Nuclear Storm Gathers as Climate Change Experts Meet

What you call cherry picked data by the IPCC scientists it in fact orchestrated work of lawyers, being paid for this: some weeks ago there was a big fuss on the end of global warming and the beginning of a cooling period.

After all it was a misread sentence in a report of a scientist who concluded that the influence of oceans on climate is much higher than generally accepted, the cold winter was the initiator to conclude that the climate tipped over the oceans according to the daily mail. Mojib Latif really fell out of his cherry picker when he found out that he was the source for this claim.

How the Daily mail got the nice article that concluded so wild is for me questionable.

What I tried to show you is that the same graph/data set can be used for two opposites, and it happens.

This morning it was announced in newspapers here that the big scandal on the E-mails in Copenhagen was in fact a pre-orchestrated campaign using two mails:

• One of 1999 where Phil Jones concludes that the correlation between weather and three growth got lost since the beginning of the 20th century.
• A second recent mail where Kevin Trenberg can't explain why 2008 was such a cool year.

So the big scandal about cherry picking data and lying till they end black is all to be traced back to two mails in a time span of 10 years. While 10000 scientists over the whole world concluded that is is a bit necessary to start acting.

After all: journalists didn't read the mails where the opponents where relating to, and the subjects had nothing to see with the end conclusion of great scientists like Sarah Palin. But as the press needs big stories this sells easier than the discussions of the top itself.

Statistics is a dangerous science, and can become a killer tool in the hands of those who have other purposes than helping the community to survive.

I am not sure what your background is but the contention that the news of scientists selectively choosing what data they want to use in their assessment was orchestrated by lawyers is really off the deep end and drives one to question the validity of anything you have to contribute. Perhaps an elaboration of the process used will clarify the issue for you.

Countries collect environmental data such as temperatures, winds etc etc and then pass that into the the World Meteorological Organization ( the UN organization that is a part of the IPCC). Organizations that are responsible for analyzing this data such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration get their data from the WMO.

This past week an assessment carried out on the data used by NASA''s Goddard Institute for Space Studies to report on the climate record for North America found out that scientists had loaded their data with temp readings from the mid latitudes and essentially ignored those from the higher ones - those north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. While Environment Canada reported data from 100 weather stations located north of the Arctic Circle, GISS scientists used only data from one station - Eureka. For the period 1990 to the present. However for the years preceding 1990, they used all of the data. The second issue that was identified was those same GISS scientists loaded their database from information relating to stations located near urban centers, ignoring many of those located in rural and wilderness areas. The net effect of this selective use of data was to show that the temperatures prior to 1990 appearing cool while the years subsequent to 1990 appeared to be warmer than they were.

For the record, the above was not reported in the Daily Mirror.

I believe the story you are referring to was the notion that the Himalayan glaciers were melting and retreating at a rapid rate. This was included in the IPCC's last report and has since been removed by the IPCC as it turned out the issue was based on an old study that had not been published, peer reviewed and which was based on speculation and not scientific evidence. There are some reports (unsubstantiated by myself at this point) that contend as many as 16 sections of the IPCC report are based on work provided by environmental groups rather than originating from scientists.

Finally your comment about 10,000 scientists is unsubstantiated and IMHO not valid at all. If you delve into such numbers you will see they are created by adding up the membership numbers to various organizations that have made statements supporting the position that the earth's climate is warming. IF you look further into the staements of those associations, you will see that they do not confirm man-made CO2 as the driving force but rather the position is based on the principle that if the earth warms as much as the IPCC contends will happen, then governments must do what they can which includes developing policies to accommodate climate change.

To conclude I think people should look into the origins of the IPCC (hint it was established by a resolution of the UN); look into their mandate (clearly evident in that resolution) look into the mandate of the UN itself and then determine for themselves the validity of the process that has been followed - especially given the recent disclosures concerning the e-mails, the reported changes to the final report made AFTER the authors signed off, examine the report that many insertions within the document were derived from environmental groups and were included without any scientific basis for doing so - I will expect many of you to be somewhat upset and jaundiced by this process.

Hi Gwen

I thought I would add some additional comments to this post. While the 11 year trend of the sun's radiation does appear to be going down, what is more interesting is what is happening over the past In the late 50's to early 60's, radiation was at its highest for the period covered (1880 to present) and it is that period that seems to have initiated the apparent climb in temperatures. Further peaks for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000 also appear to have contributed to the apparent higher temperatures. One would not expect to see a direct drop in temp with a drop in radiation but rather a shallowing of the slope or a minor blip downwards.

I disagree with your contention that a 11 year period is insufficient for climate discussions as it is clear that solar radiation fluxes occur within that time frame. As for a 30 year trend, I would disagree that such a period is reflective of climate change - real climate change occurs over tens of thousands of years, however for man's perspective a rolling ten year period is more indicative as to what is happening than a 30 year trend IMHO. As for predicting the weather, man can't do it accurately for a period of five days let alone any longer period.

Unfortunately you seem to fall into the same error as others - that people who question the IPCC contention that man-made CO2 is driving global warming is the equivalent to people saying global warming is a hoax. There are two separate arguments and I would contend that many who disagree with the IPCC will recognize that climate change is occurring - something that has been happening long before man showed up.

Hey RHABE

My reference regarding geoengineering is probably not the best as the site incorporates geotechnical engineering. Instead look at the wikipedia page that describes the climate engineering possibilities that are being investigated by various entities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering

On a side note, Bill Gates has recently committed to personally fund initiatives on this front.