cartoonsbyjosh.com
You can’t buy the truth, but you can buy a committee interpretation of it.
One year ago a group of eminent scientists wrote a letter to congress provocatively titled “You are being deceived.”
Now, in a similar vein, but with all the gory details, John McLean has put together a 66 page compilation of the modus operandi and history of said deception. It’s a story of how small committees of activists cite their own work, ignore contradictory information and dissenting reviewers, use the peer review system to lock out opponents, and blithely acknowledge crippling uncertainties (but only in tracts of text that few will read, and never in summation when it matters).
Click to read the full article
When your favourite prancing-horse-committee — the IPCC — is failing to impress the crowds, it’s time to distract them with dressage from another source. In this case, the IPCC is being reviewed by the brand new InterAcademy Council (IAC). Expect their somber pronouncement to discover some minor flaws of process, posit a few proceedural improvements, and then declare that above all, the science is sound, rigorous, and that carbon dioxide will surely kill millions if we don’t allow the guys at Goldman Sachs to save us all with complex derivative triple A packages of CDM’s. Amen.
There’s a cyclical nature to the lifecycle of committees. Long ago The International Science Union (ICSU) was pushing the greenhouse effect scare, they ran the conferences and subcommittees and programs that helped create the IPCC.
The hand of the ICSU can be seen in the entire lead-up to the establishment of the IPCC. It arranged most of the conferences and with its funding partners – usually the WMO and/or UNEP – it managed numerous meteorological or climatological research projects, many of which had Bert Bolin in a lead role.
The IAC and ICSU have a very similar role. Both seek to fit the square peg of science into the round hole of politics, to take a field where truth is not determined by consensus and twist it to fit a field where consensus is everything. Both have grandiose statements of intent – the IAC’s is “Mobilizing the world’s best science to advise decision-makers on issues of global concern” – and both work very closely with UN bodies such as the UNEP, a co-sponsor of the IPCC. … in fact the IAC seems almost a twin of the ICSU.
The AIC has 18 board members – three of which head national science bodies – all of which are members of the ICSU. One of the three is Kurt Lambeck, who recently declared his not-so-impartial interest in the matter by launching a document I wrote about a few days ago…where he announced that humans are affecting the climate, that the public were getting confused: that clouds could provide negative feedback, but somehow (defying all logic and reason) it wouldn’t change the outcome if they did. Can anyone imaging Lambeck digging hard for faults with the IPCC?
McLean covers the history of the development of the committees, their connections, and their aims.
I haven’t got time to do it justice, but suffice it to say, science needs competition: different researchers, different theories, and different institutions — all trying to one-up each other. When John McLean writes about the lack of transparency in the ICSU or the IPCC, and the overlapping names and aims, I see the dark shadow of monopoly science smothering the competition.
The ICSU (p 16 – 18)
In almost every country the national scientific authority (“scientific academy, research council, scientific institution or association of such institutions”) is a member of the ICSU and so too are many key international organizations for specific scientific fields. According to ICSU statute 8 of membership rules21 these members are required to “support the objectives of ICSU”, which gives the ICSU extraordinary authority across all scientific fields. Members of the ICSU include the Royal Society in the UK and the National Academy in the USA and that seriously undermines the standing of the statements of support for the IPCC that both bodies have released since IPCC 4AR in 2007.
There are many disquieting aspects to the ICSU:
(a) The ICSU’s 8-member executive board ultimately decides that a project will be undertaken. This means that it evaluates for each project the benefit to society, but the methods that it uses remain a mystery.
(b) It relies on “selling” an idea to “client organizations” and having them provide the research funding. If the project is of no interest to these clients then no funding might be forthcoming, and when governments and intergovernmental work is involved we can assume a political dimension to that interest.
(c) It seems likely that scientists can lobby the executive board into approving certain programs that are likely to find a research partner.
(d) The ICSU has an interest in ensuring that members of its member organizations are employed (i.e. funded).
(e) It produces no scientific papers that might be exposed to peer-review but provides policy advice in monograph (i.e. book) form. The output of research and the resultant policy advice receives no independent scrutiny, especially regards accuracy and the selective use of supporting material, and the ICSU is therefore in a position of being able to manipulate international and governmental policy. (Of course peer-review might be a waste of time if those reviewers were members of ICSU member organizations.)
(f) The ISCU is not transparent in its decision-making or its actions. It discloses little enough information about its in-house work on current projects and only reports generated by past projects. No listing of the membership past executive boards is available, nor is information about the development of past projects, which means that no information is available to the public about the formulation of ICSU projects, decisions made in relation to those projects, the manner in which they were conducted and the basis for any conclusions. In short it is impossible to identify the individuals responsible for the decisions to support each ICSU program and the integrity with which those projects were carried out.
(My emphasis added).
…
Thanks to Josh for the cartoon on the top (and cover).
…
The Full Article We Have Been Conned from the Science and Public Policy Institute.
I was very happy when communism in which I lived collapsed. Now, I can see my joy was premature. It’s here again – compulsory “consensus” on the obscure, monopoly on information, monopoly on “the truth” and oppression for “noble” reasons. Will of dictators declared as science, thus something beyond discussion, and visions of historical necessity based on “scientific dialectical materialism” – now on scientific computer models. Nothing has changed the only the Great Red Revolution has been substituted with a Great Green Revolution. The Bolsheviks has been substituted with Consensusionars that means virtually the same as Bolsheviks in Russian (members of majority).
10
We the unwilling, deceived by the dishonest have been hoodwinked with so little, for so long at such costs that we will now believe that the impossible is reality!
Sounds crazy, right? Watch this Greenpeace zombie speaking with Lord Monckton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuj_tlRRQdQ
There are some really gullible people out there!
10
This is it!
One of the discordancies in this debate, that has worried me for some time, has been between the unorganised but rational reliance on argument from the sceptic camp, as opposed to the reliance on spin, group-think, and logical fallacies from the alarmist camp.
In any investigation, you always get differing views, but there is always some area of cross-over where the ideas and concepts merge – I think of it as an interference pattern between the two opposing forces (or the centre of a Venn diagram, if you are graphically inclined).
In the climate is/ain’t evil debate, that interference pattern is missing, except that both sides kind of agree that the level of CO2 in increasing. They then disappear behind their respective barricades again, regarding why.
Given the targeted focus, but random actions, of the green foot-soldiers at a tactical level, it was obvious that they were being co-ordinated at a strategic level. But I could never figure out who or where the politburo was in the alarmist camp.
Who was funding the PR machine, and giving it instructions? Who was “smoothing the way” to get the “right” decisions made? The foot-soldiers are all on-message, but where does the message come from?
This would seen to answer the third of those questions.
