by cantleave 153 Replies latest social current
Yep - change the subject without answering my question on the point you just raised.
Last I checked we're still on the same subject, and I havn't made any claims that there is any AGW consensus, however, you did. As far as I can tell, you havn't substantiated the claim that there is a 97% AGW consensus amongst climate scientists. The majority are actually mute on the specific point at present.
@tt2c
Projecting from data availiable, the reality is there will eventually be another ice age, whether any human exists on this planet or not. For this reason, taking an extremist or religiously apocolyptical position over this issue doesn't make much sense, and I don't understand how folks can argue that altering our activities is going to somehow change this destiny
In summary - climate has always changed, we can't do anything about it and an Ice Age is coming so why bother.
What tt2c doesn't mention along with the graph he posted is the thoughts of the author of the study. Dr Jean Robert Petit is possibly the foremost expert on ice cores and this study is one of the most cited geo-sciences paper of all time. He says:
A salient correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature suggested from the 150-kyrs record was fully confirmed for the four climatic cycles with an almost perfect covariance between temperature and CO2.
All climatic records cited above contain periodicity at orbital frequencies (typically, 100, 40 and 20 kyrs), conforming with the marine records, as well as the astronomical theory of climate (Milankovich theory).
Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases [carbon dioxide and methane] seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
With industrial development and anthropologic activity, massive burning of fossil carbon as well as intensification of agriculture released exponential amounts of CO2 and CH4 over the last 150 years. Present atmospheric composition well surpasses all maximum concentrations from the ice records over the last 420 kyrs (30% more CO2, 300% more CH4).
http://in-cites.com/papers/Jean-RobertPetit.html
I think it is safe to say he is one of the 97% consensus of climate scientists which tt2c denies exist.
As far as I can tell, you havn't substantiated the claim that there is a 97% AGW consensus amongst climate scientists
I already did - Page 4 of this thread.
Although it is valid to crtiticize methodology, it is also possible to attempt to replicate results. If you have an alternative peer-reviewed paper which shows climate scientists are not in near-unanimous consensus then please share with the group. (Of course the 3% deniers also serve to destroy the conspiracy myth and provide evidence of the scientific method being alive and well - it just so happens they are almost certainly wrong)
Aside from Doran/Zimmerman finding that 75/77 climate scientists attribute rising temps to human activity there are several other similar studies with similar outcomes analysed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
1 - A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
2 - A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
I hope that answers your question. Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.
Now your facts or evidence showing an alternative number for the position of climate scientists please.
In summary - climate has always changed, we can't do anything about it and an Ice Age is coming so why bother.
Nice try, that's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying that advances in science are really the only thing that is going to save us from a destiny that we cannot alter, and that is where our focus should be, rather than dumb wasteful ideas or regression of civilization.
thanks for clarifying that "we can't do anything about it" is substantially different from "a destiny we can't alter"
that just leaves your alternative consensus number and your thoughts on Petit's position on climate science?
I just listened to a good programme on Radio 4 about climate change. The guests pretty much agreed that confidence in the climate change science is growing but that fewer people are taking it seriously.
I just listened to a good programme on Radio 4 about climate change. The guests pretty much agreed that confidence in the climate change science is growing but that fewer people are taking it seriously.
Now that is funny! LOL.
as usual these threads die when the deniers are asked specific questions that don't have answers on the blogosphere
much easier to paste an ice core graph and claim climate has always changed than it is to actually read what the author says about his own work
much easier to deny the 97% consensus or criticise the methodology used to verify it than to provide an alternative view
much easier to paste a simplistic media graphic than to read and understand the source data for yourself
At a closed-door meeting in Stockholm this week, each paragraph of a document written by scientists is being projected onto large screens. Delegations from scores of nations participate in the editing: Words will be substituted, emphasis will be added, entire sentences may well be inserted or deleted.
After four days of haggling, the media will be summoned by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a news conference on Friday where the final version of the document—known as the "Summary for Policymakers"—will be released along with a solemn announcement that "science" has spoken.
EPA
Members of the IPCC group speak during the meeting in Stockholm on Monday.
Every six years the IPCC publishes a mammoth report purporting to summarize and evaluate the latest climate-change research. The "Summary for Policymakers," probably about 30 pages long, will be widely read and commented upon by politicians, bureaucrats and the media. Other parts of the full IPCC report, which are much longer and whose contributors include hundreds of volunteer scientists and others, will be published in the weeks and months to come.
The IPCC's 2007 climate findings were rather vague. In the opinion of the 60 individuals who wrote the chapter "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change," "most" of the rise in global average temperature since the mid-20th century was "very likely" caused by human-generated greenhouse-gas emissions. Recent leaks suggest that the 2013 report will twirl the knob a little further: The world will apparently be advised that the (entirely subjective) certainty level among IPCC experts that their above opinion is correct has risen to 95% from 90%. Whether the IPCC will acknowledge and address the recent, 15-year pause in global temperatures remains to be seen.
When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman since 2002, has repeatedly said that the IPCC bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed source material. Yet many of the sources cited by the 3,000-page 2007 IPCC report were press releases, news clippings, discussion papers and unpublished master's and doctoral-degree theses. The IPCC's highly embarrassing, since-retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 came from a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication.
The U.N. has charged the IPCC with weighing the evidence on climate change in an objective manner. The problem is that numerous IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change. This relationship raises a legitimate question about their objectivity.
The examples are legion. Donald Wuebbles, one of the two leaders of the introductory first chapter of the Working Group 1 report (a draft of which may be released next Monday), has been writing awareness-raising climate change reports for the activist Union of Concerned Scientists for a decade. Another chapter of the full IPCC report, "Open Oceans," is led by Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who has written a string of reports with titles such as "Pacific in Peril" for Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer, in charge of another chapter of the IPCC report, "Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities," advises the Environmental Defense Fund (after having spent more than two decades on its payroll).
University of Maryland scientist Richard Moss is a former fulltime WWF vice president, while Jennifer Morgan used to be the WWF's chief climate change spokesperson. Both are currently IPCC review editors—a position that's supposed to ensure that feedback from IPCC external reviewers is addressed in an even-handed manner.
My own examination of the 2007 IPCC report found that two-thirds of its 44 chapters included at least one individual with ties to the WWF. Some were former or current employees, others were members of a WWF advisory panel whose purpose is to heighten the public's sense of urgency around climate change.
In a sense, the IPCC conducts the equivalent of a trial. The organization is supposed to be policy-neutral: Its job is to decide whether or not human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are dangerous to the climate. Rajendra Pachauri is the chief judge.
Mr. Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and recently accepted an International Advertising Association "green crusader" award. He is an aggressive advocate for emissions reduction and carbon taxes.
In late 2011, Mr. Pachauri told the Guardian newspaper that an independent review of the IPCC "found our work solid and robust." This is not so. The review, conducted in 2010 by a committee of the InterAcademy Council identified "significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC's assessment process." It said "significant improvements" were necessary—and criticized the IPCC for claiming to have "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence."
Journalists routinely make the IPCC sound impressive. A 2010 editorial in Nature called it "the gold standard for independent scientific assessment." The following year, a British news article described the IPCC as nonpartisan, objective, and scientifically-based. The evidence does not bear this out.
Ms. Laframboise is a Canadian journalist who writes on climate matters at NoFrakkingConsensus.com.
Ms. Laframboise makes her living blogging in opposition to climate change research. As a piece of investigative journalism her article is laughable - read it again - it is full of opinion and innuendo but lacking any substantive information.
