Dosare ultrasecrete

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle

La 2007-04-14 16:26:52, colibri a scris:

> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
>


An inconvenient thruth... for Al Gore! :-)))

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote08.html

...

By way of illustration I'm going to discuss a recent example from climate science, and also show you a graph - the so-called "hockey-stick" graph. Many of you will be familiar with this.

Here's how the hockey-stick graph came to the public's attention.

In 1998, an American climate researcher named Michael Mann, along with his co-workers, published an estimation of global temperatures from 1000 to 1980. They arrived at this estimate by combining the results of 112 previous proxy studies. By "proxy studies" I mean tree-ring and isotope and ice core studies that are intended to provide an indirect measurement of temperature in the time before thermometers existed. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last one thousand years. As a result, his report achieved immediate and world-wide fame. It also formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mann's assessment of the data was criticized on several fronts. The first was historical fact: his chart didn't appear to show the well-known medieval warm period, or the so-called little ice age that began around 1400. This his advocates explained away by saying that those were European but not global phenomena. That started a hunt through historical records in China and elsewhere. And now, I think, many people are inclined to believe that the sharp rise and equally sharp fall in medieval temperatures were, indeed, global phenomena.

The next chapter in the story began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, obtained Mann's data and repeated his study. They found numerous grave and astonishing errors in Mann's work, which they detailed in 2003. For example, two statistical series in Mann's study shared the same data. The data had apparently been inadvertently copied from one series to another. In addition, nineteen other series had had gaps in the data, which Mann's team had then filled in - a fact that had not been disclosed. In addition, all 28 tree ring studies had calculation errors - and so on and so forth. Such that in the end, the Canadians' corrected graph looked quite different.

The corrected graph suggests that the global temperature today is very far from the warmest it has been in the last thousand years.

But there were more problems to come. Mann's statistical approach to the data was somewhat unusual, and raised questions about the validity of the formula he had used to do his metastudy. When researchers tested Mann's formula, they discovered that a table of trendless numbers (generated by computer) would invariably create the hockey-stick shape.

Here you see a series of hockey-sticks. One is Mann's original graph; the others are created by sequences of trendless numbers. So it appears that Mann's formula will turn any data into a hockey-stick - and had apparently never been tested by Mann prior to its use in his study.

Mann's work has since been attacked by a number of laboratories around the world:

"An artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components."
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Energy and Environment, v 14, 6:2003.

"The graph contains assumptions that are not permissible…Methodologically it is…rubbish."
Hans von Storch, quoted in Der Spiegel

"A real shocker...the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?"
Richard Muller, MIT Technology Review, 15 October 2004

Mann's work has been called "phony" and "a shocker" and "rubbish" by climate scientists who believe in global warming, and who are concerned that such sloppy work might undermine the legitimacy of the claim that global warming is a dangerous and alarming fact; as indeed it has undermined it-although I would say, very little.

But to my mind, the real point of the story is that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, accepted Mann's study without question and without independent review. And therein lies the real warning to policymakers. Because even the most widely-touted and allegedly reputable studies may be significantly less reliable and substantive than they initially appear to be.

And if I may digress for a moment: one explanation for the public's credulity may be the assumption - widely held by non-scientists - that scientific reports are repeated and therefore verified by other labs. But the reality is that most studies are not. A very, very small number of them are verified. So one can't just assume that because a study has been published, it's accurate.

So bad data is out there, and severely biased studies are out there, and policymakers have the unenviable task of separating the wheat from the chaff. (You remember what Adlai Stevenson said, that newspapers have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff - and then print the chaff.)

...

A second method of securing reliable data is one we might call the "FDA Strategy" - a methodology aimed at systematically removing all bias from the process that gives us data we wish to use. I know the FDA is having some troubles at the moment. We can speak of them in a sort of idealized way. The core FDA procedure is the requirement for double-blind studies of drug efficacy.

Let's review what a double-blind drug test is. The drug and the placebo are bottled by one group. A second group-that does not know the first-administers the drug to patients. A third group evaluates the patients. A fourth group tabulates the results. None of the groups ever meet. They're in different cities and preferably different countries.

We know from experience that this is what we have to do to get bias out of the system. But many areas of research are not held to such rigorous standards. And I can tell you that if there were a double-blind assessment of climate models, the global warming debate would have been over yesterday. I can tell you further that if a blue-ribbon panel of disinterested non-scientists were convened to review the global temperature record, we would also witness a swift end to the current debate. Why? Because at the moment climate science is an insider's game, and serious outside scrutiny has never taken place.

