Just came across this fascinating paper http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf.

Takes a forensic look at the IPCC claims and finds them overstated.

"This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science..."

Comes to a position closer to the opposition than the government:

"A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested."

The arguments are not new, but put together with exhaustive documentation. Also puts the lie to the claim that there is nothing to challenge the IPCC in the peer reviewed literature.

>> * I (Jason Scott Johnston) am grateful to Cary Coglianese for extensive conversations and comments on an early draft, and to the participants in the September, 2008 Penn Law Faculty Retreat for very helpful discussion about this project. Especially helpful comments from David Henderson, Julia Mahoney, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Sr. have allowed me to correct errors in earlier drafts, but it is important to stress that no one except myself has any responsibility for the views expressed herein. <<

Yes, I think their comments were were especially helpful, at least from a certain point of view - pity.

Graham a fascinating read so far. It may take a while to get through the whole thing. If the summary point's are legitimate it might explain why so little real action came out of Copenhagen, pollies hedging their bets.

R0bert

Thanks Graham, a very useful addition to the discussion.

I expect we will soon be overrun by the usual doomsayers vs. deniers tic-tac.

But thanks anyway.

Graham says:

//The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science..."//

Err... no kidding.

RIO EARTH SUMMIT. (from mr Maurice Strong) 1992

"The assembled leaders signed the Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, endorsed the Rio Declaration and the Forest Principles, and adopted Agenda 21, a 300 page plan for achieving sustainable development in the 21st century."

AGENDA 21 ? has anyone taken the trouble to LOOK this up yet ?

Has anyone besides myself looked closely at the character Maurice Strong who kicked all this stuff off with the Stokholm conference in the 70s?
Has anyone looked at the Directors list for the Chicago Climate Exchange ? (and found Strongs name there)

Given that it all hinges on dodgy science... one might be tempted to suspect that the whole deal was more about 'social re-construction' anyway ! (see agenda 21)

Did anyone pay attention to the Vancouver Declaration/Action plan from the UN ? (elimination of private property)

C'mon people.. get up to speed for crying out loud.

LOOK....at what is really going on here.

http://www.earthcouncilalliance.org/en/index.php

STRONG.. Inside Trader...Oil for Food scandal.. Conflict of interest...

Look at the people this bloke is networked to.. (link)

Strong sold his shares when Gov't funding was squeezed and made $15,000,000. When the public heard about the funding squeeze...on the monday..share price plummeted. Strong had already sold his shares.
(He was a director)

Yes, I've downloaded it.

>>AGENDA 21 ? has anyone taken the trouble to LOOK this up yet ?<<

Which part are you having difficulties with, Boaz?

"Given that it all hinges on dodgy science" and ethically why is a claim like that any better than the claim that there are no credible dissenting voices.

Lies and misrepresentation on both sides. There is a vast amount of good science supporting AGW, the issue from this article is about the representation of that science by the IPCC and what other good science may be being ignored when it should be included in the discussion.

It's not the science that's dodgy, it's the way it's been used that's at issue.

R0bert

I have just read the introduction of the Upenn Cross document.
An interesting approach.

It may well be that such an examination should take place in this country.
Perhaps a Royal Commission should be established to sort the sheep from
the goats.
Certainly considering how much AGW is expected to cost a Royal
Commission's cost would be peanuts.
It may well be a very effective BS filter.

Part 1
I have long despaired of a meaningful discussion on AGW/ACC.
What we get , in the main part, are two diametrically opposed sides ignominiously indulging acrimonious sniping. Both seeking the (mythical) magic winning blow.

This analysis is no different in essence than the great unwashed deniers heroes Plimer and Monckton . In that they made a conclusion then appeared to shopped around for “evidence (?) “ that fitted their predetermined conclusion. (essential work for fiction and legal arguments but scientifically wanting. To be fair to the article 's author at least it doesn't appear that he has misappropriated citations as evidence suggests for the former two (sites with proofs are available).

The problem I have with the combative (legalistic) approach and therefore this article is that practically speaking the truth isn't the objective merely to "prove (?)" i.e. 'reasonable doubt'.

This sort of arguing lends it's self to who is the best performer. i.e. Plimer and Monckton.
Inherent in this type of discussion is the underlying false premise is that the answer's binary and therefore demands the combatants are diametrically opposed.

Therefore, he isn't beholden to consider ALL the evidence in order to discover the 'truth' just that which makes his case.

