Global Warming Question

[Alceste]

Amusing Lindzen factiod:

"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

Sounds very sure of himself, doesn't he?

 

[Oberon]

No, the question states quite plainly that climate change - implying all of it for the whole history of the earth, including the period prior to the existence of man - is primarily man-made.

This is absolutely ridiculous and completely insane. Why on earth would they ask if climate change for the entire history of the earth was primarily man-made? How the hell could it be if humans weren't around?

The question was related to the current warming. You assertion that it was related to the entire history of the climate is bogus and completely insane. If that was the question, than the question wouldn't make any sense:

"Do you believe that humans caused climate change before they were even around?"
Who the hell would answer yes?

If we interpret the question your way, than over 50% of experts believe that humans are the main cause of climate change for the entire history of the earth, including before humans are around. I hope that we can depend on them to be a little brighter than that.

Is that the IPCC's position? No.

The IPCC position is that most of the current warming is anthropogenic. At least half of those surveyed disagree.

I thought we'd already dismissed Lindzen as an unreliable source on account of a major financial conflict of interest, had we not?

You dismiss him. Should I dismiss all climate scientists with ties to environmental organizations or who are paid by such organizations? Because that would certainly trim the ranks of those who are calling for kyoto or who support your positions.

For the sake of a productive discussion, once I've addressed the complete lack of credibility of your sources

The IPCC found him credible. He was a lead author of the IPCC third assessment.

Surely if so many scientists are disgusted with the IPCC for genuinely scientific reasons, you should be able to find one of them who is not paid $2500 a day to be disgusted with the IPCC.

Yet, even after the events reported by your source, Lindzen was a lead author for the IPCC. Obviously they found him credible.

I gave you two more in addition. Vincent Gray and Christopher Landsea.

You haven't demonstrated that this is the case.

Because you clearly misread the question in the survey. I can't believe you think that the question referred to the entire climate history.

The question asked whether the experts surveyed believed the current climate change was mainly anthropogenic. Almost half did not agree. Meaning they disagree with the IPCC

 

[Alceste]

This is absolutely ridiculous and completely insane. Why on earth would they ask if climate change for the entire history of the earth was primarily man-made? How the hell could it be if humans weren't around?

Yes, that was probably the reaction of many of the scientists who selected "strongly disagree". Thanks for proving my point.

The question was related to the current warming.

Not according to your sources.

The IPCC position is that most of the current warming is anthropogenic. At least half of those surveyed disagree.

No, 35 % of those surveyed disagree with the statement "climate change is primarily man-made".

You dismiss him. Should I dismiss all climate scientists with ties to environmental organizations or who are paid by such organizations? Because that would certainly trim the ranks of those who are calling for kyoto or who support your positions.

If you can find actual evidence of a financial conflict of interest for all the members of the IPCC, you'll be getting somewhere. You produced one guy. I discredited him. The IPCC is composed of over 2500 guys. Get to work!

I gave you two more in addition. Vincent Gray and Christopher Landsea.

Alright, there's 2 guys. Whether or not they're legit, that's hardly impressive, compared to 2500 + guys. You're being ridiculous.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, that was probably the reaction of many of the scientists who selected "strongly disagree". Thanks for proving my point.

That means that over 50% of experts think that humans are mostly responsible for climate change prior to the existance of humans. You really think they are that stupid? You actually thinkg that over 50% of experts think that humans, who have only been on earth for a tiny fraction of the climate's existence, are "mostly responsible for climate change" for the last several billion years? By the way, NO climate expert believes that the climate has been AT all static over its existence.

Not according to your sources.

Yes it was. Because no one would be so daft as to think that humans were responsible for climate change throughout the history of the world. The IPCC believes that we are mostly responsible for ONLY the last century or so of warming. If your reading is correct, than over 50% of scientist disagree, because they think we are mostly responsible for all of climate change.

No, 35 % of those surveyed disagree with the statement "climate change is primarily man-made".

I said nearly half did not agree. That includes the 14.2% who were not sure.

You produced one guy. I discredited him.

No, you didn't. Because the IPCC thought he was credible even after the events you state took place.

Alright, there's 2 guys. Whether or not they're legit, that's hardly impressive, compared to 2500 + guys. You're being ridiculous.

No, you are. Science is funded by all sorts of sources. These include businesses, environmental groups, single people, politicians, etc. EVERYBODY is getting paid somehow. You only want to discredit the guys with ties to groups you don't like.

 

[Alceste]

That means that over 50% of experts think that humans are mostly responsible for climate change prior to the existance of humans. You really think they are that stupid?

Thus ignoring the very obvious and oft-repeated point that there are a number of ways that non-scientific, arbitrary and irrelevant statement could have been interpreted, so the statistics of how many people answered this way or that does not support your point.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Both of you are attempting to appeal to authority. I love it.

 

[Alceste]

Both of you are attempting to appeal to authority. I love it.

It's not appeal to authority when the person or organisation you're referencing is an actual authority in a field relevant to the topic of discussion. Oberon's statisticians qualify, but neither the IPCC nor Oberon's miniscule, pitiable handful of dissidents who also happen to be experts in relevant fields do.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It's not appeal to authority when the person or organisation you're referencing is an actual authority in a field relevant to the topic of discussion. Oberon's statisticians qualify, but neither the IPCC nor Oberon's miniscule, pitiable handful of dissidents who also happen to be experts in relevant fields do.

I would disagree lol. At one point you were both playing a game of numbers. "I have more scientists backing my view!" (I think you mentioned something like 2500+ experts - I forget the post and I can't be arsed to scroll down the page) which implies that more scientists supporting one's position equates to the position's validity.

Edit: And it seems as if you are trying to discredit each other over sources of funding. This implies that whatever organization funds a particular scientist or group of scientists has alternate interests and are influencing the outcome of the studies when that may or may not be the case.

 

[Alceste]

I would disagree lol. At one point you were both playing a game of numbers. "I have more scientists backing my view!" (I think you mentioned something like 2500+ experts - I forget the post and I can't be arsed to scroll down the page) which implies that more scientists supporting one's position equates to the position's validity.

That's my point: those 2500 scientists are the IPCCs "expert review" panel. The discussion is about climate change, and the IPCC is a recognized authority on this topic. The specific point in question was Oberon's claim that there is a general lack of consensus among the relevant "experts", so it's certainly relevant that he's only got 3 guys.

Does 3 guys a "lack of consensus" make within a population of 2500 +?

No.

Edit: And it seems as if you are trying to discredit each other over sources of funding. This implies that whatever organization funds a particular scientist or group of scientists has alternate interests and are influencing the outcome of the studies when that may or may not be the case.

lol, right, because OPEC is desperately concerned with funding objective research into the consequences of unmitigated fossil fuel use.

Oberon has not provided any evidence of a financial conflict of interest within the IPCC. I've discredited one of his three experts, he's discredited none of my 2500. He's only claimed that organisations like Greenpeace are funding the work of the IPCC. Which can be dismissed as a patently ridiculous nonsense unless he is able to provide some proof.

 

[Oberon]

Thus ignoring the very obvious and oft-repeated point that there are a number of ways that non-scientific, arbitrary and irrelevant statement could have been interpreted, so the statistics of how many people answered this way or that does not support your point.

No, I'm not. You are reading into the question something that is simply impossible. No climate scientist would be so ignorant of climatology to imagine that the question could mean anything other "are humans the main cause of the current climate change?"

1. Every climatologist knows that the climate is not static. It is constantly in flux. Moreover, in the several billion years since the earth was created, the climate has undergone MASSIVE changes. For example, the introduction of oxygen, which radically changed the course of evolution on the planet.

2. Therefore, no climatoligist in her or his right mind would EVER think that the history of climate change on the planet could POSSIBLY be mainly man-made. The idea is insane. Most likely, the biggest change to the climate WAS the introduction of oxygen, which happened long before humans were on the planet.

3. Once we have ruled out the completely insane idea that the question refers to climate change on the planet in general, we are left with the only issue debated in climate science since it became an issue: is global warming largely or mainly caused by humans?

4. Slightly less than half of the scientists did not agree that it is.

Both of you are attempting to appeal to authority. I love it.

Actually, I'm not in this particular instance. I am disagreeing with the claim that the vast majority of climate experts agree that the current warming trend is mainly caused by human actions, and that most experts agree that the threat is vast, looming, and imminent.

That being said, the criticism of "appeal to authority" is often misused. The term originally implied appeal to an authority like king or church, not appeal to experts on an issue. It can still be used with some validity if one appeals to a single guy who happens to have a PhD. However, the best way to find out the truth in most cases is to go with the consensus. It isn't foolproof by any means, particularly when their is a large divide.

