Scientists say global warming is continuing

[RandomGuy]

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – Wed Jul 28, 2:24 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record," the annual State of the Climate report declares.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."

Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.

The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.

"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.

Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.

That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.

But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.

The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.

"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade — about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit — may seem small," the report said.

"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."

Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.

And a study by Princeton University researchers released Monday suggested that continued warming could cause as many as 6.7 million more Mexicans to move to the United States because of drought affecting crops in their country.

The new climate report, released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.

Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.

Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.

The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.

"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.

[DarrinS]

Somebody better warn the polar bears. Shits gonna get dicey.

[CosmicCowboy]

*yawn*

[Wild Cobra]

*yawn*
Don't do that... It's contagious.

True, global warming is real. At least the article didn't call it anthropogenic warming.

[Jacob1983]

Global warming isn't killing polar bears. Evil air planes are killing them. Haven't you seen them falling from the sky lately?

[bigzak25]

Why do we need scientists to confirm what we see with our own eyes?

Hurricanes are getting worse, the Ice is melting...a 3 year old can comprehend this.

[DesignatedT]

not this shit again.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why do we need scientists to confirm what we see with our own eyes?

Hurricanes are getting worse, the Ice is melting...a 3 year old can comprehend this.

Hurricanes are not getting worse. They are just getting more media coverage.

The ice has melted before. The ice has refrozen before.

I think it's awfully arrogant to think humans have the capability to make the temperature of the earth rise or fall.

Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes are about controlling money and picking winners/losers in the economy, not about controlling the climate.

[bigzak25]

I did not say that we were responsible for the global climate changes that I do believe are happening. I agree that any human affect on them is minuscule, although I do believe our usage of all the fossil fuels is not helping the earth any...although I don't know that that would have a major impact on our climate other than our emissions playing a small role in ozone depletion perhaps.

[DarrinS]

KtPDuZzfzhw

[SnakeBoy]

I think it's awfully arrogant to think humans have the capability to make the temperature of the earth rise or fall.


That's the funny thing about RG's op, it never mentions the cause of warming.

100% of scientists agree that there will be significant cooling this fall.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do we need scientists to confirm what we see with our own eyes?

Hurricanes are getting worse, the Ice is melting...a 3 year old can comprehend this.
Because out life is too short a time span. Those who think like that are really stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

I did not say that we were responsible for the global climate changes that I do believe are happening. I agree that any human affect on them is minuscule, although I do believe our usage of all the fossil fuels is not helping the earth any...although I don't know that that would have a major impact on our climate other than our emissions playing a small role in ozone depletion perhaps.

Don't you think the increased CO2 makes plants grow better?

[bigzak25]

i don't remember too much about all the science i learned in middle school and i don't feel like Googleing CO2 and plants...

[John Terry]

Why do we need scientists to confirm what we see with our own eyes?

Hurricanes are getting worse, the Ice is melting...a 3 year old can comprehend this.

agreed. scientists only say the obvious which can never be wrong. for someone making a living off it, it's better to stick to the undeniable truths than to risk their rightness or repute trying something inventive that can be really good for our society.

[Vici]

Don't you think the increased CO2 makes plants grow better?

If no other factors are present yes. When you include the added nitrogen in the soil, change in temperature, or increased precipitation then no.

[Wild Cobra]

If no other factors are present yes. When you include the added nitrogen in the soil, change in temperature, or increased precipitation then no.
But CO2 does not warm as much as people think. Most certainly not enough to change the precipitation much.

Can you prove me wrong?

I didn't think so.

[bigzak25]

You have quite the Ego Cobra...

How exactly did you come about it?

[CosmicCowboy]

If no other factors are present yes. When you include the added nitrogen in the soil, change in temperature, or increased precipitation then no.

Added Nitrogen in the soil is bad?

You clearly don't have a fucking clue about how plants/agriculture operates.

[RandomGuy]

Hurricanes are not getting worse. They are just getting more media coverage.

The ice has melted before. The ice has refrozen before.

I think it's awfully arrogant to think humans have the capability to make the temperature of the earth rise or fall.

Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes are about controlling money and picking winners/losers in the economy, not about controlling the climate.

Earthquakes and other natural disasters do tend to seem worse simply because humans are spread over more of the planet, and more densely than at any time in human history.

As for the "its awfully arrogant" schtick: that is an emotional argument, not unsimilar to the kinds that liberals are often accused of using.

There is either scientific data to support it, or there isn't.

Pumping gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, at rates similar to periods of earths history with high levels of volcanic activity, is cause for reasonable concern.

The evidence for the earth getting warmer overall than it has recently been seems to be fairly conclusive.

The only thing we need to figure out is why, and what we should do about it, if anything.

[RandomGuy]

But CO2 does not warm as much as people think. Most certainly not enough to change the precipitation much.

Can you prove me wrong?

I didn't think so.

Reasonably proving you wrong is not always a high bar to clear.

Getting you to admit you are wrong over your confimation bias is another matter. :p:

[DarrinS]

The evidence for the earth getting warmer overall than it has recently been seems to be fairly conclusive.




Does anyone even dispute this?

[TeyshaBlue]

This just in:

The planet gets hot!


It also gets cold!


Right now, it's getting hot again!

[coyotes_geek]

What?!?! It's getting warmer?!?! Quick! To the private jet! We must convene at an exotic location to discuss how we can fix this if we just give more money to the government!

[Blake]

Can you prove me wrong?

I didn't think so.

Do you usually prove yourself right?

I don't think so.

[Blake]

It's getting warmer?!?! Quick! To the private jet!

:lol

[bigzak25]

Earthquakes and other natural disasters do tend to seem worse simply because humans are spread over more of the planet, and more densely than at any time in human history.

As for the "its awfully arrogant" schtick: that is an emotional argument, not unsimilar to the kinds that liberals are often accused of using.

There is either scientific data to support it, or there isn't.

Pumping gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, at rates similar to periods of earths history with high levels of volcanic activity, is cause for reasonable concern.

The evidence for the earth getting warmer overall than it has recently been seems to be fairly conclusive.

The only thing we need to figure out is why, and what we should do about it, if anything.

The one issue that I have from coming to definitive conclusions based on Science is that Scientists rarely if ever have all the data required to make those conclusions. Scientists in 1491 might have concluded that we lived on a flat earth. Scientists today do much the same type of thing. As more and more data becomes available, scientists modify their conclusions, so that they can claim to always be right. When in fact, they are only as right as their technology and research can allow for them to be at the time, which may or may not be the ultimate truth of the matter at hand.

[RandomGuy]

The evidence for the earth getting warmer overall than it has recently been seems to be fairly conclusive.


Does anyone even dispute this?

That depends, are you going to post another thread about a snowstorm?

[RandomGuy]

The one issue that I have from coming to definitive conclusions based on Science is that Scientists rarely if ever have all the data required to make those conclusions. Scientists in 1491 might have concluded that we lived on a flat earth. Scientists today do much the same type of thing. As more and more data becomes available, scientists modify their conclusions, so that they can claim to always be right. When in fact, they are only as right as their technology and research can allow for them to be at the time, which may or may not be the ultimate truth of the matter at hand.

To a certain extent yes.

But it is possible to gather data, and have your understanding get much better over time.

Comparing the level of human understanding about the nature of our universe in 1491 to that of today is a *bit* inaccurate, if not misleading.

There are some things that we are still filling in, and our understanding of our earth's climate systems is definitely one of them, but a lot of things where the understanding of humans 500 years down the road isn't going to be all that far off from that of today.

The gravitational acceration of the earth won't be too markedly different, although there is plenty of room for us to fill in our understanding of gravity for example.

The thing is, you do not have to have perfect understanding of something to have a pretty good picture of it.

That perfect understanding is not feasible, or even possible in a lot of cases.

That doesn't, however, make our understanding of the physical universe pointless, or unuseful. We use that understanding to build all manner of things, and discover things every day.

[Wild Cobra]

You have quite the Ego Cobra...

How exactly did you come about it?
I have explained it in previous posts.

A short summary...

Even the IPCCC now acknowledges Black carbon contributes about 0.3 watts.

Farther understanding of the 0.18% of solar irradiance increase during the time-frame the IPCCC uses, we know this contributes mathematically to about 0.93 watts.

