Wednesday, July 7, 2010

And They Called It Science


The Economist Doesn't Think The Science is Settled


After the crooks who flogged to the world their shop soiled junk science known as 'The IPCC Report" on which they would then found their global scam called various names but boiling down to an international ponzi scheme in which citizens of gullible wealthy nations are forced to buy dirty little pieces of paper when enable venal citizens of other countries to buy free lunches forever were sprung by climategate, the Dutch government organised a report into the report by its own environmental agency.

The report was issued a couple of days ago and it is scathing.

John Key and Nick Smith should read it because it goes as far as civil servants dare to go in its language which leaves the reader in no doubt that the whole IPCC report was a disgraceful travesty. Here are some choice selections:-

But they did find a number of things to take issue with, most of which they thought minor but eight of which they classed as major; and their work seems to bring out a systemic tendency to stress negative effects over positive ones. This tendency can be defended. But a reading of the report suggests there may also be broader and potentially more misleading bias....

and a little later:-

......But the PBL also identified seven statements, which, while not errors, it thought were deserving of comment (for which read criticism).

Perhaps the most striking relates to Africa. The table in the summary for policy makers reads: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” The evidence on which this is based says only that yields during years in which there are droughts could be reduced by 50%. Furthermore, the relevant reference applies only for Morocco—and it cites as its source an earlier paper that the PBL says no one, including the IPCC authors, now seems able to find.....

And then:-

....Other criticisms turn on a tendency to generalise. Research showing decreased yields of millet, groundnuts and cowpeas in Niger becomes a claim that crop yields are decreasing in the Sahel, the strip that separates the Sahara from the savannah in Africa, rather than that the yields of some crops are decreasing in some parts of the Sahel. The results of research on cattle in Argentina are applied to livestock (which would include pigs, chickens, llamas and the rest) throughout South America. The expert authors do not provide a compelling reason for their claim that fresh water availability will decline overall in south, east and southeast Asia, or that the balance of climate-related effects on the health of Europeans will be negative.....

Hang on a minute, there's more:-

......Another problem identified by the PBL analysis is that, in general, negative impacts are stressed over positive ones.......... Thus the evidence base from which an assessment of impacts has to start is to some extent skewed....

Oh yes, nearly forgot this one:-

.....Perhaps the most worrying thing about the PBL report, though, is a rather obvious one about which its authors say little. In all ten of the issues that the PBL categorised as major (the original errors on glaciers and Dutch sea level, and the eight others identified in the report), the impression that the reader gets from the IPCC is more strikingly negative than the impression which would have been received if the underlying evidence base had been reflected as the PBL would have wished.........A large rise in heat related deaths in Australia is mentioned without noting that most of the effect is due to population rather than climate change. A claim about forest fires in northern Asia seems to go further than the evidence referred to—in this case a speech by a politician—would warrant.......

And finally:-

But the panel set up to look at the IPCC’s workings by Dr Pachauri and Mr Ban should ask some hard questions about systematic tendencies to accentuate the negative.

And they call this science?

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The overwhelming weight of evidence" still points to Anthropogenic global warming...that's enough for Key Smith and the echo chamber Gluckmann ...so it must be right.

Anonymous said...

None of those relate to the science though. They relate to effects as a result of the heat. Those may of course be lower than expected which is where the argument is. The science on the cause is more settled than most other areas of science. A study released just last week analysing the entire body of academic work on climate change found 98% support for anthropogenic climate change. The difference comes only in how bad it will be.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

So the world just must be warming these last ten or is it now twelve years? How embarrassing.

"A study" anon? By whom? The same idiots who contributed to the IPCC debacle? 98% of what?

Did your study show conclusively that Man's actions outweigh the action of the sun and volcanoes?

Did your study show conclusively that the Medieval Warm Period did not occur?

Did your study conclude that if all the world's industry closed down tomorrow there would be anything more than an imperceptible effect on world temperatures?

And did your study document any of the positive effects of global warming if ever there is any?

No, of course it didn't do any of these things, did it?

KG said...

Asking inconvenient questions such as those proves you're in the pay of Big Oil Adolf.
I read a study that said so.

David said...

I have subscribed to The Economist for 17 years and they have benn (much to my disgust)firmly in the warming camp so its good to see some more rigorous look at the evidence.

David said...

Having just spent a month in the UK if Key thinks our produce will be not bought because we dont have an ETS then he is a fool. They dont care because their newspapers actually report the sceptics side unlike our media.The poms like to buy local (its trendy) the french dont care and have rightly dumped their carbon tax.

FijiDave said...

Key does not get my vote, nor does any other addle-headed nitwit that follows the AGW BS.

Good on ya, Adolf, for sticking it to the gormless idiots.

I saw somewhere the other day in reference to Key and Smith's about-face on the ETS:

"Never get between a polititian and a a bucket of money."

Never a truer word...

Anonymous said...

Bit late for us isn't it?
Fuck its cold tonight, but I have to turn my heater off soon as I have to watch my power bill...

KG said...

We've burned about a ton of firewood in the last month Anon. ;( And it's still raining, with a freezing southerly blowing...

Anonymous said...

(anon from 2nd comment) Adolf as I stated it was not a substantive study it merely analysed all existed substantive studies results. It merely highlights there is no academic support for the lack of existence of anthropogenic climate change.

Reference:
William R. L. Anderegga, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Anonymous said...

Also Adolf just a note on the substantive comments you made. The medieval warm period has been disproved. While there was a temperature in Europe they have since discovered other areas of the world were colder so it was not a global temperature increase but merely weather.

In addition there has been little significant volcanic activity or activity of the sun which can explain the rises in temperature globally measured using every major weather station on the planet. Unless you suspect every major monitoring body on the planet to be wrong I am not sure where you are going with that.

To combat climate change on current estimates we do not need all industry to shut down also. The current human lifestyle can be mostly maintained if we adapt to the latest technology and reforest more land. New Zealand has satisfied its Kyoto reductions despite having a 22% increase in emissions because it reforested. There have been multiple studies showing if we reduced output the effects would soften. Most however find we cannot undo the temperature increases that will come within the next decade no matter what because we cannot easily take the gasses back out of the atmosphere.

There have been studies which documented the positive effects of global warming and some countries will do significantly better with crop growing but the overall impact to the world will be negative. Around 140,000 people die a year due to climate related events (not climate change just climate related) and we can expect that to significantly climb with higher global temperatures which leads to more erratic weather.

KG said...

"..and we can expect that to significantly climb with higher global temperatures which leads to more erratic weather."

Unless Man adapts. Which he always has. So even assuming what you're saying about AGW is true (and I think it's a load of horsecrap) most studies I've read which talk about the effects of global warming ignore Man's most significant characteristic..adaptability.
Here's a clue..man lives--and thrives--in places as diverse as the Kalahari and Greenland.

Anonymous said...

I agree we can adapt to most of the changes. That will however be horrifically difficult and expensive. More so than preventing it in the first place.

FijiDave said...

@Anonymous

"The medieval warm period has been disproved."

Just where did you get this piece of information? Out of the CAGW handbook? Al Gore's garbage bin?

It would be nice if you could provide evidence of this being 'disproved'.

In my experience, anything that points to the warmist's being a tad wrong, gets conveniently 'disproved' with out any evidence to support it.

What do you have to say about Mann's Hockey Stick?

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html

KG said...

"That will however be horrifically difficult and expensive."
Not at all difficult. Agricultural production will merely change to different products in different locations and there's a good chance that any expense involved will be more than offset by increased production--I've seen estimates which say for every 1 degree rise in temperature agricultural production in Europe will rise dramatically.
Given the mind-boggling figures being bandied about for averting global warming (as though we could) the cost of adapting to a few degrees rise in temperature would probably be trivial by comparison.

The warmistas need to find a new bogeyman--this one is looking distinctly unwell. ;)

Rob Carr said...

The Medieval warm period was originally discovered by the IPCC in 1990 on limited data and thus was inaccurate. The reason being it focused on Europe alone which surprisingly no longer constitutes the entire planet, the report you linked to also is only evidence of warming in the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere did not experience this warming which is shown in the majority of following research including the 2007 IPCC report and Mann's 2008 study which corrected all of the criticism corrected at his first hockey stick graph.

The hockey stick graph while it contained some statistical errors nonetheless correlated well with other scientists results and is substantially correct.

While the medieval period was slightly warmer than the years preceding it and definitely those following it, it was still lower than current temperatures.

Even if there was warming during this time this proves nothing as we cannot observe the suns temperature from that time. We can currently observe all variables that affect climate, we know green house gas is one of them, we know the planet is warming more than we wish and the other variables do not explain this fact. We know we can reduce levels of greenhouse gasses to reduce temperature therefore we should do so.

By current estimates many species would lose their natural habitats if global warming were to occur which could be disadvantageous. Hundreds of millions of people would need to move location as a greater proportion of the planet becomes desert and also last year the first of the pacific islands (albeit an incredibly small one) was determined to be no longer inhabitable due to rising sea levels meaning it became flooded too often during storms. In order to do as you say grow different crops in different areas means we have to find the land for that and change all of our methods of farming. The level of wasted current infrastructure and the requirement to build so much new ones would be incredibly expensive. I am unsure how you think it could be cheaper than a partial reduction in emissions. Also be aware the cost of the proposed ETS's are higher than the actual costs because most the money is simply being redistributed because governments are too lazy to fund their own carbon reducing initiatives and bankers need to get paid.

(This is anon from before my google account finally decided to sign in)

KG said...

Rob, I don't have either the time or the inclination to re-argue the whole AGW question.

You peddle a load of half-truths and distortions --this alone makes reading anything you write a waste of time:
"The hockey stick graph while it contained some statistical errors nonetheless correlated well with other scientists results and is substantially correct."

It was a fabrication, a lie and has been shown to be so again and again. So have the sea-level rises. (I suppose you missed the case of the famous "disappearing island" in Bangladesh that has since been shown to be sinking? A process that's been going on in that delta for longer than industry has been around?)
But that didn't stop the IPCC from using it as an example of "sea levels rising".

It's tedious and pointless trying to debate with someone in the grip of any cult and AGW believers are no different to any other cult, other than the government is glad to have them around to help make the spurious argument for yet more taxes.