More Insidious than the Himalayan error
Guest post by: Indur M. Goklany
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings of the Times of London this weekend spotlighted an IPCC error of Himalayan proportions, namely, that, contrary to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Himalayan glaciers will not have melted away by 2035. This error, they attributed to a series of blunders, bad quality control and poor scholarship.
I want to spotlight another error in the IPCC report. This is an error, based not on blunders or poor scholarship but on selective reporting of results, where one side of the story is highlighted but the other side is buried in silence. In other words, it’s a sin of omission, that is, it results, literally, from being economical with the truth. It succeeds in conveying an erroneous impression of the issue — similar to what “hide the decline” did successfully (until Climategate opened and let the sunshine in).
I have written about this previously at WUWT in a post, How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative, and in a peer reviewed article on global warming and public health. Both pieces show how the IPCC Working Group II’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which deals with the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, hid the projected decline in the future global population at risk of water shortage due to climate change. Not surprisingly, news outlets (e.g., here and here) routinely report that climate change could increase the population at risk of water shortage, despite the fact that studies show exactly the opposite regarding the net global population at risk of water shortage.
First, before getting into any details, let me note that just as the hockey stick was the poster child of the IPCC’s Third Assessment report, the designers of IPCC WGII’s Figure SPM.2 probably hoped that it would be the poster child for the Fourth Assessment Report. The following are excerpts from the earlier WUWT blog:
“Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s ‘official’ Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2007-05/overview-wg2-report.pdf).
“Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.
“Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.
“The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]
“What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows. In fact, by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)!
“And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is. It also reminds us as to why prior to testifying in court one swears to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
“Figure SPM.2 fails to tell us the whole truth.
“Hints of the whole truth, however, are buried in the body of the IPCC WG 2 Report …”
The entire piece can be read here.
The problem I have with what the IPCC WG II SPM did with the water impacts is best summarized by this excerpt from the US National Academy of Sciences’ book, On Being a Scientist, that I found on Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website today:
“Researchers who manipulate their data in ways that deceive others, even if the manipulation seems insignificant at the time, are violating both the basic values and widely accepted professional standards of science. Researchers draw conclusions based on their observations of nature. If data are altered to present a case that is stronger than the data warrant, researchers fail to fulfill all three of the obligations described at the beginning of this guide. They mislead their colleagues and potentially impede progress in their field or research. They undermine their own authority and trustworthiness as researchers. And they introduce information into the scientific record that could cause harm to the broader society, as when the dangers of a medical treatment are understated.” [Hat tip to Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.]
As a long time science policy analyst, let me note that such conduct is reprehensible. Expert comments on the Second Order Draft of the SPM (see Items C and D on page 32 of linked document) had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Despite that, the SPM chose to report the increase but ignored the decline.
This was clearly undertaken consciously, as opposed to being the result of a blunder. It is, therefore, more insidious than the Himalayan error.
AGW.
When Models Attack.
There they go again. Hide the decline.
Is there anything connected with the IPCC and it’s parent organization that is NOT a lie? Anything at all? Anyone?
OT but consider this: I’ve not seen the “Warmists” described as a “cult” but that is an accurate description. The definition of “cult” can be found as:
“A system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader”
Now that we have a “peek behind the curtain” through the leaked/whistleblown CRU information, we can see the Warmists are indeed a cult:
Their views are transient, having started as a belief in the next ice age that morphed into something that is now the opposite, and could morph back based on something as fickle as the weather. The masses now believe in the concept without formal or precise training. They are misguided, their conclusions are unorthodox, and their assumptions, as well as some of their solutions, are certainly extremist or false. That they are lead by a charismatic, authoritarian leader (Gore comes to mind, but there are many others soaking up the lime light) completes the definition.
The Cult of Global Warming or, the Global Warming Cult.
I think it’s an accurate description of the movement.
But this happens all the time. Recently the science writer on the Sunraysia daily at Mildura, Victoria Australia listed 2009 as the equal warmest year with 2007.
He also listed rainfall and Murray river records etc.
I was able to write a letter to the editor and quote the real facts using the earlier Mildura post office record that showed Mildura from 1889 to 1949 to be a much warmer and dryer city.
He wasn’t lying but just chose to ignore the earlier record. This is small time in comparison to the above but is a proven way to alter opinion.
The omission of measured data on CO2, which shows levels (on ground and in upper atmosphere) around 1940 similar to present levels, in favour of local ice core proxies is a similar manipulation as the “hockey stick” temperature presentation.
The IPCC has no crediblity. False temperature construction, false CO2 information, false information on glaciers, false information on polar ice, false health information (particularly malaria), false information on sea levels, false information on fauna & floral extinctions, false information on ocean acidification, false information on coral bleaching and now false information on water resources.
Pachauri and some of the lead authors should be hauled in front of every court in UN member countries for providing false information and wasting money.
“Forms of scientific misconduct include:”
“Obfuscation – The Omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
“In addition, some academics consider suppression–the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)–to be a form of misconduct as well; this is discussed below.”
“In some cases, scientific misconduct may also constitute violations of the law, but not always. Being accused of the activities described in this article is a serious matter for a practicing scientist, with severe consequences should it be determined that a researcher intentionally or carelessly engaged in misconduct.”
Great detective work Dr(Mr?) Golkany. I agree that on another issue this story probably would have caused a great stir. But in the context of climate change it’s just a matter of ‘which version of the truth you choose to accept’.
Neville (20:44:37) : Maybe the science writer was referring to the ‘adjusted’ temperature record, and not the raw data. Although, I don’t know how they got the rainfall wrong.
To me, one of the most egregious examples was pointed out 12 years ago by Bjorn Lomborg, talking about the higher mortality rates during cold weather compared to warm. It’s really significant.
It’s also a bit of a red herring–many of those who die during a cold spell were just about ready to go in any case, but the same was true, for example, in France a few years back during the summer heat wave that killed so many. Most of them were also aged and infirm.
However, AGW activists only ever talk about the people who die from heat. And they talk about them a lot–with no comparison and no context.
But when AGW activists get on their horse, there’s no stopping ’em. All bad, all the time, don’t you love us?
Another great post Mr. Goklany !! Water is such an important issue. The money wasted on a non problem (MMCC) could go a long way to helping those who need it. A good idea is a good idea for example; http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19117
How many people realize that the massive extinctions so often mentioned are all based on models and projections? No field data to support them.
It just is not happening or all of our field biologists have suddenly become computer-based, armchair biologists.
I am positively ill imagining the struggle of the people who depend on honest politicians to do their bidding.
I have not read the original Arnell (2004) paper, but this seems to be just another example of IPCC misrepresentation. One would intuitively think that if it got warmer, more moisture would be evaporated from the oceans and result in more rain on the land. That is if I have the hydrologic cycle remembered correctly. But perhaps AGW is more like what we used to refer to in the Mojave Desert as a “dry” heat, so it does not evaporate the oceans.
So, the results were “rectified” so as to pass only positive components like an electrical rectifyer. This is similar to the case of malaria, where only its possible increase was employed in the IPCC TAR even though models were predicting both increases and decreases depending on local precipitation changes.
This may show that humans are Maxwell’s demon.
My post was obviously tongue in cheek, but it seems that as the days go on, we find out that the IPCC stands for It’s Probably Concocted Crap.
The glaciers in the Himalayas, (Dr?) Golanky’s assessment of the economic models was pretty shocking, E.M. Smith points out that thermometers can migrate down from the mountains to more temperate altitudes, or down from Canada to more temperate latitudes, Mann finally admits to the MWP, the Hockey Cru was outed as collaborators to suppress scientific studies, Trenbreth’s travesty, then NOAA (or was it GISS?) admits that the cooling period was due to natural variation, which means that an amount of warming yet to be specified, due to lack of knowledge, has to be from natural variation, ultimately meaning that because climate models get the right answer with the wrong parameters, their output is pure junk. Oh yeah, and this thread too.
