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.
Ooops. Meant to say internal light bulb not coming on.
92, Misanthropic Scott,
If you go look at your post #54, you will see you failed to visit the article I provided with the quote you’re using that started your misunderstanding.
If I erred, it’s that I didn’t spell out that Professor Christy was the author in the link I provided when I referred to him as one of the IPCC’s lead authors.
#95 – Guyver,
OK, I was responding about the wrong guy. Now, Christy doesn’t agree that the effects will be catastrophic but has stated categorically that warming is real.
Unfortunately, outside his limited area of atmospheric science, he seems to be a blithering idiot. Consider this statement.
Well, duh. There’s more sea ice in the southern ocean because the ice sheets have broken free and the glaciers are calving into the ocean faster. This is expected from warming. The ice is melting. It flows into the ocean faster.
Is he such an idiot that he doesn’t recognize glaciers in retreat when he sees them?
How did he get smart enough in one field without gaining any understanding of the subjects in which he is not an expert? How does he not even know that there are subjects in which he is not an expert?
http://tinyurl.com/anbr3q
I read all the posts, although I did tend to skip through Guyver repeating himself.
Except for my favorite Misanthrope, Mr. Scott, not one poster has produced anything of substance.
If you are going to rebut a scientific claim (theory) you don’t do it by claiming it is garbage or the author wears frilly underwear. You provide BETTER evidence than the claim does. As far as global warming, that refutation is lacking. Whether Al Gore is a nice person or not or Goldman Sachs is involved does not refute or rebut the science. You are shooting the messenger.
We hear lots of garbage about natural cycles but not one scientific study has actually looked at the same data and decided this is all natural. Someone above claimed Hansen is wrong, but they have no evidence to back up what they say. Someone else pointed to Mars, but offered no evidence or study. Geeze, someone even offered the opinion by Glenn Beck, a man who admitted he an entertainer, not a journalist.
As Bobbo (I believe, forgive me if I’m wrong) stated above, a consensus is NOT 100% agreement. If they all agreed 100% we would call it an agreement. The group dynamics (politics) makes for some give and take by all in order to reach a conclusion or end. It is rare for a group to all agree 100% and the larger the group, the less likelihood of an agreement and more likely a consensus.
Finally, to JCD’s comment of why people want global warming to be true. Simply wrong, silly, asinine, and a straw argument. No one is hoping we kill our planet. Those advocating global warming are warning the others that unless something is done, and quickly, the planet will die. It is the oblivious, purposeful denial, and ignorance that will ruin this rock for our children and grandchildren.
>Let’s see: Why do so many people want the Gulf Oil Well capped?
If your car is headed towards a cliff, why do so many people want to change the car’s direction?
If man’s activities are leading to a mega global catastrophe 100 years from now, why should we do anything about it?
That doesn’t fit the original question.
Why do people want to be heading towards a cliff? Why do people want an oil well to leak? Why do people want the global warming scenario to be true?
Many times the IPCC lead authors substitute their own text in a chapter that is never seen by reviewers in the draft process.
Guyver,
You posted one scientist’s comments on the ICC Report from 2007. Right along side that comment was another. Did you read that?
http://tinyurl.com/2rvjqc
RE #101,
Shoot, I didn’t close the tag right. The last paragraph is not part of the quoted article.
So of the hundreds who had a hand in the writing and the thousands who had a hand in reviewing the report, the best you can find quibbles about some of the conclusions which he didn’t even have a hand in writing. And this is credible because, … ? This should stand on its own.
My apologies.
#100, Lyin’ Mike,
Many times the IPCC lead authors substitute their own text in a chapter that is never seen by reviewers in the draft process.
Do you have any evidence of that?
I didn’t think so.
consensus : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.
That would REQUIRE that the majority of climate scientists to agree with the IPCC positions. So, what is the TOTAL number of climate scientists and, WHERE is statements from the majority that this is so? Until someone shows that, no consensus. FACT.
I expect the usual lib ad hom when faced with a question that they don’t dare actually answer.
97, Misanthropic Scott,
What you cannot logically conclude is:
1. Global Warming is man-made
2. CO2 is causal for the overall warming
To date, there is no empirical evidence to support either of the above hasty conclusions. Nor can you interpret that from Christy’s comments.
And if you could conclude that CO2 is in fact causal, you’d then have to determine the magnitude of our contribution. You are trying to approach this scientifically, correct?
Sounds like he’s relating to the conservation of energy. The NET EFFECT is that we are above our long term averages…. you are looking at this from a global perspective, correct?
Questions you should probably ask the IPCC and why they use him as a lead author.
101, Mr. Fusion,
You mean like when Parry says “The IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change.”?
102, When has science been about popular consensus? Empirical evidence por favor. I don’t see how you can conclude anything in the absence of empirical evidence.