The next series of questions are: Why does the ISCU take the position it does? What keeps this group of scientists on-message? If they are publicly exposed for playing politics, their careers will be shot and their reputations will be in tatters, and they are only as strong as their weakest member. Why would they take such a risk?
The easy answer will be, “For the money, or the prestige”, but I doubt it is that simplistic.
10
At the very least, McLean has helped document a descent into madness. At best, he will help us rise out of a trough of shoddy science and sloppy policy-making. And the same can be said of this excellent website of Jo’s.
10
Adolf Balik:
‘Will of dictators declared as science, thus something beyond discussion’
That sounds like the divine right of kings.
It’s interesting in a way that communism denounced religion, yet it has used science for exactly the same purpose.
Is AGW ‘too big to fail’? There are certainly a lot of people who hope it is, or are desperately trying to get it to that stage.
The key to that is an international carbon market.
Once that starts up it will be ‘too big to fail’ and it will be continually propped up by governments, until it eventually collapses catastrophically and brings the economies of the developed world with it.
Into a depression that will make the ‘great depression’ looked like a walk in the park.
10
The ICSU was formally organised during 1931 from two older organisations, and this fact alone raises suspicions about its political makeup. I think Jihn has opened another can of worms with this article.
10
Rereke:
I didn’t think you believed in conspiracies!
But Adolf @ 1 has keenly observed:
So Rereke, perhaps the answer is hidden there for you.
10
Binny — I tend to agree with your that it’s starting to look like it’s “too big to fail”.
But I think the world economy at the moment is too frail to support it’s grandiose schemes
( yes, I’m a bear on economics, at present). I think the corruption already exposed in the “carbon trading’ will be it’s downfall (I hope that’s the case).
10
Mark D.: #7
Touche.
But you are right, I don’t believe in conspiracies in the sense of a bunch of radical anarchists sitting in somebody’s outhouse, plotting how to take over the world by blowing something up. The plot always leaks, and the “good guys” get to save the day (occasionally).
But I do understand chains of command, and controlled or repeated patterns of behaviour, and the compromises that form the heart of politics.
Conspiracies are not organised. This is, but only at the higher levels, and only in the sense of an agreement of purpose. There seems to be a general agreement that it would be more convenient if …
This is the stuff of political bubbles – nothing to do with reality.
The movers and shakers at the UN are mostly ex-national/federal level politicians or career diplomats or “policy advisors”. They have probably spent the majority of their working lives living “inside the bubble”.
Perhaps they are not comfortable in having only limited control over large multi-national corporations? Perhaps they are genuinely concerned about the plight of the starving children in Africa? Who knows? But in deciding to do something about what ever it is, they will pull the levers of whatever power they possess, and create levers where they have none.
I suggest that the ISCU is just another lever, but one that Jo, and the rest of us, are passionate about.
Oh, and relative to our off-line discussions, have a look at this link about China.
10
In case this hasn’t been posted, a must read – Bandt outed as the watermelon he is:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-too-bourgeois-for-adam-bandt-when-he-was-a-uni-student/story-fn59niix-1225911093349
No wonder ultra-left Juulya is so keen to have him on her side. Peas in a pod.
10
John McLean? File under timewaster. Don’t let him waste yours.
10
Warren:
Meaningless post from a traveling troll, Don’t come here with throw away lines, bring some argument based on science, even if it’s flawed science from R.C. or sceptical science at least it provides a basis for debate.
10
Eddy:
What capacity in Greenpeace does that lady have? I would hope for their sake she does not hold any office with them, as she is almost completely clueless.
10
Bulldust: #10
I would say that fifteen years ago he was pretty accurate in his assessment. Isn’t it amazing how some things just don’t change?
10
Dave N: #13
Foot soldier.
Otherwise known as cannon fodder.
Otherwise expendable.
So sad.
10
John McLean? Meaningless ‘discussion paper’ from an amateur polemicist. Anyone who calls his paper on the IPCC “We Have Been Conned” while claiming it to be a ‘review’,and starting it with a Summary for Policymakers,might just have an teensy-weensy prejudice. Who are these scribblings for?
He attacks Bert Bolin in his first chapter. How? Often,and stupidly. By stating that Bolin’s forecast of 1959 for a 25% increase in CO2 between 1850 and 2000 was wrong! Of course,with the relative lack of observations and 40 more years of global growth to project,Bolin was wrong-he underestimated,it is was closer to 35%-but,Johnny,he was in the ballpark. All forecasts about complex systems are ‘wrong’,but the ones as close as Bolin’s are ‘right’ enough.
McLean then attributes a journalists contribution-a crude attempt at describing the GH effect- to Bolin himself,even though his own reproduction of the article makes McLean’s lazy reading clear. To McLean,this makes Bolin wrong again. Oh dear. Bolin’s call for further studies is of course a red flag for McLean. He then gives a potted history of Bolin’s career,citing statements from various years to conclude that whatever Bolin was proposing when he described modelling designs,he didn’t care about other climate forcings. He also concludes that Bolin’s emminence as a commitee man clearly means his influence on the direction of research is “undue”. This is unsupported by reading the very material McLean provides. So,it’s just a crude baseless attack masquerading as reasonable comment.
To McLean,Bolins interest and professional qualification in the field makes him a compromised observer.
To Mclean,Bolins identification of the research direction needed by this budding field is an ‘admission’ rather than a simple example of vision. McLean knows nothing about research,clearly.
McLean makes the statement that many-not all- of the ‘failings of the IPCC’ can be attributed to Bolin’s ‘beliefs and character’,but nowhere is Bolin’s ‘character’ even discussed,and at this stage in McLean’s analysis/review the ‘failings of the IPCC’ have not yet been established! Oh,I see,because Bolin wasn’t always ‘right’,then his character is questionable,and a reader new to the issue is already convinced of the IPCCs failings!!! So much for the illogic of chapter one….
Typical McLean and the SPPI: crude character attacks and no real analysis in a neat PDF with footnotes.
10
Warren:@16
August 28th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
That’s a better effort Warren, at least you made a statement this time.
It’s just a shame that your whole post is every thing you accuse McLean of to quote yourself “it’s just a crude baseless attack masquerading as reasonable comment”.
10
Thanks,Bob…you’ve demonstrated why effort is wasted here. My comment IS an attack on McLean,but it is NOT baseless,and it is entirely reasonable. I actually read McLeans’s first chapter-yes,I wasted my time against my own advice- and have cited and excerpted things that are clearly there for anyone to see. My comments are BASED on McLeans work presented here.
Let me repeat for instance Mcleans suggestion that the cited references he gives raise in themselves issues of Bolin’s “character”. Well,they simply do not. It is incumbent on a critic to substantiate claims with specific detail. McLean does not.He simply makes the slur in closing,without any preceding text to support it.
