Nothing to see here!

They are at it again. This is the science these people use, and while I must admit that it is quite an ingenious trick, it’s plain bullshit. Read along.

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

What a joke! Shouldn’t they instead be pointing out that nature seems to be itself dealing with the water level problem? It’s about as valid a conclusion as their ridiculous claim that they get to add a rise in ocean levels even when none is there, by of all things claiming that land is sponging upwards as an after effect of the ice age. Seriously, do they want me to believe that the entire planet was covered by ice in the last ice age? Because unless that was the case, I am sure they have a larger portion of the planet where land doesn’t need to bounce back that they could then quickly point towards and show actual sea level rises, right? Even a child should be able to see through this nonsense.

“If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger,” Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

Really? Why? Since when is a correction that seems so counter intuitive something that only those members of the clergy are supposed to know about? WTF? Is this science or something else? Again, why is an ice age that affected just a portion of the northern hemisphere causing land all over the planet to now rise and cancel out their claims out a rise in ocean levels?

“For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny — only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet.”

To me it stands out like a dead body in the middle of a prom dance. But then again, I pay attention.

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases. “We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant,” he told FoxNews.com.

Exactly. So the response of those tacking on non-existent rises using ridiculous contrived excuses is what then?

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

WTF? Compromise? This isn’t science at all then! There is no compromise in science just like there is no crying in baseball. When you are right, and try as they might nobody can dispute your finding/observation as they repeat your analysis and experiments, you r hypothesis becomes law and thus validates your findings. Or, if you are wrong, they find discrepancies and holes, discredit your work, and you are done and need to go back to the drawing board to start over. There is no compromise. These people need to be laughed at.

Exactly! Ocean levels are not disputable. It’s what you measure at the coast.

Seriously, if this isn’t obvious to people then we are in trouble. What’s next? They are going to tell us that both cold weather and warm weather are because of global warming? Oh wait. They already did that.

UPDATE: If you thought this was the only problem for these guys, well then check this revelation out:

The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence.

The allegations are particularly damaging as they represent the second controversy to hit the IPPC in a matter of years. In 2009, a tranche of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked two weeks before the crucial Copenhagen climate summit. Climate change sceptics said they showed scientists manipulating data to talk up the threat of global warming, as well as trying to suppress their critics.

Lovely! In case you didn’t know it they are having some kind of meeting over this bullshit cult’s plans again, and as usual, it went nowhere.

And then we have this revelation, which in light of some people defending this circle jerk on another recent post is quite funny:

One of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia — the so-called Climategate emails — was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”

Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate “science” is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a “climate-assessment oligarchy.” Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even — this is particularly noxious — how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.

It’s the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.

A must read for those that want to understand what’s really going on.

Of course, as Hal already has pointed out in the first comment: climate change “science” is as settled and proven as gravity! So it is us non believers that are the dumb heretics that need to be mocked. Great one Hal!

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Once again, your conspiracy theories are fed by something that other scientists are debating and is one of numerous investigations into this phenomenon. There is no “conspiracy” unmasked here but an ongoing debate about one aspect of AGW. And once again, you ignore the dozen studies published in just the last week supporting the theory of global warming. Anything to feed the tinfoil hat, I guess.

    Hey, I heard some researchers into gravity fudged some data a few years ago. Better chain yourself to the house — gravity is a myth!

    You are all over the place in this post, claiming “Since when is a correction that seems so counter intuitive something that only those members of the clergy are supposed to know about?” for something that is in the literature, that is discussed, that is open, that has a fucking wikipedia page. Just because *you* don’t know about it doesn’t make it a big secret. You admit this correction is 1 inch in 100 years. The claim that sea level rise “is not accelerating” this century is a bit premature given that we’re only ten years in and the uncertainties are quite big. The data are fit by both linear and exponential trends at this point since the difference in the two lines are smaller than the uncertainties.

    You claim this is nature “dealing with the problem”. It isn’t, these are two unrelated effects that happen to cancel each other in some respects. Then you claim there’s actually no problem. So which is it? You say “the whole Earth wasn’t covered by ice!” and ignore that GIA is only applied to places that *were* — extreme north america and antarctica.

    And that’s the key. GIA only applies to certain regions of the world that are rebounding from past ice. There is a debate about how to apply this correction since sea level rise will mostly affect places that are not experiencing GIA but is mostly measured from places that are. What you’re doing is looking at a scientific debate and proclaiming that the debate proves the theory is false. This is the same as creationists who insist that any disagreement in evolutionary theory proves the theory is false.

    Funny me, I might listen to scientists who do this for a living rather than a lawyer for the Heartland Institute.

    And this is classic AGW conspiracy mongering. You didn’t bother to actually read anything about GIA or sea level rise. You just took the latest “gotchya!” and ran with it.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    This is just so typical of the Heartland Institute. They really are clueless on climate change. It’s all just a big game of ‘gotcha’ to them. Who in their right mind takes their climate science from a place like that? Just bizarre. And of course Fox News just goes along for the ride.

    I like how the CU Sea Level Research Group make it obvious that this was actually dishonest reporting:

    These FAQs were updated in May with content partially derived from the discussion with Mr. Maxim, but much of this important content unfortunately did not get published in the Fox News article or in recent blogs.

    Good on them.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    Once again, your conspiracy theories are fed by something that other scientists are debating and is one of numerous investigations into this phenomenon.

    Except I didn’t mention any conspiracies but pointed out the fact that these people were doing some real unscientific things Hal. And yet, here you are defending them too. As I have often told you :your faith is strong!

    It is funny how when they get caught pushing junk science and then saying they will compromise, it is just a “debate”. The rest of your defense of the indefensible is just funny to me.

    Hey, I heard some researchers into gravity fudged some data a few years ago. Better chain yourself to the house — gravity is a myth!

    Comparing this cult’s bullshit with gravity is a joke right? Unwittingly you are trying to be sarcastic by picking something we have proven over and over and for which I can use real formula and data to prove the concept, gravity, and then comparing a bunch of quacks making up bullshit and getting caught for the umpteenth time making up stuff, and drawing an equality so you can then go ahead and pretend I am the one with a problem? You would have been better of using those that believe the earth is flat being caught cheating yet again in your example. That would have been a better analogy and more real.

    I see your two buddies lining up to see which one of them can kiss your ass the hardest for joining them in defending this madness. Yes, you three have strong faith. Me, I am hoping for more of this kind of “debate”: the cultists getting caught cheating then pretending they can reach more consensus.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000

    Alex, if you follow Kimpost’s link, you’ll see two things:

    1) the unadjusted data and analysis based on it.

    2) a note from the researchers that their sea rise measurement is the lowest of any of multiple independent groups.

    I’m reminded of the hilarity last year when you posted an article about a sea level rise article being withdrawn because of analytical errors and ignored that it was withdrawn in favor of studies favoring higher levels of sea level increase. This is just the latest little nubbin you can latch on to pretend nothing is happening.

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Exactly how is it unscientific? How is it junk science? You’ve not explained.
    Again, pointing out holes in your argument (or that you haven’t provided support for your argument) isn’t the same as defending.
    They’re only ‘compromising’ by considering putting both data sets on the website.

    Comparing this cult’s bullshit with gravity is a joke right?

    It’s a perfect analogy.

    ….comparing a bunch of quacks making up bullshit and getting caught for the umpteenth time making up stuff,

    Um, you’re the only one obviously making stuff up. Or falling hook, line and sinker for stuff made up by others.
    Where “else” have the CU Sea Level Research Group been caught “making stuff up”?

    You would have been better of using those that believe the earth is flat being

    You probably don’t even realise that you’re the flat earther in the equation.
    “The earth being round is just a conspiracy, all the evidence is made up”

    I see your two buddies lining up to see which one of them can kiss your ass the hardest for joining them in defending this madness.

    Again, you’re confusing pointing out your silliness with defending. There is a difference.

    Yes, you three have strong faith.

    No faith required on our parts. We’ve got the science and the scientific method. We’re not trying to claim something that isn’t in evidence. Whereas you rely 100% on faith. You have faith that all this is just nonsense. You have no evidence, so in its absence you are absolutely 100% reliant on faith. It’s really that simple.

    Me, I am hoping for more of this kind of “debate”: the cultists getting caught cheating then pretending they can reach more consensus.

    Where is this ‘debate’ that you speak of? Within the scientific community? I don’t think so.
    The study was dishonestly reported, that’s pretty much what this ‘story’ is now about.
    What has ‘consensus’ got to do with this?

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT *

    1) the unadjusted data and analysis based on it.

    Seriously? That’s supposed to prove what? I don’t trust the data a bit until it is independently confirmed. You wil pardon me for being skeptical about people that lie constatntly and consistently and wanting verification from people I can trust, won’t you? But the claim they are making – that their adjustments are because the contenents are rising as an after effect of the ice ages, remains laughable. There was no ice in the tropics. so why is the water there not higher?

    2) a note from the researchers that their sea rise measurement is the lowest of any of multiple independent groups.

    So this is supposed to make the chicanery they are involved in less disturbing? yeah, whatever.

    I’m reminded of the hilarity last year when you posted an article about a sea level rise article being withdrawn because of analytical errors and ignored that it was withdrawn in favor of studies favoring higher levels of sea level increase. This is just the latest little nubbin you can latch on to pretend nothing is happening.

    So they withdrew one false study and replaced it with another one with bigger lies? Check. and, nothing is happening? You might want to revisit the update section of the post. I am sure I will exprect the three of you true believers to come abck and pretend there is nothing going on yet again.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    I’m reminded of the hilarity last year when you posted an article about a sea level rise article being withdrawn because of analytical errors and ignored that it was withdrawn in favor of studies favoring higher levels of sea level increase.

    The usual suspects did the same thing at MW forums.
    Some people just have no shame.

    Thumb up 0

  8. AlexInCT *

    Exactly how is it unscientific? How is it junk science? You’ve not explained.

    Di you miss where I pointed out that the tropics obviously didn’t have a sheet of rock a mile high on it and hence wouldn’t be experiencing any rising, so they would have had no problem proving there was a rise if there was one, CM? Oh, never mind. I know better than to ask. Of course you did. It’s what you do whenever you have nothing to defend against. Next you will tell me that since they didn’t mention the tropics I shouldn’t be either. Heh!

    It’s a perfect analogy.

    As I said CM. If you think gravity and this bullshit is on par as far as the science goes, then my point is proven in spades.

    Here is a simple test for you. Gravity’s formula is F = Gx(m1xm2/r2), where F is the force between masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the fist object’s mass, m2 that of the second, and r represents the distance between the two masses. I can dig up the proof for this formula if you would like me to.

    Now you geniuses link me the formula for AGW so I can see your proof that AGW – man made, warming mind you -is as scientifically proven as gravity.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Kimpost

    I see your two buddies lining up to see which one of them can kiss your ass the hardest for joining them in defending this madness. Yes, you three have strong faith.

    Wow! :) Did we just witness a lame attempt of discrediting Hal for having one issue in common with two liberals? Guilt by association much?

    Do I now need to publicly denounce Hal on other subjects, to save his ass? Or could that wait for another post? Hahaha. F–k Alex. I wish you could just back up and see yourself from the outside.

    Thumb up 1

  10. JimK

    SERIOUSLY? AGAIN?

    Jesus GODDAMNED CHRIST. You have got to be fucking kidding me with this shit. What are you two, gay for each other or just five fucking years old?

    GIVE.
    IT.
    A.
    FUCKING.
    REST.

    Thumb up 1

  11. CM

    If you thought this was the only problem for these guys, well then check this revelation out:

    Who are “these guys”? What has the CU Sea Level Research Group got to do with the new part of your post?

    The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports,

    Cherry-picking. They also used:

    HAGELÜKEN, Christian
    UmicorePrecious Metals Refining
    Germany

    DEMAYO, Trevor N.
    Chevron Energy Technology Co.
    United States of America / Canada

    LEE, Arthur
    Chevron Corporation
    United States of America

    WRIGHT, Raymond M.
    Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ)
    Jamaica

    http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_IV

    Isn’t pointless cherry-picking fun? Of course, if you had your way, these would be the only contributors.

    Do you even realise the difference between the various IPCC working groups Alex?

    Lovely!

    Specifically what is “lovely”? That critics have responded in their usual way to an IPCC report?

    Anyway it was one of four specific scenarios chosen that represented the broadest range of scenarios, and the summary referred to at as the most “optimistic” scenario (AND that’s despite other peer-reviewed studies indicating a higher percentage of renewables is possible – there is an abundance of support for even stronger statements in the peer-reviewed literature:).

    The specific paper (which was co-authored by 8 different people) was published (and underwent peer-review):
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507001784
    It acutally passed peer review in 2 journals, and several rounds of review at the IPCC level.

    The press release part that you’re leaving out:

    “Over 160 existing scientific scenarios on the possible penetration of renewables by 2050, alongside environmental and social implications, have been reviewed with four analyzed in-depth. These four were chosen in order to represent the full range. Scenarios are used to explore possible future worlds, analyzing alternative pathways of socio-economic development and technological change.

    The researchers have also studied the challenges linked to how renewable energy can be integrated into existing and future energy systems including electricity grids and likely cost benefits from these developments.

    While the scenarios arrive at a range of estimates, the overall conclusions are that renewables will take an increasing slice of the energy market.

    The most optimistic of the four, in-depth scenarios projects renewable energy accounting for as much as 77 percent of the world‘s energy demand by 2050″

    What clueless people like you don’t understand about peer review and the IPCC is that having a few industry or Greenpeace folks involved isn’t going to affect the results of the report or sub-reports, when there are many lead authors and contributors. This is why various stages of peer review are important, and why deniers loathe peer review, as they tend to root out the garbage, which happens to be a lot of stuff they put forth. Sometimes flawed work can slip throught the cracks, but the process is very self-correcting in the long-run. And you should also do some research and learn about Working Group III.

    Deniers have no credibility, and you’re worse than the average one.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    Surely if people don’t want to read it, they can just ignore the one thread. Why shouldn’t we discuss this? The (broader) issue is important no matter where you stand on it.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Seattle Outcast

    What clueless people like you don’t understand about peer review and the IPCC is that having a few industry or Greenpeace folks involved isn’t going to affect the results of the report or sub-reports, when there are many lead authors and contributors.

    Just how long have you been chugging the Kool-Aid? The IPCC has been so thoroughly discredited as to be worthless, and the only time you run science by “consensus” is when it isn’t actually science any longer – it’s crossed the line into religion.

    Thumb up 1

  14. Kimpost

    I’m not going to defend the bickering, especially since I’m involved in it. But out of curiosity, do you think that we (all of us) should stay away from a given subject, even when it’s on topic?

    I mean this was a new post by Alex. Seems to me like he wanted the discussion?

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Di you miss where I pointed out that the tropics obviously didn’t have a sheet of rock a mile high on it and hence wouldn’t be experiencing any rising, so they would have had no problem proving there was a rise if there was one, CM?

    No I didn’t miss that. Do you have evidence that they didn’t account for it (you are the one making the claim)?
    Did you miss the FAQ response within which they stated:

    GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. Mantle material is still moving from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter).

    GIA can cause subsidence far away from the source of the old ice sheet, and that there are even larger cases of uplift and subsidence unconnected to GIA that are 10-20 times larger.

    Prior to release 2011_rel1, we did not account for GIA in estimates of the global mean sea level rate, but this correction is now scientifically well-understood and is applied to GMSL estimates by nearly all research groups around the world.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it

    Oh, never mind. I know better than to ask. Of course you did. It’s what you do whenever you have nothing to defend against. Next you will tell me that since they didn’t mention the tropics I shouldn’t be either. Heh!

    I’ve never avoided anything. If you have evidence that I have, please provide it. Otherwise, please stop lying.

    Now you geniuses link me the formula for AGW so I can see your proof that AGW – man made, warming mind you -is as scientifically proven as gravity.

    You missed the entire point – you seem to latch onto ANYTHING you think will harm the AGW theory (no matter how credible), and yet not only ignore anything which supports it, you actually dismiss it automatically as being fraud.

    man made, warming mind you

    Um,. what do you think the A stands for in AGW?

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    The IPCC has been so thoroughly discredited as to be worthless,

    Where was this? How have they been discredited?

    and the only time you run science by “consensus” is when it isn’t actually science any longer – it’s crossed the line into religion.

    Please demonstrate which research has come about as a result of ‘consensus’. Or how the IPCC documents have misrepresented what the literature has found on any particular issue (bearing in mind the different Working Groups and what they are for).

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    Sorry but that just demonstrates that Richard Littlejohn still has no clue what he’s talking about.

    While climate change alarmists insist we are heading for meltdown, the truth is that the world has actually been getting cooler in recent years.

    Utter rubbish.

    Although the findings from the National Solar Observatory in New Mexico are bad news for the global warming industry

    He hasn’t understood what it means. At all.

    The rest is meant to be a satire of a supposed over-reaction to climate change. However as he’s completely missed the point, it fails miserably. The same old sad and confused Littlejohn that I used to read every week on the tube….

    Thumb up 0

  18. JimK

    Wow.

    Yeah, my complaint is with Alex on this as well. I’ve had it RIGHT the fuck up to here with the same arguments over and over and over. I’m fed the fuck up with this argument taking over this website.

    Y’all gettin’ what I’m laying down here? Alex, Kim, CM, the goddamned lot of you. ENOUGH WITH THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER. It intrudes on almost every comment thread. It’s tiresome. You are boring the fucking shit out of everyone else. *I* have had enough of this argument dominating everything. You just yell at each other in the same ways, with the same tired shit, making the same arguments over and over.

    Thumb up 5

  19. Hal_10000

    Again, Alex, we get to the Great Conspiracy Theory. There are *several* *independent* groups that have measured sea level rise and are getting in the same ballpark. Their data is available. We keep going around and around on this.

    You: Why don’t they make the data available?

    Me: Here’s the data (link)

    You: Why don’t they make the data available?

    In order for your paranoia to be justified we’d have to have multiple independent groups conspiring to fake data. There is zero evidence of this. The most you’ve come up with is an adjustment that is standard and that you clearly don’t want to understand.

    That’s not debunking. That’s grasping at straws.

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    One of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia — the so-called Climategate emails — was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”

    That’s PART of the story. Of course the part that deniers never acknowledge is that the process worked. The study that Jones was specifically talking about with that quote even made it in.
    No individual is above the process. That’s kinda the whole point of the process. This provides really good evidence that there hasn’t been a grand conspiracy at work. If even those considered by deniers to be the “grand viziers of climate science” fail to have influence, then what hope does anyone else have of corrupting the IPCC reports? None of course.

    See the following for full and detailed explanations:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic-scientists-ipcc.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

    Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate “science” is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a “climate-assessment oligarchy.” Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even — this is particularly noxious — how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.

    Rubbish. If that were the case the IPCC documents would be full of hyperbole. In reality they are extremely conservative (particularly on emissions scenarios, sea level rise, and Arctic sea-ice melt for example).

    An early and particularly graphic illustration of this vicious circle came when the IPCC 2007 report warned that most the great Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. Not only was the claim of a massive melt the very height of ignorant nonsense — the sun would have to drop on the Earth to provoke a melt of this proportion — it was also plucked from a seven-year-old publication of the ever busy World Wildlife Federation (WWF). As the Times of London put it, the claim itself was “inherently ludicrous” culled from a “campaigning report” rather than “an academic paper,” was not “subject of any scientific review” and despite all these shortcomings became “a key source for the IPCC … [for] the section on the Himalayas.”
    A scare report, seven years old, from the an environmental advocacy group, became the key document for a major report released under the authority of the IPCC, the world’s best and brightest global warming minds. Sir Isaac Newton would be so proud.

    It wasn’t a “key document” for a “major report” at all. That’s a ridiculous statement. The 2035 claim was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers, or the Synthesis Report. The error is part of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, not Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body. The IPCC made an unfortunate error in a very long technical document. And their response to this error was dumb.
    The peer-reviewed science says that many of the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006) and roughly 500 million people depend on the melt water from these glaciers (Kehrwald 2008). So the message was correct even if the date was wrong.

    Now we have an even more telling illustration of this same sad, vicious circle. It was first reported on by Steven McIntyre on his blog, Climate Audit (and was run on the FP Comment page of Friday’s National Post). McIntyre revealed that the IPCC used a Greenpeace campaigner to write a key part of its report on renewable energy and to make the astonishing claim that “close to 80% of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies.” He further revealed that the claim arose from a “joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).” And it turns out that while working for the IPCC, the Greenpeace campaigner approvingly cited a Greenpeace report that he himself was the lead author of. He peer-reviewed himself.
    A report on renewables, by the Renewable Energy Council of Europe, and Greenpeace, peer-reviewd by the man who wrote it. All they need add is a citation from the Suzuki Foundation and an endorsement from Elizabeth May and “the science will be settled” forever.

    As outlined, that’s not an objective assessment of what happened. It’s not even remotely close to being an “astonishing claim”. There were many more people involved, in terms of writing the original paper, and deciding to include it within the IPCC report. There were a range of scenarios.
    Murphy doesn’t seem to know what ‘peer review’ even means.
    Also, the ‘science is settled’ thing is simply another brainless meme which continues to be passed around the denier community.
    Also, Steven McIntyre has a history of misinformation. So it’s no surprise to see it coming from him.

    Why these stories, and others of comparable magnitude, have not worked their way into the consciousness of the world’s politicians despite such clear demonstrations of the IPCC’s ramshackle processes is a mystery.

    Gee I dunno, maybe because they are easily debunked piles of steaming horseshit?

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    I’m totally fine with keeping everything related to climate change to the relevant threads. But if we all agree to do that, I’m not sure that I understand what the problem is. Who else is bored with this topic aside from Jim and Rann? In addition to me, Alex and Kimpost, there is also Hal, Mississippi Yankee and Seattle Outcast that have posted about it in this thread already. That’s 6 different posters who seem to be at least mildly interested.

    I would disagree with the statement that I’m “making the same arguments over and over”. We’re actually getting into some detail for a change.

    Thumb up 0

  22. JimK

    I’ll say one last piece before I go to sleep.

    1. This is not a debate I’m having. I’m not soliciting opinions.I’m not going to have a back-and-forth that goes for 50 comments. I’m making statements. And now I’m issuing edicts.
    2. I get to do that because I PAY THE FUCKING BILLS. It’s a libertarian/conservative philosophy to believe that he who pays gets to decide, I know…so many in this world are used to demanding that someone else pay and also dance to whatever tune the leach desires.

    I’m not one of those people. You are a guest in a facility that costs me actual money to provide. You’d do well to remember that.

    What I am hoping is that you and Alex will voluntarily stop your endless game of tl;dr. If not, I will stop it.

    That’s my last word on the topic. Alex, NO MORE AGW POSTS. CM? Cut the shit. Neither of you want to test my patience on this or anything else.

    Thumb up 2

  23. InsipiD

    Agreed. When I have 1 minute to check the site and I see only posts from CM and Kimpost on the recent comments, I don’t bother looking at anything and move on. There’s a lot of circle-jerking going on around this one issue that is boring. It’s never, ever smart or meaningful commentary or analysis of anything. It’s just boring back and forth posting political (not scientific) proof on both sides, and then questioning the sources of the others. It’s obnoxious and pathetic. JimK is right on track, and I can tell you that what he said is literally what I had been thinking when I had been leaving sometimes instead of reading the site.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Kimpost

    I’ll chime in with my 2 cents, before I shut the fuck up.

    I think this subject had the potential of becoming something else than a general AGW bickering thread. Mostly because its start was very specific. It was about one particular article, covering one study. I would have loved to dissect the evidence surrounding that study. InsipiD claims that he doesn’t see scientific evidence from either side, yet this was a subject where the evidence is both plentiful and easily verifiable.

    Now, it did become another bickering thread, but in fairness, I think some honesty is needed regarding its development.

    1. Alex started things up with a post.
    2. Hal (not CM, not me) responded with solid arguments.
    3. I chimed in with a link.
    4. CM offered Hal his support, and made a comment about the Heartland Institute.

    So far so good. I don’t think that anything was wrong up until then (unless of course, everything AGW is wrong). Anyway, then…

    5. […] Alex responded to Hal offering no substance, but plenty of bickering.

    That’s where things went south. That’s basically also where you first came in, Jim.

    I personally think that adults should be able to discuss anything in a normal tone. And I think that most of us can. No question this blog is yours. You decide what’s OK and what’s not. If you think someone’s doing something wrong, by all means use your fist. But try using it fairly. I expect to get hammered if I behave like a douche, but not all culprits are the same here. I don’t appreciate being lumped together with Alex. He might be a swell guy in real life, but here, I often find him behaving like a fucking jerk.

    I understand that there’s a bias component to all of this, and I’m absolutely fine with that. It’s easier to accept bad behaviour when it’s coming from someone you agree with. That’s just a fact of life. This is a right-leaning blog, Alex is right-leaning (well, perhaps a bit more than just leaning), and he’s a poster. But still, things are so blatant that I think you should be able to see what’s going on…

    Perhaps I should have sent you this by PM, Jim. I thought about it but then I wanted this to be open for everyone to see. To be clear, I don’t want anyone banned for any reason. I just want people to behave like adults. Childish sometimes, yes, God knows I am just that. But adults when it comes to showing one another respect.

    Thumb up 0

  25. AlexInCT *

    No I didn’t miss that. Do you have evidence that they didn’t account for it (you are the one making the claim)?

    Did you seriously just ask this CM? What the hell am I asking this for? Of course you did! This is how you think you are bing clever.

    Let me break this down for you.

    a. They claim there is a rise in sea levels.
    b. They claim that rise can not be observed because it was exactly the same amount of rise as a bounce in the continental mass which happened as an after effect of the massive 1 mile high sheet of ice that once covered a large part of the northern hemisphere.
    c. They get caught doing this and called out.
    d. They decide to compromise.

    The fact is, as I already pointed out, that it was only a part of the northern hemisphere that was subjected to this massive ice sheet. Hence the bounce can not be happening anywhere else. So if they are observing a rise in sea levels, there is no way that rise is canceled out by any rise in the land mass in any part of the southern hemisphere, and for sure NOT in the tropics. If there was thus any reality to this rise, they would IMMEDIATELY have proof to back it up in the tropics.

    The only way this doesn’t work out is if the tropics where also covered by ice, and we all know that didn’t happen. So, there is no accounting for that. The rise would be evident in the tropics, and they would haveindisputable proof. Maybe the landmass in the tropics is also rising because Gaia is exhaling under the heavy burden of all these parasitic humans, right?

    That’s called logic. I am certain others pointed this out as well, and that’s why they are in “compromising” mode now. BTW, I am still looking for the proof/formula for man made warming that will convince me gravity and that junk are equally established.

    Thumb up 0

  26. AlexInCT *

    Wow! :) Did we just witness a lame attempt of discrediting Hal for having one issue in common with two liberals? Guilt by association much?

    No, I pointed out that the only people keeping Hal company on this idiocy are you two. It was a statement of fact. Not an attempt to discedit. The discrediting, for all you tree stooges, was the post on here is the formula for gravity and the request to show me the one that proves man made warming.

    Thumb up 0

  27. AlexInCT *

    5. […] Alex responded to Hal offering no substance, but plenty of bickering.

    That’s where things went south. That’s basically also where you first came in, Jim.

    Funny how anything that doesn’t preach or conform to your dogma constantly is referred to by you fanatics as being of no substance, no matter the logic or substance, or the illogic or lack of substance on your side is asserted as hard fact we rubes simply can’t grasp, huh Kimpost? Pointing out that Hal’s claim that this nonsense was as established as gravity and that I was doing the equivalent of ranting against gravity, then providing the proof/formula for gravity and asking the same for the AGW nonsense, after I point out the flaw in the whole argument about why they claim we can’t observe this mysterious rise, is bickering? Heh, right.

    I personally think that adults should be able to discuss anything in a normal tone. And I think that most of us can. No question this blog is yours. You decide what’s OK and what’s not. If you think someone’s doing something wrong, by all means use your fist. But try using it fairly. I expect to get hammered if I behave like a douche, but not all culprits are the same here. I don’t appreciate being lumped together with Alex. He might be a swell guy in real life, but here, I often find him behaving like a fucking jerk.

    Methinks you find me a jerk because unlike the others that simply prefer to ignore you and leave your nonsense unchallenged – leaving you to think you won the argument I presume – I make fun of you and run circles around you? Or is it simply that I make fun of you for being a liberal and you are not used to that behavior?

    Jim can do what he wants. It is his site, as you have said, and I am under no illusions that I post here at his discretion. Your orchestrated campaign to get me banned by claiming I add no substance hasn’t gone unoticed. I expect that from leftists that meet someoen they can cower into silence. BTW, I tried being civil with you & CM until I realized you blockheads weren’t really looking for any kind of discussion but just peddling your pedantic liberal nonsense, ad nauseum, and decided the better approach to deal with people that couldn’t be bothered with the fact or logic – and lets face it once you decided to dismiss the ClimateGate revelations as inconsequential nonsense and pronounced your dogma still valid, any and all chance for a real discussion was gone – was to heap the same scorn one does on a religious fanatic.

    I am done with this topic. Mark my words though Jim. These two won’t be done coming at me, and I do not intend to back down.

    Thumb up 0

  28. richtaylor365

    I am not one of the AGW participants so my observations in this matter (I believe) are objective.

    I think it would be a shame and a mistake to ban any topic, the whole purpose of blogging is for information and opinion dissemination.

    I can understand Jim’s frustration in the that past AGW posts degrade rather quickly into rehashing of old arguments, with no one really willing to walk away. I find it easy to walk away when the post bogs down, some apparently can’t. But this one was different, Hal, who never resorts to hyperbole, ad hominems or name calling, got into the mix and others not normally AGW folks also chimed in. I was actually following this one, others I don’t bother with.

    Alex, you know I’m with you on 90% of the stuff you write but you do yourself a disservice by resorting to emotional attacks, ad hominems and name calling weaken your arguments, not bolster them. Your gravity formula and the way you used it was was pretty effing brilliant, stick with stuff like this.

    All you guys would be best served remembering that, like a crowded train car, you are not alone in your arguing, many people are listening as well, keep that in mind.

    I hope this can be revisited after a sufficient cooling off time period.

    I personally think that adults should be able to discuss anything in a normal tone. And I think that most of us can.

    Yes, any topic should be fair game and with the proper application of good manners and decorum maybe we can get the car keys back.

    Thumb up 1

  29. AlexInCT *

    Alex, you know I’m with you on 90% of the stuff you write but you do yourself a disservice by resorting to emotional attacks, ad hominems and name calling weaken your arguments, not bolster them. Your gravity formula and the way you used it was was pretty effing brilliant, stick with stuff like this.

