Climate Change Consensus?

[Moon The Loon]

Or in other words, they lied to get their way.

[Guest woxof]

Now the climate scientists are beginning to dive off the rail of the IPCC Titanic.

"The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we” did it because “we thought ... it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Woxof....VINDICATED.

Being such an open minded individual......All apologies from the insulters are accepted. Full story from above post is pasted below.

The Scam of the Century.

"Heat wave closes in on the IPCC

Insider Andrew Weaver is getting out while the going is good

By Terence Corcoran

A

catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.

If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports. For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangereous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangereous line between hype and science. It is Mr. Weaver, for example, who said the IPCC’s 2007 science report — the one now subject to some scrutiny —“isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

He has also made numerous television appearances linking current weather and temperature events with global warming, painting sensational pictures and dramatic links. “When you see these [temperature] numbers, it’s screaming out at you: ‘This is global warming!”

Mr. Weaver is also one of the authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an IPCC-related piece of agit-prop issued just before the recent Copenhagen meeting.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is as manipulative a piece of policy advocacy as can be found, filled with forboding and alarming assessments. Described as “an interim evaluation of the evolving science,” it was an attempt to jump-start decision-making at Copenhagen. It failed, perhaps in part because one of the authors was U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann, who plays a big role in the climategate emails.

That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble. He’s getting out while the getting’s good, and blaming the IPCC’s upper echelon for the looming crisis.

In the language typical of an IPPC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by climategate and glaciergate strongly suggest there is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely” in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate change political machine is going to come crashing down.

Mr. Weaver’s acknowledgement that climategate—the release/leak/theft of thousands of incriminating emails from a British climate centre showing deep infighting and number manipulation — demonstrates a problem is real news in itself. When climategate broke as a story last November, Mr. Weaver dismissed it as unimportant and appeared in the media with a cockamame story about how his offices had also been broken into and that the fossil fuel industry might be responsible for both climategate and his office break-in.

The latest IPCC fiasco looks even more damaging. In the 2007 IPCC report that Mr. Weaver said revealed climate change to be a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles, it turns out one of those missiles — a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 — was a fraud. Not an accidental fraud, but a deliberately planted piece of science fiction. The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we” did it because “we thought ... it will impact

policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Mr. Weaver told Canwest that the Himalayan incident is “one small thing” and not a sign of a “global conspiracy to drum up false evidence of global warming.” We shall see. It is a safe bet that there have been other tweaks, twists, manipulations and distortions in IPCC science reports over the years. New revelations are inevitable. Now is a good time to get out of the kitchen. Mr. Weaver is the first out the door."

[Kip Powick]

Woxof....VINDICATED.

Being such an open minded individual......All apologies from the insulters are accepted.

Just wondering.....after you have read/listened to this book, perhaps you can terminate this thread.

[Guest woxof]

Why close the thread when I am having so much fun these days....

"Exaggerating the impact of climate change on the spread of malaria.

A recent press release from Dfid suggested that millions in Kenya are susceptible to malaria due to a rise in temperature. Simple analysis shows questions this claim.

A recent press release from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) suggested that millions more people in Kenya are susceptible to malaria as a result of mosquitoes colonising higher ground as global temperatures rise. ('New evidence of a link between climate change and malaria', 30.12.09 – see below). The press release was extensively covered in UK newspapers and elsewhere.

Simple analysis shows that the claims of the press release are almost entirely without foundation. The battle against the severe threat from climate change is impeded, not helped, by government departments issuing alarmist and exaggerated alerts based on poor science.

All other things being equal, the spread of malaria is probably encouraged by higher global temperatures. The malaria parasite in the insect's body grows fastest at average daily temperatures of about 25 degrees and most parts of the world are well below this level. But temperature is only one factor in the spread of this terrible disease, possibly a small one. The presence of stagnant water in open sunlit fields after deforestation, increased population pressure, lack of availability of mosquito nets, or a reluctance to use them, may all contribute as much to the spread of malaria as increasing temperatures. Nevertheless, despite the plethora of more convincing explanations for varying levels of malarial illness, policy-makers and government departments continue to state, without any qualification, that malaria will become very much more prevalent in a warmer world.

The 2001 IPCC report also overstated the connection between climate change and malarial infections. Understandably, the top selling books by climate sceptics published in the last few years all feast on the weak scientific evidence for this assertion. These books usually quote the specialist in insect-borne diseases, Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who has strenuously and effectively attacked the idea that increasing temperatures will necessarily produce a rapid rise in the incidence of insect-borne diseases. Professor Reiter points out that malaria transmission is a complex matter and that rising temperatures are only weakly linked to an increasing incidence of malaria. (The illustration at the head of this article provides us with some sense of just how complex malaria is). Why, he and others have asked, if temperature is so important, did the disease disappear from countries like Britain just as the climate was warming at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' during the 18th and 19th centuries?

However the story that substantial increases in malaria will inevitably follow rising temperatures will not go away and DFID's recent press release is another example. The document claims that 'new research' in the highland areas around Mt Kenya has shown strong links between increasing temperatures and malaria incidence. When I asked for a copy of the scientific papers to back up this assertion, DFID said it was unable to provide this 'new research', stating instead that the press release was based on 'a cumulation of several studies over the past few years'.

Three papers were attached to this surprising response from DFID. The press release asserted that temperatures on the western side of Mt Kenya had risen two degrees Celsius in twenty years, prompting epidemics of malaria, but these research papers actually showed a much smaller increase. The specific claim that the Mt Kenya area has recently become vulnerable to malaria was backed up by interview data of a few years ago from a small number of families who declared a total of eight cases of malaria in the past five years compared to only three in the period of five to ten years ago. No medical analysis appears to have been carried out to determine whether the disease recorded was or was not malaria. Neither was any attempt apparently made to adjust for deficiencies in memory of events ten years ago.

What about the physical evidence of mosquitoes? The scientific papers sent to me by DFID write of finding a total of two mosquito larvae in pools on high ground near Mt Kenya. These larvae produced a total of 23 insects when incubated in a laboratory. The quality of this finding is never questioned. Most importantly, the background research papers do fully acknowledge that other events in the geographic areas under study, such as deforestation or increased pooling of stagnant water as a result of land use changes, could well have been the primary cause of any growth in the number of mosquitos and of malaria, not climate change. But these possibilities are unmentioned in the DFID press release."

There is more to the story if you click on the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010.../climate-change

[E-HANDLE]

The science is settled?

In all, over the past week, a total of 16 separate IPCC claims have been revealed to be based on unreviewed or non-scientific reports, most published by environmental groups. These include reports on the potential economic impact of adopting “green” policies, but also scientific assertions about the threat to marine life, forests and species at risk, among others.

The IPCC’s insistence, for instance, that up to 40% of the Amazon rain forest is under imminent threat from climate change comes from a World Wildlife Fund-International Union for the Conservation of Nature joint report written by a policy consultant and a freelance environmental journalist.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ate-change.aspx

[Guest woxof]

Thanks E-Handle. Once again, I am pasting the full article because this is so important an issue. It will go down as one of the major case studies in history of how an idea of what could be happening(the consideration of humans causing global warming) became hijacked by certain political spectrum people and environmental groups into furthering their agenda. They used lies, fear, bullying and threatening tactics to further their goals. It was so obvious.

Certainly when they started saying how many hundreds of billions have to go to the third world it was unbelievably obvious. Then the politicians willing to say anything to get in power saw a chance for it because many were scared, they jumped on the bandwagon. Isn't a silly prorogation a minor blip of nothingness compared to our governments excellent handling of this issue...and your money.

"Credibility storm brewing on climate change

Revelations about how the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have manipulated scientific data to support their contention that man-made carbon emissions are altering the world’s climate are now flying out like bees from a wet hive — fast and furious.

First, of course, there were the thousands of emails and computer files leaked last November that show many of the world’s leading climate scientists manipulating their own climate data to overstate the case for global warming; conspiring to hide their “tricks” even from government access to information requests and then bullying scientific journals not to publish the work of scientists whose work cast doubts on the theory.

