[Newsbot]

Title: UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'
Category: Environmental
Posted By: stemmer
Date: 2010-01-25 08:04:33

[martin14]

more lies coming to the surface, finally.

[N_Fiddledog]

martin14 martin14:

more lies coming to the surface, finally.

Yup, and much more is spinning from this story...

$1:

The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

All the years I’ve been in TV news, I’ve observed that every story has a tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we say it “has legs” and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye and finding things everywhere.

Remember our friends at World Wildlife Fund? Those schlockmeisters that produced the video of planes flying into New York with explicit comparisons to 9/11?

Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.

More here

And that spins into showing how the Stern report which claimed it would be more expensive to do nothing about climate change than to invest the trillions was also bogus.


That's just one.

[stemmer]

Thanks kindly for the links... It appears the climate change industry is about to implode upon themselves...

[N_Fiddledog]

Perhaps it all started happening with Climategate. Maybe all you had to do was wait for the incident which would open people's mind to the possibility they were being had, and then the whole scam would start to fall apart like a house of cards.

[Zipperfish]

Perhaps. On the other hand, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at a rate of 2 or 3 ppm per year. And of course, there's the physics showing that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere--not accounting for positive or negative feedback effects--will raise the global temperature about 1.1 deg C.

Of course, it all depends on if feedbacks are positive or negative. If they are strongly positive, we could be hooped. If they are negative, we might not even notice much of a difference when overlaid against "natural" climate variability.

There's no doubt that the catastrophic elments are being oversold, but it's also pretty clear that by raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, we'd expect some warming. That hasn't changed.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Perhaps. On the other hand, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at a rate of 2 or 3 ppm per year. And of course, there's the physics showing that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere--not accounting for positive or negative feedback effects--will raise the global temperature about 1.1 deg C.

Sounds pretty scienc-y. I'm impressed. Now explain how CO2 can rise from 1950 to 1978 yet global temps cool, or CO2 can rise even higher, and faster from 2001, yet temps decrease again. In the entire temperature record for the 20th century there is a single 20 year spike where temperatures are rising in conjunction with a similar rise in CO2.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Perhaps. On the other hand, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at a rate of 2 or 3 ppm per year. And of course, there's the physics showing that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere--not accounting for positive or negative feedback effects--will raise the global temperature about 1.1 deg C.

Sounds pretty scienc-y. I'm impressed. Now explain how CO2 can rise from 1950 to 1978 yet global temps cool, or CO2 can rise even higher, and faster from 2001, yet temps drop.

It's actually not all that science-y. That's why I like it. It's essentially a simple application of basic radiation physics balancing incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from the earth. There's no tricky statistical techniques or problems with urban heat islands and range of sensors, etc. It's tried and true. Every CO2 molecule will, on occassion, absorb an infrared quantum originally bound for space and re-radiate back to the earth.

Based on the physics of the thing, I think that we would have expected about a third to a half a degree warming based on the rise in CO2 levels we've seen. I think it's generally accepted that there's been a rise of 0.5 or 0.6 deg C in the last century. Some of that is due (I think) to increased solar radiation)So that's kind of consistent.

Given the complexity of the ecosystem and the atmosphere I don't think you'd expect a direct linear correlation at all time periods.

And it always comes down to the same question for me: If the increased CO2 isn't warming up the earth, then why isn't it? What is happeneing to those extra infrared photons hitting the earth?

[karra]

And while you're at it Zipp - don't forget to supply links to what you base your opinion on.

Oh, and while you're at it - please supply the due diligence you performed re the authors of those links.

Why, it wouldn't surprise me one wee bit that those authors are complicit in this incredible global scam.

Oops! Forgot to mention - please don't quote/use the lefties ManPig aka al-Gore.

This scam and al-Gore make Madoff look like a minor leaque player in the financial industry.

Sci-Fi is wonderful - probably why it's called fiction. . . .

[N_Fiddledog]

Actually Karra there's no problem from Zip's side in doing just that.

Overall even climate skeptics accept 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2. What Zip doesn't tell you is that's not much. You're not going get any crisis of warming out of that. Also once you get out of the laboratory, and into the real world with clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays, solar influences, and petulant Ocean oscillations 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 becomes meaningless in a hurry. Simply mentioning "feedbacks" doesn't really explain that.

