What global warming?

[The Ville]

I believe some were quoted earlier in the thread, but a quick Google search pulled up this one (I can't access the PDF file because I appear to have too old a version of Acrobat running on this laptop). A summary of some of the findings...

And I was serious about sources in the IPCC report. They used not only news outlets as sources but also documents published by Greenpeace and other environment groups.

If you refer to the Himalaya issue, the alleged source was WWF and New Scientist.
But even that was not strictly correct.
Some students at Yale tracked down the convoluted way in which the mistake was made. It turned out that the error was more to do with cut and paste computer mistakes, rather than anything else.

In any case the error did not have any major impact on the sum total of the report. In fact no one noticed it for years because it wasn't considered to be important.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/

On the issue of the US surface temperature records:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

 

[Cornish Steve]

If you refer to the Himalaya issue, the alleged source was WWF and New Scientist.

No, I'm referring to the recent report that found literally thousands of references in the IPCC report to be from news reports, quotes from interest groups, and other non-peer reviewed sources - despite the claim of the head of the IPCC that he would never accept anything less than peer reviewed papers. We're not just talking about one item that made the papers. In several chapters of the IPCC report, more than half of the hundreds of sources were not peer reviewed (almost 5,600 of them in total). Many came straight from the unedited pen of rather biased interest groups. Here's a link.

 

[Top Hat]

(I can't access the PDF file because I appear to have too old a version of Acrobat running on this laptop).

I don't want to get involved in this thread.

But Steve you seriously must get that Acrobat updated, I got a virus through old, not bothered to update, acrobat.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't want to get involved in this thread.

Chicken!

But Steve you seriously must get that Acrobat updated, I got a virus through old, not bothered to update, acrobat.

Thanks for the warning. I'll do that.

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Just to rock the boat and see what kind of verbal volleys I am subjected to, I am going to make the following statement: I have just read a report that suggests the world is in fact flat. Discuss.

 

[The Ville]

No, I'm referring to the recent report that found literally thousands of references in the IPCC report to be from news reports, quotes from interest groups, and other non-peer reviewed sources - despite the claim of the head of the IPCC that he would never accept anything less than peer reviewed papers. We're not just talking about one item that made the papers. In several chapters of the IPCC report, more than half of the hundreds of sources were not peer reviewed (almost 5,600 of them in total). Many came straight from the unedited pen of rather biased interest groups. Here's a link.

I suggest you actually read your own references.

I'm looking at the first item in the list Working Group 3, Chapter 4.
That is about Energy Supply, not climate science.

Moving on to the next one. Working Group 3, Chapter 7.
That is about Industry, not climate science.
In this particular chapter and in the 'Energy Efficiency' section they refer to the IEA and other non-scientific organisations. It is hardly surprising that the IPPC should look to professional organisations where there is far more expertise on the practical realisation of the issues.
Such references are not classed as science or peer reviewed and they are appropriate for the context in which they are used.

The people that wrote your report are using their own incorrect standards by which they are judging the information. They are doing so to mislead and manipulate public opinion.

But in any case, the rules under which the IPPC operate allow for non-peer reviewed information, but there are strict rules under which such information can be used.
It so happens the Himalayan problem was the one bit in the science where the rules were not followed.

 

[quikshop]

But in any case, the rules under which the IPPC operate allow for non-peer reviewed information, but there are strict rules under which such information can be used.

Then its not worth the recycled paper its printed on. Subjecture and opinion are not a suitable basis to claim an authoritative position.

The "Himalayan problem" makes a utter mockery of any genuine work contained within the report, not to mention the changing localised environmental conditions of weather stations particularly in China and other areas of rapid urbanisation that make readings from those stations worthless - its this sort of appalling 6th grade science you get without peer review.

It is those trying to hurry research for political agendas who are culpable.

 

[The Ville]

...and other non-peer reviewed sources - despite the claim of the head of the IPCC that he would never accept anything less than peer reviewed papers.

And may be you can explain exactly what context he was referring to.

The science maybe?

Or all the other issues addressed by the IPPC AR4 report?

May I suggest that first of all we need to know what question was asked of him when you allege he said that. We also need to know exactly what his reply was.