Short of that, one goes throught the research. However, scholarship is built on appealing to past works of scholarship. Appealing to the scholarship or to the position of a large group of experts can be a valid argument.

The problem with doing so in this case is that although their is a wide consensus that the earth is currently warming, and a wide consensus (albeit not as great) that we have something to do with this, what is NOT anywhere near as decided is exactly what this means and what we should do about it.

That's my point: those 2500 scientists are the IPCCs "expert review" panel. The discussion is about climate change, and the IPCC is a recognized authority on this topic. The specific point in question was Oberon's claim that there is a general lack of consensus among the relevant "experts", so it's certainly relevant that he's only got 3 guys.

Only I don't. You have some insane reading of the question of the survey. There is no possible way it could be construed by anybody who knows anything about climatology as asking anything other than "is the current warming trend mainly anthropogenic?"

Does 3 guys a "lack of consensus" make within a population of 2500 +?

Not all of these guys are equal. These three people were leaders in the IPCC, and all ended up disgusted with the IPCC bias and lack of respect for the scientific progress. And they are not alone in criticizing the IPCC.

More important, the survey I cited was FAR larger than "three guys" and a large minority disagreed with the IPCC.

I've discredited one of his three experts

Wrong. Because after the events you state happened occured, he was a leader in the IPCC. So either the IPCC doesn't use credible people (because you refer to events in the 90s while he was a leader in drafting the third IPCC assessment in 2001), or he is credible.

,

he's discredited none of my 2500

He is one of those 2500.

He's only claimed that organisations like Greenpeace are funding the work of the IPCC

No, the IPCC is funded by the UN. However, many members have ties with environmental groups.

Which can be dismissed as a patently ridiculous nonsense unless he is able to provide some proof.

Not really. And I don't find it important. Every research project needs funding. This includes corporations, NGOs, environmental groups, rich people, and so forth. I don't discredit research because the scientist is funded by X or supported by Y. The question is does the research pass scrutiny?

The guy you "discredited" was instrumental in the IPCC AFTER the events you describe. Which either means that the IPCC uses scientists who aren't credible, or you are wrong.

 

[Alceste]

Again, Oberon, your "survey" is so irrelevant to the issue of consensus on climate change that EVEN THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES have written that people who use it the way you do are twisting it to reflect their own bias. I provided the link. I'm done. I've said my bit, you've said yours. It does not support your point. Next?

 

[Oberon]

Again, Oberon, your "survey" is so irrelevant to the issue of consensus on climate change

No it isn't. It is DIRECTLY related.

that EVEN THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES have written that people who use it the way you do are twisting it to reflect their own bias.

Yes, which you twisted, because they quote a different part of the survey, not what I talked about. The authors DO NOT SAY that nearly 50% of experts surveyed do not agree that humans are they main cause of global warming. What they say is that the statement that "more experts strongly disagree than strongly agree" has been twisted.

I provided the link.

Yes, that was very helpful. It proves you twist things just as much as the people the authors castigate. Because again, they don't say anything about the nearly 50% who do not agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. They talk about something else, which you have attempted (and failed) to twist in the way that you want.

Sort of like what you did with the question in the first place, where you argued that more than 50% of climate scientists surveyed think that humans have been the main cause of climate change billions of years before they existed.

It does not support your point. Next?

Your twisting aside, it does. Nearly have of the experts do not agree that we are the main cause of the current warming cycle. A number even "stronly disagreed" with this statement.

Moreover, lead authors, whom the IPCC has relied on, have severly criticized it for not respecting science.

You say you have discredited Lindzen for things he did in the 90s, yet the he was a lead author for the IPCC in 2001. If he was so far from credible, what does that say about the IPCC?

 

[Alceste]

Are you ever going to get started on discrediting the 2500 IPCC scientists who disagree with Lindzen, or does his (bought and paid for) opinion outweigh theirs? One single "expert opinion" that tells you what you want to believe is worth more than 2500 "expert opinions" that disagree with you and agree with each other? I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I were so shamelessly irrational.

