Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming


jethro

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    Didn't know where to put this, seems like any thread will do as we all end discussing the same stuff in all....

    http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydet...0071205.!15

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 49
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

    Interesting read Jethro..

    I wonder how long it will be before more begin to speak out? Or do you think that money may talk?

    Silly me. :doh: I know, the money has nothing to do with anything.. Maybe.........

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

    Well you just know what my thoughts on this will be Jethro, total shook and horror that a totally honest and unbiased body such as the IPCC could be accused of such things :-)

    As Henry Ford once said you can have any colour you like as long as its black!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Crowborough, East Sussex 180mASL
  • Location: Crowborough, East Sussex 180mASL

    Quote from end of article:

    "The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds".

    No axe to grind then eh? :doh: B)

    If you really want to play games:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1947245,00.html

    ffO.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    Quote from end of article:

    "The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds".

    No axe to grind then eh? :huh: :huh:

    If you really want to play games:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1947245,00.html

    ffO.

    Hi ffO!

    We've had big debates about the Monckton article a while ago - the threads were quite interesting, if I remember rightly! If you've not read them and have nothing better to do (!) then here are links to the two threads in question:

    http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=33826

    http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=34234

    :D

    CB

    PS - Not read your link yet, Jethro, but I'll give it a look a bit later on ;)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    Strikes me that some folk involved in all of this haven't progressed much beyond their playground, name calling days; it would be laughingly pathetic if it weren't so bloody dangerous. Inevitable really I suppose when the biggest driver to gain publicity for climate change, is a failed president who absolutely refuses to bow out gracefully. The bottom line none of us can escape though, is the IPCC is a political body. There are plenty of tales around of scientists involved who query them, being stone walled; it appears, to be one of the gang, you have to agree hook line and sinker. Dissenting or questioning scientists are not a problem to the IPCC, they simply ignore and close ranks against them, fueling the certainty of those remaining in the inner circle. That's not science or scientific rigour, it's political shenanegans which ultimately we'll all end up paying a price for. Can't wait to see what comes out of Bali.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    After reading the FFO post I revisited Mr Monkeyton's paper and am even more concerned as to why so many folk apparently 'choose' to give credence to it (in light of all the 'easy' evidence to be found to highlight it scandalous nature).

    I've often posted before that many of the fervent 'denialists' seem to be acting out of the very human responses to a loss (of their lifestyle and possibly their ripe old age).

    Once through the 'denial stage' they will enter into the 'blaming stage', I just hope that most of it is turned in-wards as they accept how 'unhelpful' their stance has proven through the 80's, 90's and 00's in creating a positive climate of co-operation with which we could have implemented positive changes to mitigate the worst that AGW will now throw at us!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    And an awful lot of the pro side seem to be working from an in-built guilt complex brought on by their consumerism. There's often an element of "I've seen the error of my ways, let me lead you to the light". Come on GW, let's not drag yet another thread down to them and us eh? Do you accept the UN and the IPCC are political bodies and as such, really have no place in science? Do you accept that being political bodies, the science can, and will be presented in the light they choose, rather than present science after it has stood up to the cold light of several lab lamps shone upon it?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    I accept, Jethro, that a great many scientists (specialists in their field) are permanently employed in gathering data to enable them to present a bunch of 'politico's' with their best evidence (at present) of the changes both to the planet to date and in the future.

    It would seem that, when the IPCC is mentioned folk either view it from the top down (a bunch of politico's) or the bottom up (a great swathe of scientists) and , if true, therein lies the problem.

    For the sake of the thread we should separate out 'horses mouth' data from the twisted politico stuff that comes from it. I have no interest in the 'career politico's' who seem more deserving of the charge aimed at many scientists (they are only in it to continue their grants/funding) as the politico's are only their to be political and be re-elected altering their 'spin' at will to ensure the best chance of re-election (and continued gravy train).

    Facts are facts and opinions are just that ,opinions. Lets not confuse the two!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How is this related to the environment? This thread is about politics and nothing to do with the science of global warming. Politics lead to arguments, which is why I have suggested that we just stuck to the cold, raw hard data and science.

    The IPCC could be entirely a puppet of the government but that is absolutely nothing to do with whether AGW is wrong or not.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Strikes me that some folk involved in all of this haven't progressed much beyond their playground, name calling days; it would be laughingly pathetic if it weren't so bloody dangerous. Inevitable really I suppose when the biggest driver to gain publicity for climate change, is a failed president who absolutely refuses to bow out gracefully. The bottom line none of us can escape though, is the IPCC is a political body.

