This is just rich. Another point for the denialists. I wonder how this is now going to play out with the Cap & Trade crowd and the rest of the group. A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists.

Let’s go back to the global cooling thesis!

Related link: Academic paper on the IPCC with amazing bibliography. A goldmine for skeptics.

Found by Jason Price.




  1. Mr. Fusion says:

    #154, Guyver,

    The key point here is the IPCC reports are editorialized by non-scientists.

    You still haven’t demonstrated any evidence other than your own claims. You may either go back to Lyin’ Mike’s claim in #148 or read the excerpt I posted in #153 for evidence contrary to your claim. You and Mike have made this claim several times yet haven’t backed it up.

    Empirical evidence is truth. The consensus you’re looking for is not about the empirical evidence. So be it.

    Say what? Empirical evidence is ONLY evidence. Usually is deserves much better credence than circumstantial evidence but don’t confound the “truth” with evidence. That is the same thing as claiming a piston ring is an automobile.

    Science doesn’t like to use words like “truth” or “prove”, simply because science is always evolving according to the best evidence available. In science, anyone may present evidence. The key is to have that evidence accepted by others.

    To date, the evidence supports the claim that global warming is occurring and man is the cause. There is no evidence presented to deny or rebut that. Those who, for whatever reason, deny AGW have almost solely based their attacks on the people presenting the evidence. The evidence for AGW has been verified and that is why it currently has such support in the scientific community.

    IF, you have any evidence that AGW isn’t a reality then could you post some evidence? BTW, anecdotal evidence is worth very little and is usually discounted out of hand. Attacking those who present the evidence or the manner the evidence is presented only diminishes your argument.

  2. Mr. Fusion says:

    #154, Guyver,

    It just so happens that I just got back from making an uber garden mix of composted cow manure, worm castings (manure), composted mushrooms, and cotton burr compost. Not only will I be growing things organically from the composted feces, but the worm castings had a lot of live worms in them. So, it seems like you made a good point.

    In other words, you aren’t using feces, you had to process them first into something usable. Second, I doubt you will be growing anything straight in your compost. Instead you will mix (dilute) the compost with soil. Nice try, but you only demonstrated the point. While a little is good, too much at one time is a poison and has to be processed before it injures us.

  3. Guyver says:

    157, Mr. Fusion,

    In other words, you aren’t using feces, you had to process them first into something usable. Second, I doubt you will be growing anything straight in your compost. Instead you will mix (dilute) the compost with soil. Nice try, but you only demonstrated the point. While a little is good, too much at one time is a poison and has to be processed before it injures us.

    You wanted to play a game of polemics with me, and I merely demonstrated that the use of feces is valuable to life. Now you want to split hairs. So be it, but you’re not being intellectually honest.

    In other words, you’re being dogmatic to a flaw. I could have brought up the fact that dung beetles rely on feces for their livelihood or that many insects feed off the dung produced by bats or other animals, but no I didn’t see the need.

    I did say I made a garden mix. I did not see the point of mentioning vermiculite or peat moss. Regardless, composted cow manure is feces that has sat around for about a year. Worm castings is feces.

  4. Guyver says:

    Global Warming: Scientists’ Best Predictions May Be Wrong: http://tinyurl.com/mbhr4o

    “In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

    The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”

  5. Guyver says:

    The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists: http://tinyurl.com/2vdcyd

    Of the countless flaws inherent to Pop Science, by far the most pernicious is that, contrary to accepted scientific method, the conclusion precedes any supporting research. Special interests whose agendas may be furthered by the junk premise then incite the media to amplify their positions and ignore both the science and protesting contrarian scientists. Nowhere is this abuse more prevalent and dangerous than in fields of environmental science.

  6. Guyver says:

    IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus:

    http://tinyurl.com/2dnkgzo

    “The chinks in the armor that is a supposed scientific consensus regarding man’s role in global warming continued to grow this week when it was identified that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were not in agreement with the study’s findings.

    Didn’t hear about this? Well, how could you? Nobody reported it!”

  7. Guyver says:

    Everything is Caused by Global Warming (600+ links): http://tinyurl.com/35fb7s

    Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”: http://tinyurl.com/2foo2k

    After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. “I fell in love,” he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

    “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

  8. bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

    Near the end of this active thread.

    I have no polemic to advance. Just common sense and generally accepted fact and theory?

    My interest is epistemology–how do we know what we know and how do we change our minds?

    When I say “everyone” agrees co2 is a greenhouse gas, that is not “my” opinion. I read the literature and observe that is true. I’m very happy to change that statement when the facts suggest it.

    Perhaps you are engaged in a rhetorical exercise? The art of confusion? You like to talk about water vapor when the subject is c02. You bring up human respiration when the subject is burning oil and coal. Obviously, a private allusion you find powerful, but it is irrelevant.

    How is dung beetles eating elephant poo relevant at all as to whether or not co2 is a GHG? Another private equation on your part.

    Yes, the big picture escapes you arguing from incredulity and private allusion.

    Amusing.

  9. Guyver says:

    165, Bobbo,

    I have no polemic to advance. Just common sense and generally accepted fact and theory?

    AGW is not promoted as a theory. Common sense is not science. Logical fallacies are not science. But you already tipped your hat when you said: “Science and its proof does have its limitations.”

    As a skeptic, I ask for proof. As a skeptic, you don’t.

    My interest is epistemology–how do we know what we know and how do we change our minds?

    My interest is seeing just how much people who claim to know really know. I will change my mind when I see empirical evidence which proves causality.

    When I say “everyone” agrees co2 is a greenhouse gas, that is not “my” opinion. I read the literature and observe that is true. I’m very happy to change that statement when the facts suggest it.

    When I say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that’s because this is how it’s classified. There’s no misunderstanding on my part.

    Don’t confuse my question of causality as though I’m challenging CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know it’s classified as a greenhouse gas.

    Perhaps you are engaged in a rhetorical exercise? The art of confusion? You like to talk about water vapor when the subject is c02.

    I’m interested in seeing how much others truly know and how much their conclusion hinges on science or on dogma.

    You like to talk about water vapor when the subject is c02.

    I bring up water vapor because just like CO2, it’s a greenhouse gas and it’s naturally occurring. As you have stated, CO2 is the topic and ultimately it’s about regulating a naturally occurring gas.

    You bring up human respiration when the subject is burning oil and coal.

    In the previous quote you just said the topic was CO2 (which I agree with)…. and the topic still is CO2. I’m merely pointing out sources of CO2. Would you agree that having over 6 billion people on this planet exhaling CO2 has a warming effect? 🙂 Or is the impact insignificant?

    How is dung beetles eating elephant poo relevant at all as to whether or not co2 is a GHG? Another private equation on your part.

    You should ask Fusion since feces was his curiosity.

    Yes, the big picture escapes you arguing from incredulity and private allusion.

    Amusing.

    It’s called Science Bobbo. You want to change it to suit your dogma. That’s your prerogative.

    Again, this is your argument:

    CO2 -> Warming Influence

    Warming Influence -> Man-Made Global Warming

    Therefore CO2 -> Man-Made Global Warming

    What you are referring to as the “big picture” is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

    You’re demonstrating the fallacy of a questionable cause / confusing cause & effect / ignoring a common cause.

    Until you can gather empirical evidence to state what the true causal relationship is in global warming, you’re essentially preaching dogma and using consensus as an appeal to popularity (another logical fallacy).

    There’s two types of scientists here. Those who use empirical evidence and those who want to make you think they do.

    Regardless, I’ve enjoyed the exchange. Have a great weekend.

  10. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist and film critic says:

    Guyver–just in case you are totally bored and come back, but for the casual observer as well:

    Yes, I can see a fatal flaw you won’t recognize or give up: equating co2 from burning trillions of tons of sequestered carbon with human respiration. Burning all that coal and oil is not as you say “a natural process.” It is human caused and the effect is measurable in the atmosphere and the oceans.

    I don’t know, I accept the IPCC model that says a doubling of atmospheric co2 will/is increasing global air temp by .5 to 1.0 degrees.

    What is your source for denying that a doubling of CO2 will increase the temps?

    How can that not be AGW?

    BTW–if GW was positively influenced by the presence of 9 Billion people, that too would raise all the same questions: do we want global temp to rise 1 degree with all the attendant changes for the current reliance on A: carbon based fuel or B: as many people as there are on earth?

    Was it Paul Ehrlick who said ultimate all resource problems come down to a population excess? Somthing like that.

    You are persistent, but I think you drop a few balls in your exercise.

  11. bobbo, self actualization is a wonderful thing says:

    Here is a current review of the situation. I would need to read it again but seems like the position taken is that AGW is science, and anti-AGW is self serving political FUD.

    Not sure that is absolutely correct, but I can go with it.

  12. Guyver says:

    167, Bobbo,

    Yes, I can see a fatal flaw you won’t recognize or give up: equating co2 from burning trillions of tons of sequestered carbon with human respiration. Burning all that coal and oil is not as you say “a natural process.”

    Does it matter how the CO2 is produced if the concern is simply about the CO2?

    I’m not equating the origins, but I am pointing out other sources of CO2.

    If you want to curb / limit CO2, can you honestly assume government will stop simply at the burning sources? This can and will expand to other things such as how many children a person can be allowed to have without a tax penalty to higher taxes on beef due to AGW concerns (and health care).

    I don’t know, I accept the IPCC model that says a doubling of atmospheric co2 will/is increasing global air temp by .5 to 1.0 degrees.

    Does anyone truly know? Post #161 presents an alternative theory / concern.

    “The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.””

    What is your source for denying that a doubling of CO2 will increase the temps?

    The models you speak of are based off of assumptions. There is no empirical evidence that the CO2 being created by mankind is the source of the warming trend. Those models assume CO2 is causal.

    Read Christy’s paragraphs subtitled: “Slim Models” and “Complex World”

    http://tinyurl.com/2lb4sn

    “Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).”

    BTW–if GW was positively influenced by the presence of 9 Billion people, that too would raise all the same questions: do we want global temp to rise 1 degree with all the attendant changes for the current reliance on A: carbon based fuel or B: as many people as there are on earth?

    Was it Paul Ehrlick who said ultimate all resource problems come down to a population excess? Somthing like that.

    Historically it leads to war. Let’s assume we do in fact determine empirically that man-made CO2 is the root cause of global warming. What then? Will nuclear energy be given serious consideration, or do we ration everyone’s use of energy? Do we impose high taxation whereby the rich can afford a disproportionate share? Or do we all decide to live in caves?

    In the event your hypothesis comes true, you will need to offer realistic energy alternatives.

    You are persistent, but I think you drop a few balls in your exercise.

    I prefer the scientific method. You agree that correlation does not mean causality, however much of what you’re defending is concluding causality based on correlation. I ask for proof, and somehow I’m a few balls short of sanity. 🙂

    If you really look at my beef, it’s how people conclude things.

  13. Guyver says:

    Yes, I can see a fatal flaw you won’t recognize or give up: equating co2 from burning trillions of tons of sequestered carbon with human respiration. Burning all that coal and oil is not as you say “a natural process.”

    Does it matter how the CO2 is produced if the concern is simply about the CO2?

    I’m not equating the origins, but I am pointing out other sources of CO2.

    If you want to curb / limit CO2, can you honestly assume government will stop simply at the burning sources? I fear this can and will expand to other things such as how many children a person can be allowed to have without a tax penalty to higher taxes on beef due to AGW concerns (and health care).

    I don’t know, I accept the IPCC model that says a doubling of atmospheric co2 will/is increasing global air temp by .5 to 1.0 degrees.

    Does anyone truly know? Post #161 presents an alternative theory / concern.

    “The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.””

    What is your source for denying that a doubling of CO2 will increase the temps?

    The models you speak of are based off of assumptions. There is no empirical evidence that the CO2 being created by mankind is the source of the warming trend. Those models assume CO2 is causal.

    Read Christy’s paragraphs subtitled: “Slim Models” and “Complex World”

    http://tinyurl.com/2lb4sn

    “Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).”

    BTW–if GW was positively influenced by the presence of 9 Billion people, that too would raise all the same questions: do we want global temp to rise 1 degree with all the attendant changes for the current reliance on A: carbon based fuel or B: as many people as there are on earth?

    Was it Paul Ehrlick who said ultimate all resource problems come down to a population excess? Somthing like that.

    Historically it leads to war. Let’s assume we do in fact determine empirically that man-made CO2 is the root cause of global warming. What then? Will nuclear energy be given serious consideration, or do we ration everyone’s use of energy? Do we impose high taxation whereby the rich can afford a disproportionate share? Or do we all decide to live in caves?

    In the event your hypothesis comes true, you will need to offer realistic energy alternatives.

    You are persistent, but I think you drop a few balls in your exercise.

    I prefer the scientific method. You agree that correlation does not mean causality, however much of what you’re defending is concluding causality based on correlation. I ask for proof, and somehow I’m a few balls short of sanity. 🙂

    If you really look at my beef, it’s how people conclude things.

  14. Mr. Fusion says:

    #158,

    Richard Lindzen is a shill for the oil and gas interests. His papers are funded by OPEC.
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

    Empirical evidence is ONLY evidence.

    Empirical evidence is OBSERVED, MEASURED, and REPRODUCIBLE evidence regardless of who is doing the research / study. It is OBJECTIVE.
    No. Empirical evidence is still subject to bias. There is also misinterpretation of the data and unknown influences. It is still NOT the truth.

    Science doesn’t like to use words like “truth” or “prove”, simply because science is always evolving according to the best evidence available. In science, anyone may present evidence.

    Specifically, empirical evidence.

    To date, the evidence supports the claim that global warming is occurring and man is the cause. There is no evidence presented to deny or rebut that.

    You’re committing the same logical fallacy as Bobbo. You making conclusions based off of correlation at best. And that is the scientific method. The best evidence is the one accepted. Global warming and the science behind it are accepted by the majority of scientists.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    There is no empirical evidence which proves beyond doubt that man-made CO2 is the root cause nor that CO2 is causal. This is why the debate lingers

    There is a lot of evidence. It wouldn’t matter how much was posted, you still wouldn’t believe all the reports, thesis, and studies.

    But here, for the claim AGW is not accepted science,
    Not one major scientific society disputes AGW. While there may be some differences of opinion in degree, but the vast majority of those who study the evidence are in agreement.

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #159,

    In other words, you aren’t using feces, you had to process them first into something usable. Second, I doubt you will be growing anything straight in your compost. Instead you will mix (dilute) the compost with soil. Nice try, but you only demonstrated the point. While a little is good, too much at one time is a poison and has to be processed before it injures us.

    You wanted to play a game of polemics with me, and I merely demonstrated that the use of feces is valuable to life. Now you want to split hairs. So be it, but you’re not being intellectually honest.

    In other words, you’re being dogmatic to a flaw. I could have brought up the fact that dung beetles rely on feces for their livelihood or that many insects feed off the dung produced by bats or other animals, but no I didn’t see the need.

    I did say I made a garden mix. I did not see the point of mentioning vermiculite or peat moss. Regardless, composted cow manure is feces that has sat around for about a year. Worm castings is feces.

    No, I was specific. You were the disingenuous one. I said feces and urine, not compost. The same as carbon sequestered in old growth timber is processed CO2.

    You know that feces must be removed or the buildup will destroy the living organism.

  16. Guyver says:

    Ooops… a few corrections:

    174, Mr. Fusion,

    Richard Lindzen. An industry hack. Repeatedly proved wrong.
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

    By a blogger? Hey, bloggers aren’t held to the same standards as journalists. You of all people (who continually whines for sources on the spot) should know that…. you’d take the first opportunity to dismiss a blogger’s site to maintain your dogmatic viewpoint. 🙂

    175, Mr. Fusion,

    I’m done wasting my time.

    No one asked you to jump in. Stop being so self-important and don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. 🙂

    Have a good weekend. (seriously)

    P.S. Thanks for teaching me how to do block quotes. 🙂

  17. Guyver says:

    Carbon Levels are Soaring, But Temperature Isn’t Necessarily Keeping Pace: http://tinyurl.com/y9bkvlf


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 7212 access attempts in the last 7 days.