The war on (climate) science

I've been wondering if the citizens of the world could not bring a class action lawsuit against these science stoppers? What if everyone who could, donated a penny to legal fees?   I'm not sure what the wording on the action would be, but they are murdering people with their lies right now and my children's planet.

                                                                        The People of the World

                                                                                      vs

                     The Lying Greedy Shallow Non-Climate Scientists and Their Media Stooges.       

It would be so much fun to watch Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sunless sit on the stand and try to explain his motives.          

It would all come out as love of self, I'm afraid, barb.  There wouldn't be a scintilla of science forthcoming.

I lump climate-change deniers in with the anti-immunization crowd and the Flat Earth Society.

But on what grounds would we bring a lawsuit against them? Having the wrong beliefs? Intentionally not thinking the way we do? I'm not sure they owe us something in this regard, so how shall we sue for their failure to provide it?

Fuck the civil suit; this is a criminal matter.

Exactly, GM.  They are species killers at the moment, with potential for the destruction of Homo sapiens.  (Although many fish and other fauna and flora might not mind that in the long run).

It is not the deniers but their corporate masters in the oil and military industries that are willfully blind to the real harm they are causing to the planet and its inhabitants.  They are polluting my air and water that is a tort and should be considered under the Rylands v. Fletcher liability rules.

http://www.floods.org/PDF/NAI_Liability_Failure_Facilities_0906.pdf

It's us, 1951. We Killed The Kennedys. Ask Mick.

Really? What's the crime?

I'm asking for a crime from the Criminal Code, by the way, not something you wishfully make up.

You are failing to realize that anti-immunizers and flat earthers are not killing anyone by their actions......there is a distinct difference...eh!

Flat earthers are essentially harmless, as I really can't imagine them convincing others that the earth is flat, and even if they did, so long as they're not sailors or geographers, no harm done.

But the anti-immunization crowd is eager to spread their gospel of nuttery and encourage others not to get immunized, or to not immunize their children, and that's a little different.  Note that I couldn't care less about people's personal beliefs or their personal choice of action; that's entirely their business.  But convincing others to follow the same illogic isn't the same as a personal belief.

Would you agree that if "action" (civil, criminal or "other") is to be taken against those who want to convince the world that climate change is a hoax, the same should be applied to those who want to convince the world that immunization causes autism? 

Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime, nor is the promotion of stupidity. The dinosaurs didn't believe in climate change either.

But in their case, the trial was bypassed and they proceeded straight to the sentence. What are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting anything, its like have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Just let nature take its course. I'm too old to worry about them.

Oh.

It's a Crime Against Nature.

Section Mark 19:66.

Maybe in your world; in mine, it's a capital offence.

Suicide is the ultimate death sentence.

Yes.

But what about those who preach that psychiatry is a bunch of bullshit originally spouted ultimately by Big Pharma?

The anti-vaccine people don't harm themselves.  But they kill children.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

Even your made up crime is made up. The Book of Mark has only 16 chapters.

I notice that several Babblers do, despite not being scientists themselves. It's shocking how much this kind of stance mimics religious fundamentalism and intolerance. And anti-choice intolerance. I suppose I should simply take these Babblers as anti-choice on these matters. You don't want to give anyone the ability to say 'no' to immunization, or to other hegemonic medical treatments. You don't want to give anyone the ability to doubt climate change science, despite the fact that climate scientists are not fully agreed.

I recognize there is a rhetorical power in manufacturing doubt on a topic like climate change. It's similar to the "doubt" of industry-funded "experts" on cigarettes and incidence of cancer. But for someone here to even suggest doubt (not denial - doubt), or a different angle on climate change, immediately induces this hateful. kneejerk, bullying reaction from Babblers which I'm noticing more and more, and on many other topics where the predominating science may be deniable or in question. And I expect that the bullying tendency comes from an increasing sense of powerlessness to counter the doubt scientifically or rhetorically, because in fact, you're not scientists.

It's like, you're the ones who would have God dead. YOU killed God. Now you want some other kind of absolutism in life, in the absence of a dependence on religion, and you simply, and simple-mindedly, replace it with yet another human construct. Can you see how maybe a little silly that is? What makes you so sure your new human construct is something you can absolutely rely on in the way that you insist others do?

Canadians are free to be Christians or Buddhists. Other Canadians are free to revile Christianity or Buddhism.

Everyone has freedom of speech and conscience when it comes to saying "no" to immunization or climate science. Likewise, everyone has the right to point out the danger represented by these anti-scientific fads.

Exceptions exist, of course, when we talk (for example) about what is taught in schools - for example, we don't allow "creationism" to be taught in science class.

But other than such exceptions, I don't see calling "nonsense" as being an "anti-choice" expression. It is, rather, the very expression of freedom.

Some of you have expressed very anti-choice opinions when it comes to hegemonic medical treatments. I don't deny your right to have these opinions. I do deny your right to claim that they are right, or correct, or the only valid ones.

Except that when the day comes that actual, reliable science shows that we're not really affecting the climate, or being immunized against Hep gives you a new disease, or the Indian Ocean does just suddenly end in a dropoff, both Science, and the babblers you speak of, will take that into account.

The essence of fundamentalism is that its adherents are locked in for life. There can be no change. None. Ever. No matter what transpires.

Anyhoo, you seem to feel picked on. There really IS a Flat Earth Society you know... maybe they have a support group or something.

I don't feel picked on at all, Snert.

I recognize a comment like this intends to invite response.

If you felt so certain in your own position on an issue, you wouldn't need to make statements like this. You resent the erosion of certainty that deconstructive critiques have afforded plain ol' religion. So you deny both. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And losing your own edge in the process.

Sweet, a thought terminating cliche, accompanied by a link even.....

Shall I start linking to places that count the amount of people who have died from immunization shots, medication interactions, bad reaction to medications, benadictine or thalidamide links perhaps, or any other assorted death from pharmaceutical sources?

How about Linus Pauling's words on pharma and those that push it?

:rolleyes:

The links on the lethality of Benedictine would actually be helpful. I had no idea.

Interesting that you mention thalidomide, though.  Now that it's clear that thalidomide is a potent teratogen, does the medical/scientific establishment stick to its guns, and maintain that thalidomide is safe?  Or does the medical/scientific establishment acknowledge its mistake and change its assessment?

When do you suppose Jenny McCarthy will say "I was wrong"?  I've got a nice shiny loonie on "never, ever".

Thalidomide was never approved.

Yeah. I had a woefully inadequate public school education. We hardly even touched The Lord's Prayer. I went to Sunday School once and my parents gave me a talking to. Oh, the humanity, Snert.

I thought you were referencing your thesis paper and was wondering what Mark's study showed.

It's not a lie if you believe it. (Costanza)

Yeah, I'm majoring in chemistry & college football. With a minor in the Woo-Woo.

My thesis is titled "Why She Died: The Goodbye Muffin."

Christians should be commies!! Acts 2:44; 4:32

Hey, 1951! Will you be my religious advisor/literary executor?

Jas, I'm not a scientist, but i read some science, and James Lovelock's Ages of Gaia sold me on his nearly 30 years ago. And now he's mainstream.

God and deconstructivist activities aside, what science do you claim as support for your position here of dutiful doubting Thomas?

Comparing anti-immunization to anti-climate is very devious.

There are a lot of progressive arguments against immunization, and there are scientific ones. As an example, a couple friends of mine, when they have kids, they don't want their kid to have the MMR vaccine. Are they arguing that the very concept of vaccination is flawed, and that smallpox was in fact eradicated by solar variations or some nonsense like that? No, they'll just split the vaccine into three different pieces, as they're allowed. The kid will still be vaccinated. It's that particular vaccine they don't like, and others, not the concept of vaccination, never mind the concept of medicine itself.

Global warming deniers are backed by organizations like Exxon Mobile. They don't disagree with this particular scientific theory. They disagree with the entire underlying normative structure, that the natural environment has an intrinsic worth that should be preserved, and that we don't have a manifest god-given right to comprehensively pillage nature, to deplete it to zero.

Well said, 500.

The thing about climate change is, Even if it's all a big hoax perpetrated by solar panel manufacturers and suchlike, the only downside to behaving responsibly is being responsible.

I can't comment on the climate change science for or against, 'cause I know nothing about it. I am of the opinion that it hardly matters. I think it would be sad to lose the biosphere we know and love; it might be sad if we ourselves became extinct, but I think we're a really stupid species and if that's what happens, then that's what we've chosen - over and over. I think efforts to try and stop our activities in time to "save the earth" are futile and a little bit self-centred. I also believe and observe in life that people usually don't change until they're in so much pain that they have left themselves with little other choice, and I think if climate change is occurring, if it is human driven, and it's not just a normal climate anomaly in the course of geologic time, then it will take a crisis of this kind of pain before we are willing to change our behaviour.

As well, the solutions we see from the industrial and post-industrial nations I feel are laughably inadequate and do not fundamentally address our disconnect with the natural world, and nothing is going to change satisfactorily until we can accept a more modest place in the biological world. It's just bandage solutions, more human self-centricity, and a complete waste of time and breath arguing about it.

My entry into the thread and many like it is usually because someone has made some broad, blanket statement about "science" saving the planet and "science-deniers" who should be drawn and quartered or whatever. I actually think it's the other way around.

Just to clarify, the arguments against vaccination are neither progressive, nor scientific, but trendy, like those Bugaboo strollers.  

Like climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers have lost touch with the natural world.

Like 500_A said, a number of comments were devious, especially considering the topic at hand.  I'll leave it at that.

Really?  I don't have GBS nor any of the other myriad side effects nor long term health concerns to worry about.  Look, I appreciate you debunking "vaccines cause autism" but you can't keep lumping every issue together, please.

And what would you know about the natural world?  I'm talking literally, natural?  You're far too removed to make that statement.

Ignoring or questioning scientific facts and probabilities could condemn ourselves and many other species to extinction, and it's not their denial of science so much as their motivations and ethics.

So could adherence to those codes, Policywonk, How do you feel about those motivations and ethiics?

How do you "feel" about the scientific method, RP?

I'm good with it when done ethically GV.

... just full of thought terminating cliches that  are pointless.

Most people are illiterate about science and basic statistics.  Scientific "truths" and "facts" are probabilistic statements - not absolute certainties.

Some statements are highly probable (and are practically certain): The sun will "rise in the east" tomorrow.

Other statements are highly improbable (but are, again, for practical purposes, almost certainly not true): A delicate china teapot orbits the sun.

While anthropomorphic global warming is closer to the former example, it is not as probable as "The sun will 'rise in the east' tomorrow."

Many opponents of anthropomorphic global warming have taken advantage of (A) the probabilistic uncertainty regarding the causes of global warming (however small that uncertainty may be) and (B) the scientific and statistical illiteracy of most people.  It is accurate to say: "It is not certain that global warming is caused by humans."  But, that statement is then used by those opponents to try and shut down any discussion about anthropomorphic global warming.  But, the relative degree of uncertainty about the causes of global warming is not a reason to simply disregard anthropomorphic global warming!

At the same time, many proponents of anthropomorphic global warming have made a grave political mistake by characterizing (A) anthropomorphic global warming as a certainty and (B) that such warming will mean the extinction of life on Earth.  Why?  Because when legitimate questions are raised about anthropomorphic global warming, the credibility of those arguing that it is a "certainty" is undercut and many people will then just tune out those arguments entirely.

So, many of the loudest opponents, and many of the loudest proponents, of anthropomorphic global warming are taking positions which either claim certainty or attack certainty.  And, that's really not even the relevant question.

Meh, my definition of social justice wouldn't need this discussion.

All this time I thought the earth revolved around the sun.  I am certain though that I would love to see your cites for the studies on the positions of the loudest proponents and loudest opponents.  Was it a telephone survey or a internet poll? How is "loudest" defined?

I do agree with you that the debate needs to shift to real issues like now that the ice cap will be off the Arctic in the coming summers should one back a Russian oil play or a Can/US one. If I can make some good money in the market on the right oil play I will be able to buy a solar panel.

Edited to include  

but how true is your statement?  Be aware of statements that start with "Most people..." unless you can back this up with some science and statistics.

Most surely I can see a delicate china teapot in front of me now, and as far as I know I am on Earth, and Earth orbits the sun.  Thus I conclude that a delicate china teapot does orbit the sun, from what I can see. 

I think that predicting the weather and the state of earth's magnetic polarity are both bad bets.

Instead of warring, I'd rather make peace.  I wish that more was invested in scientific research and education.

I'm all ears

Sven, this bit of verbal diarrhea shows that you haven't the foggiest idea of the science that has developed showing that it is indeed Homo sapiens at fault. Your silly little plays of schoolboy logic went out with the goddam dodo bird, and have nothing to do with scientific procedure.

The rising level of CO2 is incontrovertible, and  there is no other variable in play, because the rise is in lockstep with industrial and population growth. As for the scientific belief that it will lead to a level of CO2 (and hence greenhouse warming) that will make species dieoff inevitable...that is what scientists are measuring as we engage in this childish back and forth.  There is no "relative degree of uncertainty about the causes of global warming" except in the minds of people who cannot put forward a contrary scientific explanation for what is actually being measured.