The IPCCC claims a 0.12 watt radiative forcing due to solar increases. In other places, they specify this is "direct forcing." the problem with this is that it is only about 28% of the solar irradiance. The remaining 0.3 watts that strikes the earth, and adds to the input of the greenhouse effect pump. The amplification of the greenhouse pump is almost a factor of 3. this 0.3 watts is now an added 0.81 watts. Add that to the 0.12 direct, and we have 0.93 watts. Add the 0.3 watts of Black carbon forcing, and we now have 1.23 watts. the IPCCC claims 1.66 watts due to CO2, and 1.6 watts total radiative forcing. When you figure the IPCCC's last report considered 0.22 watts for Black Carbon and solar combined, that means 1.01 watts has to come off of some other forcing.

Don't you think, sine we have no reliable method of claiming greenhouse gas radiative forcing increases, that it comes from CO2 and methane?


Note: When i say watts, I mean "watts/sq meter."

Note 2: I use IPCCC purposely as a reflection of CCCP.

[Wild Cobra]

Reasonably proving you wrong is not always a high bar to clear.

Getting you to admit you are wrong over your confimation bias is another matter. :p:
It is you, and all the AGW crowd who are using confirmation bias. When you start understanding the sciences that apply, please attempt a debate with me on the topic.

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone even dispute this?

Something like 95% of scientists agree with that statement. I think the 5% who don't, should lose their credentials.

[bigzak25]

To a certain extent yes.

But it is possible to gather data, and have your understanding get much better over time.

Comparing the level of human understanding about the nature of our universe in 1491 to that of today is a *bit* inaccurate, if not misleading.

There are some things that we are still filling in, and our understanding of our earth's climate systems is definitely one of them, but a lot of things where the understanding of humans 500 years down the road isn't going to be all that far off from that of today.

The gravitational acceleration of the earth won't be too markedly different, although there is plenty of room for us to fill in our understanding of gravity for example.

The thing is, you do not have to have perfect understanding of something to have a pretty good picture of it.

That perfect understanding is not feasible, or even possible in a lot of cases.

That doesn't, however, make our understanding of the physical universe pointless, or unuseful. We use that understanding to build all manner of things, and discover things every day.


Please do not mis-understand me, I do not believe that Science does not have it's value, but I feel that we should all appreciate it for what it is, which is a perpetually developing tool. And a tool that can be quite useful, no doubt.

The key to 'useful' though is in the eye of the beholder.

With extreme power comes extreme responsibility. The bad guys have scientists too, and the most clever bad guys are wolves in sheeps clothing.

There are too many behind the scenes interests that drive scientific research and these same interests get to pick and choose what data they want released to the public.

This is of course not the case in every instance, but I feel it is the case in many.

Therefore, we as a people, generally, will only be allowed access and information to scientific breakthroughs when it is in the best interests of the sponsors behind the curtain.

Many of these sponsor are in it to make money. So if their discovery leads to something that can be packaged and sold for profit, then of course they are going to spread the word to everyone about their latest breakthroughs.

If their discovery leads to information that could be harmful to their business, well, that is going to be kept under wraps or trashed, even at the expense of mankind sometimes.

Other sponsors are in it for war. Those breakthroughs will be kept top secret.

Those that are in it for war and profit, will many times claim to be in it for peaceful reasons. But we are not fools and we should see them for what they are. And this includes our own Government unfortunately.

[RandomGuy]

When you start understanding the sciences that apply, please attempt a debate with me on the topic.

When you start understanding the principles of sound risk management that apply, please attempt a debate with me on the topic.

[Wild Cobra]

When you start understanding the principles of sound risk management that apply, please attempt a debate with me on the topic.
Risk management doesn't apply when there is no risk.

[DarrinS]

Risk management doesn't apply when there is no risk.


We're at more risk from an asteroid strike than from a gas that makes up 0.0390% of the atmosphere.

[Wild Cobra]

We're at more risk from an asteroid strike than from a gas that makes up 0.0390% of the atmosphere.
We are at more of a risk of a super methane release from the deep seas, asphyxiating everyone in a 1000 square mile area or so on shore.

[grindmouse]

Are these the same scientist that waited until 2010 to tell us the chicken came before the egg?

