The Latest IPCC Scandal - AMAZONGATE!

Quick Recap before we discuss the very latest scandal dealing with the Amazon forest:

When the IPCC was criticized for changing the year for the Himalayan Glaciers to be fully melted away from 2350 to 2035, their head Pachauri insisted that it was a simple little insignificant error within a long report, and that the remainder of the report is fully correct.

Then we found out that another false claim was found in the IPCC report as reported by the TimesOnline:

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

According to TimesOnline:

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

When the authors had their paper published in 2008, they claimed the following:

We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.

Now the IPCC is confronted with yet another error in their report reported by Telegraph, and also found in the IPCC Report:

Up to 40%of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.

The report was found not to be peer-reviewed, and not to have been written by scientists, but rather by a a journalist and a green campaigner.

Now get a load of this. In their report they claim that:

Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.

This section has indeed been peer reviewed by the original authors who wrote exactly the same paragraph in their own article that was published in Nature.

The problem is that the title of the article "Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire" would show that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change!!

The IPCC just conveniently used it to fit in with their report, even though that claim was only related to those forests damaged by logging and fire...

[edit on 27-1-2010 by MightyAl]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by MightyAl]

Thanks for posting

Can't really add to this other than feel sorry for the real scientists, if there are any left, who will forever be ridiculed because of the greedy conmen behind AGW.

reply to post by MightyAl


Yeah, scientists like Chris Landsea were trying to show this to the world but most people did not want to believe them. Landsea quit the IPCC, and he stated that he quit because the IPCC had politicized his part of their report, he wasn't aware of the other parts, and when he brought up this, he was pretty much told to shove it....

Several scientists who are REAL scientists and were, or still are part of the IPCC have tried to tell us this for years.

The BBC, Telegraph, TimesOnline, and other media channels were also part of the "scaremongering campaign" even though when thousands of scientists were saying this was not true.

From the claim that there would be more mosquitoes because of increased warming, and this would cause increased cases of malaria and other tropical diseases, which is a lie as told by experts in the field, to claims that increased warming would increase the severity of hurricanes, and storms which would make them horrenduous, which is another lie as told by REAL experts in this field and who have said that if temperatures increase that would only increase the strength of hurricanes by 1%-2% which would mean a hurricane with winds of 100 mph would instead be 101 - 102 mph..... and SEVERAL other lies and exagerations, the AGW proponents have been using these tactics for a long time.

We are seeing not only an increase in hurricanes, and freak storms...we are also seeing an increase in magmatic, and seismic activity and mankind is not the cause for all of this. If you look up you might guess what the real causes for all of this seem to be.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by MightyAl


It really is a shame that governments are as horribly immune to accountability as common criminals that never get caught.
The care of our planet is up to the people who live here on it.
I am appalled by the partisan approach to this problem.
The baby is getting thrown out with the bath water.

Originally posted by MightyAl
The problem is that the title of the article "Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire" would show that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change!!

The IPCC just conveniently used it to fit in with their report, even though that claim was only related to those forests damaged by logging and fire...

Land use changes are a part of climate change. Jeez, we have sceptics like Pielke Sr who repeatedly push this issue into the limelight, and the assessment of forcings does account for land use changes.

So we essentially have a part of WGII which is ultimately based on a study assessing human impacts via land use issues. The section talks about forest drought etc, which is also based on the Nepstad et al. Nature article.

The Nepstad study does actually mention what you apparently consider to the only source of AGW - greenhouse gases. It's just not in the title.

Large-scale burning of tropical forest during severe ENSO episodes may impoverish vast areas of these species- and carbon-rich ecosystems; such episodes are increasing in frequency, possibly in response to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Nepstad et al. 1999

The biggest issue here, again, is that some crap authors in the crap secondary WGII are relying on grey literature as the primary source.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Thanks for your long reply. TimesOnline and The Telegraph are always good at criticising the IPCC, but as you said, they are also part of the mainstream news.

I think the TPTBs like to control both sides of the debate, so whichever side wins, they will benefit in the end either way.

If it turns out that Global Warming is not even happening and it is especially not man made, then the corporations can keep on polluting the world with their CO2 emissions, and if they are able to convince the people that global warming is really happening, then they can put a carbon tax on everything, and charge high prices for oil etc.

So the mainstream news can just as often dispute global warming as supporting it.

Regarding the true reasons for the unusual weather events lately, we have apparently entered a cooling cycle of maybe 25-30 years after just leaving the global warming cycle. In the 70s people were complaining about global cooling and were worried about the ice age coming, and then during the global warming cycle the opposite was told to the people. So let's look forward to ice age alarmists now

Climate change is also occuring most possibly due to the gradual change in Earth's axis, which should be happening between now and 2150. Seems to be happening now already, although some of the crazy weather is caused by cloud seeding such as the snow storms in China - and possibly also other weather manipulating methods, which I mostly only view as theories at the moment though.

reply to post by melatonin


and here we have once again mel...the puppet of the AGW scaremongerers in this site who loves to use the papers of Jones, Mann, et al, and the lies they even keep posting on FakeClimate.org, I mean realclimate.org where Jones, Mann et al happen to be directors, as proof of the AGW scam....