Please go play with your kindle and find a valid scientific contrarian position which puts forward another explanation for the rising CO2 and rules it out as an explanation for rising temperatures and other environmental phenom, then get back to us.

ETA: Misleading Congress, a felony.

And then there are the civil actions that could be pursued, namely the libel and slander of numerous individual scientists and scientific organizations.

That ought to keep a few of them tied up for a while and let climate scientists get on with what they are actually paid to do, you know, scientific research.

In fact, some of those individuals and organizations orchestrating the spread of doubt about the science on climate change are the exact same individuals and organizations that orchestrated the tobacco industry-funded doubt campaign about cigarettes and incidence of cancer.

How do we know that? We have their invoices to the tobacco industry. They are archived here and here [60].

When you try to piggyback off legitimate science all you do is lower that science rather than raise your own.

It's got nothing to do with "trends". Of the two people I mentioned, one of them has a nefew who got autistic symptoms within a week of getting the vaccine. Same happened to a few people in his neighbourhood. Most people will go by personal experience in those areas rather than what the corporate media tells them.

Look at the debacle H1N1 was.

How about what the journal that published the original science says?

Or is The Lancet considered corporate media?

An ode to the stupidity of humankind.

I think big pharma - the creaters and sellers of vaccines have lost touch with the natural world.

Like I said, some people talk in absolutes and know with certainty that the current warming trend is unprecedented and is outside the bounds of normal climate variation.

Personally, I think the evidence is very strong that there is anthropomorphic global warming.  But, is it a certainty that humans are the principal cause in global warming?  No.

With regard to "high probability" versus "certainty," the IPCC, in its latest assessement (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) states:

"Most [not “all”] of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

The IPCC defines “very likely” as being at least a 90% probability, "extremely likely" as being at least a 95% probability, and "virtually certain" as being at least a 99% probability.

And while he's at it he might try to wrap his head around the idea that the sun never rises in the east, unless sunrise occurs exactly at the moment of the equinox. The sun rises (if it rises at all) in the northeast quadrant in the northern hemisphere summer and in the southeast quadrant in the northern hemisphere winter. More than that, he should find a valid explanation for paleoclimates that doesn't involve carbon dioxide. It is reasonably certain that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (from whatever source) will cause additional warming, and there is paleoclimatological evidence that rapid increases in carbon dioxide concentrations are implicated in past extinction episodes. We are in the middle of an extinction event even without global warming. To say that some people say global warming will cause the extinction of life on earth is a red herring; it's the possibility that it will turn a major extinction event into a great extinction event and take us with it that is the problem. Uncertainty cuts both ways. Science doesn't have to be absolutely certain in order to make verifiable predictions.

We don't have to be to be a problem. All we need to do is add enough greenhouse forcing to cause an abrupt climate change. These are natural, but the last time it happened there weren't quite so many of us.

I get the definite sense that Sven is not trying to deny human-influenced climate change, but rather to point out that the argument against it continues to get traction in part because the deniers frame their argument in terms of doubt, but the proponents frame it in terms of absolute 100% certainties.

George Victor's "rebuttal" in #52 was an ironic and perfect example of this. 

Indeed.

I would think that if 9 times out of 10 stepping off the curb into traffic would have me run over I would not bother with quibbling over whether or not I should step off voluntarily or whether it is someone pushing me.  We are going off the curb and indeed there is a slim chance that someone might push us but that still doesn't change the fact it would be irrational to step off the curb knowing the odds. 

I remember there was a news item about small island nations really worried about rising sea levels due to melting ice. Can anyone recall which island nations these might be? I wonder if Venice, Italy is also in danger from rising water levels.

And of course the 90% probability from the IPCC had to get by some well known skeptical individuals and governments, so it is probably understated, as is the overall situation in their latest report. The deniers tend to misstate the arguments of the mainstream scientific community in any case. The possibility of humans not having a significant impact on the climate currently is far less than that of a delicate teapot orbiting the sun, obviously because there are millions of them on Earth, which is orbiting the sun. It is not a question of absolute certainty but how much certainty is needed to respond meaningfully.

The Maldives for one, Tuvalu for another.

Venice is already in danger of inundation from subsidence due to the drawdown of the freshwater aquifer beneath it, sea level rise only adds to the problem. A massive storm surge barrier is already being engineered to protect Venice, but AFAIK it is not designed to protect the city from permanent sea level rise.

In any case, paleoclimate research and observations of changing Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet dynamics since the writing of the IPCC AR4, which explicitly did NOT include changes in those dynamics, suggest that sea level rise could range from .88 to 2 meters by 2100, meaning Venice and just about every other low-lying coastal city and developed region would be permenently inundated or at least periodically threatened by storm surges.

I agree that if there is a 90% chance that global warming is anthropogenic, then that is a very high degree of confidence.

Part of the political problem, however, is that the 90% figure issued by the IPCC is being challenged because of some questionable information included in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment (e.g., the Himalayan glacier predictions, which were scientifically baseless).

Statements of an authoritative body of experts will only be trusted by most non-experts if that body is viewed as being honest, transparent, and apolitical.  Rightly or wrongly, all three of those factors are being questioned because of things like the Himalayan glacier predictions (in the IPCC report), the refusal by climate researchers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia to comply with FOI requests for raw climate data, and so forth.  Because of those missteps by the IPCC and the CRU, trust in their statements, such as the 90% figure, is diminished.

This underscores the vital importance of being completely open and honest with all available facts (even with facts that may not look good - and even if opponents can twist certain unfavorable facts).  If an otherwise authoritative body loses the trust of a substantial portion of people, then statements by that body will likely be discounted - perhaps even fatally discounted.

Could it not be 99 per cent sure, Sven.  How do you arrive at an arbitrary 90 per cent? Anyone listening to the IPCC scientists involved (there are several thousand) will hear them explain why the Himalayan glacial melt was an anomaly and a bad mistake on the part of people who should have reviewed it.  But that's it. People who do not keep that in mind but who have no scientific evidence to bring forward themselves, are just so many consumers who don't want anything to intrude with their conspicuous consumption.

Anyone with kids and grandkids would/should  find your nit-picking a monstrous example of egotistical bone-headedness, Sven. Flipping a coin on their fate, so to speak. Can't understand you folks at all except as greedy examples of our species. (And the bullshit, judgemental role that you have assumed as advocate for the Great Uncertain has all the authenticity of a $3 bill). There is no reason for uncertainty if you have any respect for the scientific method and the possibility of human error by a couple of people among thousands...who participate on a volunteer basis, so as not to leave it up to the tender mercies of government propagandists like your own state department - to tell the world about what is happenging and what is shaping up.

Wouldn't it be great to know what is really being discussed in the boardrooms of EXXON and Haliburton.  Full disclosure now of all information form the corporations causing the greenhouse gases.  

You are missing the point of my last couple of posts.

I am simply making an assessment of the likely negative effects on the public trust held in a body of scientific experts if the body makes statements which are scientifically unsupportable or refuses to reveal data that is inconsistent with their conclusions.

Those are political missteps which may overshadow otherwise sound scientific conclusions.

And, in today's world, everything is political, isn't it?

I would think an equal or bigger problem is the rapid loss of forests.

People already discount the credibility of self-serving statements about global warming by the likes of ExxonMobil.  In contrast, the IPCC and the CRU are supposed to be apolitical bodies of unbiased scientific experts.  If statements by those bodies include obvious misstatements, if they deliberately hide unfavorable data, or if they appear to be politically motivated, then trust in those bodies will be damaged.  If their trust is damaged, their influence is diminished.

Politically motivated?  The planet is going to hell in a handbasket and you want everyone to be apoltical.  I find that a bit strange.  These scientists live on the same planet as us and their grandchildren will feel the effects but they should not try to get politicians to act?

It's not a matter of me "wanting everyone to be apolitical".

I'm simply saying that if bodies of experts like the IPCC and the CRU are political, then they will damage their credibility.  I don't know how that is even controversial.

Instead of the Emperor's wife having to above reproach it is now the Emperor's critics. 

People can't be made to trust you on your terms.  They will, or won't, trust you on theirs.

Are you saying that it's unfair for the IPCC and the CRU to be held to such a standard or that I'm incorrect in my assessment that their credibility and trust has been damaged? 

Well said.

Though I agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, I'm going to post a link to Potholer54's Climate change videos because he skeptically looks through the science and shows the legitimate scientific objections to anthropogenic climate change. 

Also, there is a video that debunks climate gate in here as well. 

Hopefully someone will enjoy these, 

N-K

The Guardian (out of the UK) published a thorough 12-part investigative report regarding "Climategate".  Overall, the report was quite sympathetic towards the researchers.

Part 8 of the report dealt with the FOI requests [90].  The entire report is worth reading but this portion deals directly with your broad-brushed "fact":

"By 2008 the scientists had become used to dealing with, and usually rebuffing, requests for data. But this demand for their emails heightened their alarm. Days after receiving the request, Jones sent one of the most damaging emails [91] to emerge from the leak. He asked Mann: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... we will be getting Caspar [Ammann also from NCAR] to do the same."

This seems to have been the email that persuaded the UK's Information ­Commissioner's Office (ICO) - the body that administers the FoI act - its handling of requests was not correct. The deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, put out a statement last week [92] which said: "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information." He said the ICO could not take action over the apparent breach because it occurred more than six months ago."

As the Guardian report indicates, there were data which were legitimately withheld - but there were also data which were not legally withheld.  The controversy is not about data legitimately withheld.  The controversy, rightly, is about data which were illegally withheld.

Let's stipulate that that it true.  What relevance does that have to the CRU hiding data he didn't have and which the CRU was legally obligated to disclose?

Fine.  So McIntyre is a shit-disturber.  If that nullified all FOI requests, FOI would be a dead law.

I'm "flat out wrong," eh?

Not exactly.

How about taking off your political spectacles for a moment?

sven:

"I am simply making an assessment of the likely negative effects on the public trust held in a body of scientific experts if the body makes statements which are scientifically unsupportable or refuses to reveal data that is inconsistent with their conclusions."

Nonsense. You are playint the role of honest broker, pointing to the IPCC mistake and speculating on the political outcome. That's a mug's game, dime-a-dozen-street corner stuff. Dare to make an honest assessment yourself, Sven. Stop playing the middleman, the philosopher-king news reader. We all read the news.

Nonsense.

I'm not brokering anything.

This whole issue underscores the importance of integrity...even if one suspects evil motives by one's opponents.

What "data"?  The Guardian exerpt you quoted relates to an FOI request filed by one David Holland, which sought not data, but emails received by Keith Briffa.

Again, what "data" was hidden? You have not shown that any data was hidden.

It doesn't require a pair of political spectacles to see that a concerted well organised and well funded politically motivated campaign to undermine science is underway.

Information in emails is not "data"?

Huh.

See above.

And how, exactly, is that is relevant to compliance with the FOI law?

It's not.

I've got some news for you: Most FOI requests are "politically motivated".

Okay, you're not a broker, sven. Village gossip monger is a more appropriate description of your posture. Faultless intermediary and defender of the IPCCs integrity. What glop.  

IMO, the probability of AGW is 96.47893211763%.

I will give credit to Sven for addressing the point about the integrity of the IPCC, but under less-than-noble intentions. If he wants the Climate Change debate to occur with integrity, why not launch some shots at the disinformation producers and the actors that will do whatever they can to thwart CC science?I suspect he is not motivated to do so.

And where is the acknowleldgement of multiple labs independent of eachother working along similar theories of CC?

Not just multiple labs, but multiple disciplines. The IPCC isn't perfect, but the scientific consensus is in the scientific literature, not just in the IPCC reports. My view that the IPCC reflection of this consensus is conservative hasn't changed.

I think I'd seen the one on "climate-gate". The legitimate scientific objections to anthropogenic climate change have been delegitimized over time. What a couple of the videos show is the myths on all sides. The denialists have been quick to promote these myths to discredit or misrepresent the science and forestall meaningful action. And of course they are backed by powerful interests.

Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF-Canada wrote in a Globe article - while explaining that Margaret Wente's "Calling us an 'environmental pressure group...is like calling The Globe and Mail an online political blog" - said that "Leading up to the Copenhagen conference, 850scientists in Canada and 12 professional science societies wrote to Parliament with one voice. Climate-change impact is real, it's appearing faster than forecast and our commitments to avert it are less than we need to succeed. The official national science societies of each G8 country, plus South Africa, Brazil, India, China and Mexico, drew a similar concensus in an open letter to their heads of government."

Butts concludes: "In the end, this controversy is illuminating not because of what it reveals about the IPCC's research but what it tells us about ourselves. Yale University and Nature magazine recently published a finding that people react to scientific studies based on their own personal values and predispositions rather than on the scientific soundness of the study in question. More simply, we see the world as we want to see it, not as it is. Human-caused climate change challenges us to move beyond this self-centredness in order to make progress for ourselves and the generations that will follow us. IT IS NOT HOW ANY OF US WISH TO SEE THE WORLD (my caps) but it is the nearest thing to a fact that science can provide." He invites the reader "to ask your nearest scientist."

Excellent, George, thank you for that! And here is the full article:

Your square-jawed hero is, in fact, the scientist

Here's a good interview with professor Phil Jones (of the CRU) by the BBC yesterday.

And as Butts said:

"In the end, this controversy is illuminating not because of what it reveals about the IPCC's research but what it tells us about ourselves. Yale University and Nature magazine recently published a finding that people react to scientific studies based on their own personal values and predispositions rather than on the scientific soundness of the study in question. More simply, we see the world as we want to see it, not as it is. Human-caused climate change challenges us to move beyond this self-centredness in order to make progress for ourselves and the generations that will follow us. IT IS NOT HOW ANY OF US WISH TO SEE THE WORLD (my caps) but it is the nearest thing to a fact that science can provide." He invites the reader "to ask your nearest scientist."

So I'm sure that you will continue to understand this issue in the way that you have already decided. But remember Sven (and this may be a continued waste of time) that a lot of people of Nunavut are a little more concerned about this question than you are, and for good reason. In fact, what the hell, I'm certain that an appeal to your concern for others is a waste of time.

Interesting indeed

- When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

-Phil Jones

Told ya so.

The former head of the IPCC, Robert Watson, was just interviewed by The Times:

Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

He said that the IPCC should employ graduate science students to check the sources of each claim made in its next report, due in 2013. “Graduate students would love to be involved and they could really dig into the references and see if they really do support what is being said.”

He said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.

“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”

It's really time to stop labeling all skeptics as "climate-change deniers", as if all of them are in the same category as Holocaust deniers.

The problem, however, is that it wouldn't be politically expedient to do so.

Whether or not the debate is over is a red herring that is irrelevant to any debate on any scientific issue.  The debate is never over in any scientific area, scientists still pick away at the edges of all scientific theories but that doesn't change the fact that if I sit under a tree I might get hit by a falling apple. Still there seem to have been many debates on the edges of the theory of gravity but so what?

Climate change is happening at a rapid rate and it is almost certainly related to human activity. If we allow the market to solve this problem they will respond with more drilling for oil as soon as the no ice season permits.  There will also be lots of economic activity from dealing with the rising water so it will help the GDP and many companies stock price.  Clearly a win win all the way around for many corporations.

There you go, people of Nunavut.  Sven says you don't have to worry about walking on water next year.  It will be the year following. (Keep the faith  and you'll be just fine).

Did you read The Times piece linked to above?  There are serious questions regarding the underlying data, as articulated by the former head of the IPCC, data which go to the very heart of the issue.

Also, the interview of professor Jones on BBC (also linked to above) indicates that there is a serious and legitimate debate about whether any current warming is truly "unprecedented" or if a similar warming happened only 500 to 700 years ago.

To distill this debate down to being equivalent to your elementary "apple example" really says something.

Politically, in the worst way, many on the Left really hope that the warming trend is real and that the only solution is a massive movement away from (evil) capitalism.  As George Victor noted above, people see in science exactly what they want to see (and that goes for the Left, too).

I don't know enough about the Nunavut to comment on it.

But, I'm familiar with the basic thrust of your argument: If anyone can be disadvantaged by the current state of affairs, then the entire system must be completely transformed to avoid that.  And, for most on the Left, that argument very conveniently points to a Leftist political solution.

"The Nunavut", Sven, is a place inhabited by 35,000 people, covering an area perhaps 20 times the size of Texas, and what we are doing to them with our busy little productive lives is ensuring that their way of life is kaput, along with the animals they depended on.  

Screw your "system" of greed and ignorance, mate.

So, 330 million other people in North America should completely change their way of life?

And that is what the real concern about the "war on (climate) science" is all about.  At the core, it is a political concern...science is, at best, a secondary consideration and science is merely a useful tool to further those political goals.  The problem is that science isn't providing the slam dunk that some have hoped it would.

You haven't read one effing thing have you, Sven. And I'll bet that the ethnics out your way are dismissed in the same way. You're a piece of work.

...and the world population now is approaching 7,000,000,000

Scientists, including those of the IPCC, have agreed that climate change produces unequal impacts across the world. There are also communities that depend on glacial water that will be affected by the melting of those glaciers. So George Victor's comments can be qualified as more communities will be affected by these impacts that are already in precarious situation. And then we can talk about what may happen to the Amazon, and its impacts, if you dare...

I admit knowledge production is political, but stop being an iconoclast: even if these are eventually falsifiable, your "this is purely political" rant appears more as indignation over the consensus of inconvenient knowledge, not proof of a better explanation.

Funny how in other conversations the naturalized the "science of Von Hayek" produces "non-political truths". You are so willing to shoot people down when they point out that the science is political/ideological.

I actually don't think this is "purely" political.  I think there are serious concerns raised by the IPCC and the CRU.

My political observation is that many on the Left are trying to use science as a weapon to further a political agenda.

The basic argument is: (A) The science is air-tight that the warming is anthropogenic, (B) that warming is going to lead to the extinction of life on Earth, and (C) only a socialist world system can stop further anthropogenic warming: Therefore, to avoid the extinction of life on Earth, we must destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.

But, as it turns out, the science doesn't quite provide the slam dunk necessary to establish (A) and (B).

Freddy von Hayekians say we'll never actually run out of fossil fools or any precious resource really. Not if prices are high enough. So we can all continue with the voodoo economy, because in the neoliberal world nothing bad can ever happen. It's all good. As the one-eyed Cyclops once said to Ulysses and his men trapped in the cave, "More wine!"

Well, if you object to (C) so much, then why are you trying so hard to debase the IPCC findings, which include the inconvenient claim that climate change will be unevenly felt? I think you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater because you disapprove of the political implications of the knowledge.

There may or may not be some on the left who believe this. There are probably more who believe that capitalism will destroy itself in any case. I think that (A) It is next to impossible to explain late 20th century warming without a major anthropogenic component (similarly Paleozoic climate without Carbon Dioxide concentration variations), (B) that we are in a major extinction event (this is from biological science, not climate science) and (C) that global warming and ocean acidification will exacerbate this event. The worst case scenario could involve a great extinction. How lucky do you feel?

As for your proposition it is far more likely that the right is misrepresenting the science for their own ends.

There is a discussion of the so-called mistakes in the IPCC AR4 report at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-... [122], only one is regarded as truly legitimate. As for mistakes supposedly going in the direction of making the situation appear more dire than it is, the peer reviewed literature since the deadline for inclusion in AR4 as well as observations about ice cap melting (land-based and polar sea) actually tend to show the situation is actually more dire.

I would give Sven a little credit for using the transcript of the BBC interview and not the spin put on it by folks like the Daily Mail. Jones did not say, for example, that there was no warming from 1995-2009, just that it was not statistically significant to a 95% degree of confidence (although there was warming). The main reason is that the time frame is too short. There is actually little or no legitimate debate about the basic science, the debate as always will be about the uncertainties. And they cut both ways, although a low sensitivity for carbon dioxide doubling has been more or less ruled out from an number of strands of evidence.

Global warming deniers aren't above "oopses" themselves.

But when Friel began checking Lomborg's sources, "I found problems," he says. "As an experiment, I looked up one of his footnotes, found that it didn't support what he said, and then did another, and kept going, finding the same pattern." He therefore took on the Augean stables [126] undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."

The hate mail campaign against climate scientists

Scientists withdraw low-ball estimate of sea level rise — media are confused and anti-science crowd pounces

Inhofe inquisition seeking ways to criminalize and prosecute 17 leading climate scientists

How science is fighting back:

Two central accusations made by global warming/climate change deniers have been proven totally and completely false by an analysis done by a prominent time series statistician who posts on the web under the pseudonym Tamino* at his blog Open Mind.

The two claims are 1) that the dramatic reduction around 1990 in the number of GHCN reporting stations used to calculate North American surface temperatures introduced a false warming trend in the northern hemisphere temperature record; and 2) that the statistical adjustments applied to that station data by NASA GISS also introduce a false warming trend.

Tamino's analysis proves both assertions to be false and without basis. The results of the analysis are presented here: False Claims Proven False [133]

Moreover, in a second post titled Shame [134] Tamino, openly challenges denialist bloggers, specifically Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts by name, to publicly admit not only that they were wrong, but that they were irresponsible in making false an totally unsupported accusations against scientists in the first place, and to issue a public apology to those scientists and to the public at large.

(*This person uses the pseudonym Tamino for public posts on climate science as a result of receiving death threats in the past. However, now that the War on Science™ is turning vicious publicly and scientists are beginning to openly fight back, it is hoped that Tamino will openly publish his full analysis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature under his real name.)

Long thread, closing.