It is a truism of complex science that there will always be those who dissent/have alternative conclusions.

Neither am I impressed by the technique (reduction to the defeat(able)) by means of over simplification of the issue by redefinition.

Part 2
For the record I am a sceptic i.e. I don't believe that the current Theory of AGW is absolutely definitive, unassailable, beyond being significantly altered by as yet unknown factors or mechanisms.
However, the preponderance of evidence and observable issues makes
AGW the best wheel in town by a fair margin.

Clearly I reject the currently binary nature of the discussions.
I also don't accept that all subsequent actions or decisions come as a discrete package i.e. I don't support the ETS as it was. Nor do I accept the notion that alternative power sources
are or will remain uncompetitive ( I refer to the new Switz invention that generates power via windows at a fraction of current solar cells.) . It is a myopic nonsense to suggest that alternative power sources would instantly render the Aus economy to 3rd world status.

Such arguments are political self interested and frankly nonsensical

For those interested in some 'facts'... the following link is to the lawsuit naming Strong as a director of Molten Metals Technology Inc.

http://securities.stanford.edu/1008/AxlervMoltenMeta/200149_r01n_9710325.pdf

See "Summary of the Actions" Page 3

The "New World Order" heralded by the Bush dynasty and the likes of Zbigniew Brezinski,et al, are in serious retreat.There is a new consciousness enveloping the planet,and that is of truth and true democracy via the internet.

OlO may not feel rewarded in an instantaneous gratified society,but their integrity and dedication to truth, will quash the Murdochcracy that lies to us on a daily basis.

Interesting link Graham, thanks. This legal perspective does not seem to oppose the concept of AGW per se; rather it appears to set out the basis for (possible) legal challenges against legislators. Given that litigation hold notices have been lodged in the US against the EPA, perhaps this sets out the case that will need to be answered by the EPA “if” any new legislation is actually tabled. It might also be the basis for challenging the decisions already taken by the EPA.

It is disappointing and curious that not a single “warmer” is willing to respond on OLO to the key issues of overstated science by the IPCC? Surely there must be one warmer that will go in to bat for the cause?

It may be it’s a case of watch this space in the US courts, which is where I’ve long suspected the “main game” will be.

Hi Spindoc, I was a bit surprised there hasn't been more discussion, but took it as a sign that AGW is disappearing as a significant public issue.

Meh, what's to discuss? It's all been done before.

Hey, I can write a research paper and include whatever references I want that appear to make my point too. But it won't be a serious review, it'll just be a piece of fluff. Lets see if anything comes of it, I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

You guys can discuss it if you want, but it appears you aren't really interested anymore either.

Boaz, what happened to my polite request?

"Yes, I've downloaded [AGENDA 21]. Which part are you having difficulties with, Boaz?<<

Introducing a sub-topic with such capital-lettered fanfare requires a little more by way of explanation, surely?

As far as I can tell, it is a thoroughly innocuous document, hence my plea for guidance.

GY

>> I was a bit surprised there hasn't been more discussion, but took it as a sign that AGW is disappearing as a significant public issue. <<

So that means we can all return to business as usual?

What a major relief for BP.

;P

Thanks Graham, Yes the silence is deafening however, I’m still not convinced that AGW is disappearing as a significant public issue, particularly in Europe. The unfolding of the AGW phenomena is however, fascinating. While ever the MSM and commentariat continue to censor the hundreds of contrary scientific opinions, this phenomena seems destined to continue to maintain a strangle hold on the true believers.

Only this week we read in an article by Bjorn Lomborg that the EU Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, is calling for even deeper cuts in emissions and is supported by UK PM David Cameron? At the same time Europe is facing economic uncertainty, huge debts, high energy costs, decreasing production capacity and low energy security due to costly and inefficient renewables. When this volatile mix hits the reality of “austerity programs” something is going to give.

When the scientific establishment that gave us AGW begins to acknowledge we have been sold a fizzer, one has to wonder what it takes to say, OK, we were had.

“The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider”

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0qxjA9y00

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

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Spindoc, it would help if you actually read the documents these 'journalists' report on. I would certainly agree with Prof Hulme, but you probably wouldn't if you actually read the document and not just snipped out-of-context bits.

These reporter/bloggers (it's so hard to tell what they are these days), are a prime example of why the IPCC was probably not as nuanced in its summaries and statements as it should have been. Comprehension of subtleties seems to be very thin on the ground these days.

So, Graham Young “just came across” the lawyer Johnston’s paper while it was widely being distributed in the ‘denialosphere’ – from Watts to Nova. Fascinating - not really.

Graham says Johnston’s paper “takes a forensic look at the IPCC claims and finds them overstated”.

Of course, if Johnston really did take a forensic look, he just wouldn’t accept the counsel, correction and tutelage of only well known ‘climate change deniers’ – aka; David Henderson, Julia Mahoney, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke Sr. Yep, Johnston is a very good lawyer and in a court of law he would present a very good case. However, many people don’t seem to get that ‘climate science’ isn’t judged in a court of law, it is determined by the scientific method and the peer review process.

Which brings us to another load of codswallop (lifted by OLO’s resident spinner who seems to be wetting his pants again) from Lawrence Solomon’s National Post, no less. What Mike Hulme said is being taken out of context in the ‘denialosphere’ (spinner does this all the time, most recently doing the dirty on The Royal Society) – so much so that Hulme has had to issue a clarification (yet again):

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf

The statement that is getting spun beyond recognition (see spindoc’s last post) is:

>> Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous. <<

What Hulme and Co are saying is that there aren't 2500 attribution experts. Just as there isn’t 2500 Greenland ice mass experts, or ocean acidification experts, or tree ring experts, or add your own experts.

Indeed, nobody who understands the IPCC process ever said there were, and Hulme (and Mahony) were only noting that anyone who did wasn't accurately representing the IPCC. As to spindoc, he clearly doesn’t understand anyway – so yeah, Bugsy - meh.

qanda: << many people don’t seem to get that ‘climate science’ isn’t judged in a court of law, it is determined by the scientific method and the peer review process >>

I agree, except that when it come to interpretation of the science it becomes subject to political spin, which is very amenable to the kind of bogus 'forensic' treatment that Johnston applies here. I think that one reason we're not hearing a great deal about AGW of late is because the 'business as usual' spin doctors won a tactical battle at Copenhagen, which has won them a political reprieve - not to mention putting off for a few more years doing anything about it, and all the costs that will entail.

At the moment the denialist brigade are crowing about their temporary 'victory', but I suspect their triumphalist hubris will be rather short-lived. There's an interesting article in today's 'National Times' about how failure of communication from both sides of the debate has brought us to the current ephemeral situation:

<< Helping unlikely sceptics see that climate change is real
SIMON NIEMEYER
June 16, 2010

The winner-takes-all approach won't lead to constructive debate. >>

http://tiny.cc/ddvcy

It’s just not going to happen is it? A debate I mean. We have a range of facts, Copenhagen has not happened, there is no Nation in the world that has legislated only the European Union. The IPCC, CRU and Pen. State University has lost all credibility due to exaggeration. Serious questions have been asked of the data, processes, modeling, peer review and consensus. There is sufficient doubt that a legal case has been presented through cross examination of all the above. This does not necessarily imply that any individual will get taken to court. What it does point to is the case to be answered by any “entity” that has taken action based upon that advice, particularly if such action can be seen to have “harmed” person(s) or entities. That’s all.

So why is it not possible to have a debate based on what needs to be done next? Why is it so essential to find someone to blame for the the current status? Why is it necessary to keep raking over the same old issues?

If the current status reflects an impasse, what needs to be done to fix this? Surely this is more productive than poking a stick in the eye of anyone who points out that the current status is at best “a draw”.

Why not make some suggestions? If the current scientific team is not credible, why can’t we appoint a fresh team that is supported by both sides of the debate? If the global data sets are lost/corrupt/incomplete, why can’t we support getting that fixed? If the modeling is found deficient, why can’t we use systems that are already proven?

Surely it is utterly futile to now suggest that the IPCC has not overstated there assessments, it’s done, it’s happened, we can’t go back and unscramble the eggs. Those who believe in AGW cannot possibly object to kick starting the scientific analysis afresh?

What do the warmers want done to move this forward? How about some suggestions rather than blame?

CJ

As we can see, there are those stuck in their own political and ideological mud, and those stuck between a rock and a hard place – not mutually exclusive.

For reasonable and rational people, it appears they are moving away from the science (they accept it even if they don’t understand it) to both adaptation AND mitigation. This has to be good.

Ciao

Just in case any spin-doctor is thinking of taking Mike Hulme's clarification out of context (or attributing something to him that he hasn't actually said) here he is clarifying the clarification:

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Further-Clarification-of-my-Remarks.pdf

QED