Then came evidence last week that the IPCC had passed off pure speculation on the rate of glacier melt as ironclad scientific fact. In its most recent “Assessment Report” — AR4 in 2007 — the UN agency garnered much media attention for its claim that there was a 90% likelihood that all 15,000 Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Except the report this assertion was based on was eight years old at the time, had never been peer-reviewed or published, and turned out to have been authored by a man now working at an environmental advocacy group run by the head of the IPCC.

Since this came to light, Murari Lal, the scientist in charge of the AR4’s glacier chapter, has admitted he was aware at the time that the melt prediction had not been peer-reviewed, but included it anyway because “we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

He knew the report did not meet normal scientific standards, but felt justified in including it because its unscientific nature “was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, [nor] by the governments to which it was sent, nor by the final IPCC review editors.” Not getting caught lent validity to the IPCC’s tactics, apparently.

It turns out the glacier misrepresentation was only the beginning, too. The Times of London reported Sunday that the IPCC also misrepresented studies on the link between global warming and the rising damage caused by intensifying storms and other natural disasters. Again citing unpublished work, AR4 stated the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events,” which also garnered much media attention.

But when the underlying paper was finally made public in 2008, its authors clearly stated that they had found “insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses.” Indeed, all the increased damage caused by hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, forest fires and the like “can be explained entirely by social change.” In other words, the damage was not the result of bigger, stronger storms caused by rising global temperatures, but rather the result of people building more homes and more expensive homes along coastlines and in other locations where damaging weather has always occurred but where people have not lived in great numbers until recently.

In all, over the past week, a total of 16 separate IPCC claims have been revealed to be based on unreviewed or non-scientific reports, most published by environmental groups. These include reports on the potential economic impact of adopting “green” policies, but also scientific assertions about the threat to marine life, forests and species at risk, among others.

The IPCC’s insistence, for instance, that up to 40% of the Amazon rain forest is under imminent threat from climate change comes from a World Wildlife Fund-International Union for the Conservation of Nature joint report written by a policy consultant and a freelance environmental journalist.

It’s gotten so bad that yesterday, Andrew Weaver — a senior Canadian climate scientist at the University of Victoria — told Canwest News Service that the IPCC’s chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.

It’s not just the IPCC, either. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is the only one of the world’s four major temperature repositories that still shows the planet warming, is now being accused of cherry-picking the temperature stations it uses. Rather than using all the stations in the world to come up with its global average temperature, GISS appears to have chosen at least some because they would skew its projections in favour of higher averages.

If nothing else is derived from all this, it should be clear the climate science is far from settled."

[GDR]

I don't have a firm opinion on this subject but this sort of thing isn't really helpful.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Related Links

UN's rogue glacier claim 'just one page in report'

UN climate chief 'got grants through bogus claims'

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.

Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”

Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.

“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[GDR]

Another voice on the subject.

Rex Murphy

[Canus Chinookus]

It's nice to see the media finally reporting about climate change issues in a more responsible manner.

[Guest woxof]

Thanks GDR......Full article pasted for all to see. The alarmists seem to have fallen silent here as well.

"The folks predicting climate change apocalypse seem to have fallen curiously mute

So, whatever happened to Copenhagen?

Rex Murphy, National Post

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

Q. How is the recently concluded Copenhagen climate conference like the Medieval Warm Period?

A. They both may be seen to disappear when it serves a noble purpose.

Well, I warned it was very little. But, then again, global warming is a very earnest, if not positively sullen topic, and to mine even an atom of a joke from all of the frenzied evangelism of self-appointed environmentalist groups, the grim coven that ran the now celebrated labs in East Anglia, or from our modern day catastrophist Savonarola, Al Gore, is too much even for the most deep-mining humourist.

But however doomed the effort, it is worth the strain to re-summon the spectre of the Copenhagen festival. The prelude to the event was a blizzard, a windstorm, a tsunami of worldwide press attention. The myriad and extremely well-orchestrated voices of climate alarmism had warned the world of its importance. Copenhagen was make or break for the planet. It was do or die. Either Copenhagen would prove to be a greater Kyoto, a summit that crafted binding resolutions on the carbon-belching nations of the world, or it would be but a little while that we passed the "tipping point," and poor Mother Gaia and her shielding atmosphere would be sent inexorably on the path to ecological doom. Island states would be deluged, a new tropics would settle over our northern climes, millions would be displaced or worse and rogue mankind would have missed its last best chance to halt the sultry drift into global ruin.

The buildup to the Copenhagen conference had better writers than the Book of Revelations (and certainly better press management). All that was missing from the drum roll of anticipation for the summit was a walk-on part for The Great Whore of Babylon to add a little lurid colour to its vision of meteorological apocalypse.

And then the summit met. Forty-five thousand of the most professionally worried people on the planet, jetted and limousined their way, with a blissful unconsciousness of the titantic carbon propulsion it took to get them there, into Copenhagen for two weeks. They yammered. They press-released. They fossil-awarded like mad. And they went home. Finis.

That was it.

Three days after the great gloom-bazaar, it was hard to find a sentient human being on this threatened planet who had a word to say, or a thought to waste, on Copenhagen. If I knew the Latin for "What happened?" (and I am for once unwilling to Google-cheat for the knowledge) this is where I'd drop it. After all this splendid fanfare, after so glorious an overture -- what happened to the symphony?

If all of those voices of the environmental groups, the hectic NGOs, the potentates and activists, the missionary scientists truly believed their own press releases before the conference, then its culmination in frustration and impotence must have registered with devastating effect. But in the days after Copenhagen, they and the world seemed to be spinning quite as calmly as before.

Well, not quite as calmly.

The toxic radiations from Climategate, that sad stream of emails leaked on the eve of the great summit, had percolated through the media and to the wider audience at large. Those who took the trouble to read them caught a glimpse of the sullenness, rivalry, distemper and outright mischief that some of the scientists at the very centre of the whole global warming industry brought to their task.

The picture presented was one of pre-commitment to a point of view, of a gloomy, angry and ruthless determination to keep "outsiders" off their turf. Peer review, the very gold standard of science, was shown to be a closed circle. Journals that thought the approved way were fine: Others were to be derogated, taken off the mailing list. Science as a closed shop of the right-minded, science in alliance with activism, was the real revelation of Climategate.

More followed Climategate, as all now know, not least the monstrous claims about the Himalyan glaciers (purported to be ready to melt away in 2035!). This is why the Copenhagen Conference for all its extravagant hype and buildup simply disappeared from the press and the public mind on the instant of its conclusion. Because, via Climategate, the world caught the first real glimpse of how politicized and manipulated this "greatest issue of our time" had been allowed to become. Saw as well how the sacred impartiality of science, and the great authority of peer review, had been suborned for something as political in its way as the average day's outing in Question Period.

No one's really talking about the failure of Copenhagen now because the ostensible threat to humanity was shown to be shrouded in hype. Al Gore and his crew simply don't have now what we used to call "the face" to deliver another grand and imperiously moralizing lecture to the world and its carbon-consuming innocents after the travesty revealed in Climategate and the clutter of revelations that followed it.

- Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup".

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2501876

Edited January 31, 2010 by woxof

[mrlupin]

Of interest for aviation buffs trying to keep track of atmospheric pollution.

A340 aircraft monitoring some atmospheric conditions

Measurements of OZone and water vapour by in-service AIrbus airCraft

MOZAIC, the precursor of IAGOS, was launched in 1993 by AIRBUS, CNRS, CNRM and FZJ and several European airlines as an EU-funded research project. Autonomous scientific instruments were installed on five AIRBUS A340 aircraft operated by Lufthansa (2), Air France, Sabena, and Austrian Airlines to monitor the atmosphere day by day. Starting with ozone and humidity sensors, the equipment was expanded in 2001 for measurements of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The MOZAIC database contains data from more than 100 million flight kilometres and 40.000 vertical profiles. The data are used by researchers worldwide for studying climate change and air pollution. The open data policy has led to more than 130 scientific publications.

[Guest woxof]

It just gets more and more hilarious Mr. Lupin. Basing their reports on a students essay and a magazine article. Read below....

