[blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'; Second Article

Sat Mar 15 11:13:36 CDT 2008

Here is another article discussing the flawed methodology in the U.N. Global
Warming Committee's reports.  
Craig

This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.washingtontimes.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.

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

Article published Mar 14, 2008
COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat

March 14, 2008 
By H. Sterling Burnett - More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to
raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to
human
activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. 

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate
Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific,
technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its
potential
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." 

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.
However, 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." This graph 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 unprecedented rise global warming. 

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and
in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of
statisticians
chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant
problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers
and
with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, 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 was not discovered in part because statisticians were never
consulted. 

Furthermore, 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 — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the
lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick. 

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the
planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported." 

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global
warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to
provide
the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate
temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include
the fact temperatures
aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather
stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking
lots
and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

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. 

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these
principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report.
Messrs.
Green and Armstrong found 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. 

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,
policymakers 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. 

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware
of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied
the principles. 

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate
scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However,
climate
predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of
expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of
the IPCC
is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines. 

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses
and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers
should
take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming —
which economists point out would have severe economic consequences. 

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy
Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas. 

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

Craig Borne 
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:02 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Hello all,
Not to over-induldge this topic, but several folks asked for citations to
the theory that global warming is not man-caused.  Below is such an article,
and I believe I was sent one more, which I will forward separately.
Craig

3-10-2008
list of 2 items
Print This Article 
Forward to a Friend 
list end

Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Alarmism
Join Forces 

staff reports

A special video report shows that, in spite of claims to the contrary, there
is no consensus on humans being the driving force behind climate change.

More than 500 climate scientists, meteorologists, economists and others
gathered in New York last week to offer an alternative perspective on
human-induced
global warming.

The International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by The Heartland
Institute, brought together experts from around the world who generally
agree
that although the temperature has warmed a bit over the past 100 years or
so, human activity likely is not a significant factor. Instead, they made a
strong
case for climate change being an ordinary and well-documented part of the
Earth's history.

Stuart Shepard, digital media director for Focus on the Family Action and a
meteorologist, attended the conference and brought back this video report.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read the transcript.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Craig Borne 
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Danielsen
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:35 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Craig,

For what it's worth, and with due respect, I think the number of scientists
who disagree with the prevailing theory of global warming is a distinct
minority, not an equal number to that of its proponents.  Also, no one
really disagrees that global warming is occurring, the disagreement is over
what causes it and whether it is a cyclical event driven by climatic factors
that we can't control or a phenomenon caused by factors (namely the emission
of greenhouse gases) that we can.  Finally, it has become fashionable
nowadays to say that anything that is a scientific "theory," such as
evolution or global warming, is by definition not a fact.  But the word
"theory" means something quite different in scientific discussion than it
means in conventional language.  In science, a "theory" is a coherent
explanation of something based on the facts that we know through observation
and study; it is not simply a guess.  Theories may be incomplete, but they
aren't simply made up.  They are based, as you say, often on circumstantial
evidence.  But if circumstantial evidence is enough to put a man to death
(as it often is), it should also be enough to serve as a legitimate template
for a debate about changing environmental policy.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:45 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view
global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered with
inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is in no
way a scientific fact.  Global warming is still a theory, and as such, the
merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and disagreement.  Folks with
a view against global warming should not be categorized as ostriches, just
as proponents of global warming cannot claim a scientific truth with so many
experts in the scientific community not acknowledging its existence.
To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is circumstantial
at best, not direct.
Craig 

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of ger sadlier
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the absurd.

  Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge
burying his head in the sand.

  Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it
would have been better had they started 10 years ago.

  In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people are
extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are
unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
  (no pun intended given the list.)

  As to the 'quiet car'
  1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
  2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without leading
to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.

  implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard blind
and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that factory to
keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.

  It really is off the wall.

  G

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

__________ NOD32 2898 (20080223) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw