The Global Warming Hoax

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Mandatory Stefan Molyneux video:

[youtube=853,505]<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jgKgDCR5KKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jgKgDCR5KKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[AL the Inconspicuous]

[youtube=96,60]<object width="96" height="60"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nsUdZrG1Fpo&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nsUdZrG1Fpo&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Mini-player to provide background audio while you read the below news article (if you're a fellow "Global Warming" skeptic that is)

Now, from The Guardian (UK) -- Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels --

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown


Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results".  The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper -- entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" -- used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The world is not coming to an end.

Repeat:

The world is not coming to an end.

Thank you.

[anarchir]

That was a pretty good post Libman, music and content and all!   

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Drudge Report headlines update, newest on top:

• AL GORE FOUND!  WHAT'S A FEW MISTAKES?

• Perfect storm brewing for UN's Panel on Climate Change...

• 'Review Procedures'...

• Is nature out of control?

• CLIMATE EXPERTS SAY JANUARY WAS 'HOTTEST' EVER...

• Scientists examine causes for lull in warming

• UN weather meeting agrees to refine climate data...

And...

[youtube=640,515]<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vG3OnOiUCPo&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vG3OnOiUCPo&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Drudge Report headlines update:

• CHINA: Cause of global warming not clear...

• TERMINATED: California watchdog sees climate policy job losses...

• Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric...

• World's top scientists to review climate panel...

Also:

• Sen. Sanders Compares Climate Change Skeptics to Nazi Deniers

• Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition

• Bill Nye The Science Guy: Almost Unpatriotic to Say DC Snow Disproves Climate Change

And, for the lulz:

[youtube=640,515]<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NnR7-PilUfU&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NnR7-PilUfU&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[youtube=640,515]<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]

The use of the Linux mascot in the second one is particularly appropriate. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

Heard about this DVD on ivoices.org (podcast of the Independence Institute.)  It's another response to An Inconvenient Truth.  Fortunately, someone has posted streaming video (apparently) beyond the reach of pigopolists.

Not Evil, Just Wrong on streaming video

[Alex Libman]

From Fox News -- Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.'s Climate Group --

Acknowledging flaws in its reports and growing public skepticism toward the theory of manmade global warming, the United Nations hired an independent review panel in March to audit its climate-science arm. The group found plenty of problems.

The InterAcademy Council [WP], an independent group of scientists representing agencies from around the world, presented the findings of its five-month investigation Monday morning at the United Nations. The group took issue with the structure, methods and leadership of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the group responsible for a 2007 report that erroneously forecast the imminent melting of Himalayan glaciers, the rate of melt of polar ice caps and dwindling Amazon rainforests.

"The IPCC has raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers," said Harold Shapiro, chair of the IAC Committee to Review IPCC and former president of Princeton University. But the controversies that have erupted, and revelations of errors, have put the group under the microscope. "We recommend some significant reforms," he told the U.N.

"The IPCC has yet to review the IAC's findings, so I am not able to comment on its findings," said longstanding chair Rajendra Pachauri in a press conference following the presentation. But he did note that none of the seven reviews of the IPCC to date had found flaws in the U.N. group.

"The scientific community agrees that climate change is real,"  Pachauri said.

Despite his confidence, the science underlying climate change has come under great scrutiny. Yet the IAC did not spend its time analyzing the accuracy of climate models and climate science.

"We did not redo the science," said Shapiro. Instead, the IAC focused its attention on the procedures and methodologies of the IPCC, suggesting many areas for improvement.

The rate of melt of the Himalayan glaciers was one touchstone among skeptics of manmade global warming that the group addressed. Shapiro explained that many reviewers noted the lack of substance behind the claim, but their criticism didn't make it into the final report.

It appears that editors "didn't follow through carefully enough on what review editors commented," said Shapiro.

The IAC faulted the IPCC for making this type of mistake in several places, noting that the report includes several statements that are assigned high levels of confidence, Shapiro told the U.N., despite a lack of sufficient evidence behind them.

"We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up - one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment."

Revising and tightening up the complex and lengthy review policy would help to address these issues.

Noted climate skeptic Don Easterbrook [WP], an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, agreed that this type of issue was a problem. "The IPCC report is filled with statements of '90% certainty' without even saying 90% of what or providing any basis for such statements. Yet those pronouncements of certainty were used over and over as though that had been scientifically proven somehow," he told FoxNews.com.

The IAC called for the IPCC to completely revise top leadership, including limiting the duration of people in top positions and "electing a small executive committee to act on its behalf," one that even included non-scientists. This would lend it credibility, Shapiro said.

Questions have arisen about conflicts of interest among top leadership at the IPCC, notably chair Pachauri, who sits on the boards of numerous other climate-related groups. Shapiro stressed that this important issue was one the group did not investigate - "we didn't consider it our charge to investigate that issue," he replied.

Easterbrook thinks this suggestion may not go far enough.

"The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. This would be a step in the right direction, but if such an executive committee is made up of the same old political cronies, nothing will change," he told FoxNews.com.

The IAC took issue with the IPCC's use of so-called gray literature as well, papers from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources. Such material is explicitly against policy, yet authors of the IPCC's reports do not follow the guidelines for evaluating such sources, explained the IAC.

The group recommended that these guidelines be made more specific -- including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable -- and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that supports the concept of manmade global warming, agreed with the IAC's report, calling it "a great opportunity to strengthen" the group, but not a wholesale call to rework the agency.

"It's a substantial tune up, but not a replacement with a new vehicle," Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the UCS, told FoxNews.com. "All the recommendations I've seen are really spot on. We'll see what happens when the IPCC meets in October."

The IAC's assessment will be used at the Oct. 5 meeting that marks the beginning of the IPCC's effort to put out the next report.

"The IPCC has been successful overall, but fundamental changes are needed," Shapiro said.

[Alex Libman]

Unswayable by science and logic, anti-human civilization destroyers turn to individual violence:

• POLICE KILL ECO-TERRORIST WHO STORMED DISCOVERY CHANNEL BUILDING...

• "Awakened" by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth...

• Demanded halt to birth of "parasitic human infants"...

• TEXT OF MANIFESTO...   [PDF]

I feel like giving an award to the policeman who killed him!


I came across this comment from one of the Slashdot commies (links added by me):

"He's not completely psycho.  Discovery's (TLC's) support of Jon and Kate Plus Eight [BT], 19 Kids and Counting [BT], etc is disgusting.  Those parents should be in jail, not rolling in money."

Jail?!  WTF?!!!  People who can't do the elementary arithmetic and get it through their thick skulls that we are headed for an UNDER-population crisis are too fucking stupid to live!  

[libertylover]

Alex Libman great post have you placed it on the front page for show prep?

An interesting related article which you alluded to in your post.   Negative Population Growth
20 Countries Have Negative or Zero Natural Increase http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm

Not sure but the reason the USA is not on that list is due to the immigrant birth rate.   The birth rate among all non-Hispanic USA population is either barely over the replacement rate of 2.1 or below like 1.9 for Asians in America.  I could not find a current break down by race the birth rate vs death rate among different ethnic groups in the USA.   Total Fertility Rate Total Fertility Rate Impacts a Country's Population http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/fertilityrate.htm  I suppose it was politically incorrect to list the current population rate for Caucasians and Native Americans in the United States.

Having negative population growth or zero population growth is very bad news for government sponsored Ponzi schemes. 

[Alex Libman]

No, I don't do the shop prep stuff.

There isn't a subcontinent or a cultural region on earth where the wealthiest state or nation doesn't already have negative population growth.  Once barriers to birth control are removed, fertility rates fall almost overnight!  The problem of overpopulation is already solved, we knew it for some time now.  The problem of UNDERpopulation would be a lot more difficult to tackle.

Negative population growth is bad news for everything: population becomes older (and thus sicker, less productive, less open to new ideas, etc), with no family people become more dependent on government, the supply of labor declines, prices skyrocket, IQ declines for dysgenic reasons (because the most backward religious zealots do the lion's share of the breeding), wars break out as old shrinking superpowers like Russia can no longer defend their natural resources from younger countries like Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.  Instead of building vast greenhouse or factory space-stations and spreading to others stars, humanity could be headed for a new dark age!

[Terror Australis]

No, I don't do the shop prep stuff.

There isn't a subcontinent or a cultural region on earth where the wealthiest state or nation doesn't already have negative population growth.  Once barriers to birth control are removed, fertility rates fall almost overnight!  The problem of overpopulation is already solved, we knew it for some time now.  The problem of UNDERpopulation would be a lot more difficult to tackle.

Negative population growth is bad news for everything: population becomes older (and thus sicker, less productive, less open to new ideas, etc), with no family people become more dependent on government, the supply of labor declines, prices skyrocket, IQ declines for dysgenic reasons (because the most backward religious zealots do the lion's share of the breeding), wars break out as old shrinking superpowers like Russia can no longer defend their natural resources from younger countries like Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.  Instead of building vast greenhouse or factory space-stations and spreading to others stars, humanity could be headed for a new dark age!

Islam will be the dominant religion because of it's population growth. Its simple mathematics.

[libertylover]

20% or 1.2 billion Muslim
80% or 5.8 billion Everybody else.

Not anytime soon and certainly not without native populations resisting.