Link: Copy link
- Fishy odors surrounding Figure 3 from "The (Copenhagen) Synthesis Report" (The Blackboard, June 23, 2009)Instead of simply complying with standard IPCC procedures, Rahmstorf used a filter procedure described only in the AGU newspaper - the triangular filter properties of which were not described in the original article and indeed the authors say that they unaware of this defect at the time.
Rahmstorf changed smoothing policy not just once, but twice. First, in Rahmstorf 2007, he abandoned IPCC policy in favor of an article in the AGU newspaper; then he changed accounting parameters in the Copenhagen Report - all without explicitly stating that he had changed policy from the IPCC report and accompanying the change notice with an explicit accounting of the impact of the change.
Rahmstorf can no longer assert that observations are in the "upper" part of models, with the implication that things are "worse than we thought".
Breaking the ice (The Spectator, UK, February 19, 2011)In this Letter, we use statistical climate-field-reconstruction techniques to obtain a 50-year-long, spatially complete estimate of monthly Antarctic temperature anomalies. In essence, we use the spatial covariance structure of the surface temperature field to guide interpolation of the sparse but reliable 50-year-long records of 2-m temperature from occupied weather stations. Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica.
American Association of State ClimatologistsAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists - 2007 wrote:...the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases [...]
Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The Earth’s climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.
...the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. ... To be predictive, any model of future climate should also accurately model known climate and greenhouse gas variations recorded in the geologic history of the past 200,000 years. [...]
...emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain
American Geophysical Union: (AGU)American Association of State Climatologists - 2001 wrote:...Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate. The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.
Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate. Climate is always changing on a variety of time scales and being prepared for the consequences of this variability is a wise policy.
AGU Climate Consensus Statement: 9 Speak for 50,000? (The Politics and Environment Blog)American Geophysical Union - 2007 wrote:With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty...
CO2 Science Challenges AGU’s Official Position on Global Warming (Canada Free Press)The AGU Board issued a statement on climate change without putting it to a vote of the group's more than 50,000 members. Its sweeping claims, drafted by nine committee members, rely heavily on long term computer model projections, cherry-picking of data and a one-sided view of recent research. As with the recent statements by the AMS and the NAS, this is the product of a small circle of scientists who all share the same point of view, and who failed to put their statement to a vote of the AGU members on whose behalf they now claim to speak. As such it amounts to nothing more than a restatement of the opinion of a small group, rather than a consensus document.
American Meteorological Society:As has been recognized, this Statement was prepared and approved by only a very limited number of AGU members, and was not put to a vote for approval by the AGU membership
American Meteorological Society - 2007 wrote:...All these reports recognize the uncertainties in climate projections, [...]
...members offered alternative views on climate change or put quite different emphases on the uncertainties of climate projections. ...The scientific process of debate and investigation is the lifeblood of science; this essential process must continue. [...]
...the East Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland interior appear to be gaining mass. ...little or no annual temperature change in the southeast U.S. in recent decades. [...]
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. [...]
Changes in the land surface also change the surface water and energy budgets act to redirect the incoming solar energy. Humans alter land surface characteristics through irrigation practices, removal and reintroduction of forests, agricultural changes to vegetative cover, reduction of soil water recharge by soil compaction, and modification of heat storage by cities and reservoirs. Many of these lead to changes in the reflectivity of the surface. ...such changes can have significant effects on regional and local climate patterns.
The interaction of all these effects on climate is complex. ...the east–west difference in U.S. temperature trends may be tied to the spatial patterns of global ocean warming, ...or to natural climate variations. [...]
Changes in the means and extremes of temperature and precipitation in response to increasing greenhouse gases can be projected over decades to centuries even though the timing of individual weather events cannot be projected. Unlike daily weather forecasts, there is limited historical basis of experience on which to judge the accuracy of climate projections. [...]
Weather predictions beyond a few days are nowadays based on ensembles of simulations that estimate the range of probable outcomes. The same ensemble concept is used for projections of climate change, where uncertainty arises from the limitations of models and from the emission scenarios used to represent the effects of human activity. Model limitations include uncertainties in the way in which processes that operate at scales smaller than the resolved scale of the model are represented, as well as those that arise from components of the Earth system not currently included in models. Among the most important uncertainties are changes in clouds, which can either cool or warm the climate. ...The emission scenarios used to drive the climate model projections are uncertain since they depend on socioeconomic responses to climate change; [...]
...considerable uncertainty still exists in the degree to which the land will warm more than the oceans, and this contributes significantly to uncertainties in future projections of global sea level rise. [...]
...There is evidence ...against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date. Though hurricanes are projected to intensify with further warming of sea surface temperatures, significant uncertainty remains as to how other influences on hurricane strength will change in the future. [...]
