Death knell for AGW

captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
L Gilbert said:
Yep. Public opinion being what it is....... ignorant. "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations." -Wiki

I agree, but it is only in public opinion. And there are no better checks and balances on scientific research than the critiques of other researchers. At least none that I have heard about.
Click to expand...

A couple of points that I'll touch on.

First, considering that the end game is to design and install public policy; optics is everything. I am not naive enough to believe that only the CRU has employed methodology to support their individual perspectives, it is employed by all. What happened at the CRU is (likely) not an isolated incident (I'm thinking of the skeptics camp here), the problem is that they got caught in a highly public manner (note:'caught' does not imply guilt).

Sadly for the CRU, the court of public opinion does count somewhat and there is no question that it has affected the motivation of gvts to respond to the issue of AGW in a less than urgent manner.

L Gilbert said:
Is there a better term?
Click to expand...

I believe that employing a 'moniker' within any debate/argument marginalizes the credibility of the group that applies it... And yes, I do realize that this knife cuts both ways.

L Gilbert said:
I agree there are cycles. But as I posted before, with links, the cycle this time has had an extended warming period. What is the reason this warming period has been longer than the others over the past hundreds of thousands of years? Do you have any idea? (I mean based upon evidence.)
Click to expand...


In my mind, AGW does exist, however, not nearly to the extent that is being suggested by the AGW proponents. To date, everything that I have seen is based on complementary and overlapping theories from a variety of fields... Nothing wrong with that, but it does not provide any degree of certainty in terms of accurately describing a cause and effect relationship.

At some point in the future the understanding will (may) exist to make accurate causal determinations, but right now, I don't believe that this level of understanding exists
 
L Gilbert

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
captain morgan said:
A couple of points that I'll touch on.

First, considering that the end game is to design and install public policy; optics is everything.
Click to expand...
I think it's a large part, but it isn't everything. People tend to do the silliest things for the sillest reasons sometimes, but it doesn't usually stand up in the face of reality and fact. Good sense usually prevails eventually.
I am not naive enough to believe that only the CRU has employed methodology to support their individual perspectives, it is employed by all. What happened at the CRU is (likely) not an isolated incident (I'm thinking of the skeptics camp here), the problem is that they got caught in a highly public manner (note:'caught' does not imply guilt).

Sadly for the CRU, the court of public opinion does count somewhat and there is no question that it has affected the motivation of gvts to respond to the issue of AGW in a less than urgent manner.
Click to expand...
From a purely scientific POV, though, public opinion is irrelevant. IOW, the science is the science and data shows what data shows regardless of opinion.

I believe that employing a 'moniker' within any debate/argument marginalizes the credibility of the group that applies it... And yes, I do realize that this knife cuts both ways.
Click to expand...
I agree, but is there another term for people who don't agree with the AGW concept? Skeptic? That term is equally applicable to both sides of the issue. I am simply too lazy to want to type out "people who disagree with the AGW concept" so I use "denier".

In my mind, AGW does exist, however, not nearly to the extent that is being suggested by the AGW proponents. To date, everything that I have seen is based on complementary and overlapping theories from a variety of fields... Nothing wrong with that, but it does not provide any degree of certainty in terms of accurately describing a cause and effect relationship.
Click to expand...
That's cool. I'm not terribly concerned with the cause as much as the effects. I think the causes of warming are pretty much the same as they have always been, but our little donation has at least aided the extention of the warming (besides adding other potentially disastrous effects like ocean acidification, oil spills, and the like).

At some point in the future the understanding will (may) exist to make accurate causal determinations, but right now, I don't believe that this level of understanding exists
Click to expand...
I don't either. We can only deal with whatever evidence we can find, though. Preponderances of circumstantial evidence do lead to some pretty accurate conclusions sometimes.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Anybody get their carbon credits up to date?

mentalfloss said:
The deniers don't understand much.

This thread is evidence since that "death knell" has been ringing for 4 years now. :lol:

When U.S. defense is on board, that knell must be ringing very loudly in the ear canals of the deniers.

Climate Change A Threat To National Security: Panetta
Click to expand...

Green Battlefield Technology... now THAT is funny! I mean really... that is a classic.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,734
12,950
113
Low Earth Orbit
EagleSmack said:
Green Battlefield Technology... now THAT is funny! I mean really... that is a classic.
Click to expand...
Solar powered tanks that fire nerf balls and water balloons, geo-thermal aircraft that bomb with pillows, submarines with wind gennys and whole nine ****ing yards amigo. It's inevitable.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
 
gopher

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Heartland reflects on its beating

The ultra-conservative group's climate conference showed how far it has fallen after an internet sting and a disastrous ad


Heartland reflects on its beating | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Heartland's seventh climate conference, which runs until Wednesday, was a much diminished event, compared to earlier lavish gatherings ... Peter Gleick, used deception to obtain confidential documents from Heartland, including a donors list and plans to indoctrinate school children against belief in climate change ... The exposure led some corporate donors to cut their funds to Heartland – until Bast committed a huge PR blunder, approving a provocative billboard ad likening scientists to psychopaths.


Donor flight accelerated, and Heartland has now lost some $825,000 (£523,000) in funding, according to the campaign group Forecast the Facts. Advocacy groups are meeting with some of Heartland's biggest remaining funders to persuade them to cut their ties.
The crisis forced Heartland to seek funds from the oil and coal industry – despite earlier claims to be independent of fossil fuel interests.




---------------------




How embarrassing for these right wingers. :lol:
 
Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
46
48
66
What gives koolaiders?


IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk



On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics" have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement -- the environmental movement's "mother of all environmental scares" -- is undermined. The Obama administration's war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to "fix" a problem that didn't really exist.

The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. eighteen). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. eighteen). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists -- a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers -- was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the "mainstream" of alarmist climate change thinking. "[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment's findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated," the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report "too political" (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone -- environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities -- that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports -- remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves -- felt the summaries were "too political."

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the "consensus of scientists":

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the "true consensus of scientists"?

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80% confident." Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that "conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of 'very high confidence' will have little substantive value." Yes, but that doesn't keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as "proof" that global warming is man-made and a crisis...even if that's not really what the reports' authors are saying.
Finally, the IAC noted, "the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input" as well as "the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review" (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That's a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. -- go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here...keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just "possibly flawed" or "could have been improved," but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the "endorsements" of the climate consensus made by the world's national academies of science -- which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis -- were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA's "endangerment finding" -- its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health -- was wrong and should be overturned.
And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of "confidence," we will get "level of understanding scales" that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world's economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html

h/t sda
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Loc, not being flippant or sarcastic here, but that must have raised your heart rate and made you LOL for real, if not given you a little wood, lol.

+1000 To be honest, it's worthy of its own thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom