Climate Change News

[Ghost Rider]

Hello Ghost Rider,

These “unusual” changes in weather/climate in the past few years have been assiduously recorded by people who have a political agenda. When I researched on floodings in Thailand, I found at least 12 major recorded events since the 18th century – who knows how many occurred before that? Apparently, flooding is common in Thailand with some years being more catastrophic than others. But if you read the coverage of the current Bangkok flooding, you would think it never happened before. In my research, I found a government agency report back in the 1990s that warned that overbuilding and poor trash disposal in Bangkok will cause floodings to worsen.

I bet if we researched other climate events touted today as unusual, we'd find a string of those events throughout history. Why? In almost all these global warming-alarmist articles you will see the phrase “the worse (so-and-so) in 60 years”. This should mean that such so-and-so happened 60 years ago!

I take whatever reporting on global warming with a grain of salt. The science is not conclusive, the research has been marred by controversies, and the speed by which proponents try to change policies and collect taxes on this doomsday scenario is suspicious. In January 27, 2006, for example, I read Al Gore say that we have only 10 years to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, that leaves us 4 years and 86 days to see if he’s right. The last time I read some liberal talk about "ten years" was 1988. Then TV big shot Ted Danson, an actor echoing so-called environmental scientists said we had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. His doomsday deadline expired 13 years ago.

To answer your question, no, I don’t think fossil-burning is a natural occurrence. But while it undoubtedly has some effect on the ecosystem it has not been proven to have the far-flung catastrophic effects that global warming alarmist would have you believe. And just to put things in perspective, back in the 1970s, the big scare was an impending global ice age. They dropped that when it didn't pan out. Now it's intermittently global warming; but because there are record freezing termperatures, they call it climate change.

You seem to really care about the environment and I respect your advocacy. But I wouldn’t buy everything political left-wing environmental nuts are selling. And oh, watch your wallet.

Its not advocacy alone, I am also part of doing environmental studies on impact management and assessment of industries. They hire me to do that and I'm not part of any NGO.

I know the science of global warming, although the mechanism is complex (due to hydrological and meteorological in nature, which are complex sciences), knowing even the basics is enough for someone to know the effects and how it works. Been explaining that here in PEX for how many years already, even tried to translate that in layman's term and still some people don't get it.

As I said before to other pexers here, don't take the word global warming literally.

[Ghost Rider]

HS, can it. You're trying to rationalize your mental contortions with a lawyer - I've heard it all. Like I said I won't argue with anyone who believes in global warming when it was getting hotter, and still believes in it when it's getting colder. That shows me lack of common sense especially since the science is not settled. It's therefore pointless to debate this. So this is what I intend to do:

Your high priest Al Gore warned that if we don't do anything about global warming this earth will be scorched by January of 2016. That's 4 years and 2 months from now. If we all haven't burned up by then and PEx is still here, I will resurrect this thread and talk to you guys again.

You have all that time to get your excuses ready. Good luck.

Al Gore?

He's just a messenger, he's not the researcher or the scientist.

I'm really against people who uses their position in politics or in entertainment/ showbiz to inform people about scientific topics, maraming mali sa mga sinasabi nila at masyadong exaggerating the reason why some people tend to believe it as illusions or not real.

[Diet Coke]

Its not advocacy alone, I am also part of doing environmental studies on impact management and assessment of industries. They hire me to do that and I'm not part of any NGO.

I know the science of global warming, although the mechanism is complex (due to hydrological and meteorological in nature, which are complex sciences), knowing even the basics is enough for someone to know the effects and how it works. Been explaining that here in PEX for how many years already, even tried to translate that in layman's term and still some people don't get it.

As I said before to other pexers here, don't take the word global warming literally.

Oh, so you're getting paid for that. Thank you for being honest in admitting that AND being smart for making a living out of it.

The science IS complex and I'm sure that you're trying your best to understand it as well as explain it to others the best way you can. But you see, GH, there are reputable scientists and studies that refute the AGW. For every link you post here, I can post another refuting it. And if you are as honest intellectually as you are morally, you would not bet the farm on this hoax. And that you would explain to your employers opposing views and findings.