I find this inexplicable. We're talking about spending trillions of dollars to control carbon emissions on a global scale because computer models of climate predict a dangerous future. And yet nobody is willing to subject these climate models to the kind of rigorous testing that we require to license a drug.

...

IPPC (International Panel of Climate Change) este comisia ONU de la care a pornit toata nebunia. IPPC este compusa dintr-un larg numar de persoane, din sute de tari din lume. Numarul specialistilor din cadrul IPPC este cu mult mai mic decit numarul functionarilor. Ca orice organism birocratic, isi creaza singur problema de rezolvat. Daca primul raport, din 1990, era destul de precaut in evaluari, urmatoarele au devenit din ce in ce mai "sigure" pe ele si mai alarmiste.

Este de notorietate faptul ca din raportul IPPC pe 1996 au fost scoase "dissenting opinions". Dizidentii au fost insa mentinuti pe lista contributorilor. Cind unul dintre ei le-a cerut expres sa fie scos de pe lista, i s-a spus ca, desi contributia lui a fost scoasa, el nu poate fi scos de pe lista pentru ca a luat parte la elaborarea raportului!

Asa se creeaza consensul in stiinta!

Iata o mostra din raportul pe 2001 in baza caruia IPPC si ONU, impreuna cu cele 169 de tari ale lui moroianu, vor sa se ia decizii care sa afecteze viata a miliarde de oameni:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/npc-speech.html

...

In the last ten years, the IPCC has published book after book. Yet I believe few people have read them. I say that because if any journalist were to read these volumes with any care they would come away with the most extreme unease---and not in the way the texts intend.

The most recent volume is the Third Assessment Report, from 2001 (not anymore!). It contains the most up-to-date views of scientists in the field. Let’s see what the text says. I will be reading aloud.

Starting with the first section, The Climate System: An Overview, we turn to the first page of text, and on the third paragraph see this:

<<<< Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.>>>>

Sorry, but these books are written in academic-ese. They are hard to decipher, but we will do it sentence by sentence, and translate them into plain English. The first sentence says:

<<<< Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales.>>>>

It's really just saying: Climate may be partly predictable.

Now, the second sentence:

<<<< Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable.>>>>

That means: We believe human-induced climate change is predictable.

Third sentence:

<<< However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity.>>>>

It means: But we can't predict human behavior.

Fourth sentence:

<<< In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behavior and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.>>>>

It means: Therefore we rely on "scenarios."

The logic here is difficult to follow. What does "may be partly predictable" mean? Is it like a little bit pregnant? We see in two sentences we go from may be predictable to is predictable. And then, if we can't make accurate predictions about population and development and technology&#8230; how can we make a "carefully-constructed scenario?" What does "carefully-constructed" mean if we can't make accurate predictions about population and economic and other factors that are essential to the scenario?

Seen more closely, the flow of illogic is stunning. Am I are making too much of this? Let's look at another quote:

<<<< In order to define future radiative forcings fully, it is necessary to make assumptions about how the emissions or concentrations of the other gases may change in the future. In addition, it is necessary to have a base scenario against which the effect of the different stabilisation pathways may be assessed. The state of the science at present is such that it is only possible to give ilustrative examples of possible outcomes.>>>>

"THE STATE OF SCIENCE AT PRESENT IS SUCH THAT IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO GIVE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES." (!!!!)

(Asta nu mai e stiinta! Asta e birocratie gone wild!!!!)

...

Illustrative examples. The estimates for even partial U.S. compliance with Kyoto---a reduction of 3% below 1990 levels, not the required 7%---has been predicted to cost almost 300 billion dollars a year. Year after year. We can afford it. But if we are going to spend trillions of dollars, I would like to base that decision on something more substantial than &#8220;illustrative examples.&#8221;

Let&#8217;s look at another quote:

<<< Accurate simulation of current climate does not guarantee the ability of a model to simulate climate change correctly. Climate models have now come skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850 (see Section 8.6.1), but these changes are fairy small compared with many projections of climate change into the 21st century.>>>>

My concerns deepen when I read &#8220;Climate models now have some skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850&#8230;&#8221; some skill???? This is not skill in predicting the future. This is skill in reproducing the past. It doesn&#8217;t sound like these models really perform very well. It would be natural to ask how they are tested.

... si tot asa, si iar asa!

Si toate astea va sint vindute ca un fapt implinit!

One of the most appalling recent trends is the way in which certain media outlets, such as the New York Times, have begun referring to carbon dioxide--one of the basic constituents of the atmosphere and a substance we all constantly exhale--as a "pollutant."

