But in MF's mind, scientific knowledge isn't allowed to grow if it says something he doesn't like.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
The "vast majority" claim is a fabricated piece of fiction, as has been shown numerous times.
For one thing, your contrived numbers are based on misleading calculations of what climate researchers are said to think -- not "the vast majority of scientists." The 31,000-member Institute of Physics, for example, said that what was taking place in the climate research field isn't "science."
Many other scientists have raised concerns, as well, and the entire community of scientists -- not just climate researchers -- has never been canvassed for an opinion.
I'm not convinced by contrived and dishonest talking points about a "consensus." Nor should I be.
At some point, you're going to have to realize that throwing around insults and making false claims that "the vast majority of scientists" support your views isn't going to persuade anyone.
Absolutely untrue. As I have said before, I have no objections to the research findings that show the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. I have accepted those findings.
In fact, I agree with the Yale study -- that you posted -- that said it would take many years before we are able to determine whether there is any merit to the IPCC's beliefs.
Bullshit. Plenty of evidence and studies out there calling CO2 a major factor in climate change. How many out there 'proving' it isn't?
You keep arguing without any scientific backing and when confronted on it, you just run back you your conspiracy theory of dissent being repressed.
Thousands of Universities out there. If your claims had any scientific merit, someone somewhere would have published it.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim that research that is being done to advance a pre-determined political goal meets the standard of delivering empirical, unbiased results. It's not impartial if the political goal has been determined in advance.
You might think it's the right thing to do. But you can't claim that politically driven advocacy represents science. True scientific research wouldn't be focused on trying to win a political argument, which is what the IPCC is trying to do.
Thing is it is only you that claims the research is being done to support a conspiracy, or sorry, "pre-determined political goal". Rational people see that the research has led to and continues to support the theory that man-made CO2 is the major driving factor for climate change. You on the other hand assume there is a conspiracy because you don't like where the evidence leads and therefore you ignore any science as part of the conspiracy you already decided exists.
I stated before that I was skeptical thinking that the theory of solar activity had merit. As more evidence was found, it became clear that solar activity didn't play a major role so I followed the evidence. If you can provide a non-CO2 theory that actually explains what is happening better, I (and the scientific community in general) will buy in. Until then, all you have is a belief in conspiracies.
Another false statement.
Page 15 of the IPCC's fifth assessment report released last fall (emphasis added by me):
"There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Saying the desire to maintain or improve on a sustainable environment for you and future generation is a bad plan, political or otherwise, is like saying parents saving money, supplying a quality computer and sporting gear, and emotionally supporting a child in his schooling, hopefully improving the child chances of succeeding is a political strategy and therefore shouldn't be allowed.
You've never answered what would the worst thing to happen by developing a program to improve living conditions for the citizens of this world. I mean clean air and clean water is just so nasty.
Only me??
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/08/climate-forecast-alls-well-despite-what-the-ipcc-says/
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...r-problem/article14491748/#dashboard/follows/
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/16/climate-change-hoax
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/climate-change-what-climate-change
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/world-needs-pause-from-ipcc-politics
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/01/condescending-bbc-cools-on-global-warming
http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...ide-is-rising-on-climate-models-and-policies/
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...oure-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...plays-high-priest-to-climate-change-religion/
---
Some select quotes:
-- Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun): "The IPCC today is primarily a political and advocacy organization. It has too many scientists who think of themselves as politicians, entitled to tell everyone else how to live. It is populated and stalked by green activists, who have an ideological agenda that is anti-growth and anti-western." http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear
-- Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail): "Global warming’s credibility problem is not the deniers’ and the skeptics’ fault. It’s the fault of activist scientists, Al Gore, and the IPCC. They’ve cried wolf too much. They’ve vastly overstated what the science “says,” and treated anybody who is the least bit doubtful as the enemy." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...r-problem/article14491748/#dashboard/follows/
-- Matt Gurney (National Post): "(A)larmism, once proven to be bogus, destroys credibility just as effectively as it sells papers and motivates politicians. I would not invest my money with someone who got the stock market as wrong as the IPCC has gotten Earth’s climate wrong since 2007." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...oure-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/
-- Judith Curry (National Post): "The problem and solution were vastly oversimplified back in 1990 by the UNFCCC/IPCC, where they framed both the problem and the solution as irreducibly global. This framing was locked in by a self-reinforcing consensus-seeking approach to the science and a “speaking consensus to power” approach for decision making that pointed to only one possible course of policy action – radical emissions reductions." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/
-- Charles Krauthammer (National Post, via the Washington Post): "(T)hose scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...plays-high-priest-to-climate-change-religion/[/QUOTE]
And what does that prove?
Does that support your conspiracy theory of dissent being repressed? Does that show that the IPCC has a pre-determined political goal? (actually it would seem to disprove that theory - if they had a conspiracy they wouldn't have published) Does it show that CO2 is not the major driver? Does it provide a better theory?
No, no, no, and no.
As I said, all you have is a predetermined belief and see anything that runs counter to it as proof of your conspiracy.
Which of those provides any scientific theory that disproves CO2 as the driver?Only me??
...
I'm not paying for a subscription to read an opinion piece. Could you actually quote where the op-ed discusses the scientific theory showing global warming is not being driven by CO2 so I could review what it says?
(of course it might be that you don't have a subscription either and just saw in mentioned in a google search)
page 15 said a lot of other things, but you seem to only want to believe a small part of this page of the report;
D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
Understanding recent changes in the climate system results from combining observations, studies of feedback processes, and
model simulations. Evaluation of the ability of climate models to simulate recent changes requires consideration of the state
of all modelled climate system components at the start of the simulation and the natural and anthropogenic forcing used to
drive the models. Compared to AR4, more detailed and longer observations and improved climate models now enable the
attribution of a human contribution to detected changes in more climate system components.
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system. {2–14}
Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continentalscale
surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid
warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic
eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
• The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2} • The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3} • On regional scales, the confidence in Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
• The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2} • The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3} • On regional scales, the confidence in Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8} monsoon and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) based on multi-model simulations have improved since AR4. {9.5}
You believe and twist parts of the report which tenuously support you tainted vantage point, but ignore the rest.
Here you go:
Climate Science In Denial
Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.
By Richard S. Lindzen
Updated April 22, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and even startling.
In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere.
One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December's Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.
Enlarge Image
David Klein
The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of carbon control.
This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty. There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of individuals like Penn State University's Michael Mann (who manipulated data to create the famous "hockey stick" climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and conducted, for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given the actual data.
In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise whatever in climate, endorse essentially the following opinion: That the climate is warming, the warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide, and continued emissions will lead to catastrophe.
We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The IPCC's position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man's emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90% confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim—it's purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally averaged temperature anomaly are also consistent with computer model predictions of warming.
There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth worrying very much about.
In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any alternative sources of warming—most notably, the natural, unforced variability associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.
Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of the U.S. National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and Martin Rees, respectively). It acknowledges that climategate has contributed to a reduced concern among the public, as has unusually cold weather. But Messrs. Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened to alter the rather extreme statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They then throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing: "Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the 'feedback' effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research."
Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming.
That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled. Nonetheless, the letter concludes: "Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy." In other words, the answer is settled even if the science is not.
In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published books criticizing the alarmist focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books was the scientific standards for establishing the alarmist concern were low, and the language, in some instances, was intemperate. In response, a letter signed by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to "the highest French scientific bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific Research, and Academy of Sciences" appealing to them to defend climate science against the attacks. There appeared to be no recognition that calling on the funding agencies to take sides in a scientific argument is hardly conducive to free exchange.
The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the French press. In many respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S., insofar as the "highest scientific bodies" have not officially taken public stances—yet.
Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to climate change, and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy. Climategate may thus have had an effect after all.
But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.
- Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Nice dodge. What they refute -- unequivocally -- is your false (almost fairy tale-like) claim that it is only me that thinks the IPCC is driven by a political and activist agenda.
You may disagree. But it is a very widely held view. Not a "conspiracy theory" at all.
Funny thing is nowhere in that op-ed does he forward an alternate theory or even deny the impact of CO2. All he does is criticizes the IPCC and the 'alarmists'.
I guess I'll still have to wait for a scientist somewhere among thousands of Universities to publish a better theory or prove CO2 isn't having an impact.
I don't have a conspiracy theory that says information is being repressed.
I would, however, say that the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers minimized results that the IPCC didn't like (eg., the empirical evidence about what has actually happened to the Earth's temperature) while substantially overplaying the IPCC's confidence in its computer model forecasts.
How wide 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% of those involved in the research? There are a sizeable group, 25%, who think Obama is a muslim.
If you weren't too busy trying to win a debate instead of proving a scientific point, you would understand that 'only you' referred to the posts here and the claims you tried to ascribe to blackie.
But if it makes you feel better, you win this point. You are not the only one who believes in conspiracy theories.
Of course neither you nor them have any evidence supporting a better theory or that CO2 isn't the major driver of climate change.
