Someone, call the Suzuki Foundation;
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention.
The Register has included a translation of the report.
h/t Pete
Kate (or anyone), are you aware of any site that keeps a list of the respectable/knowledgeable/scientifically credible organizations that have come out against AGW?
I've lost count of them all, but they are only mentioned on conservative blogs here and there...is there a complete list somewhere? Anyone?
Astrology ?
I thought it was the Global Church of Climate Scientology ?
There can be no doubt of human produced Global Warming. You cannot claim it is not man made. The IPCC created it.
Here is your money quote:
"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."
Yes, and the test for any hypothesis is falsifiability.
Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
If AGW is observed to follow a counter trend, ie cooling, then AGW is falsifiable. Moreover, if AGW is shown to have another cause, ie the sun, then AGW is falsifiable.
One could logically observe cooling or warming trends on other planets, absent human, ie Venus, Mars to observe cooling/heating trends independent of human activity. IE are polar ice caps on Mars growing or shrinking. And hey how about those Martian polar bear populations?
Venus might be a little hot with its atmosphere acting like a heat trap, while Mercury is a little cooler though closer to the sun.
If you were on Venus, you might give Ash Wednesday a new meaning. ~ 460 °C
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"
Once again, for all the climate "scientists" out there. Please perform the "Ginger Ale" experiment as follows... purchase and chill one large bottle of ginger ale. Pour one glass of ginger ale. Let sit in a lighted area at room temperature. Observe CO2 coming out of solution in the form of bubbles as the ginger ale warms up. Similar experiment can be performed by boiling tap water.
For extra points, does the CO2 coming out of solution of the ginger ale increase or decrease the CO2 concentration in the immediate atmosphere?
And finally, for the Nobel Peace Prize, can you deduce that the increased CO2 in the air around the ginger ale caused the ginger ale to warm up? (Assuming, of course, no solar heating of the room has been taking place).
The "professional" climate "journalists" in the MSM are complete morons, flim-flam artists, or both. An honest journalist would investigate the CO2 in solution of sea water, and ask if increased solar activity would increase or decrease CO2 in solution in the oceans.
The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's assertion was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC.
From the land of Kyoto: Gosat vs Gosplat.
...-
"On Jan. 23, Japan launched what it said was the world’s first satellite, Gosat, to measure greenhouse gases from 56,000 points around the globe over five years."
...-
NASA satellite plummets into ocean before reaching orbit
It was NASA's first spacecraft dedicated to studying carbon dioxide, though not the first in orbit: on January 23 Japan launched the world's first satellite ...
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090224/ts_alt_afp/usspaceenvironment
[ Professor Itoh attacked the temperature record itself, saying "Data taken by the U.S. is inadequate. We only have satellite data of global temperatures from 1979 onwards". Itoh, who has previously called global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history", is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.]
Well now, isn't that interesting !! "the worst scientific scandal in history" (thank you Anthony Watts and others for exposing James Hansen's Mother Of All Frauds)
Coming soon - The Mother of All Fraud Suits.
The backpedaling has begun.
[Former Vice President Al Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation. ] NYT
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/
Sorry to say it but “the war is lost”. As the wheels of AGW are falling off, our leaders rush to implement their new money-making scam. Mark my words: By the time our political leaders admit that AGW is not a crisis, they will have already implemented their "green economy" and it will be too late to rescind the taxes.
It is time to regroup and on to the next war!
Ive done the calculation before and may work through it again tonight. If you burn all the oil in the world instantaneously on the bottom of the pacific ocean you cannot raise the temperature by one degree C. its that big and the oil is that small, and that is all the heat energy in the oil which is alot more than the CO2 effect.
It's probably easier to predict the stock market than it is to predict climate -- the variables are fewer and are much better known.
What a pity that President Obama has swallowed the "oil is bad" meme hook line and sinker. Somebody really must tell the poor fellow that oil is the best fuel, all around, followed by nuclear. He really should be reminded that he *won*; the moonbats all voted for him and he doesn't need to play to them any more.
"Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change[.]"
Oh, really? I missed that uniform consensus the past 10 years...
It's nice to see an authoritative body finally bringing up the fact that no computer climate model has ever been validated.
For those who don't know simulation, validating is feeding known data into a model for a known scenario, to see how accurately the model predicts known results. For example, a population growth model for the United States, starting at year 1900, given actual year 1900 parameters of rates of growth, financial investment, natural resources, etc., should reasonably predict actual populations levels for (say) 1940 or 1960.
If the results are at variance with the real world, then you need to tweak your simulation. Apparently most climate modelers just added "correcting" factors instead.
Even the US Army has had trouble with simulations. Try reading up on Trevor Dupuy, and his work Numbers, Prediction And War, as well has his quantified judgment model (QJM).
On second thought.
I said many times last year that we've been "betrayed" by the Conservatives wrt to this issue. Maybe I was wrong, maybe it is brinksmanship instead of betrayal.
Perhaps PMSH saw the writing on the wall sooner than I. Could it be that the PM has avoided a war that he could not win and is instead now negotiating favorable terms; or, has the PM won the war for us by redefining the rules and squeezing out the enemy? One thing is certain, the AGW discussion is nonexistent in Canada. The Eco-tards don’t have a voice; they’re agenda has been usurped.
Is this wishful thinking, or am I on to something here?
Hans:
Yes, I pointed out the "falsifiable" issue in another thread a few days ago. And I noted that the AGW supporters will continue to "bolt on" new hypotheses to show that, while it hasn't heated up yet, it's going to do so any day now. The only long term defence is to get the AGW people to add on so many Rube Goldberg-type mechanisms to the original idea that it collapses under its own weight, just as geocentric astronomy finally collapsed when the number and complexity of retrograde motions proved so unwieldy that the simplicity and cleanliness of heliocentric theories won out.
of course if you play the big bang backwards you end up with here at centre.
actually you end up with here ,there and everywhere at the centre.
"JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields"
You mean guys who work for industries that would be most affected if people were to start consuming less energy?
And yet... things keep getting warmer.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090225.wglaciers0225/BNStory/Science/home
"Perhaps PMSH saw the writing on the wall sooner than I. Could it be that the PM has avoided a war that he could not win and is instead now negotiating favorable terms; or, has the PM won the war for us by redefining the rules and squeezing out the enemy?"
Well Indy, one thing I noticed is the PM's big smile and convincing argument while at the MSNBC interview the other day that "America needs and will continue to need the oil sands in the future" and that this "economic reality will superceed environmental concerns" while "Canada will continue work on limiting emissions just like America will need to work at their coal fired generators which emit 40 times more than the sands development" was code for "The ecofreaks are finally going to be forced to take a back seat".
Obama is talking power lines and pipelines from the north...His solar and windmill farm promises will be a fraction of the equation. The only reason why we haven't heard him talk about domestic oil R&D on the coasts and Alaska is that the price of oil has dropped and that gas is reasonably priced these days. Why anger his econut voter base right away? Wait 'till the economy deteriorates further (That should'nt take long) and like Harper, press the economy as first priority.
At the risk of sounding racist, I am convinced blacks are not as strongly concerned or more so committed to the climate change religion. The more affluent per capita white lefty like Stephane Dion or Leonardo Decaprio are.
Obama will eventually dissapoint that elite fringe. He will eventually have no choice economically and his flip flop will be supported by the majority anyway.
Food superceeds "fashion" if you catch my drift.
The sham is wanning.
Uh, john, that story you're referring to has already been discredited. You see, there's a whole bunch of Geologists, and they've been studying the history of the earth. And they learned that when Glaciers melt, they RETREAT. They don't ADVANCE. If a glacier is ADVANCING, it's GROWING. And how do you know which direction is an advance and which is a retreat? Towards sea level is advance, towards the highest elevation is retreat. Nice how the climate cult tries to spin a regional cooling of antarctica into a proof of global warming.
