The war on (climate) science

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
j.m.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

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

 

I'm all ears

Transplant

jas wrote:

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.

Actually, it is identical to the "doubt" fostered and spread by industry-funded "experts" on cigarettes and incidence of cancer.

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 [url=http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/]here[/url] and [url=http://tobaccodocuments.org/]here[/url].

George Victor

Sven wrote:

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.

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.

 

 

 

500_Apples

Sineed wrote:

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.

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.

Transplant

Snert wrote:

Really? What's the crime?

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

Hacking of computer systems, theft of archives emails, and publicly disseminating same, for starters, which is currently the subject of a active police investigation.

Filing of multiple spurious Freedom of Information requests with the intent of disrupting on going scientific research; making false statements in those filings; counseling others to file multiple spurious FOI requests and counseling them to make false statements when doing so, making it conspiracy.

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.

 

 

Transplant

500_Apples wrote:

Most people will go by personal experience in those areas rather than what the corporate media tells them.

 

How about what the [url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960... that published the original science says?

Or is The Lancet considered corporate media?

 

Frmrsldr

jas wrote:

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.

 

An ode to the stupidity of humankind.

Frmrsldr

Sineed wrote:

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

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

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

There is no "relative degree of uncertainty about the causes of global warming"...

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.

Sven Sven's picture

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.

Policywonk

George Victor wrote:

Sven wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Policywonk

Sven wrote:

George Victor wrote:

There is no "relative degree of uncertainty about the causes of global warming"...

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.

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.

Snert Snert's picture

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. 

Sven Sven's picture

Snert wrote:

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

Indeed.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

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. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

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.

Policywonk

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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. 

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.

 

Transplant

Boom Boom wrote:

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?

 

The Maldives for one, Tuvalu for another.

 

Boom Boom wrote:

I wonder if Venice, Italy is also in danger from rising water levels.

 

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.

Sven Sven's picture

 

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.

George Victor

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.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sven wrote:

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.

 

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.  

Sven Sven's picture

 

George Victor wrote:

Anyone with kids and grandkids would/should  find your nit-picking a monstrous example of egotistical bone-headedness, Sven. 

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?

 

jas

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Full disclosure now of all information form the corporations causing the greenhouse gases.  

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

 

Sven Sven's picture

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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.  

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.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

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?

Sven Sven's picture

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

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

Snert Snert's picture

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

Sven Sven's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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? 

Sven Sven's picture

Snert wrote:

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

Well said.

Transplant

Sven wrote:

...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...

Sven, apparently you have bought into the completely bogus spin of those deliberately sowing doubt. Get the effing facts straight.

Fact: The data CRU refused to release was data that was never theirs to release. It was data supplied to them by other researchers and organizations with the specific understanding that CRU would not pass the raw data on to third parties. Doing so would not only be unethical, it would result in CRU being cut off from such data in the future.

Fact: In at least one instance Steve McIntyre was already in possession of data he was demanding.

Fact: The FOI requests were a fraud deliberately orchestrated by Steve McIntyre with the intent of disrupting CRU by burdening them with compliance with a mountain of vexatious and fraudulent requests.

You're right about the result: CRU's reputation and the confidence of the public has been undermined.

But you are flat out wrong about who is responsible for that undermining.

Neo-Kaleckian

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

 

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

 

Transplant wrote:

Sven, apparently you have bought into the completely bogus spin of those deliberately sowing doubt. Get the effing facts straight.

Fact: The data CRU refused to release was data that was never theirs to release. It was data supplied to them by other researchers and organizations with the specific understanding that CRU would not pass the raw data on to third parties. Doing so would not only be unethical, it would result in CRU being cut off from such data in the future.

The Guardian (out of the UK) published a thorough [url=12-part">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails][col... investigative report[/url] regarding "Climategate".  Overall, the report was quite sympathetic towards the researchers.

Part 8 of the report dealt with the [url=FOI">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/freedom-of-information... requests[/url].  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 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 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.

Transplant wrote:

Fact: In at least one instance Steve McIntyre was already in possession of data he was demanding.

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?

Transplant wrote:

Fact: The FOI requests were a fraud deliberately orchestrated by Steve McIntyre with the intent of disrupting CRU by burdening them with compliance with a mountain of vexatious and fraudulent requests.

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

Transplant wrote:

You're right about the result: CRU's reputation and the confidence of the public has been undermined.

But you are flat out wrong about who is responsible for that undermining.

I'm "flat out wrong," eh?

Not exactly.

How about taking off your political spectacles for a moment?

 

George Victor

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.

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

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.

Transplant

Sven wrote:

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.

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.

Sven wrote:

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?

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

Sven wrote:

How about taking off your political spectacles for a moment?

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.

Sven Sven's picture

 

Transplant wrote:

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.

Information in emails is not "data"?

Huh.

Transplant wrote:

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

See above.

Transplant wrote:

Svenmeister wrote:

How about taking off your political spectacles for a moment?

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.

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".

 

George Victor

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.  

500_Apples

IMO, the probability of AGW is 96.47893211763%.

j.m.

George Victor wrote:

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.  

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?

Policywonk

j.m. wrote:

George Victor wrote:

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.  

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.

Policywonk

Neo-Kaleckian wrote:

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

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.

George Victor

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."

Unionist

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

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/your-square-jawed-hero-is-i... square-jawed hero is, in fact, the scientist[/url]

 

Sven Sven's picture

Here's a [url=good">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm][u]good interview[/url] with professor Phil Jones (of the CRU) by the BBC yesterday.

George Victor

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.

yarg

Sven wrote:

Here's a [url=good">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm][u]good interview[/url] with professor Phil Jones (of the CRU) by the BBC yesterday.

 

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.

Sven Sven's picture

The former head of the IPCC, [url=Robert">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece][co... Watson[/url], 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.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

yarg wrote:

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.

 

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.

George Victor

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).

Pages

Topic locked