Oh, that global warming thing again:
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.Really? What else?
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.Despite that, the IPCC wants to go full speed ahead anyway. Of course they do. More at the link.
--They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
--They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
-- The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
-- A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
6 comments:
To me, the biggest scandal is not that the data don't demonstrate the theory. That's been well known for over a decade.
The scandal--or perhaps the hope for sound science--is that at least one member of the IPCC has apparently become convinced that the process used by the IPCC is so corrupt, he's got to leak the first report to get some of the real story out before it becomes hopelessly mangled in the "finessing" of the data. Either that, or it's been purposely leaked by supporters of the theory to do damage control and a public opinion poll.
Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific process has become hopelessly politicized, and even the politicized scientists are beginning to realize it.
Hope or disaster, it could be either, but it demonstrates...well...another thing I've known for a while. When government pays for science, it tends to become politicized for obvious reasons.
When government pays for science, it tends to become politicized for obvious reasons.
It ceases to be science and becomes work product.
Since you guys are such experts on how science funding works, please direct me to the benevolent entity that provides research support with no agenda at hand. I'd love to send them a few proposals.
Also: the Daily Mail? Really?
Since you guys are such experts on how science funding works, please direct me to the benevolent entity that provides research support with no agenda at hand.
There aren't any, of course. Which is precisely the point. See — we agree on this! ;)
As for the Daily Mail, tell you what -- if it turns out that their reporting is no good, I'll be happy to acknowledge it.
Maybe the problem, Brian, is the pretense that government IS the disinterested funding entity, and hence science that doesn't work out (e.g. mainstream climatology) doesn't get de-funded.
In other words, the most biased entity is the one that claims it's not biased.
And the Mail? OK, sure, but I'm sure a professional researcher can "Google" other sources. I did, and it's interesting how the bias of the journal changes how it's reported. The conservatives and moderates report the mismatch between theory and reality, and the liberals report the politics.
Like I said, there's a reason that someone leaked this, and it has to do with the fact that the science just ain't there.
i tend to believe that research funders 'shop' for the scientists that will provide the 'results' that they can then trumpet.
maybe i'm wrong, and i'm willing to fully accept that.
this also means that real, benevolent science goes not only underfunded, but under reported as well.
i dont know science, but a valued friend of mine does it for a living and we really dont discuss things like that much....
i'm just making my hunch based upon the headlines.
i still remember a much reported study about sheep (in 80s maybe?) that showed that some boy sheep prefered to hang out together instead attempting to mix it up with girl sheep. ergo: boy sheep can be gay, and that means gay is natural.
my query at the time was: did these boy sheep attempt to breed with each other or at least offer a hand service of some kind? that wasnt reported.
maybe they were just sissy sheep who knew they had no chance with girl sheep anyway, and preferred to play it safe by not getting into fights they would lose?
thats wasnt reported either.
Post a Comment