The "Decline" is in the journalistic Inquiry, Stupid
Boy as a science journalist myself I find this piece very disheartening, not only for the climate, but for journalism, which just about the only thing in decline on the issue.
"some scientists say the Earth hasn't warmed as predicted over the past 10 years --"
Who? Whoever they are they get more credit than NASA. Great work as propaganda. Reporting, not so much. "Cry me a river Pielke Sr," who is not a physical science professor to start with, simply wants a special pleading for conclusions that don't pass muster. That may work in journalism and for the partisan fuzzy social scientists, such as skeptic Bjorn Lomborg, but it doesn't in a hard science field like climatology. Sorry charlie. Life is tough.
This is a non scandal but has worked according to the plan's instigator, most likely a denial group such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the George Marshall outfit. It's a good bet the hacker got a paycheck. Go talk to Bob Woodward and follow the money. You'll find the real culprit. There's nothing that can wipeout the measurements and facts about global warming. And nothing has.
"some scientists say the Earth hasn't warmed as predicted over the past 10 years --"
Who? Whoever they are they get more credit than NASA. Great work as propaganda. Reporting, not so much. "Cry me a river Pielke Sr," who is not a physical science professor to start with, simply wants a special pleading for conclusions that don't pass muster. That may work in journalism and for the partisan fuzzy social scientists, such as skeptic Bjorn Lomborg, but it doesn't in a hard science field like climatology. Sorry charlie. Life is tough.
This is a non scandal but has worked according to the plan's instigator, most likely a denial group such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the George Marshall outfit. It's a good bet the hacker got a paycheck. Go talk to Bob Woodward and follow the money. You'll find the real culprit. There's nothing that can wipeout the measurements and facts about global warming. And nothing has.
Labels: Global Warming Deniers, Science Journalism
posted by Mark at 1:41 PM
8 Comments:
why don't you have a look at this:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
I have news for you as a scientist myself, just because a newspaper reporter and his editor are stupid, doesn't mean reality isn't real. A plateauing isn't a decline. Another newsflash: this decade is one of the hottest ever. Long term is what this issue is about and what defines it, not a one year high anomaly and downhill from there. The rules of the game don't work like that. Try to educate yourself.
This is not the place for posting bogus science claims. Glaciers around the world are melting. You're all too typical of those who already have contrarian answers that don't pass scientific muster. You have no truth. Take it somewhere else.
Indian Science? Sounds like Jewish physics. That wasn't real either. There is simply physics and science conducted on the Indian side of the Himalayas.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/india_arrogant_to_deny_global.php
You've got one last chance to be true to yourself. You claim to be an objective scientist, yet you did not permit my last post. The source of that post was "Science" magazine and here is the link:
"No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;326/5955/924?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Himalayan+Meltdown&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
This is precisely why I accused you of hypocrisy and cowardice. You block anonymous comments and moderate everything else, not for profanity or ad hominem, but even information "Science" magazine deems publishable, because it seems you won't hear anything that threatens your views. Why bother having a blog on the World Wide Web if you won't allow anyone to challenge you? If you won't let this post through, you are the one who has to look yourself in the mirror every morning.
Here are some other facts on the glaciers:
(First, for perpective here is quote from article you sent me):
"Glaciers in the Himalayas, barring a few exceptions, here and there, have been reported to be in constant retreat, since when the observations started in midnineteenth century. There are no two views about it. It is an established fact."
So, why I am on your blog? At this point because I am actually beginning to feel sorry for you. The world of "established facts" you cling to are challenged thus, from another source which I'll be happy to reveal, if you'll behave like a real scientist and not like a leftist political hack:
1.) "Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often higher than 5000 meters."
2.)"According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska."
3.) "Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat."
4.) "Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John “Jack” Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it “horribly wrong.” The University of Nebraska researcher adds, “They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data.”
5.) "The IPCC also erred in its forecast of the impact of glacier melting on water supply, claims Donald Alford, a Montana-based hydrologist who recently completed a water study for the World Bank."
I don't have to let anyone into my house. Do you? Buddy I don't know what turnip truck you fell off of into the deep end of Winguttery but this does not challenge global warming, nor do two retired hacks who self-published a book on Amazon saying global warming is bunk. Get a grip. It's your politics that's the problem. You don't know what science is.
I'm sure you've heard the expression exceptions don't make the rule? How about local conditions may vary? Look them up and start reading at Realclimate
See the discussion here on this matter:
India's Arrogance on Himalayan Glaciers
India]s Arrogance
"The report omits references to key scientific literature including GSI survey and studies including Vohra (1981) on Satluj River Basin glaciers, Shukla and Siddiqui (1999) on Milam glacier, all indicating significant retreat, and other scientific including the WWF (2005) report and the ICIMOD (2007) satellite-based studies and reviews on Himalayan glaciers across India, Nepal and China. It ignores known fact that small glaciers in the Bhutan (not so far away, as one may well see), have disappeared completely."
Right. I'm shocked. This is the latest attempt to try to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of global warming and oh if such thinking could actually stop it. It can't. Only reducing CO2 and other GHGs can. Nothing can change that.
Now get out.
Post a Comment
<< Home