Steve McIntyre writes: One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very clearly:
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)
The IPCC said that it would be “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here are two MSM efforts to expose climategate. Sorry for the constant posting here. Once I see MSM carrying this more I’ll find a new way to voice my concern. Thanks for all the help on this site.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/…/the-global-cooling-cover-up
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/steve-janke-how-zealotry-came-to-pervert-climate-science.aspx
Roger Knights (18:44:26) : “The IPCC said that it would be “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“.”
There is no statute of limitations on fraud. A signature obtained by fraud is invalid. The Copenhagen Treaty is probably already void. It’s merely another opportunity for BO to make a pathetic spectacle of himself. [KRudd can forget getting a bow, though.]
“Fred (18:44:55) :
twit……’peak oil’ as in maximum reserve size or ‘peak oil’ as in a maximum daily production rate?…….the latter is the only one that may have some legs….all you really need though is after Mann et al get skidded they can be simply rehired to massage daily max output datas & simply hide the production decline……….”
In the early 70s, OPEC was formed. One of their early decisions was to allocate quotas for production based on each country’s reserves. Almost immediately, one member country after another doubled their official reserve numbers. And, though only negligible new reserves have been found in OPEC countries, those doubled reserve figures have never decreased significantly – after 40+ years of continued production.
But, while it’s easy to massage reserves (on paper), actual production (the real asset) either is there or it’s not. Also, keep in mind that OPEC (and other oil producing countries) continue to increased their domestic demand for their produced oil.
Using Mexico as an example, while they still produce a lot of oil, they’re about to be in balance between domestic production and domestic consumption. So, Peak Oil (maximum production rate) should be considered more of a problem for importers – like the US – when the exporters stop being exporters.
The hysteria that has been created by these Ivy League socialists around global warming has nothing to do with protecting the earth’s climate. Nor is it about reducing any of the greenhouse gases now being emitted. The reason for this charade is to create a funding mechanism for the emerging one world government and give it the authority to dictate energy policy over nation states. If you don’t believe me, just follow the flow of money in the house climate bill and it’ll become perfectly obvious to any reader what is happening.
twit (18:07:09) :
“Thanksgiving Day Invitation to the Climate Change Skeptics”
The climate change skeptics are the alarmists.
They are the one in denial that the climate changes. Hence all the hockey sticks.
This is not new though is it? I mean surely Steve already knew he had made those comments, and that the IPCC knoicked them on the head. None of this is new, the divergence is not covered up (there it is in plain text in the comments), the divergence issue has been openly discussed has it not?
Fred – at least you confirmed Twit’s opinion that “Like it or not, a sizable cross-section climate change skeptics also happen to be oil depletion skeptics.”
Now that the bubble has burst on this farce, the powers to be need another “common enemy” to get this one world government put in, I know what that enemy is….
STUPIDITY
Our next enemy is STUPIDITY, We need a massive new tax and global government to battle STUPIDITY! This farce has proven there will never be a lack of that resource. The most renewable resource in the galaxy.
If any of the fraudulent work was done under US government contract, those responsible BY LAW should be barred from future US govt. contracts and grants.
The REAL cause of AGW: fortran.
@ur momisugly Jim Watson – Thanks for the chortle. And by the way, that is some island you live on!
Sorry if this is a re-post, but it’s just too funny: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_places_infant_son_in
Twit
The audit interest here is mainly papers relied on by the IPCC in their Assessment Reports on *climate* and a few other papers on *climate*. Peak oil is not climate-related AFAICT. If you want to audit stuff on peak oil, go ahead. We won’t stop you.
If you had played a role in these climate audits, then you might have been able to beg a favour in return. At this stage, it looks like you are too lazy, or incompetent and so demand that busy people drop what they are interested in so they can do your dirty work for you.
twit has jumped on the next fear bandwagon. CAGW is a bust, now they need to scare us with something else. I am a fan nuclear energy and think we need to build reactors like there is no tomorrow (which, of course there will be). The oildrum ignores huge oil finds (especially those on our own soil) and is part of the same fear machine that drives AGW. To paraphrase Fred (18:44:55) , if we do not produce it, we can say we are running out. I refuse to be frightened of what we do not know. Sorry twit.
Hockeysticks everywhere!
Traffic to my site (green-agenda.com) has gone up 10-fold since climategate broke. Used up my monthly bandwidth allocation in just 12 days. Site will be down till 15 Dec 🙁
I really should upgrade!
Those reviewer notes and IPCC responses are wild. I especially like the third response shown, to Reviewer Comment ID # 309-20:
“Rejected – Rutherford et.al. did not use the tree-ring density data after 1960 so there are no data to show”
The authors of Rutherford et.al. 2005, by the way, are: Rutherford, S.; Mann, M. E.; Osborn, T.J.; Bradley, R.S.; Briffa, K.R.; Hughes, M.K.; Jones, P.D.; we’re quite familiar with all these names now.
