Resisting Climate Hysteria

[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.

Sneak'n and Basilio, you still haven't answered the question. A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Sneak'n, your response that the example I gave is only ancillary to man made global warming, misses the point. The IPCC use the same methods through many of their reports and it is not open nor scientific.

Here is another example from the same source-

"Economist Richard Tol has been taking another look at everyone's favourite mega-document, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. In guest posts on blogs here and here, he argues that while one section of the report (produced by Working Group 2) "appears to have systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change," another section (written by Working Group 3) appears to have systematically understated the costs to society associated with emissions reduction.

Click image for larger version. From p. 7 of a Dec. 2009 document issued
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (39-page PDF here)

At this juncture it's worth remembering that the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material to make its case. By now we know this isn't remotely true. Tol highlights passages in Chapter 11 of the Working Group 3 report that further demonstrate this.

On this page, the IPCC discusses emissions reduction studies. Tol points out that although the third paragraph cites three documents – Stern (2006), Anderson (2006) and Barker (2006a) – not one of them has been peer-reviewed. Indeed, of the seven studies mentioned in total on this page only one was published in a peer-reviewed journal. (All reference material for that chapter is listed here.)

Tol further notes that on another page, devoted to the rather important question of what effect reducing emissions might have on employment (in the US climate change policies are currently being sold to be public as job creation plans), a total of six "studies are cited to support the notion that emission reduction creates jobs. Only one of the six is peer-reviewed."

If this seems rather sloppy, Tol says it gets worse. The academic literature in this area, he says, suggests that the relationship between emissions reduction and job creation is a weak one, and that job growth only occurs in certain circumstances – namely when government policies are "smart and well-designed." If "emission permits are given away for free – as is common," he points out, "no positive impact on employment" is achieved. The IPCC report mentions none of this, however.

Tol doesn't talk about it in these blog posts, but he was an IPCC expert reviewer for this chapter. After reading the first draft, he raised a number of concerns. Below are some choice remarks appearing on pages 2-3 of the 65-page PDF of reviewer comments available here:

In a number of instances, authors mainly quote their own work. This is unworthy. In a number of instances, authors mainly quote other IPCC material. This is incestuous. The quoting of IPCC material is most pronounced in the scenario discussion, which can be summarised as "We, the IPCC, declare that all previous IPCC work is great." This is silly.

…In many places, the authors are out of their depth; the selection of papers is haphazard, the assessment superficial. I also found too many references that are simply wrong; the authors cannot have read these papers. For a supposedly expert panel, this is very serious."

In a number of instances, the draft material reads like a political manifesto rather than a scientific document. In other instances, the authors have tried to hide their political message in pseudo-scientific language. For a supposedly independent panel, this is very serious.

Part of the literature review is haphazard; it seems as if the authors have not systematically searched the literature, but simple [sic] quote a few papers that happened to lie around. Another part of the literature review is severely biased; the authors quote their own work, and that of their friends, but systematically ignore the work of many authors. This is particularly true in the presentation of model results; results are shown for a subset of models only…

I rest my case. Is it scientific? YES or NO ?????

 

[sneak'n]

Mickel

Where in your post was the matter of climate science discussed?
Tol discusses matters ancillary to the science. The fact is that the Report needed to come to some position on many issues, and it did. Not all contributors were appeased - not unexpected given, literally, a cast of thousands.

As I repeat, there is considerable focus by climate deniers on side issues that can gain traction but have no bearing on climate science itself.

Matters scientific in the Report were based on the science. The process of writing a report is not scientific.

 

[wayneL]

Mickel

As I repeat, there is considerable focus by climate deniers on side issues that can gain traction but have no bearing on climate science itself.

Matters scientific in the Report were based on the science. The process of writing a report is not scientific.

The continuous straw man tactic is getting boring rederob.

There are very few climate deniers. There are those who see the problems in the warmist dogma however... yes, in the science.

As far as "side issues"...? ROFL! That's cute.

LMAO

Dream on.

 

[noirua]

The hysteria of some on climate change should not cloud the issue so some see blood red.

