This is just rich. Another point for the denialists. I wonder how this is now going to play out with the Cap & Trade crowd and the rest of the group. A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists.
Let’s go back to the global cooling thesis!
Related link: Academic paper on the IPCC with amazing bibliography. A goldmine for skeptics.
Found by Jason Price.
Yep. Because a self correcting cycle is completely ludicrous. That the world has been warming and cooling since before we were here is insane. Going back 100 years, scientists have been predicting famine and ice ages inaccurately. According to scientists in the 70s, we should be in an ice age now.
Global warming is scientist’s cash cow that they have been farming for decades. Now that GE and other companies are involved, its a bigger cash cow than ever.
#31 Anon
Can you even tell me how many climate scientists there are? Can you tell me what each ones position is? If not then your claim is that of a fool.
Read the IPCC report.
J said, “Can you even tell me how many climate scientists there are?”
Exactly, since there is no stated number, no one can honestly claim a “consensus”. You’re learning quick.
The IPCC isn’t what it claims to be. Check out this article in Time. Right, the IPCC. I wonder if Al Gore had anything to do with it.
To paraphrase Ross Perot, “that giant sucking sound you hear is the money coming right out of your wallet for cap and trade.”
OK, let me get this straight… instead of 2500 scientists who are not experts in the field agreeing that a particular aspect of AGW is real, “only” the top 10-20 experts in the world agree. (Third, it is the chapter lead authors – say 10 to 20 experts – on detection and attribution who craft the sentence about detection and attribution, which is then scrutinised and vetted by reviewers and government officials.)
So the top 10-20 experts on a particular subject are in agreement, and denialists somehow claim that because 2500 other scientists went along with those top 10-20 experts, it means those 10-20 experts are wrong?
Far out…
Or wait… because it’s “only” the top 10-20 experts in the field who agree on a particular topic, it’s not a “consensus” because the 2500 other non-expert scientists don’t have an opinion?
Even farther out…
This here statistical study says there is a consensus, but why let science get in the way of your hormones?
http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus/
Looks like Devo is making a strong comeback.
#34 Anon
Wow you are slow. That was a question for you in an attempt to get you to realize how ignorant you are of the facts. You have no basis to make any judgment at all. You have no facts and you have no knowledge of the topic. So all your spouting off is merely an attempt to prove that you are a typical uneducated American.
The fact of the matter is the man who co-wrote the report says that people are misrepresenting what he said. FACT!!
We have gone from discussing the weather to discussing the climate and now we discuss the validity of the people studying the climate…
Ohh i sure love it when a plan comes together!!
# 9 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes Dogma said, on June 15th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Guess I’d better get some shares of CCX quickly, I want in on skimming my points off the trillions of dollars they will trade annually.
Yep, that pesky .001% (1/100,000) increase in CO2 is gonna kill us all. A .005% increase, however, just might do the trick.
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.0390%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Anyone read the paper? It’s kind of interesting to criticize the IPCC for relying too much on natural science and too little on social science.
How exactly does this do a damn thing to undermine the case for anthropogenic global warming?
Is it really wrong to put natural science ahead of social science on an issue like this? There is no need to solve a social issue if the natural issue is uncertain.
So they made sure that the natural science is good hard science before paying attention to the social science. Where’s the downside of this?
Who among us would do it differently?
Is there anything in this paper to even attempt to claim that the natural science is not well founded? If not, then all we’re talking about is how to deal with the real hard problem of climate change.
Ah, reading further. Yes, they do criticize the IPCC for being too conservative. This has long been a complaint about the IPCC. In getting consensus, they water down the real level of the coming catastrophe. So, people here small numbers of sea level rise and don’t worry.
The problem comes with the fact that observed levels of sea level rise and many other indicators are consistently at or beyond the highest range (worst case) IPCC estimates.
How again does this undermine climate science? Should the deniers be complaining that climate change is not a problem because we keep underestimating its severity? I think not.
Oh, and let me add, cap and trade is not the solution. The solution is a very simple and revenue neutral carbon tax. This means that your net taxes do not increase because the carbon tax is given back to people who need it. But, burning carbon becomes more expensive. The tax could be simple because it could be taxed at the source, the well-head, the coal mine, the gas mine, the border for imported carbon, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/ylg5nuq
#7 – J,
Great link. It’s nice to have the author clear up the issue when people deliberately quote out of context.
Bubba–welcome to the games. What do you base your judgment on the sensitivity of atmospheric warming to co2 levels? Anything in small amounts can’t have an effect?==like botulism, aids virus, gravitational constant.
Experts off dry land in deep water, can they swim?
Of interest relatedly, is the sensitivity of mammals to lowering oxygen levels. Small changes there too have an effect. Not real right now except for all the more numerous and growing dead areas in the oceans caused by lack of oxygen.