[Wild Cobra]

We're at more risk from an asteroid strike than from a gas that makes up 0.0390% of the atmosphere.
Agreed. So why aren't we focusing our national dollars to change the path of an asteroid? At least that has a chance of hurting us, where our CO2 doesn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, take a look at these:

June 2010 Monthly CO2 report (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report-may_june_2010.pdf)

SPPI Collection as of July 2010 (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sppi_collection.pdf)

[Wild Cobra]

Those of you who tout the "peer review" process when it comes to Global warming. I have stated several times before, the Climate science seems to be immune from true peer reviewing. From pages 16 to 20 of QUESTIONS FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE CONCERNING MY RECENT TESTIMONY (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/questions_from_select_committee.pdf); by Christopher Monckton, 7/14/10:


5. What procedural flaws do you believe lend to the IPCC’s errors? Do you agree with the IPCC’s reliance on grey literature?

In practice, “grey literature” – i.e. comments on climate science that are not peer reviewed – is all too often “green literature”: i.e., literature compiled by pressure-groups with a vested interest in advancing the narrow, extreme and scientifically-unjustifiable point of view that the IPCC, by its founding document, is required to reflect regardless of the objective scientific truth

“Peer review”, as it is generally understood in science today, is the process by which the authors of a scientific paper submit their work to a learned journal of standing, whose Editors, if the paper appears on its face to have merit in that it adds new knowledge to the corpus of scientific advance and contains no manifest errors, appoint appropriately-qualified scientific reviewers, who then read the paper and make comments and suggestions for correction or clarification. The authors and reviewers of a scientific paper published in a learned journal are usually, but not always, scientifically qualified in the field appropriate to the subject-matter of the paper.

The reviewers’ identities are, of course, known to the Editors, but are not necessarily known to the authors of the paper, to whom the Editors send the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. The authors then revise the paper to take account of what the reviewers have said. Provided that the reviewers and Editors are satisfied that the reviewers’ comments and suggestions have been fully and properly taken account in the authors’ revisions, and that the paper as revised has merit, the Editors publish the paper. Otherwise, either the paper is rejected or further rounds of revisions may be required of the authors. Only when all revisions have been successfully completed is the paper published. Customarily, journals also publish the date on which the paper was received, the dates on which each subsequent revised draft was received, and the date on which the paper was finally accepted for publication.

Once the paper is published in a learned journal, if a scientist who reads it wishes to rebut it, the custom is that he sends a draft of his proposed rebuttal both to the journal and to the lead author of the paper. The lead author is then given the opportunity to draft a refutation to the rebuttal. Thereupon, if the Editors consider that the rebuttal and any refutation deserve to be published, they are published simultaneously in a subsequent edition of the journal.

The IPCC’s four Assessment Reports (19990, 1885, 2001, and 2007) are the primary source relied upon by agencies of the US Government, such as the EPA, NRC, NAS, CCSP, etc. It is important to understand that, at least in the following respects, neither the IPCC’s Reports nor those of the various taxpayer-funded scientific bodies who rely so heavily upon the IPCC’s Reports are peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. In particular –

* The authors of the IPCC’s Reports are chosen and appointed not by any scientific process but by governments.

* The IPCC has been known to interfere in the appointment of authors by taking careful steps to exclude eminent authors whose views are known to be at variance with the political stance of the IPCC. For instance, Professor Paul Reiter of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, one of the world’s foremost experts on the epidemiology of malaria and yellow fever, was nominated to the IPCC by the United States Government to contribute to the sub-chapter of the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report on climate change and vector-borne diseases. Professor Reiter suspected that the IPCC would do its best to exclude him and, accordingly, he obtained four copies of his nomination papers and sent them by registered mail, with proof of delivery, to four separate senior officials of the IPCC. As he had anticipated, the IPCC denied having received his nomination papers and refused to appoint him. However, he applied pressure and was eventually appointed a reviewer of the sub-chapter in question, discovering that the two lead authors were not malaria scientists. He later told the story to an investigating committee of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

* Authors who wish to contribute to the IPCC’s scientific discussions are often excluded if the IPCC considers that they are likely to disagree with its political stance. When I wished to attend the Hawaii “scoping meeting” for the IPCC’s 2013 Fifth Assessment Report early in 2009 to draw the IPCC’s attention to some serious defects in its methodology that I had published in the scientific literature, I was peremptorily told that I should not be welcome because I “disagreed with the IPCC’s position”.

* The reviewers are appointed by the IPCC itself. Many of their comments and suggestions, therefore, tend to reflect the IPCC’s political stance.