Phew, as always you can count on mel/aka "Al Gore junior" to try once again to minimize the damage done by his masters....

Well, surely the AGW multi-billion business is still booming since the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) puppeteers are still at it working overtime....

reply to post by melatonin


I have noticed that in all this talk about the Human Impact on the Global Enviorment today, there always seems to be a bit too much emphisis on that one aspect alone , and not enough on the other factors that are contributing to it . Such as Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field , the Scientific tracking of the ebb and flow of Volcanic Activity , Weather Patterns going back in time before mans present Industrial Revolution , the effects of the Natural Cycles of the Gulf Stream and Red Tide formations in the worlds Oceans , and the Documented History of Geological changes in the Earths Crust . Now , I am not a Scientist , but I just cannot except beyond a shadow of a doubt that what Certain Scientists are saying about " Mans " Impact on our Global Enviorment is " The " cause , or the " Main " cause for what is happening today . The sad Fact is , NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE ................



P.S. I hope Al Gore Reads this Thread , because he should be Ashamed for some of his Ignorant Comments Printed in Book Form , and stated as Fact according to his Pseudo Scientific Beliefs.........

This kind of news always leaves me with a mixed feeling.

On one hand it is good that the planet won't be destroyed in the next 50-100 years, but on the other hand it is sad to know that with the global warming drive out of the hearts and minds of the people many will think we're doing just fine. They'll keep polluting and destroying habitats...

And no one wants to invest billions in just preservation, but wind mills and solar energy - Thats big business.

Originally posted by melatonin

The Nepstad study does actually mention what you apparently consider to the only source of AGW - greenhouse gases. It's just not in the title.

Large-scale burning of tropical forest during severe ENSO episodes may impoverish vast areas of these species- and carbon-rich ecosystems; such episodes are increasing in frequency, possibly in response to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Nepstad et al. 1999

The biggest issue here, again, is that some crap authors in the crap secondary WGII are relying on grey literature as the primary source.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by melatonin]

Our Earth goes through natural climate change cycles. In 1999, when the above article was written, our planet was going through a warming cycle with severe ENSO episodes. This does not prove that it will continue to occur so in the future from the publication date on, and it especially does not prove that it is caused by humans.

Deforestation is caused by humans of course, and clearly as a result CO2 is emitted into the air. However this will not affect global warming on any significant scale (reportedly 5-10%...sorry, can't find the source right now). The greatest amount of CO2 in the world emitted comes from volcanoes. How can we stop the volcanoes from belching CO2 into the air?

The following image shows how we are going through cycles of warming and cooling:

reply to post by MightyAl


" The greatest amount of CO2 in the world emitted comes from volcanoes. How can we stop the volcanoes from belching CO2 into the air? "

Actually the Greatest amount of CO2 Gases emitted into the Atmosphere comes from the Worlds Oceans .................It's a FACT In Canada .........

Originally posted by MightyAl
Our Earth goes through natural climate change cycles. In 1999, when the above article was written, our planet was going through a warming cycle with severe ENSO episodes. This does not prove that it will continue to occur so in the future from the publication date on, and it especially does not prove that it is caused by humans.

That is not the aim of WGII.

WGII is purely focused on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. WGI provides a summary of the scientific basis for AGW. We seem to be moving from the point of your own thread now.

Deforestation is caused by humans of course, and clearly as a result CO2 is emitted into the air. However this will not affect global warming on any significant scale (reportedly 5-10%...sorry, can't find the source right now). The greatest amount of CO2 in the world emitted comes from volcanoes. How can we stop the volcanoes from belching CO2 into the air?

Aaaaand that's enough for me...

Volcanoes do not produce more CO2 than humans. Humans are emitting twice the amount of CO2 required to account for yearly atmospheric increases.

The article in Nature is clearly within the area of relevance for WGII. Therefore the Times article is little more than manufactroversy. The real issue here is the sloppy buggers on WGII don't work to the standard as those in WGI. They should be using the peer-reviewed literature whenever possible. However, it is well-known that the issues for WGII are often poorly studied and understood.

If that's your point - I agree. If your point is that humans logging, forest fires, and the clearing of forest are not relevant for the IPCC and WGII, then you're wrong.

The following image shows how we are going through cycles of warming and cooling:

That's the PDO index. The PDO index is not global temperature anomaly.

I'm sure WGI would be useful to get you up to speed on the science. If you just want this to be a thread where you can exhibit your ignorance of the science, that's fine. I do have other more interesting things to do than to help you achieve this aim, though.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by melatonin]

I saw this somewhere else. I thought they were joking ......

Originally posted by MightyAl

Up to 40%of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.

Could.

As in you could get run over by a bus tonight. It doesn't mean you will

The problem is that the title of the article "Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire" would show that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change!!

The title of the paper is irrelevant. Although logging is of course one of the primary cuases of climate change in the Amazonian region.

However, to extend my analogy above, say a study shows that 75% of people hit by a lorry suffer serious head injuries. Now, although I am predicting you could get hit by a bus - not a lorry - it would not, IMO, be unreasonable to say that "you could get hit by a bus tonight, and if you did there is a 75% chance you could suffer a serious head injury as a result".

It's called extrapolation. Lorries and Buses are different, but they both lead to the same results.


The whole logic of this argument against what is said in the IPCC report is totally flawed and nonsensical. The anti science mob must be getting really desperate: they've scraped well below the bottom of the barrel with this one


(Notwithstanding which I consider the IPCC AR4 to be a waste of time and money and a report which deliberately avoids the bigger picture. They should rename the IPCC the IPCEDGW - Intergovernmental Panel on Carbon Emission Derived Global Warming. And maybe set up another group to handle all the other aspects of climate change.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Essan]

btw it's always worth remember that just because a journalist writes something in a newspaper does mean it's entirely false. But it's very likely it's not entirely true.

reply to post by Essan


...unless of course they're writing on what the IPCC said then it is entirely true, right?

The IPCC are supposed to be a scientific body, using peer reviewed data in its authoritive reports, but it seems they're slacking, and giving science a bad name.

Anyone who remotely knows anything about science knows you can't just pluck something out of a magazine without researching it and ensuring it is correct. The peer review process does exactly this, is supposed to be something the IPCC does on EVERYTHING, yet over the last couple of months has been shown to NOT BE DOING AT ALL!

We even had the CRU falsifying data because it couldn't prove global warming in REAL data!!!!!!!

I still find people vehemently defending the IPCC and resorting to ad hom attacks despite the fact it is clear the IPCC is now dead and buried as a serious scientific organization.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


In Asia the greatest amounts are emitted from the many scooters that invade the cities there ;-) I wouldn't say greatest, but in total more than the boats in the oceans!

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The IPCC are supposed to be a scientific body, using peer reviewed data in its authoritive reports, but it seems they're slacking, and giving science a bad name.

There is actually no rule that says they must use peer-reviewed scientific studies. In some areas of relevance this isn't so easy.

I do often wonder what you people think the IPCC actually is...

It's not some homogenous body of people who produce the assessment reports. But a heterogenous group of people each covering different areas.

For example, the WGII group is not the WGI group. And even within the groups different people cover different issues.

What is interesting is that the biggest issues appear to be coming from parts of WGII that focus on regional impacts etc. So we have a group of asians doing the asia section etc. And, to be entirely honest, that's less than ideal - only takes some experience of the science that pops out of that region to see they can be sloppy.

However, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell those representing the regions to get the hell off the report and hand it over to people who know what they are doing. Which, yeah, means western scientists (and those schooled here). There would be a bleedin' uproar.

We even had the CRU falsifying data because it couldn't prove global warming in REAL data!!!!!!!

I still find people vehemently defending the IPCC and resorting to ad hom attacks despite the fact it is clear the IPCC is now dead and buried as a serious scientific organization.

It's worth defending the IPCC process against specious allegations, but of course it's not worth defending them for things they need to tighten up on.

Just as it's worth pointing out that your specious claim of scientific fraud against the CRU is just a denier's fantasy.

The funniest thing is one big problem with the IPCC science-by-committee is its overly conservative nature. The science is actually much more worrying than what is represented in the reports.

I think we should all push for the IPCC to sort a new AR5 report out. They can fix the typo issue for himalayan glaciers and get the primary peer-reviewed sources in place for WGII, and, obviously, update the rest of the science

[edit on 27-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by Essan

 

I still find people vehemently defending the IPCC and resorting to ad hom attacks despite the fact it is clear the IPCC is now dead and buried as a serious scientific organization.

I don't like the IPCC - but when I think people spread misinformation about what they have reported then it needs defending. In this particular case they have done nothing wrong. IMHO.

reply to post by melatonin
Sadly, it takes hypocrisy and misrepresentation at this point to defend anything published by the IPCC or otherwise supporting AGW self-enrichment propaganda.

Land use changes are a part of climate change.

Perhaps locally, as with the black soot contamination of Asian ice, water and air.

Planting trees, re-forestation, and conservative farming techniques never seem to be taken into account, and are attacked by the likes of Greenpeace because they do not result in enrichment of third parties.

Overall, land use changes have no global impact and no lasting impact. Even Chernobyl has been "reclaimed" by nature.

The Nepstad study does actually mention what you apparently consider to the only source of AGW - greenhouse gases …

Large-scale burning of tropical forest during severe ENSO episodes may impoverish vast areas of these species- and carbon-rich ecosystems; such episodes are increasing in frequency, possibly in response to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

"Mentions" that co-incidental natural and human influences "may" cause localized effects "possibly" due to GHGs is hardly the "settled science" you claim exists. About as convincing as the IPCC AR4 (or is it AR$?).

So we essentially have … some crap authors in the crap secondary WGII are relying on grey literature as the primary source.

And that suffices, along with the Himalayan fraud, for "scientific consensus" and "settled science" for thew IPCC and AGW faithful.

They should be using the peer-reviewed literature whenever possible. However, it is well-known that the issues for WGII are often poorly studied and understood.

Yet adopted, when helpful, by those seeking to prove an un-proveable theory.

[b ...no rule that says they must use peer-reviewed scientific studies.

So, I guess you will not be insisting on such in your defense of AGW criticism.

I do often wonder what you people think the IPCC actually is...

The funniest thing is one big problem with the IPCC science-by-committee is its overly conservative nature.

The Inter-Governmental Panel is just that, a bunch of bureaucrats intent on keeping their jobs, preserving their agenda, and ensuring job security at the rest of the World's expense. How many of these people or the panel itself would survive without largesse? They are leeches.

I think we should all push for the IPCC to sort a new AR5 report out.

You are kidding, right? Might as well tell Bernie Maddow to try again; just be more careful.

They can fix the typo issue for himalayan glaciers and get the primary peer-reviewed sources in place for WGII, and, obviously, update the rest of the science

Typo issue? When the author says they "outright rejected" controverting evidence? That is only a "typo" in your deceit. "Get peer reviewed" sources? When they do not need them? More joking, right?

Update the "rest of the science?" You mean as in including controverting theories or opinions?

More jokes! Or delusions.

The scam is ending. The sham is over.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by melatonin

Aaaaand that's enough for me...

Volcanoes do not produce more CO2 than humans. Humans are emitting twice the amount of CO2 required to account for yearly atmospheric increases.

Aaaand let's make it clear, because AGW scaremongerers like Melatonin like to hide facts such as the one that volcanoes are not the only natural factor that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

You know why AGW religious fanatics like Melatonin don't like to talk about the rest of the natural factors that emit CO2 into the atmosphere? Because combined the natural factors emit around 772 GT meanwhile mankind worldwide emit around 26 GT.

Of course, after you present this fact the AGW scammers like to claim that "nature is in balance and too much CO2 will be detrimental for all of Earth, and that it will increase temperatures" despite the fact that there is no evidence to back these lies. Instead what the evidence tells us is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually beneficial to all of Earth, all vegetation, plants, and trees, and also to animals, and mankind.

Then, after you learn that fact you have to realize that the AGW scammers, and their puppets have no proof, none whatsoever that proves atmospheric CO2 increases temperatures like they claim.

Nature itself has shown that they are wrong, and when the AGW scammers, and their puppets are talking among themselves they admit this fact, as was seen in the leaked emails when the AGW scammers which include Mann, Jones, et al, could not understand why temperatures have not increased more.

The AGW scammers, and their puppets don't like to talk about the fact that we know through research that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are in fact beneficial to all of Earth, nature, animals, and mankind.

You know why higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present are more beneficial for the Earth, nature, including plants, trees, all green vegetation, animals, and even humans?

Because higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present increases the growth of plants, trees, and all vegetation, which means there is more food for animals, which means there is more food for predators, and including mankind.

Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 also allows for all plants, and trees to make better use of water, which means they need less water which leaves more water to animals, and mankind...

Of course melatonin, aka "Al Gore Junior" has me among some other people in ignore simply because he doesn't want to have to deal with these facts, because then the only thing he can do, and which he has done in the past, is do nothing more than ignore the points being made and instead he tries to derail the thread with obscure statements which he posts to try to sound as if he knew what he is talking about, but he really doesn't.

Of course he also loves to claim that every scientist that is an skeptic is "an oil kook" despite the fact that this is nothing more than a lie, and instead we have learned that malatonin's masters are the real SCAMMERS who have used legal, and illegal ways to keep people in the dark about Climate Change. They hide facts and evidence which contradict their AGW religion, they delete, and have deleted data, and research which shows they are nothing more than SCAMMERS. They try to discredit any scientist who dares publish research that refutes the AGW SCAM, and they even talked about changing the peer-reviewed process if necessary just so that no research that refutes the AGW SCAM can be published.

The SCAMMERS have been caught, yet their puppets, like Melatonin, continue to try to deceive people, and try to minimize the damage done by their masters.

That's if melatonin doesn't happen to be one of the scientist scammers himself....




[edit on 27-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]