radiation intensity.

More recently I skimmed over this article on the debate.

Canada Sees Climate Change "Prosperity" Instead of Calamity
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53104

Reproduced

'Don't Worry, Be Happy': Canada Sees Climate Change Prosperity Instead of Calamity
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/08-5

Material in question
http://www.climateprosperity.ca/

[HIGHERBEAM]

Thank you when people quote it is good to know how they have come to there conclusion

[Super Nova]

HB,

This article lends is scary and builds on your position in this debate.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Anthony Watts describes it thus:

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)