What legs are left to stand on? What case is there to be made that AGW is a real and viable concern? Because the January UAH anomaly says it is warm?
on top of this, hide-the decline and the glacier swindle, there is another, most significant IPCC chapter with massive manipulation, which every reader can verify for himself, even without climatescientific background.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/
Recently in our small time local newspaper which like most of the MSM has a pro AGW slant – one of the main journalists wrote a story about Bhola Island in Bangladesh. He wrote how half the island has been lost to rising sea levels due to climate change. When I pointed out that even the IPCC has said that sea levels in the Indian Ocean are rising by only 1.8mm per year and the island is disapearing due to other factors such as erosion and that this is quite normal in a delta landsacpe. He did not retract the statement – I guess it’s like when a jury hears a statement and it is withdrawn, it has been said and must influence your belief.
Dr. Goklany is absolutely correct, not only about the omissions in the IPCC 4th, but about the potential impacts of possible (though unlikely) global warming. In general, net global warming would lead to increase evaporation and hence increased rainfall, as well as longer growing seasons, increased bio-productivity, expanded ranges for plants and animals, and increased biodiversity.
In contrast, global cooling will lead to increased drought, shorter growing seasons, and large scale extinctions.
The proof is circumstantial. First, precipitation, bio-productivity, and biodiversity are greatest near the Equator and diminish toward the poles. Second, during past glaciations plants and animals have been extirpated from vast regions of the Northern Hemisphere.
Other negatives noted in Fig. SPM.2. are also lacking in scientific probity, and are likely to be positives in the unlikely event that the globe warms significantly in the near future.
No one who has studied paleoclimatology would disagree that the Ice Ages are not over, and that another glaciation is virtually assured. Signs of neoglaciation are evident, as the globe has cooled over the last 6 to 8,000 years. Those signs include desertification, paludification, and southward shifting boreal tree limits.
Global cooling is the real long-term disaster facing the Earth, now, and for the next 100,000 years.
IPCC = Insidious Pachauri & Craps Contingent?
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) :
Is there anything connected with the IPCC and it’s parent organization that is NOT a lie? Anything at all? Anyone?
I am not sure lie is the right word…. far too polite…. reading The big money story at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/big-money.html makes me think of a lot of stronger words which are not so polite!
It’s becoming clear that the necessary actions to solve most of our world problems would require very little effort but will not happen for one reason. Politicians and organizations like the UN and IPCC don’t care. They rather focus on their lust for short term power than to fix ling term problems. Otherwise, the problems would have been fixed a long time ago.
As far as I can see, nothing of any positive outcome that may result from human activity is allowed to be reported, or included in science papers. No benefit to plants from higher CO2 levels, nothing.
This is all in line with what many of us have commented on. “All human activity bad. All nature good”. Warming bad (because it’s anthropogenic). In the 70s, cooling bad (because it’s anthropogenic).
This alone should be a clue to many that something is wrong with the entire AGW hypothesis.
A very good job with this. Thanks. I hope it gets wide readership.
Communities in many countries learned how to supply water and treat sewage and the necessity of doing so. It takes a functioning government and lots of money and is easier in new growing communities than in older ones developed before infrastructure. The money being wasted by politicians on dubious schemes ought to be redirected and properly managed. The UN is incapable of doing this and should be bypassed as should all the petty money-grubbing dictators around the world.
Manfred (22:08:32) :
Point taken. My tirade is amended to include the following phrase:
“and the issue of bony clouds…” 😉
“Mike D. (22:09:05) :
Global cooling is the real long-term disaster facing the Earth, now, and for the next 100,000 years.”
Indeed. Is there any demontrable proof that there was scientific concensus that an iace age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.
As much as I’d like to, I find it hard to pin a whole lot of credibility on the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That kind of sullies anything that might be published there.
Mike D. (22:09:05) :
……… and southward shifting boreal tree limits.
Good points Mike, only don’t forget us Southern Hemispherians !
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) :
Is there anything connected with the IPCC and it’s parent organization that is NOT a lie? Anything at all? Anyone?
Well, they’ve been pretty consistent in saying Pachauri is a railroad engineer by trade — that should count for *something*…
Dr. Goklany nails it again, as he does in his stupendous book The Improving the State of the World. For anyone who’s interested in reading more about the subject of water, this guy has some interesting things to say, most of which I didnt know:
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/01/water-water-everywhere-nor-any-drop-to-drink/
Patrick Davis (22:34:05): Is there any demonstrable proof that there was scientific consensus that an ice age was on its way in the 1970’s?
I don’t know about scientific consensus, but an excellent book on the subject of neoglaciation is:
Pielou, E.C. 1991. After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America. Univ Chicago Press.
Dr. Pielou is the smartest woman in the world, IMHO. I am not positive that there are any men smarter than she, either.
I suspect the AGW cult has its response ready. Something along the lines of:
a) Global warming will mean black heat. This is heat that will change climate, but not evaporate water. So, we expect precipitation to decrease rather than increase.
b) CO2 in the atmosphere will not only trap heat but encourage water vapour to escape into space. So, we expect the planet to boil dry.
c) Global warming will cause water vapour to rise so high into the atmosphere that it’ll condense into snow flakes before falling to earth to cover close-to 40-year record amounts of the Northern Hemisphere in snow. The temperature drop that the snow will cause can be directly attributed to global warming.
Peter of Sydney (22:16:33) :
Put a socialist and a libertarian in the same room and ask them to agree on a solution. Now add a communist and a dictator. See the problem? I agree though that the #1 reason for the various “solutions: being proposed is “power and money.” It’s amazing how quickly the little guy gets forgotten about.
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
I don’t know about a scientific consensus, but there was a lot of media interest. Here are a few links to media reports from the 70s. Maybe they made it all up?
IPCC = Inventing Politically Convenient Catastrophes
Well if one reads “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring ?” Frank Wentz et al for SCIENCEW July 7 2007; they reported based on satellite observations that a 1 deg C rise in mean global temperatures, gave a 7% increase in precipitation. That usually translates into more water available worldwide. Well to be pedantic, they didn’t observe the whole of a degree rise, but that gives the right rate of increase in precipitation they observed.
Now if one wants to bet that all of that extra water and maybe some more is going to move away from people, and hence satisfy the IIIIPCC predction; excuse me projection, then I would say you have a better crystal ball than most.
“Now, Google’s pièce de résistance of hypocrisy: Climategate. In a January 16th article in the National Post entitled “Better off with Bing”, Lawrence Solomon documents a devastating statistical account of how Google censored news accounts of Climategate.
Has Google invested heavily in “green” anti global warming technologies? Google has close ties with Al Gore and Obama. Anyone looking for information on Climategate is directed to links critical of Climategate and no suggestions for it. Rather than doing injustice to the great work of Lawrence Solomon by trying to recount the specifics, I would direct you to the article itself. Better to cut and past the link as I would advise not using Google to look for it.”
Who’s Watching the Climategate Gatekeepers?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/whos_watching_the_climategate.html
“NEW DELHI (AFP) – India’s environment minister slammed the UN’s top climate body in comments published Tuesday, claiming its doomsday warning about Himalayan glaciers was not based on “scientific evidence.””
Indian minister slams UN body on Glacier Research
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100119/wl_asia_afp/indiaenvironmentglacierswarmingun
George Orwell once said;
The biggest lies are the lies of omission.
tokyoboy (22:15:33) :
IPCC = Insidious Pachauri & Craps Contingent?
How about:
IPCC = Instigating Profitable Climate Consensus
I have to say that MSM seems to be taking this on board at last The Australian is quite angry with the Ice story… It was headlined yesterday and commented extensively today. They reckon its more harmful to AGW than climategate!. I think the Coleman Video 4 is by far the most damming. WE shall see. Prediction in 12 months time AGW will not been an issue and there will be no 13th IPCC report in 2013.