 

[Oberon]

Are you ever going to get started on discrediting the 2500 IPCC scientists who disagree with Lindzen

1. I don't believe that being paid discrediets anyone.
2. Lindzen is one of those 2500
3. If he isn't credible for stuff he did in the 90s, why was his a lead author for the IPCC in 2001?

One single "expert opinion"

Which brings us back to my survery, where nearly half do not agree with the IPCC.

Unless you still want argue your intepretation, where over 50% of experts surveyed believe that humans were responsible for drastic climate changed like the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere billions of years before humans were arounds

2500 "expert opinions"

All three people I mentioned ARE big names in those 2500

that disagree with you and agree with each other?

Again, survey.

I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I were so shamelessly irrational.

You mean, if your argued that over 50% of a large survey of expert climatologists argued that humans were responsible for massive climate changes billions of year before they existed? That shamelessly irrational?

 

[Oberon]

I have already pointed out how three big names within the IPCC list of "2500" scienties Alceste likes to toute have explicitly criticized the IPCC for not following an scientific process. Here is some more data on that issue:


Problems with IPCC approach to science:


themadhair’s hockey stick graph and politics rather than science:

“When we recently established that the method behind the so-called “hockey-stick” curve of Northern Hemisphere temperature is flawed, this result was not so much attacked as scientifically flawed but was seen both in private conversations and public discourse as outright dangerous, because it could be instrumentalized and undermine the success of the IPCC process. Similarly, the suggestion that hitherto excluded research and policy discussions devoted to adaptive measures ought to be undertaken in order to pursue a much more balanced strategy of adaptation to and mitigation of climate change is seen as undermining the Kyoto process. “

Sustainability and the issue of climate change
draft 11/30/2004 (with emphases added)

Hans von Storch, Nico Stehr, Sheldon Ungar
Hans von Storch Institut für Küstenforschung GKSS Forschungszentrum Geesthacht, Germany
Nico Stehr Karl Mannheim Chair for Cultural Studies Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen |Germany
Sheldon Ungar Sociological Department Univrsity of Toronto Toronto, Canada


Politics changes the IPCC own report:

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995," its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules -- a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -- were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.
If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.

Dr. Frederic Seitz (former President of US National Academy of Science and former professor)

Seitz, Frederick. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jun 12, 1996. pg. A16, 1 pgs



Comments by IPCC on wording changes:

“This week, scientists met in Shanghai, China, to fine-tune the latest assessment from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In their final text for policy makers, they toughened their language, saying "most of the warming is attributable to human activities". Drafts circulated last October said simply that human activities "have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years".
"There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policy makers," says Tim Higham of the UN Environment Programme.”
Pearce, F. (2001) We Are All Guilty! It’s Official, People Are to Blame for Global Warming. New Scientiest, 169 (2275), 5.

In other words, without any new science, the wording was changed because the scientists were interested in playing politics, not in pure science.


Also, the IPCC continuously violates good scientific practice by failing to disclose its methods and data:

“The data used to construct the version of the global surface temperature by the IPCC is not released to the public; the curve is therefore unreproduceable in the sense that it cannot be checked independently
Dr. Bob Carter

 

[Oberon]

Now, I know Alceste would like to discredit guys like Lindzen (despite the fact that he was used as a lead author by the IPCC after the events she thinks discredits him). But, everyone gets funded from somewhere. I have previously not wanted to point out the fact that the big names in supporting AGW are funded by and/or have ties with environmental groups. I don’t think this should say anything about their science, which should be judged on its own merit, just as with Lindzen and others. Everyone has a bias. However, let’s just take a brief look at some of the major pushers and players for AGW and at funding for research:
Dr David Wojick :
Here are the 20 lead authors listed by the UN IPCC --
Co-ordinating Lead Authors: D.L. Albritton (USA), L.G. Meira Filho (Brazil).
Lead Authors: U. Cubasch (Germany), X. Dai (China), Y. Ding (China), D.J. Griggs (UK), B. Hewitson (South Africa), J.T. Houghton (UK), I. Isaksen (Norway), T. Karl (USA), M. McFarland (USA), V.P. Meleshko (Russia), J.F.B. Mitchell (UK), M. Noguer (UK), B.S. Nyenzi (Tanzania), M. Oppenheimer (USA), J.E. Penner (USA), S. Pollonais (Trinidad and Tobago), T. Stocker (Switzerland), K.E. Trenberth (USA).
Names in boldface in particular stand out as among the top rank of activist scientists for the theory of human climate interference. Most are frequently quoted in the U.S. and British press. (I am less familiar with the others, who may also be activists elsewhere.) These are:
Dan Albritton -- U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Sir. John Houghton -- former head of the UK Meteorological Office, and arguably the foremost proponent of the theory of human climate interference. Mitchell and Noguer are also with the UK MET.
Thomas Karl -- NOAA and Co-chair of the U.S. National Assessment.
Michael Oppenheimer -- Environmental Defense Fund.
Kevin Trenberth -- U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research
It is no wonder, therefore, that the two Summaries are so blatantly biased in favor of the theory of human climate interference. They are written by scientists who have staked their reputations on that theory.