The question about falsifiability is a good point, because it brings up something I have never seen asked of any serious AGW advocacy group, which is simply: Exactly what kind of observed evidence, and how much of it, would be required to fulfill their definition of "counterproof"? Or put more prosaically, what would have to happen for AGW to be officially declared "wrong"?
If it's years of overall global cooling, how many years? (Either as absolute number or as percentage of agreed-upon period.) If it's divergence between greenhouse-gas trends and temperature trends, how wide a divergence, and for how long? What's the minimum observed changes in regional weather patterns above which anthropogenic climate change is "proven", and below which it must be considered "unproven"; or how long does a region have to go without such significant shift before it can be called "disproven"? Since so much of the forecasting involves statistical analysis of data, what minimum levels of reliability or accuracy in that data are required, below which data must be discarded as invalid?
I don't find it unbelieveable in itself that any one apparent counterexample against the anthropogenic climate disruption hypothesis can be adequately explained away, as long as everybody agrees on the conditions of the hypothesis so that we can see what can and can't fit within it. But since one of the classic scientific errors is to rearrange the data until it fits your hypothesis (rather than rearranging your hypothesis to fit the data), it strikes me as telling that nobody ever seems to specify exactly what the falsifiability requirements are.
Stephen J. -- Good questions, however I think the issue is that the AGW advocates must come up with "proof" that they are correct before demanding "counterproof" of that this is fantasy.
Pete,
For crying out loud. It says they're melting. Not "advancing". In fact, nowhere in that article does the word "advance" appear.
It does say "slipping seaward", but this doesn't mean advancing. It means the glaciers are melting and breaking off.
It's not actually that hard to understand.
pete wrote:
"Uh, john, that story you're referring to has already been discredited. You see, there's a whole bunch of Geologists, and they've been studying the history of the earth. And they learned that when Glaciers melt, they RETREAT. They don't ADVANCE. If a glacier is ADVANCING, it's GROWING. And how do you know which direction is an advance and which is a retreat? Towards sea level is advance, towards the highest elevation is retreat. Nice how the climate cult tries to spin a regional cooling of antarctica into a proof of global warming."
Yeah!!! Tidewater glaciers ONLY calve icebergs when they advance.....otherwise the ice would melt on the beach or further inland.
John
Now explain how ice melts at -30C!!!!
Pete.
Ice doesn't melt at -30. But it does melt when the temp goes above 0, which it frequently does in summer. This summer has been a warm one with temperatures hovering around +2C.
I know you don't want to admit it, but this is what conservatives do. They can't accept change - hence the reason they are conservative.
If it weren't for liberals... you guys would still be up in the effing trees.
I came across this via EUReferendum, it's from the Register.
I was going to splat it about, but glad to see others are on teh ball.
Indiana Homez at February 25, 2009 12:47 PM
No it isn't. This is a scam to tax energy and carbon. This planet is full of carbon life-forms that depend upon carbon and energy.
THIS INSANITY MUST BE STOPPED!
Al Gore should betried for cupidity.
John, you are completely misinformed on this one. The temperature of mainland Antarctica is -15 to -35 in SUMMER and -40 to -70 in winter!
have a look at this:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%E2%80%99t-cooperating/
ROTFLMAO *** gasp *** ROTFLMAO
AGW zealots Take heart!
This Japanese report is not a direct attack on you, your intelligence, ethics, moral centre, physical prowess, or anything else directly attributable to your ability to do anything or be regarded by anyone else as less than perfect.
It is very simply another stake in the heart of your vampire gods (Gore, Suzuki, Hansen, etc) that are attempting to bleed dry the US economy in order to keep alive economies that died along time ago and should be left in peace.
If us "deniers" attacking your god causes you emotional distress or whatever, then that is truly an unforeseen bonus for us. Truly, it was not the goal from the start. We simply want to stop your vampire economics from turning the productive world into a bunch of economic zombies.
Sorry to have caused you such distress, please feel free to blow yourself up somewhere "green" if you feel revenge is necessary. I assure you, we won't think anything less of you!!