Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Continued from post #28 above ↑

    This is my second installment of excerpts from Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]
    13. The reports suffer from the use of the term “climate change” with two meanings: natural and human-induced. These are both given as definitions in the IPCC report and are not distinguished in the text and therefore confuse a reader. (The Climate Change Assessment uses the term throughout including its title, but never defines it.) There are places in the reports where only the second meaning—human induced―makes sense, so that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be applied. In those places where either meaning can be interpreted, if the statement is assumed to be a natural change, then it is a truism, a basic characteristic of Earth’s environment and something people have always known and experienced. If the meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the report, the available data do not support the statements.

    Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.

    For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

    In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation.

    The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”

    According to Dr. Susan Crockford, “out of the 13 populations for which some kind of data exist, five populations are now classified by the PBSG [IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group] as ‘stable’ (two more than 2009), one is still increasing, and three have been upgraded from ‘declining’ to ‘data deficient’. . . . That leaves four that are still considered ‘declining’‐ two of those judgments are based primarily on concerns of overhunting, and one is based on a statistically insignificant decline that may not be valid and is being reassessed (and really should have been upgraded to ‘data deficient’). That leaves only one population – Western Hudson Bay – where PBSG biologists tenaciously blame global warming for all changes to polar bear biology, and even then, the data supporting that conclusion is still not available.“

    15. Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. For example, the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report states that “terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems have sequestered about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by human activities in the past three decades (high confidence).” I have done the first statistically valid estimate of carbon storage and uptake for any large area of Earth’s land, the boreal forests and eastern deciduous forest of North America, and subtropical forests in Queensland, Australia. The estimates of carbon uptake by vegetation used by IPCC and in major articles cited by the reports are based on what can best be called “grab samples,” a relatively small number of studies done at a variety of times using a variety of methods, mainly in old- growth areas. The results reported by IPCC overestimate carbon storage and uptake by as much as 300 percent.

    16. The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks. Surprisingly few species became extinct during the past 2.5 million years, a period encompassing several ice ages and warm periods. Among other sources, this is based on information in the book Climate Change and Biodiversity edited by Thomas Lovejoy, one of the leaders in the conservation of biodiversity. The major species 
known to have gone extinct during this period are 40 species of large mammals in North America and Northern Europe. (There is a “background” extinction rate for eukaryotic species of roughly one species per year.)

    17. THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

    18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require environmental change.

    19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible. The past confirms this. Glaciers have come and gone repeatedly. The Northwest Passage of North America has gone and come again. The average temperature has greatly exceeded the present and forecasted and has declined only to rise again.

    Implicit in this repeated use of irreversible is the belief that Earth’s environment is constant — stable, unchanging — except when subjected to human actions. 
This is obviously false from many lines of evidence, including the simple experience of all people who have lived before the scientific-industrial age and those who live now and so do such work as farm, manage rivers, wildlife and forests.

    20. The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. The Terrestrial report in a sense acknowledges this, for example by stating: “Climate stresses occur alongside other anthropogenic influences on ecosystems, including land-use changes, nonnative species, and pollution, and in many cases will exacerbate these pressures (very high confidence).”

    ....

    Do the problems with the se reports mean that we can or should abandon any concerns about global warming or abandon any research about it? Certainly not, but we need to put this issue within an appropriate priority with other major here-and-now environmental issues that are having immediate effects.

    To be continued...

    Comment


    • #32
      Continued from last post above ↑

      This is the third post of excerpts from Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]
      The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White House's National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the draft White House's National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated:

      "The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers."

      "Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn't new to say it is 'already affecting the American people.' This is just a political statement."

      "It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or another about persistent climate change."


      WHAT HAS GONE WRONG, AND HOW TO FIX IT

      1. Rather than focus on key, specific and tractable aspects of 
climate-change science, the long-term approach throughout the 20th 
century was to try to create de nova a complete model of the climate.

      2. This approach has been taken despite a lack of focus on monitoring key 
variables over time in statistically and scientifically valid ways, e. g. carbon sequestering by forests; polar bear population counts. As a result, there is an odd disconnect between theory and observation. The attempt to create complete models of every aspect of climate has meant that many factors had to be guessed at, rather than using the best scientific methods. Too many guesses, too little checking against real, observed effects.

