The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus | Watts Up With That?

U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism



Christy tells the world that not only does he believe it's unproven that humans cause global warming, he's refusing his "share" of the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded because it was based on a misunderstanding of science.

Read more: U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism | NewsBusters.org

Originally Posted by Earthling

The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus | Watts Up With That?

Oh, do keep up, you are dozing again at the back.

Already debunked.

From the IPCC statement:

The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates
“for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”
to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports

I think the defendants will lose this particular skirmish, especially as

• the Nobel Prize had nothing to do with the defamation.
• it shows Mann's expertise is recognised by his peers and the UN, as does his recent award of the Oeschger Prize.
• the defendants like the CEI had dealings with denier Christopher Monkton and never queried his right to a Nobel Prize pin in his lapel. Monckton doesn't have an IPCC scroll.

But what is surprising is the way deniers are harping on about this. In the larger scheme of the case, it is not worth a hill of beans. Maybe it illustrates how strong Mann's case is, if this is the only nit they can pick.

Originally Posted by Earthling

U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism

Christy tells the world that not only does he believe it's unproven that humans cause global warming ....

But, as usual, the world ignored him, yawned, scratched its ass, and went about its business ...

The difference that 1ft of sea level rise makes to a storm surge in the New York area:

71,000 more people affected.
31,000 more homes affected



71,000 New Yorkers: “Rise Does Matter!” « Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Originally Posted by Earthling

Well done for putting Aggrotologist in his place, he who has "written hundreds of affidavits and read many more" in another life.

Possibly the only thing on this Earth that is not finite is your stupidity.

A study that links loss of polar ice volume and sea level rise over the last 150,000 years. During ice-volume reductions, sea level rise reached 1.2m.

Current global warming necessitates a detailed understanding of the relationships between climate and global ice volume. Highly resolved and continuous sea-level records are essential for quantifying ice-volume changes. However, an unbiased study of the timing of past ice-volume changes, relative to polar climate change, has so far been impossible because available sea-level records either were dated by using orbital tuning or ice-core timescales, or were discontinuous in time. Here we present an independent dating of a continuous, high-resolution sea-level record1, 2 in millennial-scale detail throughout the past 150,000 years. We find that the timing of ice-volume fluctuations agrees well with that of variations in Antarctic climate and especially Greenland climate. Amplitudes of ice-volume fluctuations more closely match Antarctic (rather than Greenland) climate changes. Polar climate and ice-volume changes, and their rates of change, are found to covary within centennial response times. Finally, rates of sea-level rise reached at least 1.2 m per century during all major episodes of ice-volume reduction.

Rapid coupling between ice volume and polar temperature over the past 150,000 years
K. M. Grant,
E. J. Rohling,
M. Bar-Matthews,
A. Ayalon,
M. Medina-Elizalde,
C. Bronk Ramsey,
C. Satow
& A. P. Roberts

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11593.html

Originally Posted by realist

This is interesting because one of the big monsters who fund all the people who question the hypothesis of AGW is Exxon Mobil according to most posters on here. It is surprising that he would choose to pay someone who defends them.

It would only be surprising if he was some outright purist nutter. And if there were any of those purist nutters here, then they may argue that this is a chance for the lawyer to redeem himself.

But any sane person would take the best professional for the job, and wouldn't turn them away. You're looking for something juicy here, but there really isn't anything. What next? Michael Mann's affadavit was written on non-recycled paper?

The link is that in the case against the football coach there were alleged to be emails which were used as a reason for the arrest of those who are alleged to have had knowledge of his wrongdoing.

Each case is distinct. The most that could be wrung out of some emails 'link,' is a strong precedence of Penn State hiding facts by concealing emails, but this won't fly. But the cases are completely distinct.

It has nothing to do with actual climate change but the Mann hockey stick has a lot to do with the claim that it is caused by human activity.

No. MBH98 and 99 have nothing to do with demonstrating the valididty of anthropogenic climate change. Even if the MWP was global and warmer than today, that doesn't make a shred of difference to the physics of greenhouse gases.

It is a complete furfy than eliminating the 'hockey stick' from the science of climate change will change anything. Take out all of Mann's work and there are still a couple dozen reconstructions showing much the same conclusions. Take out all millennial reconstructions, and you still have all the other science. MBH98/99 are not cards holding up a house. They are bricks in a solid wall. Take out a couple of bricks, the wall will still stand.

And this is the challenge for skeptics; they have to dismantle a wall of evidence. Discrediting a couple of scientists, rebutting a handful of apapers - that is not going to make much of a dent. Contrarians need a comprehensive explanation for observed phenomena, and proxy records, that explains everything better than mainstream theory. Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why is Arctic sea ice melting so rapidly? Why is Antarctic sea ice relatively stable or slightly increasing? Why is upwelling IR in the CO2 spectra becoming dimmer over time? Why is the surface of the earth warming in general? Why are the oceans getting warmer over the long term? Why is there less oxygen in the air? Why has the tropopause height increased? Why do some trees show diverging temperatures in the late 20th century compared to thermometer and other proxies? Why are most glaciers melting? Why are the length of seasons changing? Why is there more water vapour in the atmosphere? Why are treelines shifting poleward and increasing in altitude? Why are species followng a similar pattern? Why is the North Pole warming faster than the rest of the Earth? Why is the upper atmosphere shrinking? Why are the oceans becoming more acidic? Why are nights warming faster than days over the long term?

Etc etc etc.

There are thousands of studies exploring these issues.

Eliminate Mann's hockey stick and what have you got left? A massive wall of science supporting AGW.

Music break, folks.



A nobel song

Originally Posted by SirCharles

Hmm...

Views on climate change skewed by 'false consensus'

Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change

The study showed it was important for scientific communicators and journalists to tell their audience that the vast majority of climate change experts believe that human activity is causing global warming.

“It is reaching even those people who would normally tune out when you tell them the evidence,” Prof Lewandowsky said, adding that journalists should not give denialists and climate change experts equal air time.

“The media is being irresponsible if they are pretending there is a scientific debate in light of this consensus.”

Will J Grant from the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University said it was an interesting and useful study.

“We can say people are convinced by the consensus but the big caveat is sceptics and climate change sceptics in particular are never going to be convinced by this,” he said. “They will say science doesn’t work by vote, it’s about facts.”

“Realistically, though, most of those sceptics are of an older generation. We are never going to convince them but they will be disappearing from the political discourse soon.”