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.
#140 – bobbo,
I buy carbon credits too. But, I support a carbon tax by strong preference over cap and trade. I work on Wall St. I don’t have to trust the firms here.
122, Bobbo,
What part of post # 114 do you refute saying?
I disagree. If you can quantify CO2 output, you should be able to quantify down to the degree future temps. If you can do this, then you’ll be onto something. Prove your hypothesis to be true. Don’t try to approach this like Nostradamus-believers who proclaim Nostradamus was correct AFTER a catastrophe happens. Predict it beforehand.
122, Bobbo,
What part of post # 114 do you refute saying?
I disagree. If you can quantify CO2 output, you should be able to quantify down to the degree future temps. If you can do this, then you’ll be onto something. Prove your hypothesis to be true. Don’t try to approach this like Nostradamus-believers who proclaim Nostradamus was correct AFTER a catastrophe happens. Predict it beforehand.
No, I’m not equating the two. As shocking as this may sound, CO2 is a byproduct of life. CO2 is life. How much life do you want to regulate? What’s next? Water vapor because there’s too many man-made lakes potentially contributing to AGW?
It’s okay to be passionate about your beliefs. But your beliefs are not science. Hopefully you’re not so dogmatic in your “no one is an island” belief that you want government control of everyone to promote your “utopian” society.
So you say. Do you have empirical evidence of the actual impact? Or are you just rationalizing because you’re assuming you’ve accounted for everything?
125, Mr. Fusion,
Perhaps they could. I have heard somewhere in the past that a couple of scientists did try to request that their names not be attributed to the report due to said circumstances and I believe it was not automatically done…. I want to say litigation was involved… but I honestly cannot recollect.
Throw in anyone who questions the “consensus” because the extreme left tries to mischaracterize them, then it’s possible that some will simply grin and bear it…. but this is purely speculative on my part.
As for exact numbers, I don’t have that. Sorry. I just know that it has happened. The key thing here is Christy is making the point that the IPCC reports are editorialized by non-scientists.
Christy’s opinion on the process is: “At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.
Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.
I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.
These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.”
127, Misanthropic Scott,
The short answer is you believe ANYTHING labeled as possibly having an influence means without a doubt that it is causal on a global scale. You have your reasons for interpreting things that way, but you’re not looking at things through an objective filter.
Christy’s opinion of the IPCC is that it’s a political organization more than it’s a scientific organization. To an extreme, Christy would also say your flatulence would have a warming influence. However he would not declare that this influence means global warming is taking place. What was the impact of your flatulence? What is the impact of what you believe to be “a lot”?
I understand that you believe it clearly does have an impact, but without empirical evidence you’re just speculating. Especially since there’s great debate over whether CO2 is causal in the overall process.
Surveys on people’s opinions (no matter how educated they may be) or peer reviewed papers (with no empirical evidence over the root causes) is not science.
Look, I understand you are passionate about this. There’s nothing wrong with that. But to pass off what you believe to be true with no empirical evidence onto skeptics is simply not science. You can rationalize, hypothesize, or inductively reason but conclusions based on this is not science.
130, Misanthropic Scott,
LOL. Darn! You got me. Yes, I did make an assumption. I assumed that all CO2 exhaling life forms will procreate. I did not take into account Liberals who choose not to procreate because they wanted to lower their carbon footprint through having no progeny. I thought I could slip that past you but I failed.
So over 6 billion people exhaling CO2 24×7 has no “warming influence” in your eyes? What about all the cattle the beef industry is raising that others on the left complain contributes to man-made global warming?
The left wants to people to eat less meat due to AGW as well as driving down the cost of “free” universal health care. The left has mentioned that a one-child policy would also lower AGW. Do you want to pass more legislation to shove this down everyone’s throat?
So ideally, you’d want the world’s population to have no electricity and for us all to live in caves?
So you’d prefer we not only live in caves but we have no campfires to cook what meat we hunt and gathered?
Do you have ANY realistic alternative for energy sources? Wind, solar, and hydro combined will NOT meet the needs of our country alone. Are you too idealistic to concede that nuclear (at least for the foreseeable future) is the only realistic alternative? If we stop using oil, how would that impact the food, medical, transportation, and electronic industries?
I guess we have to take this REAL slow.
#143–Guyver==for about the third time you say: “I disagree. If you can quantify CO2 output, you should be able to quantify down to the degree future temps.” /// See post #50 linking to the measurement of co2 increase and sensitivity to it. No one disagrees with co2 as being a significant GHG–exept you.