Now if McLean wants to seriously analyse history here,he has to behave like a decent human being and establish his case. Not just attitudinise because he thinks dropping names,quotes and footnotes,no matter how unrelated to his claims,will create the impression of real work done. He is fooling himself.
10
@ Binny 28/10/2010 7:52 am
“Is AGW ‘too big to fail’? There are certainly a lot of people who hope it is, or are desperately trying to get it to that stage.
The key to that is an international carbon market.
Once that starts up it will be ‘too big to fail’ and it will be continually propped up by governments, until it eventually collapses catastrophically and brings the economies of the developed world with it.
Into a depression that will make the ‘great depression’ looked like a walk in the park.”
Add to that the fact that in 1950 every dollar borrowed by the USA contributed $.92 (That’s 92 cents) to it’s GDP.
By 2008 that had dwindled to $.12 (That’s 12 cents) This means to get the GNP growth of 1950 in 2008 you need to borrow 7.6 times the money. This is a nightmare of spiralling debt and decline.
In 2010 debt stands at a negative contribution. This means every dollar borrwed reduces GDP.
If a carbon market becomes “to big to fail”?… when it innevitably does fail the borrowings to prop it up will destroy economies and it could be the end of the west as we know it. The global economy will experience an axis shift similar to to the rise of 1920’s and the decline of the 30’s
(I personally don’t like the use of fail when talking about markets, but in the case of a carbon market it can be used. You can’t have a market in air, there are no resources to gather and no means of production, it can only fail)
10
Correction above…
By 2008 that had dwindled to $.12 (That’s 12 cents) This means to get the GDP growth of 1950 in 2008 you need to borrow 7.6 times the money. This is a nightmare of spiralling debt and decline
10
Warren: @11,16&18
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, well maybe whether a post is baseless or not may fall to those reading it as much or maybe even more than the opinion of the person posting.
10
Warren
“Let me repeat for instance Mcleans suggestion that the cited references he gives raise in themselves issues of Bolin’s “character”. Well,they simply do not. It is incumbent on a critic to substantiate claims with specific detail. McLean does not.He simply makes the slur in closing,without any preceding text to support it.”
So how about doing just that in terms of McClean – YOU supply the specific details etc etc to sustantiate your assertion here. And you only read the first chapter? Well at least that’s more than what the Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley did during the 1950’s when he caused McMillan to stop publishing a book Shapley criticised but which Shapley never actually read.
10
Louis,McLean has provided those details and references in his first chapter. Now,read it,then my second post and tell me if you find any reference to Bolins’s character. You’ll find references to his activities,some public statements…but no testimony to Bolin’s character from third parties,or as might be revealed by incident.. From the material McLean provides one can only safely conclude that Bolin was an energetic networker,capable chair,and possessed of some humility,in stating he wasn’t suitable for a position offered him.
This is an essential point,for Mclean has explicitly claimed that presumed IPCC failings are partly due to Bolin’s beliefs and character. Yet I can’t for the life of me find any material support for assertions on character IN HIS TEXT,and McLean hasn’t yet made a case for establishing IPCC failings in this chapter. Is the reader expected to take this as a given?
I hope McLean the Phd aspirant can iron out this sort of problem.
10
Rereke @ 9:
That is describing the amateurs. The expert ones meet in better places. 🙂
10
A real case can be made that the West, as we have termed it for many years, is kind’a falling apart. Every civilization is a ‘house of cards’. Many of the walls that hold the structure up, over time, are perceived as ‘NON-load bearing’ and just so much eyewash that can be weakened or severely undermined or even removed altogether — people just seem to forget why these little things were ever put there and fail to recognize their importance. We’re now in a phase of major remodeling. We’re not paying attention and we’re certainly not thinking of the ramifications of what various changes will do to the overall structure’s integrity.
None of this is new. It does happen all the time. But there is a point when carelessness and lack of thought can be quite distuctive, indeed, it can be very very dangerous indeed. These little ‘events’ generally, usually, sort’a happen every 75 to 100 years or so. They’re like major earthquakes in California. There’s no way to stop them from happening. There’s very little that individuals, or even fairly large groups, can do to ‘guarantee’ their survival –so to speak.
Life’s a beach. Enjoy! But do be careful! Things happen. We’re really due for another Big One. Just look at all the idiots running around trying to con us out of our money, way of life, form of government, or you-name-it.
PS: The United Nations is a “wish”, a “dream”, it will not succeed in preventing the next World War any more than the League of Nations did. Indeed, its stupidity may bring it to us faster. Yes! We need to keep trying to do things better. But we need to keep our eyes open and not believe in Santa Claus after the age of 18 too.
10
Warren:
August 28th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Perhaps you can provide evidence that will allow us to safely conclude that Bolin was convinced that rising CO2 levels were such a serious concern.
I just finished watching a video clip of Bert Bolin saying the world may warm a couple of degrees in fifty years or so but we just don’t know. At 37.38 of http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1391917 Bolin was the first chair of the IPCC. You know pre MBH98? The first report showed a graph with the medieval warm period and the little ice age present. I wonder, now that the hockey stick has been eviscerated, will the IPCC “rehabilitate” the MWP and the LIA and restore it to the literature or will they ignore the hundreds of peer reviewed papers that show both existed and were global in scope?
The IPCC was an organization formed to promote AGW, not to search for the truth. It was an organization that was driven by a political agenda. If you want to be a member of the green church of global warming be my guest.
Ah, the mating call of the loser!
Why don’t you make like a tree and leave if you feel as if you are wasting your efforts here? You are not here searching for the truth or sincerely attempting to engage others in a meaningful discussion, you are simply trolling. Flame out and fade away!
10
Warren,
Do us all a favor and get your house in order before you try to tell us our house isn’t in order. Eddy has it exactly right at 26.
10
Warren @ 23
“Louis,McLean has provided those details and references in his first chapter. Now,read it,then my second post and tell me if you find any reference to Bolins’s character. You’ll find references to his….”
I asked you to detail the substance of your allegations – instead you demand I do the leg work you are too lazy to do.
Criticise MacClean by all means but support it with facts and quotes to support your case.
10
Pascvaks:@25
This is OT but your house of cards comment.
Reminded me of someone I know who renovated their home. Without any knowledge or professional advice on structural engineering, they converted to a more ‘modern’ open plan design. It looked great – for about a year and then a storm came up one night and the whole lot collapsed in on itself.
It could be a metaphor for modern society, the ultimate triumph of style over substance.
Unfortunately style doesn’t cope well with unexpected shocks.
10
Louis,my second post is quite specific.
10
Rereke Whaakaro:
regarding your comment @3
Religion is the one aspect of human nature that defies all rational logic and common sense.
This whole issue has to be looked at in the context of the major religions of the world collapsing under their own weight.
Humans NEED religion of one sort or another, and at the moment the Western world is in a religious limbo desperately seeking something else to believe in.(probably subconsciously)
If you forget about the science and look at the message from the AWG’s side it ticks all the boxes.
10
Here’s the game-changer that the IPCC will have to address.
On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence
of unknown radiative forcing
Roy W. Spencer1 and William D. Braswell1
Received 12 October 2009; revised 29 March 2010; accepted 12 April 2010; published 24 August 2010.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/
Spencer: “this paper puts meat on the central claim of my most recent book: that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. As a result, the climate system has given the illusion of positive cloud feedback.”
How will Kurt Lambeck bat this one away? Into the sight-screen? Hook it out of the park? Or will he be caught at slips by Nova, making a rash shot? (mental images of Lambeck flailing wildly)
10
I would highly recommend people watch these to find out about the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX!
The Cap And Trade Charade:-
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/4323259/the-green-swindle/?playlist_id=86924
The Green Swindle:-
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/4323301/the-cap-and-trade-charade/?playlist_id=86924
10
Unlike Warren I have taken the trouble to read the whole document. It will take a while to digest and think about everything he says but the most important thing it does , for me, is give a reasonably clear picture of what has happened without it being clouded with pages of minute detail. Having said that the section on the issues with temp. data collection was illuminating — seeing all the issues together.It would have been nice to see similar coverage of how the global CO2 level measurements are made.
From comments he made in the document he is obviously working on other more detailed aspects of the issue, so I will look forward to those results.
10
Binny @ 31, not the first time I`ve heard those sentiments. Would just like to add a little poser – if AGW is the new religion of the 21st century (along with other areas of bureaucratic endeavour) then the Precautionary Principle certainly seems to be the new Commandment.
Came across this gem a little while back, OT but then again…Australia is signatory (surprise) to a UN (surprise) marine habitat convention. South Oz will be introducing extensive marine parks, complete with fishing exclusion/sanctuary zones in 2012. Herewith an extract from the marine park design principles, I suspect the bells particularly the last sentence rings will bring a rather wry smile to the faces of many here (insert fatalistic sigh);
5.1. Primary biophysical design principles
Principle Number One: The Precautionary or Anticipatory Approach
The Marine Parks Act 2007 defines the precautionary principle as:
‘if there are threats of serious or irreversible harm to the marine environment, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm’.
For the purposes of marine parks design, the precautionary approach should be applied to avert known risks of harm and/or potential harm to the marine environment. An additional component of the precautionary approach is that unknown risks may also exist and that reasonable scientific hypotheses should support decision making to anticipate, plan for and subsequently adapt to previously unforeseen risks to biodiversity conservation. An example of how the precautionary approach may be applied is the inclusion of unmapped areas within marine parks now, rather than waiting until habitat mapping programs can reveal more information about the areas of uncertainty.
10
Ross@ 34
Yes, and an analysis of CO2 forcing in Flawed Climate Models, Chap. 6.
Particularly the “leading to” part of this IPCC assertion:-
“The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m–2″
10
Warren,
It might be helpful if you read the entire document in question. There might then be some basis for debate. But you might have trouble getting past something like this which can only be by Judith Lean in response to reviewer’s comments on section 2.7.1 of AR4, since she cites her own work some 41 times in that section. And it’s certainly her work, being the only Solar Physicist as McLean points out.
With this kind of stuff to chew on, why worry about the inconsequential matters of chapter 1?
In any case, does it matter so much who said it? What really matters is the truth-be-damned attitude at the IPCC.
10
Warren @ 30
“August 29th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Louis,my second post is quite specific.”
As in specifically written to me I assume, because you surely have not grasped the idea of extracting a quote from McClean’s paper supporting your allegation, and that is being quite inspecific. Eddy and Roy otherwise summarise your position well.
10
Louis, I am not going to lead you through what is really quite clear. A simple reading of the chapter shows no real evidence about Bolin’s character and how the IPCC’s behavior reflects his character,just plenty about McLean’s intent and guileless bias.
For instance,McLean uses Bolin’s perfectly unguarded public candour about the relatively poor state of climate knowledge in 1989 as some kind of childish ‘gotcha’ that proves Bolin has only an ideological conviction that humans are capable of influencing climate,and no other basis for his view. Bolin simply identifies where research is needed into isolating and quantifying anthropogenic influence. This doesn’t presuppose that such influence is vast,or malicious,or a sole factor,just that it’s likely to become detectable.
McLean offers the non-sequitur: “He doesn’t know how much the climate has changed over the last 100-150 years and yet he is already convinced human activity is to blame.” This is loaded,unnecessary and unwittingly defensive.
McLean could have just as easily observed that by 1989,there was sufficient temperature data for Bolin to know that some change had occurred,and many years of science supported a growing view that CO2 rises could have some influence. But that’s too bland for John’s polemic intent.
If you feel persuaded by this heavy-handed interlocution,in a review that begins with “The IPCC is a disgrace to science”,then you are obviously just as well off in the dark with Eddy and Roy.
10
george: @35
Have you noticed how to precautionary approach never applies to the people whose incomes are affected by the precautionary approach.
A bit of a precautionary compensation wouldn’t go astray occasionally.
The bottom line of the green logic is simple, if you’re making a profit you MUST be doing something bad.
10
Re 36
The flawed IPCC assumptions have been known for a long time.
TSI, cloud, and the existence of other natural forcings issues were questioned 10 years prior to ar4. See:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
Excerpt
“The global cloud coverage diminished from its peak at the end of 1986 to its bottom in the middle of 1990 by more than 3%. According to observations by V. Ramanathan, B. R. Barkstrom, and E. F. Harrison [91], clouds have a net cooling effect of -17 W/m2 . Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [111] conclude from the diminution of this cooling effect between 1986 and 1990 that the solar irradiance has increased by about 1.5 W/m2 within these three and a half years. A change of this order is quite remarkable, since the total radiative forcing by carbon dioxide accumulated since 1750 has been estimated by the IPCC not to go beyond 1.5 W/m2 . This means that cosmic rays, strongly modulated by solar activity, achieve an effect within three and a half years for which the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs centuries. This shows clearly to what extent the greenhouse effect has been overestimated in comparison with the solar contribution to climate change, which turns out to be the most important factor.”
2007 IPCC ar4 CO2 RF +1.66 W.m-2.
Solar RF reduced to +O.12 W.m-2
We have been conned.
10
Warren,
and just what is John’s polemic intent? Could be the sinking of the holy grail of AGW ?
