Thread: They call this a consensus?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Andrew,

All of the empirical evidence does NOT point to any specific fact.

Yes it does. Did you read the scientific papers i linked to? If not you are just speaking out of massive ignorance. I suspect you ignored the evidence because it does not fit your bias.

That's part of the reason many people dismiss GW as crap science.

People who don't really know what they are talking about, yeah, ive noticed that.

Climate cycles run in multi-thousand year blocks of time. Frankly, I find it absolutely insane to believe that what little impact man has had in the past 75 years or so could cause lasting damage - especially since nature does far worse all by itself.

Here is a perfect example of why you are just talking out of your ass with no actual knowledge of the subject. Do you really believe that climate scientists are not aware of the fact that climate has changed in the past? Duh.. please, bring yourself up to speed.

Does past climate change disprove man-made global warming?

The idea that "climate has changed in the past so man cannot cause climate change" is a crappy argument that does not stand up to any scrutiny.

hint: look at the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and study the evidence of what caused a rapid 10 degree rise in temperatures that killed off most life on earth and in the oceans.

Then there is the reality that some of the "data" presented has been manipulated, predictions haven't even remotely come true, and some claims have been outright lies. This doesn't exactly leave me with a trusting warm fuzzy feeling.

Do you have any proof for any of these claims? In reality there has been no data manipulation outside of normal appropriate scientific practices, predictions have indeed come true, and there have been no lies (other than from the denialists who are paid by industry to lie so much that you in all gullibility repeat their bullshit even though though the science always states precisely the opposite).

I know you are basing this on a handful of emails that are taken way out of context, again, to fit your pre-determined bias.

Here, you should at least understand part of what you are trying to talk about:

Climategate, global warming, and the tree rings divergence problem / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

Calling GW a theory is a stretch. I'd call it an hypothesis at best. Changing national policies based upon a mere unproven (and unprovable) hypothesis is the act of a retard.

Its quite sad how uneducated you are on this topic.

Andrew

I would say that man did more from 1800 through 1950 than in the last 60 years... Now I would have ended in the 20's but there was this thing called WWII that really did a number.

The uncontrolled growth that was going on in the 1800's and the first part of 1900's before man began to take more care.. yes there are ones that could give a care less about what is done, always has been and always will be..

The only reason that I can think of that would say Debate is over is Because Gore said so, and if that is the reason, I would say we are in trouble.

Funny how so many that Cry about Bush cherry picking the CIA information , say nothing about Gore Cherry picking the information on GW..

It is quite sad how many are so willing to follow this train right over the edge, how we are to take one side of this matter and no longer look at the other side of this.

That is what is QUITE SAD!

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

It is quite sad how many are so willing to follow this train right over the edge, how we are to take one side of this matter and no longer look at the other side of this.

That is what is QUITE SAD!

Im more than happy to look at science that challenges the consensus position that AGW is real and dangerous. Nobody has yet to oblige with that science. The only thing anybody ever does is repeat denialist talking points that have no basis in science. If you have some knowledge of a body of science that shows the currently held consensus to be false, please do share. That would be a relief.

Otherwise ill just look forward to more conspiracy theories, accusations that climate science is a religion, and the usual list of long ago debunked denialist creeds that keep getting recycled on a daily basis.

Andrew

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

I would say that man did more from 1800 through 1950 than in the last 60 years... Now I would have ended in the 20's but there was this thing called WWII that really did a number.

The uncontrolled growth that was going on in the 1800's and the first part of 1900's before man began to take more care.. yes there are ones that could give a care less about what is done, always has been and always will be..

However, not only did populations skyrocket after 1950 but people on a per-capita basis started consuming way more, and that pattern continues to this day. And we waste so much more than people before WWII. Today we are even defined as consumers, that was never the case prior to the war.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Im more than happy to look at science that challenges the consensus position that AGW is real and dangerous. Nobody has yet to oblige with that science. The only thing anybody ever does is repeat denialist talking points that have no basis in science. If you have some knowledge of a body of science that shows the currently held consensus to be false, please do share. That would be a relief.

Otherwise ill just look forward to more conspiracy theories, accusations that climate science is a religion, and the usual list of long ago debunked denialist creeds that keep getting recycled on a daily basis.

Andrew

Yet you will not go looking for that information, you are waiting for some one else to provide you with that creditable information, information that YOU find creditable.

From what I have seen , information and links have been put forth by any number, but that they do not fit into YOUR creditable circle so it does not count.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

However, not only did populations skyrocket after 1950 but people on a per-capita basis started consuming way more, and that pattern continues to this day. And we waste so much more than people before WWII. Today we are even defined as consumers, that was never the case prior to the war.

Andrew

Yet you miss the point that man kind did MORE damage in the 1800's and early 1900's than in the later part of the 1900's

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Im more than happy to look at science that challenges the consensus position that AGW is real and dangerous. Nobody has yet to oblige with that science. The only thing anybody ever does is repeat denialist talking points that have no basis in science. If you have some knowledge of a body of science that shows the currently held consensus to be false, please do share. That would be a relief.

