Quote:

THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report's author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak. The link was central to demands at last month's Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations. However, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change. Kevin Rudd last November linked weather extremes to the debate over the government's emissions trading scheme. "We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest, and therefore we must act this week, and the government will be doing everything possible to make sure that can occur," the Prime Minister said at the time. British Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband has suggested floods - such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 - could be linked to global warming. US President Barack Obama said last year: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent." Last month British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told parliament that the financial agreement at Copenhagen "must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm". The IPCC has now been forced to reassess its report linking extreme weather to climate change. The UN body's about-face comes less than a week after it was forced to retract claims that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. The claim was sourced to an environmental group's report of an interview in New Scientist magazine. The Indian glaciologist who made the quote said a week ago the claim was "speculation" and had not been used in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It also comes as the British parliament launches an inquiry into leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit that raised questions about the legitimacy of some data published by the IPCC about global warming. The latest controversy goes back to the IPCC's benchmark 2007 report on climate change, which warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s". It suggested part of the increase was because of global warming. However, the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, by the time the climate body issued its report. When the paper was published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses." The IPCC failed to issue a clarification before the Copenhagen climate summit last month. Two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts, but were ignored. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chairman of the IPCC, said the UN body was now "reassessing the evidence" and it would publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. The opposition used the latest revelations to savage Mr Rudd over his handling of climate change. Tony Abbott pointed to Mr Rudd's reluctance to mention climate change in the series of speeches he had delivered around the nation in the lead-up to Australia Day...........

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

the lying left has been hoisted, rudds shown up for being the "populism prince" of the century.


Quote:

THE impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the British Government's chief scientific adviser. John Beddington was speaking after an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly over-stated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding. Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports. He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly disputed issues........

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/britains-chief-scientist-john-beddington-calls-for-engagement-with-climate-sceptics/story-e6frg6xf-1225823874671

Sprint, have you ever found an error in a textbook? Did you conclude that the whole book must therefor be a lie?

I found where the authors have denied any other viewpoint for a very long time.
they have hidden behind fear campaigns and populisms. Any dissenter was publically ridiculed.
the authors would have us sign foolish unproductive meaningless expensive "agreements" like kyoto.
the same authors have been living on a pigs back all the while.

that's what i have found

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 9:18pm:

Sprint, have you ever found an error in a textbook? Did you conclude that the whole book must therefor be a lie?

I can't be bothered to read it all. Is this the Himalayan glacier stuff? It's immaterial whether the glaciers totally disappear or substantially decrease by a certain date. Asia is still going to be severely deprived of water supply either way.

At least the starving masses will be able to look at the ever diminishing mass of ice and say - the bastards were wrong - it's still there !

The continued presence of the shrinking glaciers would be cold comfort though.

FD, I think it probably directly proportional to the ideology of the textbook or it's author. That consistantly seems far more important than logic, reason or honesty. ::)

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 9:18pm:

Sprint, have you ever found an error in a textbook? Did you conclude that the whole book must therefor be a lie?

The IPCC report is not a scientific document. Its authors are not scientists. If it is a textbook of any kind, it is a politics text book. And as everyone knows, a week is a long time in politics.

What makes a document scientific?

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 9:13pm:

What makes a document scientific?

A good starting principal is not to let it be written by an inter-governmental panel.

Soren wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 8:38pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:18pm: Sprint, have you ever found an error in a textbook? Did you conclude that the whole book must therefor be a lie? The IPCC report is not a scientific document. Its authors are not scientists. If it is a textbook of any kind, it is a politics text book. And as everyone knows, a week is a long time in politics.

Which specific document are you talking about here, soren?

There are many IPCC reports and the vast majority are authored by scientists, who are not even employed by the IPCC. You need to be specific when you say IPCC Report.

Ok, you can have a strong opinion. That's fine, but you made a statement of alleged fact, but were deliberately vague in telling us which report you meant. Now is your opportunity to clear that up.

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 7:48am:

Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 8:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:18pm: Sprint, have you ever found an error in a textbook? Did you conclude that the whole book must therefor be a lie? The IPCC report is not a scientific document. Its authors are not scientists. If it is a textbook of any kind, it is a politics text book. And as everyone knows, a week is a long time in politics. Which specific document are you talking about here, soren? There are many IPCC reports and the vast majority are authored by scientists, who are not even employed by the IPCC. You need to be specific when you say IPCC Report. Ok, you can have a strong opinion. That's fine, but you made a statement of alleged fact, but were deliberately vague in telling us which report you meant. Now is your opportunity to clear that up.

The IPCC Assessment Reports

Soren wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 9:46pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 9:13pm: What makes a document scientific? A good starting principal is not to let it be written by an inter-governmental panel.

In other words, you don't know?

Maybe you would consider it scientific if you agreed with the political implications? Or perhaps you would only consider it scientific if it had no implications?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 9:46pm: freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 9:13pm: What makes a document scientific? A good starting principal is not to let it be written by an inter-governmental panel. In other words, you don't know? Maybe you would consider it scientific if you agreed with the political implications? Or perhaps you would only consider it scientific if it had no implications?

Amazing.

Tell us, what are the political implications of the colour spectrum? Of the Pythagoras Theorem? The Periodic Table?

Ah, so I was right? You judge the scientific merit by the absence of political implications?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 9:39pm:

Ah, so I was right? You judge the scientific merit by the absence of political implications?

Ah.... no.


'Implications' is incorrect. Substitute 'motivations'.

So whether a paper is scientific depends on the motiviation of the authors?

Let me get this straight, you think that scientists are traditionally lacking in political motives and that this report breaks the trend?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 9:54pm:

So whether a paper is scientific depends on the motiviation of the authors? Let me get this straight, you think that scientists are traditionally lacking in political motives and that this report breaks the trend?

Fd, with great respect, you have a peculiarly great difficulty with getting anything straight.


Scientists working in the physical sciences should have no political motives when designing, conducting and evaluating their research. If they do, they are acting unethically and unscientifically.

The words 'Intergovernmental Panel' should alert even the most sluggish minds to the defining tenor of these reports.

Even independent labs and university research centres are prone to group think and listening out for their master' voice, although they tend to be ashamed when caught at it. Government functionaries, on the other hand, are prized for that very ability.

You have an extremely naive view of science Soren. It is riddled with politics and group think. Without that, it couldn't function, or deliver the great advances in knowledge that it has.

Whether something has political ramifications has absolutely no impact on whether it is scientific. Nor does the motive of the researcher. Imagine of someone claimed that the theory of evolution was unscientific merely because it had political ramifications. Or that Galileo's theory's were unscientific because powerful found them disturbing. That is basically what you are saying.

This is why I asked you what makes a paper scientific. You can't seem to answer that, even though you are certain that this particular one is not scientific.

[quote author=freediver link=1264375062/15#17 date=1264817707]You have an extremely naive view of science Soren. It is riddled with politics and group think. Without that, it couldn't function, or deliver the great advances in knowledge that it has.

Whether something has political ramifications has absolutely no impact on whether it is scientific. Nor does the motive of the researcher. Imagine of someone claimed that the theory of evolution was unscientific merely because it had political ramifications. Or that Galileo's theory's were unscientific because powerful found them disturbing. That is basically what you are saying.['quote]
Nothing of the sort.


You are mixing thing up in manner peculiar to your own mind. You are like Alice.

What makes a document scientific?

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 12:50pm:

What makes a document scientific?

The application of the scientific method. What is that, then?

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZEZ_en___AU345&q=define%3Ascientific+method&btnG=Search&meta=

So if they subject the document to those methods it becomes scientific?

Soren wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 8:37am:

muso wrote on Jan 29th, 2010 at 7:48am: Ok, you can have a strong opinion. That's fine, but you made a statement of alleged fact, but were deliberately vague in telling us which report you meant. Now is your opportunity to clear that up. The IPCC Assessment Reports

OK, so let's take the AR5 assessment reports. They are in preparation at the moment. There are several Working Groups involved. Here is the link for WG1:

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

As you can see, it says :


Quote:

Governments and participating organisations are invited to nominate experts to participate in the preparation of the three Working Group contributions to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) as coordinating lead authors, authors and review editors. Click here to access the IPCC AR5 Nominations Portal, which routes IPCC Focal Points and representatives of participating organisations to the individual working group nomination pages.

Now who do you suppose those lead authors, authors and review editors might be?

Al Gore? or just maybe, scientists who are experts in their field?

Have to actually checked the IPCC AR4 assessment reports yet to find out who wrote them? (it wasn't Al Gore either)

So just what is your source for saying that the reports are not written by scientists? Wayne's Climate World?