The chinks in the armor that is a supposed scientific consensus regarding man’s role in global warming continued to grow this week when it was identified that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were not in agreement with the study’s findings.
Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you? Nobody reported it!
In fact, what you also didn't hear or read due to the media's universal eschewing of this information was that many of the views expressed in the IPCC’s report go quite contrary to assertions regularly being made by the very press outlets not covering this new revelation and the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.
Think maybe that's why it's not being reported?
Regardless of the answer, the Heartland Institute, a non-profit social and economic think tank, issued the following press release concerning this matter Friday (emphasis added throughout):
On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.
Gore has also not responded to a debate challenge from Wharton Business School Professor Scott Armstrong, or a similar challenge from Czech President Vaclav Klaus.
Makes one wonder how the media can continue to support a man who isn’t willing to debate anyone concerning this matter. Furthermore, given the press focus on the IPCC any time it releases a new report, one also has to question why this new information which actually came out on Wednesday went totally ignored.
In fact, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one American press outlet covered this new revelation out of the IPCC. And, though the Heartland Institute's press release was first published by the U.S. Newswire at 5:15 PM EST Thursday, nobody reported it either.
It appears that information from the IPCC is only newsworthy when it supports anthropogenic global warming theories. How disgraceful.
For those interested, the comments of IPCC scientists are available in a rather lengthy PDF document here.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Words cannot express the shoc
June 29, 2007 - 13:00 ET by BeanManWords cannot express the shock that I feel. I am absoutely shocked and aghast that my hero Algore has not jumped on this opportunity to prove before the entire world how foolish these supposed climate experts are.
I mean, think of it, here's Algore so wise, so brilliant, so painted, with all of his combined knowledge of all subjects known to man
I mean, I just don't understand...
Oh bean, it's easy to underst
June 29, 2007 - 13:35 ET by FastEdOh bean, it's easy to understand - it is because he's so brilliant, and knows so much, is the reason he doesn't have to debate. It's very similar to the answers you got as a child, usually from those brilliant teachers in public schools - it's BECAUSE, just because - no other explenation is needed.
So relax, algore is just being himself, needs not to explain "facts", as he knows them, because he is, after all, algore.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Well, you know, the IPCC is n
June 29, 2007 - 13:00 ET by RESTLESS 1Well, you know, the IPCC is now in EXXON's pocket. Al Gore must be hiding in a dark cave somewhere with you know who. This just keeps getting better and better. With every claim by the left on climate change, the barrage against manmade gw justs keeps getting bigger.
Ahhh, I think I'll go start the truck and let it idle with the a.c. running. That way, when I go home, it will be nice and cool.
the IPCC is now in EXXON's po
June 29, 2007 - 20:50 ET by dahliatraversthe IPCC is now in EXXON's pocket
Wow, really?? Big oil doesn't fool around ...
Gore isn't going to say a pee
June 29, 2007 - 13:14 ET by jpatchGore isn't going to say a peep until his concert series is over. He's going to try and rally his troops during the next few weeks, all the while side-stepping all of these challenges to his religion of AGW.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of the artists at his concert took the microphone and said, "you shouldn't only listen to one side of the story. History should teach us that we should never, ever blindly support someone or something to the point where we stop asking questions."
I know this would never happen in a million years, but why can't someone just say something reasonable? Paying attention to the MSM and to people like Al Gore just reminds me more and more that people never grow up...
Once again, my drumbeat, is t
June 29, 2007 - 13:37 ET by FastEdOnce again, my drumbeat, is that the msm (Lsm) will NOT report this, because the cowards that they are cannot go against their agenda.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FastEd, the msm will report t
June 29, 2007 - 16:12 ET by ThisnThatFastEd, the msm will report this, in due time. Just remember, they are slower than most, and they're just thinking up the correct headline.
... or something.
Who is Eric Steig? I reviewed
June 29, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Agnostic frontWho is Eric Steig? I reviewed some of the comments (you're right, it is a lengthy document) and could find no mention of who Steig is. There are also comments by a number of seemingly random people and countries. It looks like any idiot can comment if they want. It seems that the reason this didn't get reported is because most of the comments that I read were postitive. Other comments that were critical of that section were noted and corrected or rejected (for reason) by the authors of that section. Steig's comments resulted in a change in the draft.
