Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/28/2010 10:44:20 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
News headlines vie for attention and it is easy for scientists to grab this attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change. This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off.
Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years. This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the past 30 years, and all the evidence points to a complete loss of summer sea ice much later this century.
This is just one example where scientific evidence has been selectively chosen to support a cause. In the 1990s, global temperatures increased more quickly than in earlier decades, leading to claims that global warming had accelerated. In the past 10 years the temperature rise has slowed, leading to opposing claims. Again, neither claim is true, since natural variations always occur on this timescale.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
“Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims”
Scientists must re-define their misleading climate change hoax.
There, fixed it.
You cannot “wish” away that many of these involved scientist are scammers and hoaxers and that the AGW is largely a global scam and hoax. Can I get a rebuttal from Gore on this? =.=
There. Fixed that part also.
Turned into your typical, *boy who cried wolf* story.
....FR Thread:
Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call on U.S. and Other Countries to Move Quickly - on AGW Laws)
aka ... fit the data to the answer. Total liars and thieves.
Too late, don’t bother, you’re done, and you ruined the reputation of “science” when you became the political tools of propaganda for those who wish to be tyrants.
Met office pushes a surface temperature data “do over”
************************************
I am assuming he has something to do with this do-over...
Met Office's bleak forecast on climate change
****************************EXCERPT**********************************
Vicky Pope
The Guardian, Wednesday 1 October 2008
The head of the Met Office centre for climate change research explains why the momentum on emissions targets must not be lost
When it comes to climate change, the scientific evidence has to be at the core of any decision-making. Governments need to understand the consequences of choosing particular targets, but they also need to understand what will happen if targets are missed or if they cannot be agreed on by all countries. Failures could have far-reaching consequences.
The latest climate model projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre show clearly that such failures could have worrying and significant consequences for the world's climate. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, these projections indicate that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or is slow, then there is a significant risk of much larger increases in temperature. The uncertainties in the science mean that even if the most likely temperature rise is kept within reasonable limits, we cannot rule out the possibility of much larger increases. Adaptation strategies are therefore needed to deal with these less likely, but still real, possibilities.
Temperature rises
Jason Lowe, a climate scientist, and other colleagues at the Hadley Centre have conducted a series of "what if" climate projections, to give a better understanding of the temperature rises we could expect if action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is slow or delayed.
In the first scenario, emissions continue to rise throughout the century. In the other scenarios, emission reductions have been imposed at various times and at various rates.
In the most optimistic scenario, emissions start to decrease in 2010, and reductions quickly reach 3% per year. This contrasts sharply with current trends, where the world's overall emissions are increasing at 1% per year - faster than even the worst cases used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions scenarios.
What is very clear is that some increase in temperature is inevitable in the next century, and that the decisions and actions that the world takes now will have a profound impact on the climate later this century.
Dr Vicky Pope Head of Climate Change Advice
The Guy is a Lady...see above.
Institute of Physics Give British Parliament Devastating Assessment of "Climategeters'" Science
*******************************EXCERPT INTRO***************************
The institute said unless the released emails and documents were fraudulent, the CRU did not comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law and the use (of) proxy reconstructions for the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. And that's just for a start.
“Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.”
After spending the whole article begrudgingly apologizing for the fabrication of all the doomsday scenarios, at the end nothing has changed - she still insists that doomsday is coming.
What I’d like to know from this hypocrite is why wasn’t she, as an AGW insider, denouncing these made up horror stories long before they were exposed by emailgate???
The article started out as reasonable until I ran into this little part:
"This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the past 30 years..."
Do say! Hey, show me your scientific proof of human impact on the decline of sea ice. I double dare ya! So I had to go look and see who the author of this POS was:
Dr Vicky Pope is the head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre
OK, based on all the leaked CRU emails and the computer source code, plus all the rest of the things revealing the dishonesty and lack of ethics at Hadley and CRU, are we supposed to give this broad any credit for veracity or any respect at all? Not in my opinion. Once you lose credibility and respect, it's a long time comin' before you can earn it back. And this article sure doesn't do that, no matter how much she wants everyone to believe she's calling for moderation and truth. In fact, she gives away her bias when she writes:
"This has been picked up on the climate sceptics' websites."
Huh??? Climate sceptics???? Holy Freudian Slip, Batman! Apparently her extreme bias doesn't allow her to realize that the legitimate, honorable scientists aren't skeptics of climate, just skeptical of claims that natural climate change is man made climate change. Methinks that dear Vicky needs a better copy editor to proof read her stuff better and pick out the obvious bias, like that above.
Then there's this closing stinking bit of bovine flatulence (aka, Cow F@rts):
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we "believe in climate change". Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Man-mad climate change has become her/their religion and they pick and choose their "evidence" to support their "belief". Hey Vicky, show us some of that overwhelming evidence that you have sitting around there at Hadley. Ooops, according to the guy who was hired as a data archivist and administrator, not as a climate scientist, he LOST it. So you all have been making up whatever you need to shore up your mistaken belief that man can actually do anything other than stand helplessly and watch while climate changes no matter what we do.
Sorry, babe, you lost all your credibility and you ain't gonna get it back by writing tons of slightly less biased articles like this one. You guys blew it. Why can't you just admit it instead of standing there like King Canute... and looking just as ridiculous.
She needs to be replaced.
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.