What time of the day and exactly where do you want this temperature prediction? VERY RETARDED. I’m not being insulting when saying that. You are arguing like a Young Earther: you can’t show me a species evolving into another species, therefore evolution never happened. Science and its proof does have its limitations. Do you really think this way, or just think you have a winning argument beyond its transparent idiocy?
You do understand the whole theory of GW is about averages over time? Think about that. Its not enough to show temperature have been going steadily up the last 100 years, you want specifics? Heh, heh.
Only an idiot requires perfection in all degrees before they take action to protect yourself. “You know” its not proven that gravity works all the time? Why not walk off a cliff and on the way down contemplate the nature of proof?
Temps have been going up since before the beginning of the industrial revolution. Natural cycles.
Anonsense–you are retarded. The only way you can claim the temp rise is caused by natural cycles is reliance on the same models that show overall AGW.
What a dope.
http://sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
Ben Santer’s response. I hadn’t realized that this also is an example of a Chapter Lead Author promoting his own papers, to go along with Michael Mann in 2001 and Briffa in 2007 in the paleoclimate chapters.
http://ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html
144, Bobbo,
Therefore if your hypothesis is true, you can forecast future global temps as a function of CO2.
Good grief!!! I should have spelled it out for you. Did you think I was talking about predictions in “real time”? Don’t be so stupid. If, CO2 is causal in global warming as you wish to believe, then it should be equally black and white in forecasting average temps as a function of CO2 in the real world. Get off your dogmatic high horse and try to use a little more science instead of your religious viewpoint.
There is a theory for that Einstein. DUH!!! Is man-made global warming pushed as a theory or as a foregone conclusion? Has CO2 ever been proven to be causal? What a dope!!!
You’re not just dope, but you’re a charlatan as well! So since there’s no empirical evidence to support your hypothesis, we should all ignore the scientific method and pursue legislation to coerce behavioral change when you don’t actually know what is truly going on? And here I thought you were interested in pursuit of the truth. Translation, when science fails to support your hypothesis you rely on dogma to “prove” your hypothesis is true. You’re not using science to promote your dogmatic view but you want others to think you have.
Hey Chicken Little, all you had to say was that global warming from man-made CO2 is nothing more than your dogmatic faith (since science and its proof has its limitations).
Only an idiot would follow such dogma in the absence of empirical evidence. Can you say the sky is falling?
146, Bobbo,
Using models based on assumptions is not only-self serving, but it’s NOT science. What a dope.
What’s worse is you’re okay with “predicting” self-serving results in a simulated world, but you get your panties in a bunch when someone asks you to forecast average temps based on CO2 in the real world….. what a hypocrite.
#142, Guyver,
” If they disagreed they could remove their name from the final work. Second, if they disapprove they could publish their opinions and their own view. Can you tell us how many of those involved with the IPCC Report have disassociated themselves from it? Obviously they may be counted on the fingers of a closed hand. ”
Perhaps they could. I have heard somewhere in the past that a couple of scientists did try to request that their names not be attributed to the report due to said circumstances and I believe it was not automatically done…. I want to say litigation was involved… but I honestly cannot recollect.
Maybe, coulda, wella, and a uummm. In other words, nope, it didn’t happen. Maybe because there is consensus on the cause and impact of excessive CO2 even if not a 100% agreement.
Guyver,
As shocking as this may sound, CO2 is a byproduct of life. CO2 is life. How much life do you want to regulate?
Feces and urine are a byproduct of life too. Are you suggesting these by-products of life ARE life?
Well Guyver—you are a challenge. How about this: we understand that lightning is the result of charged particles building up in the atmosphere and then discharging. But we can’t predict where, when, how many, how long, shape, number of forks, how many strikes etc. Given that we lack the specifics, should w doubt that lightning happens?
And BTW–144, Bobbo,
No one disagrees with co2 as being a significant GHG–exept you.
Therefore if your hypothesis is true, you can forecast future global temps as a function of CO2.===if you’d read the linked website, yes==as co2 level doubles, the prediction is the Average Global Temp will go up from .5 to 1.0 degree. And as co2 goes up, so will the temperature, just as it is.
I’m not aware of *anyone* who doesn’t agree co2 raises temps. Other arguments, but not that one. You are taking being uninformed and argumentative to a new low level.