Or do you prefer the tabloid media approach and just report the answer in a context and setting that suites you?

I'm amazed that you make claims about your own professional experience, yet fail to reference the detail here.

 

[cjd]

I suggest you actually read your own references.

You will find that Steve will nit pick away forever at tiny issues in a positive claim for the climate change (or evolution) but swallow whole and without further thought or research a negative one.

In the case of this link, he has already had an answer about why what this report says is irrelevant to the science and is a deliberate attempt to mislead the casual reader but he really doesn't care - it's now locked in and can't be budged. So it'll come back again in 6 months.

In the evolution vs creation 'debates' they're called zombie arguments. The creationists make claims that they read on a website that have been fully debunked many years previously but because the fantasists prefer the lie to the truth it simply pops up again a few months later.

In this case it doesn't even seem to matter that the author has no credentials at all - either in climate change science or science of any kind:

Begun in early 2009, the NOconsensus.org web site is wholly researched, written, designed, and published by Donna Laframboise, a self-employed photographer.

She's just a contrarian trying to make her name using bad thinking.

 

[The Ville]

Then its not worth the recycled paper its printed on. Subjecture and opinion are not a suitable basis to claim an authoritative position.

No one would logically discount such a large piece of work just because one small part had a minor error.

In any case as I pointed out. The IPPC purely collates the sum total of all the research. If you ignore the IPPC report, it does nothing to stop the science. The sum total of the science is still available.

The fact that you do not like it all being collated is your problem.
The main attacks against the IPPC are because it does collate the science and ignores the rubbish.

Thank goodness it does. Otherwise we would have quacks telling us the earth was flat.

The fact is, there is no equality in scientific opinion, the rubbish gets weeded out and composted. Watts, Monckton and Mcintyre can have their opinions but they will never be equal in science.

 

[The Ville]

You will find that Steve will nit pick away forever at tiny issues in a positive claim for the climate change (or evolution) but swallow whole and without further thought or research a negative one.

In the case of this link, he has already had an answer about why what this report says is irrelevant to the science and is a deliberate attempt to mislead the casual reader but he really doesn't care - it's now locked in and can't be budged. So it'll come back again in 6 months.

In the evolution vs creation 'debates' they're called zombie arguments. The creationists make claims that they read on a website that have been fully debunked many years previously but because the fantasists prefer the lie to the truth it simply pops up again a few months later.

In this case it doesn't even seem to matter that the author has no credentials at all - either in climate change science or science of any kind:



She's just a contrarian trying to make her name using bad thinking.

Thanks CJD

I did notice the author of that site and thanks for the general summary of the threads/forum history.

And I know exactly what you mean.

 

[cjd]

Then its not worth the recycled paper its printed on. Subjecture and opinion are not a suitable basis to claim an authoritative position.

There are several types of IPCC report requiring different form of evidence:

There are three main classes of IPCC materials, each of which is defined in Section 2.

A. IPCC Reports (which include Assessments, Synthesis and Special Reports and their Summaries for Policymakers and Methodology Reports)
B. Technical Papers C. Supporting Materials

There are rules for submitting evidence to the various parts. If you genuinely want to understand the process and why there are differing forms of evidence I suggest you read it. You'll find them here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

 

[quikshop]

There are several types of IPCC report requiring different form of evidence:



There are rules for submitting evidence to the various parts. If you genuinely want to understand the process and why there are differing forms of evidence I suggest you read it. You'll find them here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

Your missing my point which is, politicians leapt upon the bogus environmental claims and conclusions to further a political agenda.

A political agenda which openly likens those who are not convinced that man is influencing natural climate change as evil as holocaust deniers.

An agenda that introduces a raft of new taxes and social controls under the banner of 'green' and 'climate change'.

The same political agenda that has been hijacked (or perhaps even conceived) by socialists in the USA to accelerate wealth distribution and undermine free markets, again its all under the same green banner of 'climate change'.

If you think the IPCC is immune to political interference then I suspect your still waiting for the tooth fairy to collect your last milk teeth

 

[Subbynet]

Your missing my point which is, politicians leapt upon the bogus environmental claims and conclusions to further a political agenda.

A political agenda which openly likens those who are not convinced that man is influencing natural climate change as evil as holocaust deniers.

An agenda that introduces a raft of new taxes and social controls under the banner of 'green' and 'climate change'.

The same political agenda that has been hijacked (or perhaps even conceived) by socialists in the USA to accelerate wealth distribution and undermine free markets, again its all under the same green banner of 'climate change'.

If you think the IPCC is immune to political interference then I suspect your still waiting for the tooth fairy to collect your last milk teeth

Nothing changes tho mate...

The same sort of report which blames drivers for 3000 deaths of the roads each year.

Then the government jumps in, and spends a small fortune on Speed Cameras to slow the cars down.

Next year the figures are in again, and once again around 3000 deaths on the road.

So they implement speed bumps on virtually all urban roads, at great expense to the tax payer.

The following year the figures are in again - everyone is surprised to see we still have around 3000 deaths a year.

The bogus claim? Simples... Speed Kills.

Speed doesn't kill... Idiots walking out in front of a car travelling at speed will kill.

While we allow these uneducated idiots to take charge of how we handle these things, expect the same to happen.

 

[cjd]

I suppose I have to ask this question every 3 months.

Why has every government in every country accepted a scientific conclusion that has devastating economic consequences and presents every politician with the sort of problem he'd walk miles to avoid?

How come the combined interests of the petrochemical and related industries have also been forced to accept it? [Despite its best efforts to resist]

Conspiracy theory doesn't work when those that would suffer the most from the outcomes are not part of it.

 

[The Ville]

Your missing my point which is, politicians leapt upon the bogus environmental claims and conclusions to further a political agenda.

First of all, you are making an assertion that you have not justified.
The claims are not bogus unless you can prove otherwise.
Making an assertion does not make it correct.

Given that you haven't proven the claims are bogus, your second assertion is also incorrect.

A political agenda which openly likens those who are not convinced that man is influencing natural climate change as evil as holocaust deniers.

Where is your science?
Politicians don't write scientific research, so what is your point.
Political statements and public opinion about climate change denial is not relevant. It is just political posturing, if you are interested in the science, then ignore the taunts about 'holocaust denial'

An agenda that introduces a raft of new taxes and social controls under the banner of 'green' and 'climate change'.

Again, you are positioning politics first.
Where is your science discussion that justifies your position?

The same political agenda that has been hijacked (or perhaps even conceived) by socialists in the USA to accelerate wealth distribution and undermine free markets, again its all under the same green banner of 'climate change'.

Oh good grief?
Does everything revolve around extremist politics of the US?

 

[quikshop]

The claims are not bogus unless you can prove otherwise. Making an assertion does not make it correct.

Himalayan ice caps all gone by 2035? It is not me taking an internationally public forum to spout unproven claims - sadly Governments do not use what I write to blindside the public, they did use retracted 'scientific' claims such as this.

Given that you haven't proven the claims are bogus, your second assertion is also incorrect. If it is not proven to be bogus that the claim that politicians have leapt on anything is unsubstantiated.

Curious, is it now the case that IPCC reports are immune from evidential requirements and it is for the public to prove them incorrect?

Where is your science?
Politicians don't write scientific research, so what is your point.
Political statements and public opinion about climate change denial is not relevant. It is just political posturing, if you are interested in the science, then ignore the taunts about 'holocaust denial'

Regardless of the validity of the science, it has and will continue to be used to define public policy. It is far more serious and significantly more important than "political posturing".

In this case, unsubstantiated claims that have been hastily retracted from the IPCC report have been used as conclusive prove of man made climate change, the consequences of which I described in my last post.

Oh good grief?
Does everything revolve around extremist politics of the US?

Better to stick your head in the sand and pretend comedy science will save us all... except from human nature.

 

[Cornish Steve]

It so happens the Himalayan problem was the one bit in the science where the rules were not followed.

No one would logically discount such a large piece of work just because one small part had a minor error.