    Hummm, and 'Lord' Monckton? Who does he work for?

    There are plenty of tales around of scientists involved who query them, being stone walled; it appears, to be one of the gang, you have to agree hook line and sinker. Dissenting or questioning scientists are not a problem to the IPCC, they simply ignore and close ranks against them, fueling the certainty of those remaining in the inner circle. That's not science or scientific rigour, it's political shenanegans which ultimately we'll all end up paying a price for. Can't wait to see what comes out of Bali.

    As others have pointed out Monckton has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions.

    Here are some of them

    1

    2

    3

    4

    I have to ask why people regard someone so often wrong as credible?

    How is this related to the environment? This thread is about politics and nothing to do with the science of global warming. Politics lead to arguments, which is why I have suggested that we just stuck to the cold, raw hard data and science.

    The IPCC could be entirely a puppet of the government but that is absolutely nothing to do with whether AGW is wrong or not.

    Indeed!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071211/ts_nm/bali_tuesday_dc_1

    And just to illustrate my points above......hot off the wires

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    Magpie: How can anyone separate the science when the world is working on the accepted science as presented by a political body? How do we know the evidence for AGW is real or truely"consensus reached" if it is being filtered and edited by a political body?

    GW: I'm not coming at this from a pro/sceptic view of the science, we have loads of threads already for that. This thread is all about the twisted politico stuff, hence the title "Dishonest political tampering with the science on Global Warming".

    Dev: Again, not saying he is right or wrong, merely presenting an idea that political spin plays a huuuuuuuuge part in all of this. The IPCC isn't the b-all and end-all of climate science but it is being presented as such, and taking centre stage in dictating everyone's future in Bali.

    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401

    Oh to live in the USA, I can't wait to hear all about this..... http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

    Was typing away at the same time as you GW; it illustrates my point too.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The IPCC isn't the only source of data regarding AGW Jethro. It's only a small part in fact. Every week new peer reviewed papers come out from people completely unconnected to the IPCC. Even assuming that the IPCC is a completely political puppet body, which I think by the way is totally wrong. This thread is just about politics that achieves NOTHING in regards to understanding the acutal science behind AGW. The only way to disprove AGW is to take apart the science in a scientific method, not branding this and that organisation as political.

    Its a bit like the BNP coming out and saying that the Earth is round and then everyone saying they're wrong because they're political and they don't like them. Silly really.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Dev: Again, not saying he is right or wrong,

    Oh, you could have fooled me...

    merely presenting an idea that political spin plays a huuuuuuuuge part in all of this. The IPCC isn't the b-all and end-all of climate science but it is being presented as such, and taking centre stage in dictating everyone's future in Bali.

    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401

    Oh to live in the USA, I can't wait to hear all about this..... http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

    Was typing away at the same time as you GW; it illustrates my point too.

    But, well known science political loobyists The Heritage Institute send four 'scientists' to Bali (one being that well known 'scientist' politico lord, I mean 'Lord' Monckton) and sceptical folk like me are supposed to lap it up uncritically? C'mon, you've got to do better than that.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    The IPCC isn't the only source of data regarding AGW Jethro. It's only a small part in fact. Every week new peer reviewed papers come out from people completely unconnected to the IPCC. Even assuming that the IPCC is a completely political puppet body, which I think by the way is totally wrong. This thread is just about politics that achieves NOTHING in regards to understanding the acutal science behind AGW. The only way to disprove AGW is to take apart the science in a scientific method, not branding this and that organisation as political.

    Its a bit like the BNP coming out and saying that the Earth is round and then everyone saying they're wrong because they're political and they don't like them. Silly really.

    I know the IPCC isn't the only source but it is the source that world leaders are, as we speak, basing their decisions upon as to where we collectively go from here. As I said, we have innumerable other threads on this forum in which to take apart the science, raise doubts and questions of it's validity, this thread is not for that. Raising the spectre of the BNP is akin to calling sceptics "deniers" with all it's associated connotations to the holocaust; it's either designed to censor or needlessly inflame, neither of which are necessary. If you don't want to discuss the politics but would rather stick to the science, that's fine but there are plenty of other threads in which to do it.

    Oh, you could have fooled me...

    But, well known science political loobyists The Heritage Institute send four 'scientists' to Bali (one being that well known 'scientist' politico lord, I mean 'Lord' Monckton) and sceptical folk like me are supposed to lap it up uncritically? C'mon, you've got to do better than that.

    Do better? At what? Disproving AGW? Er no, the clue is in the title of the thread. This thread isn't a them and us, pro/sceptic, AGW real/AGW not real. This thread is for all political spin, whatever your personal viewpoint on AGW. Personally, I'm tired of the endless "two camp" strategy on here, surely both sides can be critical of the way all this is being presented to the world.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I know the IPCC isn't the only source but it is the source that world leaders are, as we speak, basing their decisions upon as to where we collectively go from here. As I said, we have innumerable other threads on this forum in which to take apart the science, raise doubts and questions of it's validity, this thread is not for that. Raising the spectre of the BNP is akin to calling sceptics "deniers" with all it's associated connotations to the holocaust; it's either designed to censor or needlessly inflame, neither of which are necessary. If you don't want to discuss the politics but would rather stick to the science, that's fine but there are plenty of other threads in which to do it.

    Well I don't see what the point of this thread is. I think we should stick to the science. The BNP example was just something I plucked out my head as an example. Nothing more!

    What's the holocaust got to do with anything. Overreacting a bit.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    Well I don't see what the point of this thread is. I think we should stick to the science. The BNP example was just something I plucked out my head as an example. Nothing more!

    It's a free country; for me and I know quite a few others, the politics is as important as the science and it's politics which will determine how the science is used/abused to dictate our future.

    Not over-reacting Magpie, it just saddens me that political discussions cannot be had without extremists being raised. The holocaust reference was another USA political spin, not one I invented; climate change sceptics over there a while back, were likened to holocaust deniers, hence the terms sceptics/deniers being used as though they are inter-changeable despite the two terms having completely different meanings. Denier is routinely used as a collective term to dismiss all questions.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

    Let's just keep to the subject of politics and global warming please.

    If you don't like the idea then you don't have to take part. If you want to talk about other politics then feel free to find a different forum.

    Thanks

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Crowborough, East Sussex 180mASL
  • Location: Crowborough, East Sussex 180mASL
    Hi ffO!

    We've had big debates about the Monckton article a while ago - the threads were quite interesting, if I remember rightly! If you've not read them and have nothing better to do (!) then here are links to the two threads in question:.......

    CB

    Thanks CB. I will read them and reply shortly.

    This debate has raged for quite some time, indeed when I first joined NW now three years ago, there was an AGW thread that regularly ran to hundreds of posts, lengthy tomes, more references than an IPCC report and with a 10,000+ hit count. Stratospheric will remember it as will Penguin, John Holmes, Paul, Roo and several others I'm sure.

    It played out somewhat mirroring the current IPCC vs layman arguments, with on the one hand pro-AGW supporters representing the scientific community and on the other, the sceptics, represented by primarily two antipodeans namely Stockman70 and Ken Ring. The former a retired ranch owner and the later, a new-age / alternative life-style maths teacher cum weather forecaster, whose unorthodox methodology relied on lunar, solar and planetary barycentric cycles topredict globalweather patterns. Ken had quite a following especially in New Zealand, where he appealed to a large contingent - probably because of his disdain for orthodoxy and organised social convention. Stockman appealed to the layman with his no-nonsense robust outdoors 'Marlboro County' style. The discussions were heated, highly charged and at times descended into downright mud-slingng. Not the sort of discussion that would get past the censors these days (eh OON!), but immense fun all the same. One had to have a thick skin though! And these in the days before Gore, Crichton et al, and two years before the fourth IPCC report hit the streets and four years after the third report - it was still vigorously refuted, defended and refuted again.

    No conclusion was drawn at that time. I guess people decided to wait for the next IPCC report.

    What I can say is the arguments have not changed. Same dogma on both sides, just different names and some new styles. It's human nature to be competetive and argumentative.

    In the west and now increasingly in the east, self interest and meglomania leaves little room for altruism. Indeed, benevolence from rich western nations towards historically poor third world countries is waning as we now see (through loss of jobs, erosion of our previous world status, projection of military power, explosion of the surveillance culture etc) them as a big threat. Our distrust of corporate giants has grown in proportion, we see a growing new educated Proletariat who (rightly IMHO) equate business with government. Government has become adept at spin, gloss and rhetoric able to manipulate previously independent institutions through market forces.

