It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )
Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.
‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’
[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]
Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
All of man's CO2 contributions to the atmosphere account for an incredibly small portion of the CO2 in the air. We have been trying to catch up to Mt. St. Helens since the 1700s (and it blew up decades ago).
CO2 emission events
Mount St. Helens, 18 May 1980 0.01 Gt
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0 (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate) 0.26 (Gt/yr)
I mentioned CO2 content separate from the issue of waste heat. Technically - the heat we generate through waste and climate control -does- warm the planet. It's quite a simple concept.
When a volcano randomly goes "kaboom" - it is not a set of carbon or ash emissions that the "balanced sinks" are ... well... balanced to deal with.
If carbon emissions and their sinks were balanced, CO2 levels, through history, would have remained consistent.
[mumbles about merely average people attempting to think and being so arrogant as to believe they are capable of it.]
Already pointed out how completely ridiculous and wrong the volcano meme is, but again, instead of immediately resorting to paltry childish insults (which speak more about your impressive mental sophistication than even your math skills) - maybe you should focus on looking up actual facts first.
A major issue regarding the IPCC approach to linking climate and CO2 is the assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the level of atmospheric CO2 was in an equilibrium state of about 280 ppm, around which little or no variation occurred. This presumption of constancy and equilibrium is based upon a critical review of the older literature on atmospheric CO2 content by Callendar and Keeling. (See Table 1). Between 1800 and 1961, more than 380 technical papers that were published on air gas analysis contained data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Callendar [16, 20, 24] Keeling and the IPCC did not provide a thorough evaluation of these papers and the standard chemical methods that they deployed. Rather, they discredited these techniques and data, and rejected most as faulty or highly inaccurate [20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27]. Though they acknowledge the concept of an 'unpolluted background level' for CO2, these authors only examined about 10% of the available literature, asserting from that that only 1% of all previous data could be viewed as accurate (Muentz [28, 29, 30], Reiset , Buch ).
THE CHALLENGE OF THE MAIN STREAM VIEW ON THE HISTORICAL DATA
During my own review of the literature, I observed that the evaluation of Reiset's and Muentz's work by Callendar and Keeling was erroneous. This made me investigate carefully the criteria that were used by these and other authors to accept or to reject such historical data. The data accepted by Callendar and Keeling had to be sufficiently low to be consistent with the greenhouse hypothesis of climate change controlled by rising CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. Callendar rejected nearly all data before 1870 because of "relatively crude instrumentation" and reported only twelve suitable data sets in 20th century as known to him  out of 99 made available by Stepanova 1952 .
The intent of these authors was to identify CO2 determinations that were made using pure unpolluted air, in order to assess the true background level of CO2. Callendar set out the criteria that he used to judge whether older determinations were "allowable" in his 1958 paper  which presents only data that fell within 10% of a longer yearly average estimated for the region, and also rejected all measurements, however accurate, that were "measurements intended for special purposes, such as biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution".
Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.
I can't wait to see you backpedal your way out of this latest round of horribly ignorant sh**-talking then:
This isn't the first time I've debated climate change.
You're arguing with numbers that have their legitimacy drawn into question.
There deviation noticed is well outside the margin of error for both sources - which draws into question the ice-sampling methods and their relevance to global CO2 levels.
For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998). From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.
These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say . . . ’ would get on air unchallenged. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid. On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that.
My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda. The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’. The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus. Read more: biasedbbc.proboards.com...
Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
It's really a good laugh, the websites you denialists ACTUALLY POST HERE trying to show us "evidence" and "science".
You're posting links to infowars/prisonplanet, right-wing political blogs, denier websites, and cherry-picked news articles (that don't even say what you seem to think they say). How stupid can you people be??
Uh-huh, I'm the one who doesn't understand the argument set before me. Let's see -
And yet up until a minute ago you thought Mount St. Helens released more CO2 in one eruption than humans had in over 300 years. Lulz.
By some stray paper from the notoriously biased Energy & Environment - the same journal that once published a "peer-reviewed" argument against global warming based on the idea the Sun was made of iron.
Ernst Beck's methodology here uses a series of corrupted and archaic analyses that have been widely discredited for over 70 years.
Remote positioning and IR spectroscopy for modern day air sampling is FAR more accurate
and has shown an explicitly smooth curve since its inception.
A trend that is completely backed up further down the road by ice-core samples (which are analysed by a variety of different methods). This trend can clearly be seen in the "interesting graph" from your own link.
It's utterly evident how completely backwards your deductive reasoning is (along with whatever wannabe "skeptics" starred that post). Because ice core records evidently correlate, independently, with modern sampling methods - and thus draw YOUR source into question, not the other way around.
But I love the approach - you think just because you can find something out there that brings the supposed "legitimacy" of the numbers into question, that makes your source automatically valid, huh? I can find documents that question the roundness of the Earth too. So I guess that means the science isn't settled there either:
You are but an animal to me - and I love 'terrorizing' pets (#ing their minds).
Thus, my comments are always directed at eliciting a specific reaction out of you
Now, pet, I'm going to see just how much you know about science.
How is it that a process can be determined to be more accurate in determining the value of an unknown?
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Clearly, you haven't even read the link...because if you did, you'd see proof that the original (and this) scandal aren't really scandals at all. But who cares about facts, right?
Obviously you don't care about facts...
We have done entire threads about this and posted hundreds of peer reviewed reserch paper, plust what the REAL scientists have to say.
We also prooved that the "mayority" of the IPCC so called "expert scientists were nothing but policymakers, and people who had NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER ON CLIMATE CHANGE... Their governments just decided to add them as experts to further their agendas...
If I don't know how much CO2 is in the air... how am I to determine if the method is that much more accurate than a previous method? ... Moreover... how do you know how much CO2 is in the air if you don't have an accurate way of measuring it?
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
They are so heavily indoctrinated by the MSM they refuse to hear the truth.
The wheels are off the AGW bus, and many of the scientists are trying to figure out how to salvage their careers, it's why so many have turned in the last 12 months. They must realize that those who hold firm will be left holding the bag.
2 years ago a thread like this would have been eviscerated, but the curtain has been pulled back and the sham exposed. All that is left defending it are a few hardcores and a few ignorant internet scholars.edit on 9-12-2011 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)