If only The Team had not done what they did, they would be highly respected scientists. Who knows.. they may have been correct to some extent…The outlook now is quite bleak for them…
Creating jobs out of thin air (CO2) is becoming problematic. Unwinding a $200+ billion dollar industry is not going to be easy. Once these bureaucracies are created, it’s very difficult to un-make them. We need to have an extensive study and post on this issue. I am hoping for many articles on the subject.
“The European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime, according to a December 9 statement issued by European police. Europol, an EU-wide criminal intelligence agency similar to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, says bogus trading at the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has exceeded €5 billion (U.S.$7 billion) over the past 18 months alone. Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent.”
Climategate: European Carbon Credit Trading System Plagued by Fraud
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/
“Mike D. (23:26:09) :”
Thanks for your response, I will look in to that.
“greg2213 (23:46:18) :
I don’t know about a scientific consensus, but there was a lot of media interest. Here are a few links to media reports from the 70s. Maybe they made it all up?”
Thanks for the links, and the media have been running “bad weather” doom stories since the late 18th century, so no know there is no news there. I am also fully aware of the media hype back then as well as actually being up north in the UK during those cold weather spells. And it sure was cold. Even during the power strikes in the ’70’s too, no electricity, we had parafin lams/heaters and an open fire fortunately, but still, waking up in the mornings to a cold house (No such thing as central heating and double glasing for my family then).
So the myth of a scientific concensus on an approaching ice age is likely true.
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) : 18/01
It has taken me quite a bit of research, but I think I am safe in asserting that the page numbering in the IPCC Assessment Report appears to be correct.
From the Daily Express today:
TAXPAYERS FOOT BILL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CAMPAIGNERS
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners
Brussels bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5m of taxpayers’ money last year
January 19, 2010
BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.
The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe – more than half the pressure group’s 2009 budget.
The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas insisted that the groups’ aims and objectives were in tune with EU policy.
***************************************************************************
…My taxes at work. Now you have to pay taxes to have groups lobby for more taxes on everything based on the biggest scientific fraud in history, and pay for useless landscape-destroying bird-shredders to smother our country at the same time. This is the financial equivalent of paying someone to rob you. Only the useless corrupt EU could invent this situation.
IPCC = Insidious Propaganda Corrupting Children
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
Indeed. Is there any demonstrable proof that there was scientific consensus that an ice age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.
I don’t know about consensus, but then nature doesn’t care about consensus. Here are a few stories about 1970s fears of ice age.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945635,00.html
http://www.almanac.com/sites/new.almanac.com/files/1895_cvr1_0.png
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061024143134.aspx
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592803/part_2/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/time-announces-approaching-ice-age/
“Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
“Mike D. (22:09:05) :
Indeed. Is there any demonstrable proof that there was scientific consensus that an ice age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.”
…I am not surprised you have heard it’s a myth. The global warming worshipers have been busy trying to rewrite this part of climate-scare history. If you are interested, here is a summary of their activities.
***************************************************************************
[Reply: uh kate, next time post an excerpt and a link mkay? I’ll help you just this one time. ~ ctm.
Thursday 10 December 2009
Same fears, different name?
Maurizio Morabito uncovers a 1974 CIA report showing that the ‘scientific consensus’ then was that the world was cooling.
Maurizio Morabito
Panic about climate change is not an entirely contemporary phenomenon. In fact, 40 years ago, some scientists were similarly fearful about an impending climate catastrophe. The world would be harmed and life would become harsh, we were told. Policies were drawn up to deal with the coming change, and the scientists crossed their fingers. But there is one vital difference between the panic then and the panic now. It wasn’t global warming that was concerning scientists 40 years ago; it was global cooling.
This revelation comes from a recently unearthed 1974 CIA report. Because of this we now know that a large number of scientists really were convinced that world temperatures were on the way down. The only uncertainty centred around the strength and duration of the upcoming cooling of the planet. Yet this apparent consensus around global cooling, so prevalent during the 1970s, seems to have been erased from history. Why?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/7817/
…ok I helped]
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it
Of course we can do soemthing but it would require the combined efforts of all countries on a massive scale to reduce our greenhouse emissions by say 50% over the next say 50 years. We have some of the technology now and we can develop news one later, but we don’t have the will power to do it. Instead governments and big business create scams to increase their power and get richer. Otherwise, we would have had world peace a very long time ago. Think about this. If man wasn’t so greedy for power and money, we’d probably be traveling to the stars using faster than light technologies by now, and populated countless planets. Instead we have wasted our time fighting wars over the centuries for what? Small pieces of land that wouldn’t even add up to the same surface area of a small moon. Yes, man is sure dumb.
“rogerthesurf (01:44:06) :
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)”
The term “porky” usually refers to someone who is a bit, errrrmmm, rotund, chubby etc. The term “porkies” is “slang” for “pork pies”, or lies. Tony Bliar will be well used to that term by now.
Sorry for posting another OT comment but our Fearless Leader and his minions are getting seriously scary.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/regulatory-czar-cass-sunstein-spends-30.html
Genius: Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein spends 30 pages describing how government should suppress free speech without mentioning First Amendment
President Obama’s Regulatory Czar is a well-known law professor named Cass Sunstein, who regularly exhibits a troubling disregard for the Constitution. Last year Sunstein co-authored a 30-page paper on the government’s obligations to combat conspiracy theories (i.e., free speech). Among the “conspiracy theories” that Sunstein would have the government rebut:
• “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”
..we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories.
Our Constitutional Law professor President and his Law professor Regulatory Czar both appear both appear to have been sick on the day back when they were attending law school when the Bill of Rights was covered
Adding to R. Pielke Sr. citation:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/19/Top-12-Mercola-Predictions-That-Came-True-Part-1-of-4.aspx
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher known for his philosophical clarity. In my view he has made one of the most valuable observations on the shifting of human views on truth as he stated that all truth goes through three steps:
1. First, it is ridiculed. (e.g. Creationists, Flat Earthers, Deniers)
2. Second, it is violently opposed.
3. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident
I guess these three steps apply only if science was not fraudulent or fraudulent science is supportetd by bad politicians.
‘A day after it emerged that IPCC’s dire prediction that climate change would melt most Himalyan glaciers by 2035 was based on mere “speculation”, environment minister Jairam Ramesh slammed the processes of the celebrated body saying “due diligence had not been followed by the Nobel peace prize winning body”.’
from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms
The importance of this finding cannot be exagerated. One of the most important tenets of the Stern report was that we have to spend billions now to prevent future damage that would cost far more. Part of that conclusion would have been based on the very large economic damage that climate change was supposed to have on the availability of fresh water.
If I was Stern, I would feel the need to rip the report up, toss it in the garbage where it belongs and start again.
Whenever I’ve wanted to cut short a debate with an alarmist, I’ve asked if there are any “benefits” of GW. That usually stops them in their tracks.
The IPCC may have a defence in that their brief was never to study climate, but man’s effects on climate.
“The climate is warming, we can only deduce that it’s CO2 thats doing it”.
What about Clouds and WV?
“We don’t know enough about those so it can’t be them”.
What about the sun?
“We don’t know enough……..”
What about the oceans?
“We don’t………….”
“What about aerosols?
“we don’t………….”
Well what the hell do you know?
“It was CO2 what dunn it”
Galen Haugh,
“That they are lead by a charismatic, authoritarian leader (Gore comes to mind, but there are many others soaking up the lime light) completes the definition.”
You must be thinking of charismatic Gordon Broon and charismatic Kevin Rudd. There’s also charismatic Pachauri and charismatic Ben “beat the crap outta him” Santer.
I wonder if this is a title. You know, when they meet does the conversation go something like “Good morning charismatic Brown, it’s good to see you.”
“Thank you charismatic Obama. I’ve brought along my sidekick, charismatic Millipede.”
“Right, he’s the one that’s been saying it’s socially unacceptable to be against windfarms – welcome aboard charismatic Millipede.”
Dear Indur, I agree it’s more insidious than the glaciers – but it’s also more complicated. It’s not as simple as saying “look, the number 2035 in the IPCC report was complete bogus obtained from a trash bin and okayed by 2500 irresponsible would-be scientists”. So your story is not equally catchy for that reason – and it probably needs some P.R. and simplification to make it equally catchy…
Re Googlegate.
I know this is a bit OT., But Bing has this on their search page.
It seems more likely that Hell freezes over…
…but which city had snow for the first and only time today in 1977?
http://www.bing.com/?scope=video&FORM=Z9LH1
The world is turning, and if it keeps on at this rate, it will eventually be upside down, with the formerly “fringe” publications and pundits wearing the crown of credibility, and the former MSM gatekeepers deposed. The risk of this happening was not taken into account by the herd of independent minds who constitute today’s “anointed” opinion leaders.
Michael (00:42:34) :
Untangling the bureaucracies could be fun. I think every organization who has received govt funds to promote AGW should have funds frozen, pending clarification of bona fides, and then clawed back (regardless of bona fides!). All traders in carbon credits likewise should be stripped of there illgotten gains and every buyer and seller of carbon credits have funds adjusted to as near as neutral as possible. Someone is going to get hurt, obviously, but a lot less than if this scam is allowed to continue.
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
The coming Ice Age of the 70’s was nothing more than a geologic cycle-based prediction. It’s no different than saying that California is overdue for the Big One or that Yellowstone is overdue for the MegaVolcano.
We are in an interglacial, and the big question is when will it end and what will be the unmistakable signs of it ending?
We now know what the signs of an impending volcanic eruption are, but only when the magma has started to move.
We don’t know that much about earthquakes and we don’t know any more about when the next Ice Age will be. Some were able to predict the Deep Solar Minimum we entered, and they predict SC 25 will be even lower.
The IPCC is playing games with Wild ArmWaving Guesses, and they go downhill very fast from there. They will try to morph back into the Ice Age game, flip-flopping along with much doubletalk and deception.
I don’t get what this article is complaining about. The first point in Figure SPM.2 posits increased water availability. The description of the figure says it’s illustrative, the top of the figure says impacts will vary. The detail of Chapter 3 discusses the range of possibilities.
Frankly, this article is clutching at straws. I expect the author is not experienced at reading summaries for policy makers. Policy makers know better how to read things.
Perhaps the writer of this piece is all for decimation of people living in areas that suffer water stress? (Forget about them, there’ll be some places with more than enough water – it’ll all balance out.)
The logic seams quite simple. Surely, water shortages are the result of poverty not global warming. Poverty is increased through a lack of development. Development means using more energy.
Peter of Sydney (02:20:03) :
But if CO2 is irrelevant to global temperatures, as it seems to be turning out to be, that would achieve nothing anyway. In which case, the correct answer is “No”.
If we, as a species, were not driven to such activities, the chances are we would still be banging rocks together. This very behaviour trait is what got us to the moon 2/3 of a century after the first powered flight. And why did we get there less than a decade after deciding to? Because the US was scared that the USSR would get there first.
‘Nuff said.
KeithGuy (04:17:05) :
Could not agree more.
Additionally, the real problem we will face is over-population. The only known humane way to prevent this is increased wealth. The only know way to secure this is energy. Spain, for example, has proved well that vast amounts of gold and gems make you rich for a short time. England has shown that energy (coal in their case) makes you rich for centuries.
very OT, but something I find fascinating is that those with some of the largest stocks of energy, in the middle east, are selling it for instant profit rather than using it to generate a secure basis for future wealth. I may be wrong, but after going there I don’t think I am. What will they do when the oil runs out?
Sou (03:48:29),
So your answer is “it’ll all balance out”? Not too helpful.
The basic problem is, as always, the form of government. Countries with governments that allow the free market to flourish unimpeded have no water shortages. The pricing mechanism assures water availability: if water is in short supply, the price rises to a point where it is profitable to supply water, and the shortage disappears.
This applies to the water shortages in parts of Australia and California, as well as in Ethiopia. When politics are involved with water allocation [or allocation of any resources], it means the government decides who gets the available water. That decision is based on special interests and vote counting. The result is the mis-allocation of available resources, and people being billed for water who get no benefit from it.
The free market sometimes entails what Schumpeter called “creative destruction,” in which inefficiencies are swept away. The result is maximum efficiency through the best allocation of resources. It is much superior to government interference, which results, for example, in an ossified bureaucracy overseeing the Las Vegas desert being turned green and vastly overpopulated by suburbanites, at the expense of taxpayers thousands of miles away, rather than those who benefit from the water.
Googlegate!
Its funny that when you get to big and influential you get korrupted.Many have wondrered what could bring Google down and loose its marketleading roll.
Well this censorship will!! Google has proven to be korrupted in a way that gives cold shills.Control of the internet instead of its freedom is what Google is delivering.Ive changed search engine.Hope you all will follow.They embasseled our confidence in them.
” Peter of Sydney (02:20:03) :
[…]
Of course we can do soemthing but it would require the combined efforts of all countries on a massive scale to reduce our greenhouse emissions by say 50% over the next say 50 years.”
…and it would be completely futile nevertheless because CO2 is not the main climate driver. Would you really want to waste all these resources? Because that’s what it would be: a complete waste. You promote a gargantuan waste.
Sou (03:48:29) :
The figure shows increased water in the tropics, decreased water in the mid-high latitudes, and hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress. It does not mention the additional hundreds of millions with reduced water stress. I don’t see where it’s a stretch to call that out.
Smokey (04:56:14) :
One can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of a “free” market, but I don’t see how you can say “The basic problem is, as always, the form of government. Countries with governments that allow the free market to flourish unimpeded have no water shortages.” Australia is one of the more free markets out there and they’ve had water shortage issues in areas. Russia’s is relatively restrictive and has limited water shortage issues. I don’t think the type of government matters all that much in comparison to the people that run the government or the society that backs them.
Smokey, you misread me. I think the article is much ado about nothing (have you read it and my comment properly? Have you looked at the relevant parts of the IPCC report? Perhaps you really believe that ‘free market’ trumps all and forget about getting water to those most in need.).
The article is a furphy, it doesn’t even mention the very top line of the figure to which it refers. The writer of the article makes an erroneous assumption about the nature of the chart. Policy makers would not make the same assumption but would recognise the chart for exactly what it is, an illustration of important points, including, as the figure states, some areas will get more water but there is a likelihood that many people would also suffer increased water loss.
It’s not me who’s saying it will all balance out. I was surmising that the writer of the article up top of this page seemed to think so and appears to regard as trivial the fact that many people will be at risk of severe water shortage (eg along the rivers fed by glaciers). I don’t think this is trivial at all.
Another thoughtful posting by Indur Goklany.
And if @Sou (03:48:29) “don’t get what this article is complaining about” then you have to feel sorry for him. So it is OK for the IPCC to put out this kind of alarmist bullshit because “Policy makers know better how to read things”.
Really? So how come all the “policy makers” have fallen for all this AGW crap, then? And are using it as an excuse to tax our asses off?
You’ll be telling us next that all the journalists who read 4AR will have carefully check the IPCC’s claims before they rushed to print the next shock horror ‘worse than we thought’ doom prediction.
sou = small worthless coin.
You got it in one.
I think some of us are looking at this wrong. I see the next crisis we will have to deal with once AGW is dead. These people aren’t stupid. They are greedy and megalomaniacs, but they are not stupid. So they see the future and know the AGW gravy train won’t last forever. So time to start making another crisis. The next global crisis which will be our fault will the lack of potable water. We will be asked to pay up because potable water is in short supply. When that crisis is proven a lie, then another crisis will be made up. A tiger can’t change its stripes, a leopard can’t change its spots, and these people can’t change who they are. They will find some great cause to bilk us out of money and liberty. They will live fat and rich, we will live in misery due to the global communism but the masses will thank them for saving us from ourselves.
