Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (861315)	6/1/2015 11:46:12 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576891

Is ‘Deliberate Deception’ An Unfair Description Of ‘Official’ IPCC Climate Science? Guest Blogger / 5 hours ago June 1, 2015 Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball About these ads [iframe id="ebzIframe0" src="http://assets.ebz.io/ebzFormats/assets/html/iframe.html?h=2.25.56230843d75577b71e653cb975163a15a2b6de80.20150528140407" border="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" style="background: none; margin: 0px !important; width: 100% !important; height: 100% !important; min-height: 0px !important;" allowtransparency="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" webkitallowfullscreen="true"][/iframe] When a scientist’s work is revealed as wrong, the reason is rarely an issue. The error is identified and corrected by the author Unfortunately, that is not always the case with climate science errors. Often the question is whether it is a matter of incompetence or malfeasance? Either way there is a problem for an accurate advance of science. Normally, a simple determination is that a single mistake is probably incompetence, but a series of mistakes is more likely to be malfeasance. However, again in climate science, that doesn’t always apply because a single major error to establish a false premise to predetermine the result can occur. Usually, this is exposed when the perpetrator refuses to acknowledge the error. All these issues were inevitable when a political agenda coopted climate science. Two words, “skeptic” and consensus”, illustrate the difference between politics and science in climate research. All scientists are and must be skeptics, but they are troublemakers for the general public. Science is not about consensus, but it is very important in politics. As a result of these and other differences, the climate debate occurs in two different universes. A major challenge for those fighting the manipulations of the IPCC and politicians using climate change for political platforms is that the public cannot believe that scientists would be anything less than completely open and truthful. They cannot believe that scientists would even remain silent even when science is misused. The politicians exploit this trust in science and scientists, which places science in jeopardy. It also allowed the scientific malfeasance of climate science to be carried out in the open. A particularly egregious exploitation was carried out through science societies and professional scientific groups. They were given the climate science of the IPCC and urged to support it on behalf of their members. Certainly a few were part of the exploitation, but a majority, including most of the members simply assumed that the rigorous methods of research and publication in their science were used. Lord May of the UK Royal Society was influential in the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. They persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. The Russian Academy of Science, under its President Yuri Israel, refused to participate. At a United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) 2005 climate meeting he was put in his place. “The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy”. Israel, a Vice-chair of the IPCC, knew what he was talking about from the scientific and political perspective. Politics and science of human-caused climate change became parallel through the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The political framework evolved as Agenda 21, and the science framework evolved through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Figure 1). Figure 1 The challenge was to control the science by bending it to the political agenda, which had the effect of guaranteeing scientific conflict; these created inevitable points of conflict that forced reaction. The first was in the definition of climate change given to the IPCC in Article 1 of the UNFCCC. It limited them to considering only human causes of change. Climate change means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable periods of time. Because of the political agenda people were allowed to believe the IPCC were studying climate change in total. The reality is you cannot determine human causes of change if you do not know or understand natural causes. The forcing diagrams used in early IPCC science Reports illustrate the narrowness (Figure 1) and its limitations. FIGURE 1: Source, AR4 They identify nine forcings and claim a “high” level of scientific understanding (LOSU – last column) for only two of eleven. Of course, this is their assessment. Most people, including most of the media don’t know that the science reports exist. This is because the Summary for Policymakers Report is released with great fanfare months ahead of the science report. As David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer explained: Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. … What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment. Actions speak louder than words. Some of us started pointing to the limitations and predetermination of the results created by the original definition of climate change. As Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” Typically, the IPCC people listened, but only to offset not deal with the problem. Quietly, as a Footnote in the Summary for Working Group I AR4 Report they changed the definition of climate change. “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.” It is a convenient comment to counter those who challenge the original definition, but little else. If it was true AR5 should be very different. For example, it should refer to the Milankovitch and Svensmark Effects and include them in their computer models. It is not possible to make it true because the original structure of the IPCC and its Reports was cumulative. Each Report simply updated the original material that was restricted by the original definition. The only way they could make the new definition correct is to scrap all previous work and start over. When science operates properly this wouldn’t happen. Predictions of the first IPCC Report (1990) were wrong. Normally that forces a reexamination of the science. Instead, in the 1995 Report they changed predictions to projections and continued with the same seriously limiting definition. The entire IPCC exercise was a deliberate deception to achieve a predetermined, required, science result for the political agenda. It is not science at all. If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest. Anonymous http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/01/is-deliberate-deception-an-unfair-description-of-official-ipcc-climate-science/

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (861315)	6/1/2015 11:47:01 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576891

AP's Borenstein Notes No Hurricanes for 9 Years; Didn't Global Warming Alarmists Say There'd Be More? By Tom Blumer \| May 31, 2015 \| 10:24 PM In a report on the relative infrequency of hurricanes in the U.S. during the past decade nationwide, and many decades in certain coastal areas, the Associated Press's Seth Borenstein detected a problem. The problem is that those who contend that human-caused global warming is ruining our planet believe that hurricane frequency should be increasing, but it's not. So Borenstein tried to cover his tracks (bolds are mine throughout this post): It has been more than nine years since the U.S. was struck by a major hurricane — Superstorm Sandy did major damage but didn't qualify meteorologically as a major hurricane. That's a streak that is so unprecedented that NASA climate scientist Timothy Hall went looking to see if it could be explained by something that has happening with the weather or climate. He found that big storms formed, they just didn't hit America, coming close and hitting islands in the Caribbean and Mexico. The lack of hurricanes hitting the U.S. "is a matter of luck," Hall concluded in a peer-reviewed study. But that point still dodges the question, which is whether hurricanes and serious storms are on the increase or not. Even broadening the scope to include all "recorded storms affecting the United States," they're not: Additionally, Accuweather reported the following at the end of 2014 for the entire affected Atlantic Ocean area: For the second year in a row, the Atlantic hurricane season was below average. There have been 10 tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Basin in 2014, eight of which have reached tropical storm intensity, AccuWeather.com Hurricane Expert Dan Kottlowski said. Six of the storms became hurricanes with two of those reaching major hurricane status. In a normal year based on the past 30-year averages, we see 12 tropical storms in the Atlantic, six of which are hurricanes and three are major, Kottlowski said. Borenstein's paragraph above was an attempt at an artful dodge. He asserted that "big storms formed," but "forgot" to tell us that in 2013 and 2014 there weren't as many of them. How "clever." An item typifying the hysteria over the alleged link between human-caused global warming and increased hurricane frequency was published in July 2013 at USA Today: Storm warning: Climate change to spawn more hurricanes The Atlantic Ocean -- where most hurricanes that impact the USA come from -- is projected to see more hurricanes develop. The world could see as many as 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year by the end of the century because of climate change, says a study out today. The study was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), written by top climate researcher Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On average, about 90 tropical cyclones form each year around the world, Emanuel says. ("Tropical cyclone" is an umbrella term that includes hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, which are all the same type of storm that have different labels depending on where they form.) One of the biggest debates in the climate change research community in recent years has been the projected impact of global warming on hurricanes. Will it make them stronger? More frequent? Longer lasting? Emanuel's study used six newly upgraded global climate computer models ... Anyone who has followed global warmists' shenanigans over the years knows that they can tune out their contentions once the term "computer models," where the appropriate description is "garbage in, garbage out," gets used. Of course, Kerry Emanuel was engaging in very long-term forecasting, and two seasons of data don't end the argument. But it's not good for him that the past two years have gone decidedly the "wrong" way. I suspect, like the unbroken streak of 18-1/2 years of no global warming the world is currently in the midst of, that global warming true believers will insist that all of this relative calm on the storm front is some kind of "pause." They need to tell us the point at which they will admit that such "pauses" prove their hypotheses wrong. But I'm sure they won't. Heck, we could hit 50 years and they'll still insist that global warming is just around the corner. Most of the rest of Borenstein's writeup conveyed the impression that many parts of the U.S., spoiled by the lack of a hurricane making landfall for decades, are woefully unprepared if one does. That doesn't seem plausible, but being in the Midwest, I can't address that matter directly. Perhaps other readers can. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/05/31/aps-borenstein-notes-no-hurricanes-9-years-didnt-global-warming#sthash.1PeLcwMf.dpuf