I do have to wonder if you are kidding. Humor can be twisted.
#147 & 148, Lyin’ Mike,
You didn’t even read your links.
From the second link.
In other words, you failed again.
150, Mr. Fusion,
The key point here is the IPCC reports are editorialized by non-scientists.
If you want to turn this into questioning my intellectual honesty, then there’s really no point if you want to be stuck in first gear.
Empirical evidence is truth. The consensus you’re looking for is not about the empirical evidence. So be it.
151, Mr. Fusion,
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.
152, Bobbo,
We can directly observe lightning. We can also attract lightning. We are also developing ways to measure lighting. People have died from being struck by lightning This is not theoretical.
I merely asked for a prediction of the average output based on the average SIGNIFICANT input variable you cited. It shouldn’t be that hard based on your belief that this is a foregone conclusion. I’m not asking you to predict hot spots, nor the ebbs and flows of the heat, etc.
If you agree that the climate is quite a complex system then you’d agree with Professor Christy’s view that:
“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).
Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.
Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view. “
What do you suppose a greenhouse gas does? Water vapor is in that category as well. Let’s not turn this into an exercise in being a master of the obvious by dodging how you’re reaching your hasty conclusion.
The root of your misunderstanding is how you conclude the current trends observed are a direct result of human CO2. To date, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is causal in the trend you cite.
Your argument goes something like this:
CO2 -> Warming Influence
Warming Influence -> Man-Made Global Warming
Therefore CO2 -> Man-Made Global Warming
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 committing a logical fallacy.
What we do not know for sure:
1. CO2 is causal for the Global Warming hysteria.
2. Assuming #1 is true, the source of the CO2 is man-made.
3. Assuming #2 is true, the amount of CO2 has a significant impact.
4. How sunspot activity affects global warming. To date, I’ve been hearing that the summers / seasons would be cooler as a result of less sunspot activity. For the past 2 years, I have observed unusually cooler seasons (in duration)….. there may be a link, but it’s too premature to say one way or the other.
Scott, do you actually want to pay a tax on carbon? Just based on the past performance of waste by the Federal Government of my money, I wouldn’t give them one darned penny that I wasn’t by law required to pay. Believe me, there will be several back doors so the wealthy won’t have to pay much of that tax, and if I can avail myself of those same loopholes, I will. I wonder if the govt will give credits for airplanes used for cropdusting or transport of medical supplies or multi-axle vehicles used for transport of foodstuffs and passengers (RVs)…
Show me the receipts that Al Gore paid anyone anything for a “carbon tax”, until then I say it’s total BS. He didn’t get wealthy giving his money away.
Tell you what — you and Bobbo pay my tax. Sheesh! Wish I had money to light cigars with.
#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.
#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.
156, Mr. Fusion,
I already gave you two quotes from two IPCC insiders who “proved” my claim that the IPCC is more political than scientific.
WSJ article discussing how dissenting scientists are bullied into silence: http://tinyurl.com/pposm
Cato Institute discussing censorship at the IPCC: http://tinyurl.com/29zd9u3
Empirical evidence is OBSERVED, MEASURED, and REPRODUCIBLE evidence regardless of who is doing the research / study. It is OBJECTIVE.
Specifically, empirical evidence.
You’re committing the same logical fallacy as Bobbo. You making conclusions based off of correlation at best.
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.
IPCC Criticism: http://tinyurl.com/2g9rpkh
As a skeptic, I’m asking for empirical proof. Don’t confuse my skepticism with denialism. I’m not saying global warming isn’t happening. I want to know if this is man-made or not. It’s not a foregone conclusion as much as you’d like this to be. Prove your claim CO2 is causal and it’s because of man-kind. Don’t give me surveys or opinion polls.
Otherwise, you and all your ilk would have been making forecasts by now. Case in point, the people who believe there is a much stronger link with sunspot activity are making forecasts…. why no forecasts from the CO2 crowd?
If you make a claim (i.e. AGW) then the burden of proof (i.e. empirical evidence) is on your shoulders. Let’s not reinvent science or its method.
What evidence? Is it empirical? And how am I “attacking” someone?
157, Mr. Fusion,
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.
Lead Author Admits Deleting Inconvenient Opinions From IPCC Report: http://tinyurl.com/23bxl87
IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors: http://tinyurl.com/leo7jc
According to this guy’s study the consensus revolves around 60 people: http://tinyurl.com/2559ah4