The major proponents of AGW want money and power and they want to appear righteous while getting it. They will always find a new disaster we need to be saved from. The water crisis will be the next one in the line.
David Stockwell showed that Australia’s CSIRO report warning of increased drought was backwards. Testing against historical data showed increasing rainfall was predicted as increasing drought by the CSIRO’s models.
See Stockwell’s Drought Exceptional Circumstances thread at Niche Modelling
David Stockwell emphasizes issues of statistical errors in: the Ten Commandments of Statistics
@ JER0ME (04:29:40) :
Peter of Sydney (02:20:03) :
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it
Of course we can do soemthing but it would require the combined efforts of all countries on a massive scale to reduce our greenhouse emissions by say 50% over the next say 50 years. We have some of the technology now and we can develop news one later, but we don’t have the will power to do it.
But if CO2 is irrelevant to global temperatures, as it seems to be turning out to be, that would achieve nothing anyway. In which case, the correct answer is “No”.
If man wasn’t so greedy for power and money, we’d probably be traveling to the stars using faster than light technologies by now, and populated countless planets. Instead we have wasted our time fighting wars over the centuries for what? Small pieces of land that wouldn’t even add up to the same surface area of a small moon. Yes, man is sure dumb.
If we, as a species, were not driven to such activities, the chances are we would still be banging rocks together. This very behaviour trait is what got us to the moon 2/3 of a century after the first powered flight. And why did we get there less than a decade after deciding to? Because the US was scared that the USSR would get there first.
‘Nuff said.
———————————————————–
Just to add a bit to this: Competition – including mortal competition between and among species for reproductive rights, territory, resources, etc. is an essential ingredient to the evolution of all life. This includes plants, insects, and even bacteria.
Given that the IPCC was set up to promote AGW and the means to combat it, is this really much of a surprise?
Much more of a problem than the IPCC’s inherent and unashamed partiality is that Governments around the world pretend the IPCC is impartial when from the ground up, from day one, from within the very genes of the unit, it is a lobby group with an ideology to push and using the weight of carefully selected science to do it. Meta-analysis of only some of the available science (through cherry picking and the CRU/Mann style gaming of peer-review) has led to an incorrect conclusion.
You see a summary of Arnell’s table and a map of areas with increased/reduced water stress at:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/waterstress.html
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/16/lawrence-solomon-better-off-with-bing.aspx#ixzz0d3sEnOnY
KeithGuy (04:17:05) :
Spain, for example, has proved well that vast amounts of gold and gems make you rich for a short time. England has shown that energy (coal in their case) makes you rich for centuries.
The wealth of England is/was mainly founded on stealing the said “gold and gems” from Spain as they transported their “booty” from the Americas.
Imagine the Bank of England as being a repository for all that “stolen” wealth. Impregnable. Surrounded on all sides by a moat, defended by a huge fleet of war ships and a large, well equipped, standing army. Imagine a fleet of veracious licensed Privateers out on the oceans with a remit to stock that bank from any source authorised by the crown.
Coal is OK but …
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
In his book, Heaven and Earth (p. 18), Plimer lists three books from the 70’s that discuss the anticipated global cooling. So I expect that the idea had attained some degree of prominence in the scientific community. The books are:
S. Schneider and L. E. Mesirow (1977). The Genesis Strategy
L. Ponte (1975). The Cooling. Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?
C. Tickell (1977). Climate Change and World Affairs
In line with the quote above, recently, I saw an article in the Skeptical Inquirer that tried to show that the global cooling consensus was a myth. By my recollection, it was through some sort of reference count. But, of course, in normal science, given a complex, poorly understood field, one does not expect to find a “consensus”. So I found the article disingenuous.
So what? Who is doing anything about these people? It certainly didn’t hurt Mann being involved with these scam artists. Anyone of any importance calling for these folks to resign? Most of us can’t do squat about this but support people and sites that expose them. But, until there is a change in the people in power-lots of luck. Even the Republicans stood back with shrugged shoulders. Not many Tom Paine type folks around.
nice post.
This is one of my pet peeves of climate science. The damage caused by water changes is completely unknown. We really don’t know what will happen yet it’s all doom and gloom.
With that said, there was recently great fanfare when it was proven that there is more water in the air when the temperatures go up. Just for a moment, consider how stupid that is. The planet is 70% covered with water, not 50% not 5%, 70%!!
We all know that warmer air holds more water, it would be completely backwards to assume it would be otherwise. So then we have warmer more humid air on average floating over our heads – what conclusion do we get – DROUGHT!!!
It’s stupid.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed AGW news for years. We have seen “warmest period in 10,000 year” wittled to 2,000… then 1,000… and now “wow, look at the increase since 1970!”, and so on.
It is no small irony that as time goes on the AGW crowd is increasingly distancing themselves from temperature periods more meaningful to discussions of climate while speaking increasingly about weather anomalies.
Their breast beating over a skeptic’s audacity to point out that it is snowing in Australia in the middle of the summer is simply classic psychological projection on their part.
The wamists biggest fear the one they go to bed at night with is:Healthy, happy,
independent,_prosperous_dark skinned people.
Split Atoms, not birds…
An example of how lopsided and unbalanced is the IPCC report can be found in the table entry for food production. It highlights reduced food production with temperature at certain lattitudes, but doesn’t include the increased crop yields known to occur with higher CO2 levels.
Obviously, it was written for policy makers and other simpletons, but it is clearly designed to show every negative aspect with the exclusion of any positives, just as Indur has said.
Yet Indur is being too kind just pointing out the omissions. It’s not only what has been left out that needs addressing, its what has been put in. What it portrays is so ludicrous it wouldn’t even be accepted as a work of believable science fiction let alone a serious report.
There will come a time when the world will look back on this period as a watershed moment when humanity became completely delusional. Exhibits such as this IPCC report will be top of the reading list for all students, as testimony to the level of utter stupidity and idiocy to which the human race is capable of falling.
Galen Haugh (20:35:37) :
OT but consider this: I’ve not seen the “Warmists” described as a “cult” but that is an accurate description. The definition of “cult” can be found as:
“A system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader”
—–
I’ve read more than a definition of cults, but have forgotten the title of the excellent book I read years ago. But well-remembered lessons from this book confirm what you say.
Cults involve more than just religious or spiritual beliefs. Universally, they also involve parting followers from their former life-style, and imposing upon followers the obligation to part with large sums of money (not the weekly pittance most participants give to their churches or synagogues voluntarily); finally, the charismatic leader is intent on acquiring control over the lives of followers. It’s a power thing. The IPCC? Check, check, and check.
A good alternative to Google is Bing. I switched to Bing a month ago and have found it to be an adequate alternative to Google. No need to patronize a company that supports Gore, which is what Google does.
My education continues – I attempted to read the Stern report, and part way through began to wonder why and how people like him get into positions of authority. If a 1st year Social Sciences student handed such stuff in he would be asked check his sources for veracity. I didn’t finish reading it as the further I went the less it actually made sense. Do politicians actually believe this sort of stuff, or do they just find it useful to prop up their own shady agendas?
My scepticism is becoming dangerously close to cynicism!
@ Rereke Whakaaro (01:24:03) :
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) : 18/01
It has taken me quite a bit of research, but I think I am safe in asserting that the page numbering in the IPCC Assessment Report appears to be correct.
—————————————————-
Whew! Thank you for that. I was beginning to lose faith in the IPCC, et al. This sure makes me feel better. 😉
In another time, without the lie-destroying power of the ability to communicate freely through the internet, the IPCC would have had us all in chains by now, taxed to the eyeballs to support climate reparation.
Off topic, but here’s a link to a story in Canada’s National Post that’s a brand new twist on another catastrophe caused by climate change: mental health problems.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2456777
Can kidney stones and warts be far off as afflictions caused by climate change?
Futher to my above post, we also have a large section on precipitation reconstruction on our web site. The IPCC TAR4 has little information (one very small graph) on how well the models do. It appears that they are not very good either on a decadal level or at shorter time steps.
http://www.climatedata.info/Precipitation/reconstruction.html
The truth shall set you free (of Barrie Harrop).
@Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
Of course there was no consensus, real scientists don’t do consensus.
“Galen Haugh (07:19:48) :
A good alternative to Google is Bing. I switched to Bing a month ago and have found it to be an adequate alternative to Google. No need to patronize a company that supports Gore, which is what Google does.”
Bing’s my search engine.Seems to actually answer the inquires with what you are looking for,not the negatives first.
Oh, correction to my above post: Douglas DC (06:51:27) :-it is” Warmists” no spell-checker for that word, didn’t have enough coffee…
The IPCC is no diferent than any other government agency, commission, board, or ‘fact finding’ investigation. The truth is always perverted and twisted to emphesize the points the boys (and now girls) in the smokey back room want to emphesize. This is one of the fundamental laws of human interaction (nature). The biggest factor affecting the folks at the local, state, federal, and UN levels is distance. Very similar to the Laws of Science regarding gravity, the farther (higher and bigger) the government activity is from the source of power (the people, the masses) the less the restraints on responsible action and truth. At the heavenly level of the UN and its minions, there is little or no restraint, there is nearly total freedom of action. (In other words, the UN is absolutely free to do and say whatever the boys and girls in the back room want to do and say as long as some governments approve and enough supernational corporations don’t mind or actually support the plot.)
The United Nations in its current configuration is absolutely worthless and quite dangerous to the “Will of the People” of this little blue marble.
More investigation into the consequences of AGW needs to be made. The skeptic community has mainly questioned the science behind AGW. Well, if you think this is bad, wait until you look at the “science” behind the consequences of AGW. This is where the political class has had free reign to misinform.
Related to this posting is the idea of “water wars”. Below are some contrary articles some showing that shared water resources have promoted peace!!!
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Water-War-Peace-Conflict-Negotiations-Hope.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7886646.stm
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol3/article3-2.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458282a.html
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_truth_about_water_wars/
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/NavigatingPeaceIssue1.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2215263/
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v022/22.2dinar.html
http://www.rips.or.jp/english/seminars/indias_policy.html
O/T – New article in the Guardian 19 Jan 2010 14.30 UTC:
Obama faces emissions U-turn with new Congress challenge
Comments highly predicatable !!!
US National Academy of Sciences at least has a guide as to how scientists should conduct themselves. The UK Royal Society scientific academy has zilch.
It’s motto “Nullius in verba” apparently means “Take nobody’s word for it”.
They interpret it as an expression of its enduring commitment to empirical evidence as the basis of knowledge about the natural world.
We read.
They probably couldn’t afford Avatar.
http://royalsociety.org/Tate-Modern-Climate-Symposium/
Funding.
68.2% comes from Parliamentary Grant in Aid, provided for specific projects and programmes.
This is an error, based not on blunders or poor scholarship but on selective reporting of results, where one side of the story is highlighted but the other side is buried in silence.
That’s the kind of thing which first really “flipped” me about 7 years ago as to whether the ipcc was doing real Science: “where the hell were the benefits of GW, regardless of cause?” It only got worse from there.
“”” Rereke Whakaaro (01:24:03) :
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) : 18/01
It has taken me quite a bit of research, but I think I am safe in asserting that the page numbering in the IPCC Assessment Report appears to be correct. “””
Well Kiwi Mate; it is too early in the morning for you to be so astute an observer; but when you are that far flung; you have to speak loudly; or nobody would ever notice.
But I concur with your research results, so I think you are on to something.
Haere mae !
“Just to add a bit to this: Competition – including mortal competition between and among species for reproductive rights, territory, resources, etc. is an essential ingredient to the evolution of all life. This includes plants, insects, and even bacteria.”
I don’t think so. It is now fully insane to continue killing in the name of ‘freedom’ and resources. How absurd the above comment truly is. In a natural state, perhaps, it is so. Humans, the supposed most ‘intelligent’ species are truly NOT using intelligence MOST of the time. When PROFITS are large and easy to come by, by selling air, creating ‘money’ out of air, pulling oil from the ground that really should belong to everyone, etc., intelligence and humanitarian ideas go out the window.
We WASTE an enormous amount of resources… little POS happy meal toys–millions of them made and end up in the waste pile very quickly… so, where do all those resources come from? Every year new cell phones, like the ones we have now aren’t enough. Human ignorance must end; however, the indoctrination centers and the idiot box have control for now, so that hope looks relatively dismal.
Humans should respect other species of life and allow for wildlands and the like… without other species, this world would be a cesspool and uninhabitable by humans… other life forms DO a job for this planet even if it is just picking dead carcasses, it serves a purpose. Right NOW human greed is the driver, not the advancement of our race/planet and the protection of what we currently have.
Let me be clear… “How absurd the above comment truly is. In a natural state, perhaps, it is so”
In a natural state minus the supposed intellect of the human mind.
“Marlene Anderson (07:35:53) :
…….
Can kidney stones and warts be far off as afflictions caused by climate change?”
If they can do research which shows koalas are affetced by chemical changes in eucalyptus leaves then I can do research that shows increased temperature and carbon dioxide affect the chemicals in rhubarb, oxalic acid metabolism, making kidney stones more likely.
http://www.rhubarbinfo.com/rhubarb-poison.html
Send grant money to …
cheers David
Smokey,
I always read your posts, I don’t always agree but as my name implies,, please, don.t stop !
Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink,
if I was a trucker taking gasoline from point A to point B for $100 a trip and I was offered a contract to transport water to the same A/B for $200 a trip I would still haul gasoline at $100 a trip, why ? Because those at point A will have to buy my gasoline to go to point B to buy water, that makes about as much sense as the IPCC….
If I was the Chief Indian in charge of this fiasco I would be looking for a new pair of moccasins .
Pascvaks,
“The United Nations in its current configuration is absolutely worthless and quite dangerous to the “Will of the People” of this little blue marble.”
Well, isn’t the UN the brainchild of Stalin and Roosevelt?
KDK (09:31:31) :
You make interesting points about a (not my term here) disposable society. I agree with these points. Even if the resources are replaceable, it just does not make much sense to waste things. I had a cell phone for three years, and by the time it finally flipped open into eternity, the phones available to replace it were ten times as advanced, I would even go so far as to call them palmtops.
That said, most of the rest of that post was a rant and the idea that we no longer have to compete with nature for our resources could very well be our undoing.
Marlene Anderson (07:35:53) :
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Kidney stones are there but not warts.
Could be a neat source of grant money to search a link between AGW & warts. 😉
DaveE.
Thank you for another outstanding post Dr Goklany. Omissions and half-truths are the most subtle and hardest forms of propaganda to detect.
Dave F: The term ‘rant’ should not be used whenever someone expresses views that many others truly have forgotten. We are part of NATURE to be sure, and we are NOT above nature, as many religions would like you to believe.
Humans are very inventive and could do many things we do differently with the same or BETTER results; however, that would make profits less–a sin these days.
Another rant: Public Corporations ARE one of the biggest criminal enterprises ever created. I believe private corporations are more involved in their products and customers and drive industry… not just PROFIT over and above ALL else.
Again… humans are but ONE species on this planet… ONE among many.
I’m not going to debate with you, so this is my last reply on the subject. It was my opinion… my point is: every decision humans make should take into consideration all factors, not just the profit factor.
@ KDK (09:31:31) :
You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but you should take a longer (and larger) view. Unless, of course, you believe that the current human family is the final and ultimate intelligent species in the evolutionary story of this planet? Or perhaps that we evolved elsewhere and are not native to Earth?