Like this one:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

NOVEMBER 4, 2011
Why I Remain a Global-Warming Skeptic
Searching for scientific truth in the realm of climate.

By FRED SINGER

Last month the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project released the findings of its extensive study on global land temperatures over the past century. Physics professor Richard Muller, who led the study, heralded the findings with a number of controversial statements in the press, including an op-ed in this newspaper titled "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism." And yet Mr. Muller remains a true skeptic—a searcher for scientific truth. I congratulate Mr. Muller and his Berkeley Earth team for undertaking this difficult task in the realm of climate.

The Berkeley study reported a warming trend of about 1º Celsius since 1950, even greater than the warming reported by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I disagree with this result, which perhaps makes me a little more of a skeptic than Mr. Muller.

Mr. Muller has been brutally frank about the poor quality of the weather-station data, noting that 70% of U.S. stations involve uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius. One could interpret the Berkeley study's results as confirmation of earlier studies and of the IPCC's conclusions, despite the poor quality of the stations used. But perhaps the issue is that the Berkeley study and the ones that came before suffer from common errors. I suspect that the temperature records still are affected by the urban heat-island effect—a term given to any local warming, whatever its cause—despite efforts to correct for this. The urban heat-island effect could include heat produced not only in urban areas, but also due to changes in land use or poor station siting. Therefore, I suggest additional tests:

xxx

But the main reason that I am skeptical about the IPCC, and now the Berkeley, findings, is that they disagree with most every other data source I can find. I confine this critique to the period between 1978 and 1997, thereby avoiding the Super El Niño of 1998 that had nothing to do with greenhouse gases or other human influences.
Contrary to both global-warming theory and climate models, data from weather satellites show no atmospheric temperature increase over this period, and neither do the entirely independent radiosondes carried in weather balloons. The Berkeley study confined its findings to land temperatures as recorded by weather stations. Yet oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface, and the marine atmosphere shows no warming trend. The absence of warming is in accord with the theory that climate is heavily impacted by solar variability, and agrees with the solar data presented in a 2007 paper by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Moreover, independent data using temperature proxies—various non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, and so on—also support an absence of warming between 1978 and 1997. Coral data also show no pronounced warming trend of the sea surface, and there are good reasons to believe that reported sea-surface warming is an artifact of thermometer measurements.

The IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policy makers claims that "Most of the observed increase in global average [surface] temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90-99% sure] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." While Mr. Muller now seems to agree that there has been such global average warming since the mid-20th century, he nonetheless ended his op-ed by disclaiming that he knows the cause of any temperature increase. Moreover, the Berkeley team's research paper comments: "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated." I commend Mr. Muller and his team for their honesty and skepticism.

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.

[Diet Coke]

AL GORE's DOOMSDAY COUNTDOWN: 4 years 84 days

HS - I think I kinda like hanging out here with you. Hey, we can both inform the PExers of the latest in climate change news. Like this one, explaining where you get your nice charts and data:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226185685336


Dutch professor faked data for years
by: TOBY STERLING, Associated Press From: AP
November 05, 2011 12:00AM

A PROMINENT Dutch social psychologist who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career.

In one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee made up of some of the country's top scientists has found that University of Tilburg Professor Diederik Stapel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted.

The university has fired the 45-year-old Stapel and plans to file fraud charges against him, university spokesman Walther Verhoeven..

Stapel acknowledged in a statement the accusations were largely true.

"I have manipulated study data and fabricated investigations," he wrote in an open letter published by De Volkskrant newspaper this week. "I realise that via this behavior I have left my direct colleagues stunned and angry and put my field, social psychology, in a poor light."

...The committee set up to investigate Stapel said after its preliminary investigation it had found "several dozen publications in which use was made of fictitious data" in the period since 2004, though Stapel's career goes back to the early 1990s.

This year, Stapel co-authored a paper published in Science magazine that said white people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they encounter them in a messy environment, such as one containing litter, abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks.

"These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications," the paper's abstract says.

Science has now flagged the article with a note to readers that "serious concerns have been raised about the validity of the findings."