...On the other hand, longer growing seasons and CO2 fertilization enhancing plant growth may potentially lead to some benefits. [...]
The Earth system is highly interconnected and complex, with many processes and feedbacks that are just beginning to be detected and understood. [...]
...Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change.
American Physical Society:American Meteorological Society - 2003 wrote:...but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. [...]
...it is proving difficult to achieve national and international consensus as to what should and could be done to address the issues. [...]
...natural processes such as solar variability and volcanic outgassing were the dominant forcing factors producing long-term climate changes over periods of decades, centuries, and millennia. [...]
The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. [...]
While significant progress has been made toward a better understanding and improved projection of climate change and its impacts, uncertainty remains regarding the magnitude, timing, and regional distribution of anticipated changes. [...]
...most of the data that have been used for climate purposes were and still are obtained from observation systems designed for other purposes (e.g., weather prediction). These data are often inadequate for the analysis and description of climate change because of the higher accuracy requirements for observations used to detect very low amplitude climate changes over long time periods. [...]
The Earth's climate system is tightly coupled and awe inspiring in its complexity. Understanding and modeling the myriad physical, chemical, and biological forcing, interactions, and feedbacks of the system is a daunting task that will continue to occupy researchers for the foreseeable future. [...]
Land-use change is another important human-induced regional forcing factor, but accurate histories of land-use change are spotty and estimates of future land-use changes are very difficult. [...]
Cloud feedback may also be very important, but its magnitude and even its sign remain uncertain. Climate-induced changes of the land surface may in turn feed back on the climate itself. Many processes are involved, including changes in soil characteristics (e.g., soil moisture, holding capacity), vegetation, radiative characteristics (e.g., albedo), and surface-atmosphere exchanges of water vapor, other gases (e.g., CO2), particulates (e.g., dust) and momentum. Some of these processes remain poorly understood and difficult to measure and model, and thus require continued research. The full suite of potentially important feedback processes is yet to be adequately understood and quantified. For example, although observations of global mean temperatures indicate that the surface has warmed by about 0.6°C over the past 100 years, the mean tropospheric temperature trends, for which we have observations only over the past 40 years or so, are more complex and not well understood. Although there remains significant observational uncertainties, global mean tropospheric temperatures warmed faster in the 1960s and 1970s, and slower in the 1980s and 1990s, than the global mean surface temperature. These differences indicate the need for research into feedback processes that might explain this reversal in tropospheric temperature trends. Additional poorly understood feedbacks of potential importance are carbon cycle feedback, due to warming-induced changes in the land and ocean carbon reservoirs; atmospheric chemistry feedback, due to chemical interactions affecting ozone concentrations, aerosol formation, and atmospheric heating profiles; and ocean circulation feedback, arising from ocean circulation changes that affect ocean-atmosphere heat and freshwater exchange. [...]
The relatively short instrumental time series, generally less than a century in length, is often too short to adequately characterize longer-term variability. [...]
...many crucial details of magnitude, timing, and specific regional responses-especially for hydrological variables, such as precipitation-are still very much in doubt. The uncertainties arise due to incomplete identification and understanding of processes significant in future climate, and their necessary approximations in models. [...]
The assessment of regional environmental and social impacts is a multidisciplinary task that involves natural and social scientists working in tandem with policy makers. [...]
...climate models will never be perfect. Only a portion of natural climate variability is predictable, and the inherent degree of predictability is not yet well understood. [...]
Risk cannot be assessed with absolute certainty. [...]
Extensive multidisciplinary research is needed to narrow the many formidable knowledge gaps.
Russian Academy of Sciences:Joint Science Academies - 2005 wrote:There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. [...]
The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. [...] the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. [...]
The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional level, [...]
The task of devising and implementing strategies to adapt to the consequences of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including physical and natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in the humanities, business leaders and economists.
Anti-Bush gibe by Royal Society sparks climate change row (The Times, UK)Russian academicians are still negative about the Kyoto protocol to the UN convention on climate change, a leading scientist told a Friday news conference.
Academician Yury Izrael, who chairs the Russian Academy of Sciences' council-seminar on the Kyoto protocol, said the council had confirmed its position on climate change remained the same. [...]
Izrael said Russian Academy of Sciences President Yury Osipov's signature on the document was "a misunderstanding."
Izrael said the document had been discussed collectively only at today's seminar. Russian academicians asked Osipov to recall his signature. [...]