Since BP is doing everything possible to ameliorate the spill, I wonder how many sea water oxygen injectors they have going?
I hope few people here follow Bubba’s confusion of the fraud surrounding solutions to AGW with the fact of AGW itself?
Its like saying cancer doesn’t exist because I want to sell you rhinoceros horn to cure it. Fraudsters are like that. They will take “ANY” subject people have concerns about, true or false, and create devious schemes. Think religion.
#29 – BubbaRay,
I must say that I really am shocked that you have sunk to the level of citing Glenn Beck as a source for anything. Further, there are two completely separate issues here. One is climate change; it’s real; it’s well founded on hard science. The other is the solution. While I agree that cap and trade is far from the best solution, we must take action. I prefer a simple revenue neutral carbon tax, as I stated above.
But, don’t confuse Goldman Sachs with science. I don’t want them in charge of the planet any more than they already are. But, we must take action. Climate change is real and the effects are very likely to be catastrophic since we’ve sat on our fat asses burning carbon ever more quickly for over the 20 years that we knew this was a real and pressing problem.
Now we’ve already got methane clathrates melting in the arctic, long thought to be a tipping point. It may already be too late. But, we must act as if it isn’t in case there is any hope for survival. So, talk about cap and trade as a bad idea if you want. But, please clear up whether or not you see the obvious evidence in your face that climate change is real and catastrophic. If not, show me some peer reviewed reasons to believe you have a case.
Nothing new. One of the IPCC’s lead author on global warming has been talking about how the IPCC has little to do with science than it does politics since 2007. http://tinyurl.com/2lb4sn
9, Bobbo,
And what amount is ACTUALLY significant? Do you have a reasonable number, or are you one of those persons who will scream bloody murder because one too many persons exhaled CO2?
Trying to “scientifically” conclude something in the absence of empirical proof is equally idiotic. Your conclusion based on the absence of empirical proof is nothing more than a religion.
17, Bobbo,
Yup. Just like you. But that’s not stopping you from promoting that CO2 is in fact the root cause. Imagine that.
ANYTHING is possible. The question is whether it’s likely or holds up to the scientific method. You’re not interested in the truth. It seems you’re committed to a theory that you want to pass off as fact.
18, Bobbo,
It would make more sense to find out what the root cause is before we start using government force to alter people’s lives based on a liberal hypothetical. But then again, this isn’t about science for you now is it?
18, Bobbo,
Jobs depend on it.
33, J,
Why not read Professor Christy’s comments on the IPCC and it’s report? After all, he’s one of the lead authors.
38, Bobbo,
Indeed. Just like your conclusion based on no empirical evidence. 🙂
“why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?”
I attribute it to the way science is funded. In the world of academia, if you don’t get funded you will not get tenure. Funding is very competitive and pitching research that’s topical helps give one an edge. That’s why you see so much academic interest today on global warming. It’s topical and it gets funded.
Now once being funded if you publish research that says “Oh no, don’t worry, no global warming” you just killed your golden egg laying goose. Once you become part of the funding system, you are slowly forced into becoming an advocate instead of a disinterested scientist.
Advocacy often results in “censored” data sets, data that are thrown out because it “just doesn’t look right” and there is a subtle pressure to design studies which are slanted to a certain result. Always look at the data that were not used and ask “Why?”.
The good news is that these things are usually fads that burn out when something else more topical comes along and a degree of balance returns to the topic. I am old enough to remember the missle gap BS that was one previous example of this phenomenon.
By the way. Earth’s climate has been getting warmer since the height of the last ice age! And the polar caps on Mars are shrinking.
Re atmospheric sensitivity to co2 levels:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-sensitivity-and-editorial.html
Yes, it does appear to be “real.”
Hey Guvyer–I welcome your challenge, but really, you should do better and not slant/mischaracterize so grossly what I said. I wonder if its on purpose, or spirochetes?
Review your arguments and pick what you think is the best one for good or ill?
I guess you think I’m lying when I say I’m a skeptic and more interested in how people try to think. Is that because epistemology is a blank for you? Yes, let’s make the world a nail so my hammer will work.
#48 So Guyver, it’s not enough that the top 10-20 experts in the world agree on each aspect of AGW… the fact that non-experts haven’t enthusiastically agreed proves it false, in your mind. And even more damning, they haven’t considered the opinions of ignernt yahoos like you! So AGW is obviously false! 🙂
Read the source article that’s behind this blog’s source article. A global warming trend happens with each new interpretation.
#48 – Guyver,
Nothing new. One of the IPCC’s lead author on global warming has been talking about how the IPCC has little to do with science than it does politics since 2007.
Except that if you actually read the paper he wrote, this guy is claiming that they’re paying too much attention to the natural sciences and too little to the social sciences. So, perhaps if you could read, you’d know that it is something new.
