I don't think that ever before a government official threw down the gauntlet this clearly. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-climate-cost/story-e6frgd0x-1226792154483# Also here
So you are saying Maurice Newman has no science credentials at all and is driven purely by short term desires to maximize the wealth of a few? http://www.theguardian.com/environm...adviser-accuses-ipcc-of-dishonesty-and-deceit It's not like Newman has evidence of deceit by the IPCC or a model how a specifically identified group plausibly seeks to enrich "themselves." Profit is simply the only motive that a non-scientist ex-banker like Newman can envision and the nebulous imagined conspiracy of scientists and the "UN" is just dressing up the "fear of other" than physically isolated nations are especially prone to. Newman has lied before. He lied when he said Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (1969) guessed even odds for collapse of the England due to "global cooling" rather than “plague, thermonuclear war, overwhelming pollution, [and] ecological catastrophe.” He lied when he said Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (1969) embraced "global cooling" rather than express a concern over anthropogenic climate change from, among other things "the greenhouse effect [] being enhanced [] by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide." He lied with statistics when he embraced David Rose's cherry-picking of summer 1997 as the end of global cooling. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/201...nce-79-maurice-newman-versus-your-lying-eyes/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/ http://skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html This last cherry picking is similar to that by the Germans cited by Newman with their complete nonsense use of Fourier Analysis on one sample of a a regional temperature time series to conclude that the whole climate must be cyclical. That's a prediction with zero statistical strength. There is no physics in this announcement and paper, no science, and only a misapplication of statistics and mathematics. http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/...l-temperature-to-drop-to-1870-levels-by-2100/ http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4493/2012/cpd-8-4493-2012.pdf (draft) http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf (final) Further criticism is here: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/C1605/2012/cpd-8-C1605-2012.pdf and http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/C1870/2012/cpd-8-C1870-2012.pdf Editor: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/C2559/2012/cpd-8-C2559-2012.pdf "The estimation of the periodicities is based on the whole instrumental record available and therefore they are influenced by all possible factors affecting variability, internal and external. The fact that the inverse Fourier transform can well describe the observed record does not lead per se to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are not required to explain the temperature evolution. I see some misunderstandings in this chain of reasoning." http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/ludeckerous/ http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/an-interesting-puzzler.html Why doesn't the BEST data see the very high late eighteenth century temperatures as in the paper? http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/rotten-to-core.html Because in the late eighteenth century it was common to leave the thermometer out in the sun.
Himalayagate: A mistaken probabilistic prediction in one paragraph in the 3000 page 2007 IPCC report that was not repeated in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers, or the Synthesis Report, but nonetheless was not quickly admitted and corrected. About 80% of central and eastern Himalayan glaciers are retreating and 500 million people depend upon the summer meltwaters of these glaciers, but it was not scientifically supported to predict all of them could be gone by 2035. But the rate of retreat is accelerating. The IPCC report has also made other mistakes, but since those underestimate the problem, Andre or Newman would only care about those mistakes if Andre or Newman were acting as scientists or fair judges. Rather than demonstrate that the IPCC has an alarmist bias on the truth, this trumpeting of "Himalayagate" seems like building a mountain out of a molehill. http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction-intermediate.htm Amazongate: A legitimate scientific claim which appeared in the 2007 IPCC report but was criticized because the references to original source were not found in the same section. Those references, however, were found. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/02/ipcc-amazongate-george-monbiot http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-004-0049-4 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-004-0050-y Wishing doesn't make climate change or the reasons for it go away -- neither does it make the echo chamber of baseless speculation along ideologically comfortable lines go away. Newman is living in the past and actively ignoring the evidence that blames the short-term thinking of the past.
That's three fallacies in one sentence. Not bad, the first is the strawman attack. I did not say anything, I merely showed the article. Then two ad hominem attacks: no credentials and driven by wealth. Nice. Anyway, if you're part of Charles Mackay's herd, you can get away with almost anything as long as it's for the holy cause. However, when one is in the outgroup (type II -2, a.k.a. folk devil), then one knows for sure that anything one says that goes against the party line, will be scrutinized by thousands, so one has better be very very sure of what one has to say or one is toast. So maybe there is a chance that Newman can substantiate his allegations. For instance a google with IPCC fraud gets close to 900,000 hits. Maybe one or two cannot be white washed? The reason of the resignationof Chris Landsea maybe?, or the malaria statements exposed by Paul Reiter maybe? or the sea level problems of Niels Axel Morner? Or maybe the little edits in the 1995 IPCC report?
Oh, "terrorists pulled off 9/11" "Oswald shot Kennedy" "We really landed on the moon" and "the Sun is the center of the solar system" are probably even more popular delusions. Fortunately a few non-sheeple know that they are all lies - and make a lot of money in the process.
Oh c'mon - in the US we have charlatans and crackpots in Congress who say stuff like that all the time. When it comes to relieving the burdens placed on the wealthy by unfortunate circumstance and "reality", there isn't much one of their impudent minions would be too embarrassed to say in public. Look at this, for example: I Googled "IPCC infallibility" - got close to 700,000 hits. From this, adopting Andre's approach but with arithmetic, I conclude that there is about a 44% chance the IPCC is infallible.
I'm curious what official powers Newman has -- his powers seem limited to running around being the PM's cheerleader. That sentence is asking a question, not making an argument, so no fallacies are readily visible. I don't think you understand arguments, let alone fallacies. Hardly a straw man attack even if what you claim is true. You in fact did say something explicitly and you selectively quoted from Newman's opinion piece. You said that you thought Maurice Newman was particularly clear and a government official and you implied you were impressed. No one knows why you are impressed. It cannot be because of the clarity of Newman's arguments, for he makes none. He only makes accusations without evidence. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that you may be impressed by his ideological solidarity with yourself, and I asked you if that is your main point for posting that article. Newman admits he is driven by the desire to maximize wealth -- my point is that short-term strategies that benefit the few are not the same as long-term strategies that benefit all. Nowhere does he claim his thinking is long-term or designed to benefit all. Nowhere does he argue from the evidence for his position that the IPCC scientists and editors are dangerously underqualified and this strongly suggests that he has no scientific basis on which to make this claim. In short, his uninformed opinion of IPCC science is an uninformed opinion formed by factors other than evidence and his lack of scientific credentials means his uninformed opinion should carry no weight. That's what I meant and I amplified it with the following sentences: I'm not demonizing you, I'm engaging you despite evidence you don't understand evidence and statistics and logic. You on the other hand demonize Michael Mann and view his "hockey stick" graph as if it wasn't in very good agreement with the correct summary of all available data. That is the burden of proof that responsible scientists and responsible government officials accept before they make those allegations. But you agree with me that Newman has only stated baseless claims, and is not functioning as a responsible person. The Austrailian, a paper sympathetic to the contrarian deniers of global climate change, would normally be an excellent place for Newman to make his case. But instead he focuses on the trivial (Himalayagate) and misplaced citations (Amazongate) without hitting the mark. This is mere pandering to the echo chamber as these matters haven't moved since 2010 since nothing more was there. Also: Your Google search methodology is not a reliable indicator of IPCC misbehavior. Chris Landsea resigned because he though Kevin Trenberth's advocacy of linkage between global warming and hurricane activity infringed on his duties as an IPCC lead author examining Landsea's forthcoming AR4 report on the same linkage, not because of misconduct. Landsea and Trenberth had different opinions in 2005 both about this linkage and about the role of advocacy. Today the facts seem to point towards fewer hurricanes overall, but with the large ones being larger. For Malaria, you again go back to 2005, but this criticizes the AR2 from 1995! Reiter who is a reviewer of AR4 and was cited a number of times was saying predicting malaria prevalence is complex, but does little to indicate that AR4 and AR5 are unreliable. Climate change means ecologies adapt or fail and in some locales this very well may mean the introduction of malaria transmission at the endemic level. Morner's 2007 piece on sea level rise is badly wrong. In part, apparently, because Morner fetishizes instruments, not statistics. http://sealevel.colorado.edu and http://www.skepticalscience.com/decelerating-sea-level-rise.htm Ben Santer did not change AR2 single handedly in 1995. The political influence was from the Saudis and Kuwatis to keep the attribution to human activity out of the report but the science argued against their view. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ben-santer-changed-the-1995-ipcc-report.htm and http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html Don't you have any recent or scientific claims supported by evidence and not innuendo?
What is this thread about? Cold crowds? The veracity of an article? Climate change? Is an assertion being offered or a question being asked?