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
“Indeed. Is there any demontrable proof that there was scientific concensus that an iace age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.”
I can’t say whether there was a scientific consensus on the 1970s ice age predictions, there and again the alarmists’ claims for a modern consensus on AGW are dubious.
That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth.
You could turn it around and say that there’s no doubt there’s a latter day warming scare, but that there’s a true scientific consensus, is a myth.
I remember it was the subject of TV programs, books and articles in New Scientist etc. Certainly, professional scientists were talking about it. There was nothing like the song and dance being made over AGW. As far as I’m aware, there was no substantial legislation and taxation based on it.
I recall it was presented as a natural process, not something we were causing and had
to feel guilty about. Scared, yes, but not guilty. There were some wacky proposals for combating it.
I found this
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/09/unearthed-video-global-warming-alarmist-warned-of-ice-age-in-1970s.html
OK, it’s “In Search Of….”. Stephen Schneider appears in it.
KDK,
“Right NOW human greed is the driver, not the advancement of our race/planet and the protection of what we currently have.”
Well, what is greed? What role does it play in society? This is an interesting topic, but I think greed is overrated, and is often used as a catch all.
Are people that buy the latest iPhone acting out of greed? If this is the case, how is that bad? They have to spend their income on something, if not iPhones then what?
Are people who build industries greedy? If so what should they do with their energies instead and how would that help the world?
Are people who dive into a stock market causing bubbles acting out of greed? Or is it fear of missing an opportunity? And if the market corrects how does that harm the world?
In short, the idea that humans possess this flaw called “greed” that is destroying the world is overplayed and probably naive. The bottom line is, you either have industrial/technological progress or you have stasis and probably even worse enviromental despoilment. As someone once pointed out, it is the least developed societies that impose the greatest burdens on their ecosystems, not the most developed. Greed doesn’t even come into it.
“”” KDK (09:31:31) :
“Just to add a bit to this: Competition – including mortal competition between and among species for reproductive rights, territory, resources, etc. is an essential ingredient to the evolution of all life. This includes plants, insects, and even bacteria.”
I don’t think so. It is now fully insane to continue killing in the name of ‘freedom’ and resources. How absurd the above comment truly is. In a natural state, perhaps, it is so. Humans, the supposed most ‘intelligent’ species are truly NOT using intelligence MOST of the time. When PROFITS are large and easy to come by, by selling air, creating ‘money’ out of air, pulling oil from the ground that really should belong to everyone, etc., intelligence and humanitarian ideas go out the window.
We WASTE an enormous amount of resources… little POS happy meal toys–millions of them made and end up in the waste pile very quickly… “””
Hey take it easy when you fling around that “WE” catch all there pardner. Some of us object very strongly to being called WE, and included in whatever shenanigans , that some of “WE” might be up to.
For the record “I” do not waste “an enormous amount of resources”,as you blithely assert.
To be more specific, “I” do not even waste (“an enormous amount of resources”)/”WE”, which would be my fair share to waste in your Communist Utopia.
“I” don’t grab a half inch stack of recycled paper napkins to add to my lunch tray in the cafeteria; then leave virtually all of them, as I scoop my uneaten leftovers into the trash. “I” take one (1) recycled paper napkin, with my lunch, and in the common event that it survives my lunch enjoyment, and isn’t sopping wet with a little water spill, that napkin goes in my pocket, to be used to blow my nose for as long as it sanitarily can do that, at which point it is disposed of in some proper container far from the cafeteria. And as for sweeping my uneaten orts into the cafeteria trash can; there simply is no such thing as uneaten food on my plate. Not even the core of an apple survives its encounter with me. And that saves me beaucoup moolah, since I simply buy apples by the pound ignoring size grading, which raises the price. It all gets eaten, so what does it matter how big or small any individual apple is; the skin ? Can’t say I’ve ever run across that; apple is apple !
It seems many people have ideas what every body else should do. I say:- “Lead by example”
You do it, and if it looks good to me; maybe I’ll do it; otherwise forget it.
So KDK, who is going to provide you with your essential needs after PROFITS are finally expunged from Human existence; and why should they do something so unproductive, for someone or something that evidently is just taking up space needed by “WE”.
Re
Manfred (22:08:32) :
on top of this, hide-the decline and the glacier swindle, there is another, most significant IPCC chapter with massive manipulation, which every reader can verify for himself, even without climatescientific background.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/
Perhaps that article needs more coverage NOW, as the current Media “climate” (pun intended) is more in favour of looking at the Facts of Mannipulation and publishing them.
Well it’s good to know we no longer have to compete for reproductive rights.
Does anyone have Drew Barrymore’s number handy?
The Australian Weather Bureau in their summary for 2009 and the noughties highlighted the claim that it was the hottest decade on record and that 2009 the second hotest year. This is alarming in hot, dry Australia.
What they and the media virtually hid was the fact that it was the second wettest decade on record!!!
Go figure, is this science or propaganda!
“KDK (11:18:58) :
[…]
I’m not going to debate with you,…”
At least HE/SHE/IT knows HIS/HER/ITS weaknesses.
“”” Roger Knights (12:00:52) :
Wade (05:43:28) :
A tiger can’t change its stripes, a leopard can’t change its spots,
Al Gore:
A zebra cannot change its spots.
(From The Stupidest Things Ever Said by Politicians, p. 54 “””
Well fair go there old chap; if I was a zebra, it’s for bloody sure that I would prefer some spots to others. I’m partial to nice cool spots, under an acacia tree, of maybe a fig tree, that’s actually safer, because the monkeys up the fig tree assure me that the leopard isn’t up there with them. And if a flash flood should wash away my favorite fig tree spot; its for damn sure I’m going to find a new better one; than just standing out in the open like all those dumb ones out there watching the lions coming for them.
Its the headlines and the :10 second soundbites that get the most play in this massive Public Relations Campaign called AGW. No one, except the most priviledged, reads the UNIPCC reports. Those piviledged then gleen headlines and soundbites from the report to distribute to the humble populations of the uninformed. Its no wonder that some facts are ignored and others are sensationalized.
True,
And this thing needs to be countered with headlines and soundbytes.
Also if your local MP gets deluged with letters he will most certainly sit up and take notice.
Cheers
Roger
http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
We have a post about a similar case of the IPCC citing non-peer-reviewed literature to make scientific statements today on Climate Resistance.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/01/the-ipcc-and-the-melting-glaciers-story.html
If you’re in a hurry, scroll past the first part to the “Part Two” headline (underlined and in bold) to get past our discussion about the IPCC/Glacier affair.
Re “That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth”
In the UK I remember watching a BBC program in the 1970s presented by Raymond Baxter, probably a ‘Tomorrows World Special’ – the topic was whether the recent global cooling meant we were on the precipice of a new ice age, and various experts were interviewed to give their opinions.
I tried to find a reference to it on the web but no luck so far. It would be interesting to know what was said! I believe it featured a Scandinavian scientist who suggested the cooling could [or would] be counteracted by CO2, which set the snowball rolling!
I think there may be a clip of it in the first part of the BBC’s ‘Climate Wars’ propaganda trilogy, or possibly UK Channel4’s ‘The Global Warming Hoax’.
Water shortage? : 1.2%
From page 42 of University of Arizona’s “Background support presentation for NASA “Black Carbon and Aerosols” press conference” Dec. 14, 2009 :
“9. As we have calculated,melting glaciers(specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.”
http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf
For glacial melting in the Eastern Himalaya’s they suspect black soot (from lorries, factories and fires) as an important cause.
Rod from Oz (03:43:20) :
Michael (00:42:34) :
Untangling the bureaucracies could be fun. I think every organization who has received govt funds to promote AGW should have funds frozen, pending clarification of bona fides, and then clawed back (regardless of bona fides!). All traders in carbon credits likewise should be stripped of there illgotten gains and every buyer and seller of carbon credits have funds adjusted to as near as neutral as possible. Someone is going to get hurt, obviously, but a lot less than if this scam is allowed to continue.
REPLY:
I was thinking triple damages as is sometimes awarded in US courts when fraud occurs.
“The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) Act’s civil provisions (only the government may prosecute under the Act’s criminal provisions) allow private parties to recover triple damages, attorney’s fees, and costs against any person or company participating in the criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity. This anti-mafia statute has been used in many corporate fraud cases. http://www.paradfirm.com/fraud.html
It is racketeering on a world wide scale isn’t it?
definition of racketeering: “A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.”
I am sure if enough digging is done we will find bribery
1. agree with AGW or your paper will not be published
2. agree with AGW or you will not be promoted
3. agree with AGW or you will be fired/ not hired.
I am sure if enough digging is done we will find obstruction of justice, such as conspiring to destroy data that was subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.
“in furtherance of illegal business activities” didn’t the EU just find 90% of the carbon trading was fraudulent and the UK arrests showed organized crime was involved?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/carbon-trading-fraud-in-belgium-up-to-90-of-the-whole-market-volume-was-caused-by-fraudulent-activities/
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/uk-arrests-in-carbon-credit-trading-scam-organized-crime-said-to-be-involved/
Yup, Yup, looks like racketeering to me.
“Anticlimactic (19:16:54) :
Re “That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth”
In the UK I remember watching a BBC program in the 1970s presented by Raymond Baxter, probably a ‘Tomorrows World Special’ – the topic was whether the recent global cooling meant we were on the precipice of a new ice age, and various experts were interviewed to give their opinions.”
What scares me is that I was around then as well, and remember the hysteria of the impending approach of the new ice age. That they can so cavalierly dismiss it now indicates that the only thing true about history is that it is in the past.
But the Internet just may be the turning point, as even statements written are recorded for all posterity (or until AGW kills the internet). There is hope for man.
Anticlimactic (19:16:54) :
Re “That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth”
“In the UK I remember watching a BBC program in the 1970s presented by Raymond Baxter, probably a ‘Tomorrows World Special’ – the topic was whether the recent global cooling meant we were on the precipice of a new ice age, and various experts were interviewed to give their opinions.”
I saw that.
My recollection is that the imminent ice age was a popular theme for a few years. There were certainly respected figures appearing on TV programmes supporting it. It was something of a long-lived gee whizz scare story. It didn’t gain any serious political traction. There was nothing we’d done to cause it and there was nothing we could do, by way of personal sacrifice, to stop it.
As for whether there was a consensus or not, there were plenty of experts wheeled out to support it, but no one very visible debunking it. There was no suggestion that people who thought it was overblown were ‘deniers’. I’d guess that people who disagreed thought that it was a more or less harmless media puff, which events would show was baseless. There wasn’t any incentive to disagree very publicly and suggest everyone calm down. There was no talk of ‘all the world’s top scientists agree’ and head counts of who agreed and who disagreed. No petitions. Politicians weren’t weighing in and making statements on the mental health or sinister motives of anyone who disagreed. We didn’t have the BBC inserting a reference to it into every other programme as if it were an unassailable fact.
At the time, the question of whether or not there was a consensus didn’t really arise. It was presented as if there was a general agreement among scientists.
I see a lot of similarities between the Ice Age scare and the AGW scare, the big difference is that the AGW scare is much more a political and financial phenomenon. The Ice Age scare wasn’t examined as closely, because as I say, I don’t think anyone had the incentive.
Tom Fuller (21:23:26) :
RESPONSE:
Actually, people who die from cold have their lives shortened by a greater amount than those who (on average) die from the heat. In a very interesting paper, “EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS, MORTALITY, AND MIGRATION,” Olivier Deschênes and Enrico Moretti conclude that “The increase in mortality following extreme heat appears mostly driven by near-term displacement, while the increase in mortality following extreme cold is long lasting. We estimate that the number of annual deaths attributable to cold temperature is 0.8% of average annual deaths in our sample. The longevity gains associated with mobility from the Northeast to the Southwest account for 4% to 7% of the total gains in life expectancy experienced by the U.S. population over the past thirty years.” The paper can be downloaded here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/rest.91.4.659 In any case I don’t think the reductions in deaths due to cold are a “red herring.” Incidentally, I had note the existence of this work (at that time available as a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, in my comments to the “Unified Synthesis Product” being developed by the US CCSPO, but I think they kind of blew me off on that.
Tom Stark (23:11:51) :
Thanks for the link.
Mike D. (23:26:09) :
RESPONSE: Yes, that’s a great book. Imagine all those invasive species migrating northward and buggering up biodiversity!
Luboš Motl (03:25:14) :
RESPONSE: Unfortunately you are correct.
Winny (22:35:42) :
RESPONSE:
I wouldn’t accept anything published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons any more than I would something published in Science, Nature or Lancet. Nor should you. A thinking person should treat all sources with skepticism. Don’t forget that the hockey stick was first published in Nature. On the issue of climate change and human health, publication in Nature or Lancet, for example, does not guarantee a high quality paper either. See http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000674indur_goklanys_reje.html and http://www.superconductors.org/Beasley.htm and http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2961655-X/fulltext (the response is here: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2961656-1/fulltext).
See also: http://www.superconductors.org/Beasley.htm (although this is on semiconductors). But I’m sure you get the point. However, if you have a more substantive critique of my paper other than that you don’t like the venue, I’d be happy to respond.
Jimbo ,/b>(09:03:43) :
Thanks for these links. I was familiar with a couple of these, but not others. I am working on something on global warming and conflicts, etc., and would like to give you credit for pointing me to a couple of these. Could you contact me at igoklany at verizon.net with your full name? Thanks.
The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded “the dismal science” after Malthus’ theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues.
But because they are blind to population growth, there’s one obstacle they haven’t considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.
If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
This article commits a sin of omission as well. While Arnell (2004) did find that a larger population is subjected to decreased water stress than increased, as shown in Table 10. However, Indur M. Goklaney fails to point out two major caveats cited by Arnell.
1) The vast majority of those in the ‘reduced stress’ category from Table 10 are located in south and southeast Asia. Arnell says the increased precipitation occurs in the wet season in south and southeast Asia, but this will not alleviate drought during the dry season and would if anything increase flood damage.
2) Most of the ‘reduced stress’ occurs in densely populated areas while the ‘increased stress’ has a much larger areal coverage. This would have a disparate impact on agriculture, although technically more people live in the ‘reduced stress’ region.
These are two major caveats and one would think an article concerning ‘sins of omission’ would have included them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the IPCC 2007 report discusses Arnell in more detail somewhere else besides the figure Goklaney has ripped from the report.
Yep, as I suspected, IPCC WG II Ch 3.5.1 discusses Arnell (2004) in detail. It specifically states that the number of people living in ‘water stressed’ regions increases as an absolute number. But then it proceeds to note the two caveats Arnell noted as well (1. occurs in the wet season and is not useful, perhaps damaging; 2. occurs in densely populated areas, while increased stress occurs in much larger area causing more agriculture losses). The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is intended to present the concise basic conclusions and the conclusion that water stress will be an increasing net negative impact is thoroughly explained and justified in about 30+ pages throughout Chapter 3.
IPCC 3.5.1 then goes on to point out that decreased water stress is modeled to occur over 20-29% of the earth’s surface and to increase on 62-76% of the earth’s surface. This is based on the same models Arnell 2004 used. Arnell would laugh at the way Goklaney is using his study.
Oh wait, oh wait! I just can’t stand the irony. Nigel Arnell was the lead author in Chapter 3 of WG II. Goklaney is using his authorship in Arnell 2004 to debunk his authorship in IPCC 2007.
I respectfully suggest WUWT remove this post immediately and not invite this author back.
My response to Andrew P (10:07:38) is on this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/20/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-ipcc-wg-ii-fourth-assessment-report/