It's not just one. Many examples have been revealed publicly in the last few months. They reveal sloppy work based, in part, on hearsay. In some cases, words were twisted to suit a purpose - which, in the world of science, is a travesty. The fact that well over 5,000 non peer-reviewed sources were used says it all. Do you think, when I published my 10+ research papers, they would have been accepted with news reports and press releases from interest groups as bases for my scientific work?

 

[Cornish Steve]

And may be you can explain exactly what context he was referring to.

Let me repeat a message I posted a month ago. It reveals the total hypocrisy of the IPCC and its chairman.

And what's the opinion of Dr. Pachauri, the current chairman of the IPCC? He's on record as saying "IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin." So, according to his rules, almost 5,600 sources of data in his panel's own report should be thrown into the dustbin. This means more than half the sources in about half the report's chapters. In practical terms, that would render the document meaningless.

Let me restate this so it's very clear: The IPCC refused to accept any input from dissenting voices in the scientific community, stating that their work should be thrown in the dustbin. On the hand, the IPCC included news reports and propaganda from environmental groups despite the fact that their work was clearly not peer reviewed. This is a blatant and inexcusable double standard.

 

[Cornish Steve]

You will find that Steve will nit pick away forever at tiny issues in a positive claim for the climate change (or evolution) but swallow whole and without further thought or research a negative one.

Pot and kettle come to mind.

 

[cjd]

Steve, please at least read the rules for evidence - it explains under what circumstances non-peer reviewed work is accepted and into which parts of which reports. It explains that the Science papers use ONLY proper peer reviewed work - the stuff you are talking about is in the ancillary papers; it has no bearing on the argument.

You've said all this before and it's been shown to be hokum. It really has.

 

[Cornish Steve]

No it has not! We're not talking apples and oranges here; it's apples and apples. The chairman of the IPCC stated publicly that his team would never accept non peer-reviewed sources in their report. This was his justification for omitting some of the dissenting voices. On the other hand, his report has been shown to include thousands of such sources - mostly in support of the conclusion they're trying to justify. That's a simple fact. There's no denying it.

We covered this before. When I published scientific papers, it was OK to refer to someone's unpublished PhD thesis, for example, because the work would likely be published in other forms in the future. That's what the IPCC guidelines are meant to address when they refer to allowing some non peer-reviewed sources. Anyone whose work has been published in the scientific journals knows this. They don't mean that propaganda straight from the press of Greenpeace or third-hand news reports (which some of them are) and the like can be used as references.

You chose to ignore this point before, and it seems you're ignoring it now.

 

[The Ville]

And what's the opinion of Dr. Pachauri, the current chairman of the IPCC? He's on record as saying "IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin." So, according to his rules, almost 5,600 sources of data in his panel's own report should be thrown into the dustbin. This means more than half the sources in about half the report's chapters. In practical terms, that would render the document meaningless.

The article states:

"When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration in the on-going round of scientific review by IPCC, he said, "IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

For climate science he is correct and the context of the article is the Himalayan glaciers and science!

You are misrepresenting the article in The Indian Times and Dr Pachauri.
You have quote mined the article.

I think it is for you to provide the evidence showing where non-peer reviewed papers science were used in the core of the collated climate science of the last IPPC report.

 

[The Ville]

They don't mean that propaganda straight from the press of Greenpeace or third-hand news reports (which some of them are) and the like can be used as references.

I see where you get this garbage from now.
From Donna Laframboise and Watts again!

The alleged reference is in a non scientific part of the AR4 report.
Traval and tourism to be precise.

Ironically Donna Laframboise gives a link to the IPPC page with the reference!

The actual 'Greenpeace' alleged non-science reference is:

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.

So we have a paper/article about economics, social impacts etc in the Travel and Tourism section of the IPPC AR4 report. Unless you have some prejudice against Greenpeace, it seems reasonable to me. Mountains out of mole hills comes to mind!

BTW as an aside Stern had input from the German Coal industry and other fossil fuel organisations when he did his economics report.

You're going to have to do better than that.
That's another Cornish Steve conspiracy ended, I assume Cornish Steve will not continue with that myth.

 

[The Ville]

Could it be just as simply as the Sun getting warmer. As it has done in the past?

This goes back a while but it is worth pointing out why the Sun isn't the main factor.