Steigs comments are very inte
June 29, 2007 - 14:25 ET by chessplayerSteigs comments are very interesting, but he is a strong believer in man-made GW, and had high praise for Al Gore`s movie. He said the movie handled the science "admirably."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
Interesting. Noel's article m
June 29, 2007 - 14:45 ET by Agnostic frontInteresting. Noel's article makes it appears as though Steig's comments were indicative of the general tenor of the comment section ,when that is far from the case.
It is the tone of the Steig c
June 29, 2007 - 14:48 ET by bassndudeIt is the tone of the Steig comments within the scope of the IPCC that is noteable because of his AGW stance.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Agnostic Front
June 29, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Noel SheppardAF,
Please ASAP show where in this article I indicated that Steig's comments represented the general tenor of the comments presented in this IPCC document. Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
That, or apologize ASAP for your errant insinuation.
I said "many." I did not say a majority, a consensus, or the "general tenor."
Furthermore, I, too, and a multiplicity of international scientists that I have read e-mail messages from, have looked at this document and identified "many" comments expressing contrary views to what Al Gore and the media have depicted. Once again, "many."
I stand by that, and request you prove otherwise or apologize post haste. ns
You wrote, "The chinks i
June 29, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Agnostic frontYou wrote, "The chinks in the armor that is a supposed scientific consensus regarding man’s role in global warming continued to grow this week when it was identified that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were not in agreement with the study’s findings." This sentence indicates to me that there really isn't a consensus to man's role in global warming due to your use of the word "supposed." To highlight this lack of consensus, you quoted a sole comment from the comments section of the new draft report which, as I stated previously, was considered by the drafters of the report and changed per Steig's suggestion. You say "many," but don't give any other examples. I, too, reviewed this document, and found the comments to be overwhelmingly positive. Your article is disingenuous.
AF
June 29, 2007 - 15:19 ET by Noel SheppardAF,
Extraordinary. Another person with poor reading comprehension skills having the audacity to challenge a writer in a public forum.
Excuse me, but I don't believe for a moment that there is any consensus. This is a fiction. If you are so gullible that you believe it, fine. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists that I communicate with on a daily basis don't buy any of this, and believe that if a true head count were taken, the consensus would evaporate quite quickly. That is why I use the word "supposed." Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not you like the use of that word.
Furthermore, your lack of adequate reading comprehension skills becomes quite apparent when you state: "you quoted a sole comment from the comments section of the new draft report which, as I stated previously, was considered by the drafters of the report and changed per Steig's suggestion."
I didn't quote that comment. That was from Heartland's report. They quoted that comment. This was an article about Heartland's press release. Did you miss that in your rush to defend your dogma?
Regardless, I have no more time for you. Adieu. ns
I didn't quote it, they did,
June 29, 2007 - 15:27 ET by Agnostic frontI didn't quote it, they did, I was just quoting their quote. That's hilarious.
AF
June 29, 2007 - 16:11 ET by Noel SheppardAF,
No, you want to know what's REALLY hilarious?
You logged on here at 15:10. Your first post was at 15:14. This document, which you admitted in your first post was "lengthy," contains 3,953 pages of comments. Yet, in four minutes, you were able to determine that these comments were "overwhelmingly positive." That means you reviewed 16.47 pages every second.
Now THAT's hilarious.
Adios, amigo. :-) ns
Noel, I believe I 1st logged
June 29, 2007 - 16:29 ET by danboNoel, I believe I 1st logged on to Newsbusters soon after it started. (I believe there were only 2 or 3 pages. If that.) Since then we've discussed and named hundeds and even thousands of scientist who contest the commonly held view of AGW.
Telling the warmers there is no consensus is like telling a 3 year old there is no Santa Clause. They kick and hold their breath till they turn blue. It goes against their dogma.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Dan
June 29, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
I know. But this is REALLY the new height of gall when one of these alarmists says he's read a 3,953 page document in four minutes. I frackin' love it.
The reality is, Dan, if you've been following CS the past couple of days, there are a number of scientists around the world pouring over these thousands of pages for accurate totals. It's gonna take a LOT of time to go through. We might not have the final numbers for a while.
Yet, this arrogant so-and-so has the frackin' nerve to say he was able to make conclusions in four minutes. Alas, this is the intellectual and veracity capacity we are dealing with. These people will lie and fabricate anything to protect and preserve their dogma. ns
Let's face it Noel. There isn
June 29, 2007 - 17:11 ET by danboLet's face it Noel. There isn't a lot of integrity or good science in the warmer camp to begin with. Lots of bad science and a viscious attempt to discredit or silence anyone who disagrees with them. They also came after me a few times. Here and other places.
People get real testy when you challenge their dogma. And you've seen me get fed up with the BS also and get real nasty with them. You're normally nicer than me. I still think most are trolls.
Their modist operandi is to claim mastery, and attack. If it weren't so tiresome, it would be pathetic and funny.
I go spells at CS. Then don't get there for a while, and have to play catch up. Which is almost impossible. There's just too much.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
A simple point
June 30, 2007 - 05:27 ET by belagCan't one read newsbusters without logging in? I do all the time. I only log in to post.
Besides you can see yourself what the "general tenor" of the comments are (I only looked at the 6th Chapter). Most relate to small corrections and requests for other elaborating references. Picking out a lone comment (which was addressed in the final report) by no means says "many people" let alone Eric Steig reject the whole theory.
In case you missed it.the fol
June 30, 2007 - 06:55 ET by danboIn case you missed it.
And these are your guys.
But then someone who doesn't know if he saw a pen drop, unless there was a theory of light....
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Dan
June 30, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
As I'm sure you know, you're wasting your time with this guy. He's another of the alarmists here to defend the dogma at all cost. There are almost 4,000 pages of comments. Think he's gone through them all? Not even close. Yet, he's willing to come here and defend anyone defending the consensus argument.
Sadly, here's something these folks possessing poor reading comprehension skills have missed: every scientist who comes out against the supposed consensus represents a chink in the armor of that consensus. Amazingly, on folks like belag and AF, this was lost. Why? Because none of this is about logic. It's all about them defending their dogma. And, as we see from liberals on all issues, when dogma is at stake, logic is tossed out the window.
It's sad, really, for it prevents discussion on many important issues of the day. Take for example social security. Anybody possessing a third grade understanding of arithmetic can identify that the changing dynamic of the American population is going to doom this program in the next 20 years when the baby boomers retire. Yet, the morons on the left were able to convince enough of their constituents that this wasn't a problem that needed to be dealt with today.
Was this logical? Of course not, because the first of the baby boomers will start retiring and receiving SS in 2011, just four years from now. Yet, the left felt this wasn't a problem we had to deal with now.
That's not logic. That's protecting dogma, and basically put our nation in a position where the next time this issue is brought up, our solutions will be much less desirable. Alas, the left don't care, because they preserved an institution imperative for their very survival, and that's much more important than what's in the best interest of the nation.
The same is true about this whole AGW push. There is no consensus. There is no undeniable proof that man is causing global warming. There isn't even any proof that a warmer planet is a bad thing. Yet, these same folks who prevented SS reform want to impose potentially economically cataclysmic solutions to a problem that doesn't even exist. Why? Because it furthers their goal of taking from corporations and citizens to increase the amount of money at government's disposal for redistribution.
What a sham! ns
I know it's a waste. Just rep
June 30, 2007 - 11:53 ET by danboI know it's a waste. Just repeating something I thought was important.
A number of years ago, I was approached by a grad student who was researching an area I had already researched. We had a nice talk on the subject. Unfortunately I no longer had the old punch cards or original forms where we extrapolated the data. So I couldn't give him that. We talked not just about the results and conclusions but also what I considered the weak spots. And those areas in my research I though should be looked at again.
What's important is not what I found. But that we continue to get a better understanding of the issue. And continue to learn.
Unfortunately, today I see people playing games with research. Refusing to give not just raw data. But formulas or even where the data was collected. Nature, NASA, and so many individual researchers have been guilty of that.
Now they just give cute answers, like tha data was adjusted to solve that problem. Of course the ogre is in the details. Depending on how you adjust and weigh the data, you can get anything you want. And only by being open with the adjustment process and all the aspects of the research can we know what we really have.
To do less is not very honerable.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
the ogre is in the detailsThi
June 30, 2007 - 15:54 ET by dahliatraversthe ogre is in the details
This is especially true of global warming and global climate.
What I have figured out over the last several months is that there are many factors that determine global temperature. Those attempting to make the case for AGW too often ignore or downplay certain factors. More importantly, the computer models which supposedly demonstrate that global warming is caused by man do not include all of these factors.
The only thing they have successfully accomplished, although this is beginning to break down as well, is dissemination of the inaccurate and simplistic message, "The planet is warming. Man is at fault."
I think that in addition to
June 30, 2007 - 21:47 ET by RESTLESS 1I think that in addition to what you have stated in you r post, that parameters are of the utmost imnportance. What has happened as well is that the alarmists have been allowed to define at what point a catastrophe occurs. Is the real number an increase of 1 degree centigrade or 10 degrees, or even more? The thing is that they are taking averages, and even if the average goes up, there will still be inhabitable areas on Earth. Even now, there are places that are too cold for growing crops or for people to live in great numbers, some place people can't live at all. What is to say that in a worst case scenario, that the population wouldn't shif to the poles?
WOW!
June 29, 2007 - 17:26 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasWOW! I have read some online b!tchsl@ps but this is absolutely the most thunderous blow of humiliation delievered in recent memory. Dr. Sheppard appears to be quite adept at removing hearts and souls with the graciousness of The Easter Bunny...I wanna be that good!
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
AF
June 29, 2007 - 15:05 ET by Noel SheppardAF,
I find it extraordinary, in the Internet era, that anybody would post the following: "Who is Eric Steig?"
Have you heard about an invention called a search engine? Well, I have, and was immediately able to find the following: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=54
How much respect should I, or anybody else here, have for the opinions of someone who couldn't answer such a facile question on his own? ns
I asked that quesion only to
June 29, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Agnostic frontI asked that quesion only to highlight the fact that any one could comment on the draft report.
Yes. Al Gore did that. 2 scie
June 29, 2007 - 15:37 ET by danboYes. Al Gore did that. 2 science courses. A D in one. A C in the other.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
"For the most part, I th
June 29, 2007 - 15:10 ET by Agnostic front"For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change." - Eric Steig
Eric Steig = flip flopper? He
June 29, 2007 - 15:14 ET by florida_chadEric Steig = flip flopper?
He can't seem to make up his mind.
The SUN is heating up earth, not man........................
Algore is so much smarter tha
June 29, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Liberally IneptAlgore is so much smarter than us that I'm starting to believe that there actually is a Man Bear Pig!
Liberally Inept: Yes! There a
June 29, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Mica the MagnificentLiberally Inept: Yes! There are Man Bear Pigs but not as many as there used to be. Global warming, ya know.
Carbon credits, get your carbon credits right here. Carbon credits mister? - - The new kind of huckster that replaced the phony Rolex watch huckster
IF this keeps up, poor old Al
June 29, 2007 - 14:43 ET by bassndudeIF this keeps up, poor old Al Gore may lose his public funding, stock in his carbon credit trading company will tank. Poor Al...looking for a hand out but cant get his head out.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Come On folks!
June 29, 2007 - 16:00 ET by c5thenWe've already been told by the main stream advocates that the debate is over. That is NOT open for discussion or it's own debate.
They will next tell us the inevitable result of the 2008 Presidential election. Probably around next February. That debate will be said to be over too.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
liberal friend explains Global Warming
June 29, 2007 - 19:15 ET by LionKingOkay...this one is new to me. A friend of mine who happens to be a liberal-leaning Southern Democrat explained man's role in Global Warming.
He basically said the following: While I agree that man cannot cause climate change, man can certainly do his part to minimize the effects.
[I guess it is true...you must need to be lobotomized to be a liberal.]
Opposition is presented as
June 30, 2007 - 03:39 ET by acadia1755Opposition is presented as being against all the people - and all the
people should agree and do agree with that; statements that everyone
agrees and everyone keeps on supporting the official position are
repeated all the time. :-)
http://motls.blogspo....
Preparing for irony...
June 30, 2007 - 18:32 ET by goldenthroatI am just waiting for these global warming concerts to be rained out, snowed out, monsooned out or whatever strange weather condition befalls them. It would be poetic justice for this environmentalist wacko parade!
And the global warming house of cards continues to tumble - check out this link courtesy of the Chicago Sun Times: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Ya gotta love it! Read it and weep, AlGore!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.