The Climate Debate: When Science Serves the State

This is a very interesting read and quite worthy of consideration.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) sponsors adoption of the Kyoto Protocol by most industrialized nations around the world, with estimated costs of legally binding compliance estimated at over $150 billion per year. The chief promotional artifact in the proceedings, the "hockey stick" historical temperature chart of IPCC Third Scientific Assessment Chapter Lead Author Michael Mann , is shown to be based on a computer program that produces hockey sticks from over 99 percent of ten thousand samples of random noise fed to it. Stephen McIntyre, retired Canadian minerals consultant, demonstrates numerous other defects and distortions in both the data and statistical methodology, ultimately the subject of a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal of February 14 and a follow-up editorial on February 18.

The Climate Debate: When Science Serves the State

Here is the Mr. Stephen McIntyre's page:
Climate2003

This may help also:

Stephen McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. McIntrye claims Mann and his colleagues used "flawed methods that yield meaningless results," the Journal writes.

a Search Watch: Project of the Center for Media & Democracy; Stephen McIntyre

His article:
The IPCC, the "Hockey Stick" Curve, and the Illusion of Experience

Is science decieving us? Is science or scientist falling under political sway? State and nation sway? This issue of global climate and its many issues has so absorbed this world that one has to wonder. Is science becoming big business within itself? Are the global climate issues being 'painted' or over-hyped or under-blown?

You decide.




seekerof

I think this quote hit the nail on the head,

The "fact" of global warming is today as entrenched in the government-sponsored academy as ever was Lysenko’s theory that acquired traits, such as selfless devotion to the common good, could be inherited by the children of parents so indoctrinated.

Rationality was thrown out the window in favor of other interests with regard to the Lysenko affair, and I think that the comparison may be a good one with regard to this....


Good post, Seekerof

It is not economical to reduce our emmissions and if we do it here, there are so many developing countries who wont so whats the point? Money is what makes stuff happens and without some divine intervention or ETs giving us a visit and telling us to clean up our act our population will continue to do so and an increasing rate.

The Kyoto Protocol sounds good in theory but in reality the costs are too high to fix things and there always will be those who won't ever bother.

Kyoto was a bad idea, it's too late for that. It's time for damage control. Whether or not that model is flawed, there are thousands of scientists world wide, from all countries, who are producing evidence of global warming, not predictions -- and news flash, most of them aren't doing it for the money, they're doing it for the fate of mankind.

Species migration (lion fish in NC waters, dead plankton in scottish waters, pistol shrimp in UK waters, the list goes on), Ice Melt (Larsen B, the Western Shelf, Amudsen Bay, Anvers Island), abnormal fresh water injections into the current (Ice melt, increased precipitation) -- these are signs that should not be ignored.

The time to head for the hills is here, not in a panic obviously, but we need to rethink our population distributions, and in a relatively snappy fashion..chop chop. Perhaps it's a good time to rethink our fate and start worrying about the survival of the species..hmm?

I was just posting this info in another thread.. According to American scientists (not named in the Discover article I read five minutes ago ) the air temperature on the eastern shelf of Antarctica rose between 3.6 and 7.2 degrees in 50 years, then Larsen B went sploosh.

The western sheet of Antarctica is warming at a rate fast enough to contribute a loss of 100 feet of ice off the top every five years - that's not based on models, but on observations. Seven hundred and fifty thousand cubic miles of ice are being shaved down, and when it's gone, sea levels rise 16 feet or so.

So..again, I think Kyoto was effectively blackmail, and stiff blackmail at that, but the urgent need for preparedness does exist. We can't stop it, at least I don't think we can. We can, however, prepare for it with sensible social policy and a cooperative effort not seen since ww2.