"UN used dubious sources for mountain ice claims: report

Wheels fall off global-warming hysteria

Climate panel hit with more bad news

Prof clarifies position on climate panel

Climate panel claim may be based on essay

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountains on a master's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine, The Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday.

The revelation comes just days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologized for the "poorly substantiated" prediction that Himalayan glaciers will disappear within 25 years, based on a 1999 magazine article that quoted a single Indian glaciologist.

It also follows embarrassing criticisms by a top Canadian climate scientist about the IPCC's "dangerous crossing of the line" between science and political activism. Andrew Weaver, Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, called for the resignation of IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, and urged a review of scientific principles.

The IPCC's role is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change to guide the policies of governments around the world.

In its most recent report, published in 2007, it stated that global warming was causing observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa, citing two papers as the source of the information.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that one of those sources was a 2002 feature article in Climbing magazine, written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change. In it, he quoted anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about changes to the mountainsides, and an overall decrease in ice-climbs.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student at the University of Berne in Switzerland, which quoted around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps. The author, Dario-Andri Schworer, is now a professional mountain guide and climate activist.

"These are essentially a collection of anecdotes," said Richard Tol, research professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, and an IPCC member. "Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two [which focused on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability'] has been."

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained in a table titled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming."

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense," Prof. Tol said.

Mr. Bowen said he was surprised the IPCC cited an article from a climbing magazine.

"But there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes," he said.

"The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organization with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy," said Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the U.S. research organization Resources for the Future, who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report.

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically skeptical behaviour pattern. The organization tends to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2506179

Edited February 1, 2010 by woxof

[mrlupin]

How do you verify your information or the accuracy of your posted articles Woxof?

Do you:

Verify the authors credentials?

Verify the author's other interests?

Is the article published by a the reliable source?

Verify the source's interests?

Verify the methodology used for data collection?

Determine verifiability of the information being conveyed?

[Guest woxof]

How do you verify your information or the accuracy of your posted articles Woxof?

Do you:

Verify the authors credentials?

Verify the author's other interests?

Is the article published by a the reliable source?

Verify the source's interests?

Verify the methodology used for data collection?

Determine verifiability of the information being conveyed?

Dear Mr. Lupin,

On January 21 you made 17 posts in a row linked to articles that you posted. I suspect that the answers to your questions above are that I have done no less verification than you have.

However, please feel free to list in detail any errors or other appropriate and useful information that you know about the articles that I have posted. Your information is most welcome.

Regards,

Woxof

[mrlupin]

Dear Mr. Lupin,

On January 21 you made 17 posts in a row linked to articles that you posted. I suspect that the answers to your questions above are that I have done no less verification than you have.

However, please feel free to list in detail any errors or other appropriate and useful information that you know about the articles that I have posted. Your information is most welcome.

Regards,

Woxof

Morning Woxof,

The 17 posts contain only two articles. One is obviously quite large, that is why I broke it up and the first one is an article linked with one of the topics in the second article that interested me (the one about Jack Gerard) I wanted to verify the accuracy of what was being reported to make sure it wasn't coming from some agenda driven website and since I found it interesting and it corroborated with other info I looked up, I decided to share it.

My question was about what YOU verify and how YOU select your sources. You have posted many articles without links and other documents which to me, appeared dubious. When I did look up the references some were very doubt inducing while others were accurate. I don't have the time (or the interest for that matter) to look up the accuracy of all the posts I read on the internet but certain people build up a reputation and get to a level where, when they cite a document, it is not warranted to verify the info every time (maybe the information they are posting isn't as controversial as the information you regularly post). That is why I asked my question.

It's a free forum where allot of information circulates. Just like everyone else, you can post what you want. My question was just to satisfy my curiosity. It's ok if you do not want to answer my question, but associating your verification methods to those used by someone else whom you barely know is an evasive answer at best.

Cheers

Éric

Edited February 1, 2010 by mrlupin

[Guest woxof]

Morning Woxof,

The 17 posts contain only two articles. One is obviously quite large, that is why I broke it up and the first one is an article linked with one of the topics in the second article that interested me (the one about Jack Gerard) I wanted to verify the accuracy of what was being reported to make sure it wasn't coming from some agenda driven website and since I found it interesting and it corroborated with other info I looked up, I decided to share it.

My question was about what YOU verify and how YOU select your sources. You have posted many articles without links and other documents which to me, appeared dubious. When I did look up the references some were very doubt inducing while others were accurate. I don't have the time (or the interest for that matter) to look up the accuracy of all the posts I read on the internet but certain people build up a reputation and get to a level where, when they cite a document, it is not warranted to verify the info every time (maybe the information they are posting isn't as controversial as the information you regularly post). That is why I asked my question.

It's a free forum where allot of information circulates. Just like everyone else, you can post what you want. My question was just to satisfy my curiosity. It's ok if you do not want to answer my question, but associating your verification methods to those used by someone else whom you barely know is an evasive answer at best.

Cheers

Éric

Mr. Lupin,

The only thing that I avoid doing is posting articles from the many very partisan sites in the global warming debate. You will notice that almost all of them come from well known newspapers such a the Daily Telegraph or National Post and you won't find stuff from sites such as http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php. Obviously editorials can be a little more opinionated. Looks like the ones I posted are more and more accurate as time goes on.

I would say that I verify the articles the same way that you verify yours which in reality is very little. Don't get upset at this as it appears that the IPCC does little more when coming to their conclusions about such things as the melting of the Himalaya glaciers based on....a magazine article and a students theory.

A brief search through this thread found a large number of articles posted by myself, the vast majority with links. There were a few where I forgot to post links such as posts number 530 and 539. Please detail the dubiousness that you feel exists...if you can .

As you can see throughout this thread....I have said that the man-made element is a scam. It appears that everyday now, the scientists and others that lied about the science being finished, insulted the skeptics and made ridiculous forecasts are losing their cedibility more and more.

It would appear to me that you may be upset that what I have been saying all along is looking more and more likely. But this is a time for celebration. It more and more looks like all those horrific forecasts were wrong. Millions will not die, Storms will not get worse, nuclear war due to global warming will not happen, mass extinctions due to global warming will not happen. I would assume that this is the preferable scenario for you.

Then again, for some with an ulterior motive, a motive of massive wealth transfer to the third world might be disappointed. Someone like Hugo Chavez which in my search I notice that you quoted from in post 595.

Edited February 2, 2010 by woxof

[Moon The Loon]

woxof: As stated from time to time earlier in this thread, I agree with your statements here. I am thankful also that you have chosen to omit your usual closing eptithets which, for the most part, always detracted from your message. One thing about the content though of your most recent post, I think you meant to say "nuclear winter" rather than "nuclear war".

Quoting woxof: "It would appear to me that you may be upset that what I have been saying all along is looking more and more likely. But this is a time for celebration. It more and more looks like all those horrific forecasts were wrong. Millions will not die, Storms will not get worse, nuclear war due to global warming will not happen, mass extinctions due to global warming will not happen. I would assume that this is the preferable scenario for you."

[Guest woxof]

woxof: As stated from time to time earlier in this thread, I agree with your statements here. I am thankful also that you have chosen to omit your usual closing eptithets which, for the most part, always detracted from your message. One thing about the content though of your most recent post, I think you meant to say "nuclear winter" rather than "nuclear war".

My reference to nuclear war was going back to several podcasts by Gwynn Dyer that were posted on another thread. Mr. Dyer presents anothe rone of the ridiculous worst case scenarios including the distinct possibility of global warming resulting in nuclear war among other horric scenarios. All presented in an attempt to sound very credible if you listen to it.

http://theairlinewebsite.com/index.php?showtopic=387233&st=0&p=1530170entry1530170

It is another of the ridiculous predictions(of course he says it is just a posibility but presented in a way that you will interpret as likely to happen)by the AGW crowd.

A lot of average folk will come away from it quite worried.

There is a new big name who has joined the man-made global warming crowd as seen below...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2499601

"Bin Laden blames industrial nations for global warming

DUBAI -- Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden blamed industrial nations for global warming, and urged a boycott of the U.S. dollar to end "slavery," in an audio tape aired by Al-Jazeera television on Friday.

"All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming," bin Laden said in the message attributed to him by the pan-Arab news channel based in Doha.

In an unusual message possibly timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, he warned of the impact of global warming by saying that "discussing climate change is not an intellectual luxury, but a reality."

"This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that," he said.

The al-Qaeda leader then slammed the U.S. administration under former President George W. Bush for not signing the Kyoto protocol on combating climate change.

"Bush the son, and the (U.S.) Congress before him, rejected this agreement, only to satisfy the big companies," he said.

Bin Laden then went on to urge a boycott of the U.S. dollar.

"We should stop using the dollar and get rid of it... I know that there would huge repercussions for that, but this would be the only way to free humankind from slavery... to America and its companies," he added.

The broadcast came less than a week after bin Laden praised as a "hero" Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who allegedly tried to detonate explosives on a U.S. plane approaching Detroit on Christmas Day, in another audio message.

"The message that was conveyed through the [attack on the] plane... is that America should not dream of security until we enjoy it as a reality in Palestine," he said in the message aired on Sunday by Al-Jazeera.

The authenticity of that statement could not immediately be verified, but IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors Islamist websites, said it appeared to be the voice of bin Laden.

U.S. President Barack Obama said that bin Laden's decision to claim the attempted plane attack on December 25 showed the al-Qaeda leader had been "weakened."

The State Department said later that bin Laden was seeking "glory" by taking credit for incidents around the world.

"Bin Laden has been trying to put his fingerprints on just about everything that's happened for years," said Daniel Benjamin, the State Department's co-ordinator for counterterrorism.

"He's doing what for bin Laden is sort of the tried and true strategy of associating himself with it and in that way sort of trying to get some of the reflected glory of the moment, if you can call it that," he said.

IntelCenter said it considered the language used by bin Laden in the earlier recording as "a possible indicator of an upcoming attack" in the next 12 months.

Bin Laden has a US$50-million bounty on his head and has been in hiding for the past eight years. He is widely believed to be holed up along the remote mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Woxof......

[mrlupin]

Morning Woxof,

Lets see if I can sort through your post to find an answer to my question.

How do you verify your information or the accuracy of your posted articles Woxof?

Do you:

Verify the authors credentials?

Verify the author's other interests?

Is the article published by a the reliable source?

Verify the source's interests?

Verify the methodology used for data collection?

Determine verifiability of the information being conveyed?

This is what I gathered from you post... (regarding the above question)

You avoid posting articles from very partisan sites.

You post articles from well known newspaper agreeing with your ideas

You do very little verification of the articles' accuracy

And as if you didn't skate around the question enough, you choose to mention that I quoted Hugo Chavez (a very controversial character to say the least) without a context.Well done...

I have no problem with your agenda or ideas Woxof, all I asked was a simple question... You don't need to compare your methods with mine... or one agenda to the other. It's irrelevant to the question. It's your methods I was interested in. Screening all the posts ever made by myself for errors or omissions will not help you answer the question unless all you wish to do is discredit me instead of answering the simple question. Have a look at your post following my initial question... and it's content :

1)avoids the question

2)tries to discredit the person asking the question

Hardly an exchange of ideas.

Éric

[Guest woxof]

Morning Woxof,

Lets see if I can sort through your post to find an answer to my question.

This is what I gathered from you post... (regarding the above question)

You avoid posting articles from very partisan sites.

You post articles from well known newspaper agreeing with your ideas

You do very little verification of the articles' accuracy

And as if you didn't skate around the question enough, you choose to mention that I quoted Hugo Chavez (a very controversial character to say the least) without a context.Well done...

I have no problem with your agenda or ideas Woxof, all I asked was a simple question... You don't need to compare your methods with mine... or one agenda to the other. It's irrelevant to the question. It's your methods I was interested in. Screening all the posts ever made by myself for errors or omissions will not help you answer the question unless all you wish to do is discredit me instead of answering the simple question. Have a look at your post following my initial question... and it's content :

1)avoids the question

2)tries to discredit the person asking the question

Hardly an exchange of ideas.