10
Out of left field I suppose…
I’ve concluded that a significant portion of humanity is coalescing into tribes made up of ‘think-alikes’. The immediacy of the internet is accelerating the process. This is how a belief system such as AGW can take root and persist. Nothing will change this in the short term, if at all. The sceptical side is just another tribe made up of personality types that need logic and evidence ahead of belief. The AGW side is probably made up of personalities that choose to believe first and then (maybe) look for support. You don’t need a great imagination to come up with a few other examples.
Once these tribes start to become more collective they reinforce their own prejudices; this seems to be what has happened with the ABC and a lot of blogs. This becomes a problem when one group decides the other group(s) don’t have a right to their views.
I see this as a disease of prosperity where too much time is available allowing indulgence in stuff that nobody had time for a hundred years and more ago because sheer survival was a full time task.
Can’t see a happy ending either, sorry!
10
ColinD. I agree. This is how the world worked for the ruling class a couple of hundred years ago. I guess we all foolishly believed that the enlightenment and the separation of the government from the superstition of religion would somehow make us immune from this type of insanity. Obviously not.
10
Binny: #31
That’s a good point. It explains why the foot soldiers can relate to the message so unswervingly.
But religions don’t just appear spontaneously, They require a lot of PR work by the shaman, prophet, or evangelist, et cetera; to give their specific idea traction, over all others – including science and common sense. And historically, religions have needed time to mature – often over several generations.
So although I agree that religious imagery is being used as a tool, I still see it as just being a means, not an end.
10
Eddue @ 2
I know the interview you are speaking of! Such a nice person, committed etc but so illiterate of the science she expected to save to world! You could see Monkton cringe at her ignorance!
We shouldn’t disparge the people of AGW, only the system that made them so ignorant?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
And just to divert a little to another point of interest, I strongly urge readers to read the article “The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange” at the following link:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2010/08/27/the-great-collapse-of-the-chicago-climate-exchange/
With the world becoming aware of various ‘global warming’ scandals, finally, it is waking up to appreciate that it has all been about one thing… scam scam scam!
10
Mervyn – or Mr. Sullivan?
Either way, you’re right – the Global Warming Fraternity have failed to provide a clear, scientific case to show why man-made CO2 emissions are significant and harmful. And why controlling them by tax or law would improve the lot of the humanity that make up this world’s population…
If a scientific theory cannot demonstrate its validity against those who would question it, then it must be discarded… We all know numerous examples where AGW has failed like this – the hot spot, the Medieval Warming, the Vostok Ice cores, CO2Science.com, the fact we still breathe…
In which case – why should we give the AGW advocates our taxes and the intellectual credibility they crave? They have earnt neither.
Thanks and Regards,
Speedy.
10
mervyn sullivan @ 47
Thanks for the link! I wish the author spent a little more time on the connection with CCX and Obama. Also the connection with CCX and the British banks.
http://www.examiner.com/orange-county-conservative-in-orlando/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa
http://www.crisisbydesign.com/blog/tag/chicago-climate-exchange-ccx/
But finally, the interesting tying together of lots of interesting companies:
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=64
You don’t have to believe in conspiracies do you?
10
Warren,
I see that you’re dead set on defending Bolin. That’s your privilege by the way if you want to. But frankly the matter here is far more than — and far more important than — Bolin. I’ll just explain the thing as I see it. If you get it you do and if you don’t then you don’t.
The IPCC is pushing a cause that arguably will affect both my life and yours very adversely if their recommended measures are implemented. We, the people of this world, therefore have every right to question what we’re being asked to do and what’s behind it.
You object to even the very opening statement of opinion by McLean; “The IPCC is a disgrace to science,” even though he goes on and supports his opinion at considerable length in the rest of his “review”. And yes, this is his opinion and we all know it. It is also the opinion I hold along with (I can safely say) all the regular contributors to this blog.
I was once on a jury where the case against the defendant was all circumstantial evidence. No one thing could possibly convict him of anything. But taken together the whole body of evidence became a crushing weight and we convicted the man. It took a lot of discussion and reflection before everyone could understand the difference between one thing in isolation not meaning much and the whole thing together painting quite a different picture.
Thus it is with the IPCC. McLean has done nothing more than collect and organize all the objections and problems that so many others have called out. If there had been one or two problems or if there had been only one or two complainers, one would have to be skeptical of them. But instead there have been many, many revelations of impropriety, conflict of interest, bias, carelessness, obvious cherry-picking of data, and cherry-picking of start and end dates. And what am I to think of the resignation of contributors who objected to being used as pawns in this disgrace? But the worst of all is the manipulation of data by the likes of Mann, Hansen and others, not to mention Jones and his circus at CRU; all to make it show what it did not show.
I submit that McLean’s review is nothing more or less than the prosecutor’s final summation of the case against the IPCC to the jury.
You may yell and scream all you want to, defend Bolin all you want to and condemn McLean all you want to. But the mountain of evidence still speaks for itself. And it’s high time for that mountain of evidence to be shouted from the rooftops in every city, town and village around the world.
Does McLean have a bias? You’re darn tootin’ he does — the same bias I have. We’ve looked at the mess that’s the IPCC and we don’t like what we see. I have never before mocked anyone who disagreed with me. But frankly, if I’m in the dark here, then I’ll prefer the darkness you think I’m in — and where the truth is — rather than the light where you believe you are.
10
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/#more-24074
It looks as if the temperature adjustment process is still not over. Seems as if GISS cannot wean themselves off continuing to adjust temperature figures every time the temperature drops just so that they can make a statement that this is the hottest decade ever. Now it seems that 1998 is not the hottest year that gong has gone to 2005. But not because 2005 was previously hotter it is just because 1998 temperature has been lowered.
Stephen Goddard puts it this way.
stevengoddard says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:13 am
Phil.
It is one of the miracles of modern science how GISS corrections almost invariably seem to make the past cooler, and the present warmer.
Sooner or later they may be able to correct away the Dust Bowl entirely.
10
Antarctic cold snap blamed on….you guessed it…’”Global Warming”!!!
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100827/full/news.2010.437.html
10
JaniePo:
Perhaps all the money would be better spent, on sending them into the future. Then they could similarly take care of any future warming for us , retrospectively.
10
Pascvaks: PS: The United Nations is a “wish”, a “dream”, it will not succeed in preventing the next World War any more than the League of Nations did. Indeed, its stupidity may bring it to us faster. Yes! We need to keep trying to do things better. But we need to keep our eyes open and not believe in Santa Claus after the age of 18 too.
I agree. How many wars have we had since 1945? The only thing that has kept things from getting out of hand since then, in the sense of a world war, is nuclear weapons. The politicians and generals are then in the front line too and there won’t be any goodies to divvy up afterwards.
Unless you have a yearning to be an infantryman in a giant re-run of WW2 you wouldn’t ban nukes. Fortunately nobody even believes this is possible. Any noise from politicians about this is just noise, nothing more.
As for the IPCC and ICSU(along with the UN), my observations are that any body like this will degenerate into uselessness fairly quickly. You only need observe committees at small sporting clubs.
10
At this point I was laughing hysterically. You’ve got to be kidding, given the character assassinations coming from the CAGW believers.
Ad hominem. Of course, we’ve come to expect this tactic from the CAGW side.
This is not a non-sequitur. Bolin doesn’t know how much climate has changed AND is convinced that human activity is to blame. Are those to clauses correct or not? If one cannot even quantify the change, then how does one attribute said “non-quantified” change to human activity? It is a valid question and not non-sequitur.
Why would he make that observation when even the available temperature data is questionable? Saying that CO2 “could have some influence”, is a long way from stating definitively that human activity is the cause of climate change. You are the one obfuscating.
10
You guys are so depressing. First I read how the IPCC, the UN, peer reviewed science etc are leading us to ruin. Then you tell me that people like you are “the cure”, and I get even more depressed.
Of course you think that you are interested in the truth. But in reality you are simply offended by the idea that human activities need to be limited or controlled. So you huff and you puff, and you pat yourselves on the back, and you feign outrage at the latest “revelation” of your enemies misconduct. Many of you would “fight the good fight” even if you knew that climate change was real and would lead to devestating consequences.
10
John Brookes @56
It isn’t feigned. We really are outraged that supposedly educated people do not have the capacity to think and reason.
10
Grant@57:
mores the pity….
10
Re 41
The Solar RF was halved in ar4 from the TAR estimate, based on a new “model” of solar magnetism .
TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-4.html
So the solar parameter assumption in the ar4 simulation is based on the results of assumptions made in another model. Hence the “large” uncertainties.
Other natural forcings discussed – then ignored.
Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000
simulations, Hansen et at (2002)
(sounds like denial)
They admit that solar variability “could be a significant climate forcing” but its in the too-hard basket .
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Looks like Cloud Resolving Models (CRM’s) will be the mechanism that alters cloud properties in ar5 (with a negative feedback?). Now all they have to do is build another model to predict future solar changes.
Please read the above comment in conjunction with
SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS, Dr Theodor Landscheidt, Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia, Canada
10
Warren:
August 29th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Your post at #39 dealt with the article, not the “conversation, discussion or dialogue.” Quit being pedantic, it is obvious.
Perfectly unguarded public candor? In other words, he meant what he said? You have used a straw man because the article did not contain the statement you attributed to McLean.
And you accused McLean of employing a non sequitur? If McLean would have observed sufficient temperature data to support the AGW hypothesis he would not be a skeptic, would he? Your argument posits that the data was in “good enough shape” to support the AGW hypothesis.You have employed the fallacy Circulus in demonstrando (circular reasoning). Your reasoning is circular because you have offered no evidence that the data proves the validity of the AGW hypothesis and yet you use the “data” in an attempt to “prove” your argument!
You accuse Roy and me of being in the dark? It is the proponents of the failed and falsified AGW theory who revel in the dark. That is why the do not want their raw data to come to light.
10
this should happen in the next 24 hours – hmmm!
28 July: New Scientist: Climategate data sets to be made public
CLIMATE-change sceptics who clamoured for raw data are to get all their Christmases at once.
The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK, recently at the centre of the hacked emails controversy, is launching a pilot study into how best to make public three major temperature data sets and detailed records of how they are processed. They will include data repeatedly requested by climate sceptics under freedom of information legislation…
It will not be as simple as putting the numbers online, as the data sets are frequently updated, and the steps leading to updates will also be made clear.
The project is a collaboration between the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727710.101-climategate-data-sets-to-be-made-public.html
10
Greens are either communists or fools!!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_either_communists_or_fools_but_i_repeat_myself/
10
56John Brookes:
August 30th, 2010 at 11:32 am
10
JaniePo:
August 30th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“Greens are either communists or fools!!!”
Maybe but except for the “communists” my impression is that mostly they are “scientifically” illiterate (which probably is also true of a large percentage of most contemporary populations). The trick of the “communists” is to use the pejorative “carbon pollution” when they refer to man made industrial emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere (apparently CO2 is quite smart and does not “trap” the massive naturally occurring CO2 emissions). Granted only a “fool” would be conned by that but there certainly seem to be great numbers of them.
Most “fools” are probably unaware of, or cannot connect CO2’s part in photosynthesis or the fact that there would be no form of organic life on the earth including us humans without this vital to life gas. Some of us who make a crust out of designing and manufacturing things that most times work also know that the Aussie work place safe limit for workers exposure to CO2 is 8 hours at 10,000 ppm. For “fools” the present concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is about 1/25th of that. So no “pollution” problems in us breathing in or even ingesting the stuff.
So for the information of “fools” the issue is not “carbon pollution” per se but rather is whether or not the maximum increase of about 2ppm/year of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity is likely to significantly increase earth’s temperature? The second issue is, if there was to be a significant increase in “average temperature” would that be a good thing as Arrhenius suggested, by creating Garden of Eden conditions over much of freezing cold climes, or would it negatively affect the climate, presumably mainly for our great, great grandchildren?
They are the real questions that as yet remain unanswered.
10
John Brookes: #56
August 30th, 2010 at 11:32 am
John you’re diagnosis is in error. What’s really depressing you?
Might it be that even though the warmists have had “the science”, “the governments”, “the activists”, “the NGO’s”, “the corporations” (yes, even them. Check out the donations/grants from oil and nuclear companies to the warmists) and “the public” on their side, they’ve FAILED MISERABLY.
Why might that be you may ask. (understanding is this is the road to recovery from depression.)
Simplest way to explain it would be to ask “Hey John, have you tried selling ice to the Eskimos?”
10
John Brookes @56
I am intrigued – in your opinion, what proportion of the horrendous 0.7C GMT warming observed in the last century is directly, categorically and irrefutably attributable to anthropogenic influence?
There is no possibility of this being partly or, dare I say, mostly as a result of progressively coming out of the LIA?
Just asking…
10
The Mindset of Being Manipulated.
We are programmed from a very young age to be conned, manipulated and taken by a society based on being lied to for power, greed, profit, etc.
Religion was designed to control the masses through faith and the manipulation of our emotional states.
Science manipulated us through the educational system that the “LAWS” that were created were absolute and through repetition, infused as correct theories.
Anyone outside these constraints must be heritics or crazy and should not be listened to or acknowledge by the current mindset of society.
_________________________________________
I would still be inside this cycle except I created a turbine system that is 18 times more efficient and found it conflicted with our current “LAWS” on physics. So, being curious, I had to find out WHY?
The deeper I went, the more conflicts with other science areas were occurring.
So, I had to clear the current science and start all over again.
In doing this, I was able to find how and what the problems were.
Our current “Peer-Reviewed” science is a chopped up mess that interacts terribly when figuring our how and why this planet works.
I am classed as an “insurgent” as I think outside societies box.
10
Joe Lalonde:
August 30th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
You certainly are an insurgent.In fact with your understanding of and attitude to the edifice of science you should make good Greenie material.
The order of increasing “certainty” in science is:
1. Hypothosis.
2. Theory.
3. Law.
For most of us an understanding of the first two are more or less optional but the third is essential for those of us who are interested in getting things done without accidentally reinventing things like the wheel.
Pouring shit on science is, I guess, one way to destroy AGW science (along with the rest of science) but it seems pretty obvious that the better and probably more convincing way to deal with fanaticism in science (like AGW) is to fight that sort of misapplication of science with some of the tried and proven laws of natural science.
10
Slightly OT but have we been conned by faulty satallite readings? I read somewhere that some NOAA satellites have been slowly degrading over the past 5 years and sometimes feeding us data 10º out. A Dr Charles Anderson who is a materials physicist, comments that “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records…”
Does anyone know more about this?
If we have dropped 800+ thermometers in favour of satellite data perhaps it’s time to re check the correlation between real thermometer temps and satellite interpolated ones. The suggestion is that most of the recent NOAA satellite data are over temperature and that these data are automatically generated and passed-on.
As yet I’ve found nothing at NOAA’s web-site. For a mob as big as NOAA it would be tricky admitting such a gaff if it were true.
Will keep searching.
10
Hey George@66, I’m guessing that most of the warming is due to pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. But I’m not a technical expert, which is why I’m guessing. Other people make realistic estimates based on models.
Anyway, while many on my side are absolutely certain, I think another 20 years will settle it, because of 20 years more data, and a better understanding of the physical processes and how to model them.
What I’m rather more certain of is that the preponderance of opinion on your side of the fence is based on a dislike of the action necessary to stop climate change, rather than the science itself. Put it this way, if the world was in danger and the only cure was to dig up and burn coal as fast as we could, most of you lot would not be questioning the science.
10
Oh, Joe Lalonde@67. On being manipulated, you remind me of a game of Diplomacy (a game like Risk, but much more intense). We used to play. It was hard to get enough players. So we had a policy of looking after new players, especially for the opening few movers, which were vital for gaining new territory.
One day we tried very hard to nurse a new player through the first few moves, but he was so convinced that we were trying to con him that he triumphantly did exactly the opposite of what we told him. Two moves later he was pretty well wiped out, but none the less was happy with himself, as he had not allowed himself to be manipulated….
10
Another fine effort put forth by Mr McLean, a true public servant, as is Ms Nova for promoting the truth for its own and everyone’s sake.
I really expected to see more “troll” type of remarks in this posting from a familiar collection of “suspects” – I guess we have to give them some time and maybe they’re taking a holiday
10
John Brookes:
August 31st, 2010 at 12:42 am
Oh John, what a defeatist and absolutely brain dead false analogy. Perhaps you should read the children’s story about the boy who cried wolf? Jo and the regulars who post here are not being manipulated nor are we making a windfall profit in our opposition to the great global warming scam. Quit being a mindless drone. You belief, as has been demonstrated by your many and various posts, is based on an appeal to authority. Try applying a little critical analysis to the thought process, if you can.
I know, why don’t you obtain the raw data that is the basis for the alarmist claims by the CAGW cabal for us? Then, we can use the scientific method to see if the hypothesis can be falsified. After all, that is how science is done, isn’t it? Then, w can all go to sleep knowing that the science is at least based on legitimate research. Oh yes, I remember now. They refuse to release the data and have fought tooth and nail to foil every attempt to get it!
Get a clue, John!
10
That one little clause tells all we need to know about Mr. Brookes, a man who thinks climate has never before changed and who seems to think humans have the power to stop what has occurred continually over billions of years. Talk about denial!
10
Eddy,
That gets the quote of the year award.
10
“John Brookes”, four your own sake…..
STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF!
Your moronic remarks simply demonstrate how devoid of science your “education” was.
Learn some basic HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE, then come back when you have something INTELLIGENT to contribute!
10
Brian,
Help! Don’t encourage them!
I just had to do it…fingers out of control again.
10
Llew Jones:
August 30th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Not once did you conclude that “Actual Physical Evidence” fall into any category.
Quantum Theory is more the science of today when not one theory includes any rotating objects. Just straight point to point refences that outside a lab, would be complete failures. Failure to include distances for such theories as time travel and revolutions per time interval.
Example: If a machine was possible to travel through time, it would ALWAYS fail as no exact distances of ANY stationary objects exist to do a triangulation of EXACT distances to time interval wanting to visit. You NEED time area to visit and exact location that WE cannot find currently as solar systems are moving and ROTATING.
10
John Brookes:
August 31st, 2010 at 12:42 am
Played a life like game like that in the Canadian Military and learned to be unpredictable as lives are lost when you follow the same game plan over again. That game became too dangerous when others are getting promoted from your ingenuity and putting your life in danger when other options are available.
10
JLKrueger:
August 31st, 2010 at 2:34 am
Hola Senor Krueger! You said
I believe your observation was astute and warranted. The following gem seems to aptly describe his approach to the hypothesis of global warming.
10
Just heard an interview of Kevin Trenbeth on ABC Radio National.
He said:- the IPCC is incredibly conservative & invariably correct……
Who writes his material?
10
The Earth is COOLING DOWN!
SO MUCH FOR THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX!!
An early end to summer as snows fall in Europe…..
http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/29/summer-2010-boy-that-was-short-snow-forecast-for-alps-under-2000-meters/
10
JaniePo:
August 31st, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Janie, you poor delusional person, you must be well aware by now that unseasonal cold weather is a sure sign of global warming. LOL.
10
Ohhh! You are so mean Eddy.
BTW Mr Krueger (can I say that with a South African accent? it sounds so much more interesting that way…), when I say “climate change”, it is a convenient shorthand for “the current rapid global warming caused by the emission of vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”. I could go through that spiel every time, but it would be very tiring for all concerned. Oh wait, you were just being a smart-arse, weren’t you?
10
John Brookes are you even aware that there hasn’t been any warming at all over the last decade or so, let alone “current rapid global warming”? Oh wait, you were just being a smart-arse, weren’t you?
Meanwhile Jo is exhibiting her psychic powers:
More or less exactly what they said. Scary!
10
John Brookes, There is your problem:
False! IF happening, is not any more rapid than many other time periods>
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
. Also FALSE! It is not VAST and Human caused emissions are a fraction of natural sources.
