UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC 342
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
How do you know what is real? (Score:4, Informative)
However, there was scientific consensus in the 70s [youtube.com].
So -- how do you know what is real?
Gray literature (Score:2, Informative)
One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,
The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched, having assumptions that are probably correct. If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you cannot scan the article, and especially not its conclusions, but you will have to check everything! So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles. If that's not done by someone qualified, having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research' included is dangerous in that it may contaminate good research with crappy stuff.
And if this 'respected research' is worth something, it's probably already used/cited in peer reviewed articles I would imagine.
In any event, the non-believers have a small success. From mistakes in a report (everyone makes mistakes), results a scan of more literature. Will that change anything? Almost certainly not. The uncertainties in climate models are known, but what's not in doubt (by real scientists) is that there is change (at least partially man-made) and besides the crackpots or people who just don't give a damn [ I remember an interview in a dutch TV programme ca. 2004 IIRC with someone senior in the US government who simply said: If other countries want to clean up the air, fine, we're not going to do it because it would hurt our economy ], this seems to serve no-one. I.e. it's more like politics.
Re:My particular facts. (Score:5, Informative)
Every year for the last ten years has been setting record temperatures.
Wrong, unless you are talking about localized records, in which case that will always be true.
Its been cooling a bit for the last 8 years... the trend began in 2002. You are either making things up, or repeating what you heard from someone else who was making things up.
As Independent as Philip Campbell? (Score:3, Informative)
Philip Campbell was one of the "scientists" selected to join the "independent" review panel for the UEA leaks. He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642 [channel4.com]
I'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN's review of the IPCC. This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money.
Re:My particular facts. (Score:3, Informative)
There's an interesting toy at this website [climate.gov]. It's called the global climate dashboard. You can view Temperature, carbon dioxide, incoming sunlight, sea level, arctic sea ice for various periods, adjusting the siders to zoom in on various decades and so on. (Pay attention to the vertical axis, though)
The interesting thing is that 1998 stands out like a sore thumb. 1997 was cooler and so was 1999.
But the naughties? Warmer than 1999. Warmer than 1997. Most of the decade was just slightly cooler than 1998, with very little variability.
Re:Debate the Solution, not the Problem (Score:4, Informative)
That is typical. In other words; "Don't argue with us; we are right. Case closed".
There were no political attacks on the science. There were political attacks on the politics. If you can't keep those two straight, then it's no wonder that you are an acolyte in the Church Of Global Warming.
Maybe this will help (http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092):
ClimateGate - This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate - The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate - An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate - An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate - Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II - Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.
SternGate - One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose th
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:4, Informative)
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
Really? Disparaged maybe, but the papers the CRU emails were talking about trying to "shut up" were published anyway.
Re:My particular facts. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:4, Informative)
Your tireless wholehearted and rather blind dedication for only one side is called zeal.
That makes you a zealot.
Re:How do you know what is real? (Score:4, Informative)
I'd suggest to any climate change denial to watch the video.
Re:2 big problems in that report (Score:2, Informative)
The 'deniers' didn't find the Himalaya glacier error. It was found by a glacier expert, Georg Kaser, who happens to be one of the lead authors of the snow-and-ice chapter in vol. 1 of the IPCC report, which deals with the physical science basis for man-made climate change. (No errors found there.) The error was in vol. 2, which deals with the impacts of climate change, way down on p. 493 in a 'case study' inside the chapter on Asia, which apparently was not reviewed by any glacier expert.
The other error -- regarding the percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level -- came from no lesser a source than the Dutch government [www.pbl.nl] (oops).
Re:My particular facts. (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, how about you quote what Phil Jones actually said? It's not hard, and yet somehow the words that came out of his mouth directly contradict what you claim he said.
The trend is positive (i.e, there is generally warming), but it is not significant at the 95% level. Also, although Jones doesn't say this in his answer, if you run the same calculation from 1994 to the present, the trend is significant to the 95% level. And if you run the calculation from 1995 to 2010, when we have that data, I bet you it'll be statistically significant.
Basically, this is a case of the reporter doing his homework and asking a question that would get the response he wanted. After all, 1995 is kind of weirdly specific, isn't it? Why not, you know, "in the last fifteen years" or "last couple of decades"?
Re:My particular facts. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. For example, if there were no greenhouse effect at all (that is, if components of the atmosphere were transparent across the EM spectrum), the Earth would be about 35 degrees Celsius cooler than it is given its distance from the Sun. Venus has an atmosphere about equal in mass to our total atmosphere (that is, air + oceans) but composed almost completely of CO2, which we know spectrally is opaque to huge swaths of the infrared spectrum. Because of the absorption of re-radiated solar input, Venus is 400 degrees Celsius hotter than its orbital distance would suggest. Undebatable, or basically not worth the time to debate anyone who disagrees with that assertion.
The real debate is whether or not the extraction and burning of fossil fuels adds enough CO2 to our atmosphere to noticeably change the climate. Current science yields a consensus on the side of "yes", with some qualifications. Debates among qualified individuals are ongoing on the effects of changes in solar input, the individual validity of the various computer modelling efforts, &c.
Now, while the scientists argue over those points of qualification, politicians and other idiots use these differences as reasons to sit around with their thumbs up their asses like they want to do anyway. I will add that I have noticed that these are the same people also support the teaching of creationism in schools (teach the controversy!), but oppose the teaching of sex education in schools (you're giving our children mixed messages!). A lot of them also think that displaying the Ten Commandments everywhere will make America wholesome again, just like it was when your melanin count determined which bathroom you could take a crap in, or even earlier when it determined if a person with less melanin could own you. Often this was the order of business in the very states these politicians represent! Draw your own conclusions.
Re:My particular facts. (Score:3, Informative)
The sun is the primary source of the far strongest greenhouse gas.. water vapor.
The sun does not emit water vapour. You probably meant to repeat Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas [newscientist.com] and Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans [climatemyths].
The CRU emails show show no such thing. (Score:3, Informative)
The CRU emails show show no such [youtube.com] thing [youtube.com].
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:2, Informative)
There will always be problems with "indepenence" of scientific research when the main (only) funding agency is a political body and an incredibly long validation period.
The funding for climate research comes through many governments across the globe. Even in the US, it has come through several agencies (including the DoD!) and during times with the administrations in power have been decidedly anti-climate change research. The scientists have even been harassed and had their reports meddled with by functionaries who didn't like their research. They kept at it and kept saying the same thing.
In short, your claims are flatly false.