103, Mr. Fusion,
I don’t recall which scientists have complained but there have been a handful who have and griped that their work was taken out of context or editorialized to promote man-made global warming. These scientists have had their works cited in the IPCC report but they claim it was twisted to promote the political agenda…. I don’t have the time to look this up, but that’s what I recall seeing / reading.
104, Anon,
See the quote from Professor Parry in my response to 101. 🙂
#104, Anon,
consensus : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.
That would REQUIRE that the majority of climate scientists to agree with the IPCC positions. So, what is the TOTAL number of climate scientists and, WHERE is statements from the majority that this is so? Until someone shows that, no consensus. FACT.
Say what? Actually the onus is on you to demonstrate there is no consensus. The names of all the authors and lead authors are attached to the reports. It would belie rational thought that they disagree with what they wrote.
So if you have any evidence that the writers didn’t mean what they wrote, please post it.
#105, Guyver,
Obviously you didn’t read the article past the first paragraph. The panel didn’t write the report, the scientists did.
conFusion say, “Say what? Actually the onus is on you to demonstrate there is no consensus.”
ROFLMAO! Good one. I have to put evidence up BEFORE the side making the claim does. Pretty funny. Pathetic but, funny.
#105 – Guyver,
Do you even read what you write??!!?
Christy said, ‘We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that’s certainly true.’
And, you say that based on his statement we can’t conclude that global warming is man-made?
Are you insane?
Statement: Human effects have a warming influence.
Guyver response: We can’t conclude that the warming is human caused.
Where are your logic circuits?
Anon,
Re:Consensus.
I think you’re listening to your TV weatherperson, not the climatologists.
http://tinyurl.com/yz3mwn4
Take a look at the chart from the actual article.
http://tinyurl.com/dehjun
Note the near 100% agreement on climatologists who are active publishers on climate change. That’s 97.4% answering yes to the question ‘Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?’
Consensus? Close enough for me.
#99–Mike==fair catch if one doesn’t want to focus on the Bigger Question. So on point: Why do people want to avoid dealling with issues until it is too late?
Your move.
conFusion say, “Note the near 100% agreement on climatologists who are active publishers on climate change”
Another fail. Give me TOTAL # of climatologists that exists… I’ll respond when you give an ACTUAL answer to the relevant questions… Until then…
Guyver–it is late inte in the thread to engage this interesting epistemological subject. You do spin, twist, mischaracterize, straw man all too much. As stated, we’d have to pick one isolated subject to thrash it out. For demonstration, I’ll just use the very first one:
At #73 we have:
51, Bobbo,
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?
By all means you can clarify your stance.
and for that we go back to #48 wherein you mischaracterize what I reasonably post: That exhange was:
9, Bobbo,
I saied: There is one huge hurdle to the no-think head in the sand objectionists: just how many trillions of tons of carbon can be dug out of the ground, burned, and turned into co2 before effects can be measured and trended?
You said: 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?
Now, two posts down I link to atmospheric sensitivity of co2 and as we posted at the same time that part of my objectively reasonable position was not available to you. Still–to go on and equate the trillions of tongs of burned co2 to too many people exhalling co2 is rather retarded, mishcaracterizing, and not good debate (where is that boy?).
And so on with the majority of your other arguments. Its good you detail and go point by point, but the substance of your response is overall too lame.
To go over all of them would be tedious, so I offerred y ou the chance to pick one of your best arguments so we could focus our attention.
My computer crashed and died and I’m limping along here, but I’ll check back to this thread as I rebuild it. Sad, I had a longish detailed informed response for Ah Yea. Tedious to rebuild.
But now, I’m off to find that chart on steady ocean rise. Seems like a good net/net/net indicator of GW.
BTW–going to Scotts critique==do you do ubt co2 is a GHG and that its level has i ncreased from human activity and that alone is proof of AGW?
#113–Anon==I’d be curious as to what you think the relevant questions are.
Please list one or more?
Nice little chart here–sea level going steadily up and faster all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
104, Anon,
107, Mr. Fusion,
108, Mr. Fusion,
According to Professor Christy: “Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at
the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing
decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800
contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a
situation that is not reality.“
110, Misanthropic Scott,
Just so we’re clear, you’re concluding that a warming influence == global warming? Are you also saying that all influences are of significant magnitude? Meaning your breath has a warming influence and thus is causing global warming?
He’s quite clear that although CO2 has an influence (whether causal or correlated is up in the air) that you must account for its magnitude to determine its actual impact. This is why he hasn’t come to any conclusion over man-made global warming.
Don’t mistake that just because something may have an influence, that it automatically has enough magnitude to impact things globally in such a way that you can make man-made CO2 being causal on a global scale a foregone conclusion in the absence of empirical evidence (which is a main point of Christy’s).
111, Misanthropic Scott
111, Misanthropic Scott
And you have demonstrated that you will push your dogma without any empirical evidence.
Christy again has something to address on your less than scientific approach:
“Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).
Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.
Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view. “
#93 Guyver
Or maybe J thinks Mike Hulme and Professor Christy are the same person like he implies in post #59?
Boy you really see only what you want to see don’t you. It wasn’t implied at all Mike Hulme is a respected scientist and Christy is not. He has taken millions in Exxon Mobil money where Mike Hulme has not. Look it up. But again even despite that He has publicly stated that global warming is real and that man has made a significant impact.
The reason I am surprised you referenced Christy’s paper is because it has been discredited because of his financial ties to Big Oil. Considering that why would anyone think it is untainted and acceptable evidence.
“If you still beg to differ, then by all means please point out ANYTHING Professor Christy said in J’s link cited in post #7. ”
Who is confusing them? I posted a link to Mike Hulmes response to the misinterpretation of Hulme/Mahony paper.
#96 pedro the little girl.
Well you must know all about sleeping in the wet spot pedro. Is that why you wear a dress?
I have a question for you. It one only you could answer. What is worse wearing little girls shoes or getting caught wearing little girls cloths?
114, Bobbo,
Don’t mistake my sense of humor with equating anything. CO2 is a byproduct of Life. How much life or quality of life do you want to regulate before anyone has found a causal relationship?
I’ll sum it up for you. I believe you try to look at things through a scientific lens… up to a point. But you should know that to make a conclusion, you’ll need empirical proof. The problem why there is ANY debate at all is because there is no empirical evidence to prove causation according to your AGW hypothesis. Sure there are correlations, but correlation is NOT causation.
You’re trying to connect some dots and then apply what you think is common sense to come to a “scientific” conclusion. Common sense is what drove the ideology that the Earth was the center of the universe.
For you, a lack of empirical evidence doesn’t seem to bother you in making a scientific conclusion. That’s your prerogative.
1. CO2 is a green house gas. It is a natural gas. Water vapor also fits this description.
2. CO2 output has increased due more people and animals living on this planet as well as the energy consumption habits of humans.
3. You’re assuming that the output humans are thus putting out is significant in magnitude and you’re also assuming CO2 is causal. So no, that alone is not proof of AGW.
119, J,
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I had no idea Christy is not well respected… probably because he rocks the boat. 🙂
That being said, it seems you assumed my comments were about Hulme to begin with which was never the case. This is what Misanthropic Scott realized after I clarified the misunderstanding.
Unless he’s publicly changed his mind recently, no Christy has not.
Regardless if what you say is true, that should not disqualify the truth value of what he’s saying. If he’s bought by big oil, then certainly he should be under more scrutiny, but as an IPCC insider he does provide some insight whether or not you agree with his points. Evaluate what he says and see if it is with merit.
You’re having trouble deciding? 🙂
#120–Hey Guyver==that really is a torrent of crap I never said or intimated. Is it all just your sense of humor, or do you ever respond “honestly?”
But I do sense as we are narrowing down the scope of the dispute, resolution may be more likely? ((I suggest you also number your issues/arguments so that exact referencing can be easily made?))
Now, in the main what we have is you ascribing CONCLUSIONS being draen by me when I am only showing the holes in other peoples arguments. But lets be specific:
I agree correlation is not proof. AGW will never be proven because there is no control group–no exact copy of earth to experiment on. So, is it your position that given there is no absolute proof there is no n eed to do anything? Is that your humorous position?
Are you really equai ng the respiration of h uman beings as intertwined with the burning of carbon based materials? That so retarded, I do have a difficult time understanding what your exact point is.
Atmospheric co2 is going up, ocean acidity is going up, average warming is going up, ocean level rise is going up. That all is proof en ough absent a good theory as to why/how there is a counterveiling force at work. As Scott so cogently pointed out==such counterveiling force is not your personal incredulity.
And yes, buring trillions of tons of sequestered carbon does constitute a significant magnitude of human activity ((not to be lumped in with breathing)). Th is goes back AGAIN to increased co2 in our atmosphere==beyond the ability of Mother Earth to remove it. Yes, that level is signficant, causual by common sense unless a contra theory is advanced, and human caused. In a caption: AGW.
Your counter to ocean level rise is what?
Maybe your real i ssue is risk assessment as this short article h ighlights:
http://tnr.com/article/environment-energy/75591/oh-the-humanity?utm_source=TNR+Daily&utm_campaign=9bb9167550-TNR_Daily_061610&utm_medium=email
Bobbo, JCD appears to be suggesting that certain people like the solutions so much they want global warming to be true.
As to your question, some people don’t think the situation is a problem, others think it is a problem but not serious, others think it is a serious problem but the proposed solutions don’t work, others just don’t like the solutions and that’s that. Oh yea, and Lomborg says it is better to focus on other problems.
Mike==I haven’t heard Lomgorg say that. Instead, he says don’t waste y our money on solutuions that cost too much==look for solutions that work but are cost effective. Then y es, he does say there are some other more pressing problems WE ARE ALSO INGNORING that a few cost effective solutions would be worth considering.
I like h is common sense approach.