The distinguishing fingerprint that identifies greenhouse gases is the difference between the temperature in the lower and upper atmosphere. CO2 and other GHG gases cause a difference.

Solar forcing causes changes in both the stratosphere and lower atmosphere, together.

Hence there is an obvious signature that eliminates solar forcing.

Also many studies suggest a slight reduction in solar output, potentially adding a cooling effect over a number of decades.

 

[Cornish Steve]

That's another Cornish Steve conspiracy ended, I assume Cornish Steve will not continue with that myth.

There's no myth here. Let's get to the heart of the matter.

1) The chairman of the IPCC has turned away many dissenting papers on the basis that they are not peer reviewed. In his words, anything that's not peer reviewed will be thrown in the dustbin.

2) The truth is that he overstepped the mark by saying this. The IPCC rules allow non peer reviewed material to be referenced. In fact, they have referenced many thousands of them in their reports.

3) Anyone who has ever published scientific papers (and I've published quite a few) knows what that means: You can quote proceedings of international conferences (not peer reviewed) and results contained in unpublished PhD theses (because it's genuine research and the results will probably be published later through the peer review process).

4) What it does NOT mean is that you can quote news reports, work published by interest groups, and the like. Unlike the material I mentioned in #3, they would never make it through the peer review process - for several reasons: Their authors have an agenda; there tends to be a lot of opinion and little fact; they do not follow the objective approach that science demands; and more.

This is a problem. Genuine scientific work was rejected while opinionated material from interest groups was accepted. So then we have to ask why, and the answer is obvious: The IPCC was set up for the specific purpose of proving AGW. They are not a genuine scientific body, which is why so many of their members are not scientists. The general public is constantly misled about this. We hear how these people are the smartest independent minds in science, and it's simply not true.

So many other arguments have been covered in this thread, and it's simply not possible to restate them all here, but I'd like to recall a couple of them. I personally went through the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, and I posted here excerpts where the current head of climate research joked in a blase manner about the team's founder, his predecessor, "making things up" in some of the work he published. This is outrageous, and I don't see any of the government review panels caring about it at all. They are too busy covering their rear ends - in the usual way of politicians.

Secondly, I have a lot of experience with computer modeling. Indeed, I had to fight with several teams of weather forecasters for time on some of the government's largest computers. These researchers were renowned for failing to predict the weather in two or three days' time, despite how large and sophisticated their models. Anyone who experiences a blizzard not predicted on the evening news knows what I mean. How can weather researchers who struggle to predict what will happen in a few days' time be taken seriously when they make predictions 50 years into the future?

More generally, how do scientists verify the usefulness of models used to predict the future? There are two ways: (i) predict the past using earlier data, and (ii) predict the short-term future and see whether the results play out. Sadly, the models used to predict global warming have failed almost every test of both types: They cannot replicate what has happened in the past, and they fail to predict events just one or two years into the future. If this were any other branch of science, we would write off these models and attempt a different approach - but the politics (and big-time research funding) of AGW won't allow that.

When you look at the science objectively, there's no way anyone can claim that AGW is settled science. It is not, despite what several big names assume in their speeches and award ceremonies. Some data appear to support the claim; other data appear to disprove it. It's an open question, and a big majority of people come down on one side or the other based on personal opinion, not fact. So long as politicians use AGW as a way to progress their careers, take more money from us, and exert more personal power and influence, I don't see that changing: Whoever produces the more powerful propaganda wins.

After two years of very few Atlantic hurricanes (about which the press was strangely silent), the forecasters predicted today that the 2010 season will be very active. How much would you like to bet that we'll see headlines tomorrow proclaiming that the reason for more hurricanes is global warming?

 

[cjd]

This is a problem. Genuine scientific work was rejected while opinionated material from interest groups was accepted.

You continue (and will continue despite everything you are told) to mix up the evidence used in the science with that used in the supporting papers on such things as Travel and Tourism. It might help your case if you could provided 3 sources of un-peer reviewed science used to produce the IPCCs technical papers which form the conclusions. Meanwhile try re-reading this and think a little about the balance of probability:

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

and

What the science says...

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A survey of peer reviewed research

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus

That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are.

But somehow, Steve knows better.