[Zipperfish]

karra karra:

And while you're at it Zipp - don't forget to supply links to what you base your opinion on.

Oh, and while you're at it - please supply the due diligence you performed re the authors of those links.

Why, it wouldn't surprise me one wee bit that those authors are complicit in this incredible global scam.

Oops! Forgot to mention - please don't quote/use the lefties ManPig aka al-Gore.

This scam and al-Gore make Madoff look like a minor leaque player in the financial industry.

Sci-Fi is wonderful - probably why it's called fiction. . . .

Heck I can do the math for you right here if you like! There's really not much to it. It requires that (a) you believe the measured concentration of CO2 for the past few decades and (b) you believe that the spectral properties of a carbon dioxide molecule have been property described and (c) you subscribe to the theory of the so-called greenhouse effect.

After that there's not much to it.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually Karra there's no problem from Zip's side in doing just that.

Overall even climate skeptics accept 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2. What Zip doesn't tell you is that's not much. You're not going get any crisis of warming out of that. Also once you get out of the laboratory, and into the real world with clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays, solar influences, and petulant Ocean oscillations 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 becomes meaningless in a hurry. Simply mentioning "feedbacks" doesn't really explain that.

Actually many climate skeptics--Pluggy Rug foe example--think that the so-called greenhouse effect is a violation of the Second Law of thermodynamics. But I agree most serious skeptics readily admit a 1.1 deg C theoretical warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The reason that I don't tell you that it's "not that much" is because I was trying to avoid making value judgments and just stating the fact. "Too much" or "too little" are value judgments.

And I see you've mentioned many of the feedback effects--but do note that I specifically said that I wasn't considering feedback effects; just the basic radiation physics. You are partially incorrect in your "real world" assumption. The feedback effects are the real world. If they are negative then you are correct--probably won't see too much. If they are positive then you'll see greater than the 1.1 deg predicted by theory.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The reason that I don't tell you that it's "not that much" is because I was trying to avoid making value judgments and just stating the fact.

Let me do it for you then. It's not that much. We know it's not that much because CO2 rose significantly from 1950, yet from 50 to 78 temps went down. CO2 rose faster and higher after 98 yet temps leveled, then decreased after 2001. CO2 had no noticeable affect on temperatures. Natural forces rule. And even if temperatures were to rise only 1 degree with the next doubling of CO2 (providing that actually happens) you would not see the global catastrophe Gore and others promise you. 1 degree C is just not that much.

In other words the human caused Global Warming scare was a hoax.

And incidentally now that they know what they're looking looking for, they continue to go through the IPCC report looking for bogus WWF reports masquerading as actual peer review science. They found another one.

This time on the Amazon

It's like you've been told from day one. The IPCC was a fraud.

[gonavy47]

Time to sell your stock in Global Warming before the market crashes. The funding just dried up.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Let me do it for you then. It's not that much. We know it's not that much because CO2 rose significantly from 1950, yet from 50 to 78 temps went down. CO2 rose faster and higher after 98 yet temps leveled, then decreased after 2001. CO2 had no noticeable affect on temperatures. Natural forces rule. And even if temperatures were to rise only 1 degree with the next doubling of CO2 (providing that actually happens) you would not see the global catastrophe Gore and others promise you. 1 degree C is just not that much.

In other words the human caused Global Warming scare was a hoax.

And incidentally now that they know what they're looking looking for, they continue to go through the IPCC report looking for bogus WWF reports masquerading as actual peer review science. They found another one.

This time on the Amazon

It's like you've been told from day one. The IPCC was a fraud.

Well, this is where you run into trouble. You spend a large percentage of your posts denigrating the quality of climate science, whether it be proxy temeprature measurements, or the surface temperature record, or the ice core data, or the measurement of glaciers or the GCMs. That is certainly your prerogative, but to put forth a rational argument you have to be consistent. You can't use the same science you've disregarded in one argument to support another.

If the science is as bad as you say it is, then apart from the fairly well-described 1 deg increase per doubling of CO2, after that you really don't know. After that you're into the complex or chaotic systems like how cloud cover might change, or changes in albedo, etc etc etc.

Postive feedback? Negative feedback? Who knows?

So by your own admission from past posts, there is insufficient science to be able to say its "not that much."