Many are against the use of uranium purely on the grounds of leaks from older nuclear stations or a future devestating explosion. The plus side, that it is the only short term solution for oil and coal in heavy power use.

Wind power is fine where there is wind and space available. Those against cite noise and the personal view they are an ugly sight. Generally best for power to housing.

Diesel from coal, is seen by many as a future for use of low grade brown coal, mainly in South Australia. Doesn't appear to change much but better is better than diesel from oil.

Granite power is a newer idea that the Federal Government is supporting. Looks reasonable from where I'm standing, but availability may be a minus but cost looks fairly low - on the low side anyway.

Electric power with heavyweight batteries (going to look silly in 50 years time I think) seen as great by some, but limited to Governments wishes to provide charging points in towns: As they have in London, England, or is it going to.

Power from the sun looks the long term winner. Trouble is it's going to be just that; a long time coming for heavy power use.

I have a torch which I wind up instead of using batteries. A bit of a wind up to suggest we can go all that much further with that. Or maybe everyone could wind their houses up and...

Will coal ever really be clean enough, even though it's pretty cheap. No, not really, even if every nasty is taken out or the recipe. Probably will still be in heavy use in 30 years or is it 40 years or 50 years, or even more.

Filthy dirty power will still remain as State Governments in Australia make a bundle out of royalties. One day they will raise royalties so high coal is not viable anymore. But not until they've got royalties from all the other forms of power beforehand.

Money talks before lives and that goes for Australia as well.

 

[moXJO]

This is a separate question from the current discussion. I remember back in the 80's maybe early 90s? That there was a big thing with the hole in the ozone layer, and how we would all be burnt to a crisp with the hole slowly getting bigger. Reminds me a bit of the current stuff being thrown around. Is it still an issue now (hole still getting larger)?

 

[Knobby22]

This is a separate question from the current discussion. I remember back in the 80's maybe early 90s? That there was a big thing with the hole in the ozone layer, and how we would all be burnt to a crisp with the hole slowly getting bigger. Reminds me a bit of the current stuff being thrown around. Is it still an issue now (hole still getting larger)?

Good comparison!

We solved it.
The world leaders all listened to the science and we got rid of fluorocarbons, that is why we use hydrocarbons in todays spray cans.
The hole is still there but getting smaller each year.

99.9% of scientist think that carbon dioxide and methane cause global warning but there are powerful vested interests out there combined with poor policy action by governments which has meant that this has not yet become possible for the present problem.

 

[brty]

This sort of statistic is so often bandied about.....

99.9% of scientist think that carbon dioxide and methane cause global warning

Where is the evidence of it, can you show some evidence of this number???

brty

 

[Mickel]

Perhaps it is an appropriate time to reflect on what Professor Richard Lindzen
(the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) stated in part in the reference to the initial post on this thread-

"Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake."

 

[Knobby22]

In the quote above he does not say it is not occurring but says it is overstated and then spouts out wierd political arguments which are not his field and discount his abilities.

The Chinese seem to think it is real:

Climate change is a fact, says China
By China correspondent Stephen McDonell

China sceptical on scepticism:

Audio: China takes swipe at climate deniers (AM) Related Story: 'Father of global warming' to speak in Adelaide Related Story: ABC chair criticises climate change coverage Related Link: Climate debate: opinion vs evidence A deputy director of China's most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.

Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an "extreme" stance which is out of step with mainstream thought.

The comments were made during China's annual sitting of the National People's Congress.

During the congress, a series of press conferences are held which, in many cases, are the only chance to put questions to members of China's power elite.

Last night, one such press conference was held on the subject of climate change.

The ABC asked the panel what they thought of the view that climate change had nothing to do with human activity and was in fact a natural phenomenon.

Xie Zhenhua, a deputy director at China's powerful economic ministry, the National Development and Reform Commission, answered that he believed that made-made climate change denial is, at best, a very marginal view.

"Climate change is a fact based on long-time observations by countries around the world," he said.

"There are two different views regarding the causes for global warming.

"The mainstream view is that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel in the course of industrialisation.

"There's a more extreme view which holds that human activity has only an imperceptible impact on the natural system."

 

[Timmy]

Any chance of some sources / links for all these quotes??????

 

[sneak'n]

Mickel

Lindzen regards the link between smoking and lung cancer as weak.

It is one thing to be contrarian; it is another to have a sustainable view.

Linzen considers the world has cooled over the past 15 years, yet the data suggests that recent decades are the hottest - most of the hottest years since the Industrial Revolution occurring in the past decade.

All the emotive language in the world is unlikely to change the link between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature.

If we reflect on anything on this topic it would be better it be related to the science and continuing research papers confirming or otherwise CO2's role.

 

[wayneL]

Mickel

Lindzen regards the link between smoking and lung cancer as weak.

It is one thing to be contrarian; it is another to have a sustainable view.

Can you please show where Lindzen has directly made any such statement so that:

1. We can see if it is indeed true
   
2. The correct context

Even if true, it leaves me perplexed as to what that has to do with climate.

Linzen considers the world has cooled over the past 15 years, yet the data suggests that recent decades are the hottest - most of the hottest years since the Industrial Revolution occurring in the past decade.

All the emotive language in the world is unlikely to change the link between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature.

If we reflect on anything on this topic it would be better it be related to the science and continuing research papers confirming or otherwise CO2's role.

Data Scmata... damned lies and statistics and all that. The data as it stands can be made to show anything. His position is that CC has been overstated; that assessment can be supported.

 

[GumbyLearner]

In the quote above he does not say it is not occurring but says it is overstated and then spouts out wierd political arguments which are not his field and discount his abilities.

The Chinese seem to think it is real:

Climate change is a fact, says China
By China correspondent Stephen McDonell

China sceptical on scepticism:

Audio: China takes swipe at climate deniers (AM) Related Story: 'Father of global warming' to speak in Adelaide Related Story: ABC chair criticises climate change coverage Related Link: Climate debate: opinion vs evidence A deputy director of China's most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.

Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an "extreme" stance which is out of step with mainstream thought.

The comments were made during China's annual sitting of the National People's Congress.

During the congress, a series of press conferences are held which, in many cases, are the only chance to put questions to members of China's power elite.

Last night, one such press conference was held on the subject of climate change.

The ABC asked the panel what they thought of the view that climate change had nothing to do with human activity and was in fact a natural phenomenon.

Xie Zhenhua, a deputy director at China's powerful economic ministry, the National Development and Reform Commission, answered that he believed that made-made climate change denial is, at best, a very marginal view.

"Climate change is a fact based on long-time observations by countries around the world," he said.

"There are two different views regarding the causes for global warming.

"The mainstream view is that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel in the course of industrialisation.

"There's a more extreme view which holds that human activity has only an imperceptible impact on the natural system."

Off to the hard labour re-education camp for the likes of wayneL et al by the looks of things. Gee I wonder what punishment they have in store for the GW deniers I hope it's not as bad as what they do to the Human Rights deniers. Will this mean they will halt building coal fired power stations and stop importing oil? :nono:

 

[wayneL]

Off to the hard labour re-education camp for the likes of wayneL et al by the looks of things. Gee I wonder what punishment they have in store for the GW deniers I hope it's not as bad as what they do to the Human Rights deniers. Will this mean they will halt building coal fired power stations and stop importing oil? :nono:

LOL

I was wondering what expertise in climate science the Chinese gu'mint had over and above the likes of KRudd, Obarmy, Crash Gordon, et al.

 

[GumbyLearner]

LOL

I was wondering what expertise in climate science the Chinese gu'mint had over and above the likes of KRudd, Obarmy, Crash Gordon, et al.

Come on wayneL you should be enlightened enough to follow the collective ideals espoused by our great leaders of their newly found liberating classless thoughtspeak. Pollution doesn't exist, the word pollution has been dispensed with due to the often frequent abusive use of it by the ruling classes. This word was misappropriated and wrongly apportioned to smokestacks, manufacturing plants, acid-rain etc.. all of which were caused by this incorrect thoughtspeak (pollution). Global warming and the pursuit of new climate science is the only way we can combat the oppression of the masses. This of course is only to be achieved through taxation of those same masses in order for them to recognize the source of such opportunistic linguistical distortions.. ROFLMAO

 

[wayneL]

Come on wayneL you should be enlightened enough to follow the collective ideals espoused by our great leaders of their newly found liberating classless thoughtspeak. Pollution doesn't exist, the word pollution has been dispensed with due to the often frequent abusive use of it by the ruling classes. This word was misappropriated and wrongly apportioned to smokestacks, manufacturing plants, acid-rain etc.. all of which were caused by this incorrect thoughtspeak (pollution). Global warming and the pursuit of new climate science is the only way we can combat the oppression of the masses. This of course is only to be achieved through taxation of those same masses in order for them to recognize the source of such opportunistic linguistical distortions.. ROFLMAO

Hmmmmm! That argument is so compelling, I've sent an email to NZIRD offering to double my tax rate.

(Just have to figure out how to get it to 0% )

 

[Knobby22]

All you doubters, you better start applying your conspiracy theories to the CSIRO. I haven't heard the one for China yet by the way.

CSIRO chief defends climate science

The head of Australia's peak science body has spoken out in defence of climate scientists, saying the link between human activity and climate change is beyond doubt.

The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence of global warming is unquestionable, and in Australia it is backed by years of robust research.

Dr Clark says climate records are being broken every decade and all parts of the nation are warming.

"We are seeing significant evidence of a changing climate," she said.

"If we just take our temperature, all of Australia has experienced warming over the last 50 years. We are warming in every part of the country during every season and as each decade goes by, the records are being broken.

"We are also seeing fewer cold days so we are seeing some very significant long-term trends in Australia's climate."

Dr Clark says the long-term data across a number of measures stacks up in favour of climate change proponents and against those who say the planet is not warming.

"We can certainly look at the long-term trends and any event here or there or a storm here or there really doesn't explain away what we are seeing in these major long-term trends," she said.

"We are also seeing consistency. I think the consistency between our temperatures, what we are seeing in our rainfall, what we are seeing in the increase of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere and of course, what we are now seeing in our oceans.

"So it is not just one measurement that is telling us. It is our observations and science that we are seeing in many areas being consistent."


Strong evidence

Dr Clark says the evidence strongly suggests human activity is responsible for the rise.

"We know two things. We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly. We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," she said.

"We also know that that rapid increase that we've been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected."

Dr Clark says scepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process and has been considered as part of the climate change debate.

But she says the data needs to be looked at in a systematic way and the evidence backs those who say humans are contributing to global warming.

"Whenever we come into groups with very complex issues as a society, every time we have done that, we should challenge and we do challenge and it brings us back to our observations," she said.

"It makes us re-look at what we are really seeing. It makes us ask those questions, so I think challenge is simply part of coming to understand an issue.

"But at the same time, plucking out a snow storm in the US or a flood in Queensland or a cold day somewhere and trying to use that to explain away some of these long-term trends, of course, we know is not the right way to do it."

Dr Clark says the data the CSIRO has based its conclusions on is both long-term and solid.

"We have been recording and the [weather] bureau has been recording our climate for over 100 years," she said.

"Our records here are extremely robust and of course, CSIRO is studying and researching and looking at those trends for over 50 years so I think we are very blessed in this country to have some very, very robust data and very long-term [data]."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2845519.htm

 

[wayneL]

:sleeping:

Old ground.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

sneak'n

Lindzen regards the link between smoking and lung cancer as weak.

I have to point out the red herring in the debate based on logic.

If we reflect on anything on this topic it would be better it be related to the science and continuing research papers confirming or otherwise CO2's role.

Based on this the views of many scientists, either way, should be heard. That is science. Proving disproving and questioning. I disagree that we have to follow research papers to be sustainable. (not to say that was said above)

 

[wayneL]

Can you please show where Lindzen has directly made any such statement so that:

1. We can see if it is indeed true
   
2. The correct context

Yeah!

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. I want to see if it's true (even if irrelevant) or just another ad hominem slander.