Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Climate realists will enjoy this blog http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/

Latest posts focus on the poverty of proper scientific method in the IPCC's latest political manifesto, and the damage to the credibility of science in the field.

 

[sneak'n]

Climate realists will enjoy this blog http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/

Latest posts focus on the poverty of proper scientific method in the IPCC's latest political manifesto, and the damage to the credibility of science in the field.

Utter bunkum, and reflective of your poor grasp of the matter.
The simple reality is that those fighting against global warming cannot argue the science itself, and instead take cheap shots at aspects of a massive report that is flawed only in reference to Himalayan glacial melts - a section that failed the editing process through human error.
Mr L has seems unable to understand that the process of presenting a report that synthesises thousands of scientific papers is absolutely different from the precise material in any single paper.
From the numerous posts I have seen from Mr L I cannot say that I am surprised.

 

[Mickel]

Utter bunkum, and reflective of your poor grasp of the matter.
The simple reality is that those fighting against global warming cannot argue the science itself, and instead take cheap shots at aspects of a massive report that is flawed only in reference to Himalayan glacial melts - a section that failed the editing process through human error.
Mr L has seems unable to understand that the process of presenting a report that synthesises thousands of scientific papers is absolutely different from the precise material in any single paper.
From the numerous posts I have seen from Mr L I cannot say that I am surprised.

Just one example from Wayne's reference-


"Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature. In a chapter devoted to something as tangible as the transportation sector.

What's bizarre is that an examination of the comments submitted by IPCC reviewers following both the first and second draft of Chapter 5 - and the responses to them - suggests that those involved appear to have taken part in a shared hallucination. A great deal of lip service was paid to peer-review, but in practice it was a next to meaningless concept.

When Takayuki Take****a, a researcher associated with the University of Tokyo, suggested that a presentation he'd helped prepare be cited by the IPCC, the chapter authors advised him that "the use of a presentation would not satisfy the requirement for published literature." This is all well and good, but had that standard been applied uniformly the list of references at the end of the chapter would contain closer to 61 entries than 260.

Elsewhere, when Take****a said he considered a statement in the chapter to be "doubtful" and noted that it conflicted with almost "all of the literature I have ever read" on the topic, he was told: "Rejected; text simply quotes the study, and good chance the study is correct."

The full citation for that study looks like this:

MIT, 2004: Coordinated policy measures for reducing the fuel consumption of the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Bandivadekar, A.P. and J.B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Report LFEE 2004-001, 76 pp.

Despite the fact that it is not peer-reviewed, the chapter authors think there's a "good chance" it's correct – and that's the end of the matter.

This is the celebrated IPCC internal peer review process in action. The reviewers don't get to make their case to a neutral editor who then arbitrates. Instead, the authors are at perfect liberty to ignore comments submitted in good faith by expert reviewers - to decide that the source they've cited is probably right."


shows how flawed the IPCC process is. There are many more examples given in that reference and others linked to it. Together with the leaked East Anglia emails, the lies in Gore's film, etc, etc show there is systemic bias or even fraud in the IPCC summaries.

The process that you describe Sneak'n, is not done in an open and scientific way and therefore, in many cases, the result is just UTTER BUNKUM.

 

[wayneL]

Thanks Mikel, as you say, that's just one.

In Rederob's (sneak'n) keenness to fulfil his juvenile vendetta, he has exposed his own glaring lack of understanding and intellectual integrity.

To attempt to deny that the IPCC's credibility has been massively and injuriously damaged in recent months is bordering on the pathological. One need only see the avalanching opinion polls to jolt one's self up from that dreamworld.

There is more than the issue about whether the science is right or wrong, it is also about the integrity of the conduct of climate science and associated vested interest agendas.

Furthermore, by the inevitable exposure of the fraudulent self interested alarmism on the co2 front, they may have irretrievably damaged the possibility of addressing other valid sustainability issues. The public simply is losing/has lost trust in environmental science and that is a real tragedy.

That rederob doesn't seem to realise these things, while pulling the old "play the man" card again, is not only tiresome and boring, but one must worry for his grasp of reality. (Parry and counterpunch is fair play in that game Red).

I can safely say that we can ignore the pseudo-intellectual pontifications of rederob as we do those of any cult member and get back to the topic of the thread - countering the alarmist hysteria promulgated by those who seek to profit from it.

 

[basilio]

I won't waste space requoting Wayne's last post.

All that has to be done now to complete the work of debunking the concepts of man induced climate change is

1) Rewriting the basic tenets of science on the role of CO2 and other green house gases in retaining atmospheric warmth

2) Persuading all the plants and animals that have responded to fundamental changes in temperature that they have it wrong.

3) Negotiating with a few million cubic Klms of ice in Greenland and Antarticia to stay frozen because some cynical PR hack is questioning the footnotes in a 3000 IPCC page report.

You can't B/S nature. The rest of us can be conned by unscrupulous interests and our own innate desire to not want to believe very unsettling facts.

Which is a the main reason for the spectacular success of the groups that have systematically destroyed respect for our international scientific community in the past few months.

 

[sneak'n]

Thanks Mikel, as you say, that's just one.

In Rederob's (sneak'n) keenness to fulfil his juvenile vendetta, he has exposed his own glaring lack of understanding and intellectual integrity.

I simply, and repeatedly, ask that you present the science - and you consistently fail. I have separately asked that you back up some of your claims, but again you do not.

To attempt to deny that the IPCC's credibility has been massively and injuriously damaged in recent months is bordering on the pathological. One need only see the avalanching opinion polls to jolt one's self up from that dreamworld.

This is a view that is held by those who do not understand the science, ignore the science, or prefer other agendas.

There is more than the issue about whether the science is right or wrong, it is also about the integrity of the conduct of climate science and associated vested interest agendas.

Your evidence for this is where?

Furthermore, by the inevitable exposure of the fraudulent self interested alarmism on the co2 front, they may have irretrievably damaged the possibility of addressing other valid sustainability issues. The public simply is losing/has lost trust in environmental science and that is a real tragedy.

The agenda of those railing against warming is to use any and every opportunity to pump the media with a news that distorts the actual science, cherry picks, or is simply a beat up. So the real culprits destroying public credibility in environmental matters are the opposite of those you suggest.

That rederob doesn't seem to realise these things, while pulling the old "play the man" card again, is not only tiresome and boring, but one must worry for his grasp of reality. (Parry and counterpunch is fair play in that game Red).

I play the substantiation game. Prove your case.
On the other hand, re-read your replies to me that trot out this line time and again, yet fail answer the questions I pose to you.

I can safely say that we can ignore the pseudo-intellectual pontifications of rederob as we do those of any cult member and get back to the topic of the thread - countering the alarmist hysteria promulgated by those who seek to profit from it.

And you don't play the man!
The hysteria is born out of climate change denial zealots who beat up whatever they can to get traction.
The science upholding man's role in warming justs gets stronger.

Anyone thinking rationally about climate change would be asking about the evidence for the opposite case. Think about that.

 

[wayneL]

I won't waste space requoting Wayne's last post.

All that has to be done now to complete the work of debunking the concepts of man induced climate change is

1) Rewriting the basic tenets of science on the role of CO2 and other green house gases in retaining atmospheric warmth

2) Persuading all the plants and animals that have responded to fundamental changes in temperature that they have it wrong.

3) Negotiating with a few million cubic Klms of ice in Greenland and Antarticia to stay frozen because some cynical PR hack is questioning the footnotes in a 3000 IPCC page report.

You can't B/S nature. The rest of us can be conned by unscrupulous interests and our own innate desire to not want to believe very unsettling facts.

Which is a the main reason for the spectacular success of the groups that have systematically destroyed respect for our international scientific community in the past few months.

Basilio,

You consistently miss the precise point being discussed as well as preaching from a platform of confirmation bias... if not outright bias. The co2 based AGW hypothesis is in deep trouble bro, both scientifically and in the PR war. The trend is down. That is the point, not outright denial of climate change.

You may also want to re-examine some of your assumptions there too, they are not accurate.

We all know climate changes, but should I remind you of the fact that the phrase "basic tenets" cannot apply to chaotic systems.

The warming effect of co2 is logarithmic for instance, a peculiarity that alarmists pointedly neglect to reveal. This is a point that has been raised before here and seredipidously revisited by David Archibald. Instead they make inferences that it is exponential. Total intellectual corruption.

Rederob,

You're just sounding shrill now, retreating to a argument where only "true believers" can believe they have any argumentative point.

Fail.

 

[Mickel]

I think the IPCC has overstated the case of man made global warming.

Do you, Sneak'n and Basilio, consider that the processes for compiling the IPCC summaries, as described in the example of my last post, are done in a scientific and open manner?

Written before sighting Wayne's last post, but unsurprisingly in sync with it.

 

[ghotib]

We all know climate changes, but should I remind you of the fact that the phrase "basic tenets" cannot apply to chaotic systems.

Say huh??????? The basic tenets of chaotic systems are mathematics. Of course the phrase applies.

However, the application of the phrase "chaotic systems" to climate is doubtful. Chaos tends to overwhelm weather predictions quite quickly, but weather is not climate and weather models and not climate models.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

The warming effect of co2 is logarithmic for instance, a peculiarity that alarmists pointedly neglect to reveal. This is a point that has been raised before here and seredipidously revisited by David Archibald. Instead they make inferences that it is exponential. Total intellectual corruption.

Wayne, Watts is not a reliable guide to science or mathematics. He might point to something interesting or useful, but you won't know unless you follow it up with more reliable sources.

Ghoti (who hasn't read anything on this thread except the last post for a couple of days, and doesn't know what Wayne thinks he's talking about this time, but is sick of doing hours of follow up on garbage links.)

Edited to fix quote tag

 

[Calliope]

The hysteria is born out of climate change denial zealots who beat up whatever they can to get traction.
The science upholding man's role in warming justs gets stronger.

I hope you don't mind sneak'n (aka Rederob), but I have edited the above statement to make sense. After all we know which side the hysteria is coming from. I think common sense is a better guide than "the science".

The hysteria is born out of climate change zealots who beat up whatever they can to get traction.
"The science" upholding man's role in warming justs gets more suspect

 

[ghotib]

We can probably agree that climate is totally unconcerned with trends in public opinion about it. That's worth discussing if the argument is about future human activity, but persistently treating public relations as the same thing as scientific argument is stupid or malicious or both.

There is plenty of room for disagreement about the details of what's happening, but to talk sensibly about the disagreements you have to make an effort to understand the consensus of experts and how they reached it. One of the best places I know of for that is The Discovery of Global Warming ( http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html ), which is the website for a book of the same name. It's a lot of reading, which I for one found pretty hard going in places. But surely the stakes merit a bit of effort.

Human civilisation is roughly 10,000 years old and for the whole of that time global temperature change has been within a range of about 2degC. Regional change within that range has been enough to bring down civilisations. The consensus of climate experts is that human activity over the last 200 years will raise the global average temperature outside the range that's been normal for all of human history. I'm a human. That's why I'm alarmed.

Ghoti

 

[sneak'n]

I think the IPCC has overstated the case of man made global warming.

Do you, Sneak'n and Basilio, consider that the processes for compiling the IPCC summaries, as described in the example of my last post, are done in a scientific and open manner?

Written before sighting Wayne's last post, but unsurprisingly in sync with it.

You are entitled to your view, but what supports it?

 

[sneak'n]

I think common sense is a better guide than "the science".

You might like to explain how we can determine the temperature on other planets by knowing their atmospheric composition and the energy received from the sun at the distance of their orbit. How is that common sense?
Global warming is common sense to the extent that people understand the link between the composition of our atmosphere and irradiance.

 

[sneak'n]

Rederob,

You're just sounding shrill now, retreating to a argument where only "true believers" can believe they have any argumentative point.

Fail.

Given that I seek responses from you, it's a bit rich suggesting I am retreating to any sort of argument. Exactly what could I be arguing against?
What I do see from you are contant diversions from the actual issue, suggesting time and again that you have no grasp.
Your tactics replicate to a tee those of the "deniers'": No substance, so let's refocus the debate.

 

[Calliope]

You might like to explain...

No thanks. I won't be drawn into your web. Last year when you were posting under your other name, I learned the futility of getting drawn into a debate with someone whose beliefs are driven by ideology.

It's like arguing with a creationist, except your bible is something you call "the science".

 

[Mofra]

1) Rewriting the basic tenets of science on the role of CO2 and other green house gases in retaining atmospheric warmth

Assuming they are known, measurable and replicatable under all conditions. Photosynthesis efficiency increases when minute amounts of extra CO2 is available in the atmosphere; so from what I've read, even this basic tenet is not exact.

If we can't measure these smaller effects accurately, does it not bring into question the changes that some scientists predict? Given the effect on food prices and the world's most needy, I'm not sure that we should condemn tens of millions of the world's poor to starvation due to a "maybe".

 

[wayneL]

Say huh??????? The basic tenets of chaotic systems are mathematics. Of course the phrase applies.

There are tenets, but they are not basic.

However, the application of the phrase "chaotic systems" to climate is doubtful. Chaos tends to overwhelm weather predictions quite quickly, but weather is not climate and weather models and not climate models.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

You don't think climate is a chaotic system???

ROTFMAO!!!!!!

Ludicrous!

Wayne, Watts is not a reliable guide to science or mathematics. He might point to something interesting or useful, but you won't know unless you follow it up with more reliable sources.

Oh Please!

Watts is a meteorologist and more qualified to comment on climate than Rajendra Pachauri or any of the other VI clowns.

Ghoti (who hasn't read anything on this thread except the last post for a couple of days, and doesn't know what Wayne thinks he's talking about this time, but is sick of doing hours of follow up on garbage links.)

Ahhh... the now mandatory character attack from the cultists, sans logic, and credible science.

That's a bit bloody rich talking about rubbish links when the more than half IPCC position is predicated on non peer reviewed junk; the purportedly peer reviewed portion being revealed as highly questionable.

I was under the impression you were above that sort of crap, even if suffering from a raging and illogical bias.

Alas, No.

 

[sneak'n]

That's a bit bloody rich talking about rubbish links when the more than half IPCC position is predicated on non peer reviewed junk; the purportedly peer reviewed portion being revealed as highly questionable.

You are one of many sucked in to thinking that all references in the IPCC report are to scientific papers that have been peer reviewed.
They are not.

The scientific papers that that underpinned the Report were peer reviewed and/or re-reviewed by each of the teams that wrote the many sections. Thousands of climate scientists were involved, and it is true that not all agreed on what eventually made it into the report.
Assertions that the science is junk have no substance, so if you have reliable peer reviewed literature to the contrary I welcome reading it.

Back to Donna Laframboisee blog. Pachauri's remarks were (and mostly remain) contexted on the science that underpins the Report, rather than the data/analysis that informs in other sections. To establish a project that looks for peer review of papers that essentially inform us about a range of ancillary issues - such as transportation - is not useful.
For example, Duoba, Lohse-Busch, and Bohn's 2005 paper, "Investigating Vehicle Fuel Economy Robustness of Conventional and Hybrid Electric Vehicles", was a paper presented at an electric vehicle congress held in Monaco. It has nothing to do with climate change science. However, like most (I haven't looked at every paper) cited sources it has been aired in relevant forums and/or published in associated industry journals and the like.

When I look at the multitude of issues that deniers of climate change present, the missing ingredient is always the science. There is a very good reason for that. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests the IPCC got it right.

 

[wayneL]

You are one of many sucked in to thinking that all references in the IPCC report are to scientific papers that have been peer reviewed.
They are not.

The scientific papers that that underpinned the Report were peer reviewed and/or re-reviewed by each of the teams that wrote the many sections. Thousands of climate scientists were involved, and it is true that not all agreed on what eventually made it into the report.
Assertions that the science is junk have no substance, so if you have reliable peer reviewed literature to the contrary I welcome reading it.

Back to Donna Laframboisee blog. Pachauri's remarks were (and mostly remain) contexted on the science that underpins the Report, rather than the data/analysis that informs in other sections. To establish a project that looks for peer review of papers that essentially inform us about a range of ancillary issues - such as transportation - is not useful.
For example, Duoba, Lohse-Busch, and Bohn's 2005 paper, "Investigating Vehicle Fuel Economy Robustness of Conventional and Hybrid Electric Vehicles", was a paper presented at an electric vehicle congress held in Monaco. It has nothing to do with climate change science. However, like most (I haven't looked at every paper) cited sources it has been aired in relevant forums and/or published in associated industry journals and the like.

When I look at the multitude of issues that deniers of climate change present, the missing ingredient is always the science. There is a very good reason for that. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests the IPCC got it right.

And your final paragraph reveals the seething unreasonableness scarcely disguised in a cloak of glibness.

The highlighted excerpts, are just not accurate.

 

[sneak'n]

And your final paragraph reveals the seething unreasonableness scarcely disguised in a cloak of glibness.

The highlighted excerpts, are just not accurate.

Your evidence to the contrary is found where?

I keep asking and you keep to the well worn track of not responding. It's really quite difficult for me to take you seriously. So until you have something worth responding to, I shall leave you to your irrelevant and wasteful diversions.