http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Likewise, John Firor was Executive Director of the National Science Foundation sponsored National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at the same time he was Chairman of the Board of Environmental Defense Fund. Diana Josephson was on NCAR’s Advisory Council at the same time as she was the senior vice president of Environmental Defense.




Left's Funding Dwarfs Right's
In my experience, industry is reluctant to fund environmental research in support of its views, deferring instead to the federal government to fund what is, one hopes, a balanced and impartial environmental research program. The U.S. government funds a whopping $2 billion per year in climate-related research.
While the distribution of these funds to universities and private companies might be expected to be policy-neutral, the real situation isn't quite so simple. Government agencies that disperse research funds have an infrastructure that depends upon congressional support for their existence. Their level of continued support depends upon the level of the threat perceived by the public, which then justifies the expenditure of tax dollars.
I'm not questioning the potential threat that climate change presents--it is indeed an issue worthy of the investment in research. I am questioning, however, the perception that environmental organizations, and federal funding, are policy- and politically neutral.
Someone once said it's not a matter of who is biased (because everyone is); the real question is, which bias is the best bias to be biased with? The more money we spend on specific environmental threats, the less there is to devote to other issues.
Funding decisions will be best when made by well-informed citizens and policymakers. But let's not be naive about unbiased motives. They simply do not exist.


Roy Spencer ([email protected]) is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. This article first appeared on Tech Central Station and is reprinted with permission.

 

[Alceste]

All of which simply confirms that from your point of view 3 guys who tell you what you want to hear = 2500 + guys who don't. Okee doke. Have it your way. I'm outta here.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The Pentagon is now preparing for Global warming, as a threat to national security....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Oberon]

All of which simply confirms that from your point of view 3 guys who tell you what you want to hear = 2500 + guys who don't.

Wrong.

1. Those three guys are part of the 2500 experts used by the IPCC.
2. Not only that, they are big names among these 2500
3. Furthermore, the IPCC blatantly manipulates the research done by its members, so we have no idea how many of the 2500 scientists actually support what the IPCC claims, and we know from the three examples I gave that some of the most influential members do not.
4. Interestingly enough, a survey of climate experts in 2003 revealed that nearly half of the experts surveyed do not agree with the IPCC

Have it your way. I'm outta here.

What, no more claim that over 50% of the worlds climate experts surveyed believe that humans are responsible for massive climate changes prior to the existence of humanity?

The Pentagon is now preparing for Global warming, as a threat to national security....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

1. This is old news
2. The pentagon's job is to think about all sorts of possible situations and draw up plans. The pentagon issued no report or any other proclamation stating that global warming "is a threat to national security." All it did was prepare some "just in case scenerios."

 

[Mr Cheese]

Wrong.

1. Those three guys are part of the 2500 experts used by the IPCC.
2. Not only that, they are big names among these 2500
3. Furthermore, the IPCC blatantly manipulates the research done by its members, so we have no idea how many of the 2500 scientists actually support what the IPCC claims, and we know from the three examples I gave that some of the most influential members do not.
4. Interestingly enough, a survey of climate experts in 2003 revealed that nearly half of the experts surveyed do not agree with the IPCC



What, no more claim that over 50% of the worlds climate experts surveyed believe that humans are responsible for massive climate changes prior to the existence of humanity?



1. This is old news
2. The pentagon's job is to think about all sorts of possible situations and draw up plans. The pentagon issued no report or any other proclamation stating that global warming "is a threat to national security." All it did was prepare some "just in case scenerios."

who cares?

I have more fruballs than you.....:clap

Thus I have been peer reviewed (my responses)
by this forum.

It is agreed then, that I am superior.