      3. The IPCC reports are the result of a very large number of people doing long reviews of the scientific literature. This easily leads to people being so 
overburdened that they misinterpret specific papers, fail to understand where the major observational gaps are, and have trouble making an accurate list of citations and all sources of information. The fundamental IPCC and White House Climate Change Assessment approach has been to gather a huge number of scientists from a large number of disciplines, on the assumption that a kind of crowd approach to what can be agreed on is the same as true scientific advance. While this might seem a reasonable and effective approach, there is some danger in relying on this “crowd-sourced” model of information sharing. Groups of people, particularly when credentialed “experts” are involved, are very prone to a condition called an “information cascade” in which error is compounded by group think, assumptions become unchallenged “fact” and observations play second fiddle to unchallenged models. The excellent scientists involved with the IPCC reports are no less prone to this than the excellent scientists who relied on Aristotelian models of a geocentric universe. Entrenched beliefs are hard to extricate, even amongst supposedly rational thinkers. This is probably in part responsible for the problems listed with the White House Climate Assessment report’s table of Biological Effects, discussed in my document reviewing that report.

      4. What a scientist discovers is different from what a scientist says. The first is science, the second is opinion. Have small groups of scientists work on this problem, no more than can easily argue with one another, that is less than 20 and preferably even smaller, representing the primary disciplines. Divide the problem into areas, rather than try to answer all questions in one analysis. I have used this approach in my own work and found it to be successful.

      5. The desire to do good has ironically overridden the desire to do the best science.

      6. Under the weight of this kind of crowd rule and approach, some specific alternative approaches to the science of climate change, have not been allowed to rise to the surface.

      7. Among the approaches that would improve climate science:

      a. Return to the former reliance on science done by individuals and small groups with a common specific interest and focus.

      
b. Change the approach from trying to make a complete, definitive model of every aspect of climate to a different level. See kinds of models that explore specific possibilities and phenomena.

      
c. Get out of the blame game. None of the above suggestions can work as long as global warming remains a moral, political, ideologically dominated topic, with scientists pushed into, or at least viewed as, being either for or against a single point of view.


      9. We need to focus again on major environmental Issues that need our attention now (see the list above).

      10. ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF RESEARCH I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE OF? YES.

      a. NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS)
      b. Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study
      c. Whooping Crane monitoring, e.g. of an endangered species
      d. In-place monitoring on carbon flux, being done by the USGS in the 
Great Cypress Swamp, Florida.
      e. Many others.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • #33
        Continued from last post above ↑

        This is the first of a number of excerpts from the NOTES section of Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]
        REVIEW OF Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program
, Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds.
841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

        By Daniel B. Botkin: May 29, 2014

        [Note regarding my connections with Jerry M. Melillo, one of the three primary editors of this report: When I was on the faculty of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Jerry Melillo was a graduate student working on his doctorate and we interacted frequently. Beginning in 1975, Jerry Melillo and I worked at the Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, and we published four scientific papers together, listed at the end of this document.]

        COMMENTS ON THE ASSESSMENT GENERAL COMMENTS:

        The opening statement of the Assessment (p.1), reproduced here, is characteristic of the entire Assessment in that it violates one of the basic principles of good climatology --- never use short-term weather changes as proof of climate change. Climatologists I have worked with over the decades have said this repeatedly. In 1962, when I was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin working under a science writing fellowship, I spoke with Reed Bryson, said to be the father of the International Geophysical Year and the person who persuaded Richard Keeling to begin measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. At that time Earth had been undergoing a global cooling since about 1940. At first Professor Bryson said “if present trends continue, we are entering a new ice age.” But when I drafted a press release that quoted him so, he thought about it carefully and told me that we could not make that statement, because this was just a short- term weather event.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • #34
          Continued from last post above ↑

          This is the second of a number of excerpts from the NOTES section of Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]

          Nota Bene: There are references to many illustrations, graphs, etc. in the written testimony and notes; however, none of such was reproduced in the text that I copied from the PDF file, so we can only imagine them by virtue of what Daniel B. Botkin has written about them in the printed text of his testimony. Ditto re Botkin's reference to his having underlined certain texts below; there is no underling in what has survived in the text I now have in my iMac Pages. -JR]
          In the 1980s, I worked closely with climatologist Stephen Schneider and we often gave talks at the same events. Steve, one of the leaders of the modern concern about a possible human-induced global warming, also said that you should never use short-term weather events to infer climate change. I agreed with these experts, and therefore was taken aback by the overall tone of the new White House Climate Change Assessment, which begins:
          Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska. This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.

          Based on what my climatologist colleagues had always told me, the Assessment should have begun instead by stating: “Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing weather-related changes” outside of their personal recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska.”

          The Assessment concludes that opening paragraph by stating:
          This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country. Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.

          These opening paragraphs and several that follow directly communicate to the reader, both lay and professional, that human-induced global warming in an immediate disaster. For example:
          Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.

          Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth’s climatic trends. Long-term, independent records from weather stations, satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all confirm that our nation, like the rest of the world, is warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.

          To be scientifically accurate, these paragraphs should instead have been written (my changes noted by underlining [see above NB note at top of this post -JR]):
          Other weather changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.

          Scientists who study weather and climate change point out that short-term, including several decades and longer, changes in weather do not confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth's climatic trends.

          These opening statements are directly followed by:
          Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities. The observed warming and other climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every region of our country and throughout our economy. Some of these changes can be beneficial over the short run, such as a longer growing season in some regions and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes. But many more are detrimental, largely because our society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have had, not the rapidly changing climate we now have and can expect in the future. In addition, climate change does not occur in isolation. Rather, it is superimposed on other stresses, which combine to create new challenges.

          The assertions in this paragraph are based on the forecasts from climate models and from temperature records. However, Figure 1 shows that the climate models greatly exaggerate the rate and amount of temperature change and are not making forecasts that come even close to fitting the data.

          Furthermore, Figure 1 also shows that the average Earth temperature in the past 30 years has changed very little if at all, contradicting the assertions on the first page of the Assessment.


          Figure 1: Climate model forecasts compared to real world temperature observations (From John Christy, University of Alabama and Alabama State Climatologist. Reproduced with permission from him.)[/i]

          The Assessment further attributes the supposed climatic warming to human activities that are releasing greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Therefore the claimed disaster is our fault. But recent evidence shows that temperature change is not tracking the increase in carbon dioxide.

          The gas has increased from 370 ppm to just over 400ppm, 8 percent, between year 2000 and year 2014 (Figure 2), while the temperature has changed either only slightly or not at all, depending on how one does the analysis (Figure 3). Instead, temperature change tracks closely changes in the energy output from the sun (Figure 4).

          Figure 2. Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 measurements

          Figure 3. Earth Surface Temperature Departure from 1950-1980 Average

          Figure 4. Correlation Between Solar Irradiance and Poleward flux of energy.


          Thus the Assessment’s early statements about the dangerous climate change have to do with a hypothetical, not a real, world.

          The current evidence from scientific observations show that Earth’s temperature has not changed very much, if at all, since the start of the new century, while carbon dioxide has increased considerably.

          Given these facts, the basic opening assertions of the new U.S. Climate Change Assessment are about a hypothetical world, not a real world, and must be taken as a “what if” rather than “what is”. Therefore the dire consequences forecast in the Assessment cannot be taken as reliable, nullifying many, if not most, of the ecological and biological implications the Assessment makes heavy use of.

          To be continued...
          Last edited by John Reece; 06-01-2014, 08:23 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            I am going to abort my tedious and amateurish efforts to present Daniel B. Botkin's WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014, because it is all presented complete with illustrations here.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lao tzu
              I let them speak with their full authority, which is far more substantial absent the debilitation occasioned by delusions of divine inspiration. I understand there's an essential religious component attached to the high view, one that I would never ask you to reject.
              And I understand that there's an essentially religious component to the global warmist view:

              It's a religion of paycheck and precedent, and the solemn duty of never having to have been seen a fool, nor to be asked to think too hard, nor to have to fight hard for anything true. I'm going to have to emphatically ask you to reject before I accept you as someone I shouldn't send to jail, much less accept as a Christian. Repentance needs to be more serious and comprehensive for me to take it seriously after this level of commitment to sin.

              But that wasn't the tenor of my comment.

              Here we're speaking of empirical data, data that can be checked, cross-checked via re-measurement and analyzed directly and independently.


              I've pulled GISS data and done the latter myself. I've investigated the correction factors and separate climate forcing factors in order to judge the papers that I've read, gleaned from the academic literature. There is no substitute for this hard science to be found trolling through political blogs and partisan think tanks.
              Have you ever heard of Climate Audit?

              Originally posted by Climate Audit
              As the table shows, while GISS says 2007 was the hottest year on record, it was also the second highest year with estimated and/or unavailable temperature data.

              To summarize what I am seeing from the GHCN data: (1) the number of stations / records has been dropping dramatically in recent years and (2) with that drop the quality of the record-keeping has also dropped dramatically because we are seeing a corresponding rise in estimated annual temperatures and/or insufficient data to calculate an annual temperature. Using this data, GISS is showing that the temperature anomaly in recent years is the highest recorded in the historical record.
              So, your precious, cross-checkable GISS data is....useless, and probably tainted. Do you count that site as partisan or political?

              Geologists do not so much dismiss young earthers as ignore them, because their output is not merely insignificant, but recognizably intended as a distraction.
              Just as most people who've been around the globe a few times will similarly ignore any 'climate scientist' that isn't an actual weatherman.

              the vast majority of climate skeptics, including all of those you've cited, at the expense of a reputation in your own field you've spent most of your lifetime developing.

              That is why I've spoken up now, because you're embarrassing yourself in a way we all know is an occupational hazard for academics when we speak outside our specialties, and I'd rather you didn't. I enjoy reading your analyses of Biblical issues, even when you're investigating unusual hypotheses. I remember fondly the help you've given me finding sources in the past. And even if you decide to continue with this quixotic quest, I'll continue to do so.
              Being a willing shill for a movement that habitually presents lies and gross exaggerations as serious research in a public forum needs something a little more substantial than concern trolling before I'll even consider taking you seriously, or not throwing you in jail with the Michael Milkens and Bernie Madoffs of the world once our side comes to power.
              Last edited by Epoetker; 06-02-2014, 12:06 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                And I understand that there's an essentially religious component to the global warmist view:

                It's a religion of paycheck and precedent, and the solemn duty of never having to have been seen a fool, nor to be asked to think too hard, nor to have to fight hard for anything true. I'm going to have to emphatically ask you to reject before I accept you as someone I shouldn't send to jail, much less accept as a Christian. Repentance needs to be more serious and comprehensive for me to take it seriously after this level of commitment to sin.
                Since when has Lao been a Christian?

                Comment


                • #38
                  This was interesting to read. (I have reservations to people who start the selling of the carbon credits).

                  If you have a lot of money you can buy a lot of carbon credits - have more right to waste.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                    Thanks for your response, lao tzu; you have prompted me to broaden my sources of information.

                    John
                    Dear John,

                    That's quite heartening. I could ask for nothing more.

                    I should point out that one should begin with the technical reports published by the IPCC. The Fifth Assessment Report is currently underway. There is no better source for summaries of the scientific data. The Physical Science Basis contains exactly the information you say you haven't seen:

                    I have seen no evidence that said [carbon emissions] effect is more than negligible.
                    You've clearly heard some truly vile things about the IPCC, things that are patently, and even recklessly, untrue, things that would normally qualify as libelous were it not for the fact that the targets are scientists. That's because scientists are soft targets; they regard answering criticism that's essentially political, rather than technical, as an enormous waste of time away from their research. They prefer to spend their time in labs, not in courtrooms, writing scientific papers, not reading legal briefs.

                    Tol, Pielke, and Botkin — whose testimony before the House you've cited — apparently feel otherwise. Understand this was a political venue, called into order by a committee that balanced one witness from the 97 percent against three from the fringe 3 percent. Where are the other 96 experts to unbias this testimony?

                    Their information is not information. Their criticism is not scientific. Actual criticisms of methods, models, and analyses show up in the literature. Theirs doesn't. People looking to support views that can't be supported scientifically turn to the popular press, and Congress.

                    Though I don't recommend wasting time away from the IPCC reports, as this thread topic is The "Myth" of the Climate Change 97 Percent, which is anything but mythical, you might be interested in today's response to the House testimony from the authors of the original figure.

                    Republican witness admits the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real

                    Tol, in particular, has been repeatedly debunked.
                    These comments are consistent with Tol's own admission that he took a "destructive" approach toward our paper rather than try and replicate our results. We even went as far as to create a public webpage where anybody can review and rate the same abstracts as we did to make replication as easy as possible.

                    In fact, the Environmental Research Letters reviews included 24 critiques and suggestions regarding how Tol could improve his paper. Tol reports that after two additional rejections, he finally found a journal to publish his paper. It will be interesting to see if he addressed the 24 Environmental Research Letters reviewer critiques, or if he simply shopped a flawed paper around until finding a publisher willing to overlook its shortcomings.

                    As ever, Jesse

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Note: the following was written before I saw the latest lao tzu post above↑

                      Dear Jesse,

                      I have been pondering how to respond to your last letter to me. I was awake half the past night and am nearly a basket case now given my many infirmities; however, your missives are on my mind so I will try to express what I think.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Dear John,

                      Someone, recently, complained of substanceless ad hominem arguments. I believe it was you.

                      How many investigations are necessary to dispel the East Anglia fraud myth? There have been seven or so now, not that just reading the emails wasn't sufficient.
                      Investigations by whom? My impression is the the entire scientific establishment; that is, the organized bodies that are on the receiving end of huge financial benefits from government grants and other forms of government funding. So I am totally unimpressed with however many people and organizations support and defend the establishment consensus.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      But okay, bring on your personal objections and we'll look at them, too. Al Gore is certainly a cheerleader, but he uses good data for the most part. His major fault is neglecting the time frames for the effects he's publicizing. For example, he shouldn't conflate the expected rise in sea level from Greenland, expected this century, with that from Antarctica, which won't begin to become an issue until the next.
                      I have watched and listened to Al Gore ever since he became a U. S. Senator. I would consider it a waste of my precious little bit of energy to respond to your charitable view of him as using "good data for the most part".

                      I note that you did not mention Michael Mann; that's just as well, as his day will come when his lawsuit against National Review et al finally runs it course in a court of law.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Have you looked? Have you read the IPCC reports? If you haven't seen the evidence, it's not because it hasn't been available, and hasn't been increasing over time. I was a climate skeptic, so to speak, in the 80s. The data that was lacking then is not lacking now, and in following that data, my opinions have changed.
                      No I have not read the IPCC reports; however I am aware of how they were produced and have some knowledge about some of the key people who have been involved in the production of the reports ― none of whom to my knowledge have ever stepped forward to correct any of the countless errors and wild exaggerations published by news media promoting the AGW theory.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Absolutely I dismiss those reports, and so should you. How on Earth could it be true when 2010 was the warmest year on record? When every year since 2000 has been warmer than the baseline average of the past 50 years?
                      You are referring to the reports that on average there has been no global warming for the past approximately 16-18 years. Regarding that, see here.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      But I'll go further and clue you in on how you've been misled. Climate change is measured using rolling averages of between 10 to 15 years. You see the "September 1996" figure? That's how cherry picking is done. The climate change signal is smaller than natural year-to-year variation, or even intra-year variation, which is why we look instead at rolling averages. An attempt to dismiss recent warming via comparison to September 1996 is equivalent to saying it can't be winter because it's warmer this morning than it was last night. It makes no sense because it's measuring the wrong time frame. People speaking of an individual month or year are speaking of weather, not climate, and when they do so, it pays to look more closely at their motivations.
                      You are misconstruing the reports in question, which are not a matter of "[p]eople speaking of an individual month or year" or making the temperature during the month of September 1996 a point of comparison; rather it is a matter of marking the beginning of a period of many multiple years of time over which period on average there has been no significant increase in global warming. Not all such reports mark September 1996 as the approximate date of the onset of the "pause" in global warming. See here.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      You're aware, I hope, that Roy Spencer is on the board of the Marshall Institute and associated with the Heartland Institute and ICECAP.
                      The mere mention of the Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, and ICECAP is supposed to impress me ... how? Are these facts supposed to discredit Roy Spencer and render him untrustworthy as a eminent climate scientist? Guilt by association? What are the organizations you mention guilty of? Conservatism? Christianity?

                      Your following comment is in response to this: "Are you assuming that the IPCC reports are comparable to the Biblical Scriptures?"

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Hardly. One of them is far more reliable, with their original data having been subjected to meaningful peer review the other is essentially lacking.

                      I'm not a Christian. I hold a strong view of your scriptures, rather than a high view. I let them speak with their full authority, which is far more substantial absent the debilitation occasioned by delusions of divine inspiration. I understand there's an essential religious component attached to the high view, one that I would never ask you to reject.
                      "[T]he debilitation occasioned by delusions of divine inspiration." That's a strong view, alright; about as strong as the faith that the IPCC reports are infallible productions of an unquestionable scientific consensus.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      But that wasn't the tenor of my comment.

                      Here we're speaking of empirical data, data that can be checked, cross-checked via re-measurement and analyzed directly and independently. I've pulled GISS data and done the latter myself. I've investigated the correction factors and separate climate forcing factors in order to judge the papers that I've read, gleaned from the academic literature. There is no substitute for this hard science to be found trolling through political blogs and partisan think tanks.
                      I decided to look for scientists who are neither group-thinking toe-the-party-line devotees of the IPCC reports on the one hand, or political bloggers or members of partisan think tanks, on the other hand. I found Judith Curry and Daniel B. Botkin, whose testimonies before Senate (Curry) and House (Botkin) committees affirm and support all that I know and believe about climate change.

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Geologists do not so much dismiss young earthers as ignore them, because their output is not merely insignificant, but recognizably intended as a distraction. Mut. mut. the vast majority of climate skeptics, including all of those you've cited, at the expense of a reputation in your own field you've spent most of your lifetime developing.
                      What do you think of the "output" of Judith Curry and Daniel B. Botkin, whose testimonies are essentially in harmony with all the people whose "output" I have posted in this forum?

                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      That is why I've spoken up now, because you're embarrassing yourself in a way we all know is an occupational hazard for academics when we speak outside our specialties, and I'd rather you didn't.
                      I am not an academic, nor have I ever pretended to be a scholar. I am just someone who ― since I was thoroughly infused with the Holy Spirit in 1952, during my second year in college ― has been on a life-long quest to know and understand what is actually true and real. With regard to academics, I would compare favorably all the biblical scholars I have learned to respect, with climate scientists such as Daniel B. Botkin and Judith Curry, with whom I am not embarrassed to be in agreement.

                      Cordially,

                      John
                      Last edited by John Reece; 06-15-2014, 10:43 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Global Warming will bring about the Zombie Apocalypse. It's true! The science is settled!

                        Source: http://jimmyakin.com/2008/02/global-warming.html

                        A new study by scientists has suggested that zombie attacks might increase if the current projections of global warming are realized. “If the earth gets warmer, it means longer springs, summers, and falls, and shorter winters,” said John Carpenter-Romero, Ph.D., a zombie-ologist who co-authored the study. “And shorter winters means more time for the undead to prey on the populace.”

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        also:
                        http://zombieresearchsociety.com/archives/23722

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

                          A comment by a true climate scientist (color emphasis added):
                          I’ll see your 97 percent, and raise you 3 percent

                          May 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

                          The meme that 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is, well, apparently whatever you want them to believe, is getting really annoying. John Kerry is so clueless about this issue it’s downright embarrassing. Does he really think we can do something that will measurably affect global temperatures without killing millions of poor people in the process? Really?

                          Or maybe that’s the ultimate goal?

                          As a published climate scientist myself, I would wager that 97% of climate scientists can’t agree on anything.

                          Except maybe it’s warmer now than 100 years ago (so what? I’ll agree to that).

                          Or, that humans are at least partly responsible for some of that warming (so what? I’ll agree to that, too).

                          But I think a more significant statistic — one that doesn’t rely on opinions, but on facts — is that 100% of climate scientists don’t know how much of the warming in the last 50-100 years is natural versus human-caused.

                          They dance around this issue with weasel words and qualitative language. Because they don’t know. They can say “most” warming is human caused…but how do they know that? They don’t.

                          You see, we have no idea how much natural climate variations figure into the climate change equation.

                          For example, this proxy reconstruction of past temperatures suggests climate change is the rule, not the exception:
                          See image here.

                          And this is the stumbling block that will be in everyone’s way until we understand and quantify the causes of natural climate change.

                          A majority of climate scientists (60%, 80%, or even 97%) might “believe” this or that, but until they figure out just how much of climate change is naturally-induced, we will never know how much is due to humans. All that statistic measures is how inbred the climate research community has become.

                          And since there is no fingerprint of human- versus natural-caused warming, we might never know the answer to this central question. We might have to just sit back and watch where global temperature go[es] from now on.

                          And if the climate models are ever going to be proved correct, dramatic warming is going to have to get started pretty darn soon.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            100% Consensus Finally Achieved on Climate

                            From WattsUpWithThat:
                            We all know that the bogus “97% consensus” number has been the staple bullet point of non-thinking climate activists everywhere. Now, I’m sure they will be thrilled to see that we have proof (with video) of a 100 percent consensus on climate.

                            In the video below, about 1 minute and 20 seconds in, Senator Jeff Sessions asks the $64,000 question of Democrat invited EPA wonks during the Senate EPW hearing on Wednesday. He said:
                            The President on November 14th 2012 said, ‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.’ And then on May 29th last year he also said – quote – ‘We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’ close quote

                            So I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand.

                            Watch the response here
                            Senator Sessions then said: “Thank you. The record will reflect no one raised their hand.”

                            Wow. That’s a 100 percent consensus that the President’s words were not an “accurate statement”.

                            What a great vote of confidence on display.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            160 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            400 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            114 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            198 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            379 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X