AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

He ripped Monckton pretty good! The telling thing to me, and what makes Monckton a firm denier, is that even when he's made aware that he's misinterpretted someone's work, or when he's caught outright making stuff up, he doesn't remove that material from his presentations. I mean even Gore removes inaccuracies. You would think Monckton, who loves to bash Gore would at least try to be better than him.

I guess not though. It's just a scam after all. Who needs truth when you can scam as well as Monckton?

 

[Avro]

That's just part 1, not sure if you have seen the whole thing but there are 10 parts.

I will be posting all of them.

Enjoy.

 

[Tonington]

I've watched most of it. I skipped the introductions. You can watch the entire presentation here:
John Abraham's reply to Lord Christopher Monckton

 

[Avro]

Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s

“This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”

So wrote Albert Einstein in a letter to his one time collaborator, the mathematician Marcel Grossmann in 1920.
Jeroen van Dongen of the Institute for History and Foundations of SAcience at Utrecht University in Holland, writing in a recent edition of the journal, ‘Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,’ describes the effectiveness of the movement that grew up to oppose Einstein’s theory. There are some striking parallels with today’s climate debate.
At a time when The Guardian just reported another poll showing a drop in concern about climate change, and a New York Times front page this week described Britons’ growing doubts about the science, its worth taking a look at that anti-science campaign, which was waged by Einstein’s critics because like today’s climate denial movement, the anti-relativity movement had some success too.
Van Dongen highlights:

“Anti-relativists… built up networks to act against Einstein’s theory in concert. This led to some success. For instance, the clamor about the theory in Germany contributed to the Nobel Committee’s delay in awarding its 1921 prize to Einstein and to the particular choice of subject for which he finally did receive it: his account of the photo-electric effect, instead of the controversial theory of relativity.”

He continues:
​

“Anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play.”

Van Dongen concludes:
​

“Conspiracies theories tend to do well in uncertain times: they create order in chaos….Just as there is no real point in debating conspiracy theorists, there was no point in explaining relativity to anti-relativists… Their strong opposition was not due to a lack of understanding, but rather the reaction to a perceived threat… Anti-relativists were convinced of their own ideas, and were really only interested in pushing through their own theories: any explanation of relativity would not likely have changed their minds.”

Despite the well-intentioned efforts of some climate scientists like Professor Rapley of the Science Museum, it’s not apparent that a repeated explanation of the basics of climate science is what will help in the face of the latest disinformation campaigns on global warming.
​

As I’ve documented elsewhere, prolific climate deniers such as Ian Plimer, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker who deliberately spread untruths on climate change can be wrong 99% of the time and right for less than 1% of the time and still ‘win the argument’ because the playing field simply isn’t level. Equally, the IPCC can be right 99% of the time and wrong less than 1% of the time, and they still ‘lose.’ As Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, whom the NYT quoted last year as “an expert on environmental communications,” told Climate Progress:

“It is well known in both sociology and communications that public opinion is largely shaped by media coverage. So the shift in public opinion about climate change is linked to the nature of mainstream media coverage of the so-called “climategate scandal.”

It is not a surprise that public concern about climate change should have been dented following such a fierce media and smear campaign by a coalition of fossil fuel industries (well documented in the case of Koch industries and Exxon) and conservative ‘think tanks’ (covered extensively by Desmogblog and Climateprogress in a US context, and exposed to a less extent in the UK) which have peddled disinformation for decades to deny this fact.
​

As the US blogger David Roberts wrote for Grist in response to separate polls on US public opinion in relation to global warming:

“Polls about climate science get treated like the results of some contest between two ideological interest groups. It becomes a horserace story –”Democrats/environmentalists are losing” — rather than a story about danger to public health. It’s about environmentalists’ failure to persuade rather than the anti-scientific obscurantism that’s completely overtaken the Republican party, with financial support from large corporate interests….If I can’t convince a guy standing in a downpour that it’s raining, seems to me the dumb ass in the rain is the story, not my poor messaging.”

Who can disagree with Roberts’ conclusion?
​

“It may be helpful to understand these affective responses of the public, but they are no substitute for science and pragmatism in policymaking. Ultimately leaders are going to have to acknowledge the problem and deal with it. Waiting until all the polls line up is a gutless dereliction of duty.”

 

[AnnaG]

I've watched most of it. I skipped the introductions. You can watch the entire presentation here:
John Abraham's reply to Lord Christopher Monckton

And yet deniers moan about East Anglia's misrepresenting facts. Monckton's entire thesis is based on misrepresentation and fabrication. He even contradicts his own data. lmao

 

[Tonington]

Yup. He's a loon. He also claims to have a cure for HIV/AIDS in the works.

It's funny to me too. Take some of the deniers we have on this forum. If you were to go through their posts, I'm sure you would even find contradictory arguments.

Like the greenhouse effect has been falsified, and water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas. Or Climategate shows conspiracy, and Phil Jones says no global warming. Or Mars is warming and it hasn't warmed since 1998.

It's completely moronic grasping at straws.

 

[Avro]

And yet deniers moan about East Anglia's misrepresenting facts. Monckton's entire thesis is based on misrepresentation and fabrication. He even contradicts his own data. lmao

Christopher Monckton Brings His Brand of Crazy To Bonn Climate Talks

Climate deniers often like to talk about “global warming profiteers,” some mysterious breed led by Al Gore who, so the story goes, are out to make the big bucks off scaring people about climate change. But if there’s anyone making money off lying about global warming these days, it is “Lord” Christopher Monckton, who continues his globetrotting tour to hawk confusion and misinformation at the Bonn climate talks this month.

Monckton is leading a “delegation” (nice attempt to sound official) from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (C-FACT), a conservative think tank that has received money from Exxon, Chevron, and the Scaife and Carthage foundations.

Monckton and the C-FACT gang are holding a “seminar” in Bonn “on the use of the internet to provide ordinary people with fact and opinions that have received scant attention by much of the mainstream media.”

The C-FACT “seminar” is destined to be quite long on opinions, that much is certain. But there won’t be many facts bandied about, certainly not any based on science, given Monckton’s lack of any scientific credentials (he’s a journalist by training but says he makes his living on real estate and, of course, his extensive list of paid speaking gigs around the world.)

In its post alerting the world to the Monckton seminars, C-FACT notes that Monckton was “recently dubbed a ‘famous contrarian’ in Esquire Magazine,” as if the outlet had honored him.

On the contrary, the Esquire piece painted Monckton in quite unflattering terms:

“[Climate denier Marc] Morano spots Lord Christopher Monckton, another famous contrarian. He has googly eyes like Marty Feldman and a plummy English accent straight out of Monty Python.”

Monckton will have his work cut out for him to top the performance he delivered at the Americans for Prosperity event in Copenhagen last year, where he called American college students advocating for clean energy the “Hitler youth.”

He should probably leave the Nazi analogies alone this time ‘round, given the location of the talks is Bonn, Germany. But this is Christopher Monckton we’re talking about, so logic and reason are out the window. Look for him to say something outrageous, or at least something stupid enough to get somebody to write about it. (Yeah, that’ll probably be me.)

 

[Avro]

I've watched most of it. I skipped the introductions. You can watch the entire presentation here:
John Abraham's reply to Lord Christopher Monckton

Monckton launches vitriolic - but harmless - attack on critic


University of St. Thomas Professor John Abraham has drawn blood.
Abraham has been getting a lot of attention for his devastating deconstruction of a presentation by Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.* And while Monckton first (and wisely) declined to respond, the appearance of Abraham's work in the Guardian this week, and the praise rendered there bycolumnist George Monbiot, pushed the lurid Lord over the edge, giving rise to a vicious, petty and insulting rejoinder that is all-but-entirely free of substance.
Oh, it's true that Monckton tries to cherry pick a few weaknesses in Abraham's thorough exercise in discreditation. For example, Lord Chris attacks Abraham's criticism of two graphs that Monckton had patched together from data apparently originating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Abraham complains, quite rightly, that Monckton is not sufficiently forthright with his sourcing and sloppy (or, one might speculate, deliberately mischievous) with his data.
Monckton howls back that one of the graphs in question was clearly sourced to "the SPPI’s well-known global-temperature index, compiled monthly from four separate global-temperature datasets." And what, pray, is the SPPI? Well that would be the SPPInstitute - the oily Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Christopher Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor. So, Lord Chris makes up a sloppy graph at the SPPInstitute, references it inadequately in his talk and then defends himself on the basis that he is using "well-known" sources. A perfectly closed, perfectly fallible loop.

In another reference, Abraham called Monckton to account for a badly researched "survey" of scientific papers on climate change. Monckton denies responsibility for the survey, crediting one Klaus-Martin Schulte. And yes, that would be the same "Dr." Schulte whose time is better spent serving as Monckton's endocrinologist. The survey has been decisively discredited on at least one other occasion.
And so it goes. While lauding his own competence as a climate expert, Monckton questions Abraham's scientific bona fides because the later is "a lecturer in fluid mechanics." So, one of these two gents has a PhD in a related field and a job at Minnesota's largest private university, while the other studied classics before concluding his academic career with a diploma in journalism. (Regrettably, Monckton's wiki bio offers to hint as to where he got his expertise in creative fiction.)
The funniest part of Monckton's outburst is he has "initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster." Aside from the cheap (and given his own Catholicism, inexplicable) shot at the status of the Catholic University of St. Thomas, Monckton is - what's the expression? - blowing smoke. If he had an ounce of evidence for his own outrageously disingenuous position, he'd be headed to court for a libel finding. As it is, any fair reading of Abraham's own quite gracious , and incredibly carefully documented critique will clear up permanently which of these two should be up before an ethics board.

 

[Tonington]

Monckton would have to belong to an ethical organization before he could be called before an ethics board. Fat chance of that!

 

[Tonington]

Abraham reply to Monckton

Guest post by John Abraham

Dear Mr. Monckton,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my presentation. I encourage people to view both of our arguments and make their own conclusions. I stand by my work and welcome judgment by the public and the scientific community. My intention as a professional scientist is to help provide a public disclosure of your scientific methods. I continue to believe that your work seriously misrepresents the science upon which you rely.

I would like to briefly address some matters which you raised. First, I will address your comments about my credentials. To begin, let me identify some of the subjects which are critical to understanding our world’s climate. Climate processes involve radiation, convection, and conduction heat transfer. In addition, fluid mechanics governs the flow of the atmosphere and the oceans. Chemistry is critical to understanding chemical reactions which take place in both the oceans and the atmosphere. Quantum mechanics deals with the interaction of airborne molecules and photons (radiation). Geology and its related subjects are important for many reasons, including the study of past climate (paleoclimatology). Skills in numerical simulation are essential for the creation and operation of models which allow scientists to predict climate change. There are other subspecialties which are also important; this is only a partial list.

I am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas, a private, Catholic university in Minnesota. I have taught courses in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, numerical simulation, and thermodynamics. Topics in my courses include radiation, convection, and conduction, the same physical processes which govern energy flows in the climate. My PhD thesis dealt with combined convection and radiation heat transfer. My thesis is held in the library at the University of Minnesota, it is available to the public.

My published works span many topics including convective heat transfer, radiative heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and numerical simulation. My work on numerical simulation is at the very forefront of computational fluid dynamic (cfd) modeling. I am an expert in non-linear fluid simulations. My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics.

In addition to academic research, I am an active consultant in industry. I have designed wind turbines, built and tested geothermal cooling systems, studied the potential of biofuels to replace petroleum, and designed and created solar-radiation shields for buildings in desert climates. Taken together, I believe that I have the background required to discuss the issues of energy and the environment.

Next, your written reply to my work focused on a small number of my original points; I will discuss just a few of them here. Throughout this discussion, it must be recognized that you have not addressed themany serious scientific lapses which were present in your presentation.

1. You correctly pointed out that in your presentation, you stated that you were “boring” whereas I stated you were “bored”. I apologize for misquoting you. In this regard, the point you were trying to make is that there is no consensus on global warming. You cited three search words and a range of years (2004-2007). Since the purpose of my presentation was to show that audience members have the capacity to investigate claims for themselves, I used a publically available academic search engine (GOOGLE SCHOLAR). I showed that there are many papers that can be found dealing with the dangers of climate change, using your search parameters. I invite readers to reproduce my search results and read the abstracts of those papers and come to their own conclusion. Your assertion that these papers existed, but that they did not provide “evidence for catastrophe” was, in my mind, unconvincing.
2. You suggested that your temperature graphs referencing your own organization were properly cited. I disagree. It is the obligation of a scientist to show the original source of data, your work did not meet this standard. Citing your own organization is, in my view, improper, particularly since your organization was not involved in obtaining the data.
3. I showed a number of slides which had no attribution. I note that among the totality of unattributed slides, you agree with me on all but one. You correctly point out that one had the letters “UAH” listed. I can assure you that I understand UAH refers to University of Alabama Huntsville. I continue to believe that a proper citation would include a journal in which this data was published with a volume number and pages.

I would like to disclose some new information that I have unearthed. On your 13th slide (another slide with no attribution), you present a graph showing that the Beaufort Sea Ice is growing. Your slide gives the impression that since ice in the Beaufort Sea is growing, there is no concern about global warming. Despite the lack of a citation, I have been able to learn about its origin. The following citation should be useful in this regard for your records.

H. Melling, D. Riedel, and Ze’ev Gedalof, Trends in Thickness and Extent of Seasonal Pack Ice, Canadian Beaufort Sea, Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 1-5, 2005.

I have written to the lead author and he replied….

“You are correct in your assessment that statements in the paper were nuanced…. The change in atmospheric circulation is attributable to… no one really knows but human influence on the atmosphere emissions either of chloro-fluorocarbons or carbon dioxide is the primary candidate. However, with so much multi-year ice gone, it is easy to understand why we have much more open water in September.”

​

Finally, I would like to point out the reason for the delay between your October, 2009 presentation until my reply, it was caused by my desire to present a thoughtful, thorough reply. You have dealt with a small number of very periphery issues. There remain very severe errors with your presentation that are yet unanswered. If you have corrected the many errors which I have disclosed, please accept my apologies.

Regards,

Dr. John Abraham
Associate Professor
University of St. Thomas
School of Engineering

 

[Avro]

YouTube - "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"

 

[Avro]

YouTube - Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1#!

 

[AnnaG]

If you can't challenge the data and the information resulting from the analysis of the data, attack the messenger. Abraham did his homework, Monckton didn't. Monckton's whining about it.

Monckton launches vitriolic - but harmless - attack on critic


University of St. Thomas Professor John Abraham has drawn blood.
Abraham has been getting a lot of attention for his devastating deconstruction of a presentation by Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.* And while Monckton first (and wisely) declined to respond, the appearance of Abraham's work in the Guardian this week, and the praise rendered there bycolumnist George Monbiot, pushed the lurid Lord over the edge, giving rise to a vicious, petty and insulting rejoinder that is all-but-entirely free of substance.
Oh, it's true that Monckton tries to cherry pick a few weaknesses in Abraham's thorough exercise in discreditation. For example, Lord Chris attacks Abraham's criticism of two graphs that Monckton had patched together from data apparently originating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Abraham complains, quite rightly, that Monckton is not sufficiently forthright with his sourcing and sloppy (or, one might speculate, deliberately mischievous) with his data.
Monckton howls back that one of the graphs in question was clearly sourced to "the SPPI’s well-known global-temperature index, compiled monthly from four separate global-temperature datasets." And what, pray, is the SPPI? Well that would be the SPPInstitute - the oily Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Christopher Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor. So, Lord Chris makes up a sloppy graph at the SPPInstitute, references it inadequately in his talk and then defends himself on the basis that he is using "well-known" sources. A perfectly closed, perfectly fallible loop.

