Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

reply to post by jdub297


cont~

Let's keep in mind that all percentages are reflective of 571 US TV Meteorologists.

TV weathercasters embrace the idea of expanding their role beyond forecasting to becoming
“station scientists,” a proposal advanced by the AMS to make the weathercasters the “go to”
person in a TV newsroom on a variety of science topics. Four out of five of our respondents
(79%) indicated they were comfortable serving in this role and only 9% indicated they weren’t. In
many cases this means weathercasters will need to seek out more resources and training in order to
cover issues outside their own specialty of meteorology.

Here's a very important part of the survey:

Climate change is already one of the most common science topics TV weathercasters discuss.
Nearly all of our respondents (87%) had in some way discussed climate change as part of their
duties. The most common venue in which they discuss climate change is in community speaking
events (87%), which is also the venue they say is the most appropriate place for them to do so
(82%). The second most common way weathercasters discuss the topic is in anchor
“chit-chat” (49%), usually going into or out of the on-air weather segment. Often a news producer
stacks another weather related story before or after the weather forecast and this is a place
weathercasters can face climate change questions or comments from an anchor. Only about a third of weathercasters say they discuss climate change during the on-air weathercast (37%), or in reporter packages (33%), the most important reason being lack of time (79% and 75%, respectively). Only about two-thirds felt that it is appropriate to discuss climate change on-air (62%), and approximately three-quarters felt it appropriate on-line (72%), as many report a concern about audience “backlash.” Many weathercasters also use other avenues to discuss climate change including the news station’s blog (31%) and station’s web site (28%), on the radio (29%), in personal blogs (25%), and in newspaper columns (14%).

Another important part

Two-thirds of weathercasters say they have an interest in reporting on climate change. Most
respondents (62%) indicated that in the future they would like to report on climate change at about
the same rate they currently do, but over one quarter (28%) indicated they would like to report on
climate change more frequently. Most weathercasters (61%) haven’t experienced obstacles to
reporting on climate change, but a significant minority have (30%).

In addition to lack of time in the newscast (79%) and lack of time for field reporting (75%), the weathercasters who have experienced obstacles in reporting on climate change pointed to scientific uncertainty about climate change (68%), lack of news management support (64%), lack of access
to appropriate visuals/graphics (60%), lack of general management or owner support (55%), lack
of viewer support (50%), lack of sufficient knowledge in the subject (48%), and lack of access to
trusted scientific information (46%).

Weathercasters hold a wide range of beliefs about global warming. Survey participants
responded to a variety of questions assessing their beliefs in and attitudes about “global warming,”
questions that have been used previously in our public opinion research.
2
More than half of our
respondent (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say
they don’t know yet. About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by
human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in
the environment. Half indicated that they have thought “a lot” about global warming, and a large
majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%), the
consequences of global warming (89%), and the ways to reduce global warming (86%)—numbers
that are much higher than public responses to the same questions. Over half of weathercasters
indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce
greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%). Almost half (47%) felt
they needed some or a lot more information before forming a firm opinion about global warming,
and almost one-third (30%) said they could easily change their mind about global warming. Just
over one quarter (27%) agreed with the statement by a prominent TV weathercaster: “global
warming is a scam.

I quoted so much of the survey because as you or anyone with eyes can see it's not as simple as stating the results of 1 question, that's called cherry picking and then stating a survey says something that it clearly doesn't. It's dishonest, detrimental and disgusting. Stop it.

reply to post by Kali74


The survey that produced that 97% "consensus" was manipulated beyond recognition, much like most of the “proxy” temperature data. Nevertheless, please try to come to grips with one important fact:

CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE.

Science is inquiry, skepticism and rigorous verification.
Consensus argues for quantity, not quality.
Consensus is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is settled.
Consensus is a political concept and is irrelevant to science.
Anyone who thinks consensus is proof, is hugging the wrong tree.

The assumption here is that reducing carbon will control what climate does. But the evidence is contrary to this. Recent studies show that carbon has increased over the last 15 years while warming trends slowed. If the correlation between man-released carbon and warming were true, temps would have gone up but did not. Climate change may be a bad thing, but it is not in our control and to think so is just so much hubris.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Sadly, for the AGW religion, total forest cover is stable and has been so for more than 100 years.
I've cited and linked specific, recent studies.

I have no idea what this 'religion' you speak of is.

But I assume you think that mass deforestation in Amazonia, Africa and Asia over the past 100 years has no effect on climate?

Nor does soot.

Presumably because it's not in the Bible? And therefore science MUST be wrong.



Incidently, one of the expected consequence of Amazonian deforestion is increased risk of drought in the southern USA.

reply to post by jdub297


So now that we've established consensus exists we're going to tear apart consensus? State that methods that verify this are flawed, bias etc?

The survey that produced that 97% "consensus" was manipulated beyond recognition, much like most of the “proxy” temperature data.

Show us how... on both.
The truth of the matter is that you can't. Not without highly cherry picked information and any expert you put forth stating such can easily be shown for the myth proponents that they are.

CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE.

Sure.

Science is inquiry, skepticism and rigorous verification.

Hmm. That's exactly how consensus is reached though.

Recent studies show that carbon has increased over the last 15 years

Longer than that.

while warming trends slowed.

Not even close.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

But I assume you think that mass deforestation in Amazonia, Africa and Asia over the past 100 years has no effect on climate? Incidently, one of the expected consequence of Amazonian deforestion is increased risk of drought in the southern USA.

Completely unfounded exaggeration.

The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.
The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.
"I am no longer so worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature. "In that sense it's good news."

Amazon forest more resilient to climate change than feared

Nor does soot.

I don't know why you would inject "soot" into a thread about forestation, but I can play along.
There are numerous threads, and countless published studies documenting the deleterious effects of "black soot" upon the Indo-Asian environment.

From the Himalayan glaciers to the "Indo-Asian Haze," these conditions are largely the result of soot caused by Indian, Chinese and Indonesian burning of wood and diesel. The soot particles fall onto glacier surfaces and act as heat sinks. Those that remain suspended account for the haze permeating the air in the region.

While these sources can arguably be cited as contributing to "global warming," the immediate effects are not from increased CO2, as the AGW advocates, priests and believers contend, but from the particulate constituents of the fire and power emissions of the region.

If they stopped burning forests and diesel, there wouldn't be as much soot/melting.

Presumably because it's not in the Bible? And therefore science MUST be wrong.

I have no idea what this means; BUT a"survey" or a "poll" are not "science."
Understandably, they make you feel better; you're part of the "in" crowd.
The AGW "in" crowd are finding their ranks shrinking in the face of inquiry, skepticism, questioning of false "forecasts," and most importantly, shrinking funding from other people's money.

jw

reply to post by Kali74

So now that we've established consensus exists we're going to tear apart consensus? State that methods that verify this are flawed, bias etc?

I've given you quotes and links to numerous objective sources debunking any purported consensus.

If you chose to ignore them, or didn't understand or believe them, that speaks for itself.

Here's a reminder:

First, to be included in the final list of 77 climatologists (75 of whom, or 97%, answered yes to Doran and Zimmerman’s ambiguous question about the causes of climate change (see below)) scientists must have published at least 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the last five years on the subject of climate change. This means that a climatologist who has published three papers in the past five years, two of which were on the subject of climate change, would have been included in the final 77. A scientist who published 40 papers in the past five years, 19 of which were in the field of climate change would not have made the cut. How this serious flaw in the survey methodology affected the results is impossible to determine without examining the raw polling data. More information is required from Doran and Zimmerman to determine the effect of this problem.

The second issue is far more serious and undoubtedly skewed the results in favour of the view that most experts in the field agree that human-caused climate change is a problem.

Zimmerman’s thesis can now be downloaded here for $1.98. It is well worth reading, not only to note the apparent researcher bias revealed in the introduction and the obvious flaws in much of the survey methodology, but also as an interesting summary of the problems in the research on consensus among climate experts to that point. Even more illuminating are the thesis appendices which include hundreds of comments from the scientists being polled. Therein, it is revealed that many of the very serious problems with the survey questions and methodology were pointed out repeatedly by the scientist respondents while the poll was being run.

Climate Scientists consensus based on a myth

You blithely ignore your “climate scientists,” themselves!
Go back and read the sample I posted of respondents’ own criticisms of the Doran/Zimmerman vague and ambiguous questions; or, even better, read the appendices to the thesis and see the overwhelming critiques of a hopelessly flawed and biased premise.

jw

reply to post by Kali74

I've given you a handful of the 19,300,000 results from the search: "climate consensus."

The first results page contains more references to the myth than any validity:

Climate Change Consensus?

Climate Scientists Consensus based On A Myth

How To Manufacture a Climate Consensus

'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look

Shredding the “climate consensus” myth

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Climate Consensus: Do Little for Now

SO, using your logic, and that of Doran/Zimmerman, the consensus is that there is no consensus!

jw

reply to post by jdub297

You blithely ignore your “climate scientists,” themselves!

I most certainly don't and they aren't mine. What myself and others keep pointing out to you is that those critiques of Dolan were manufactured bull and the Scientists quoted out of context have been very vocal about this. They have stated repeatedly that while the Dolans survey was lacking they in no way ever conveyed that they didn't support AGW theory.

ETA: I should say the critiques of Dolans survey weren't bull, twisting them to say things they didn't is what's bull.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jdub297

What myself and others keep pointing out to you is that those critiques of Dolan were manufactured bull and the Scientists quoted out of context have been very vocal about this.

B. S.
Doran/Zimmerman published appendices to the "survey" to incorporate their respondents' answers to Question 3c: "“What makes you unsure if human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global mean temperatures?”

You may not like their answers (I've given you a dozen or so of them), but you cannot ignore them.
They reveal the inherent flaws in the design and bias in the phrasing of the entire survey.
Read them for yourself.

The objections to Dolan/Zimmerman's use of "significant" were among those highlighted in the Appendices:

“climatic changes are driven by numerous factors. Human activity has a role, but your use of 'significant' needs to be defined more specifically“

“First of all, 'Significant' is undefined, and to achieve the statistical parameters of sigificance is much of what the debates are about. More importantly, there have been many substantial global temperature changes in times well before humans that we cannot account for. The bigger question is, 'How much [warming] does human activity add?'”

I assume you mean 'substantial' rather than statistically 'significant.' I'm not sure how I would answer this if you meant statistically significant. Warmer global temperatures occurred during the hypsothermal when human populations and their influence on the environmental per capital were likely smaller Consequently, I am uncertain about how much of the change in the last 100-200 years are a result of human activity. It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but I am not sure if that is what you would define as 'substantial.'

“I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it's the term 'significant' I'm unsure about.”

“I do not know what you mean my significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”

“I don' know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don't know how you define 'significant'.”

“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“

“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word 'significantly'. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don't think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural.“

“I think it is a factor, but the question is HOW significant a factor? I find much disagreement among knowledgeable people on this question and it is obvious that anthropocentric blame for warming has become a mantra. I know that climate is a very complex, multivariate proposition, so am cautious about assessing the magnitude of 'our' contribution.”

“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like 'major,' 'important,' or 'significant' and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”

“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature? Additionally, how can one differentiate between human induced warming and the natural rise in temperature following the last glacial maximum? Ultimately, global mean temperatures have risen, with human activity being a likely contributor, but how much of the recorded increase is a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 is unknown.”

“'Significant' is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I'm not sure that can be demonstrated. 'Significant' is a word that is open to multiple interpretations.”

“Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”

“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to 'significant' is debatable. I base that decision on the variable quality of our dataset and the relatively limited time coverage (e.g. relatively good data in the last 50 years, marginal or 'corrected' prior).“

“The atmosphere is a complex system and I am not sure we are accounting for all of the necessary feedbacks that would kick in from human activity. I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is 'significant'.”

“The key word here is 'Significant'. It seems to be well established that human activity has contributed to CO2 increase (and by implication global warming). What seems to be less well known is the effect of solar variability on the overall heat input to the earth, the CO2 uptake potential of the oceans and what a 'Normal' climate change perturbation is. (The younger Dryas for example) To say it is a certainty now implies a level of confidence in our understanding of earth and atmospheric processes that I am not sure we truly have. I would clarify, however, that I am answering this from a purely scientific standpoint. i.e. how confident am I in the state of our understanding as to the significance of the human input.”

“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward spike this winter. I'm not sure of all the factors going on."

“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes ithroughout geologic history.“

“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I'm not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”

“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I'm not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“

“There are many natural causes of global climate change, and while humans may impact MEASURED temperatures through actions such as burning fossil fuels and urbanization, it is not clear that these play a SIGNIFICANT role in the climate change that we currently see.”

“Does 'significant' mean perceptible or outside the 'normal range' of observations. If you choose the latter, then compared to natural processes, peturbations to natural systems that can be attributed to mankind are probably too short term to be geologically significant.”

“What defines significant? If 1-2 degrees F is considered significant then I would agree that human input is significant“

“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“

“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.“

“Your use of the word 'significant'. It seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels. That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature. However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it a significant cause?”

“Tried, but could not use the provided selection of answers to the 2nd question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?" The answer is "probably" or "Very Probable". That's neither "yes", "no", nor "I'm not sure". I am sure that human impact is very probable. Anyone who is "sure" of either "yes" or "no" is either ignorant or fibbing. "I'm not sure" is equivalent if I know nothing whatsoever or if I know a lot.”

Once again, [n]I find this imprecise and impossible to answer. I found it impossible to complete your questionnaire due to these problems.

I responded to your survey. However without defining what is meant by significant, you may get a wide range of responses that agree. I personally believe that humans are influencing climate, that they augment change, and that climate will continue to change irregardless of what humans do. I study glaciers. Earth has had hundreds of continental scale glacier events during its history. Glaciers will continue to experience cycles where they expand and then contract, and then expand again, as they have done many times before, prior to humans evolving. They will also continue to do so long after our species is extinct.

Q2 then asks if I think that humans are "a significant" contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I answered yes, but I couldn't explain this. The third question then asks me why I think humans are a major contributor, but is phrased in such a way that it's implicit that I'm now listing them as THE significant factor. They are not the primary cause, but I had to stop the survey at this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I think they are. As constructed, your responders will be unable to indicate that there are multiple causes to climate change, that climate change is the norm on Earth and has been going on throughout geologic time, and that there is strong evidence to indicate that climate change not only occurred before humans existed, but also was probably more extreme than the event we are living in today.

“I have answered some questions from your survey and some I have not answered because they are vague.”

Your first question is ill-posed in that it does not define the periods for temperature that need to be compared. Pre-1800's leaves 4 billion years to consider. I answered anyway.

Just filled out your survey and I have a suggestion. You need a question that asks to what degree we think human activity has influenced climate. I am pretty sure our activities have had a significant effect but not convinced that all of the warming we see is directly attributable to anthropogenic activity. To me that is a somewhat different answer than what you will get by just looking at my answers to your questions.

Read them and weep. These are Dolan's and Zimmerman's respondents on just 1 word of 1 question!

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing globaltemperatures.

www.skepticalscience.com... nsensus-intermediate.htm

reply to post by jdub297


Why would I weep over Scientists wanting to define significant? As I said the objection to some of the questions or the vagueness is perfectly legitimate in my eyes. It changes nothing about consensus though, every single survey taker in your quoted selection says they think humans are a cause of Global Warming, they just aren't sure how much.

reply to post by Kali74

every single survey taker in your quoted selection says they think humans are a cause of Global Warming, they just aren't sure how much.

they just aren't sure how much

Precisely!

AGW advocates just don't seem to understand the difference between some influence and "driving force."

If the "Climate scientists" and "experts" in this (make-believe) "consensus" do not know "HOW MUCH" man affects the climate, we cannot justify sweeping policy changes, expansion of government control, intrusions into personal choices, and the re-distribution of 100s of Billion of dollars with little more than speculaion.

The study that started this thread makes it clear that AGW models, forecasts and hypotheses are flawed because they are based upon faulty assumptions about NATURAL influences.

At last, you concede the entire premise of these seven pages of dicussion.
Climate models and forecasts of "catastrophic" AGW are wrong, have been wrong, and will continue to be wrong until they take better into account the natural forces, such as water vapor, that influence climate.

THEY DO NOT KNOW "HOW MUCH!"

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297

they just aren't sure how much Precisely! AGW advocates just don't seem to understand the difference between some influence and "driving force."

Yes we do and quite well. What you don't seem to understand is that out of that survey of: (I'll list it out this time)

www.skepticalscience.com...

90% of participants had Ph.D.s

7% had master’s degrees.

Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes

Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes.

So out of the more than 3,000 participants 40 or so wanted clarification on the word significant and this is what you use (and all denialists) to say there is no consensus. It's ridiculous.

ETA and by my use of 'how much' I meant, they didn't know 'how much' 'significant' represented in the survey. Which again only proves my point here, you grasp onto the tiniest thing to twist and make people say things that they aren't and as I said before, it's dishonest and disgusting. Stop it.

sweeping policy changes, expansion of government control, intrusions into personal choices, and the re-distribution of 100s of Billion of dollars

And please cite where exactly any of these things are happening. They aren't except in the delusional minds of denialists. You guys have basically been winning since Bill Clinton left office, but you're too busy screaming and lying to notice.

reply to post by Kali74

I cite links and authorities to back my posts.
You plagiarize"

90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Word for B.S. word, stolen without accrediting the source!
This is another outstanding example of the AGW acolytes' inability to think for themselves.
How pathetic.

reply to post by jdub297


I did credit the source in this post and in the post you're replying to I simply said "I'll list it out this time". If you have to accuse me of plagiarism which I clearly didn't do, just to strengthen your argument then there really isn't much of argument worth having, is there?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jdub297

 

sweeping policy changes, expansion of government control, intrusions into personal choices, and the re-distribution of 100s of Billion of dollars

And please cite where exactly any of these things are happening. They aren't except in the delusional minds of denialists. You guys have basically been winning since Bill Clinton left office, but you're too busy screaming and lying to notice.

edit on 10-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Feb 10 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

Oh, Really?

Where have you been getting your “news” from? Or, more likely, NOT getting your news from; as these are common knowledge among those of us who can read and understand the English language without resorting to parroting, speculation and fear-mongering.

For starters, how about the US pushing the auto industry to a CAFÉ standard of 54.5mpg by 2025, and forcing “Government Motors” to push the Volt EV with taxpayer subsidies that totaled $250k for each Volt sold in 2011. Despite offering taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchasers up to $7,500 per vehicle, sales of electric vehicles have stalled.
Then, there are the notorious “crony capitalist” deals giving away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to auto makers, battery builders, solar panel sellers and other “renewable” energy scams that completely failed to deliver any of the jobs, energy savings, economic growth or CO2 reductions promised.
What about Energy Secretary Chu’s vow that we should pay “European prices” for fuel, and Obama’s promise that anyone building a coal-fired power plant will be forced into bankruptcy? His EPA’s restrictions forcing the closure of dozens of power generators and increasing the cost of electricity.

The worst of all is the looting of national treasuries and individual pocketbooks to fund some “one world” agency to bribe such “developing” as Brazil, Russia, India and China to abandon their own best interests for those of the UN and its sycophants.

In the Copenhagen Accord, developed countries committed to provide “new and additional” resources approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. They also committed to a goal of mobilising USD 100 billion dollars per year by 2020

www.oecd.org...

You can swerve away from the topic all you want; but it doiesn't change the fact that current AGW hypotheses and models are woefully inadequate and the resulting "science" is little more than politics and ideology.

jw

Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew
On another note, this website you have linked this article from has been under scritiny because of the organization's source of funding, which it refuses to divulge, even after a Freedom of Information request.
From Wikipedia:

According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".

Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."

In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[11] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, commented that "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

Sounds fishy to me. Where is the other £495,000 coming from? Gee, I wonder...

Shooting the messenger because you don't like the nessage?

Well, you missed. Turns out the "Grantham Institute" is little more than a front for "green" advocacy!
[ex[The Grantham Research Institute is chaired by Nicholas Stern, co-directed by Simon Dietz, Sam Fankhauser and Judith Rees, and managed by Ginny Pavey. The Institute’s management team, which includes Judith Rees (director of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy), is advised by the steering committee.

Funding
The Grantham Research Institute is supported by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment through a grant for £12 million awarded for the period from 2008 to 2018.

The Institute is also supported by the Global Green Growth Institute through a grant for US$2.16 million (£1.35 million) to fund several research project areas from 2012 to 2014.
www2.lse.ac.uk...

In case you didn't know, the FOI only applies to the U. K. government. Privately-funded UK organizations are not subject to it; much like your "sources," Wikipedia, The Grantham Research Institute, and The Grantham Foundation. agencies and departments. Grantham is basically the support organ and mouthpiece for AGW advocate Nick ('how do we get everyone else to pay for this?') Stern.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

I think the overarching implication by the OP is that *if* the data is true, and forests contribute more to climatic change than humans, then in fact less forests will cause result in less climatic change, ie. human activity (eg. deforestation) will result in less climatic change.

NO.

The 'overarching implication" is precisely what the Article says: AGW models that do not account for water vapor and condensation are inherently inaccurate.
In case you missed the QUOTES, here they are again:

If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper ...will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom ... and will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based.
...
“Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong. "

www.theaustralian.com.au...
www.thegwpf.org...
Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics

Isn't that clear?

The AGW-supporting models are wrong.
The models (and the IPCC FAR) virtually ignore the role of water vapor (the most abundant GHG), and focus on CO2 instead.
Others "climate scientists" agree with these findings, and earlier studies have shown similar results.
AGW-advocating, dependent "scientists" are attacking this study as an assault on their livelihood, faith and chosen policy.
The peer-reviewed Journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics publishe it over the objections of AGW advocates.

Man's influence is no more than one of many factors affecting climate. Man does not drive the climate.
Other major influences are being ignored to increase the focus on CO2.

jw

edit on 6-2-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)

Let me make this clear, I'm anti AGW, though the O/P material supports what I said.