Burn them! (but capture the Carbon, okay?)

[BlasterBates]

Professor Judith Curry, climatologist on the IPCC report:

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

Bad science and/or dishonesty?

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

In other words the IPCC report is full of misleading sh*t. Furthermore:

I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.

Good on for Johnny Ball taking on these dishonest charlatans.

...and in a nutshell, the "real" research question.

I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change. I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years. I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).

I don’t want to throw the baby away with the bath water here. But this whole issue is a big problem for the science and has been an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science. I suspect that many denizens will be on board with my assessment and are very familiar with McIntyre’s analysis. I would be particularly interested in hearing from any defenders of these global paleotemperature analyses by Mann et al.

[EternalOptimist]

What happend was this. thermometer records only go back a short time, and the climate experts need to know whether the planet warmed up, and in which years. So they looked at old tree rings.
A big fat tree ring means healthy growth, which means warmer
a skinny little tree ring means it was cooler

so far so good. its known as a proxy i.e. it stands in for thermometer records in the time there were no thermometers.

but when the tree rings proxies were compared to thermometer readings, in recent times, they did not correlate at all.

Now most people would say 'hang on, this is a bad idea, its not much of a proxy'


but not the hockey stick dudes. They left the last bit off their graph, and thats whats getting peoples backs up


lets put it this way, if we ignored and hid test results that showed our new system had serious bugs, we would be sacked. and righly so

[BlasterBates]

...and it wasn't just the modern warming it failed to show, which they argued was because trees grow differently due to the extra CO2 (after they'd been found out) , there was an unusually warm year in the 19th century which failed to show up in the proxy data as well.

Which means as a proxy tree rings are friggin useless.

[DimPrawn]

Surely tree growth depends not only on temperature, but also sunlight levels, CO2 levels, levels of nutrients in the soil and rainfall?

Without knowing the other factors, you cannot tell how warm it was by looking at tree rings?

[EternalOptimist]

Of course there are lots of other proxies for various climate related analyses. corals, shells, microrganisms, gas bubbles in ice etc


but its the same as their models. there is no substitute for the real thing. please, dont pretend that there is

[Pondlife]

Praise be!

I've seen the light!

Mein Fuhrer!

I can walk again!

Alms for an ex leper?

[Spacecadet]

Last edited by pjclarke; Today at 12:35. Reason: dead links

The only reason I can think of for dead links is that your link reference library needs updating!

[sasguru]

It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Where's the money coming from? Why aren't they as transparent as they claim climate scientists should be?
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

Does this sort of stuff not ring a bell with the useful idiots? Apparently not.

HTH

[DimPrawn]

It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Where's the money coming from? Why aren't they as transparent as they claim climate scientists should be?
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


HTH

I've got no problem with researching ways to use less energy, less dependence on imported oil, etc.

Just creating a pretend issue with CO2, false science, etc, idiotic IPCC predictions, manipulating data, spreading lies really gets my goat.

The government taxed the hell out of fuel and now tax the hell out of the smoke it produces. You couldn't make this tulip up.

[SueEllen]

It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Well it's better to have energy security, decreased pollution and in the case of open cast mining - stopping large scale destruction of the environment, as a goal then just climate change.

BTW When I've been to places like Turkey and Greece I thought having solar panels on the top of buildings to heat their hot water made sense but not because of climate change.