 

[Dawg]

You continue (and will continue despite everything you are told) to mix up the evidence used in the science with that used in the supporting papers on such things as Travel and Tourism.

Would this not also be true of journalists, pundits, green bandwagonners and other informers and influencers of opinion?
The information is misunderstood and misrepresented leading to overreaction, (and when the pendulum of opinion swings, as it always does, leads to a dismissal of what is in fact correct.)

 

[The Ville]

There's no myth here. Let's get to the heart of the matter.

1) The chairman of the IPCC has turned away many dissenting papers on the basis that they are not peer reviewed. In his words, anything that's not peer reviewed will be thrown in the dustbin.

Everyone can read the Indian Times article. The context is science.
He and the IPPC have done exactly what you claim they haven't.

Why are you concerned about travel and tourism in the context of assessing whether climate science is correct or not?

CJD has stated the same issue. Two different people here have pointed out the exact same flaws in your thinking, completely independently.

Tell me this, what relevance has the non-technical areas of the IPPC report had on the discussion of climate change in the news?
The press and media have never on any scale referred to the non climate science sections of the AR4 report, why?
Most people on the planet (who know about the existence of the report) don't even know about the non-climate science parts of the report.
Because there are far more sources that are more detailed all over the planet, that will give info on pollution, coral reefs, energy efficiency and the damage done to economies.

I and the vast majority of the planet are interested in what the IPPC says about climate science.

Lets say, the next report they scrap all the non-technical stuff.
What you will get is a report that has the same scientific message which has 99.999% peer reviewed papers and all the non-technical stuff will still be freely available and reported widely across the internet.

Result?

The same as before. The only difference will be that people like Watts etc. will no longer have that particular thing to nit pick.

 

[The Ville]

2) The truth is that he overstepped the mark by saying this. The IPCC rules allow non peer reviewed material to be referenced. In fact, they have referenced many thousands of them in their reports.

You are repeating the obvious. What is the point in not only repeating what you think but also repeating what your opponents think??

It suggests you are not interested in progressing the discussion but are only interested in the politics and attacking certain people (which is political motive).

 

[Dawg]

It suggests you are not interested in progressing the discussion but are only interested in the politics and attacking certain people (which is political motive).

Pot, kettle and green.

Now, what was your business again?

 

[The Ville]

3) Anyone who has ever published scientific papers (and I've published quite a few) knows what that means: You can quote proceedings of international conferences (not peer reviewed) and results contained in unpublished PhD theses (because it's genuine research and the results will probably be published later through the peer review process).

And there's your obvious flaw.

1. The IPPC report has non scientific sections.

2. You are actually saying that the non-peer reviewed citations are a problem, yet 99.99999% of them are in the non science sections.

I suggest you apply your criticism of the IPPC with the same strictness that you keep referring to in your career.

What scientific citation can be made regarding the economic impacts of coral reef die back to diving holidays?

And how do you submit that to a science publication for peer review?

Answer ... you can't.

And as I stated in another post. If you strip out the non-technical sections. you end up with the same message and with near 100% peer reviewed science.

 

[cjd]

Would this not also be true of journalists, pundits, green bandwagonners and other informers and influencers of opinion?
The information is misunderstood and misrepresented leading to overreaction, (and when the pendulum of opinion swings, as it always does, leads to a dismissal of what is in fact correct.)

There's not much the science can do about that except try to get better at communicating. Trouble is that PR is not in the normal skill set of a nerd so we're probably stuck with it.

 

[The Ville]

So many other arguments have been covered in this thread, and it's simply not possible to restate them all here, but I'd like to recall a couple of them. I personally went through the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, and I posted here excerpts where the current head of climate research joked in a blase manner about the team's founder, his predecessor, "making things up" in some of the work he published. This is outrageous, and I don't see any of the government review panels caring about it at all. They are too busy covering their rear ends - in the usual way of politicians.

I think we are in fantasy land now.
I am astonished that someone who claims to have some sort of science background is unable to interpret the language used in casual email conversations by a bunch of scientists.

Absolutely astonished.

I have read many of the emails to. There is nothing unusual.
Oh and lets not forget that we are talking about a criminal act carried out against the CRU.
I take it you have read McIntyres post which started off the spamming of the CRU?

BTW how many hide the declines or hide the inclines has Monckton and others implemented in their campaigns to change opinions?

Do you apply the same criticism to Monckton?
I would really love to here your opinion of Monckton, given your apparent strict views about IPPC!

 

[Cornish Steve]

All I'm learning from this thread is that, when someone holds an opinion, especially if it's the opinion thrust down everyone's throat ad nauseam by the establishment, it's 99.9% likely that, come hell or high water, they won't change. It's pointless pointing out evidence, and reams of it has been posted in this thread from many different perspectives. But to 'believers', it's water off a duck's back.

Although you'd never guess from most of his posts, CJD posted the most honest statement a few months back: No one knows. As Newton once wrote, the most powerful statement in science is "I don't know." Is it really so hard for the IPCC, politicians, interest groups and others to say this? Yes, because they see their chance to impose on everyone else their views. At this point, it's mostly down to who can influence the media the most.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think we are in fantasy land now.

I posted a link to that particular email a while back. It's in this thread. There's nothing 'fantasy' about it. It's shocking. Your willingness to dismiss it so casually without even looking into it speaks volumes.

 

[The Ville]

Secondly, I have a lot of experience with computer modeling. Indeed, I had to fight with several teams of weather forecasters for time on some of the government's largest computers. These researchers were renowned for failing to predict the weather in two or three days' time, despite how large and sophisticated their models. Anyone who experiences a blizzard not predicted on the evening news knows what I mean. How can weather researchers who struggle to predict what will happen in a few days' time be taken seriously when they make predictions 50 years into the future?

I think this paragraph actually throws a lot of doubt of the claims you make about yourself.

The fact that you are unable to differentiate why short term weather prediction is different to long term weather prediction on climate, pretty much confirms that you don't know anything really and are just picking out known denialist memes.

 

[cjd]

All I'm learning from this thread is that, when someone holds an opinion, especially if it's the opinion thrust down everyone's throat ad nauseam by the establishment, it's 99.9% likely that, come hell or high water, they won't change. It's pointless pointing out evidence, and reams of it has been posted in this thread from many different perspectives. But to 'believers', it's water off a duck's back.

What you don't/won't/can't accept is that when there is an established scientific opinion it is precisely because those scientists working in the field have agreed on it.

The fact that a few lone individuals don't is interesting but until they produce something conclusive themselves it's not rational to accept the 0.001% opinion over the 99.999%.

Then we have the info you give us that you rely on to confirm your bias. When two of us independently read it, then follow up the references and show you that it's simply factually wrong - you just ignore it. I doubt that you've even looked at the research it refers to. Have you? In 3 months time you'll resurrect the same garbage as though it hadn't been discredited.

No-one knows whether the science is right - they say themselves that the error rates make it about 90% (I suspect it's much worse than that). What we do know is that the probability of it being wrong is smaller than being right and the consequences to our planet if it IS right are so extreme that to make policy decision on the wrong side of the bet would be madness.

 

[The Ville]

I have done a quick scan through some of your recent postings Cornish Steve and have spotted some criticisms you have of climate scientists and the IPCC

They reveal sloppy work based, in part, on hearsay. In some cases, words were twisted to suit a purpose which, in the world of science, is a travesty.

On the hand, the IPCC included news reports and propaganda from environmental groups despite the fact that their work was clearly not peer reviewed. This is a blatant and inexcusable double...

Their authors have an agenda; there tends to be a lot of opinion and little fact; they do not follow the objective approach that science demands; and more.

OK. Since you are so disgusted by the IPCC and you want to see good science. Why are you not equally angry with Monckton?

I think the forum deserves a public mauling of Monckton from you.
After all, it must infuriate you when Monckton labels his graph axis incorrectly, or he mixes up units.

Where is your public show of distaste for Monckton?

 

[cjd]

This is a really good development by the Royal Society - I'd love to know what the real sceptical input is (there must be stacks); I'm pigged off reading only the 'crackpot' conspiracy stuff.

The UK's Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.

They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.

The society's ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document.

The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm