The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The UN climate change numbers hoax > Comments

The UN climate change numbers hoax : Comments

By Tom Harris and John McLean, published 30/6/2008

The IPCC needs to come clean on the real numbers of scientist supporters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
The authors begin with an alleged assertion by politicians and climate campaigners.

Yet when does a search for the alleged quote there is one hit - this article - albeit in different locations.

Tom Harris is already well known for being caught trying to edit Wikipedia when it stated, as a matter of fact, tha whilst he was head of the Natural Resource Stewardship Project, he was also working for the High Park Group, a PR company that lobbies for energy companies.

In reality the scientific opinion on climate change is not really a matter of such debate (cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

This by no means suggests that there isn't room for improvement in measurement and modelling, nor does it suggest that other causes could be responsible for temperature increases in recent decades.

However the recent reports of the IPCC consider it 90% probable that most increases in global temperatures are the result of human activity, they consider it 95% likely that humans have exerted a net warming influence since 1750.
Posted by Lev, Monday, 30 June 2008 10:19:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.”

Just like when most people were illiterate, and the parish priest dictated what was right and what was wrong. Anyone who dared – and dares now – to look for the real truth is a heretic.

Like the priests, scientists will be proven wrong in the future, but it will be too late: the politicians will already have fleeced us to pay for the crackpot schemes to ‘fix’ climate change, when only nature can do that.

We need more people like these two to expose the lies that are going to see people ripped off by politicians, who only ever see solutions to anything in taking more money off their constituents.

People who believe politicians, scientists (just because they are scientists) or the UN need to have a good think before it’s too late.
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 30 June 2008 11:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, you have avoided answering the real questions involved.

I consider it to be insulting and probably liabilous to cast doubt
on their integrity in the way that you have done.
I have seen assertions like this previously about others and I think
it is probably the intellectual hidy hole of the clueless.
I do not know the authors.

I, as a general member of the public, have been bombarded with
assertions that the sky is falling and that the debate is over etc.
Clearly this is not so. Yet I am going together with the rest of the
population be asked to cough up trillions of dollars for an indefinite
period of time.

WE, the mug public DEMAND better answers than we have been getting.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 30 June 2008 11:32:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dishonesty in more evolutionary based 'science'? Well what a surprise. These scaremongers have made enough stupid predictions in the last few years to leave only the gullible believing.
Posted by runner, Monday, 30 June 2008 11:51:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My son's girlfriend is doing journalism at Uni. We often chat about how "the system" works - about how and when news is released. I whinged about being mislead by a 4 corners hatchet job on Brendan Nelson just prior to the election. She explains timing and relevance. In a more cynical tone than I had expected from a young girl she said the timing had to be quite deliberate as they would of known from their research the story was full of holes. It had to be far enough from the election to get the message out there, but not give sufficient time to Brendan to respond. As much as I disliked my trust in the ABC being abused, I had to admire the 4 corner team's almost surgical precision.

And so it is with this article, timed as it is to coincide with the release of Garnaut's report. It may not be so successful, though. The dynamics are very different here on OLO. Within a few hours many will post as Lev has done - picking holes in it. It is a fairly soft target as the consensus is actually very strong, and so I imagine by the end of the week it will look decidedly weak to anybody who reads the comments. If anything it will have the reverse effect from what was intended.

Many have postulated the Internet would have a "democratising effect", reducing the sway over public opinion the of existing oligopoly of TV and Newspapers. Here in Australia, OLO seems to have found a formula that is bring that prediction to fruition. Its great to see.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 30 June 2008 11:58:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev wrote: "Anyone who dared – and dares now – to look for the real truth is a heretic."

We've seen a lot of climate change sceptics burnt to death lately have we? If you want to get some qualifications in climate science and submit papers to high-quality science journals then nobody will stop you. Anybody is free to do this, and yet we see a extraordinarily good (by scientific standards) consensus amongst those who have qualified. This fantasy world about a world-wide conspiracy to "fleece" the public of funds shows at best a distinct lack of understanding about how the academic world works. Such absurd schemes are the product of minds constrained by fixed , unyielding opinions, struggling to bend the facts in any way they can to suit their theory. Occam's razor: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you assume its a duck (you don't, for example, immediately believe its a group of aliens from Alpha Centauri disguised as a duck that has arrived on Earth to take over the world by training an army of attack geese).

People that are sceptical about whether humans travelled to the moon, whether relativity or quantum mechanics is real or not, and whether climate change is happening or not really belong is the same category. To accuse the vast majority of the climate scientist community of being "crackpots" is really quite amusing.
Posted by Sams, Monday, 30 June 2008 12:09:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams' reply is so typical of the arrogance displayed by the it-is-us cadre of climate change opinionators.

By referring to those who - quite politely - ask for some more detail and less opinion as occupying a "fantasy world about a world-wide conspiracy", s/he is able to avoid the question entirely.

Suggesting that these very simple questions are "the product of minds constrained by fixed , unyielding opinions, struggling to bend the facts in any way they can to suit their theory", shows a level of condescension typical of those who have already made up their minds, and refuse to look any further

The concern being shown here is that too few questions have been asked, not normally a trait of people with "fixed, unyielding assumptions".

Sounds horribly like that ol' kettle addressing that ol' pot, what?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 30 June 2008 1:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sam's quoted;
Lev wrote: "Anyone who dared – and dares now – to look for the real truth is a heretic."

Well Lev did not write that. Probably in the original article.
I don't think anyone believes that there is a climate scientist
conspiracy, it seems to be more of a bureaucratic stance within the
UN IPCC.
It seems that the authors have issued a challenge;
Prove their figures wrong regarding the numbers of scientists that
say that it is caused by anthropogenic carbon.
What worries me is that this is not the first time or place I have seen
comments along these lines. There is just too much money involved
to not have these statements resolved, after all would you buy
shares based on such disputed information ?

Seems simple to me this ignorant pleb.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 30 June 2008 1:57:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So scientist who don't agree with the authors view point are not creditable? That fact is this report is a political report it's written for Governments so it will be. If you want a science only report then read all of the science journals on climate change in the last 30 years or so. The answer is very clear there. This anti-global warming stuff is very much like the lobbing that went on while the tobacco companies were still trying to tell us that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 30 June 2008 2:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baz wrote: "Sam's quoted; Lev wrote: "Anyone who dared – and dares now – to look for the real truth is a heretic." Well Lev did not write that. Probably in the original article."

My humble apologies to Lev, my eyes slipped a position in the comment .. it was "Mr. Right".

Kenny wrote: "If you want a science only report then read all of the science journals on climate change in the last 30 years or so. The answer is very clear there."

Hear, hear. If you are not going to become a climate scientist, then you need some very strong and solid evidence (eg. that they are all corrupt or incompetent) to discount them. Show it to us please if you have it. Climate change science is very complex and is no more amenable to 'common sense' analysis than is special relativity, or quantum mechanics, which is why the worlds largest supercomputers are being used to probe it.

Pericles said .. well, a whole bunch of ad hominem stuff. But what substance he did bring up was to assume, through prejudice, that I'm someone "who have already made up their minds, and refuse to look any further".

My original background is a PhD in particle physics, although I'm running an IT company now. I continually monitor science reports about climate change because it concerns me greatly. In fact, only today I discovered this NASA resource:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTimeMachine/climateTimeMachine.cfm
which has some useful pictorial representation of climate change that would be suitable for the use to the layman.

"The concern being shown here is that too few questions have been asked"
One might think that if you only followed mainstream media that sensationalises the occasional sceptic, and attempts to draw childishly simplistic conclusions about climate change. Look to the peer-reviewed journals and you'll see a different landscape.
Posted by Sams, Monday, 30 June 2008 2:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, perhaps you didn't find this which CERTAINLY comes from the horse's mouth and implies that this group of +2500 scientific expert reviewers agree with the report’s conclusions. He certainly doesn't say "that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/valencia-2007-11/pachauri-17-november-2007.pdf.
i.e.
IPCC Chairman Dr. R K Pachauri
Press Presentation
Saturday, 17 November 2007 Valencia, Spain
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Process
• +2500 scientific expert reviewers
• 800 contributing authors
• 450 lead authors from
• +130 countries

This shonky IPCC is a monumental fraud operating with a total eclipse of reason. Just why should we be so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious IPCC with its weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery? Are people just so naive or stooopid not to comprehend that carbon is life which surely should induce a modicum of humility as the reason for our very existence?

Just consider its initial assumptions. We should know that it has no chance of even getting past its first assumption of catastrophic warming because of earth’s one-way cooling bias. Its second assumption of depleting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a bizarre, anti life bias with no hope of success. (.... unless you worship thanatos or wicked pedia. lol)
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 30 June 2008 3:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams,

Predicting climate change is a decidedly complex area of study. I’m only an engineer but I can tell you, as you no doubt already know, that modelling anything with as many interdependent variables ( whose relationships we don’t fully understand )as global climate with a view to predicting the future is pretty much black magic. The error bars for this type of study are huge.

I don’t think we need to suggest that the supporters of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are corrupt or incompetent for them to be wrong. And the same goes for climate change sceptics.

This is science and popularity is irrelevant. However this article explores a point which is often brought up by ACC supporters, that is, that there is a consensus on this issue. They make a solid point about the factual incorrectness of that claim. It is up to you to disprove it if you wish, but to suggest that the debate is over is simply not correct.

There are many valid points made by ACC sceptics which are written off by ad hominem attacks on a regular basis. Bob Carter is one who suffers these attacks all the time and he is by no means alone.

In particular, the biggest criticisms made by Carter are that many climate scientists are looking at this data over too short a time span. Your link to the Climate Time Machine is a perfect example of this. When you look at the climate of the earth over millions of years, instead of tens, hundreds or thousands, you begin to notice that the Earth has not only been far hotter, it has also heated up more quickly than it has over the last 50-100 years.

Have a look at this presentation by Carter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Already we have had hysterical analyses by ex Vice Presidents, which were so far from the predictions of any science it is scarcely believable. Before we send the global economy into spiralling recession, never to emerge, it might be best if we took a little time to get this right.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 30 June 2008 4:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L: "They make a solid point about the factual incorrectness of that claim. It is up to you to disprove it if you wish, but to suggest that the debate is over is simply not correct."

Depends what you are debating Paul.L. If we are debating the idea that plebs such as you and I, Don Aitkin or indeed anybody who doesn't spend their time studying climate and publishing peer reviewed papers on the subject then obviously the debate goes on. This forum is evidence of that I guess.

But if you restrict yourself to the one or two thousand individuals that have devoted their lifetimes to the climate science, and have had the balls to put their lifetimes work and reputation on the line by publishing in peer reviewed journals, then the answer is starkly clear. At least it is to anybody who has taken the 5 or so minutes required to look it up - by say reading the Wikipedia entry on the subject that Lev so helpfully provided the link for.

You of course will now be thinking of ways to attack the impartiality of Wikipedia. Don't waste your time. On this particular topic others who were willing to spend far more effort on it than you have already tried:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7381&page=0#113833

As you point out, the models AGW is based on are complex even by todays standards where doing a complete FSA of an aircraft in flight is regarded as fairly mundane. It has lots of contestable points, and we see them regularly attacked here on OLO. So, do Harris and McLean target one of them with their flak? No. They target one of AGW strongest points, and whats more one that you correctly say is irrelevant to the science.

And this, you say, is Harris and McLean's making a "solid point". Well a solid point has indeed been made, I guess. But it is not the one you are suggesting.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

You ask

"Prove their figures wrong regarding the numbers of scientists that say that it is caused by anthropogenic carbon."

I did that in the first comment.

I shall do so again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Sams,

Apology accepted
Posted by Lev, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulL, as you said yourself, you are only an engineer and you know its difficult to model anything as complex as climate. Yes well the maths engineers use isn't the same maths as biometricians and other disciplines use.

We clearly can model the climate, what do you think our weather forecasts are? The Bureau of Meteorology and the Weather Company produce long range forecasts which grain growers use to base their decisions on whether to invest $500,000 planting a crop or not.

Respected climatologists and hydrographers are in no doubt that south eastern Australia is getting drier and their climate models show this. There is less certainty about what climate change will mean for the tropical areas of Australia because the climate modelling is less developed.

The article was a mish mash of vague innuendo casting aspersions on the review process of the IPCC report not on the content of the report. The ssort of thing we should expect from the Australian Environment Foundation that was set up to allow timber companies to retain access to our forests.
Posted by billie, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought the article was clear in its intent ... to question the often repeated claim that 2,500 scientists have endorsed the IPCC reports and findings. Clearly the IPCC process is more about politics than science and it should be exposed as such. Thanks OLO for continuing to publish the politically incorrect.
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 30 June 2008 7:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And thanks to you Jennifer Marohasy (and OLO's "snowman" aka McClean).

And to the IPA, Heartland Institute, Lavoisier Group, Tech Central Station, etc and et al for your politically motivated and "New World Order" denialists diatribe.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 30 June 2008 7:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A

Have you bothered to read anything at all.

1.You dont have to be a scientist to undertake this type of management and audit review. It is common practice on other domains where the ethical standards may be little higher.

2. I would have thought that when the authors show that the IPCC has lied about the extent of the support from the scientific community, that is serious. It impacts on the over all credibilty of the IPCC reports.

3. There is clear proof of the fact that the statement "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years" was not supported by 2500,but just 7.

Thats not a simple error of judgement, that is fraudulent misrepresentation, for which the Norwegian dopes gave them a Nobel Prize,thereby demeaning the prize itself. What a Joke.

4.The data supporting this paper is available for you to also access and research to validate and/or dispute the theses being presentd by the authors. Go your hardest.

5. Notably the data was obtained by virtue of the USA FOI laws covering where the WG1 activities took place, not European law where Pachuri and his cronies reside, and therefore could not influence the FOI decision of USA law.

Now why is that not surprising.
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 30 June 2008 8:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right on queue bigmal, I was expecting the 'network', if not the 'greenhouse mafia', to join in the fray.

Come up with a better solution to disseminating the science and you will have my ears ... otherwise, you and your cohorts are just windbags full of CH4 contributing to GHG emissions.

Personally, I look at the scientific papers - you ... well, you just haven't a clue.

As for Snowman, what a joke ... he has even added his name as a PhD scientist in the letter to the UN ... delusions of grandeur!
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 30 June 2008 9:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So it's all some sort of elaborate evil political conspiracy after all?

How fortunate that the (completely natural?) melting of the Arctic ice and 10,000 years of Siberian permafrost came along at just the right time to fool so many of us.

If nothing was happening to explain those sorts of events, some people would be demanding an explanation and making claims of top level cover-ups. They would probably be dismissed as conspiracists or attention seekers.

When it happens the other way round, others raise their voices in doubt.

Maybe some things don't need complex explanations to make simple sense.

As Dylan said - "you don't need a Weather Man to know which way the wind blows".
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 30 June 2008 9:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With your obvious lack of objectivity and understanding as to what real professional domains do, you would be wasting your time reading anything scientific..or perhaps thats why the standards are so low.

There may be nothing wrong with the theoretical processes involved with the IPCC, so why do they need to lie and obfuscate around the truth.

Why do they need to make such blatantly misleading statements if the science underneath is so good..as you imply and try to defend.
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 30 June 2008 10:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an idea, lets agree that the weight of opinion has swung to the side of "climate change is bad and, shucks, it's a' happenin folks", and like the adaptable folk we are consider this:

1. Economically viable oil supplies will run out, sooner or later.

2. Shut up already about oil shale and oil sands - they only become viable when oil is prohibitively expensive, ooh, like soon.

3. Shut up about bio-diesel and ethanol - they are expensive, the production takes up land better used for food, and until they make it commercially out of garbage not food, it aint a reasonable alternative. Oh, and I like to be able to afford food AND use transport. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

4. Other countries are getting the jump on us in the green/non-fossil oil dependent energy stakes (Europe with wind - check out those Scandinavian folks, America and China with solar, Brazil with biofuels - and yes I know they cut down the Amazon for a lot of that, see my third point).

5. We are getting left behind in the future energy technology stakes.

6. Ohh...yes, we are getting left behind because we are not investing enough in new/alternative technologies. Did I say that already?

The IPA, I mean the AEF, needs to start seeing the business advantages in getting on the alternative energy bandwagon now. Not because it saves the whales and the red parrot (although they are cute and they taste even better), but because there is an economic benefit to all this change.

Disruptive economic events like this one (and it will be disruptive) produce winners and losers. We need to get to making cars and not buggy whips (and yes I know motor vehicles are not the best image when discussing climate change but I hope the analogy is clear).
Posted by Amjay, Monday, 30 June 2008 10:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that the climate change issue has descended into a bar room brawl indicates that the large volume solid science is being overwhelmed by an even larger volume of shoddy science and spin. Science's credibility is being destroyed by spin artists and hidden agendas.
Posted by attila, Monday, 30 June 2008 11:19:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First, there were much more than 62 reviewers for chapter 9. McLean and Harris have only counted the reviewers of the second order draft and ignored the more numerous comments on the first order draft.

Second, they mislead by giving the impression that 60% of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC, but half of the comments (572 of them!) were made by Vincent Gray, with 97% of them rejected. Only 16% of the comments by other reviewers were rejected. Gray was also responsible for most the rejected comments on the first order draft. Examples of Gray's rejected comments include:

Insert after "to" "the utterly ridiculous assumption of"

Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)"

Insret before "Calibrated" "Bogus"

Third, as Richard Littlemore points out, it is pretty dodgy for the NRSP to complain about "vested interest" when their own vested interest is so blatant. But how did McLean and Harris come up with their claim that 55 of the reviewers had "serious vested interest"? McLean gives details in a piece published by the SPPI (an oil industry funded think tank that apparently does not count as a vested interested to McLean). Scientists were declared to have a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a "possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming". Basically that leaves amateurs like Gray and McKitrick. In one of his comments Gray asked them to cite one of his Energy and Environment papers. Fortunately it was rejected, or he would have been ruled out as well.
Posted by TimLambert, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 6:29:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science does not depend upon numbers or consensus. That’s the stuff of politics and marketing. But even so the IPCC numbers are grossly overstated. Tom Harris and John McLean, point out that the whole IPCC report depends upon Working Group I which only has some 600 Lead and Contributing Authors. In WGI three chapters are critical –Observations, Palaeoclimate and Attribution and each must be separatly right or the whole report is suspect. These chapters had respectively 12, 16 and 9 Lead Authors who actually wrote the text. Who knows what the Contributing Authors contributed? And the Review Editors did not do much if you go by their reports.

It is not just that it is only a handful of scientists that write the key chapters, they are largely drawn from the same clique dominated by the UK Met Office UCAR CRU and a few others. Moreover the process is also run by institutions like UCAR and the Met Office that make their living out of the climate business. Half the UK’s expert reviewers work for the Met Office. The IPCC participants are the investigators, judge and jury – and there is nether independent audit of procedures or any appeal process. Despite the claim to be open and transparent, the IPCC is not. In ongoing FOIA matters, one Chapter 6 Review Editor is claiming that his working papers are his personal property and one Lead Author claims his email correspondence is ‘confidential’. The IPCC themselves do not reply to request for information.
Posted by David H, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 7:25:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer: "I thought the article was clear in its intent ... to question the often repeated claim that 2,500 scientists have endorsed the IPCC reports and findings."

