Re: Global Warming Claims Unsupported by Facts
- From: "free.tuneup@xxxxxxxxx" <free.tuneup@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 14, 4:46 pm, sordo @ privacy.org wrote:
Global Warming Claims Unsupported by Facts
Friday, March 14, 2008 11:40 AM
By: Philip V. Brennan
Reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
that the earth is experiencing unprecedented global warming are flawed
and cannot be supported, investigators now report.
In a study reported in the Washington Times, a panel of statisticians,
chaired by Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, found
significant problems with the methods of analysis used by the
researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process.
According to the Times, "IPCC reports have predicted average world
temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of
tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's
glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels." The Times notes, however
that "several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques
and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally
flawed."
In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as
the "hockey stick," the Times explained, adding that it showed
relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures
rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. "The IPCC and public figures, such as
former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the
conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused an
unprecedented rise in global warming," according to the Times.
Since those claims have been discounted by several studies which the
newspaper notes cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, Congress
in 2006 requested an independent analysis by Wegman and his panel.
The Times reports that the researchers who created the hockey stick used
the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with
recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature
was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This
error, the Times explained, was not discovered in part because
statisticians were never consulted.
Moreover, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which
the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the
original authors -- no less than 43 paleoclimatologists had previously
co-authored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey
stick.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are
required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers
have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of
disciplines, including science, sociology, economics, and politics.
The Times recalled that in a recent National Center for Policy Analysis
study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to
audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Green and
Armstrong found that the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles
relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions.
Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17
of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound
predictions.
Writes H. Sterling Burnett the author of the Times story, "A good
example of a principle clearly violated is 'Make sure forecasts are
independent of politics.' Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to
end. Legislators, policy-makers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or
approve) the scientists -- at least the lead scientists -- who make up the
IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth
Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees
and subject to their approval."
Burnett writes, "Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence
that the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific
forecasting methods, much less applied the principles."
As a result of such problems Mr. Wegman's team concluded that the idea
that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be
supported."
According to the author of the Times story, H. Sterling Burnett, a
senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a
nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas, says the IPCC's
policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and
procedures that violate general forecasting principles.
He warned that policy-makers should take this into account before
enacting laws to counter global warming -- which economists point out
would have severe economic consequences.
"Severe economic consequences", like a war of 2 trillion dollars based
on gawdamned lies? How could alternative energy sources, planting
trees , cleaning up our water, making the air cleaner upset some folks
who have their head up their ass and see all this as a bad thing?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Global Warming Claims Unsupported by Facts
- From: Jerry Okamura
- Re: Global Warming Claims Unsupported by Facts
- Prev by Date: Bear Stearns in trouble
- Next by Date: Re: Gay Marriage Returns to Calif. Court
- Previous by thread: Bear Stearns in trouble
- Next by thread: Re: Global Warming Claims Unsupported by Facts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|