Do you think they used the “hide the decline” trick?
Was the divergence problem discussed in AR4? What caused the divergence?
twit, Fred –
Historically, ‘peak oil’ means ‘peak at a particular extraction cost’.
If oil is permanently above $80/bbl there is more liquid hydrocarbon available than we’ll ever find occasion to use, whether it comes out of the ground as crude oil, shale, sands, coal conversion e.g. Fischer-Tropsch, etc.
Let’s ignore Algore’
Now Briffa is also in avoidance mode.
Jim Watson (18:22:16) :
“I can just hear Al Gore’s response if he’s asked about the cherry-picking of the Yamal tree data: “Well, the fact that there are cherry trees growing in Yamal is further proof of global warming.””
He’s thuper thuper serial about the threat of ManBearPig, too! Half man, half bear, half pig….
This controversy has indeed been hiding in plain sight for years with the problem being that the only ones with enough ears listening to them who might expose it lacked an actual scandal to run with.
(1) “We used simple linear regression, fitting the the regression equations over the period 1881 – 1960, or over the total available period prior to 1960 when the instrumental record was shorter. The period after 1960 was not used to avoid bias in the regression coefficients that could be generated by an anomalous decline in tree density measurements over recent decades that is not forced by temperature.” – Briffa
(2) “Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues….” – IPCC Ch.6 of latest IPCC report (AR4) written by Briffa et al.
“Hide the Decline!” graphic:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2ngrn0m.jpg
As of 20:04 PST 2009 Nov 26: [Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:05:38 UTC]
8,660,000 for Climategate. (0.28 seconds)
On Google.
I like this one from Phil: [August 2008, 1219239172.txt, discussing final form of a paper they are submitting, after having gotten reviewer’s comments. Mike was concerned that the last 12 years of “unprecedeneted” warming wasn’t showing in a particular graph]
“Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of the annual CET record were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim’s away, but when he did this with them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The purpose of the piece was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. It wasn’t to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the red/blue lines, as they are crap anyway. The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in the IPCC diagram from the first report. What we’ll try is adding it fully back in or dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes quite a bit of padding – we’re using your technique Mike.”
Sigh.
JEM (19:50:31) :
Peak Oil also specifically refers to flowable light oil. e.g. US light oil production peaked in 1971. Even 1500% increases in price have not significantly changed the decline.
NonOPEC oil peaked in 2004/5. See Oilwatch Monthly Nov 2009
Peak Oil concept could be applied to each class of hydrocarbons and each region etc. Avoid the confusion of mixing different types of hydrocarbons. Bitumen/tar or coal are very different from light oil.
See
Ian (20:06:51) :
I like this one from Phil: [August 2008, 1219239172.txt, discussing final form of a paper they are submitting, after having gotten reviewer’s comments. Mike was concerned that the last 12 years of “unprecedeneted” warming wasn’t showing in a particular graph]
“Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of the annual CET record were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim’s away, but when he did this with them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The purpose of the piece was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. It wasn’t to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the red/blue lines, as they are crap anyway. The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in the IPCC diagram from the first report. What we’ll try is adding it fully back in or dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes quite a bit of padding – we’re using your technique Mike.”
Tim Osborn is the head modeller of the CRU staff.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
He’s still away
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
littlepeaks (19:01:57) :
The Berken Oil shale technically has massive amounts of oil, but take 1KG of Camel dung and 1KG of Oil Shale and the Camel dung has more energy. It would take more than 1 barrel of oil to extract, refine and distribute one barrel of oil from the shale. Modern technology can’t overcome the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
The canadian oil sands aren’t much better: they are using their gas supplies to create steam to extract the oil and basically swap for oil.
This is what peak oil is about: the only oil left is very expensive and available only in small quantities so barrels per day are very low and won’t make up for falling rates from old super giant fields.
The oil problem is massive and here we are running towards the cliff looking backwards at a red herring called CO2!#!@ur momisugly#$!
twit –
The idea of peak oil is uninteresting. It’s largely an economic issue, not a scientific one.
Yes, at some time in the future, global oil production will hit a maximum and begin a “long steady decline”. Prices will rise, new extraction techniques will emerge, alternative energy sources will be utilized. However, the disappearance of hydrocarbons from the economy will not happen overnight. The free market should (and ultimately will) handle the transition.
As for your statement, “Seriously, we have to change our energy policy and soon. ” – I think most readers of skeptic blogs would agree. For a good example of this thinking, click on the “About” button at the top of this page.
Allow me one more excellent story from a major Canadian News paper. The story seems to be picking up steam in that paper.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx