Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Tip: Extend your reading beyond the climate canon, which preaches to the choir.

So what exactly is the problem with the Journal of National Geoscience Wayne ? Is that also part of the bad science just can't get it right?

 

[wayneL]

So what exactly is the problem with the Journal of National Geoscience Wayne ? Is that also part of the bad science just can't get it right?

I don't know, link it and let's have a look.

 

[Some Dude]

Just a tidbit for you dude

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337126632080957441

Have you read the survey, the methodology for selection, ratings, etc?

The author seem to have addressed the point raised in the tidbit but I will look further into that one.

Given recent events, not with you WayneL, I feel compelled to be very specific about something because some people seem incapable understanding that others may think differently to them. I feel there are valid criticisms of the study from the information I have read that agree or disagree the study. I'm interested in what you have read that has informed your view whereby you have formulated the opinion that the study is invalidated. Once I track down more information, we may still disagree and that is fine, queue whatever jibes you wish to make which I often find quite funny.

Do I think he methodology is perfect? No, there seem to be some ridiculous deficiencies in the methodology that superficially I believe that I would not have made within the context that I have not written a scientific paper, so walk a mile in someone's shoe etc. But I am not convinced (yet) that the deficiencies that I find invalidate the conclusion, including the incorporation of correlating multiple supporting surveys or studies.

An example of a deficiency as I perceive it is their rating system, especially for neutral papers. While I find that a deficiency, I am unqualified to express an certitude about it. It would be like me expressing certitude about your jibes regarding my semi-socractic method. I do not purposely choose that, have never been taught it, so have no idea whether you are right or not. I am simply engaging and asking in a manner that appears to make sense to me.

In other words, I am developing my opinion from conversation, asking questions, and not hiding where I think something that someone has said is unsupportable. Seems easy in my mind but some people, again not directed at you WayneL, can't seem to see past their own opinions to accommodate others having differing and/or developing ones.

Please excuse the defensiveness, but I am tiring of people with hysterical overreactions, not directed at you, automatically assuming that questions or disagreement means insincerity.

Resume normal operations with whatever responses you want...

 

[Some Dude]

The author seem to have addressed the point raised in the tidbit but I will look further into that one.

Checking Richard Tol's tweet's, he is asserting (without confirmation yet) that some of his papers were misclassified. The author of the paper has already addressed the issue regarding paper selection i.e. wide search terms will produce a greater number of papers but that is not indicative of a change in the classification percentages subject to a substantial reclassification of a majority of the papers.

Of interest, Richard Tol asserts that global warming is real, just that they got some of their classifications wrong.

Richard Tol - @michstaff Climate change is a problem where complexity meets poor data meets ethical choices. You can't be clear and honest at same time.

Richard Tol - @dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm"

We would need to see whether the classifiers/methodology concur with the author i.e. Abstracts were checked and there may not have been a clear indication in the abstract. As I note above, the methodology maybe flawed and revisions may need to occur but I would hesitate to say it is completely invalidated/falsified. The Author does have a FAQ about some of these issues, if not specifically this author.

 

[wayneL]

Dude,

The issue here is not whether there are anthropegenic factors in climate change, even most skeptics agree that there is (the degree is different topic than the one at hand). The issue is the scientific integrity of Cook's survey, which has been shown to be a pile mendacious malodourous garbage.

Anthony Watts has some posts on it along with a piece from the alarmist's favourite Viscount. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/#more-86773

Some interesting comments on the post, the most interesting of which highlights what everyone seems to have missed, the tautology in the framing of the question that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current anthropogenic global warming”.

Of course there should be 100% consensus on that.

It's like saying 100% of deaths are caused by birth.

 

[Some Dude]

The issue here is not whether there are anthropegenic factors in climate change, even most skeptics agree that there is (the degree is different topic than the one at hand). The issue is the scientific integrity of Cook's survey, which has been shown to be a pile mendacious malodourous garbage.

Anthony Watts has some posts on it along with a piece from the alarmist's favourite Viscount. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/#more-86773

Some interesting comments on the post, the most interesting of which highlights what everyone seems to have missed, the tautology in the framing of the question that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current anthropogenic global warming”.

Of course there should be 100% consensus on that.

Would you agree that there is a substantial section of the wider community that do not accept that?

 

[Some Dude]

If anyone is interested in this, the discussion is continuing as we speak between Richard Tol and Dana Nuccitelli about the issue WayneL and I are discussing.

 

[Some Dude]

The literature survey in question can be found here.

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

WayneL,

I've selected what I think are relevant sections but the whole paper is an interesting read. Would you be able to provide a couple of points from the rebuttals that you find convincing so that we can evaluate them against the the paper?

 

[basilio]

Thanks Dude for the URL on the Literature Survey research.

It was a very tight analysis and achieved what was intended - to establish that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the climate science field accept that climate change is real and that the current changes are the result of human activity.

Climate skeptics have attempted to spread doubt about the science by claiming that consensus on the reality and cause of climate change is failing. It's worth highlighting the conclusion of the paper to put this into context.

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

[basilio]

I find it fascinating Wayne that you quote the work of Monckton via Watts Up to dismiss the literature analysis done by Peter Cook.

Monckton takes the absolute prize of all the people who have deliberately lied and misrepresented the science behind climate change. He is serial liar.

And yet Watts and yourself still choose to use his work in discussing the issue ?

Anyone interested can check out just how dishonest he is from the following papers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

The latter reference is a detailed breakdown of one of Christopher Moncktons presentations which highlights the scores of deliberate or misinformed statements he makes to dismiss climate change and our current role..

 

[Some Dude]

Some interesting comments on the post, the most interesting of which highlights what everyone seems to have missed, the tautology in the framing of the question that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current anthropogenic global warming”.

Of course there should be 100% consensus on that.

Would you agree that there is a substantial section of the wider community that do not accept that?

I failed to address your point correctly, apologies.

This portion of the study appears to address the point made.

An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

They do appear to be making the distinction through the paper i.e. AGW is a substantive cause of GW.

Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

Apologies for not addressing your point correctly the first time.

 

[basilio]

I don't know, link it and let's have a look.

This is the paper that has been published in the Geo Science Journal. Check it out.

http://www.uwe-merckens.com/bilder/Wetter/ngeo.pdf

 

[basilio]

Bill Mckibben is in Australia for a series of talks re Climate Change. Very inspiring.

For the short story on what he and his organization 350.org are about check out his video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eSuzNSHPv6c#!

Cheers !

 

[basilio]

Always interesting to see how the Heartland Institute is travelling in their relentless quest to deny cliamte change.

A few weeks ago they attempted to trumpet a substantial change in position by the Chinese Acedemy of Science they said

"The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will present the two books at a June 15 event in Beijing, a landmark event that puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet."

"The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable,"

"Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country’s leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."

Turns it was just typical Heartland BS. The Chinese Acaaemy responded with teh following kick in the family jewels

the Chinese Academy of Sciences has released a statement about Heartland's "misleading statement", which reads in part:

"the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation. The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false..."

"If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group."

Wouldn't it be a hoot to see this lot bankrupted by the Chinese for wilful defamation ?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heartland-cas-fantasy.html

 

[basilio]

And just to add to the current research around climate change. It appears that ice melt around the Antarctic is coming largely from underneath the glaciers and caused by sea warming.

What could it mean ? No-ones quite sure at the moment but it does raise questions about how quickly sea levels could rise if the Antarctic suddenly starts to lose a lot more ice than currently understood.

Look Out Below: Antarctic Melting From Underneath

Published: June 17th, 2013

Michael D. Lemonick Ba

Ice experts have long known that Antarctica is losing ice at the margins of its vast ice sheets, where the frozen continent meets the sea ”” presumably, they thought, from icebergs breaking off and floating away.

According to a report published in Science, however, more than half the ice loss is coming from warming ocean waters, which are melting the ice from underneath.

"This has profound implications for our understanding of interactions between Antarctica and climate change,” said lead author Eric Rignot, of the University of California, Irvine, in a press release.

Those interactions are crucial because Antarctica holds enough ice to raise sea level by a catastrophic 180 feet if it all melted or slid into the sea. That won’t happen anytime soon. But even without significant Antarctic melting, climate scientists project that the oceans, which have already risen by an average of 8 inches since 1900 as a result of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, could go up by another 2 feet or more by the end of this century. Combined with the storm surges that accompany hurricanes and other major coastal storms, the risks to lives and property will continue to grow.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/look-out-below-antarctic-melting-from-underneath-16128

 

[Calliope]

Wouldn't it be a hoot to see this lot bankrupted by the Chinese for wilful defamation ?

Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.

 

[basilio]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.

Look Calliope I'm so sorry global warming hasn't quite touched S/E Queensland. Can i suggest you move to the Arctic where temperatures have increased by double the amount around the world due to global warming ?

Cheers !!

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...TFqmiiAeEiICgCQ&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1036&bih=577

 

[drsmith]

A one in two possibility that we'll be extinct by 2100 ??

http://video.news.com.au/2393150278/Spin-of-the-week

 

[sydboy007]

A one in two possibility that we'll be extinct by 2100 ??

http://video.news.com.au/2393150278/Spin-of-the-week

Considering how fragile the global economy is, it wouldn't surprise me to see a marked reduction in the numbers of humans around by 2100.

Just a bad cropping season in Russia and India would put enormous pressure on food availability. Drought in Thailand would have a huge impact on rice exports.

12 million hectares a year of arable land is being lost to desertification, a process that is only going to get worse as droughts become longer and rainfall more concentrated.

I can see in around 20 years time that poor rainfall in some areas would see war over fresh water as weather extremes keep on increasing - just have to see the bickering over rivers in Australia to see what can happen between countries. Building a dam on a river flowing through a number of countries may be considered an act of war.

 

[explod]

Considering how fragile the global economy is, it wouldn't surprise me to see a marked reduction in the numbers of humans around by 2100.

Just a bad cropping season in Russia and India would put enormous pressure on food availability. Drought in Thailand would have a huge impact on rice exports.

12 million hectares a year of arable land is being lost to desertification, a process that is only going to get worse as droughts become longer and rainfall more concentrated.

I can see in around 20 years time that poor rainfall in some areas would see war over fresh water as weather extremes keep on increasing - just have to see the bickering over rivers in Australia to see what can happen between countries. Building a dam on a river flowing through a number of countries may be considered an act of war.

A good read on just these scenarios backed by some well researched evidence is "Climate Wars" by Gwyne Dyer, 2008