Global Warming Conference Postponed Due To Ice Storm

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>“According to official IPCC procedures (section 4), the main science report shall be modified after publication of the Summary so as to “ensure consistency with” the Summary. But the Summary is written by government representatives to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide reduction negotiations. IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT explained that the Summary “represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists.””</p>

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>"Besides questioning the legitimacy of releasing the Summary months before the release of the report it is supposedly written to summarize, attention should also be focused on situations in which lead authors of the Fourth Assessment Report are using their own work, reviewed by scientists with whom they work closely, as the primary support for conclusions of specific IPCC report chapters. The US National Academy of Sciences Wegman Report (2006) highlighted how this lack of independent review resulted in serious problems with the last WG1 Summary (2001). In that Summary, the “Mann Hockey Stick’, a now-discredited graph that purported to show that 20th century warming was unusual, formed the cornerstone of the IPCC conclusions. Wegman concluded “authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report … should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.””</p>

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>"Indian Scientists Refute Global Warming Alarmists’ Claims of Glacial Retreat</p>

<p>A common alarmism by global warming activists like Al Gore is that glaciers around the world are melting. This represents the real threat to the planet in their view, as this will cause a rise in oceans that will eventually drown us all.</p>

<p>… leading scientists in India claim that this is bunk, and that glaciers in the Himalayas aren’t retreating at all. …"</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm[/url]”>http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[molliebatmit]

<p>

@mercymom

Every time I hear the journal Nature quoted in the media, it seems like it is being quoted in support of an idea behind which lies a social agenda. Not a criticism, just an observation that has tended to color my reaction to its use.

But when else would it be quoted? I mean, honestly, the only time the public cares what’s in the top science journals is when the subject under discussion is politically contentious.</p>

<p>Last week’s Nature also included a piece on a disagreement between scientists as to whether mad cow disease is caused by a virus or by protein misfolding. Had I seen a thread debating the cause of mad cow, I would have quoted Nature there too.</p>

[mercymom]

<p>The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorology Lab, Hurricane Research Division, at <a href=“http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd[/url]”>www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd</a>, says that the increased hurricane frequency we have been experiencing since 1995 is caused by natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation and El Nino/La Nina cycles and not by global warming. They say that global warming may, only in a strictly hypothetical sense, affect the intensity of future hurricanes but that we don’t have enough reliable scientific evidence of that to state that its effect as anything other than a hypothisis. The last active period for hurricanes was 1945-1970 and warming of waters was evident then too, as it usually is during these active cycles which have been going on forever.</p>

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>from Investors Business Daily
<a href=“http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256176286615104[/url]”>http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256176286615104&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Klaus’ interview
<a href=“http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/23/czech_politics/1185/[/url]”>http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/23/czech_politics/1185/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mercymom]

<p>Mollie, do you know anything about this guy Lindzen at MIT?</p>

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences</p>

<p><a href=“http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm[/url]”>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[StickerShock]

<p>

No matter one’s opinion, with China and India coming on board for ratcheting up energy consumption, we need to pursue sustainable energy independence as a national security measure if for no other reason.

Very true.</p>

<p>Here’s a series in Canada’s National Post that explores the Global Warming issue & the strange push to jump on the bandwagon before the science can validate the problem or suggest intelligent solutions.<br>
<a href=“http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0[/url]”>http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Much of the problem is a poor use & understanding of statistics, it seems.

…Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt – although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics.

</p>

<p>Remember the claims about our current warming trend being likely the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years? Michael Mann made those claims, but his study has been shown to be statistically invalid. Yet it is his claims that form the foundation of the UN’s IPPC recommendations.

"Mann’s findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann’s work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.</p>

<p>Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee’s assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann’s work.</p>

<p>“Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported,” Wegman stated, adding that “The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” When Wegman corrected Mann’s statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.</p>

<p>Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that “may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.” Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

</p>

<p>garland, there is no scientific consesus. But yes, as an American, you are free to jump on the global warming bandwagon. Were you also eager to jump on the global cooling bandwagon in the 1970’s? Warning of the comming iceage?</p>

[Dorothy_ParkerX]

<p>Having survived the human catastrophe of SAR’s only to be leveled with the AVIAN Flu epidemic (as you may recall) I believe we are now a hardened and well prepared people, ready to endure the next Global Catastrophe that threatens to wipe out all human kind (as did the above): Global Warming.</p>

<p>The “experts” have assured us yet again that we teeter on the brink of extermination. </p>

<p>,get ready, this one may be as bad–or worse–than the last two!</p>

[StickerShock]

<p>LOL, Dorothy! Yes, I can feel the antibodies racing through my viens as I type. </p>

<p>While the Chicken littles claiming that the sky is falling can be amusing, or just plain tiresome, they can also be very, very dangerous. Take DDT. We felt so virtuous, eliminating its use. Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees. In reality, what we have left are the corpses of millions of Africans who died from malaria. What are we offering them for prevention? New state-of-the art insecticides? No…mosquito nets! In 2007, the best we can offer is mosquito nets. Meanwhile, the corpse pile grows.</p>

[mercymom]

<p>Thanks for the cite Sticker. It seems the Danish National Space Center think it’s all being caused by naturally occuring changing patterns of solar magnetic activity, and some guy in Russia says its due to solar irradiance (same thing probably), and they both think this cycle of solar activity is going to end between 2010 and 2015, afterwhich we will start cooling off, possibly to enter a “mini ice age”.</p>

<p>The earth’s gonna do what the earth’s gonna do.</p>

[garland]

<p>Richard Lindzer is a member of the JOINT PROGRAM ON THE SCIENCE AND POLICY OF GLOBAL CHANGE at MIT:</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here is a portion of their latest press release:</p>

<p>

“There’s more interest in this now than at any time in the last 20 years,” says Ronald Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, who was a lead author of the report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). </p>

<p>The report issued today in Paris, a 21-page summary of a much longer study on the science behind climate change, concludes there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases from human activity are responsible for most of the steadily rising average global temperatures observed in the past 50 years.</p>

<p>“There’s clear evidence that greenhouse gases have been increasing by very large amounts since preindustrial times, and the vast majority of these increases are due to human activity,” said Prinn, whose specific task on the panel was to assess this issue.</p>

<p>This is the fourth climate report issued by the IPCC since it was established by the U.N. in 1988. Prinn, who is the director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, was one of more than 100 lead authors for the three-year study, which involved climate researchers from around the world.</p>

<p>For the first time, the IPCC provides extensive evidence of the regional signals of climate change, including rising continental-scale temperatures, rising sea levels, shrinking of Arctic summer sea ice and decrease in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. It also offers predictions for how rising temperatures will affect the planet in decades to come.</p>

<p>Taken as a whole, the report presents a strong case that the United States, which is responsible for about 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, should take much more vigorous steps to curb its emissions along with the other major emitters around the world, Prinn said. </p>

<p>“Overall, the scientific evidence for human influence on climate has strengthened significantly in the past half dozen years, and the case for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is significantly more compelling than it was six years ago,” he said.</p>

<p>Greenhouse gases, which include methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons and their replacements (hydrofluorocarbons) as well as the better-known carbon dioxide, trap infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere, inhibiting the planet’s cooling capability. Burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but agricultural activities and deforestation also contribute.</p>

<p>“It’s not just the highly industrialized nations that are involved here,” Prinn said. “To some degree, every person on the planet is responsible, but some are much more responsible than others.”</p>

<p>There is now a near-universal scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate change, but 10 years ago, Prinn himself was not convinced that that was the case. But, as the evidence mounted, Prinn concluded that the changes were too great to be explained by natural climate variations.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The science is evolving, and the information is becoming clear. All of your skeptical heroes may have had a leg to stand on in the past, but they are toppling over now. It’s fine to be skeptical when the knowledge is questionable, but as you can see from the quote, that is changing, as Prinn’s change of stance illustrates.</p>

<p>And this is the point I am trying to make: the skeptical stance you are espousing has been eclipsed by what we know that we didn’t know before. Even Lindzen seems to be backpedaling from what I’ve read. His latest quotes refer to the extent of the damages, not whether they will occur.</p>

<p>All of these scientists, including Lindzen, are supported by the same grant funds. So to assume that the vast majority making a claim for the reality of anthropogenic climate change are doing so for the money is unfounded. The money is there either way–it funds research, not foregone results. Additionally, if the IPCC is made up of political grandstanders and not scientists, why is LIndzen a member?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Additionally, if the IPCC is made up of political grandstanders and not scientists, why is LIndzen a member?

</p>

<p>Yes, he could be brow-beaten out as some of the “scientific” community is attempting to do - even to the point of ascribing the term “deniers” to those who don’t fall in line - just like the term Holocaust deniers.</p>

<p>As far as “back-peddling”, from what I understand of the newest IPCC report, it will “back-peddle” from the impact on global warming which is really the crux of the argument, not whether it exists or what magnitude of a role in it that man plays.</p>

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>Speaking of disasters, anyone remember: killer bees, global cooling, the next Ice Age, crop failures, massive famine, resource depletion…etc?</p>

[garland]

<p>

it will “back-peddle” from the impact on global warming which is really the crux of the argument, not whether it exists or what magnitude of a role in it that man plays.

</p>

<p>Yes, the lines are moved, and now it’s amount of impact that will be questioned, not existence or anthropogeneity. At least we’ve made some progress here.</p>

[mercymom]

<p>There is a discussion of the IPCC summary at <a href=“http://www.sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus[/url]”>www.sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus</a> that says that while the summary states that there is overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic contributions to climate change, there is a footnote to the statement that,</p>

<p>“Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attributions for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies.”</p>

<p>In other words, the scientists think if they look for and try to measure whether man is contributing to climate change, they will probably find evidence of same, but they don’t have any evidence now to accurately measure to what extent man is contributing. So, a hypothesis, not a conclusion. They are 90% sure man is at least 1% at fault.</p>

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>Selected Excerpts From Larry King Live January 31, 2007:</p>

<p>RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE- On Global Warming Fears:</p>

<p>" I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.</p>

<p>And there’s a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less."</p>

<p>Lindzen on "Symbolic’ Solutions to Global Warming Lindzen:</p>

<p>"*f there’s anything that there is a consensus on, [it is that we] will do very little to affect climate. So right now despite all of the claims to the contrary, we’re talking about symbolism. And I think Julian’s point is correct. Do you spend a lot? Do you distort a great deal in the economy for symbolism? And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us.</p>

<p>And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It’s always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there’s no strong evidence it’s accelerating."</p>

[garland]

<p>More information on Lindzen:</p>

<p><a href=“Logical Science - Online Science Journal”>The 5 Most Prevalent Minor Health Issues Common During Pregnancy | Logical Science;

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>More information on IPCC:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/scientific_consensus_except_fo.html[/url]”>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/scientific_consensus_except_fo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>lol@hysteria mongers.</p>