Court finds 11 inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

co-op said:

I am curious as to what allows you to cherry pick elements of this judgement and leave out the massive substantive finding that the Judge has accepted the IPCC take on climate change.

Click to expand...

and

co-op said:

I should just add that "Mr Downes" in the quote above is counsel for the Claimant (ie the New Party/Dimmock) and "Mr Chamberlain" counsel for the DES/DCSF. In other words both counsel accept the IPCC report as - well, if not true - then "the present scientific consensus"; ie true in effect.

Click to expand...

The question before the judge was effectively a narrow one: does the film go beyond the science, which for purely legal reasons was accepted by the team representing the plaintiff and the judge, Mr Justice Burton, as being contained within the IPCC report. Obviously, the strategy worked. After hearing expert testimony and analyzing arguments presented by both sides, Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film does indeed go beyond the science (as it is currently understood by the IPCC) and highlighted 9 material errors. This does not mean, as you would have it, that Mr Justice Burton has endorsed the IPCC's view on climate change - only a fool would do that.

dash_two said:

Straw man argument deleted

Click to expand...

bigfish said:

But isn't that precisely your position with regard to Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick study?

Click to expand...

No. The so called hockey stick has been subject to extensive criticism and reveiw and has been reproduced by others. Its pro's and con's are pretty well covered.

bigfish said:

This does not mean, as you would have it, that Mr Justice Burton has endorsed the IPCC's view on climate change - only a fool would do that.

Click to expand...

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

Click to expand...

Youve lost me....

bigfish said:

and




The question before the judge was effectively a narrow one: does the film go beyond the science, which for purely legal reasons was accepted by the team representing the plaintiff and the judge, Mr Justice Burton, as being contained within the IPCC report. Obviously, the strategy worked. After hearing expert testimony and analyzing arguments presented by both sides, Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film does indeed go beyond the science (as it is currently understood by the IPCC) and highlighted 9 material errors. This does not mean, as you would have it, that Mr Justice Burton has endorsed the IPCC's view on climate change - only a fool would do that.

Click to expand...

Yeah - regarding the trial - that's pretty much what I posted myself; ie that if the film was found to contain inaccuracies, the standard for comparison and hence detection of those inaccuracies was the IPCC report. This was accepted by both counsel and the Judge.

Does this mean that Mr Justice Burton 'endorses' the IPCC view on climate change? It's an interesting question; since the New Party plaintiffs did not contest the IPCC report (indeed they agreed it beforehand with the defendants as the standard) the Judge did not have to make any finding about the credibility of the IPCC. But given that he made all his findings on the basis of the IPCC report I'd say - yep - he pretty clearly endorsed it as the benchmark of believeable science in this field.

Your position seems to be that AIT is full of errors, according to an IPCC report which is also for the most part wrong, but which is anyway being used by a judge (who probably desn't believe it) to make those findings of 'errors' because of tactical reasons decided on by the NP legal team.

I don't find that believeable in the specifics (ie the Judge does not believe this Report) or credible in the wider philosophical sense - if you think the IPCC Report is wrong you can't start claiming that 'victories' won using its contents constitute some kind of validation of the 'global warming swindle' position.

david dissadent said:

No. The so called hockey stick has been subject to extensive criticism and reveiw and has been reproduced by others. Its pro's and con's are pretty well covered.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's simply not true. The Wegman report (page 4) judged that the review process "was not necessarily independent". It also determined (page 40) that "Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others" and "that the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility".

Nor has the study been independently reproduced by other researchers. At least 3 independent research teams have attempted to replicate it and all of them failed. What these groups found was that the statistical method devised by Mann actually produces hockey stick shapes from trendless red noise. They also found that by removing the bristlecone pine data the hockey stick shape disappeared. What is worse, we now know that Mann knew this all along but didn't disclose it. Instead he claimed his results were robust to the presence or absence of dendroclimatic indicators. But in data grudgingly provided under pressure from Congress, in a directory named "Back to 1400 Censored", one can find the calculations that Mann himself repeated without the bristlecone data showing no anomalous 20th Century warming.

The National Research Council subsequently published a report (at the request of Congress) agreeing that bristlecone pine data should not be used in future temperature reconstructions because it is not a suitable temperature proxy. However, all of the temperature reconstructions presented in this years IPCC Report continue to use the bristlecone pine data, which of course only lowers the confidence the public can place in them and the UN organization.

Given all of the above, perhaps you can now see just how preposterous it is to suggest that such a shoddy paper could possibly sweep away the prevailing paradigm enunciated by the founding fathers of climatology.

The following links provide a analysis of the facts of climate change presented by professor Bob Carter to a recent open forum in Australia.

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?

Pt 1 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

Pt 2 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

Pt 3 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

Pt 4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

bigfish said:

Nor has the study been independently reproduced by other researchers.

Click to expand...

Well us all a favour and write to the university of East Anglia and inform them they are displaying fraudulent data on there web pages.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/

bigfish said:

Prior to its miraculous appearance, the generally accepted view of global temperature over the Holocene was that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age really did exist.

Click to expand...

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/pubs/1994/details/hughes_01abs.html

Well it seems no one told this group back in 1994.

bigfish said:

Nor has the study been independently reproduced by other researchers. At least 3 independent research teams have attempted to replicate it and all of them failed.

Click to expand...

There are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than Mann's study, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they all support the general conclusions that the IPCC came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years. Here are some from an IPCC report:



Glad you've moved on from ranting about the BBC though, bigfish. Perhaps my straw man arguments had an effect after all?

Has anyone mention manbearpig yet?



I'm super serial