To Bobbo…
All of the models that were laid out to be the FACT by Hansen, Gore et al….
They have ALL been wrong. NONE of them came to pass and ALL of them were overestimates if not gross overestimates with the plainly obvious goal of being a fear tactic.
So if their 0% track record is of better standing in your mind than my rather short restatement of the FACT that there IS no hard evidence for AGW (NOTE: I in no way said there was no warming or that there never will be so if that is the angle you are taking, forget it), then you just keep on going in that direction.
And as for what impact does CO2 have on things, a doubling of CO2 has been PROVEN to greatly increase crop yields and even after the weighted impact based on the afore mentioned FAILED models of the AGW priesthood, barely bumps the global average temperature by more than maybe 0.5 degrees Celsius.
So… Do you want to grow more food at less effort and therefore less emissions (And I am FAR more concerned with other forms of emissions as we in Atlantic Canada were hit with the wonderful Acid Rain back in the day) in the long run or do you want to consider that we should be banning ALL carbonated beverages NOW based on your theory of err on the side of panic???
Cause I would rather have more food and still have pop and beer than to be all “Chicken Little” over a position that is as weak as a straw house.
Too bad all the “points for the denialists” pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of points for the realists. Seriously dude, get your head out of the sand and actually read real science on it. I mean, yes there are minor points of difference but they are minor. The VAST majority of data points to a) global warming is real and is happening now and b) humans are a noticeable contributing factor to it. It’s like you’re denying the reality of evolution. Get over it and start trying to work for a solution, not trip up those trying to save the planet. What’s next? Are you going to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? DOH! I forgot, that’s religion and can’t possibly be real because it isn’t logical. UHG!
Jason–you do crack me up. Full of energy with no where to go. Pop goes the cod piece. While I’m pretty sure Anon has no balls, I remain hopeful Guyver is merely struggling with having been revealed.
But ok. Round two. Jason searching for Gold, only gets fleeced.
1. OK, so your shortened restatement of FACT that there IS no hard evidence for AGW is actually your summary review of your belief that the models used by Hansen and Gore have all been proven wrong? Do you see any difference at all in those two statements? If so, which do you wish to stand by? I agree Gore is mostly a Big Government Hustler but I did not address him at all since you didn’t reference him at all. What other imaginary connections, dyslexic conceptual oddities have you laid before us?
2. I can accept your AGREEMENT that co2 increases when double the historic rate may only provide a .5 average temp increase. Now, is that AGW or not?
3. Is it your position that increased crop yields means no other effects matter? or how is this effect of AGW proof that there are no other effects?
Yes, bat shit crazy and still wanting to argue about it. Silly little boy you are. Pay attention to your own logical fallacies and inconsistencies and resolve them for yourself. You can still rescue that GED and put it to good use.
So, every year since ~’01 they’ve been saying we are at or, near the “tipping point”. Well, do they know?
Also, the IPCC models show that if China & India don’t drastically cut, the US can’t stop it. Neither of those countries are going to. That means we don’t need to do anything. Can we stop the AGW whining now?
#48 Guyver
“Why not read Professor Christy’s comments on the IPCC and it’s report? After all, he’s one of the lead authors.”
I’ve read it but apparently you havent otherwise you wouldn’t suggest it.
Anon–you truly are an idiot. I know I overuse the phrase but how can I legitimately avoid the use of the best fitting word just because it is so totally disrespectful?
Your verbal diarrhea now is:
So, every year since ~’01 they’ve been saying we are at or, near the “tipping point”. Well, do they know? /// No, they don’t and it does change based on what values you give the variable. Its a failing effort to get IDIOTS LIKE YOU to pay attention before the sea level rises past your knees. You know, the human ability to think about the future. Ever do that? Ever hear of doing that?
Also, the IPCC models show that if China & India don’t drastically cut, the US can’t stop it. Neither of those countries are going to. That means we don’t need to do anything. Can we stop the AGW whining now? /// Let’s see now. India and China need to stop. USA is still the world’s number one co2 emitter ((or did China take over a few months ago?)) so in a perfectly self centered ass backwards notion that only a LIEbertardian would applaud, YOU think the best way to convince India and China to change course is for us not to chance course and just preach to them? You truly do have shit for brains. Brains no Zombie would want to eat—because they are full of shit if not made of shit alone. How can you be this ignorant?
I wish Anon was your action plan instead of your survival plan.
What a dope.
Wow, over 50 posts so far and no one has actually said anything about the solution!
It’s obvious, global warming or not, we cannot continue business as usual.
It’s obvious that we need another source of energy.
It’s also obvious that wind isn’t the solution.
It’s obvious that solar isn’t the solution.
Hasn’t anyone here realized the horrendous environmental damage and vast quantities of energy needed to create just a fraction of the windmills and solar panels required for the US alone?
I vote for nuclear.