    I am going to break my own word and respond to this post you made Rich, because I feel the need to clarify that the reason I have gotten to the point where I simply do not feel like being nice to these guys, especially my two new stalkers, is that I have been doing exactly this kind of stuff to them on other posts, and if they don’t ignore it outright, just like they did here, in post after post where I ask them to respond to it with something to dismiss it, I get dismissed with the ludicrous excuse that the question isn’t pertinent or distracts from their points, and they keep pretending they were not check mated.

    I clearly see why others might not just get bored, but tired of this argument, and frankly, I am tired myself. There is only so much bullshit I can take before I figure I will have more fun hammering a nail through my scrotum than trying to point out that there isn’t much science going on when people tell you that not only are you the one being dumb for demanding the scientific process be respected and that anyone that doesn’t deserves our scorn, even if they may happen to be 100% right, because they damage the credibility of science, but that you use politically biased sites while they, which do much worse, don’t.

    Anyway, I will move on. I am planning a post making fun of soccer next. That aught to be a nice discussion :)

    Thumb up 1

  30. JimK

    I am done with this topic. Mark my words though Jim. These two won’t be done coming at me, and I do not intend to back down.

    I don’t expect you to take shit, but I also don’t expect you to fling shit first.

    Unfortunately I have to be put in the roll of babysitter now, so for the next little while I *will* be specifically looking at who antagonizes who. If I see shit getting started – and that includes ad hominem or tl;dr “Who me, I’m so innocent” crap (i.e. You, Alex, and CM specifically, you both have a distinct style of baiting) – Hammers will fall.

    I might even just start deleting comments, or replacing them with images of old women getting it in the ass from well-hung men of ethnic descent. There’s porn for that on the internet, and unless you want your comments or posts replaced with it, maybe we all calm the fuck down and move off this topic for a period of time?

    Yes, let’s do that. Let’s do exactly that.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Section8

    Oh this is great. Best post I’ve seen in a long time. It was literally beginning to get painful reading any of these GW threads, which seemed to have found its way in damn near every thread.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    The only reason it goes in ‘circles’ is that some people make vague claims/accusations, refuse to back them up, and then refuse to respond to specifics which indicate that they’re wrong. And yet others either enable it or actively support it, presumably because they simply hate the obvious public policy ramifications of climate change.

    Thumb up 0

  33. JimK

    You just couldn’t resist could you? You just had to be an asshole one more time. Let me be perfectly plain, and put this in a way that you cannot misinterpret.

    This is not YOUR website., This is not your house. Test my patience one more goddamned time and you lose the privilege of coming here.

    Thumb up 1

  34. Mississippi Yankee

    Why are liberals devoid of any sense of humor. Satire, hyperbole, heaven forbid exaggeration all are completely lost on them.

    Is it the methane environment you’re forcing yourselves to breathe or what?

    His name is Richard (dick) Littlejohn ferchristsakes.

    Thumb up 0

  35. loserlame

    Hate to bring it up yet again, but this always always gets me thinking about Krauts complaining about everything, all the time, and somehow always finding a way to blame the US for all and any malady, real or perceived.

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    I have a sense of humour. I get told off quite often for not taking things seriously enough. I don’t see much humour in helping spread misinformation about an important issue though. Richard Littlejohn has been a Daily Mail columnist for many years (it’s his actual name).

    As for all liberals not having a sense of humour, I’m not sure where you get that from. I personally don’t think there’s a correlation between political belief and whether someone has a sense of humour. Maybe you just haven’t met the right liberals…..?

    Thumb up 0

  37. loserlame

    lol. No proof of that, here or anywhere. Thats the funniest True Fact I’ve read here in a while…

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/12/2261131/modern-day-slavery-increasing.html

    Human trafficking is officially abolished in all global communities, yet despite diligent efforts the numbers of reported victims of modern-day slavery are steadily increasing. There are an estimated 700,000-800,000 persons trafficked annually across international borders with 30 million victims worldwide at any given time.

    The majority of trafficking victims are generally between the ages of 18 and 24, with more than one million children trafficked annually.

    Yeah, but America….

    Thumb up 0

  38. Mississippi Yankee

    Maybe you just haven’t met the right liberals…..?

    That may very well be possible. In my 62 year experience, even amongst some of my own kin, I’ve met only Cads, Bounders and the occasional loquacious troll.

    However they, again in my experience, are a lot like bullies in that they’ll push,push, push until the string breaks. And then are masters at feigned surprise when it finally happens.

    Thumb up 0