So you see John, you still fall for the untrue.
10
Mark D. #86
Interesting data – the Younger Dryas (YD) seems to have been associated with a global climatic catastrophe and seems the changeover from an earlier cooler one to the more warmer holocence one we are in now. I’ve come across some other data that might shed some light on the YD as well, and note that WUWT also pointed to the absence of nano-diamonds at this event eliminating, according to the researchers, any meteoritic impact as the cause.
The YD is basically the Pleistocence extinction ~ 10,000 years BP (+/- 2000y) and one colleague mentioned that South America suffered even more at that time in terms of extinctions and disruptions. It was also the end of the neolithic period (?)
Can’t much for the temperature graph for the MWP though, but its a guvmint graff and hence cloudy in detail.
10
#81 Pattoh
Trenberth said thaaat?
Understandable though, like all of the ruling elite and chattering classes who only socialise among themselves, they consider themselves to be normal and conservative in outlook, and regrad us as extremists and off the planet. Bernard Goldberg writing in his two books, Biased, and Arrogance, of the US mainstream media came to the same conclusion for the journalists – they too considered themselves as normal if only because, in their restricted social milieu, they never interact with anyone but fellow thinkers and travellers. Since in their experience no one thinks differently then they do, (group think), then they would consider it the “norm” and thus conservative. Such is the world of the lefty intellectual – totally disconnected from physical reality where the rest of us live.
10
Here’s how to make your favourite science “sound”:
– Demonise your critics. Encourage others to do the same. Connect your critics with something nefarious like tobacco.
– Has it transpired that supporters of your favourite theory have been found to have been “making things up”? Ignore it. Blame others for stealing confidential correspondence then misinterpreting it.
– No evidence to support your theory excepting some isolated examples of bad weather? Doesn’t matter. That’s all the evidence anybody needs, save some “deniers” who are also prone to reject a connection between tobacco and disease and a host of other convictions which can easily be “bought”
– Spend a tonne of money on the assumption that your theory is valid, which will enhance anybody’s reluctance to admit that their money has been “wasted” (also known as “cognitive dissonance”)
– Above all, find your strength of conviction in numbers
10
Louis @ 87
I should have posted the parent page to that first chart: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/
From the abstract: {bold mine}
Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes.
Indeed something big happened!
10
To:JaniePo @82.
Early snow in one place means little but there’s a round up of cool spots at the ‘ice age now’ site.
http://www.iceagenow.com/2010_Other_Parts_of_the_World.htm
It’s easy to fudge data and give opinions on climate but good old water always freezes at zero. I reckon the actual freezing of water is significant because it requires considerable removal of energy to turn water at zero to ice at zero degrees.
10
Joe Lalonde:
August 31st, 2010 at 11:46 am
Llew Jones:
August 30th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
“Not once did you conclude that “Actual Physical Evidence” fall into any category.
Quantum Theory is more the science of today when not one theory includes any rotating objects. Just straight point to point refences that outside a lab, would be complete failures. Failure to include distances for such theories as time travel and revolutions per time interval.
Example: If a machine was possible to travel through time, it would ALWAYS fail as no exact distances of ANY stationary objects exist to do a triangulation of EXACT distances to time interval wanting to visit. You NEED time area to visit and exact location that WE cannot find currently as solar systems are moving and ROTATING.”
Joe I’m sure your heart is in the right place re the semi paranoid AGW crowd and no doubt we could all have great fun playing around with the theoretical problems in designing time machines (three cheers for “Time And Relative Dimensions In Space”) but some of us are stuck with classical mechanics and things like thermodynamics which in their own boring way are a lot more credible than the nonsense the AGW crazies rely on. That’s was all I was trying to say. Sorry if I spoilt your fun.
10
Mark D@86. Nice graph of global temps. The scale is a problem though – the last 100 years is barely a hairs breadth on the right hand side. How about a temperature graph for just the last 200 years, or better still one of those clever graphs with a window expanding a small area of the original graph.
Its what has happened in the last 100 years or so, since we really started pumping heaps of CO2 into the air, which is interesting.
The earlier stuff is interesting too. For example the rapid temperature rise coming out of the Younger Dryas. How much is that in degrees per year? Similar to the last 50 years?
10
John Brookes. Your request for a graph with better scale ignores that it was already provided for you there: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
Please note in that graph the steep and multi-degree rise just 1000 years ago (or so) Along with the many other steep historic rises in just the past 8000 years.
AND NO John, the last 50 years are not similar to the Younger Dryas as per the quote from the Alley 2000 paper (which I had made in bold print for you) @ 90:
All this was covered quite nicely in the link provided in 86 and duplicated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
You are either in denial or just messing with me. Either way you are behaving more troll like.
10
I think the IAC did a reasonable job.
The IAC’s report on IPCC identifies in nice words all the problems:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Nontransparent processes of scoping and selection of authors.
Early finalization of document outlines which prevent incorporation of emerging scientific knowledge.
Procedures for critically assessing unpublished and non-peer reviewed sources not followed.
Alternative scientific views not cited if lead authors disagreed with them.
Lack of scientific independence – working group co-chairs select review editors.
Differences in content between the Summary for Policymakers and underlying report.
Synthesis Report redundant and too political.
Inconsistent use of uncertainty guidance and inappropriate characterization of scientific uncertainty – assigning probabilities to imprecise statements.
Lack of transparency in formation of subjective judgements not based on evidence.
IPCC Chair term too long for a dynamic and contested field as climate change.
Lack of conflict of interest or disclosure policy for: IPCC senior leadership (i.e.,
IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), Working Group Co-chairs and authors, and the staff of the
Technical Support Units.
Poor communication on errors and perception of policy advocacy by IPCC leaders.
In short:
1. Yes we have been conned.
2. There is good science in the detailed IPCC reports
3. The IPCC chair has done a great job bolstering his prospects of becoming rich from carbon trading, aided by researchers who have gotten large funding to find warming
10
“Client organisations” provide the funds. Is there anything else to know?
In case anyone really needs to know, client organisations therefore also decide the outcomes. It’s that simple. Scientists are the hookers and the client organisations decide on the relevant positions they need to take.
Nothing has changed in the human condition over time, has it?
10
SC.E.P.T.I.C.: So-Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles.
Here is a radical idea – cite research that shows increasing CO2 does not affect climate or cite research that shows that most of the glaciers in the world ARE NOT retreating or, perhaps, create your own temperature graphs from the existing temperature records (yes they still exist, contrary to the disingenuous cartoon above would have you think).
10
Drewski, pay attention in class would you? Everything you have asked and said has been discussed here and elsewhere. Look around this site and READ!
Oh yes open your mind up a little too.
Then take a look here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
10