Otherwise ill just look forward to more conspiracy theories, accusations that climate science is a religion, and the usual list of long ago debunked denialist creeds that keep getting recycled on a daily basis.

Andrew

if you wish, chew on these two and see what you think

an exercise on modeling

a review of IPPC modelling

And if he (and I, if I have time) does just that. If he points out where, what and why those links have good grounds or not. Will that change anything for you?

I guess I'm asking: What is your (main) reason to not belief in climate change.

This way we counter that with why we do belief in it and we can actually talk about it instead of just dropping posts.

Originally Posted by Vincent.

And if he (and I, if I have time) does just that. If he points out where, what and why those links have good grounds or not. Will that change anything for you?

I guess I'm asking: What is your (main) reason to not belief in climate change.

This way we counter that with why we do belief in it and we can actually talk about it instead of just dropping posts.

I was attempting to counter the notion that y'all never see any "real" science not supporting your stuff. This is from actual scientists and would appear to me to be legitimate matters.

Why ?

I've seen nothing compelling, clearly explained with no other plausible cause and backed up. Al Gore has not helped either having been discredited on numerous points and, like it or not, he is the face of your side.

You rely on a preponderance as opposed to anything else and modelling seems to be at the core of it. Modelling aint gonna do it for me.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Yes it does. Did you read the scientific papers i linked to? If not you are just speaking out of massive ignorance. I suspect you ignored the evidence because it does not fit your bias.

People who don't really know what they are talking about, yeah, ive noticed that.

Here is a perfect example of why you are just talking out of your ass with no actual knowledge of the subject. Do you really believe that climate scientists are not aware of the fact that climate has changed in the past? Duh.. please, bring yourself up to speed.

Does past climate change disprove man-made global warming?

The idea that "climate has changed in the past so man cannot cause climate change" is a crappy argument that does not stand up to any scrutiny.

hint: look at the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and study the evidence of what caused a rapid 10 degree rise in temperatures that killed off most life on earth and in the oceans.

Do you have any proof for any of these claims? In reality there has been no data manipulation outside of normal appropriate scientific practices, predictions have indeed come true, and there have been no lies (other than from the denialists who are paid by industry to lie so much that you in all gullibility repeat their bullshit even though though the science always states precisely the opposite).

I know you are basing this on a handful of emails that are taken way out of context, again, to fit your pre-determined bias.

Here, you should at least understand part of what you are trying to talk about:

Climategate, global warming, and the tree rings divergence problem / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

Its quite sad how uneducated you are on this topic.

Andrew

Andrew, I have read your links, as well as a lot of other information on the subject. Just because I have not come to believe as you do does not mean I am uneducated.

This is where you, once again, demonstrate exactly my point. You assume those who disagree with you haven't a clue what they are talking about, rather than accepting that others can read the same information and arrive at a different conclusion.

Originally Posted by JD3

So, when making decisions, we should ignore what those who study the problem think and just feel our way? Be contrary? What?

NO! When an issue becomes so politicized and the policy recommendations are so economically damaging for every nation on the planet, we must follow very strict research protocols. We confirm the findings of all researchers a second and a third time. We make sure that those confirming the research have no connection with those who originally carried out. We run research programs on multiple tracks. A good example is the use of blind studies done in medicine. An example of very bad science, poor protocols without clear and honest oversight is what is coming from the UN IPCC.

Back when nearly every school and university was all excited about eugenics during the 20s and 30s there were so-called deniers of the eugenics theory. They were marginalized and demonized and politically persecuted. They were not listened to. What stopped eugenics was the Nazis programs and the absolute horror the world felt with the scenes from the death camps and the showers and the ovens.

When everyone claims that there is a consensus (there never really is, just as there isn’t one now with AGW) it is even more important to listen carefully to the naysayer. They may be full of it, but only by listening to them can we be sure that they are full of it. This does not happen with AGW. The naysayer is demonized as a fool or someone bought by the oil companies. We see it here on this form with certain individuals who refuse to accept any research that contradicts the sacred dogma of AGW.

Just in case someone brings it up -- no, we do not need to listen to Holocaust deniers. That is history, not science that is attempting to predict the future. The past is clear and settled. The future is uncertain and essentially unpredictable. Turn on the news tonight and watch the weather report. All they can do is give you an approximation, a probable outcome. There is a x% chance it will ran or show. Depending on the conditions they can narrow that percentage. They can report on the conditions, but they cannot predict with certainty. Weather and climate are not the same thing, but both are complex dynamic systems that cannot be predicted with certainty.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Andrewl

There is always room for honest debate in science. What that means is you debate the conclusions of the state of a given science by conducting original research into the matter and directly seeking to invalidate a commonly held view.

I agree. The only problem is that too many of the proponents of AGW seek to carry out research to “prove” their cherished theory and refuse to accept any research that invalidates it. I have presented tens of links refuting the details and the theory as a whole. I have also presented tens of links that highlight certain problems with the protocols of many of the promoters of AGW. Each time you ignore the links, I wonder if you have ever read them, disparage my intellect, insult my character, and present links to propaganda cites that do not address the substance of the research I have supplied. So this time I have taken the time to present some excerpts from the links for all to see.

In climate science most of the chatter coming from so called skeptics is not anywhere near this standard of debate. I.e., all they is repeat commonly held misconceptions about science and refuse to listen or consider the evidence to the contrary.

That is complete bullshit, but we know that already. So, lets take a look at the chatter.

AGW advocates claim that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, when all of the scientific evidence indicates that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 5 to 12 years. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
From the paper

Abstract
The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.
It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.
Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior.

I should also point out that this paper lists three dozen separate studies confirming the findings that CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 5 to 12 years. This contradicts the claim by the IPCC that asserts that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for as long as 200 years.

What about the claim that CO2 is the main drive of global warming?
Nir. J. Shaviv
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits

What is the evidence for an anthropogenic effect?
The first question we wish to address is whether there is actual evidence indicating that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are responsible for most of the warming. Basically, we observe a temperature rise over the 20th century, and we measure a rise in the global concentration of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. What is the evidence proving that the increase in the GHGs is the cause for the temperature increase?
The truth is that there is no real evidence for this link. Most of the "evidence" often mentioned in the media, is evidence for global warming (e.g., melting of arctic ice-sheets). But who said that this warming (which indeed took place over the 20th century) is because of GHGs? In fact, there is no substantial evidence which proves that CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism. ...
(Nir continues)
An alternative explanation for global warming, or at least part of it
Solar activity appears to affect climate. This can be seen from many different correlations between solar activity on one hand, and climate on the other. These correlations exist on time scales ranging from the 11-year solar cycle to many millennia (for the two most beautiful correlations, see Neff et al, and Bond et al. in the refs below). Such a link is potentially important for global warming because over the 20th century, solar activity has been increasing. ...
(Nir continues)
The activity of the sun manifests its self in many ways. One of them is through a variable solar wind. This flux of energetic particles and entangled magnetic field flows outwards from the sun, and impedes on a flux of more energetic particles, the cosmic rays, which come from outside the solar system. Namely, a more active sun with a stronger solar wind will attenuate the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth. The key point in this picture is that the cosmic rays are the main physical mechanism controlling the amount of ionization in the troposphere (the bottom 10 kms or so). Thus, a more active sun will reduce the flux of cosmic rays, and with it, the amount of tropospheric ionization. As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment. A more active sun will therefore inhibit the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and the resulting low altitude marine clouds will have larger drops, which are less white and live shorter, thereby warming Earth.

What about the warming we experienced during the latter half of the 20th century? Are we absolutely sure that it was caused by human activity? There is research indicating that we may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age and the warming we experienced are due to natural causes. http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf
Excerpt:

Abstract
There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about 1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect.

Then there is your favorite. You have claimed that the hockey stick has not been discredited. The two links that follow show that Mann‘s methodology was flawed and that he misused the data he depended on. The analysis of Mann’s research was done by two separate unaffiliated groups who came to basically the same conclusions. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
Excerpt:

This committee, composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), has reviewed the work of both articles, as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report. …

Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Excerpt:

ABSTRACT
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

You have refused to address these in any satisfactory manner, but then again, neither has Mann ever addressed these in any satisfactory manner. IF Mann had, and his research had been confirmed by an unaffiliated group the IPCC would never have removed it from their future reports. The IPCC dropped it without any comment about the controversy.

The IPCC has time and again shown its not honest in its dealings with many of the scientists who have had issues with its findings or the use of their research. The use of Mann’s hockey stick in the IPCC’s 2001 report shows us that its review protocols have much to be desired. That the IPCC simply dropped Mann’s graph from all future reports without serious comment also speaks loudly about the quality of research being used by the body. Several scientists have resigned from it for various reasons over the years. Yet the IPCC is still considered by many as the leading body for global climate studies, even receiving the Nobel Prize, which it shares with Al Gore. The fact that Al Gore, whose propaganda film has been shown to be full of errors, shares the Prize with the IPCC should given anyone a moment to pause.
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
Excerpt from Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures:

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.
I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)
Excerpt from the resignation letter by Christopher Landsea:

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. …
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

All of the papers I have quoted are by respected scientists or experts in their discipline. I have also supplied the necessary links so anyone can read the complete papers or letters at their leisure. Andrew, you cannot claim that I am ignorant of the science or ask me to take off my tin foil hat and still expect to be taken seriously. I hope I am wrong, but I expect your usual response, either silence or snide comments. “The truth is out there.”

For those interested, a little something extra: http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1256830332.pdf

Tashi deleks,

M