In another reference, Abraham called Monckton to account for a badly researched "survey" of scientific papers on climate change. Monckton denies responsibility for the survey, crediting one Klaus-Martin Schulte. And yes, that would be the same "Dr." Schulte whose time is better spent serving as Monckton's endocrinologist. The survey has been decisively discredited on at least one other occasion.
And so it goes. While lauding his own competence as a climate expert, Monckton questions Abraham's scientific bona fides because the later is "a lecturer in fluid mechanics." So, one of these two gents has a PhD in a related field and a job at Minnesota's largest private university, while the other studied classics before concluding his academic career with a diploma in journalism. (Regrettably, Monckton's wiki bio offers to hint as to where he got his expertise in creative fiction.)
The funniest part of Monckton's outburst is he has "initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster." Aside from the cheap (and given his own Catholicism, inexplicable) shot at the status of the Catholic University of St. Thomas, Monckton is - what's the expression? - blowing smoke. If he had an ounce of evidence for his own outrageously disingenuous position, he'd be headed to court for a libel finding. As it is, any fair reading of Abraham's own quite gracious , and incredibly carefully documented critique will clear up permanently which of these two should be up before an ethics board.

Christopher Monckton Brings His Brand of Crazy To Bonn Climate Talks

Climate deniers often like to talk about “global warming profiteers,” some mysterious breed led by Al Gore who, so the story goes, are out to make the big bucks off scaring people about climate change. But if there’s anyone making money off lying about global warming these days, it is “Lord” Christopher Monckton, who continues his globetrotting tour to hawk confusion and misinformation at the Bonn climate talks this month.

Monckton is leading a “delegation” (nice attempt to sound official) from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (C-FACT), a conservative think tank that has received money from Exxon, Chevron, and the Scaife and Carthage foundations.

Monckton and the C-FACT gang are holding a “seminar” in Bonn “on the use of the internet to provide ordinary people with fact and opinions that have received scant attention by much of the mainstream media.”

The C-FACT “seminar” is destined to be quite long on opinions, that much is certain. But there won’t be many facts bandied about, certainly not any based on science, given Monckton’s lack of any scientific credentials (he’s a journalist by training but says he makes his living on real estate and, of course, his extensive list of paid speaking gigs around the world.)

In its post alerting the world to the Monckton seminars, C-FACT notes that Monckton was “recently dubbed a ‘famous contrarian’ in Esquire Magazine,” as if the outlet had honored him.

On the contrary, the Esquire piece painted Monckton in quite unflattering terms:

“[Climate denier Marc] Morano spots Lord Christopher Monckton, another famous contrarian. He has googly eyes like Marty Feldman and a plummy English accent straight out of Monty Python.”

Monckton will have his work cut out for him to top the performance he delivered at the Americans for Prosperity event in Copenhagen last year, where he called American college students advocating for clean energy the “Hitler youth.”

He should probably leave the Nazi analogies alone this time ‘round, given the location of the talks is Bonn, Germany. But this is Christopher Monckton we’re talking about, so logic and reason are out the window. Look for him to say something outrageous, or at least something stupid enough to get somebody to write about it. (Yeah, that’ll probably be me.)

 

[Tonington]

Climate "skeptics" are easilly duped it appears:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6815/...evidence-to-prove-global-warming-is-occurring

4th-grade climate skeptic wins junior division of National Science Fair -- Panel of judges included Al Gore! 4th-Grader: 'There is not enough evidence to prove global warming is occurring' | Climate Depot

4th-grade climate skeptic wins junior division of National Science Fair -- Panel of judges included Al Gore! 4th-Grader: 'There is not enough evidence to prove global warming is occurring'

Meanwhile, the real story, from a real skeptic:

Only In It For The Gold: A New Low

I did speak with a representative from NSF who confirmed that they do not have a National Science Fair, no one there had ever seen the letter, and I also called space camp, who told me that they did not receive anything from NSF either.

It gets stranger yet. The father may have made it all up. He appears to be a serial liar:
snowhare comments on The fake science fair award: What sort of person would manipulate the emotions and expectations of a ten-year-old girl in this vile and crass way for a small political point?

Yup. Climate skeptics...what a scam.

 

[Goober]

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hilme 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.
Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.


Read more: The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

Also please note that Scientists that study the sun are now coming out - prior to the IPCC scandal many were afraid of retaliation from other scientists and scientific organizations and those that control research funds-

Their studies are showing the suns impact on the temperature over the centuries has been massive.

Not sure if anyone posted this prior or not - But is tell a lot when scientists state that prior to this they were scared shztless to publish data.

Shameful to say the least.

 

[Tonington]

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

So I went to read his paper. Got this part, and had to stop from choking:

They categorised the 14,000 references cited in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) into different disciplines. Of these references, 62 per cent were to peer-reviewed journals (38 per cent referred to books, conference proceedings and grey literature). Of this peer-reviewed sub-set, just 12 per cent were from the social sciences. Remove economics from this category and less than 8 per cent of the cited peer-reviewed literature in the Third Assessment Report was from the social sciences.
...
Malone and Rayner (2001) repeated this criticism with respect to both the Second and Third Assessment Reports (as has Yearley (2009) with respect to the Fourth Assessment) and offered a number of epistemological, institutional and political reasons why the social science disciplines were marginalised by the IPCC.

My emphasis. This is complete bull $hit. Would you like to know why Goober?

The IPCC is split up into three working groups. Working group I is the physical basis. Working group II is the impacts and adaptation to climate change. Working group III is mitigation of climate change.

If you are going to synthesize the literature, which category of those they listed would you expect to have a larger relevance? The physical basis has nothing whatsoever to do with social sciences. Impacts and adaptation do, as do mitigation, but again these working groups are driven by the physical basis. You can't very well adapt to something unless you know the physical basis for it, which means again that these working groups will have many references to physical and applied sciences.

12 per cent from social sciences on a subject that is largely physical in nature is pretty good if you ask me. If you were to build a synthesis report on crime and it's impacts, or educational curriculum, would you even expect 5% of 8,000 references to be from chemists, atmospheric physicists, and geologists?

edited to add,

Have you even read the report or summary? Go read it and you'll see there is ample reference to the sun. I'd be interested to see how an ~11 year cycle, can cause a long-term warming trend.

 

[Goober]

So I went to read his paper. Got this part, and had to stop from choking:

My emphasis. This is complete bull $hit. Would you like to know why Goober?

The IPCC is split up into three working groups. Working group I is the physical basis. Working group II is the impacts and adaptation to climate change. Working group III is mitigation of climate change.

If you are going to synthesize the literature, which category of those they listed would you expect to have a larger relevance? The physical basis has nothing whatsoever to do with social sciences. Impacts and adaptation do, as do mitigation, but again these working groups are driven by the physical basis. You can't very well adapt to something unless you know the physical basis for it, which means again that these working groups will have many references to physical and applied sciences.

12 per cent from social sciences on a subject that is largely physical in nature is pretty good if you ask me. If you were to build a synthesis report on crime and it's impacts, or educational curriculum, would you even expect 5% of 8,000 references to be from chemists, atmospheric physicists, and geologists?

Your the scientist - So I will go with what you say - But did you check on the scientists that study the siuns actions and impact on the earth - How they were afarid to publish contrarian data because why????

 

[Tonington]

What contrary data? I've seen just about every argument you can imagine that try's to link the sun to the climate change we see now. It's lacking in predictive ability, and not physically consistent with what we see now.

And I'm not a scientist.

 

[Goober]

What contrary data? I've seen just about every argument you can imagine that try's to link the sun to the climate change we see now. It's lacking in predictive ability, and not physically consistent with what we see now.

And I'm not a scientist.

It came out in the last week or so - OK your not a scientist - Me I am Joe Numpty the average schmuck that finds this confusing at times - one says black the other says white - One is right the other is wrong.

Question - Does the IPCC in you opinion have lost some credibility???

 

[Tonington]

Not really. I expect that any large group will make mistakes. Perfection is an impossible ideal to hold. If they don't change their practices that lead to the mistakes, then yes I think they will have lost some credibility. We won't know that for some time now. Next week they will be announcing the authors selected from all of those nominated.

Richard Tol, a prominent economist, a social scientist, and frequent critic of the IPCC says he has been offered a convening lead authorship for the AR5. Another critic, Roger Pielke, Jr. has also apparently been offered a lead author position, but he turned them down. I thought that was strange for someone with so much to say about what is wrong with the process.