Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

news.aol.com

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada
By CHARMAINE NORONHA, AP
posted: 12 HOURS 2 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: SCIENCE NEWS, WORLD NEWSPrintShareText SizeAAA
TORONTO (Sept. 3) - A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday.
Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
www.physorg.com
www.esa.int

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Even The Antarctic Winter Cannot Protect Wilkins Ice Shelf

So this is yet another huge break, and there is another huge amount of ice expected to follow this break. Add this the New Artic all time low for ice coverage, Wilkins and Ward Ice Shelfs that also broke up this year too. But hey, its not Global Warming. That phrase about burying your head in the sand is becoming more significant now, pull 'em out all you Climate Change Global Warming deniers.

news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]

that cant be good.
wats that gonna do the environment?

‘The changes ... were massive and disturbing,’ said Warwick Vincent, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec.

Temperatures in large parts of the Arctic have risen far faster than the global average in recent decades, a development that experts say is linked to global warming.

‘These substantial calving events underscore the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic,’ said Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario.

dailymail.Source

Can't wait to see the deniers blame this on an Al Gore Carbon Tax conspiracy whilst linking articles on how Low Solar Sunspot Activity is currently cooling the Planet....yeah, we can see how that whole process is working....not!

Originally posted by atlasastro

So this is yet another huge break, and there is another huge amount of ice expected to follow this break. Add this the New Artic all time low for ice coverage, Wilkins and Ward Ice Shelfs that also broke up this year too. But hey, its not Global Warming. That phrase about burying your head in the sand is becoming more significant now, pull 'em out all you Climate Change Global Warming deniers.

This is what annoys me about people like you. Us deniers aren't denying that Global Warming is occuring, we are denying it is MAN-MADE. The GW we are seeing is nothing more than Earth's natural 1500 year cycle as proven by various drill-cores taken from all the oceans.

Stop making this out to be like we deny GW is happening. It detracts from our argument and quite frankly makes you look stupid.

reply to post by ryan atwood

Alot of damage, here is what they are expecting for that Ecosystem alone....

The loss of these ice shelves means that rare ecosystems that depend on them are on the brink of extinction, said Warwick Vincent, director of Laval University's Centre for Northern Studies and a researcher in the program ArcticNet.
"The Markham Ice Shelf had half the biomass for the entire Canadian Arctic Ice Shelf ecosystem as a habitat for cold, tolerant microbial life; algae that sit on top of the ice shelf and photosynthesis like plants would. Now that it's disappeared, we're looking at ecosystems on the verge of exstinction,' said Muller.

NewsSource
So you would think that this would worry people right, well some people are worried, while others see this as Good News! Who....well, Politicians. Go figure. LOL

Along with decimating ecosystems, drifting ice shelves and warmer temperatures that will cause further melting ice pose a hazard to populated shipping routes in the Arctic region — a phenomenon that Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to welcome.
Harper announced last week that he plans to expand exploration of the region's known oil and mineral deposits, a possibility that has become more evident as a result of melting sea ice. It is the burning of oil and other fossil fuels that scientists say is the chief cause of manmade warming and melting ice.

NewsSource

Great news, the ecosystem is dying, wow, everyone grab a shovel and lets make sure it real is dead! Insane. Politicians. Arrrgggghh!



[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by atlasastro

So this is yet another huge break, and there is another huge amount of ice expected to follow this break. Add this the New Artic all time low for ice coverage, Wilkins and Ward Ice Shelfs that also broke up this year too. But hey, its not Global Warming. That phrase about burying your head in the sand is becoming more significant now, pull 'em out all you Climate Change Global Warming deniers.

This is what annoys me about people like you. Us deniers aren't denying that Global Warming is occuring, we are denying it is MAN-MADE. The GW we are seeing is nothing more than Earth's natural 1500 year cycle as proven by various drill-cores taken from all the oceans.

Stop making this out to be like we deny GW is happening. It detracts from our argument and quite frankly makes you look stupid.

Do you really think we are having absolutely no effect on the rate of progress of global warming? All the pollutants, etc, don't add up?

I think it's childish to assume there are actions without consequences, myself.

I posted these in another thread related to Global Warming but it is also relevant to this conversation, I would ask that you read carefully before posting any replies:

Something is wrong with our recent history of Antarctica. Conventional wisdom insists that the continent has been ice-covered for over 15 million years. But now Peter Webb and his coworkers have found pollen and the remains of roots and stems of plants in an area stretching some 1300 kilometers along the Transantarctic Mountains. The Antarctic wood is so recent that it floats and burns with ease.

Webb's group postulates that a shrub-like forest grew in Antarctica as recently as 3 million years ago. The dating, of course, is critical, and is certain to be subjected to careful scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, these deposits of fresh-looking wood do suggest that trees recently grew only 400 miles from the South Pole. Also of interest is the fact that the sedimentary layers containing the wood have been displaced as much as 3000 meters by faults, indicating recent large-scale geological changes.

(Weisburd, S.; "A Forest Grows in Antarctica," Science News, 129:148, 1986.)

From www.msnbc.msn.com...

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

Jared Diamond says this in his book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed:.....

"Between A.D. 1800 and 1300, ice cores tell us that the climate in Greenland was relatively mild, simiar to Greenland's weather today or even slightly warmer. Those mild centuries are termed the Medieval Warm Period. Thus, the Norse reached Greenland during a period good for growing hay and pasturing animals... Around 1300, though, the climate in the North Atlantic began to get cooler and more variable from year to year, ushering in a cold period termed the Little Ice Age that lasted into the 1800s. By around 1420, the Little Ice Age was in full swing, and the increased summer drift ice between Greenland, Iceland, and Norway ended ship communication between the Greenland Norse and the outside world."

There is much much more evidence than what I am limited to displaying here. The proof is all their in plain english and readily Googlable.

There is more than enough proof that the arctic regions have been much much warmer in Earth's past. Proponents of man-made global warming do not like to go back more than 50 or 60 years in their research because when they do, their theories begin to fall apart.

Earth is simply doing what she does, living her life cycle. The warming/cooling of different regions is a part of this cycle. To say otherwise is to ignore millions of years of solid geological evidence.


[edit on 4/9/2008 by Kryties]

Originally posted by Kryties

This is what annoys me about people like you. Us deniers aren't denying that Global Warming is occuring, we are denying it is MAN-MADE.

There are those that specifically deny that there is GW happening, if as you claim you are not one of these, why are you annoyed?. If you felt this Comment is directed at you, then that is your problem......where in my post do i mention YOU. I don't. Be annoyed all you want.

The GW we are seeing is nothing more than Earth's natural 1500 year cycle as proven by various drill-cores taken from all the oceans.

Please, if you could link some material for me to consider, i would greatly appreciate it.

Stop making this out to be like we deny GW is happening.

Again you have taken my post personally when i have made no reference to you, or those that attribute GW to natural causes.

It detracts from our argument and quite frankly makes you look stupid.

An Arguement you are yet to add any value too with consider thought or relevant material to the topic. If you think I look stupid it because of the way you look at things, which in this case, appears to be based on annoyance, mis-interpretation, and your own insercure transference of said stupidity.

trans·fer·ence
–noun

3. Psychoanalysis.
a. the shift of emotions, esp. those experienced in childhood, from one person or object to another, esp. the transfer of feelings about a parent to an analyst.

Dictionary

[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
If you felt this Comment is directed at you, then that is your problem......where in my post do i mention YOU. I don't. Be annoyed all you want.

Not at all, I don't know where you get that idea from. I refer to all deniers in general. If anything it is you taking it personally.

Please, if you could link some material for me to consider, i would greatly appreciate it.

I did, above. You may wish to read the posts in your own thread before making statements like that.

Again you have taken my post personally when i have made no reference to you, or those that attribute GW to natural causes.

If anything you are attempting to subliminally suggest that's what I am doing, attempting to create sympathy for your own claims and cause.

An Arguement you are yet to add any value too with consider thought or relevant material to the topic. If you think I look stupid it because of the way you look at things, which in this case, appears to be based on annoyance, mis-interpretation, and your own insercure transference of said stupidity.

Once again, I already have listed sources and evidence in my post above. Please take the time to read it before jumping to conclusions

trans·fer·ence
–noun

3. Psychoanalysis.
a. the shift of emotions, esp. those experienced in childhood, from one person or object to another, esp. the transfer of feelings about a parent to an analyst. Dictionary

Please explain to me what exactly this has to do with the topic of this thread? Or even about what I have said? I believe it is YOU taking this personally, not me.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by Kryties]

reply to post by Kryties

First off, thank you for the post with thread related material which i am looking at, my previous post was written while you wrote this which is why i asked for it,as your first post had nothing. I have read Guns,Germs and Steel by Diamond so i greatly appreciate your reference to some of his work in relation to this topic. I'll get the petty stuff out of the way and try and salve your annoyed status. If you agree that the Globe is warming, then you are not denying it, we differ over the cause, but agree on the phenomena, so you are not in denial, so my comment should have had no effect on you....its really that simple.
I take being called stupid as a personal attack, i think you would too....so as that attack came from you, it would hardly seem illogical for me to appear to take a comment directed at me, personally. On the other hand, my comment about deniers, is not directed at you,as you yourself admit that the earth is warming. Which leads me to believe your comment is illogical, for if you hold the beliefs that you have claimed you do, than there should be no personal frame of reference for you when looking at the term GW deniers. Yet you took on an inference of a personal reference from this term that i have used to describe people who Deny that there is GW.
Anyway, onto the thread topic. I too have some plain english spelling out that recent trends in Warming do not fit into these cycles you mention. So i guess we have to take these sources on what they have to say and then put them into context with what we are observing.
This source you linked..www.msnbc.msn.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">MSNBC.MSN while this is interesting from a genetic DNA exploration of Historical Ecology it only shows that at some stage greenland held life indicating a much warmer climate during Ice Ages.

and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

It does not show cyclic values in climate trends that concur with what is happening today.

SkepticalScience

The usual suspects in natural climate change - solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles - are all conspicuous in their absence over the past 3 decades of warming. This doesn't mean by itself that CO2 is the main cause of current global warming - you don't prove anthropogenic warming by eliminating all other options. But the primary causes of commonly cited climate change in the past have played little part in the current warming trend.

As for CO2, empirical observations show that CO2 has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming you would get from greenhouse gases is occuring. Any alternative theory that found a different cause of global warming would also need to explain why the expected (and observed) warming from CO2 has not eventuated.

Emperical Evidence Supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming

Many lines of evidence show that the Earth has in fact warmed by an amount consistent with theory. Some aspects of the warming are unique to CO2 warming - the carbon "fingerprint".

Surface weather station measurements
Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming
The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability)
Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters
Sea level rise
Gravitometric measurements of Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss
Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating
Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years.
The rise of the tropopause
Poleward migration of species
Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures
Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world
Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost
Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska
Changes in ocean circulation as predicted by climate models, for example, with temperatures rising more quickly overland
Disintegration of permafrost coastlines in the arctic
Changes in the altitude of the stratosphere
An energy imbalance - the earth is receiving more energy than it emits (Hansen 2005)
Poleward movement of the jet streams (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
Widening of the tropical belt (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

See right in front of you.

Here is a bunch of scientist that think this:

the range of 400 to 700 ppb seen over the last half-million years
of glacial-interglacial cycles, and the increase can be readily
explained by anthropogenic emissions. For N2O the results are
similar: the relative increase over the industrial era is smaller
(15%), yet the 1998 abundance of 314 ppb (IPCC, 2001a), rising
to 319 ppb in 2005 (Section 2.3.3), is also well above the 180-
to-260 ppb range of glacial-interglacial cycles (Flückiger et al.,
1999; see Sections 2.3, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1 and 7.4)

1.3.1 The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse
Gases
The high-accuracy measurements of atmospheric CO2
concentration, initiated by Charles David Keeling in 1958,
constitute the master time series documenting the changing
composition of the atmosphere (Keeling, 1961, 1998). These
data have iconic status in climate change science as evidence of
the effect of human activities on the chemical composition of
the global atmosphere (see FAQ 7.1). Keeling’s measurements
on Mauna Loa in Hawaii provide a true measure of the global
carbon cycle, an effectively continuous record of the burning of
fossil fuel. They also maintain an accuracy and precision that
allow scientists to separate fossil fuel emissions from those due
to the natural annual cycle of the biosphere, demonstrating a
long-term change in the seasonal exchange of CO2 between
the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean. Later observations of
parallel trends in the atmospheric abundances of the 13CO2
isotope (Francey and Farquhar, 1982) and molecular oxygen
(O2) (Keeling and Shertz, 1992; Bender et al., 1996) uniquely
identifi ed this rise in CO2 with fossil fuel burning (Sections 2.3,
7.1 and 7.3).

IPCC Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
This is from IPCC. The most peer reviewed pubblishers on Climate Change and GW science. Here is the report that this came from. And for further eading i think you should read this report just published IPCC home page The firts report is the report on climte change and effects on freshwater, i think people need to read what these scientist are predicting for freshwater resources in the future. Something to think about.

I will show you that your first source is a joke. I will reply to the rest of your post when I have time.

The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

I suggest you use this excellent resource to check your SOURCES. In this instance you have not looked at your source, this is typical of those trying to cloud the issues with anthropogenic global warming. I can provide you with links to many threads that have members doing the very samthing that your are doing with your first source.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.

“Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? In fact, it echoes my thoughts on the matter. Now listen to the actual petition:”

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

“There’s the problem. It is not opposition to the Kyoto Treaty. It is the premise on which that opposition is based. I find it hard to believe this petition is being circulated by professional scientists. This kind of melodramatic absoluteness sounds like the language of a would-be religious prophet.”

Michael continued, “If that were the end of it, maybe it would be better to ignore the petition rather than draw attention to it. However, it gets worse. Again, in the stacks in front of you, you’ll find copies of an unpublished professional paper. The authors are from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) and the George C. Marshall Institute. However, the format is an exact duplicate of that used by the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. The apparent intent is to make the paper appear as though it has been through the peer-review process. In my mind, the overstated case—coupled with the misrepresented paper—is outright fraud! What really disturbs me are the Internet websites for the Marshall Institute and for OISM. Both sites present a biased perspective on global warming and the OISM page contains a list of several thousand supporters’ names. Among them are some of the country’s top scientists. I believe the scenario has been engineered to convince Congress and the public that the sponsor’s position represents a consensus of the scientific community.”

SCIENCECASES

reply to post by atlasastro



I am a little annoyed right now, I have spent the last hour putting together a post only to have it lost in the server twice now (I would hit PREVIEW POST and it gave me an error page then returned me to a blank reply box). I am too angry at this to write it all a third time but when I calm down I will go for try number 3.

Originally posted by Kryties


There is more than enough proof that the arctic regions have been much much warmer in Earth's past. Proponents of man-made global warming do not like to go back more than 50 or 60 years in their research because when they do, their theories begin to fall apart.

Well of course a theory of increased anthropogenic global warming would fall apart as you go back in time....your criticism is absurd. All the science is pointing to increased CO2 due to fossil fuel burning by man, that has been rapidly increasing and observed, and measure. The effect of these increases are also measured in rapid temperature increases going back 50 and 60 years ago . Your point makes absolutly no sense at all. There is proof that artic regions have been warmer, so what, scientist can attribute that warming to nature, the current warming is being attributed to anthropogenic causes, these causes are observed, models and predictions based on this influence match what is happening, and this does not match historical warmings in trends and cycles as described by scientist.

Earth is simply doing what she does, living her life cycle. The warming/cooling of different regions is a part of this cycle. To say otherwise is to ignore millions of years of solid geological evidence.

Oh please, please, can you point out where in the history of the earths climactic cycle there has been 6billion people transforming the planet through deforestation, mining, agriculture and urbanisation whilst consumming massive amounts of fossil fuels, emmitting massivel amounts of observable global warming gases causing observable global warming resulting in massive enviromental change which my OP is proof of. Please show me where in the records we observe this cycle?

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by atlasastro

 

I am a little annoyed right now, I have spent the last hour putting together a post only to have it lost in the server twice now (I would hit PREVIEW POST and it gave me an error page then returned me to a blank reply box). I am too angry at this to write it all a third time but when I calm down I will go for try number 3.

yes, i saw it and was forming a reply, shame, it was looking like a great post and i was getting into a reply only to find it missing. This has happened to me before, what i did was after i lost the reply i went to the return to previous page button and returned to the original reply box page that still contained my reply intact. Godd Luck. You might need to break it up into smaller posts see what happens and you can form a quick short reply each time so you wont lose heaps of material if it goes wrong.



[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]

There is clear evidence of a 1500 (+/- 500) year cycle of warming and cooling. The very fact that the Earth warms and cools, creating climate change in various parts, detracts from your claim that this is a modern-day phenomena.

Example 1:

From National Centre for Policy Analysis

Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). In fact, S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute) conclude that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.

Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth's frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years).

According to the authors:

* An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier -- at the other end of the world from Greenland -- showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
* The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
* Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Considered collectively, there is clear and convincing evidence of a 1,500-year climate cycle. And if the current warming trend is part of an entirely natural cycle, as Singer and Avery conclude, then actions to prevent further warming would be futile, could impose substantial costs upon the global economy and lessen the ability of the world's peoples to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Source: S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, "The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 279, September 29, 2005

Here is another article concerning the 1500 year cycle...
From www.lifesitenews.com...
(It should be noted that the Hudson Institute is one of the world's oldest and most respected think-tanks)

Discovery of Constant, Sun Spot Induced, Harmless 1500 Years Global Warming Cycles
Hudson Institute discussion presents significant evidence challenging warming alarmism

By Steve Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 22, 2006 - The general warming of global temperatures in recent decades appears to mostly be the result of a regular, sunspot induced climate cycle that has been occurring roughly every 1500 years for at least the past one million years. Climate physicist S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, discussed the substantial evidence for their new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," at a Hudson Institute book forum in Washington, D.C. last month.

The book is said to make a very powerful case that the current climate trends we are currently seeing are in fact part of a product of a solar-linked cycle that creates harmless naturally warmer conditions approximately every 1500 years.

Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an agricultural economist and former senior analyst in the Department of State, began the discussion noting that the Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century and records indicate grapes were being grown there again in the 11th century, both situations indicating that today's temperatures are not unprecedented.

Additionally, scientific analysis of ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic found that there is a clear record of a moderate, abrupt 1500-year climate change cycle running all the way through all the major warmings and all the ice ages. Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.

The authors relate that one seabed core from near Iceland that goes back a million years revealed that the 1500-year cycle runs through the whole million years.

Avery and Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental research at the University of Virginia and the former first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, have concluded that the alarmist predictions about how much the earth will warm in the near future are based on a radical overestimate of how much carbon dioxide changes the earth's temperatures.

The massive and natural release of carbon dioxide by the oceans; the fact that "three-fourths of our modern warming occurred before 1940, which was before much human-emitted CO2"; demonstrably false claims of a scientific consensus on global warning; and the fact that it isn't even as warm today as "it was during the medieval warming when the Vikings were able to grow crops in Greenland" - bolster the authors' politically incorrect claims on this dominating issue.

Avery and Singer do not deny the greenhouse effect but state that it is small. They state, "What we're suggesting is that both history and the recent pattern of things, particularly the warming before 1940, would indicate that the CO2 impact is a good deal smaller than the climate models which are telling us to be frightened."

Avery concludes, "it looks to me as though 75 to 80 percent of the warming I see can be credited to the natural cycle". Even then, the authors emphasize, the degree of overall warming that can be expected will be relatively harmless and does not warrant the alarmism and extreme economic and political measures being proposed.

Now I am a little confused. If it is our emissions that are causing the climate to warm, how did humans manage to do this every 1500 years for the last million years?

The fact is that, as I have stated before, Earth warms and cools on a regular, almost heartbeat-like basis. We are in the warming period now which will eventually reverse and start cooling again. Humans, while perhaps contributing to maybe 1% of the warming, do not make enough of a difference to actually sway the warming/cooling cycle.

In response to your post pertaining to the IPCC, here is an interesting article...

From www.sciencealert.com.au...

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC “assessment reports” before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups.

Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future “projections”. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”.

The reports from working groups II and III are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change - in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration”. And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the “Second Order Revision” or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided.

In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space - an incredible assertion in such an important document.

The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”.

I think the very fact that the numbers have been fuddled and that clearly not all scientists agree with the IPCC findings is enough to at least make someone take pause and think about the issue from another perspective.

Now to cement the fact that many scientists disagree with the IPCC here is the petition that has currently been signed by over 31,000 scientists:

From www.oism.org...

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Now just to add another spin on the IPCC angle...
From newsbusters.org...

The chinks in the armor that is a supposed scientific consensus regarding man’s role in global warming continued to grow this week when it was identified that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were not in agreement with the study’s findings.

Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you? Nobody reported it!

In fact, what you also didn't hear or read due to the media's universal eschewing of this information was that many of the views expressed in the IPCC’s report go quite contrary to assertions regularly being made by the very press outlets not covering this new revelation and the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.

Think maybe that's why it's not being reported?

Regardless of the answer, the Heartland Institute, a non-profit social and economic think tank, issued the following press release concerning this matter Friday (emphasis added throughout):

On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.

"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.

The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.

That's just some food for thought

Originally posted by Kryties
(It should be noted that the Hudson Institute is one of the world's oldest and most respected think-tanks)

Wikipedia
The Hudson Institute is an American, non-profit, neo-conservative think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.[1] It moved to Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1984 and to Washington, D.C., in 2004.[2]

The Institute promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated values of a "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security."

According to its mission statement the Hudson Institute "challenges conventional thinking and helps manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business."[1]

In the 1970s, Hudson’s scholars advocated a turn away from the "no-growth" policies of the Club of Rome; in the early 1990s, it advised the newly-liberated Baltic nations on becoming market economies; it assisted in drafting the Wisconsin welfare reform law.


The Institute has taken positions critical of environmentalism[3]. Dennis Avery, as Director of the Hudson's Center for Global Food Issues, has written in opposition to those who favor the adoption of organic agricultural methods.[4]

It was described by US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as “closely associated with neoconservatives”.[5]

The Hudson Institute is developing programs to propose the political and economic transformation of Muslim nations.[citation needed]