Éric

Don't see any evidence of attempted discrediting. I suspect that was the intent of your original question. One has to wonder why you would even ask these questions for what is mostly a bunch of mainline media articles. You know as well as I that virtually all links to articles on this forum have been made without specifically taking the time to verify the author's credentials and other interests(whatever they could be), verify the source's interests,

verify the methodology used for data collection, and

determine verifiability of the information being conveyed.

Perhaps an example from you on how you have specifically done this on an article linked here with proof or will you give us another "I don't have the time or interest" response.

I think you will find that your questions have been answered on what I have done. That is basically using mainline media. Your welcome.

Now....back to the thread topic and some more useful information.

"John Beddington: chief scientist says climate change sceptics 'should not be dismissed'

Related Articles

IPCC report 'based on magazine article'

IPCC: climate change scientists are 'only human'

Second blunder by UN climate science panel

UN climate chief's research institute won grants after flawed predictions on glaciers

Second blunder by UN climate science panel

Brown: climate-change sceptics are 'flat-earthers'

Climate change sceptics should not be dismissed, the Government's chief scientific adviser has said, as he called for more openness in the global warming debate.

Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.

In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.

His words were reflected in a New Scientist editorial that also argued that climate scientists should "welcome in the outside world" for more scrutiny.

Prof Beddington also said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.

“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.

“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”

His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The IPCC was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.

It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.

As a result Prof Phil Jones, the director of the University’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to IPCC reports, has been forced to stand down while he is investigated.

Urging scientists to release their data to their critics, Prof Beddington added: ''I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.

“There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”

The New Scientist editorial said that the IPCC has done 'Herculean' work in assessing the risk of climate change and the recent revelations do not undermine the conclustion that man made global warming is happening.

But the process needs to be reviewed so that the public had more access to research and reports come out more frequently.

Lord Stern of Brentford, has previously said that climate change sceptics that pedal “muddled and unscientific” thinking could stop the world from tackling global warming.

Prof Beddington insisted that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction:

But he said the false claim in the IPCC's 2007 report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,” he said.

“We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there.

“If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, 'there's a level of uncertainty about that'.”

Prof Beddington also said that large-scale climate modelling using computers resulted in ''quite substantial uncertainties'' that should be communicated."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7081039/John-Beddington-chief-scientist-says-climate-change-sceptics-should-not-be-dismissed.html

Edited February 2, 2010 by woxof

[Cargo Agent]

Mr Lupin,

I have a question for you. You said:

It's your methods I was interested in.

Why?

Why just woxof?

IMO it seems a lot of people don't like woxof's posting style and attack him rather than the message posted.

[Canus Chinookus]

Mr Lupin,

I have a question for you. You said:

Why?

Why just woxof?

IMO it seems a lot of people don't like woxof's posting style and attack him rather than the message posted.

Bingo!

Keep up the good work, WOXOF, just don't rub their noses in it. It's tough enough getting them to open their mind to the possibility they've been duped.

[Guest woxof]

Bingo!

Keep up the good work, WOXOF, just don't rub their noses in it. It's tough enough getting them to open their mind to the possibility they've been duped.

Thanks guys,

Nice to hear the silent majority speak out.I will continue to post articles on what is really one of the biggest issues of our time no matter which side is correct.

Woxof

[chockalicious]

Mr Lupin,

I have a question for you. You said:

Why?

Why just woxof?

IMO it seems a lot of people don't like woxof's posting style and attack him rather than the message posted.

You are probably correct however it could be the accompanying hyperbole and using each post as a "case closed" type statement that is probably the cause. Nobody else has the time or inclination to post every op-ed they come across.

[Fido]

....however it could be the accompanying hyperbole and using each post as a "case closed" type statement that is probably the cause.....

Just like the people who a year ago were declaring any climate change skeptic as a non-believer and a neanderthal. It is amazing how the left side of any argument is quick to denigrate anyone who does not agree with them but when the situation reverses they bleat loudly of the method of discussion used.