Posted on 04/03/2010 9:31:36 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
This series features Steve McIntyre prominently, and well worth the read. See the series links below:
James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
fyi
WOW! Nicely done. Thank you!
From Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology
*********************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Curious Inconsistencies
The Jones team attributes another sudden jump in temperature readings to the decline in air pollution since the 1970s as a result of stricter emissions laws. Particles suspended in the air block solar radiation, so that temperatures rise when the air becomes cleaner. Air pollution in the south has always been much lower than in the north, because, as Webster explains, "there is less land and therefore less industry in the Southern Hemisphere."
Oddly enough, however, the temperature increase in the south is just as strong as it is in the north. "That isn't really possible," says Webster.
.
***************************************
Tor Hansson
The most schizophrenic article I have read in a long time.
The sky is still falling, sort of, only not in the scientific areas that can be checked with empirical data. It’s holding up OK there.
So relax, the alarmists were mostly wrong, except when they tell us that things are getting really bad soon, and that there will be palm trees on Helgoland.
It is getting closer to a reasonable narrative. Still a ways to go.
*******************************************************
KBK
“It will become more arid, however, in many subtropical regions. Industrialized nations, which bear the greatest culpability for global warming, will be most heavily affected.”
It was pretty even-handed until page 7. Then it became apparent that even though the entire foundation has vanished, the authors believe the house is still standing.
From my comment on an earlier thread;
<
“Despite the controversy, most climatologists agree that in the end the general view of climate change will not have changed significantly. Almost all share the basic conviction that we are headed for warmer times.”
“There are various pieces of indirect evidence that support the theory of global warming. Glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising and sea ice in the Arctic regions is disappearing. “
“Other central predictions of climatologists, such as that involving a noticeable rise in sea levels, would also have to be reevaluated. How high sea levels will go in the future is already a matter of debate.”
“On the other hand, hardly any glaciologists doubt that sea levels will be significantly higher along coastlines by the end of the century.”
“Another effect that is not as easy to calculate is the melting of mountain glaciers and inland ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Most of the melting today is happening in mountain glaciers, from the Andes to the Himalayas.”
“Glaciologists speculate that parts of the Western Antarctic and, to a greater extent, Greenland, are melting more quickly than initially assumed.”
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.”
“Even if humanity were to stop burning coal, oil and natural gas immediately, there would still be a moderate temperature increase in the next two to three decades. This is because the planetary weather system reacts with a certain delay to the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into the atmosphere.”
“But no, he adds, he happens to be someone who has acquired inside knowledge about a looming disaster, knowledge that he cannot keep to himself. “If I’m a passenger on a ship and I see, through my binoculars, that we’re headed for an iceberg,” says Schellnhuber, “I have to warn the captain immediately.”
” it isn’t about stopping a luxury ocean liner, but about the massive effort that is required to end the age of oil and coal as quickly as possible.”
As I said, it’s an improvement for Der Spiegel, but still takes one thing for granted; That it’s all man’s fault>
I suggest that interested FReepers read through the comments at WUWT, they explain my position better than I can.
Waitaminnit. Didn’t Der Spiegel post some drivel that if the world didn’t pass Crap and Tax that the oceans would start boiling a few months back?
************************************EXCERPT********************************************
A Tangent...picked this up from a comment...
Stephan
I think Steve Mc has come up with a huge one as well apparently could be more damaging for UEA than climategate
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/02/keith-should-say/#more-10626
The climate change game … Monopoly: the IPCC version
*********************************EXCERPT**************************************************
MBH, for any newcomers to the “climate wars”, is the scientists’ acronym for the notoriously iconic “hockey stick” team papers. But, there you have it, folks, the much vaunted IPCC “peer-review” process in action. Briffa, btw, was a “Lead Author” on Chapter 6; and among the “scientific” papers discussed were not only his own, but those of Wahl (and his buddy Caspar Amman). As far as I can tell, these “Lead Authors” get the final word on what appears in the Assessment Reports (and perhaps the “Synthesis” report, and/or the “Summary for Policymakers” …. which – apart from very carefully crafted Press Releases – is probably the most many will ever read. But they know that. In fact, they seem to count on it. It might even be one of the IPCC’s unwritten “principles”.
IOW, once the Reviewer Comments have been compiled at IPCC HQ, courtesy of the “Technical Support Unit” (TSU), the work of deciding the worthiness the Comments is divied up amongst the lead authors (who are instructed not to include their names in their judicious application of “Accepted”, “Rejected”, “Noted” etc. because “responses to the comments should represent the entire chapter team”).
In case you’re wondering how I know this, I found it in the Climategate files, in a document called AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06-KRB-1stAug.doc. This 1stAug. date strongly suggests that Briffa completed this document after receiving Wahl’s July 21 helpful input.
I’ll try to be as brief as possible in highlighting the implications of all this – with the benefit of insight. Perhaps part of the problem is best illustrated by two comments from Steve McIntyre (and the “chapter team” responses thereto), as part of his review of the “Second Order Draft of Chapter 6″, that appears in the document Briffa had sent to Wahl:
[Comment No. 6-1114 No specified page or line]:
As a matter of prudence, it seems risky to me for IPCC to permit section lead authors to publicize and rely heavily on their own work, especially when the ink is barely dry on the work. In particular, Osborn and Briffa 2006, which is by one of the section lead authors, was published only in February 2006 and is presented in the Second Order Draft without even being presented in the First Order Draft. Nonetheless, it has been relied on to construct the important Box 6.4 Figure 1. This is risky. Osborn and Briffa 2006 uses some very questionable proxies, including the infamous Mann PC1. I have also been unable to verify some of the claimed correlations to gridcell temperature. One of the authors’ excuses is that they incorrectly cited the HadCRU2 temperature data set, while they actually used the CRUTEM2 data set and that the some of the HadCRU2 data was spurious. This hardly gives grounds for comfort. The point made in Box 6.4 Figure 1 is also argumentative. If the relative warmth of MWP and modern periods is inessential to any conclusions reached by IPCC, I would urge you to delete this Figure and related commentary. [Stephen McIntyre (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-11)]
The “chapter team’s” response:
“Noted. MWP figure changed. Although much of the claims in the comment concerning the proxies are not share, (sic) we have chosen to change the figure somewhat to reduce reliance on a specific paper.”
From where I’m sitting, I’d say that the “chapter team” succeeded in missing the point by a country mile. Surely they deserve to draw a “Go directly to jail … and do not collect $200″ card. Conflict of interest must be an entirely foreign concept to these “climate scientists”.
That was part of the previous propaganda machine publication....they are now backtracking a bit....but still intend to go in the same direction.
******************************************************
There are 10,000 lies told by just as many scientists and reporters that are really activists.
They are at least acknowledging there is a problem, but they can’t dig themselves out from the mountain of lies they are under.
They still think that global warming is beyond dispute, but it may not be as disastrous as the alarmists say.
They go on and on about their little climate models as if they can predict anything and if they could, it would actually qualify as scientific evidence.
Nice try Spiegal, but you’re going to have to work a little harder than that.
The snake pit they’ve fallen into is deeper than they want to admit, it’s already partly consumed them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
This: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-686697,00.html gives you the printable version of all eight parts.