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.
#117, Guyver
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.“
Wrong again. The reviewers were given two drafts to approve. If they disagreed they could remove their name from the final work. Second, if they disapprove they could publish their opinions and their own view. Can you tell us how many of those involved with the IPCC Report have disassociated themselves from it? Obviously they may be counted on the fingers of a closed hand.
#113 – Anon,
Give me TOTAL # of climatologists that exists… I’ll respond when you give an ACTUAL answer to the relevant questions… Until then…
It was there. You missed it, the answer is 10,257 Earth scientists, which probably includes some who are not truly climatologists, but are at least tangentially related. That’s why the article breaks out those who are actively publishing climate scientists specifically publishing in the field of climatology.
Be careful what you ask for. When you get it you may have to put up or STFU.
#117 Guyver,
The short answer is that Christy does indeed believe there is anthropogenic climate change and you are indeed insane.
And you have demonstrated that you will push your dogma without any empirical evidence.
No. I have stated that 97.4% is my idea of consensus. I have read a lot of peer reviewed papers on climate change as well as a text book on the subject and a book for a general audience on the subject. I have actually looked at a tremendous amount of the empirical evidence.
Have you read any of the peer reviewed work personally? Post a few of the papers you think are relevant.
#118 – Guyver,
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.
Actually, anyone who thinks that climatology and meteorology are that closely related is really missing the point in a huge way.
Is it safe to say that it is most often colder in the winter and warmer in the summer? Yes.
Is it safe to say that on average rains are much heavier in India during the monsoon season than the rest of the year? Yes.
These are issues of climate. Weather for tomorrow is indeed much harder to forecast.
So, for a professional climatologist to make such a statement calls into question not only his knowledge but his integrity as well, for truly the guy is lying like a rug.
Scott say, “That’s why the article breaks out those who are actively publishing climate scientists specifically publishing in the field of climatology.”
Irrelevant breakout. Nice try though. So, we’ve established the FACT that there is no evidence for a statement of “consensus”.
#120 – Guyver,
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.
Now you’re the one making huge assumptions:
What makes you think there are more animals exuding more carbon dioxide today? Do you have a graph to supply showing that the number or mass of animals on the planet has increased? How about one saying that humans emit more CO2 than other animals?
Actually, the reason that humans are increasing CO2 is because we’re burning plant matter from plants that were buried a couple of hundred million years ago from the carboniferous period. All energy is solar energy in some sense. However, we’re burning through solar energy that was stored and buried underground hundreds of millions of years ago. And, we’re burning through about 400 years worth per day.
This carbon was sequestered in ways that hold carbon for hundreds of millions of years. We are digging it up and putting it back into the carbon cycle. Similarly, when we cut down temperate old growth forests, we are releasing carbon that would be sequestered for tens of thousands of years.
Yes, the deforestation and fossil fuel burning contributes significant amounts of CO2. That’s why it has increased in the atmosphere by 38% despite the fact that 575 billion metric tons of the stuff has been absorbed by the oceans. Let me know when you’re ready to discuss the ocean acidification that comes from dumping the mass of 287 million full sized cars worth carbon dioxide into the ocean.
Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:
* “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
* “While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
* “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
* “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
* “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. “‘
After the IPCC Report came out was it known that Santer had made these changes to the approved draft. The Chapter Lead Authors have tremendous amount of power, and they tend to use it to promote their own papers as well.
Letting Michael Mann be a lead author was a mistake.
# 8 Hmeyers said,
“I know people like to talk about the weather, but it has become ridiculous.”
Possibly the single most brilliant statement on the subject.
# 116 bobbo, the Don Juan of partnerless loving said:
“Nice little chart here–sea level going steadily up and faster all the time.”
That just shows that the land masses are shrinking. Probably due to cooling.
#131 MikeN,
Link please.
CO2 is a scarce resource. The planet will graciously suck it up, thank you.
So called scientists in the usual suspect organisations are actually activists pretending to be scientists. How else what they come up with non-rational ideas that are not based in this reality. Go find their recruitment interviews, if they were recorded. It would be really interesting to see the ‘interested’ viewpoints that were needed to get placement. The disinterested truth seekers didn’t have a chance.
What the hell are these activists going to do when we get enough colder winters that eventually pull the statistical temp curve undeniably down?
CO2 is not a pollutant human species hater!
Sorry, Scott. You’re arguing things about which I had little to say, except that AGW seems real. My argument is with CCX and Al Gore. Get your arguments right. Sheesh! You and Bobbo belong in bed with each other.
I’m sick of arguing global warming. There’s not a darned thing you can do about it except blog. Pick something else to do. Go write your Representative or Senator, for all the good that will do. Go vote. This is a useless waste of time. No fun, no humor, no redeeming qualities whatsoever. This blog has turned into a political, name calling, religious and political debate.
Bubba–I accept you believe/support the notion of AGW and that you (and I) rightfully fear CCX. Its the tone and close tangentials you use that fairly allow anyone reading anything except your direct statements on point. Your first one is in your first post #29—“Geez, it’s enough to scare me to death. I’m betting these folks would actually pay “scientists” to back up global warming.”
A VERY CLEVER propagandist begins with the truth and then excavates below it. It would be like me saying “I believe Anon has two balls” but then later say I don’t think he can count to twelve.
The truth is independent of the arguments and questions raised surrounding it, but not the impression one gives of it.
#136 – BubbaRay,
My argument is with CCX and Al Gore.
I would extend that to the many environmental NGOs who have sold out on cap and trade for the hope that something, anything, might actually pass. I have actually written more than once to Environmental Defense Fund who have jumped on the cap and trade bandwagon in a huge way. I try to explain why a simple tax is better. They simply won’t listen.
What did you think of the revenue neutral carbon tax?
http://tinyurl.com/ylg5nuq
One thing though, if you are going to take the attitude that global warming is real but that CCX is not the answer, you may want to refrain from posts like #41. That was the reason I attacked on the issue of the science itself.
BubbaRay,
It also occurs to me to ask. Do you have a reputable source citing Al Gore as advocating cap and trade? I was under the impression that he advocates a tax. Here he is saying so in no uncertain terms.
http://tinyurl.com/247ljp6
Has he changed his opinion since? I actually don’t pay too much attention to him since I’m more interested the science than the incredibly annoying politics of death.
Scott–Algore is always talking about he buys carbon credits to offset his private jet travel and huge houses. Is there a fine distinction?
I agree, without much study on the issue, that a straight tax paid to the government seems much more direct/honest/effective than another completely artificial market subject to complete manipulation.
#140 – bobbo,
I buy carbon credits too. But, I support a carbon tax by strong preference over cap and trade. I work on Wall St. I don’t have to trust the firms here.
122, Bobbo,
What part of post # 114 do you refute saying?
I disagree. If you can quantify CO2 output, you should be able to quantify down to the degree future temps. If you can do this, then you’ll be onto something. Prove your hypothesis to be true. Don’t try to approach this like Nostradamus-believers who proclaim Nostradamus was correct AFTER a catastrophe happens. Predict it beforehand.
122, Bobbo,
What part of post # 114 do you refute saying?
I disagree. If you can quantify CO2 output, you should be able to quantify down to the degree future temps. If you can do this, then you’ll be onto something. Prove your hypothesis to be true. Don’t try to approach this like Nostradamus-believers who proclaim Nostradamus was correct AFTER a catastrophe happens. Predict it beforehand.
No, I’m not equating the two. As shocking as this may sound, CO2 is a byproduct of life. CO2 is life. How much life do you want to regulate? What’s next? Water vapor because there’s too many man-made lakes potentially contributing to AGW? 🙂
It’s okay to be passionate about your beliefs. But your beliefs are not science. Hopefully you’re not so dogmatic in your “no one is an island” belief that you want government control of everyone to promote your “utopian” society.
So you say. Do you have empirical evidence of the actual impact? Or are you just rationalizing because you’re assuming you’ve accounted for everything?
125, Mr. Fusion,
Perhaps they could. I have heard somewhere in the past that a couple of scientists did try to request that their names not be attributed to the report due to said circumstances and I believe it was not automatically done…. I want to say litigation was involved… but I honestly cannot recollect.
Throw in anyone who questions the “consensus” because the extreme left tries to mischaracterize them, then it’s possible that some will simply grin and bear it…. but this is purely speculative on my part.
As for exact numbers, I don’t have that. Sorry. I just know that it has happened. The key thing here is Christy is making the point that the IPCC reports are editorialized by non-scientists.
Christy’s opinion on the process is: “At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.
Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.
I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.
These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.”
127, Misanthropic Scott,
The short answer is you believe ANYTHING labeled as possibly having an influence means without a doubt that it is causal on a global scale. You have your reasons for interpreting things that way, but you’re not looking at things through an objective filter.
Christy’s opinion of the IPCC is that it’s a political organization more than it’s a scientific organization. To an extreme, Christy would also say your flatulence would have a warming influence. However he would not declare that this influence means global warming is taking place. What was the impact of your flatulence? What is the impact of what you believe to be “a lot”?
I understand that you believe it clearly does have an impact, but without empirical evidence you’re just speculating. Especially since there’s great debate over whether CO2 is causal in the overall process.
Surveys on people’s opinions (no matter how educated they may be) or peer reviewed papers (with no empirical evidence over the root causes) is not science.
Look, I understand you are passionate about this. There’s nothing wrong with that. But to pass off what you believe to be true with no empirical evidence onto skeptics is simply not science. You can rationalize, hypothesize, or inductively reason but conclusions based on this is not science.
130, Misanthropic Scott,
LOL. Darn! You got me. Yes, I did make an assumption. I assumed that all CO2 exhaling life forms will procreate. I did not take into account Liberals who choose not to procreate because they wanted to lower their carbon footprint through having no progeny. I thought I could slip that past you but I failed. 🙂
So over 6 billion people exhaling CO2 24×7 has no “warming influence” in your eyes? What about all the cattle the beef industry is raising that others on the left complain contributes to man-made global warming? 🙂 The left wants to people to eat less meat due to AGW as well as driving down the cost of “free” universal health care. The left has mentioned that a one-child policy would also lower AGW. Do you want to pass more legislation to shove this down everyone’s throat?
So ideally, you’d want the world’s population to have no electricity and for us all to live in caves?
So you’d prefer we not only live in caves but we have no campfires to cook what meat we hunt and gathered? 🙂
Do you have ANY realistic alternative for energy sources? Wind, solar, and hydro combined will NOT meet the needs of our country alone. Are you too idealistic to concede that nuclear (at least for the foreseeable future) is the only realistic alternative? If we stop using oil, how would that impact the food, medical, transportation, and electronic industries?
I guess we have to take this REAL slow.
#143–Guyver==for about the third time you say: “I disagree. If you can quantify CO2 output, you should be able to quantify down to the degree future temps.” /// See post #50 linking to the measurement of co2 increase and sensitivity to it. No one disagrees with co2 as being a significant GHG–exept you.
What time of the day and exactly where do you want this temperature prediction? VERY RETARDED. I’m not being insulting when saying that. You are arguing like a Young Earther: you can’t show me a species evolving into another species, therefore evolution never happened. Science and its proof does have its limitations. Do you really think this way, or just think you have a winning argument beyond its transparent idiocy?
You do understand the whole theory of GW is about averages over time? Think about that. Its not enough to show temperature have been going steadily up the last 100 years, you want specifics? Heh, heh.
Only an idiot requires perfection in all degrees before they take action to protect yourself. “You know” its not proven that gravity works all the time? Why not walk off a cliff and on the way down contemplate the nature of proof?
Temps have been going up since before the beginning of the industrial revolution. Natural cycles.
Anonsense–you are retarded. The only way you can claim the temp rise is caused by natural cycles is reliance on the same models that show overall AGW.
What a dope.
http://sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
Ben Santer’s response. I hadn’t realized that this also is an example of a Chapter Lead Author promoting his own papers, to go along with Michael Mann in 2001 and Briffa in 2007 in the paleoclimate chapters.
http://ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html
144, Bobbo,
Therefore if your hypothesis is true, you can forecast future global temps as a function of CO2.
Good grief!!! I should have spelled it out for you. Did you think I was talking about predictions in “real time”? Don’t be so stupid. If, CO2 is causal in global warming as you wish to believe, then it should be equally black and white in forecasting average temps as a function of CO2 in the real world. Get off your dogmatic high horse and try to use a little more science instead of your religious viewpoint.
There is a theory for that Einstein. DUH!!! Is man-made global warming pushed as a theory or as a foregone conclusion? Has CO2 ever been proven to be causal? What a dope!!!
You’re not just dope, but you’re a charlatan as well! So since there’s no empirical evidence to support your hypothesis, we should all ignore the scientific method and pursue legislation to coerce behavioral change when you don’t actually know what is truly going on? And here I thought you were interested in pursuit of the truth. Translation, when science fails to support your hypothesis you rely on dogma to “prove” your hypothesis is true. You’re not using science to promote your dogmatic view but you want others to think you have.
Hey Chicken Little, all you had to say was that global warming from man-made CO2 is nothing more than your dogmatic faith (since science and its proof has its limitations). 🙂 Only an idiot would follow such dogma in the absence of empirical evidence. Can you say the sky is falling?
146, Bobbo,
Using models based on assumptions is not only-self serving, but it’s NOT science. What a dope.
What’s worse is you’re okay with “predicting” self-serving results in a simulated world, but you get your panties in a bunch when someone asks you to forecast average temps based on CO2 in the real world….. what a hypocrite.
#142, Guyver,
” If they disagreed they could remove their name from the final work. Second, if they disapprove they could publish their opinions and their own view. Can you tell us how many of those involved with the IPCC Report have disassociated themselves from it? Obviously they may be counted on the fingers of a closed hand. ”
Perhaps they could. I have heard somewhere in the past that a couple of scientists did try to request that their names not be attributed to the report due to said circumstances and I believe it was not automatically done…. I want to say litigation was involved… but I honestly cannot recollect.
Maybe, coulda, wella, and a uummm. In other words, nope, it didn’t happen. Maybe because there is consensus on the cause and impact of excessive CO2 even if not a 100% agreement.
Guyver,
As shocking as this may sound, CO2 is a byproduct of life. CO2 is life. How much life do you want to regulate?
Feces and urine are a byproduct of life too. Are you suggesting these by-products of life ARE life?
Well Guyver—you are a challenge. How about this: we understand that lightning is the result of charged particles building up in the atmosphere and then discharging. But we can’t predict where, when, how many, how long, shape, number of forks, how many strikes etc. Given that we lack the specifics, should w doubt that lightning happens?
And BTW–144, Bobbo,
No one disagrees with co2 as being a significant GHG–exept you.
Therefore if your hypothesis is true, you can forecast future global temps as a function of CO2.===if you’d read the linked website, yes==as co2 level doubles, the prediction is the Average Global Temp will go up from .5 to 1.0 degree. And as co2 goes up, so will the temperature, just as it is.
I’m not aware of *anyone* who doesn’t agree co2 raises temps. Other arguments, but not that one. You are taking being uninformed and argumentative to a new low level.
I do have to wonder if you are kidding. Humor can be twisted.
150, Mr. Fusion,
The key point here is the IPCC reports are editorialized by non-scientists.
If you want to turn this into questioning my intellectual honesty, then there’s really no point if you want to be stuck in first gear.
Empirical evidence is truth. The consensus you’re looking for is not about the empirical evidence. So be it.
151, Mr. Fusion,
It just so happens that I just got back from making an uber garden mix of composted cow manure, worm castings (manure), composted mushrooms, and cotton burr compost. Not only will I be growing things organically from the composted feces, but the worm castings had a lot of live worms in them. So, it seems like you made a good point. 🙂
152, Bobbo,
We can directly observe lightning. We can also attract lightning. We are also developing ways to measure lighting. People have died from being struck by lightning This is not theoretical.
I merely asked for a prediction of the average output based on the average SIGNIFICANT input variable you cited. It shouldn’t be that hard based on your belief that this is a foregone conclusion. I’m not asking you to predict hot spots, nor the ebbs and flows of the heat, etc.
If you agree that the climate is quite a complex system then you’d agree with Professor Christy’s view that:
“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. “
What do you suppose a greenhouse gas does? Water vapor is in that category as well. Let’s not turn this into an exercise in being a master of the obvious by dodging how you’re reaching your hasty conclusion.
The root of your misunderstanding is how you conclude the current trends observed are a direct result of human CO2. To date, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is causal in the trend you cite.
Your argument goes something like this:
CO2 -> Warming Influence
Warming Influence -> Man-Made Global Warming
Therefore CO2 -> Man-Made Global Warming
You’re demonstrating the fallacy of a questionable cause / confusing cause & effect / ignoring a common cause.
Until you can gather empirical evidence to state what the true causal relationship is in global warming, you’re essentially committing a logical fallacy.
What we do not know for sure:
1. CO2 is causal for the Global Warming hysteria.
2. Assuming #1 is true, the source of the CO2 is man-made.
3. Assuming #2 is true, the amount of CO2 has a significant impact.
4. How sunspot activity affects global warming. To date, I’ve been hearing that the summers / seasons would be cooler as a result of less sunspot activity. For the past 2 years, I have observed unusually cooler seasons (in duration)….. there may be a link, but it’s too premature to say one way or the other.
Scott, do you actually want to pay a tax on carbon? Just based on the past performance of waste by the Federal Government of my money, I wouldn’t give them one darned penny that I wasn’t by law required to pay. Believe me, there will be several back doors so the wealthy won’t have to pay much of that tax, and if I can avail myself of those same loopholes, I will. I wonder if the govt will give credits for airplanes used for cropdusting or transport of medical supplies or multi-axle vehicles used for transport of foodstuffs and passengers (RVs)…
Show me the receipts that Al Gore paid anyone anything for a “carbon tax”, until then I say it’s total BS. He didn’t get wealthy giving his money away.
Tell you what — you and Bobbo pay my tax. Sheesh! Wish I had money to light cigars with.