    So exactly who can we trust? Which is precisely why we cannot agree until that question is resolved.

    If we are to trust, then the IPCC should be as unfettered by government as the judicial sysytem. That means the access by public enquiry to ensure freedom and fairness, to publish without editing by any government or corporation and the funding ring fenced and unhindered to spend without needing a return on investment.

    If AGW is a real and present danger, Stratospherics oft quoted tragedy of the commons is one outcome. If not, then we are left with an awful feeling of manipulation.

    ffO.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    I wasn't around these parts back in the olden days, so cannot comment. This though, for me is the crux of the matter:

    "If we are to trust, then the IPCC should be as unfettered by government as the judicial sysytem. That means the access by public enquiry to ensure freedom and fairness, to publish without editing by any government or corporation and the funding ring fenced and unhindered to spend without needing a return on investment."

    Many, if not most of the criticisms of the IPCC findings could be swept aside if the process were more open. Without the freedom to access all scientific knowledge to date, how can anyone have any confidence in what we are being told? This is then compounded when the scientists themselves say "hang on a minute, that isn't right" and they then are swept aside with no resolution to their doubts. If questioning scientists are wrong, then it is within the power of the IPCC to catagorically prove this, yet they choose not to.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    Thanks CB. I will read them and reply shortly.

    This debate has raged for quite some time, indeed when I first joined NW now three years ago, there was an AGW thread that regularly ran to hundreds of posts, lengthy tomes, more references than an IPCC report and with a 10,000+ hit count. Stratospheric will remember it as will Penguin, John Holmes, Paul, Roo and several others I'm sure....So exactly who can we trust? Which is precisely why we cannot agree until that question is resolved.

    Hi ffO,

    Apologies for the edit of your post - I did it to save space!

    I agree with much of what you have said. On the matter of trust, many of us have been repeating the call to look at the science itself, ignoring any media or political spin even to the extent of ignoring the IPCC. The IPCC have collated dozens (even hundreds) of scientific papers and then offered their conclusions - why even debate the IPCC reports' conclusions when one can read the original source papers and reach their own conclusions (and then debate those instead)?

    It's a nice idea, but of course the debate always swings back round to the latest article in a newspaper or programme on TV, it always brings up the divisive issue of whether to trust the IPCC or not, and it always comes back to political interference. As Michael Crichton did so rightly say, there is no space for politics in science, and that's part of the problem with the AGW debate - it's suffused with politics, and it seems that a debate cannot be had without politics coming into it somehow or other, sooner or later. I guess that's the point of this thread - if the debate is always going to come back down to politics then let's see if we can deal with the political problem and get it out of the way...

    :D

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire

    I should think most people know by know that the IPCC report is actually a sort of average of scientific view. In fact they use lots of average views to come up with a final answer and there is a risk that they have introduced some inaccuracies as a result. They support there answer with the output from climate models which have been shown to hindcast quite well one aspect of global climate. There are lots of points of contention with the IPCC report not least because each scientific paper has a slightly different slant and figures from the consolidated view.

    Christopher Monckton's views have been debunked quite well at climate science although even here they use surface CO2 levels when they should be looking more at stratospheric CO2 levels(CO2 levels drop somewhat above the lower stratosphere and the greenhouse affect is though to be strongest here). Most of the climate models take this into account already so it is not particularly imortant. There are areas of contention with climate sensitivity to CO2 increases namely through possible cloud feedbacks and in the attributing of the CO2 increases to root causes (vegetation changes, ocean life changes and oil based combustion).

    To me the report just looks like political postering which is a shame because there are some politically blinkered views which do need addressing, namely that tackling fuel consupmtion alone may not be enough.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    • August thunderstorms bring the risk of flooding and disruption

      Any rain should be welcome looking at the parched ground but intense downpours aren't enough. Thunderstorms bring the risk of flash flooding as the rain hits the hard, dry ground. Read the full update here

      Netweather forecasts
      Netweather forecasts
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

      UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2022-08-16 06:11:14 Valid: 16/08/2022 0600 - 17/08/2022 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - TUES 16TH AUG 2022 Click here for the full forecast

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

      UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2022-08-15 07:58:06 Valid: 15/08/2022 0600 - 16/08/2022 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - MON 15TH AUGUST 2022 Click here for the full forecast

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather 1
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...