Possibly, but if so they are asking the wrong questions. The IPCC is meant to report on the state of climate science. That is the job it was tasked to do, and the only metric that really matters is how well its reports do reflect the state of the science.

The article claims the process the IPCC uses is poor. Maybe that is so, although TimLambert's comments here cast a rather different light on it, but even if true it doesn't really tell us if the IPCC has done its job well.

If you are going to measure climate science, how about asking some of climate scientists if the report reflects the state of play as they see it? Or how about pointing to the writings of a sizable group of disgruntled climate scientists? They didn't, presumably because as the previous as comments you imply are off topic said - they don't exist.

For the record, yes they did quote three people. Of those Gray is a coal chemist, and McKitrick is an economist. This leaves Timothy Ball, who has indeed worked in climate science for most of his life. He does definitely count as one dissenting voice, but given there are thousands of climate scientists 1 isn't enough.

Also for the record, this is part of Wikipedia's entry on Ball:

In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, "damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming".[18]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that "The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 12:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is timely as the Queensland Government’s Office of Climate Change -Environmental Protection Agency has just released their report: Climate change in Queensland: What the science is telling us.

This report is built on the key findings of the IPCC, Fourth Assessment report:
• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
• Most of the warming in the past 50 years is ‘very likely’ due to increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.
• It is ‘very likely’ that changes in the global climate system will continue well into the future, and that they will be larger than those seen in the recent past.

The Queensland Government, giving these findings authority, states: “The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is a consensus document produced by 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors, and 2500 scientific expert reviewers representing 130 countries.”

On this basis the Government is to spend $430 million of taxpayers’ funds to tackle climate change through the Queensland Climate Change Fund. Perhaps we need to re- look at the numbers before spending this huge amount that is likely to be spent many times over by other Australian Governments.
Posted by cinders, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 1:19:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the article: "Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim"

These are weasel words. Scientific theories are never "proved" in the first place. Case in point: the IPCC only determined a high probability that climate change is cause by humans, not absolute truth. Scientific consensus is essential for policy makers to operate. Otherwise, for example, we would have accepted the original Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion "discovery" as gospel and never questioned it. The general community, and even other branches of science, require a consensus amongst the domain experts when they themselves don't understand the science. The exact nature of the consensus process depends on the community. Can the authors show that their analysis of comments indicates that the IPCC made the "wrong" determination, or that the claims about the number of reviewers or level of scrutiny is overestimated? Perhaps reviewers have worked in teams and submitted comments through the team lead. Perhaps many didn't feel the need to comment. Is the consensus process for the IPCC documented or referred to by the authors? No, so no case to answer.

Bazz wrote: "Prove their figures wrong regarding the numbers of scientists that say that it is caused by anthropogenic carbon."

Prove to me that there aren't one inch high pink elephants on Uranus. If someone comes up with unlikely claims, the onus is on them to provide a sufficient body of evidence to warrant investigation. Announcing hard to verify claims and demanding that they be "proven" by an oppenent is a classic delaying tactic.

Paul L. wrote: "I don’t think we need to suggest that the supporters of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are corrupt or incompetent for them to be wrong."

Yet I didn't say that, I said: "you need some very strong and solid evidence (eg. that they are all corrupt or incompetent) to discount them". "Discount" is not the same as saying they are "wrong. The IPCC themselves allow for the possibility that they are wrong in their report - just its a very low probability. So I stand by my statement.
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 2:05:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well here we are again,

I agree with the skeptics and those who think the IPCC is a farce.

It would be a farce, if its implications were not so serious.

Krudd & Co are working toward carbon emissions tax.

Forget the spin about compensatory tax reductions and offsetting oil duty etc.

When the socialists get an opportunity to rape your discretionary spending they will.

Forget the truth

Climate change is the excuse for

Carbon Emmissions taxes

and

Carbon Emmissions tax is

Socialism by Stealth.

My view may be politically incorrect, maybe but I do not give a rats.

The chain of cause and effect is a very short one. The end game will be:

From your current gross income, more will be curtailed into government funds in the name of climate change and less left for you to spend on what makes you happy.

Now if you think that is fair ask yourself this

Melburnians are about to face a 15% hike in water charges.

One of the most significant costs faced by Melbourne water users is the $100,000,000 a year which the Socialist State government skims off the Melbourne water companies as "Special Dividend" and which goes into general funds for the socialist big-spenders to feather bed their political hobbies.

It does not matter what sort of emmissions tax is invented, you, the individual will pay and pay and pay.

Remember Howard & Co resisted the prattle of Kyoto and the slippery slope into emmissions trading. Especially remember that in a few years time, when you get to vote in a federal election again.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 2:35:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that there is more heat than light and suggestions of political
skulduggery than you can poke a stick at.

Again,the crux of the argument is not whether the world is warming up,
it has done that numerous times.

Q1 Is the CO2 released by human activity increasing temperature above
what would otherwise happen to a degree that is dangerous ?
Q2 If Australia reduces the output of CO2 will it make a noticeable
difference to world temperatures if China, India and others do not
make similar savings ?
Q3 Should an entirely separate body be commissioned to review all the
work done by those associated with the IPCC studies and if in doubt
restart from scratch ?

If the answer to Q1 is yes to spend the amount of money involved will
need a very high degree of probability.

If the answer to Q2 is no, what the hell are we arguing about !
The answer to Q3 is only relevant if both Q1 & Q2 are yes.

With disputed data are we going to gamble the whole world economy ?
After all we may survive quite well with a 3 or 4 degree rise.
Which is the biggest gamble ?

For those who saw Bob Brown on TV the other night he was wrong to
blame the volcano. He diverted the question by giving the answer to
another question that was not asked.
The volcano event effected only one year at the end of the several hundred year long Maunder Minimum.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 4:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I come to this very late, and with the feeling that I have encountered it all before. But, in brief, the IPCC was founded on the premise that human-induced climate change was a problem, and its job is to say what the current scientific solutions to that problem might be. It does not entertain the prospect that human-induced climate change is of small consequence, though there is a lot of argument and evidence that would support such a position. I wouldn't expect it to do otherwise, anymore than I would expect a professor of climate change to say that it was all nature's doing, or a history professor to say that history is bunk, or the head of a government department of the environment to say that things were fine out there.

But I do scratch my head at the unwillingness of the IPCC to release perfectly straightforward information unless the seeker goes to the trouble and expense of FOI. I have always thought that in research the data are made available so that others can do their version of the experiment. The climate change industry seems to me replete with people who sit on their own data and avoid open and frank discussion. When I see that I don't see science at its best. I may not be looking at good science at all. Harris and McLean have at least found out some of the numbers. That they had to do it this way is no credit to the IPCC.

And to be told that by saying things like this I am a 'denier', with its Holocaust colouring, makes me even surer that what I am looking at is tawdry and wrong.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 8:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin wrote: "The climate change industry seems to me replete with people who sit on their own data and avoid open and frank discussion."

By saying "industry" I assume you trying to imply this absurd conspiracy theory that the majority of climate change scientists are trying to hoodwink the world for more cash. This is tin foil hat stuff. Name these individual climate change scientists that are "sitting on their own data" and back it up with hard evidence. I'm sure we can find their data in the journals for you.

Don Aitkin: "It [IPCC] does not entertain the prospect that human-induced climate change is of small consequence."

Demonstrably wrong - the IPCC's findings say that there is a chance that climate change is not human-induced, but they assign a low probability to that prospect. Something like: "90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface" was it not?
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 8:48:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams: "Name these individual climate change scientists that are "sitting on their own data" and back it up with hard evidence."

Michael Mann could hardly be said to have been cooperative, even trying to claim intellectual property rights, before he was reluctantly compelled by the US govt to make data available . Then there's Phil Jones and his infamous quote: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it." (Kellow, A. Science & Public Policy, 2007)

sams: "Don Aitkin: "It [IPCC] does not entertain the prospect that human-induced climate change is of small consequence."

Demonstrably wrong - the IPCC's findings say that there is a chance that climate change is not human-induced, but they assign a low probability to that prospect."

You seem to have miscomprehended. Aitken's statement is about the consequences of human-induced climate change, not its probability.

* commentator has no links to Big Oil, evil Think Tanks, or the "Matrix". His lowly qualifications should render his comments easily dispatched with by relevant counter-claims, logic, reason, evidence, and the like.
Posted by Richard Castles, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 10:30:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC is simply another organisation committed to its own agenda Although it enlists scientists it is not about proper science because its task has been to accumulate evidence to support a specific belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. This IPCC can only operate as a belief in belief system where the WILL to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the WILL to find out. Belief addicts are easy pickings for big business because there simply is an endless supply of deadheads that can only be sold the thizzle and not the sausage.

The thizzle is this underlying all pervasive bias away from studies of natural climate change to a grossly exaggerated anthropocentric minset that assumes that humanity is the weather maker and the cause of all earth's climate. There is no discovery process here because all are involved in an outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen. All that can be expected as a result is that they find themselves.

What is honest science then? If I can put it another way, good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. e.g. We want the observed details, and want to know WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories. That is what honest science is all about ..... discovery. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

In this respect we should recognise integrity in a scientist. Dr Vincent Gray is one such scientist.
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 11:09:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin once again misrepresents the reason why the IPCC was set up. The IPCC was set up to assess "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." It was not founded on the assumption that AGW was a problem.

Aitkin accuses the IPCC scientists of being "quasi-religous", but complains when he gets called a "denier".
Posted by TimLambert, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:50:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for Sams: Perhaps 'replete' was the wrong word, but Michael Mann, Dr Jones and the IPCC itself were the notable cases I had in mind, now mentioned by another contributor. If the science is that good, why the defence? It isn't that good, and relies far too much on models and not on observation. Th IPCC is pushing a case.

That the IPCC does not entertain the prospect that such change is of small consequence. You rather missed the point, as someone else has pointed out, but even if I interpret what I wrote your way, its probabilities have no basis in observation, and mean nothing. That those who wrote that passage were 90 per cent certain tells us something about their state of mind, but nothing directly about climate.

For TimLambert: I would interpret what you put in quotes as implying that AGW was a problem. Certainly the IPCC has acted as though that were the case.

'quasi-religious' As occurs so often you do not quote me correctly. This is what I wrote:

'One [reason] is that some of the senior people in and around the IPCC — one might call
them ‘scientist-activists’ — are convinced that unless the world wakes up to itself
humanity will not have a future. I would call this a quasi-religious view, and it is
the basis of the view that ‘the end justifies the means’, a doctrine that I think has
no place in a democracy.' It is easy enough to name names if you want me to, and I gave two examples in the paper. 'Some of the senior people...' is not the same as 'the IPCC scientists'. This sloppiness in argument is really pathetic.

Have you considered that by calling people who don't agree with you 'deniers' you are acting as the mediaeval Inquisition acted. with the supposition that 'Truth' is within you and will prevail? The reality of AGW is not of the same status as the reality of the Holocaust. I do object to being called a 'denier', but I'm puzzled that you don't see its implications for you.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 7:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timmyboy, the IPCC may have been set up initially with the best of intentions but unremarkably it has mutated into a religious faith. It simply operates mechanically with belief in belief alone where it can only always be a fact free zone/playpen. When one sees obviously dodgy assumptions, biased data manipulations, absurdly selective modeling schemes, etc all coupled with an aggressively enforced consensus group mindset with inhouse peer review processes ....... then it deserves the utmost skepticism. For myself, i'd describe it more accurately as top shelf insanity indicating a complete lack of imagination ........... but certainly not a lack of insecurity nor a lack of self-interest.

Your very own comments about Dr Vincent Gray are aimed to demonstrate this unimaginative belief/need for total consensus within the IPCC playpen. If this is the priority then it speaks of insecurity and a need to arrogantly fudge the data/evidence to fit some perceived moral high ground. Whilst this may be observed as a perfectly fitting product on the surface its underbelly is phony. My point is that your "science" is exposed as simply belief in belief for its own sake rather than belief derived from some factual information which is where intelligence evolves. Applying consensus to science means there is no thought of reason, humility, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy or the true achievement of human potential, because it is this systematic manipulation free of discovery.

Timmyboy, care to enlighten all how you became so infected and why you cannot progress from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't?
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 10:03:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkins: "That they had to do it this way is no credit to the IPCC."

Out of all the criticisms that were levelled at the process the IPCC uses both in the article and here in the comments, this is the only one that holds water.

I hope no one actually thought the 2,5000 reviewers actually read the entire 3000 page document, and I hope no one actually believes a 16% comment rejection rate is bad - it seems remarkably good to me. And It doesn't seem surprising that a few people did the grunge work of writing the summary.

The summary isn't necessarily bad because a few people wrote it, as the article tries to imply. In fact the reverse might be true - fewer cooks and all that. And besides its very easy to check if it how well it has been done without resorting vague proxies for "good". If it doesn't agree with the findings in the body of the report its been done badly, if does then it is a good summary.

But from what Don points out it seems to be the IPCC has actively put hurdles in the way of people doing the same sort of checks on the body of the report. I take it the IPCC refused to release the some of the original submissions and the comments, which makes that task impossible. This doesn't mean the report is flawed as the article implies. But it does mean it can't be seen to "not flawed" either.

To me this is most likely caused by some bureaucratic instinct to keep everything close to their chest. If you are doing your job properly that instinct is almost invariably counterproductive.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 1:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart wrote;
I hope no one actually thought the 2,5000 reviewers actually read the
entire 3000 page document,
unquote

Well I hope more than just one or two did read the whole 3000 pages.
I think the 2,5000 = 2,500.
For each trillion dollars that the CO2 program will cost the world then $333,333 per page makes it well worth while.

This is the level of acceptance that worries me.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 2:55:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin: "That the IPCC does not entertain the prospect that such change is of small consequence. You rather missed the point, as someone else has pointed out, but even if I interpret what I wrote your way, its probabilities have no basis in observation, and mean nothing. That those who wrote that passage were 90 per cent certain tells us something about their state of mind, but nothing directly about climate."

Ii seems I did miss the point, but I think that's because subconsciously I had assumed that anyone who has been tracking the almost daily reports on climate research would know that even a few degrees change would be catastrophic for the environment and those (i.e. us) that depend on it. The rest of your statement quoted above appears to indicate a lack of either knowledge of the scientific method, or lack of trust in its results. "That those who wrote that passage were 90 per cent certain tells us something about their state of mind" - it does indeed. - it tells us they are wise enough to say that they might be wrong, which is more than I can say for the shrill little voices in tis forum proclaiming that they know absolutely that the current regime of climate change is not caused by human.

Richard Castles: "Michael Mann could hardly be said to have been cooperative, even trying to claim intellectual property rights, before he was reluctantly compelled by the US govt to make data available . Then there's Phil Jones and his infamous quote: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it." (Kellow, A. Science & Public Policy, 2007)"

Maybe that's two cases worth looking into - research institutions do go over the top about intellectual property rights - I don't know the details of this .. but in any event we really need a couple of *hundred* cases to even start to support the IPCC "we-make-scary-stuff-up-to-get-money" conspiracy theory. So, got anything else?
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 3:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also; Tom Harris spends his time looking up random blogs talking about AGW and trying to convince them of the truth.

Mine is read by all of 10 people (5 of which I know IRL), and he found my post documenting the last OLO stoush and made a couple of statements that weren't even wrong...

I don't know where he gets the time from to do this... or rather, he does get paid to do it...
Posted by Chade, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 10:07:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to Sams: In an earlier part of the paper the IPCC sets out the level of scientific knowledge of components of climate, many of which are said to be low. But when it comes to statements of confidence it nonetheless uses percentages which (elsewhere again) are said to have equivalents in words. I don't have it all in front of me, but I'm sure you can find it. So, 'almost certain' is 90% and so on. The problem with all that is obvious. If the level of scientific knowledge is agreed to be low, how can one be certain, or almost certain? The use of percentages here seems to me disingenuous, because it seems to suggest a precision that cannot be there. Why do that? Because, as I see it, the IPCC is pushing a barrow.

If you Google up Michael Mann and global warming you'll encounter the McKitrick demolition. That's worth reading, and it may cause you to have the same worry that I gained. Why go to these lengths to suggest that there was no little ice age, for which there is abundant historical evidence? Or to suggest that even if it happened in Europe, it didn't happen anywhere else? If the second, what happens to global averages? This is good science? In refereed journals?

To repeat an old point, I accept that the earth seems to be warming. There is not yet good argument and evidence to support the view that human activity is responsible for all or most of it. If you know of some, I'm happy to read it.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 3 July 2008 8:44:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DA: "In an earlier part of the paper the IPCC sets out the level of scientific knowledge of components of climate, many of which are said to be low"

"said to be low" ... by who and on what basis.

DA: "The use of percentages here seems to me disingenuous"

I don't think so. If they quoted 92.12% then I would be worried.

DA: "If you Google up Michael Mann and global warming you'll encounter the McKitrick demolition." ... "There is not yet good argument and evidence to support the view that human activity is responsible for all or most of it."

I'm not a climate scientist (particle physics was my area before I got into IT) and nor is he and nor are you I presume. While I'd like to study the technical research, I have other projects n the boil that I hope will help with policy making. Thus like everybody else, I rely on scientific consensus in this area. Maybe Mann had faults in his original research that have been highlighted .. maybe he didn't .. mabye they have been corrected or taken into account. Mann is just one of thousands: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy] .. Wikipedia is by no means definitive, but there are plenty of references there:

"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[18][19][20] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[21] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[22] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[23] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."

Short of becoming climate scientists ourselves, I suggest, for humanities sake, we accept that.
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 3 July 2008 10:36:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to Sams: The IPCC said so itself in the Third Assessment Report in 2001. To quote from John McLean's submission to Garnaut (which I recommend, because it is well written and clear): 'Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC's case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 climate factors was "very low" and that for another the LSU was "low" (see figure). A similar table was absent from the Fourth Assessment Report - would it be an admission that science had advanced very little? - but a table of various radiative forcings did appear and again many factors were poorly understood.' You can find the original table in the TAR.

About 'disingenuous': In my view to use any percentage suggests that there is some kind of mathematical base to the statement. But there isn't. I could live with a statement that the authors of of the report were 'pretty sure', but when they call that '95%' it is without any measurement foundation at all.

I know what the IPCC says, and I know what Wikipedia says. What is at stake is measurement. Your background and mine enable us to look at the data and ask questions. The issues seem important enough for me to continue to do so, in the interests of myself, my children and my grandchildren — "for humanities' sake", if you like.

What is proposed seems to me without sufficient foundation, expensive and likely to be futile, and not much help to humanity at all. Yes, it might be right, but I want some of my criticisms answered. No one does.

I wanted to see evidence and argument about WMD, too, and feel that there are similarities in these two cases.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 3 July 2008 11:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DA: "What is proposed seems to me without sufficient foundation, expensive and likely to be futile, and not much help to humanity at all."

As to whether the proposed solutions are effective .. well, that's for a different debate. Unless you mean the general solution of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, in which case I say "endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science" is more than sufficient foundation. Expensive - yes, of course. Futile - the only reason it would be futile is if politics slowed it down.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 4 July 2008 8:30:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to Sams: (final comment for this thread)

I would be happier about the endorsement of 30 scientific societies if I were not aware that some of these bodies have asked strongly that others join them in that endorsement, and I believe this to have been true in Australia from what I have been told by members of these societies.

In any case, what the executive of a body says does not mean that its members support that stand. In my view learned academies are best advised not to take political stands, but of course that is just my opinion.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:58:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitken and Sams

Well it does not matter anyway.
If China and India do not adopt the same standards as we do then is
there any point in our doing anything at all ?

Could we just ignore it all and save all that money and it would make
not one jot of difference ?

If China and India are still maintaining their existing stance what
can we with our tiddly CO2 levels do anyway.

Anyway, it looks like the whole thing will be overwhelmed by the
effects of peak oil and no one will have the money to pay the CO2 tax.

The big advantage of standards is that there are plenty from which to choose.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:05:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz: "Well it does not matter anyway. If China and India do not adopt the same standards as we do then is there any point in our doing anything at all?"

You would prefer no hope over some hope!? I think you by "standards" you mean 'measures' (ie. not like ISO standards), or am I mistaken? China and India may do their part without too much pressure from the West - they don't want climate change either. There are encouraging signs from China. If push comes to shove though, and this is seen as a matter of survival (as it should be), other countries could apply escalating levels of pressure to encourage them change. However, if we haven't cleaned up our own acts, we won't be taken seriously.

"Anyway, it looks like the whole thing will be overwhelmed by the
effects of peak oil and no one will have the money to pay the CO2 tax."

Hmm .. or perhaps instead people will simply stop wasting so much energy. Commodities change price all the time and the market adjusts to it. In this case, transport and manufacturing techniques are changing accordingly, as are people's consumption patterns. On the other hand, the cost of world-wide failures of food crops due to high levels of climate change will be much worse.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:06:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams: "Commodities change price all the time and the market adjusts to it."

Most of the things you have said so far have been reasonable, but not this.

A thought experiment. If climate change happened tomorrow and the worlds seas rose say 50m, what would happen? Most Australians would die, I suspect. If the price of petroleum rose to $1000/barrel tomorrow, what would happen? The same thing of course. Without modern farming techniques which depend on petroleum, agricultural productivity drops by a factor of 10. Here in oz we produce twice what we use, so 4/5's of us would die because we simply can not build the infrastructure require to use coal of whatever in the buffer available.

The point of this is the rate of change matters more than the kind of change. We humans are very adaptable. If all else remains the same and the seas rise 50m over the course of a century, I'm guessing we in Australia would wriggle out of it - I don't know how, but I have faith. Billions in other places that are pushing the limits much harder than us may die of course, but we would come through.

Climate change happens fairly slowly. Sea levels won't rise in a decade or two. People speak of climate "tipping points" where change presumably speeds up - but I have yet to hear of a real live example. Resource exhaustion on the other hand look like it hits very quickly. This is possibly because of exponential overshoot. Peak oil the first and a good illustration - it is at the top (ie flat) part of its curve can you imagine what the price will do on the downhill run? To me it looks to it will be a struggle to switch our economy over to its replacement in 5 to 10 years we have, given we don't know what it is yet. And oil is just the first:

http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0806/ref.shtml

My parents lived through interesting times in the 1940's. My guess is the next 10 to 20 years will be just as interesting.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 4 July 2008 2:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah yes, Sams I did mean measures and not standards.
Sometime in the future there will be an attempt to establish emission
standards for co2, but as the ISO standard setting process takes longer
than the lifetime of any of us I doubt if we will see it.

It won't be a matter of prices changing and the market adapting as the
market will out of the picture when the amount of fuel available is so
low that it will all be government controlled and allocated.

That may not occur before 2020, the magic year, but it will occur.
I will take a punt and say formal rationing will be in effect by 2014.
What I really meant is that fuel mitigation legislation will overturn
where necessary any CO2 legislation that gets in the way of providing
energy, fuel and energy legislation. In some cases they will not be
mutually exclusive, but the emphasis will fairly quickly shift from
global warming to energy
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 4 July 2008 2:16:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The more I read about what will befall us unless we all stop doing all sorts of things in the hope that one day the climate will get better, the more I recall Y2K!

Do you remember how most large organisations around the world were duped into spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to get rid of the Y2K bug? On the appointed day planes were supposed to fall out of the sky, bank computers were going to start spewing out wrong balances, hospital life support, telecommunication systems were going to give up and nuclear power stations wree going to do another Chernobyl etc.

and then nothing happened!

Apart from old programs mainly written in Cobol most other Y2K alarms and predictions were fake.
Posted by LATO, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:22:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin, in a reply to Sams you endorse John Maclean's submission to Garnaut as "well written and clear". You then proceed to quote John's claims about tables on forcings and the LSU around each as presented in the the IPCC's Third and Fourth Assessment reports. You give me no confidence you've sighted these tables for yourself; if you had you will understand John's claims are not substainable. TAR The Scientific Basis Fig.3 and AR4 WG1 Fig.SPM.2 are essentially the same beast,six years apart, the latter showing improved LSU for many of the forcings.
Posted by NJFisher, Saturday, 5 July 2008 12:55:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, gave a bleak warning at a gathering of European Union ministers where he pleaded with the EU to take the lead in global talks on tackling climate change. He stated, “… we have a window of opportunity of only seven years because emissions will have to peak by 2015 and reduce after that. We cannot permit a longer delay."

Dr. Pachauri went on to state climate change was accelerating faster than thought. Heatwaves and floods were increasing, and higher temperatures were having a far-reaching effect on glaciers and snowfall.

"The targets that the EU had set earlier may need to be looked at once more, because the impacts are turning out to be more serious than we had estimated earlier," he said.

Inadvertently, Dr. Pachauri is stating that the predictions made by the climate change computer models only months ago were inaccurate! And yet, the world is being asked to believe that predictions made by the same computer models fifty years or more into the future are accurate!
Posted by LATO, Saturday, 5 July 2008 11:44:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of the "2500 scientists" media, politicians quotes that just came up in a quick search:

“a report released by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries, said climate changes are "very likely" caused by human activity.”
Feb 3, 2007 - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate …”. The IPCC report …was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations.”
Aug 13, 2007 - Newsweek magazine

“UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which earlier this year said global warming is ``very likely'' caused by human activities … The group's study was reviewed by more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries.”
Sep 24, 2007 - Bloomberg News

“the panel [IPCC], which marshaled the work of 2,500 scientists, was 90% sure that global warming was caused by human activities.”
Sep 25, 2007 - Los Angeles Times

“… 2500 scientists from around the globe participated in the development of the report, which found that the warming of the planet is “unequivocal” and that there is a 90% certainty that most of the warming is due to human activity.”
Feb 14, 2007 - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

BTW, I wasn't "caught" editing Wiki - I edited it openly to correct mistakes.

Lev says: "In reality the scientific opinion on climate change is not really a matter of such debate (cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)"

Climate change causes are constantly in debate because the field is so immature. Citing Wikipedia is hardly meaningful considering since anyone can can edit it.

Lev: However the recent reports of the IPCC consider it 90% probable etc..."

Insiders have often explained that these percentage confidence levels have little statistical significance and are nothing more than the opinions of people involved in parts of the process, opinions that other scientists disagree with.

BTW, I note warmers often using tactic #27 Guilt By Association from Dr. Michael C. Labossiere’s “Fallacies” – see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ .
Posted by Tom Harris, Sunday, 6 July 2008 1:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Harris: "I wasn't 'caught' editing Wiki - I edited it openly to correct mistakes."

Is that so? The "mistakes" you sought to correct are still there. I take it you didn't want the fact that you are associated with the "High Park Group" (a PR company that lobbies for energy companies) mentioned.

Tom Harris: "Citing Wikipedia is hardly meaningful considering since anyone can can edit it."

Do you see the irony in this, coming as it does right after your words above?
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 7 July 2008 1:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Harris,

When you provide a direct quotation - which you did - and that direct quotation is not available as you claim, then you must expect just criticism. It is only legitimate to quote when the quote actually exists. Instead, you just made it up. Nobody has ever made the assertion that you quoted, least of all as a "assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over" - except, apparently, yourself and your co-authors.

Maybe that's OK in public relations but my standards are a little higher. Your quotation was demonstrably untrue, and suggests either an ignorance of how to attribute correctly, or, if you presented the attribution *knowing* that it has never been made, a deliberate lie.

The responses you have provided are all statements of fact. The IPCC Fourth Assessment does indeed include scientists from over 130 countries. It does indeed include more than 2400 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors. The warming of the planet is indeed unequivocal. The overall assesment is "90% certain" that human activity has contributed to the majority of warming.

For your own part, I must say you have managed to generate, at best, a questionable reputation. I will leave readers to decide for themselves whether you have been attempting to cover your tracks concerning links between yourself, the National Resources Stewardship Project and the High Park Group. I will remind all that if an item is up for debate moderators can be called into to evaluate a situation on Wikipedia. If you seriously have an issue you could take the matter up there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tom_Harris_%28lobbyist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Group

I will also take the opportunity to point out to readers your objectives. As the blogger below correctly states, the purpose of scientific debate is not to confuse everyone or create chaos. It does not exist to be manipulated for political, and least of all, party political purposes.

http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2007/03/tom-harris-busted.html
Posted by Lev, Monday, 7 July 2008 3:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev's first 2paras are splitting hairs. I provided quotes that showed the direction media and pollies are headed. The quote in our piece was attributed to no one in particular and was obviously a paraphrase, so, I will admit it should have been in single quotes.

Lev: "The IPCC Fourth Assessment does indeed include scientists from over 130 countries."

Tom: Does it? People aside from scientists are included in the list.

Lev: "It does indeed include more than 2400 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors."

Tom: I never disputed that, although I would remove the word "scientific" since some were not scientists.

Lev: "The warming of the planet is indeed unequivocal."

Tom: Oh? "The planet" is cooling right now, and that is "unequivocal".

Lev: "The overall assessment is "90% certain" that human activity has contributed to the majority of warming."

Tom: As I said, this statistic has little, if any, significance. I could find another group who said the opposite. Besides, if you use words like "overall assessment" you need to show that more than a few dozen IPCC authors are known to support that assertion and McLean and I showed that this is highly improbable (unless hundreds of them reviewed hundreds of pages and had no comments whatsoever).

Lev: "For your own part, I must say you have managed to generate, at best, a questionable reputation. "

Tom: Ad Hominen attack - see #1 and #27 on http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ .

I have gone back and forth with Wiki and they are determined to stick with their version of events and have the final say so I stopped correcting as I am sure well-informed people take a publicly-corrected site with a grain of salt. The editors are extremely biased - see http://tinyurl.com/6eu9f6 .

Lev: "I will also take the opportunity to point out to readers your objectives."

Tom: Again, how nice of you. I won't insult you by trying to read your mind. Your tactic here must be somewhere on http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . Anyone see which one?
Posted by Tom Harris, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:48:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good test of the veracity and currency of Wikipedia is to see how long it takes them to clue into the fact that I am no longer with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, my last day with them being at the end of February 2008, well over four months ago. This was announced, as was my appointment with ICSC, in broadly circulated news releases, prominently on both groups' Web sites and in blogs all over the place. Somehow, Wiki missed it entirely. Duh!
Posted by Tom Harris, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:56:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom, you should know by now that Wikipedia is simply a synthesis of contributions, not a repository of "facts". Its only useful function is to provide a series of signposts, which if followed, might lead to a factual source. Anyone who quotes Wikipedia as being in itself a reliable source is only kidding themselves.

Which unfortunately makes you look a bit of a goose:

>>A good test of the veracity and currency of Wikipedia is to see how long it takes them to clue into the fact that I am no longer with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, my last day with them being at the end of February 2008, well over four months ago. This was announced, as was my appointment with ICSC, in broadly circulated news releases, prominently on both groups' Web sites and in blogs all over the place. Somehow, Wiki missed it entirely. Duh!<<

The only conclusions that I can draw from the above statement are i) that you are insufficiently important to cause anyone to volunteer an update and ii) you are too lazy to do it yourself. The idea that somewhere there is a Wiki editor going "ohmygod, we forgot to update Tom Harris" is highly risible.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 8:59:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The authors are trying to create confusion between the authors and the reviewers of the report. The authors create the report by pulling together a large amount of peer-reviewed literature into a summary. All those scientists who wrote the literature can be assumed to agree with the summary as they have ample opportunity to object, withdraw, etc. The "expert reviewers", beyond the authors, are volunteers who self-select. They are not picked by the IPCC. Anyone with a vaguely relevant qualification can be one. Including victims of what appears to be senility or at least Lord Kelvin Syndrome, like Vincent Grey. As I understand it, the claim of consensus rests upon the synthesis of all the contributing scientific papers which is agreed, not upon whether all the reviewers agree.
Posted by Taavi, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 3:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGW and the notion of the CO2 devil has it's own political and media momentum now and no scientific evidence to the contrary will change it's course.There is just too much money and reputations involved to let the facts get in the way of the AGW cult.

Even in the face of global cooling both in the oceans and the atmosphere since 1998,they move on to new distractions to avert the scientific facts.There is no doubt that we need to stop pollution but it looks like we are barking mad about a gas [CO2] that is not the pariah we thought it was.

As Prof Bob Carter says,attack the dissenter,repeat the mantra but never argue the facts.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 6:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay wrote: "There is just too much money and reputations involved to let the facts get in the way of the AGW cult."

Couldn't the same be said of the steadily shrinking deniers "cult"? eg. big fossil fuel companies funding the IPA, denialists profiteering from their shock books, ... etc.

Arjay: "As Prof Bob Carter says,attack the dissenter,repeat the mantra but never argue the facts."

You should be arguing the scientific facts in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, not blathering on here. If you get an traction there, come back and talk to us, and present your bibliography. In terms arguing the facts with respect to public policy, thankfully the AGWs have won, and the deniers lost. A few deniers are desperately trying to hang on to their reputation, while a few other are just too dumb to realise they've lost: I find some of their semi-literate ramblings entertaining reading.
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 8:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams the question is simple.Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?According to your mantra,CO2 causes global warming.Put up or shut up!
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay: "Sams the question is simple.Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?According to your mantra,CO2 causes global warming.Put up or shut up!"

Perhaps you misread the first time: "You should be arguing the scientific facts in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, not blathering on here."
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 8:05:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ajay,

Citing 1998 is cherry-picking. There was a sudden and quite remarkable spike in temperatures from 1996 to 1998, and if that had continued we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Based on five year averages however, there has been an increase in global temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This figure shows the last 25 years of globally averaged instrumental surface temperature measurements according to data collected by the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

This is the same resource used to graph global temperature changes over the last 150 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Further you have asked why the earth has cooled since 1998 with "expodential" [sic] increases in CO2 gases?

For starters, there hasn't been an exponential increase in the emission of CO2 since 1998. Rather there has been a remarkably steady increase since 1980 of approximately 1.3 ppm per annum.

Further, the release of CO2 gas into the atmosphere doesn't cause global warming immediately. There is the thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans (which is why meterological seasons don't match with astronmical seasons). Also other major greenhouse gas emissions have been decline or have stabilised (such as CFC-11, CFC-12 and methane).
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 8:16:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hate to say it, Sams, but your propensity to snide remarks is starting to impact your credibility.

Arjay is asking a perfectly straightforward, layman's question, based upon published facts.

It is not up to him, or me, or anyone else who views with some trepidation the almost religious fanaticism of the GW faction, to do the research and look for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

It is however beholden upon those who are qualified to do so to give direct answers to direct questions, even when those direct questions are posed by non-scientists.

In fact, it is particularly important that they answer the questions posed by non-scientists, since those are least tainted by preconception and peer pressure.

The Emperor's new clothes were, after all, exposed as vanity by a small boy in the crowd, who had not been subject to the hype and propaganda.

It is obvious that you yourself are unable to answer the question that Arjay - and now I - am asking. So the honourable thing to say at this point would be "I don't know either, but it is certainly worth the effort to find out."

Care to join us?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 8:23:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would any climate change guru please provide links / details of a model that can generate accurate and reliable predictions of how climate in Australia ONLY will change over specified periods, if Australia ONLY were to reduce CO2 emissions by specified amounts?

i.e. a model to predict local impacts for given local changes in CO2 emissions.
Posted by LATO, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:26:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: "Arjay is asking a ... question ... It is not up to him .. to do the research."

I disagree, Pericles. That particular question has been answered many times over, here on OLO and elsewhere. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Arjay to make least a token effort to look up the answer. It would of taken less time than it did to post the question here, and the answers he got would of been a dammed site better than of us can fit into 350 words. At the very least he could of just read the wikipedia entry on global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

If Arjay was really interested in the answer, then after reading the Wikipedia entry he would of browsed the references at the bottom. It has links from both sides of the divide. Most of here have done that. Why should Arjay be an exception? As it stands it looks to me like his question was purely rhetorical.

Yes, Sams reply was less than helpful. If he was going to take the effort to reply, he might at least of answered the question or posted a link. But the tone of his reply is understandable - it matched the tone of Arjay's question.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:30:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most interesting part of your response rstuart is that you, too, carefully avoid answering the question.

>>It would of [sic] taken less time than it did to post the question here, and the answers he got would of [sic] been a dammed [sic] site [sic] better than of us [sic] can fit into 350 words.<<

This indicates to me that you, too, cannot understand the "answers" that you believe are out there somewhere. Simply accepting that because some scientist with letters after his name uses long words that you don't understand, he must by definition be right, is not a particularly convincing position.

Let me put it another way.

If you cannot understand the argument, to the point where you are unable to describe why you believe it to be right, how come you are so convinced that it is right?

And if the scientists involved cannot provide a simple answer to a simple question (such as yes, we considered that, but believe it is less likely than this, for this reason), they should not be surprised when folk continue to ask questions.

Given the severity of the measures that unfettered fear of climate change will bring to bear on our economy, you will one day be extremely grateful that some of us continue to ask questions.

And we will continue to be dissatisfied with the response, "because".
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 1:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here here or is it hear hear, Pericles.

I once asked a question here and Q&A did his best to answer me but it
finally to me did not get to the crux of the matter.
My question was;

Given that the radiation transmission of CO2 in air is logarithmic in
proportion to the ppm of CO2 in air it therefore follows a curve.
Can anyone point me to a graph that shows the attenuation vs co2 ppm ?
I know this has been discussed scientifically and may have been resolved.

The implication being that there is part of the curve where an increase
in co2 has little effect on global warming and would be no longer
almost linear.

Yes I have looked in various places pointed to by google but to no avail.

Sam's response to Arjay was uncalled for and it surprises me that he did
not accuse Ajay of being in the employ of the oil companies.
Isn't that the response these days of the pro AGW'ers ?
That attitude which is becoming more prevalent suggests perhaps a
weakening conviction ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: "This indicates to me that you, too, cannot understand ..."

You nailed it, Pericles - I failed English in high school. I only got into Uni because of my maths, physics and chemistry scores.

Pericles: "If you cannot understand the argument, ..."

So because the grammar is so bad, you think I can't understand those big scientific words. Your line of reasoning provoked a myriad of thoughts, but I won't mention them as none were very polite. However I do have a suggestion. The next time you feel the impulse to make such a logical leap, try checking to see if the evidence backs it up. It would not of been hard in this case. Just click on the little man icon that appears below every comment I make. That will take you to my comment history. Look it up. See if it is indicative of a person who has trouble understanding science.

Pericles: "And if the scientists involved cannot provide a simple answer to a simple question"

Well, the answer to Arjay's question is on Wikipedia, and it is put fairly simple terms. For what its worth, I did look at Arjay's comment history before I posted my comment, and decided he would have no trouble scanning the material there for the relevant bits, nor would he have any problems understanding it. Why do you suggest it might be otherwise? If you have trouble understanding it I'll have a go in putting it in very simple terms, if you like.

Pericles: "you will one day be extremely grateful that some of us continue to ask questions"

I doubt it. Frankly, we don't have the stomach or political will to voluntarily inflict too much pain upon ourselves. Anything like China's one child policy would be completely out of the question. The world is about to hit a wall of pain because of our exponential growth is hitting resource limits. That pain won't be caused by us doing something about it, but rather the reverse.

Ye gods Bazz, look at the first hit: http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+logarithmic
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams also indulged in a big porky.He said that co2 emitions have remained constant since 1980.We have the expodental growth of China and India.China puts a coal powered station into production every month! CO2 output has accelerated at a time when world temps in both the oceans and atmosphere have fallen! Where is the credibility of the AGW Cult?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 7:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay: "Sams also indulged in a big porky.He said that co2 emitions [sic] " ...

No, I didn't.

Pericles: "It is however beholden upon those who are qualified to do so to give direct answers to direct questions" ...

Since there are no climate change scientists here to answer Arjay's question, then what is the point of it. Given that I have PhD in particle physics, I could wade into the scientific side of the climate change, but I deliberately choose not to (here) for the reasons I have mentioned - plus more below ...

The question again:

Arjay: "Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential [sic] increases in CO2 gases?""

This question might be asked for two reasons:

(a) to show that he can't even understand that a trend can have short terms fluctuations and a long term upward trend: this is analogous to saying "You say its going to get hotter as we go further into summer, and yet it was 1 degree cooler today than yesterday. Obviously you are talking rubbish." Yes Timmy, a curve with wiggles can still go up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Its simply not worth trying to explain the complexities of climate change to people who are are this thick. There are plenty of resources where they can learn this but either they don't understand them in the least, or they *choose* to either ignore them or not to look.

(b) but also because the denier astroturfers are using this tactic to try to litter the Internet with the impression that there is still some huge scientific uncertainty and debate. This is why they keep asking the same lame questions that have been answered over and over again in other forums/threads (or at least that's the kindest explanation I can think of).

Lev, I know you are trying to do the right thing, but don't play their game. If they want to disprove the science of climate change, endorsed by 30 science academies around the world, then let them do so in the science community itself.
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:01:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WHERE HAVE ALL THOSE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS GONE?

Would any climate change guru please provide links / details of a model that can generate accurate and reliable predictions of how climate in Australia ONLY will change over specified periods, if Australia ONLY were to reduce CO2 emissions by specified amounts?

i.e. a model to predict local impacts for given local changes in CO2 emissions.

I am still waiting... and waiting.
Posted by LATO, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:46:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LATO: "Would any climate change guru please provide ... a model to predict local impacts for given local changes in CO2 emissions."

Rhetorical questions like that generally only work if they aren't so obviously flawed. As it stands, your question is rather like asking sociologists to provide a model showing you will loose money if you embark on a crime rampage in your local neighbourhood. If that proposition really reflects your principles then give it a go. If you do it well you could become a very wealthy man.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 10 July 2008 11:06:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LATO,

There are no climate change scientists who have responded to this discussion. True, some commentators have PhDs (such as Sams), although that is in particle physics. I suggest you make your secondary inquiries (primary inquiries you should do yourself) towards CSIRO or the Bureau of Metereology, although I believe that the question is moot as nobody is advocacting the policy which you suggest.

Sams,

I do give people the benefit of the doubt in the first - and often second - instance. Arjay's questions have been answered adequately and the shrill accusations of the "AGW cult" will receive the recognition that they so thoroughly deserve.

The most telling comment you have made however is that some people do seem to have gone out their way to assert from a position of wilful ignorance. The opportunities to study both the basics and more complex aspects of climate change are available.

If I may paraphrase Robert Conquest, they have attempted to establish the facts of a situation from a policy position, rather than vice-versa. In such circumstances the famous quote by Thomas Paine is most appropriate:

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 10 July 2008 11:16:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev wrote: "If I may paraphrase Robert Conquest, they have attempted to establish the facts of a situation from a policy position, rather than vice-versa."

A useful reference that I must remember. I still think though that you give them too much credibility in assuming that they are even trying to "establish the facts". However, I could just be overly cynical.
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 10 July 2008 12:14:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not at all surprised that I have not had any responses to my question. There are no such models which satisfy my criteria _ and I have done a good deal of homework looking at models generated by the main research organisations.

Some years ago I attended a seminar about econometrics given by a world famous economist_ later a nobel prize winner. The seminar was attended mainly by economists , econometricians and mathematical statisticians. I had the audacity to ask the speaker to compare the predictive capability of econometric models to predictions made by astronomers, which as we know are very accurate. Most of the audience objected to my question, but the speaker was very happy to give me a very interesting reply.

He asked me to think of the development of the motor car _ from the very early models at one end of the spectrum to the very latest models with all the electronics etc. at the other end. He said, “Well, on that scale, in econometrics we are about to start designing the Model-T.” Neither I, nor the rest of the audience expected such a humble response!

Climate change models are a more recent development than econometric models and in general are far more complex and consequently prone to many more pitfalls.

The point I am trying to make is that it is very easy to fall into the trap of assigning too much credibility to predictions made climate change models, which broadly speaking are by their very nature very fragile especially when it comes to long term predictions.
Posted by LATO, Thursday, 10 July 2008 4:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah LATO, but to stretch the analogy a bit further....

It does appear to me that what you are saying is that when these models reach a point approximating a 1956 Chevy Corvette, then you will have enough information to decide whether or not cars were a good idea in the first place.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 10 July 2008 4:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams ,just because you quote wikipedia it does not mean that the stats are correct.Prof Bob Carter has stats that show the exact opposite.He is not a deniar of climate change.The matter of contention is CO2 and the theory of AGW caused by CO2 is not supported by the reality.You make lame references to the science with no specific logic or facts to back up your own logic.You have left it all to the the so called experts who have a vested interest in massaging the stats to shore up their own bottom lines.

Now if you were as intelligent as you espouse,you would have explained the present cooling by the La Nina effect whereby the oceans are taking energy from the atmosphere.However this does not stack up since the general consensus has been that they are heating.NASA admits to being baffled by the cooling of the oceans and don't know where all the heat energy has gone.

When El Nino returns we should expect an intensifying of heat and record temps that excel those of the 1930'S.The 1930's are still the hottest period of recent times but you cannot draw conclusions from future data that excel temps of that era.

Our climate system is extremely complex and the computer models are not capable of handling all the data even if it were available.What AGW scientists are doing at best,is having an educated guess.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:49:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay: "The 1930's are still the hottest period of recent times."

Where did you pull that little gem from, Arjay?

It looks to me like your are doing your damnedest to prove Lev's and Sams's point for them.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:17:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

I suggest you have another look at the graph and actually read the footnote to it.

"This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used. HadCRUT3 is a record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations."

Let me repeat that just in case it hasn't sunk in.

"A record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations."

If you want to talk about "educated guesses" (which are, of course, vastly superior to uneducated guesses) Professor Bob Carter's own research of paleoclimatic research certainly falls into that category. Indeed the further in the past, the rougher the science until one reaches the point where one is compiling oxygen isotope measurements on benthic foraminifera for estimates.

Whilst not denigrating the discipline, the temperature variations estimated from such research quite significantly - but when one takes the averages of these estimations do still indicate a significant increase in recent years. The following graph from eight comprehensive studies should illustrate this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

I do need to check whether you are actually referring to the "El Nino" effect or the "La Nina" (aka Walker Circulation).

La Nina results from a high pressure system over the eastern Pacific, and a low pressure system over the Malay archipelago.

When the Walker circulation weakens or reverses, an El Nino results, causing the ocean surface to be warmer than average, as upwelling of cold water occurs less or not at all.

They are opposites. Which one do you think you mean? You said "La Nina" but your description sounds like "El Nino".

I will point out to you that that Nature published a study in May 2006 (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/PDF/GFDLhighlight_Vol1N3.pdf) noting that La Nina had been slowing since the mid-19th century. The cause?

Global warming.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:38:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now here is an interesting thing;
I was just on the IPS site, (Ionosheric Prediction Service) for nothing
to do with global warming.
I was looking at the sunspot counts and the chart of the last few cycles.
The cycle that has just ended ended with a thump.
Last December it dropped vertically to zero from its already lower than normal level for a minima.

This coincides with the sudden global temperature drop of 0.7 c measured by
the Hadley centre. It is still stuck at this low level.

Don't know what it means but if it is not just a coincidence it would
have to be significant.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 11 July 2008 3:49:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the unbelievers with shut eyes and ears:

Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel

Despite the above most of our OLO contributors are either CC Denialists or lack courage to back CC.

The CC inbetweeners are also mostly those who wish for the CC worries to go away - those still happy with life the way it is, especially in sport or business.

Quarry economics plus pitstock politics now Australia's lot for Big Biz. No worries about climate change

Have Fun - BB, WA
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 12 July 2008 2:09:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest people have a look at the (currently last) posting by A.J.H. Viirlaid, July 12, 2008 on http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html . Aside from the nasty drivel of ad hominems from the anonymous "Lev", I look forward to constructive comments on A.J.H. Viirlaid's post since he is addressing the real issue.

Tom Harris
Posted by Tom Harris, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:00:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Harris: "I suggest people have a look at the (currently last) posting by A.J.H. Viirlaid"

He just repeats sections of your article, in effect saying anybody who doesn't agree didn't read those sections closely enough.

For what it is worth, I don't see much disagreement here with you saying the IPCC process could be improved. I don't even see a lot of disagreement that the "2500 scientists" figure has been misused in some political stouches.

What I do see considerable disagreement with is the conclusion at the end, where you say: "Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest". That conclusion simply doesn't follow from the facts presented. Those facts did show the IPCC process could be improved, but did not show the IPCC itself report was skewed or dishonest. In order to show that you would have to show a large proportion of published climate scientists disagreed with it, which you of course can't do.

Since you can't, I think its fair to say your articles conclusions should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, thank you for straightening me out on how to determine your identity. I did not know that about this Web site, being a new user here. There was, however, no reason for you to continue your sarcastic remarks "indicating a continuing degree of incompetence" (Lev) but then that seems to be your style, unfortunately.

I note that you repeat your charge about my so-called "dual membership as for registered lobbying organisation for energy companies and and as Executive Director the NRSP". I have discussed this with the admininstrator and he removed your comment the last time you made this charge as it is both wrong and libelous. I will ask him to remove it again and ask you to stop with such untruths. The comment that I have engaged in "public advocacy to deliberately engage in a campaign to bring chaos and confuse people about the science of climatology." is obviously also highly misleading, if anyone bothers to read the whole original thread and my remarks in context on Free Dominion.

Aside from asking the moderator to remove your comments when they violate forum rules, I think I will ignore anything you say from here on as I have more important things to do that respond to people who lack basic courtesy. As you age, you may discover this is unnecessary and counterproductive in any mature, constructive dialog. Besides, your points against me are mostly moot and distract from the important question at hand - did large numbers of scientists agree or did they not with the most important assertions of the IPCC?
Posted by Tom Harris, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:58:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice a tendency to assume that anyone who has a connection in any
way whatsoever with a coal, oil or other mining company or industry
organisation that their opinions or findings must be disregarded.

If I was in that category I would consider it to be an insult on my
integrity. That is not to say that I would not be asked searching
questions about my assertions. To assume that someone is telling lies
just because they don't hold the same opinion as yours and is employed
by certain companies or organisations is offensive.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:46:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz: "To assume that someone is telling lies just because they " ... "is [employed?] by certain companies or organisations is offensive."

Well I think you mean illogical, not "offensive". Otherwise, you are certainly correct in your strawman argument. However, there is far more evidence that there are lies and deceptions being told in an attempt to discredit the endorsed (by 30 major science academies) position that humans causing the current regime of climate change:

1. The presentation of overly simplistic arguments that anyone who has an ounce of IQ and cared to look at the research reports would know are false, in the hope that readers who haven't looked at the reports will just accept them.

2. The repeated presentation of questions by the same person or organisation, that have been repeatedly been disproved, in the hope of giving the illusion that some great debate is still going on.

3. The fact that certain parties monitor for any kind Internet release on climate change and immediately bombard them with anti-climate change propaganda, sometimes under multiple false names.

Note: 1, 2 and 3 are common astroturfing techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing.

4. The fact that most of these activities are almost to a man being carried out by people backed by fossil fuel funds, or representation their interests just adds motive for deceptive conduct, not proof of it.

5. The fact that anti-climate change authors go to great pains not to disclose their links to fossil-fuel funding. This is clear signal of dishonesty and lack of integrity
Posted by Sams, Monday, 14 July 2008 8:44:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It ain't complicated Bazz. It's difficult to make someone understand something when his livelihood is contingent upon him not understanding it.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:48:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams said

5. The fact that anti-climate change authors go to great pains not to
disclose their links to fossil-fuel funding. This is clear signal of dishonesty and lack of integrity

Might not it be an indication that they know they will not be allowed
to take part in the discussion if their affiliations were known ?

That they would be insulted and called corrupt ?

The problem that I see as an outsider is that the pro global warming
proponents have reached the level of a religion and anyone who
questions their "science" is in the same catagory as someone who swears in church.

I see them as the other side of the same coin.
Frankly they have become a mob of ratbags.
Now you will try and say that is not at the level at which you are
operating but you have brought up the suggestion that their opinions
should not be considered.
Even if the coal and oil companies express contrary opinions surely
it is their right to air them ? Or do we need an inquisition ?
I am not picking on you here in particular but on the general trend
that I see.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 4:47:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz: "you have brought up the suggestion that their opinions should not be considered."

Those strawmen sure are easy to mow down aren't they. It is general practice in law and government that vested interests must be declared. There are very goods reason for this that also apply here. Anyone who fails to declare such interests is of sub-par ethical standard in my opinion.

Trying to dirty up strongly held beliefs about climate change by calling it a "religion" is a new tactic we are seeing. It has no basis in fact. If a significant proportion the G8+5 national science academies overnight reversed their current unanimous endorsement of the human-caused climate change explanation, we would take notice. Thus it lacks that absolutism of religious belief. Additonally, there is no CC bible and there are no CC deities involved either, so the whole concept is just the dying throws of a lost debate.
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 5:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz: "Might not it be an indication that they know they will not be allowed to take part in the discussion if their affiliations were known ?"

And what would lead them to that conclusion? For the most part we obviously do know their affiliations and yet they are allowed to take part in the discussion. (You could not of missed the great kerfuffle created by claims that OLO published more of this side of the story than the other, surely?) Have a look on www.sourcewatch.org sometime if you think anyone can hide.

In general disclosure of relationships that may effect your viewpoint, such as being paid by someone effected by the outcome or a story, or being related to them, is considered a normal part of ethical reporting. Surely you don't disagree with it?

Tom Harris is copping a pasting here because not just because he doesn't disclose it, he has been caught actively trying to hide it in the past.

Normally its done more subtly. For example we get a number of contributors here from the AEF. I am fairly sure that when we see an article from Jennifer Marohasy, Bod Carter and friends what we get is their views - not the AEF's. One reason for thinking this is Jennifer loudly protests any time someone claims she is paid to express a particular view, and I take her at her word. The AEF merely chooses members that reflect its political outlook, and then ensures their voices get heard far and wide. As a astroturfing strategy it works well, while remaining on the ethical high ground. Yet despite not being paid, Jennifer still acknowledges her links with the AEF on every article she submits.

If Tom displayed the same ethical standards he might have more success at being taken at his word.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 6:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart;
I meant to thank you for that link to co2 logarithmic article.
I have read through quickly once and more carefully a second time, but
I am sure I have not got everything out of it yet.

However the graphs did display what I had thought was the case from
other reading. That even a doubling of co2 will not make much
difference to global warming. The curve has indeed rolled over quite
significantly at present co2 levels.

Now I am prepared to believe my interpretation is premature so I will
have to through it all again.

Yes, I believe that disclosure is important but it should not lead to
abuse and accusations of dishonesty. However it looks like the
scientific community is subject to the same human failings as us poor
mortals.

The sad thing is that all this argument will have no effect, even if
the whole scientific community decided that global warming was not on
the politicians have the bit between their teeth and can never be
seen to be wrong.
Come hell or high water (oh dear) we are in for a full on anti co2
regime and bureaucratic expense.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 9:02:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

Yes, the CO2 effects on temperature are logarithmic.

You point to the logarithmic effects of CO2, but obviously the climate scientists would be well aware of it. Unlike Peak Oil or energy reserves, the climate models are dammed complex and take into account a whole pile of other variables. I can't evaluate them myself, all I can say is that they have done a reasonable job of predicting what has happened up until how.

Recall that what triggered Al Gore's interest in this what his professor's prediction of what would happen to the climate given the rapid CO2 rise. He probably didn't take too much interest in them at the time, but it sure put a bomb under him when he realised those models were right.

They have said all along the fastest changes would happen at the highest latitudes. While it is true the worlds temperature has stabilised for now, guess what - they are right as if anything the deicing of Arctic in particular is if anything proceeding faster than they predicted. You would also expect the higher latitudes of Australia to notice the changing weather patterns first. And again, broadly, that is what is happening as they predicted it will dry out down there, and despite having a good rain up north that continues to be true. Thus the changes are happening when and where they said they would. Its this broad history of success at getting the basics right that gives me confidence in their models.

I suspect you have read my posts elsewhere, so you know my thoughts on what will happen next. The Peak Oil die has been cast. CO2 levels are going to start rising faster than they have to date, and will do so regardless of the outcome of this debate about AGW. We will just have to weather whatever storm follows.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 12:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart:
I have seen comment about the wx systems in moving west to east
have taken a more southerly course and that is the cause of the dryness
in southern Australia, which is not inconsistent with what you were
saying.

No, I have not seen your posting other than on OLO.
This and a couple of peak oil sites are really the only public places
that I inhabit, my interests are in other technical areas.

It should be interesting to watch trends for the rest of this year
especially if the sunspot count remains effectively at zero.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:34:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy