Dr. Roger Pielke jr. writes:
IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress
The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC’s Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.
This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field’s testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. Field’s testimony is here in PDF.
Full story here, well worth a read
Entropic man says:
“I must have been elsewhere when cAGW was falsified. Show me the evidence, please.”
No doubt you were attending the Church of Globaloney for services when I explained to you that the Null Hypothesis falsifies the alternate conjecture of CO2=CAGW.
Wake me when/if the long term rising temperature trend exceeds its parameters. Then we will know that temperatures are accelerating. But so far for Mr. E, no joy.
Entropic man:
I love American politics!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/aug/02/climate-change-political-funding-us
That’s quite good coverage you have there, my good man:
… the two most eminent climate scientists who testified before the environment and public works committee, Christopher Field and James McCarthy…
Not a single mention of Dr. Christie in the whole article. We generally survive our American politicians but your odds with British journalists may be cause for concern.
Based on his blatant BS, I’ll speculate that Dr. Field was NOT testifying under oath.
The good Dr. North was rather mealy-mouthed in his public comments about the validity of Mann’s hokey stick, UNTIL he was placed under oath.
UNDER OATH, Dr. North stated that his committee’s conclusions agreed with those of the Wegman Committee.
Quelle surprise!
“Nothing focuses the mind like being shot at dawn.”
_______________
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
MonktonofOz says:
August 1, 2012 at 4:17 pm
The “graph” on page 3 of the pdf needs addressing as it states, simply and cleverly, that the number of record highs is increasing. If the world is cooling then it is surely inconceivable that we are experiencing more and more record highs. As a confirmed sceptic this is the first piece of information (evidence?) which has caused me to doubt my views.
_____________________________
Massaged data and Urban Heat Island effect.
graph
graph
difference between raw and final
My local station (rural) routinely has 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit added to the raw numbers for the reported high.
Interesting that there are plenty of “look how clever we are and how stupid they are” type posts yet no one has offered a non-emotional response to the chart on page 3 of Field’s testimony. Essential that what seem or may be valid comments be addressed. Is there a counter to Field’s indication that in a world that is said to be cooling, the % of record highs is increasing? Surely the two are mutually incompatible?
Smokey says:
August 2, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“No doubt you were attending the Church of Globaloney for services when I explained to you that the Null Hypothesis falsifies the alternate conjecture of CO2=CAGW./sarc”
That must have been it. Since I missed the memo, show me, or give me a link to, the calculation which demonstrated that the Null Hypothesis was correct, especially the level of significance it achieved. I prefer evidence to verbal assurance.
Juan Slayton says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Entropic man:
I love American politics!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/aug/02/climate-change-political-funding-us
—————-
That’s quite good coverage you have there, my good man:
… the two most eminent climate scientists who testified before the environment and public works committee, Christopher Field and James McCarthy…
Not a single mention of Dr. Christie in the whole article. We generally survive our American politicians but your odds with British journalists may be cause for concern.
—————-
In a short blog you cant have everything.
I notice that you ignored the real question. Does Senator Inhofe take political donations to promote an anti-cAGW agenda in Congress?
In my country a politician who was paid to raise an issue in Parliament would be rusticated at best, or be prosecuted for taking bribes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-admits-offer-was-a-dubious-privilege-inside-parliament-1413808.html
Joel says:
August 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm
To entrophic man
Pray tell how an event millions of years ago qualifies as testable and verifiable?
————————————–
Even events millions of years ago leave evidence which can be analysed, in sediments and sedimentary rocks.
One example, Joel
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/
This is probably the most comprehensive summary of the evidence presented for cAGW. The source is IPCC AR4, but resist the temptation to reject the evidence because you do not like the source. That is tobacco lobby tactics, not scientific debate.
I look forward to the evidence you present to falsify these statements.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html.
Over to you, Smokey.
Entropic man says: August 3, 2012 at 5:08 am
I look forward to the evidence you present to falsify these statements.
All you have to do is search WUWT, that turd was buried years ago.
Entropic,
Six (6) responses since my comment, and your total “evidence” consists of the self-serving, repeatedly discredited UN/IPCC?? I suppose you are trying to make up with quantity what you lack in quality. And are you on a payroll where your job description allows you to comment on blogs? How great that must be!
You demanded backup evidence for my statement questioning CO2=CAGW: “I look forward to the evidence you present to falsify these statements.”
For corroboration I cite a statement by an eminent climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer:
“No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
Dr Spencer is explaining the Null Hypothesis, which deconstructs the alternative hypothesis of CAGW, for which there is zero empirical evidence. None. There is no real world evidence that CAGW is occurring. Natural variability fully explains all observations; it has all happened before, prior to the industrial revolution and to greater extremes.
So, who should we believe? You, with your belief which is unsupported by real world evidence — or an esteemed climatologist? Readers may decide for themselves whether to believe in runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Me, I think it is preposterous. It is like worrying that there is a black cat lurking under your bed at night. You’re certain of it. But when you turn on the light… there is no cat! And there never was. Same with catastrophic AGW.
[BTW, when quoting me, put the quotation marks bracketing what I wrote, not what you wrote. I did not write ‘/sarc’, you did. K thx bye.]
Smokey says:
August 3, 2012 at 7:01 am
Entropic,
” repeatedly discredited UN/IPCC.”
Now there’s a statement you should be able to prove. The rest of your post is more tobacco lobby rhetoric. Once the tobacco lobby realised they could not falsify the evidence , they used public statements of vague doubts,ridicule, paid “experts”, ad hominem atteacks on researchers, donations to politicians, etc.
http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Main_Page
I refer you particularly to the section on countering critics.
http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Countering_Critics
I had thought of putting up a list of 180 statements and peer reviewed papers supporting the IPCC position, though it seemed excessive. But if the moderators are happy…
I’m a retired science teacher. I’m here to debate the science, though , disappointingly mostly I’m just getting abusive comments from people protecting their turf rather than their science. Unlike Senator Inhope I have no possible financial incentive.
Not sarcasm? It certainly sounded like it from my perspective.
[Moderator’s Note: Please do NOT put up a list of 180 whatevers. I am sure a few will be excellent, some good, quite a few pedestrian and a lot shoddy. Some other commenter will put up a list of 180 whatevers with the same characteristics. Both are appeals from authority, probably off-topic, and likely to have been discussed and dissected here or at some other blog in exquisite detail. Please stick to the topic at hand and kindly refrain from the “tobacco disinformation” ad hominems. You might also want to familiarize yourself with The Rules of the Game before making that argument again. -REP]
“You might also want to familiarize yourself with The Rules of the Game before making that argument again. -REP]”
Rule 1.2, perhaps?
Entropic man:
Thankyou for your having – at last – posted something I can applaud.
At August 3, 2012 at 7:31 am you say:
It is certainly a great blessing for your students that you are a retired science teacher.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2012 at 11:34 am
“It is certainly a great blessing for your students that you are a retired science teacher.”
Richard, I’m glad to be retired too. Teaching is a hard profession.
The students of mine who went on to become doctors, nurses, biomedical scientists, medical physicists, microbiologists,radiographers or other science professionals might disagree with you.
Entropic says:
“Teaching is a hard profession.”
Never had much contact with the real world, have you?