Russian scientists said they still considered the Kyoto protocol was scientifically ungrounded, and would be an ineffective way to try to achieve the aim of the UN convention on climate change. They also said it was harmful for the Russian economy
Climate change 'to destroy Opera House' (National Nine News, Australia)The Washington Post wrote:The boy has drawn, in his third-grade class, a global warming timeline that is his equivalent of the mushroom cloud. Alex Hendel of Arlington County is talking about the end of life on our beleaguered planet. Looking up to make sure his mother is following along, he taps the final stripe, which is so sparsely dotted it is almost invisible. "In 20 years," he pronounces, "there's no oxygen." Then, to dramatize the point, he collapses, "dead," to the floor.
- Greenpeace (Activist Cash)Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]
In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."
According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]
An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.
Greenpeace "Officers":Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.
Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion’s share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers. [...]
Patrick Moore was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver. Within 7 years, the organization had footholds in over two dozen countries and a $100 million budget. As eco-activists in general found themselves suddenly invited into the meeting-places of business and government, Greenpeace made the decision to take even more extreme positions, rather than being drawn in to collaboration with their former enemies.
Moore broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”
Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”
Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science (PDF) (28pgs) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, March 29, 2010)"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
- Union of Concerned Scientists (Activist Cash)The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization with more than 100,000 members. Seeing its mission as building a "cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world," ... It opposes genetically engineered foods, condemns SUV vehicles, and proposes measures aimed at combating what it deems the imminent dangers of global warming. It also opposes the vast majority of American foreign policy decisions, and calls for a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles. UCS disseminates to lawmakers and news outlets its opinions about each of these matters, with the intent of ultimately influencing public policy.
Students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology founded UCS in 1969. "Through its actions in Vietnam, our government has shaken our confidence in its ability to make wise and humane decisions," reads the UCS founding document. That sentiment continues to this day, with UCS condemning American efforts in the War on Terror and the 2003 War in Iraq.
UCS typically minimizes threats posed by foreign rogue regimes, and challenges U.S. assertions about the intentions and military capacities of those governments. In 1998, for instance, UCS assured the public that American analysts had exaggerated North Korea's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and that the Pyongyang regime was still many years away from being able to develop such an arsenal.
UCS vigorously opposes America's development of a missile defense system. It also calls for the "adoption of a U.S. nuclear no-first-use policy"; "a U.S. rejection of rapid-launch options, and a change in deployment practices to provide for the launch of U.S. nuclear forces in hours or days rather than minutes"; "the elimination of all U.S. 'tactical' nuclear weapons, intended for use on the battlefield"; "verified unilateral reductions to a total of 1,000 strategic warheads (including deployed and stored), accompanied by warhead dismantlement"; and "a commitment to further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, on a negotiated and verified multilateral basis."
UCS admonishes American corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King, asserting that the presence of antibiotics in meat used by fast-food companies contributes to large-scale antibiotic resistance. In 2003, bills based on UCS research aimed at prohibiting the use of eight classes of antibiotics in livestock used by fast-food producers were introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate. Soon after, UCS admitted that the majority of its claims were speculative. UCS has also warned of the alleged dangers of genetically modified food.
Another issue of concern to UCS is that of global warming. The organization circulated a petition that drew the signatures of some 1,600 scientific experts demanding that the United States ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
A Union of Concerned Scientists declaration, entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," charges that the Bush administration "has continued to distort and suppress science in pursuit of its political goals — despite a plea from top U.S. scientists to restore scientific integrity to the policy-making process." According to UCS President Kevin Knobloch, "We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on." The signers of this document portrayed themselves as objective scientists with no political agenda. But in truth, over half of them were financial contributors to the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, or a variety of leftist causes. [...]
UCS is a member of the Save Our Environment Action Center, a leftist coalition that describes itself as "a collaborative effort of the nation's most influential environmental advocacy organizations harnessing the power of the internet to increase public awareness and activism on today's most important environmental issues."
UCS has received funding from the Beldon Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Energy Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts.
5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.
5.6) William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so. *
Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
* Amended by motion, 8 to 2, 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
James HansenGeorge Monbiot, the environmental campaigner, scourge of the automobile industry and champion of not owning cars, has finally bought himself . . . a car. Notwithstanding pledges to live a green lifestyle and be a model to others, he has given in to temptation and acquired a secondhand Renault. [...]
In what can only be described as a comprehensive U-turn, Monbiot has chosen a Renault Clio, an economical hatchback but not the most frugal in fuel consumption or carbon emissions. He bought it from a friend for an undisclosed amount. As zealots will be quick to remind him, it emits 115g/km , 10% higher than a Toyota Prius, the petrol-electric hybrid belovedof CO2 of the green movement.
Event promotes 'green' life (The Saginaw News)Peter Sinclair is a long time advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives. ...Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI. ...30 years of writing and activism in the areas of energy and environment, including extended study in Nashville with Al Gore
Phil Mote (Former Washington State Climatologist)Sinclair studied with Al Gore in dealing with the issue of global warming