By that standard, everything is a pollutant. And that is, in fact, precisely the view that has now been endorsed by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court. In Monday's ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (available in PDF format here), the court held that the EPA is obliged to treat every substance on earth as a pollutant to be regulated, unless it can demonstrate why that substance is not a pollutant.

Actually, that's not precisely true. The EPA is not required to target literally every chemical component of our environment--just the ones that are produced by humans as part of our economic activity. The court's majority opinion cites the Clean Air Act, which defines an "air pollutant" to be "any physical, chemical...substance...emitted into...the ambient air." Emitted, that is, by humans. The emphasis on the word "any" was added by the court, which goes on to note that this "embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe."

In a puckish footnote in his dissent, Justice Scalia replies: "It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant.' This reading of the statute defies common sense."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/guilty_until_proven_innocent.html

Acest documentar a fost discreditat. Vezi de ex:
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

Stiinta nu se face la televizor. Daca chiar vreti sa aflati mai multe despre global warming, trebuie sa va uitat in revistele de specialitate si nu la documentare. Ideile prezentate in documentarul asta au fost discutate si ras-discutate de oamenii de stiinta. S-a ajuns la concluzia ca episodul actual de incalzire globala este datorat (cu probabilitate 90%) activitatii umane. Normal ca exista multe alte cauze, dar concluzia finala este ca omenirea este cauza principala.




La 2007-04-14 16:26:52, colibri a scris:

> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
>

La 2007-04-14 20:53:51, Arcturus a scris:

> Acest documentar a fost discreditat. Vezi de ex:
> http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

A fost discreditat de "in the green"! Ce sa-ti povestesc! Esti mereu tot asa de glumetz?


> Stiinta nu se face la televizor.

Se face la Holly wood!


> Daca chiar vreti sa aflati mai multe
> despre global warming, trebuie sa va uitat in revistele de
> specialitate si nu la documentare.

Da-ne si tu una, fii milostiv!

Toata aceasta avalansa de sofisme si demagogie se subsumeaza unei unice surse: LACOMIA (maladiva, mergand pana la potentiala autodistrugere).

La 2007-04-14 20:00:44, Robin a scris:

> IPPC (International Panel of Climate Change) este comisia ONU de la
> care a pornit toata nebunia. IPPC este compusa dintr-un larg numar de
> persoane, din sute de tari din lume. Numarul specialistilor din cadrul
> IPPC este cu mult mai mic decit numarul functionarilor. Ca orice
> organism birocratic, isi creaza singur problema de rezolvat. Daca
> primul raport, din 1990, era destul de precaut in evaluari,
> urmatoarele au devenit din ce in ce mai "sigure" pe ele si mai
> alarmiste.
>
> Este de notorietate faptul ca din raportul IPPC pe 1996 au fost scoase
> "dissenting opinions". Dizidentii au fost insa mentinuti pe lista
> contributorilor. Cind unul dintre ei le-a cerut expres sa fie scos de
> pe lista, i s-a spus ca, desi contributia lui a fost scoasa, el nu
> poate fi scos de pe lista pentru ca a luat parte la elaborarea
> raportului!
>
> Asa se creeaza consensul in stiinta!
>
> Iata o mostra din raportul pe 2001 in baza caruia IPPC si ONU,
> impreuna cu cele 169 de tari ale lui moroianu, vor sa se ia decizii
> care sa afecteze viata a miliarde de oameni:
>
> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/npc-speech.html
>
> ...
>
> In the last ten years, the IPCC has published book after book. Yet I
> believe few people have read them. I say that because if any
> journalist were to read these volumes with any care they would come
> away with the most extreme unease---and not in the way the texts
> intend.
>
> The most recent volume is the Third Assessment Report, from 2001 (not
> anymore!). It contains the most up-to-date views of scientists in the
> field. Let&#8217;s see what the text says. I will be reading aloud.
>
> Starting with the first section, The Climate System: An Overview, we
> turn to the first page of text, and on the third paragraph see this:
>
> <<<< Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may
> be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and
> global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as emission of
> greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it
> is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate
> change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do
> so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change,
> economic change, technological development, and other relevant
> characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one
> has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and
> determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.>>>>
>
> Sorry, but these books are written in academic-ese. They are hard to
> decipher, but we will do it sentence by sentence, and translate them
> into plain English. The first sentence says:
>
> <<<< Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may
> be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and
> global, spatial scales.>>>>
>
> It's really just saying: Climate may be partly predictable.
>
> Now, the second sentence:
>
> <<<< Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse
> gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is
> believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change
> are also partly predictable.>>>>
>
> That means: We believe human-induced climate change is predictable.
>
> Third sentence:
>
> <<< However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot
> accurately predict population change, economic change, technological
> development, and other relevant characteristics of future human
> activity.>>>>
>
> It means: But we can't predict human behavior.
>
> Fourth sentence:
>
> <<< In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed
> scenarios of human behavior and determine climate projections on the
> basis of such scenarios.>>>>
>
> It means: Therefore we rely on "scenarios."
>
> The logic here is difficult to follow. What does "may be partly
> predictable" mean? Is it like a little bit pregnant? We see in two
> sentences we go from may be predictable to is predictable. And then,
> if we can't make accurate predictions about population and development
> and technology&#8230; how can we make a "carefully-constructed
> scenario?" What does "carefully-constructed" mean if we can't make
> accurate predictions about population and economic and other factors
> that are essential to the scenario?
>
> Seen more closely, the flow of illogic is stunning. Am I are making
> too much of this? Let's look at another quote:
>
> <<<< In order to define future radiative forcings fully, it is
> necessary to make assumptions about how the emissions or
> concentrations of the other gases may change in the future. In
> addition, it is necessary to have a base scenario against which the
> effect of the different stabilisation pathways may be assessed. The
> state of the science at present is such that it is only possible to
> give ilustrative examples of possible outcomes.>>>>
>
> "THE STATE OF SCIENCE AT PRESENT IS SUCH THAT IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO
> GIVE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES." (!!!!)
>
> (Asta nu mai e stiinta! Asta e birocratie gone wild!!!!)
>
> ...
>
> Illustrative examples. The estimates for even partial U.S. compliance
> with Kyoto---a reduction of 3% below 1990 levels, not the required
> 7%---has been predicted to cost almost 300 billion dollars a year.
> Year after year. We can afford it. But if we are going to spend
> trillions of dollars, I would like to base that decision on something
> more substantial than &#8220;illustrative examples.&#8221;
>
> Let&#8217;s look at another quote:
>
> <<< Accurate simulation of current climate does not guarantee the
> ability of a model to simulate climate change correctly. Climate
> models have now come skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850
> (see Section 8.6.1), but these changes are fairy small compared with
> many projections of climate change into the 21st century.>>>>
>
> My concerns deepen when I read &#8220;Climate models now have some
> skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850&#8230;&#8221; some
> skill???? This is not skill in predicting the future. This is skill
> in reproducing the past. It doesn&#8217;t sound like these models
> really perform very well. It would be natural to ask how they are
> tested.
>
> ... si tot asa, si iar asa!
>
> Si toate astea va sint vindute ca un fapt implinit!
>
>

La 2007-04-14 19:23:14, Robin a scris:

> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote08.html
-------------
As putea da zeci de linkuri in care se-ncearca sa se dovedeasca contrariul, dar stiu NUMAI linkurile tale sunt linkuri adevarate...

... ca esti dus cu pluta, si la subiectu' asta.

La 2007-04-15 00:07:48, neamtu tiganu a scris:

> La 2007-04-14 19:23:14, Robin a scris:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote08.html
-------------
> As putea da zeci de linkuri in care se-ncearca sa se dovedeasca contrariul, dar stiu NUMAI linkurile tale sunt linkuri adevarate...

Robin, mai documenteaza-te. Politica si parerile oamenilor neimplicati in cercetare nu conteaza in stiinta.


http://www.realclimate.org/

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.





La 2007-04-14 21:27:08, Robin a scris:

> La 2007-04-14 20:53:51, Arcturus a scris:
>
> > Acest documentar a fost discreditat. Vezi de ex:
> > http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
>
> A fost discreditat de "in the green"! Ce sa-ti povestesc! Esti mereu
> tot asa de glumetz?
>
>
> > Stiinta nu se face la televizor.
>
> Se face la Holly wood!
>
>
> > Daca chiar vreti sa aflati mai multe
> > despre global warming, trebuie sa va uitat in revistele de
> > specialitate si nu la documentare.
>
> Da-ne si tu una, fii milostiv!
>
>

Doamne, sa nu mai spui la nimeni ca esti femeie si inca una care se crede doamna. Asemena limbaj doar la oameni fara caracter intalnesti. Rusine sa-ti fie, daca stii ce este asa ceva.

La 2007-04-15 01:28:22, Oriana a scris:

> ... ca esti dus cu pluta, si la subiectu' asta.
>
> La 2007-04-15 00:07:48, neamtu tiganu a scris:
>
> > La 2007-04-14 19:23:14, Robin a scris:
>
> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote08.html
> -------------
> > As putea da zeci de linkuri in care se-ncearca sa se dovedeasca contrariul, dar stiu NUMAI linkurile tale sunt linkuri adevarate...
>
>
>