23 January 2010

Welcome Sunday Times Readers

If you got here from the story in the Sunday Times looking to learn more about the IPCC and its claims about disasters and climate change, welcome.

For background, details and documentation of the issue, I suggest starting with these recent posts:
Please do note that links to my old blog, Prometheus, are dead due to some attacks on that site last week. If you are enterprising you can find the materials via Google's cache.

UPDATE 24 Jan: At the Telegraph Geoffry Lean misinterprets the significance of the disasters story, suggesting that it was about referencing a non-peer reviewed source. In fact it was about referencing a non-peer reviewed source to make a claim that was not true, and contrary to what the peer reviewed literature actually said (and what the non-peer reviewed source said when published).

Comments and questions are welcome, on this or other topics you find at the site.

11 comments:

Sharon F. said...

Roger- what is a "site attack?" for the internet impaired among us..
Thanks!

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

Robert Muir-Woods responsible and accurate comments in the Times article are worth highlighting:

"Muir-Wood himself is more cautious. He said: "The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading. "We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished." "

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-1-Sharon F.

It is an effort to take down or render a site unreachable. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

Perhaps someone does not like what I am writing or perhaps it is a random attack. Who knows. The vulnerability of Prometheus to such an attack is one reason why I am at Blogger.

Of course, the attack has taken with it our entire Center's website, including my class materials etc. so it is more than a minor inconvenience.

The Center site will be back up Monday I am told. The Prometheus archive may not be, unfortunately.

itisi69 said...

I give Patchygate 7-14 days max...

Sharon F. said...

Thanks Roger! I always learn useful things (some surprisingly not climate-related) from this blog.

MIKE said...

Roger

Sunday Times isn't online yet. Did you get a pre print?

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-6-MIKE

It was online at the time of the post, the image is a screen shot of it and the link is live. A commenter did beat me to it on the previous thread ;-)

Zarathustras'Ape said...

It's good to see acknowlagdement of your good self and the hard work you and your colleagues (sic - need my dictionary!) have done. Pitty the IPPC couldn't have been so courteous at the time it would have been most appropriate.Would you make a comment about the British Parliament enquiry and whether you are sufficiently party to the dispute to make a submission or be a witness. If people only find nastiness on the net they only have to come to a blog like yours ( and others ) to change there mind. Much respect!

Margaret said...

Donna Lafromboise has a list at her http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com site of other allegations of the IPCC AR4 report using the WWF as a source. I don't know if these are correct or not.

Chrsitopher said...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders:

"In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

Craig said...

The IPCC was only useful as a sword and shield for governmental leaders' transformative policies. With the sword now blunted and the shield smashed, what justification remains? What will the EPA now do without the fig leaf of legitimacy to arrest industry?

Post a Comment