Although the paper that linked thoughts of eating meat eating with anti-social behavior was met with scorn and disbelief when it was publicised in August, it took several doctoral candidates Stapel was mentoring to unmask him.

Verhoeven said the three graduate students grew suspicious of the data Stapel had supplied them without allowing them to participate in the actual research. When they ran statistical tests on it themselves they found it too perfect to be true and went to the university's dean with their suspicions.

In the future, the university plans to require raw data from studies to be preserved and made available to other researchers on request - a practice already common in most disciplines.

The commission found that co-authors of Stapel's papers seem to have been unaware of the fraud, naively trusting in Stapel's reputation and fooled by elaborate preparations for tests that were never actually carried out.

In his statement, Stapel didn't directly say what his motivations were. He said he had succumbed to competitive pressures and the need to publish. But he said "it's important to me to underline that the mistakes I made weren't for selfish reasons."

The review panel noted Stapel had enjoyed a position of prestige as a professor and head of his department, and that he had access to subsidies and funding for his projects as a result of the fraud.

[Ghost Rider]

Oh, so you're getting paid for that. Thank you for being honest in admitting that AND being smart for making a living out of it.

The science IS complex and I'm sure that you're trying your best to understand it as well as explain it to others the best way you can. But you see, GH, there are reputable scientists and studies that refute the AGW. For every link you post here, I can post another refuting it. And if you are as honest intellectually as you are morally, you would not bet the farm on this hoax. And that you would explain to your employers opposing views and findings.

Like this one:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

NOVEMBER 4, 2011
Why I Remain a Global-Warming Skeptic
Searching for scientific truth in the realm of climate.

By FRED SINGER

Last month the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project released the findings of its extensive study on global land temperatures over the past century. Physics professor Richard Muller, who led the study, heralded the findings with a number of controversial statements in the press, including an op-ed in this newspaper titled "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism." And yet Mr. Muller remains a true skeptic—a searcher for scientific truth. I congratulate Mr. Muller and his Berkeley Earth team for undertaking this difficult task in the realm of climate.

The Berkeley study reported a warming trend of about 1º Celsius since 1950, even greater than the warming reported by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I disagree with this result, which perhaps makes me a little more of a skeptic than Mr. Muller.

Mr. Muller has been brutally frank about the poor quality of the weather-station data, noting that 70% of U.S. stations involve uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius. One could interpret the Berkeley study's results as confirmation of earlier studies and of the IPCC's conclusions, despite the poor quality of the stations used. But perhaps the issue is that the Berkeley study and the ones that came before suffer from common errors. I suspect that the temperature records still are affected by the urban heat-island effect—a term given to any local warming, whatever its cause—despite efforts to correct for this. The urban heat-island effect could include heat produced not only in urban areas, but also due to changes in land use or poor station siting. Therefore, I suggest additional tests:

xxx

But the main reason that I am skeptical about the IPCC, and now the Berkeley, findings, is that they disagree with most every other data source I can find. I confine this critique to the period between 1978 and 1997, thereby avoiding the Super El Niño of 1998 that had nothing to do with greenhouse gases or other human influences.
Contrary to both global-warming theory and climate models, data from weather satellites show no atmospheric temperature increase over this period, and neither do the entirely independent radiosondes carried in weather balloons. The Berkeley study confined its findings to land temperatures as recorded by weather stations. Yet oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface, and the marine atmosphere shows no warming trend. The absence of warming is in accord with the theory that climate is heavily impacted by solar variability, and agrees with the solar data presented in a 2007 paper by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Moreover, independent data using temperature proxies—various non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, and so on—also support an absence of warming between 1978 and 1997. Coral data also show no pronounced warming trend of the sea surface, and there are good reasons to believe that reported sea-surface warming is an artifact of thermometer measurements.

The IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policy makers claims that "Most of the observed increase in global average [surface] temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90-99% sure] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." While Mr. Muller now seems to agree that there has been such global average warming since the mid-20th century, he nonetheless ended his op-ed by disclaiming that he knows the cause of any temperature increase. Moreover, the Berkeley team's research paper comments: "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated." I commend Mr. Muller and his team for their honesty and skepticism.

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.

Why, is there any problem doing researches and study regarding environmental impacts of certain projects? FYI, we have a law for that, PD 1586, signed by former President Marcos in 1981. We have the best EIA procedure so far in asia. I'm an environmental scientist so isa lang yan sa mga work ko, yes I'm getting paid (of course ) because it is my job and I submit my reports to DENR for further studies (equivalent to peer-reviewing). What's good in my job is I'm making environmental impact management and monitoring plans so that industries, and other projects will comply to our environmental laws standards. It's our job. I'm helping our environment and this is part of sustainable development.

Whether AGW is real or not, it will not affect my job Actually last year lang sinama sa module ng EIA study ang tungkol sa global warming and climate change, I've been doing this work since 2004

Siguro clear na sa issue na yan. And I'm doing favor sa mga readers din dito since my main reason is to educate and inform people about global warming, the science behind it and the politics.

Read our global warming threads, the last 2 posts you posted were already answered there, ayoko na ng paulit-ulit.

Regarding sa sinabi mo na for every links we have regarding AGW, you can provide something na hoax nga eto, then you are quite good, the submitted scientific studies in IPCC in Bali Conference before showed 90% of the studies (Mind you PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES) shows global warming is real and man-made, the remaining 10% also showed that some of it shows AGW is real but not sure if it is man-made.

I know you can post links but I'm quite sure they are not peer-reviewed yet and only opinions of some scientists, which are connected to the oil industries, government and fundings have been cut by the government

Marami ng ganyang naipost si summersday dati, kahit nga siya naguguluhan na minsan kasi hindi niya maintindihan ang article niya na pumapabor na pala sa AGW

karamihan din post niya ay from media and interviews ng mga scientists na puro opinion pero takot namang ipasa sa NAS or science academe for peer-reviewing ang gawa nila, kasi alam nila hindi papasa dahil bias ang gawa nila

[Ghost Rider]

AL GORE's DOOMSDAY COUNTDOWN: 4 years 84 days

HS - I think I kinda like hanging out here with you. Hey, we can both inform the PExers of the latest in climate change news. Like this one, explaining where you get your nice charts and data:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226185685336


Dutch professor faked data for years
by: TOBY STERLING, Associated Press From: AP
November 05, 2011 12:00AM

A PROMINENT Dutch social psychologist who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career.

In one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee made up of some of the country's top scientists has found that University of Tilburg Professor Diederik Stapel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted.

The university has fired the 45-year-old Stapel and plans to file fraud charges against him, university spokesman Walther Verhoeven..

Stapel acknowledged in a statement the accusations were largely true.

"I have manipulated study data and fabricated investigations," he wrote in an open letter published by De Volkskrant newspaper this week. "I realise that via this behavior I have left my direct colleagues stunned and angry and put my field, social psychology, in a poor light."

...The committee set up to investigate Stapel said after its preliminary investigation it had found "several dozen publications in which use was made of fictitious data" in the period since 2004, though Stapel's career goes back to the early 1990s.

This year, Stapel co-authored a paper published in Science magazine that said white people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they encounter them in a messy environment, such as one containing litter, abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks.

"These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications," the paper's abstract says.

Science has now flagged the article with a note to readers that "serious concerns have been raised about the validity of the findings."

Although the paper that linked thoughts of eating meat eating with anti-social behavior was met with scorn and disbelief when it was publicised in August, it took several doctoral candidates Stapel was mentoring to unmask him.

Verhoeven said the three graduate students grew suspicious of the data Stapel had supplied them without allowing them to participate in the actual research. When they ran statistical tests on it themselves they found it too perfect to be true and went to the university's dean with their suspicions.

In the future, the university plans to require raw data from studies to be preserved and made available to other researchers on request - a practice already common in most disciplines.

The commission found that co-authors of Stapel's papers seem to have been unaware of the fraud, naively trusting in Stapel's reputation and fooled by elaborate preparations for tests that were never actually carried out.

In his statement, Stapel didn't directly say what his motivations were. He said he had succumbed to competitive pressures and the need to publish. But he said "it's important to me to underline that the mistakes I made weren't for selfish reasons."

The review panel noted Stapel had enjoyed a position of prestige as a professor and head of his department, and that he had access to subsidies and funding for his projects as a result of the fraud.

You want to talk scientifically but you're posting a news article from associated press?

Post a journal article or peer-review one then let's discuss. No one here has yet done that. We posted already peer-reviewed studies before in other threads.

Also, your article is a necro issue, an old one. We have tackled that I think last year or 2 years ago, ako pa nga ata nagpost nung mga mali sa IPCC report dati.

[paenggoy]

Oh, so you're getting paid for that. Thank you for being honest in admitting that AND being smart for making a living out of it.

The science IS complex and I'm sure that you're trying your best to understand it as well as explain it to others the best way you can. But you see, GH, there are reputable scientists and studies that refute the AGW. For every link you post here, I can post another refuting it. And if you are as honest intellectually as you are morally, you would not bet the farm on this hoax. And that you would explain to your employers opposing views and findings.

Like this one:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

NOVEMBER 4, 2011
Why I Remain a Global-Warming Skeptic
Searching for scientific truth in the realm of climate.

By FRED SINGER

Last month the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project released the findings of its extensive study on global land temperatures over the past century. Physics professor Richard Muller, who led the study, heralded the findings with a number of controversial statements in the press, including an op-ed in this newspaper titled "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism." And yet Mr. Muller remains a true skeptic—a searcher for scientific truth. I congratulate Mr. Muller and his Berkeley Earth team for undertaking this difficult task in the realm of climate.

The Berkeley study reported a warming trend of about 1º Celsius since 1950, even greater than the warming reported by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I disagree with this result, which perhaps makes me a little more of a skeptic than Mr. Muller.

Mr. Muller has been brutally frank about the poor quality of the weather-station data, noting that 70% of U.S. stations involve uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius. One could interpret the Berkeley study's results as confirmation of earlier studies and of the IPCC's conclusions, despite the poor quality of the stations used. But perhaps the issue is that the Berkeley study and the ones that came before suffer from common errors. I suspect that the temperature records still are affected by the urban heat-island effect—a term given to any local warming, whatever its cause—despite efforts to correct for this. The urban heat-island effect could include heat produced not only in urban areas, but also due to changes in land use or poor station siting. Therefore, I suggest additional tests:

xxx

But the main reason that I am skeptical about the IPCC, and now the Berkeley, findings, is that they disagree with most every other data source I can find. I confine this critique to the period between 1978 and 1997, thereby avoiding the Super El Niño of 1998 that had nothing to do with greenhouse gases or other human influences.
Contrary to both global-warming theory and climate models, data from weather satellites show no atmospheric temperature increase over this period, and neither do the entirely independent radiosondes carried in weather balloons. The Berkeley study confined its findings to land temperatures as recorded by weather stations. Yet oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface, and the marine atmosphere shows no warming trend. The absence of warming is in accord with the theory that climate is heavily impacted by solar variability, and agrees with the solar data presented in a 2007 paper by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Moreover, independent data using temperature proxies—various non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, and so on—also support an absence of warming between 1978 and 1997. Coral data also show no pronounced warming trend of the sea surface, and there are good reasons to believe that reported sea-surface warming is an artifact of thermometer measurements.

The IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policy makers claims that "Most of the observed increase in global average [surface] temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90-99% sure] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." While Mr. Muller now seems to agree that there has been such global average warming since the mid-20th century, he nonetheless ended his op-ed by disclaiming that he knows the cause of any temperature increase. Moreover, the Berkeley team's research paper comments: "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated." I commend Mr. Muller and his team for their honesty and skepticism.

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.

But the argument concerning complexity works both ways. In which case, refutations and claims regarding a hoax are also questionable. Also, doesn't the article also refer to a reputable scientist and study, i.e., Muller and his work?

Also, why not look at the Sourcewatch data on Singer, the docu "The Denial Machine," and the article about Inhofe's list given in the other thread?

Given that, the best that can be done is to assess the various studies made about the issue and make conclusions. And the NAS has done that. The summary report generally addresses all of Singer's points. See the link given previously for details.

Finally, given that and the threat of peak oil, the effects of environmental damage, and chronic economic problems, denialism and skepticism have become irrelevant. Put simply, we will be forced to cut down on resource use whether or not we question AGW.

It gets worse when one looks at the varied reasons for denialism: GW is caused by nature, there's no GW but a coming ice age, or there's AGW but it's too late to reverse the damage. The outcome for all three reasons is the same as, if not worse than, AGW.

[paenggoy]

AL GORE's DOOMSDAY COUNTDOWN: 4 years 84 days

HS - I think I kinda like hanging out here with you. Hey, we can both inform the PExers of the latest in climate change news. Like this one, explaining where you get your nice charts and data:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226185685336


Dutch professor faked data for years
by: TOBY STERLING, Associated Press From: AP
November 05, 2011 12:00AM

A PROMINENT Dutch social psychologist who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career.

In one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee made up of some of the country's top scientists has found that University of Tilburg Professor Diederik Stapel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted.

The university has fired the 45-year-old Stapel and plans to file fraud charges against him, university spokesman Walther Verhoeven..

Stapel acknowledged in a statement the accusations were largely true.

"I have manipulated study data and fabricated investigations," he wrote in an open letter published by De Volkskrant newspaper this week. "I realise that via this behavior I have left my direct colleagues stunned and angry and put my field, social psychology, in a poor light."

...The committee set up to investigate Stapel said after its preliminary investigation it had found "several dozen publications in which use was made of fictitious data" in the period since 2004, though Stapel's career goes back to the early 1990s.

This year, Stapel co-authored a paper published in Science magazine that said white people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they encounter them in a messy environment, such as one containing litter, abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks.

"These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications," the paper's abstract says.

Science has now flagged the article with a note to readers that "serious concerns have been raised about the validity of the findings."

Although the paper that linked thoughts of eating meat eating with anti-social behavior was met with scorn and disbelief when it was publicised in August, it took several doctoral candidates Stapel was mentoring to unmask him.

Verhoeven said the three graduate students grew suspicious of the data Stapel had supplied them without allowing them to participate in the actual research. When they ran statistical tests on it themselves they found it too perfect to be true and went to the university's dean with their suspicions.

In the future, the university plans to require raw data from studies to be preserved and made available to other researchers on request - a practice already common in most disciplines.

The commission found that co-authors of Stapel's papers seem to have been unaware of the fraud, naively trusting in Stapel's reputation and fooled by elaborate preparations for tests that were never actually carried out.

In his statement, Stapel didn't directly say what his motivations were. He said he had succumbed to competitive pressures and the need to publish. But he said "it's important to me to underline that the mistakes I made weren't for selfish reasons."

The review panel noted Stapel had enjoyed a position of prestige as a professor and head of his department, and that he had access to subsidies and funding for his projects as a result of the fraud.

But that article is about social psychology.

Why not look at data concerning climate change used by skeptics? For example,

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...d-by-own-data/

[Herr_Starr]

AL GORE's DOOMSDAY COUNTDOWN: 4 years 84 days

HS - I think I kinda like hanging out here with you. Hey, we can both inform the PExers of the latest in climate change news. Like this one, explaining where you get your nice charts and data:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226185685336


Dutch professor faked data for years
by: TOBY STERLING, Associated Press From: AP
November 05, 2011 12:00AM

A PROMINENT Dutch social psychologist who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career.

In one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee made up of some of the country's top scientists has found that University of Tilburg Professor Diederik Stapel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted.

The university has fired the 45-year-old Stapel and plans to file fraud charges against him, university spokesman Walther Verhoeven..

Stapel acknowledged in a statement the accusations were largely true.

"I have manipulated study data and fabricated investigations," he wrote in an open letter published by De Volkskrant newspaper this week. "I realise that via this behavior I have left my direct colleagues stunned and angry and put my field, social psychology, in a poor light."

...The committee set up to investigate Stapel said after its preliminary investigation it had found "several dozen publications in which use was made of fictitious data" in the period since 2004, though Stapel's career goes back to the early 1990s.

This year, Stapel co-authored a paper published in Science magazine that said white people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they encounter them in a messy environment, such as one containing litter, abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks.

"These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications," the paper's abstract says.

Science has now flagged the article with a note to readers that "serious concerns have been raised about the validity of the findings."

Although the paper that linked thoughts of eating meat eating with anti-social behavior was met with scorn and disbelief when it was publicised in August, it took several doctoral candidates Stapel was mentoring to unmask him.

Verhoeven said the three graduate students grew suspicious of the data Stapel had supplied them without allowing them to participate in the actual research. When they ran statistical tests on it themselves they found it too perfect to be true and went to the university's dean with their suspicions.

In the future, the university plans to require raw data from studies to be preserved and made available to other researchers on request - a practice already common in most disciplines.

The commission found that co-authors of Stapel's papers seem to have been unaware of the fraud, naively trusting in Stapel's reputation and fooled by elaborate preparations for tests that were never actually carried out.

In his statement, Stapel didn't directly say what his motivations were. He said he had succumbed to competitive pressures and the need to publish. But he said "it's important to me to underline that the mistakes I made weren't for selfish reasons."

The review panel noted Stapel had enjoyed a position of prestige as a professor and head of his department, and that he had access to subsidies and funding for his projects as a result of the fraud.

Hey DC, if I didn't know better, I'd say that's a guilt by association hit piece. That form of argument goes like this:

DC: The science behind climate change isn't settled.
HS: 97% of all published climatologists agree that human activity plays a significant role in Climate Change, here's the peer reviewed study to prove it.
DC: Here's an article published in a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News, that reveals a Dutch Psychologist faked his data for years, therefore the science behind climate change isn't settled.

Once again, that's a reach even for you!

The fact that you had to look for an article outside of Climate Science when just last year you were trumpeting Climategate goes to show that there is not a hint of a rumor of evidence that proves AGW is a fraud foisted on an unsuspecting public by Al Gore and the IPCC!

[paenggoy]

"Rapid Spike in CO2 Emissions Shocks Researchers"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...795978,00.html

[paenggoy]

"Trees – Not adjusting to climate change"

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/11/04/...limate-change/

"New Crack in the PIG"

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/11/03/...ck-in-the-pig/

[paenggoy]

http://www.youtube.com/v/wEibhJldP8o

[paenggoy]

"Global warming: Middle East's vital wet winters are disappearing"

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...e-disappearing

[arcie]

Hey DC, if I didn't know better, I'd say that's a guilt by association hit piece. That form of argument goes like this:

DC: The science behind climate change isn't settled.
HS: 97% of all published climatologists agree that human activity plays a significant role in Climate Change, here's the peer reviewed study to prove it.
DC: Here's an article published in a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News, that reveals a Dutch Psychologist faked his data for years, therefore the science behind climate change isn't settled.

Once again, that's a reach even for you!

The fact that you had to look for an article outside of Climate Science when just last year you were trumpeting Climategate goes to show that there is not a hint of a rumor of evidence that proves AGW is a fraud foisted on an unsuspecting public by Al Gore and the IPCC!

Herr_Starr, as always you blame Fox News whenever you do not agree with articles that you read. Can you tell me if the news as posted by Diet Coke was sourced from Fox News. Also, if the news was indeed published first by Fox News, was the news a total lie? Was Professor Diederik Stapel a fictitious person? If he is not is it not true that he was fired from a Dutch university for falsifying data? You have a lot to answer to justify your reasoning, Herr_Starr.

[Herr_Starr]

Herr_Starr, as always you blame Fox News whenever you do not agree with articles that you read. Can you tell me if the news as posted by Diet Coke was sourced from Fox News. Also, if the news was indeed published first by Fox News, was the news a total lie? Was Professor Diederik Stapel a fictitious person? If he is not is it not true that he was fired from a Dutch university for falsifying data? You have a lot to answer to justify your reasoning, Herr_Starr.

Another non-sequitur from Arcie...you still cannot focus on the forest for the trees!

Tell me, what does Professor Diederik Stapel have to do with Climate Change, the very topic of this thread

...Please connect the dots or just come out and say what you really mean, that you have an anti-science agenda and by stating a Dutch Psychologist falsified data, that all scientists have likely falsified data, including climatologists. Do you disagree with that statement?

[arcie]

Another non-sequitur from Arcie...you still cannot focus on the forest for the trees!

Tell me, what does Professor Diederik Stapel have to do with Climate Change, the very topic of this thread

...Please connect the dots or just come out and say what you really mean, that you have an anti-science agenda and by stating a Dutch Psychologist falsified data, that all scientists have likely falsified data, including climatologists. Do you disagree with that statement?

You haven't answered any of my questions. I'll repeat them for you. Mind you you cannot escape from your own doing if you again are trying to.

Is the news as posted by DC sourced from Fox News?
If so, is the news a total lie?
Is Diederik Stapel a fictitious person?
If not is it not true that he was fired from a Dutch university for falsifying data on the so-called climate change?

This time I'm not talking about that so-called AGW. I'm talking about your penchant for blaming Fox News whenever your back is pushed against the wall.

[Ghost Rider]

You haven't answered any of my questions. I'll repeat them for you. Mind you you cannot escape from your own doing if you again are trying to.

Is the news as posted by DC sourced from Fox News?
If so, is the news a total lie?
Is Diederik Stapel a fictitious person?
If not is it not true that he was fired from a Dutch university for falsifying data on the so-called climate change?

This time I'm not talking about that so-called AGW. I'm talking about your penchant for blaming Fox News whenever your back is pushed against the wall.

Arcie, is social science alike or equal to natural sciences?

Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist, would you believe someone talking and lecturing natural science like global warming though his background/ forte is in social science? My goodness arcie, only those who believe in social media and ignorant will be a victim of that.

Aside from that, if someone have faked a research like he did, and he passed the peer-review committee, as a science, the experiment can be done and be repeated by a fellow social scientist, that is one character of a good research, repetitiveness, then he can be in great trouble, one day he will be exposed. Nakataya ang reputation mo as a scientist, your job.

And again, dahil ba dito mapapatunayan na na hoax ang AGW? Naku naman, almost 90% ng study (peer-reviewed) na pinasa sa IPCC na nagsasabing man-made ang AGW lahat dinoktor ang data at result?

Para mo na ring sinabi na out of thousands of study about health adverse ng cigarrettes sa tao, paniniwalaan mo yung isa o dalawa na nagsasabing good for the health ang paninigarilyo at mali ang thousands na naunang study, hahaha...

[Herr_Starr]

You haven't answered any of my questions. I'll repeat them for you. Mind you you cannot escape from your own doing if you again are trying to.

Is the news as posted by DC sourced from Fox News?
If so, is the news a total lie?
Is Diederik Stapel a fictitious person?
If not is it not true that he was fired from a Dutch university for falsifying data on the so-called climate change?

This time I'm not talking about that so-called AGW. I'm talking about your penchant for blaming Fox News whenever your back is pushed against the wall.

Have you no shame arcie!

If you're genuinely curious as to my answers, then why dont you start a thread about Diederik Stapel and my so called penchant for blaming Fox News rather than trying to derail the current discussion.

Now then, can you answer my much more germane question; what is the case of Professor Stapel doing in a thread on Climate Change? Remember, this is not about me.

[Herr_Starr]

The difference between how AGW Skeptics and AGW Realists view data:




Data detailing the Global Land Temperature Anomaly using only Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Data. When even studies funded by AGW Deniers (Koch Industries) show the warming trend, it makes one wonder what it will take to convince certain 'skeptics.'

[Diet Coke]

AL GORE'S DOOMSDAY CLOCK: 4 years 81 days

If the earth does scorch maybe we can all live in Gore's McMansion.

Mock me, Miss Starr.

------------------------------

Save the Polar Bears!

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980

06 April 2010 -

Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for March 2010 are significantly higher than 1980. The main stream media concentrates on a couple of small areas of the Antarctic in order to scare you in to believing that Antarctica is melting, when in fact its gaining ice.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010
Extent Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in March 2010 than what we had in March of 1980. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reason why. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing increases in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. But we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

This continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.