* The IPCC’s authors are generally not permitted to work in their own environment and in their own way, free from political pressure or interference. Much of the drafting of the IPCC’s reports is done by groups of authors at sessions held in exotic locations around the world. Some authors have reported that staff of the IPCC had intruded into scientific discussions and had pressured scientists into accepting various aspects of the IPCC’s political stance. For instance, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT testified before Congress to the effect that in IPCC sessions that he had attended the IPCC’s staff had frequently applied pressure on participating scientists to accept the IPCC’s contention that numerical modeling of the climate by complex (but error-prone) computer programs was a permissible alternative to observation, measurement, and calculation. The pressures to conform to the IPCC’s political stance are real and considerable.

* The authors are permitted to ignore – and generally do ignore – the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers, particularly where what the reviewers say runs counter to the IPCC’s political stance. This departure from the process generally recognized as peer review is particularly serious. For instance, in the sub-chapter on glaciers in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, a scientifically-unqualified environmental campaigner whom a government had nominated to the IPCC wrote that the Himalayan glaciers would all have melted away by 2035. Various reviewers pointed out that the campaigner’s absurd but alarming claim had no scientific foundation, but the campaigner simply overrode the reviewers and his draft was retained. When this error was exposed, the IPCC admitted that the correct year should have been not 2035 but 2350. The lead author of the sub-chapter in question also admitted that he had known the campaigner’s statement to be scientifically unfounded, but that he had deliberately left the incorrect date in the published final version of the IPCC’s 2007 report because, he said, it was the intention of the IPCC politically to influence governments.

* If the final draft of one of the IPCC’s reports is not acceptable to the IPCC’s staff in that it does not accord with the IPCC’s political stance, the IPCC’s procedures permit a single author to rewrite the final draft on his own so as to make the Report “politically correct”. This, too, is a very serious defect in the IPCC’s process. For instance, the 1995 Second Assessment Report concluded, and stated on five separate occasions, that there was no discernible human influence on global temperature and that it was not clear when any such influence would become discernible. The IPCC’s staff did not find this conclusion congenial. Accordingly a single author whose conformity to the IPCC’s political stance – Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – rewrote, and subsequently admitted that he rewrote, the final draft to remove all five “politically-incorrect” statement and to replace them with a single statement to the effect that a discernible human influence on global climate was now evident. To prevent this statement from appearing incongruous, Dr. Santer also found it necessary to make several hundred consequential amendments. The result was that the 1995 Report came to a conclusion precisely opposite to that which the scientists’ final draft had drawn. This conclusion – the opinion of one man – has been the official conclusion of the IPCC ever since. Yet only a small minority of the 1995 Report’s authors were told of Dr. Santer’s revisions before the Report was published, and the final draft as revised by him was not subjected even to the attenuated and defective process of “review” normally followed by the IPCC.

* The IPCC’s personnel, whether or not they have any scientific qualifications, are also permitted to tamper with the scientists’ final drafts of the IPCC’s reports. For instance, the final draft of the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph, a major Sunday newspaper in the United Kingdom, before publication. The newspaper revealed that the IPCC had revised its estimate of maximum global sea-level rise over the 21st century from 3 feet to less than 2 feet, with a central estimate of little more than 1 foot. This welcome news was widely reported around the world, but did not accord with the IPCC’s political stance. Accordingly, the IPCC’s staff altered the scientists’ final draft of the IPCC’s 2007 Report by inserting a new table of figures that had not appeared in the final draft. By the redeployment of four separate decimal points, it was made to appear that the observed contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise over the past 40 years had been ten times greater than that which had actually been measured. Whether or not this error was deliberate, the offending table was published in the final draft of the 2007 Report. On the day of publication, I noticed the error, reported it to four separate IPCC officials, and insisted that the table be removed or corrected. The IPCC’s staff thereupon hastily corrected the error themselves, changed the units in which the table was denominated, retitled the table, moved it, and quietly posted up the corrected version on the IPCC’s website, without openly declaring – as is the correct academic practice – that any change at all had been made.

* The final decisions on the principal conclusions in the IPCC’s Reports, which are incorporated into a Summary for Policymakers in each Report, are taken not by scientific authors or reviewers but by political representatives of governments. This is a very serious defect of scientific process. For instance, the IPCC reached its decision in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report to assign at least 90% confidence to its finding that most of the “global warming” that has occurred since 1950 was anthropogenic not by any scientific process of measurement, observation, or calculation conducted by scientists, but by a show of hands on the part of political representatives.

* Climate scientists, whether part of the IPCC process or not, are subjected to enormous pressures to agree to the IPCC’s politicized, pseudo-scientific viewpoint. For instance, when Dr. Garth Paltridge, an eminent climatologist in Australia, first said publicly that he disagreed with the IPCC’s central findings, within 24 hours the IPCC had contacted its point of contact in the Australian Government, which had in turn contacted the official body responsible for funding scientific research in Australia, which in turn contacted Dr. Paltridge and told him that if he ever again went public and expressed disagreement with any of the IPCC’s conclusions he would never again receive any funding for scientific research.

For these reasons, the IPCC’s Reports are in no way peer-reviewed in the generally-accepted sense of that term. In like manner and degree, the reports of the various scientific institutions upon which the US Government relies are also not peer-reviewed. The leading scientific institutions in the United States have substantially or absolutely relied upon the IPCC. In particular, they have appealed to the IPCC’s “authority” in that they have adopted its principal conclusions in an insufficiently critical manner.

Key decisions of the IPCC were taken not by scientists but by scientifically-unqualified representatives of governments, or by environmental campaigners, or by campaigning journalists with no scientific qualifications. On any view, these government representatives and campaigners – however noble their reputations in their fields – have no reputations in the field of science, and, scientifically speaking, the IPCC should not have founded its position upon their decisions on the basis of their reputations. Even where the conclusions upon which the IPCC relies were drawn by scientists, the scientific method – whose essence is verification and scrutiny of scientific results, and not mere belief or acquiescence in those scientific results that are found politically expedient, socially congenial, or financially profitable – demands that the IPCC should take careful steps independently to verify that the scientific conclusions on which it relies are justifiable, particularly where it is evident – or has become evident from comments received – that the conclusions in question are questionable.

The United States should withhold all further funding from the IPCC until it institutes a rigorous process of proper peer review of its own past as well as future work by independent scientists, and until it gives an undertaking that it will never again rely upon any sources other than peer-reviewed papers in the learned journals.

Not the least of the reasons why the IPCC is not functional is that the current chairman of its climate science panel is a railroad engineer now under investigation by the UK Charity Commission for having filed false accounts three years in a row for a charity of which he is the trustee. His defense is that he is financially inexperienced: yet he runs an 800-strong NGO in India. Key IPCC personnel should in future be appropriately qualified, and of unquestionable probity, and should not have any financial conflicts of interest.

[Wild Cobra]

These keep getting better and better:

THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/disclosure_east_ang.pdf)

[Wild Cobra]

They always say, follow the money...

THE MONEY TRAIL (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/the_money_trail.pdf)

[RandomGuy]

Risk management doesn't apply when there is no risk.

If ever anything sums up my reservations about your assessments that statement is it.

Inherent in that statement is a level of certainty that no real scientist would ever commit to.

You say "no risk".

This is not, "almost no risk" or "the data would seem to indicate the risk is exceedingly small", but "no risk".

No room in your mind for you to be wrong, and no inherent admission that your opinion may ultimately be wrong.

You are indicating a level of certainty that no IPCC report has ever done. The best level of certainty they have committed to, based on hundreds of research papers and tens of thousands of hours of full-time work by people with PHD's is "highly likely".

Your "denier" criticisms of the IPCC include that modeling can be wrong, and interpretation of data can be wrong, and the variables used can be wrong. Yet in this one statement, you wave away any such doubt about *your* analysis.

"no risk" you say. I would like that to be right.

We cannot afford for you to be wrong.

If you don't admit that you could be wrong, you lose a lot of credibility. If you do admit you could be wrong, you have confirmed that the principles of sound risk management fully apply and that we should do something to mitigate that rather severe total risk.

Can you clarify for me: is your analysis infallible, or not?

[RandomGuy]

We're at more risk from an asteroid strike than from a gas that makes up 0.0390% of the atmosphere.

Please quantify both risks to some reasonable degree of certainty.

Remember risk has two dimensions, probability and magnitude.

[RandomGuy]

They always say, follow the money...

THE MONEY TRAIL (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/the_money_trail.pdf)

Conspiracy theories and ad hominem to not logically disprove anything. Nice try mous-, er Cobra.

[RandomGuy]

Those of you who tout the "peer review" process when it comes to Global warming. I have stated several times before, the Climate science seems to be immune from true peer reviewing. From pages 16 to 20 of QUESTIONS FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE CONCERNING MY RECENT TESTIMONY (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/questions_from_select_committee.pdf); by Christopher Monckton, 7/14/10:

Then it should not be immune.

By the same token, some of the research papers you have presented from "deniers" could use some solid, honest questioning as well. I *know* that it was never subjected to any such attempts at peer review either, because I read the author's own accounts regarding their review process.

All of this still leaves us with a fair degree of uncertainty.

[RandomGuy]

Random, take a look at these:

June 2010 Monthly CO2 report (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report-may_june_2010.pdf)

SPPI Collection as of July 2010 (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sppi_collection.pdf)

I skimmed the first one, and saw a lot that leads me to be highly skeptical, quite frankly.

The alarm bells started ringing in my head with:


Less freedom. No democracy. The New World Order is upon us,

It then went on the sadly familiar conspiracy arcs of whitewashes and how "they" are out to get us, and continued with a soupcon of misleading charts and graphs with bad reasoning.

The kicker came when they tried to do some cost analysis. Now THAT is where I have some expertise, and it was more of the same bad reasoning. The cost-analysis was incomplete and fully misleading. It was either deliberately constructed to be alarming by using half truths and leaving out pertinent data, or just represented a sadly ignorant analysis of the costs and benefits involved.

The entire thing made little effort to hide the propagandistic agenda:


Closing the entire carbon economy would in effect close the entire global economy. And all this for the sake of a non-solution to a non-problem.

Not quite the paragon of scientific rigor.

All of which leaves me to believe that the person who compiled that made little effort at fairness or reasonable testing of underlying assumptions.

[DarrinS]

RG,


Why do these guys keep trying to sell us on "global warming is not over"?

I smell desperation.

[RandomGuy]

RG,


Why do these guys keep trying to sell us on "global warming is not over"?

I smell desperation.

We get to find out either way.

Personally I highly doubt that humanity will scale back CO2 emissions by any meaningful amount over the next 20 years, barring some real global economic slowdowns.

Political inertia will keep any meaningful cuts from being made, and we will get the benefit of 20 more years of ever-improving quality data.

I truly, hope the "denier" camp is right about all this, and that either the probability of risk is really low, and/or the magnitude of risk is way off.

If that isn't the case, and this stuff does come around to bite us in the ass, the people advocating "do nothing" will have some serious moral culpability for the misery their inertia and paranoia caused.

[Wild Cobra]

You are indicating a level of certainty that no IPCC report has ever done. The best level of certainty they have committed to, based on hundreds of research papers and tens of thousands of hours of full-time work by people with PHD's is "highly likely".

So?

I guess you would want risk mitigation on the off change a ship sails off the edge of the flat earth as well.


Your "denier" criticisms of the IPCC include that modeling can be wrong, and interpretation of data can be wrong, and the variables used can be wrong. Yet in this one statement, you wave away any such doubt about *your* analysis.

It has now been well established the the IPCCC is flat out wrong.


"no risk" you say. I would like that to be right.

Then realize the earth is no longer flat.


We cannot afford for you to be wrong.

Then we should build a rail gun, or something else that can change the astroids path. That is a risk that I can say we meed to mitigate.


If you don't admit that you could be wrong, you lose a lot of credibility. If you do admit you could be wrong, you have confirmed that the principles of sound risk management fully apply and that we should do something to mitigate that rather severe total risk.

I am not wrong. It is a scientific impossibility for CO2 to pose the threat the alarmists claim. Just watch. 10, 20 years or so, this whole thing will be a laughable incident, as a global warming conspiracy.


Can you clarify for me: is your analysis infallible, or not?

Yes, as long as the data the IPCCC is correct. I'm relying in the notion that they do start with good root data. But by you're assessment, I could never convince you of that.

[RandomGuy]

I am not wrong.


Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses whether or not it is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military, political and social contexts.

[mouse]

I knew it was a matter of time for the light bulb to go off.

[RandomGuy]

I knew it was a matter of time for the light bulb to go off.

Aw jeez, are you posting from inside your fridge again? :eyebrows

[Brandon Fraser]

Aw jeez, are you posting from inside your fridge again? :eyebrows

:lol