Growing certainty of global warming
Creationists commonly appear to also be anti-science when it comes to the human contribution to global warming (see Intelligent design/creationism and climate change). Locally Christian News New Zealand will often copy climate change denial material from their parent US creationist website Uncommon Descent. Now, the Christian Apologetics website Thinking Matters is getting into the act with Global Warming a New Religion. (Isn’t it strange how fundamentalists use the “religious” label to discredit belief systems they don’t like?)
This article doesn’t even bother misrepresenting the scientific data to attack the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. The author seems happy enough to attribute public concern on the issue to communism, humanism, belief in an ancient earth, and disbelief in any “world wide flood hypothesis.”
Discrediting the science
When it comes to science he wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he laments that “in current culture scientists are the priests and the popular religion is scientism” and assures us that “scientists are fallible and often prone to error.” (Of course he doesn’t disclose any more reliable alternative). On the other hand he attempts to discredit the science of climate change by assuring us that “the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) (is) chiefly composed of bureaucrats instead of scientists.” That is – scientists weren’t involved in deriving this science!
Of course this is a completely data-free statement – but it’s worth exposing it because the charge of bureaucracy does find receptive listeners. I am the last person to deny the bureaucracy is a human problem and certainly railed against its deadening hand during my working career. It has been a major problem with science funding in this country.
It’s not hard to check Thinking Matter’s claim. Of course the IPCC has administrators, secretaties, managers, and soi on. But they don’t sammarise and review the scientific literature – this is done by experts. Just go to the IPCC website and check the names and affiliations of the experts involved. Have a look at the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. The relevant section for the science is Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”.
Of course a large number of climate scientists were involved in reviewing the scientific literature, preparing the IPCC report and then reviewing the document so I can give only a small sample here. I list below those experts with New Zealand affiliations who were involved. I invite the author of the Thinking Matters article to point out to me which of these are the bureaucrats he referred to and why he considers such a group, or their institutes, have little scientific authority.
Contributors
BODEKER, Greg: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
FITZHARRIS, Blair: Department of Geography, University of Otago, NZ
HARRIS, Glen: Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, UK, New Zealand
LASSEY, Keith: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
LOWE, David C.: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
MANNING, Andrew C.: University of East Anglia, UK, New Zealand
MANNING, Martin: IPCC WGI TSU, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, USA, New Zealand
MULLAN, A. Brett: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
O’SHAUGHNESSY, Kath: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
PRINN, Ronald: Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, New Zealand
RENWICK, James A.: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
WRATT, David: National Climate Centre, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
Reviewers
ALLOWAY, Brent: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, NZ
BARRETT, Peter: Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ
BODEKER, Greg: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
BOWEN, Melissa: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
CRAMPTON, James: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, NZ
GRAY, Vincent: Climate Consultant, NZ
LASSEY, Keith: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
LAW, Cliff: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
MACLAREN, Piers: NZ Forest Research Institute, NZ
MULLAN, A. Brett: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
NODDER, Scott: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
RENWICK, James A.: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
SALINGER, M. James: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
SHULMEISTER, James: University of Canterbury, NZ
WILLIAMS, Paul W.: Auckland University, NZ
WRATT, David: National Climate Centre, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, NZ
See also:
Climate change controversy
Spreading doubt on climate change
The Darwinian behaviour of creationists
Climate change: the science – public disconnect
The real climate change swindle?
Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
Open Parachute 
I think you’re missing the point of the whole bureaucrats argument… the biggest argument that man-made global warming proponents have is that the “scientific community” is more or less unanimous in it’s support for this theory, while it’s just a bunch of irrational nuts that oppose it. They prop up the example of the “2500” strong IPCC as the overwhelming number of “scientists” in favor of this theory, as opposed to the few hundred against it.
The fact is that MOST of those 2500 “scientists” are actually the very administrators and secretaries that you mentioned. There are only a few hundred real scientists in the body, but their numbers are inflated and made to look larger when the IPCCs strength is cited. In reality, there are just as many qualified scientists against the theory as there are for it, int the IPCC. Here’s a small list of the prominent ones, there are many more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Not to mention the recent LIE exposed about himalayan glaciers in their documents, that they have admitted themselves.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/25/steve-janke-climate-panel-s-credibility-melts-over-glacier-goof.aspx
Or the leaked emails showing that they FAKED the climate change data.
As for your graph, you really think .5 degrees over 50 years is cause run screaming out the door? Tiny climate changes are part of the HISTORY of our planet, climate has never been constant.
The fact is there are plenty of real environmental problems out there, but “Man made global warming” is a ploy distract from them and divert environmentalism to a corrupt ANTI-HUMAN agenda, where it’s literally a crime/sin/taxable offence to BREATH or make a campfire. This will ultimately allow governments to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives in the name of “climate control”. Just look at the cap and trade bill … climate cops can come and inspect your home AT WILL, without a warrant, send you the bill, and kick you out of your home(!), for not tightening your belt on this imaginary sin. Does it ever talk about planting trees?? NO. It’s about more taxation and stealing our property rights.
LikeLike
No Rob – I think you missed the point. This post showed that the critics making the claim you are were way off beam by giving some examples for New Zealand.
The rest of your comment is rather typical of deniers – a conspiracy theory. I guess that’s one way of avoid discussing the actual science. it’s also a way of diverting attention from the science and proposing a wild explanation of why the science doesn’t support deniers claims.
Rather like the whole evolution conspiracy the creationists fall back on.
For my comment on Glaciergate have a look at I thought the award for mistakes was mine!.
LikeLike
Your rebuttal for GlacierGate is absurd… you’re the “denier” here (cute labelling btw, associating any opposition / skepticism with a term that has Holocaust overtones).
There is a world of difference in messing up your name without spell check, and making the absurd claim that a block of solid ice that is HUNDREDS of feet thick will melt in a few decades. Oh they apologized and “investigated” it did they? No, actually they were BUSTED, and are trying to cover their tracks. It’s like a thief “apologizing” after being caught red-handed and promising he’ll get to bottom of the case, yessir, right away! How can you “mistakenly” put in such a huge claim? If all the data is so carefully verified, how could such a massive conclusion just slip in? There is no rational way that it can be just a typo … what did they miss a zero, did they actually mean 20500?
Labelling something a conspiracy theory doesn’t refute it. In case you haven’t noticed, the “conspiracy theory” on Watergate was true. As was the one claiming governments performed hallucinogenic experiments on soldiers. Or the Enron “conspiracy theory”, or so many others. Want a recent example? How about the whole Swine flu bust? Ah I thought we’d have about 100000 fatalities by now? NOPE. Turns out the WHO officials had “interests” in the pharma giants. But of course the IPCC is different, because yay, you say so.
The fact is that politicians and global bodies have shown time and again how open they are to being lobbied and controlled, you are the naive one to label any questioning of their motives.
LikeLike
The parallel with my mistake was clear. My misspelling of my name in no way discredited the rest of my paper (although motivated people might like to claim that). Neither does this mistake about the glaciers in any way discredit the conclusions of the IPCC (or the scientific findings in the refereed literature which they are summarising).
Labelling of course doesn’t refute something – a point you should perhaps take to heart. But, of course there are people who seem psychologically committed to conspiracy theories – particularly when they are not appropriate (as in your “swine flu” case).
You are clearly emotional about all this.
I suggest you actually have a read of some of the IPCC reports (A daunting prospect, I admit. An easier alternative is the book Climate Change: 101 which I briefly describe in A good climate change book).
The impression you will get from the reading is that these documents are very scientific. They are not alarmist. They are balanced, understated and conservative (for which I think they can be criticised).
Very different to the alarmist, conspiracy theorism of the deniers.
LikeLike
You give no real proof, just more labels. Then you tell me to read some 10000 page documents that you probably haven’t read yourself, instead of highlighting the salient points. How about you refute one of the points I made, instead of hedging the issue with 100 hour diversions?
Yes, I am emotional about this issue, because it affects me and my future generations critically, as every responsible citizen of this planet should be. There is nothing wrong with that, and you are not convincing anyone by pretending to be the calm rational intellectual here. Your blog is filled with emotional sarcastic rants as much as normal posts.
Oh and here’s another point for credibility. Your go-to guy for global warming isn’t even a climatologist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri#cite_note-climatescience-2
That’s right ladies and gentleman, the HEAD of the IPCC is a man that hasn’s studied a single PAGE of climate science in his life. He is a RAILWAY ENGINEER. He studied electrical engineering, then Economics. Not a single legitimate qualification in climate science. And yet he is more reliable than the dozens of *climatologists* I posted in that wiki link earlier. Would you care to refute that sir, or do you have nothing but labels and pointless reports/books to point to that no one has the time or inclination to bore themselves with. How about you give me a single point from those books or reports that refutes the series of claims I just made here?
LikeLike
Oh and also, your parallel, as I pointed out earlier fails miserably. Misspelling your name doesn’t invalidate your report, that is called a typo… but twisting scientific data in a scientific report very much DOES. That is in no way or form a typo.
Specially when the data is hotly contested to begin with.
LikeLike
Misspelling my name doesn’t invalidate my paper – correct – although some motivated people might claim it does.
Just as the mistake with the WWF reference (should IPCC have referred to “grey” literature) does not invalidate the basic conclusions of the IPCC reviews – although some motivated people claim it does.
After all, that mistake did not make it’s way into the synthesis report for policy makers, did it?
Now, you might feel happy with personal attacks on the integrity of the scientists doing the work, or the Panel officials, but you do have to face the facts that the IPCC conclusions do not arise from any individual like the panel chairman. They arise from extensive reviews of the scientific literature.
That review process (especially the committee nature of it) has produced a very conservative document. However, it is one that has great authority with governments.
The critics (especially those who fall into the class of deniers) actually make huge mistakes. one should be very careful about accepting anything they say without proper checking.
LikeLike
Labelling something a conspiracy theory doesn’t refute it.
Labelling something a conspiracy theory doesn’t actually make it a conspiracy theory either.
In case you haven’t noticed, the “conspiracy theory” on Watergate was true.
Not applicable in your case.
The journalists involved didn’t rant about conspiracies.
They dug up information first and connected the dots.
This led to them realising that they had uncovered a conspiracy.
Their evidence was so strong that it toppled a government.
Their investigative journalism was so good that they got a Pulitzer Prize for it.
Nobody seems to be prepared to expose the “global warming” conspiracy.
Least of all you.
You are just doing a Gish Gallop of Denialist talking points.
You want to convince people that there’s a global scientific conspiracy?
Tell us how it works.
Connect the dots.
Do some detective work.
Otherwise, you just end up sounding like a ranting crank on the internet.
(shrug)
LikeLike
You do have to face the facts that the IPCC conclusions do not arise from any individual like the panel chairman. They arise from extensive reviews of the scientific literature.</
The same "extensive reviews" that allowed them to make ludicrous claims like glaciers melting? These reviews have no credibility. It's not just their personal integrity I question (though I'm surprised for someone pretending to be so literate and rational, you are naive enough to believe that no one ever has their own motives, which history has consistently shown)…. it's their qualifications. The Chairman is just an example, the whole org is full of non-climatologists. Their reviews don't count a hoot, most of these bureaucrats are completely unqualified … they only matter because the media blares their biased unqualified opinions as gospel.
That review process (especially the committee nature of it) has produced a very conservative document. However, it is one that has great authority with governments.
Conservative? The thing is ludicrous and alarmist, making wild predictions on a .5 degree average change in 50 years, then followed by the coldest winters in decades.
Not applicable in your case.
The journalists involved didn’t rant about conspiracies.
They dug up information first and connected the dots.
You want to convince people that there’s a global scientific conspiracy?
Tell us how it works.
Connect the dots.
Do some detective work.
People have been connecting the dots for years:
You are just doing a Gish Gallop of Denialist talking points.
You’re just doing a Gish Gallop of man-made global warming drones’ talking points. You have not refuted a single point I made, just consistently tossed the “denier” label around. How about you point to a single error from one of the climatologists I mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I’ve mentioned plenty of holes in your IPCC.
LikeLike
About that youtube video I posted, you can jump to 1:40:00 to get to the part about the man-made global warming.
It shows all the dubious hedging around the cap and trade bill in congress, how Al Gore stands to PERSONALLY profit from the carbon trading scheme, how draconian the provisions of this bill are, and how real climatologists (and not railroad engineers) with solid qualifications and credentials are in complete disagreement with the theory that a gas that composes less then 1% of our atmosphere could be responsible for any significant climate change.
LikeLike
Sounds like the typical conspiacy theory to me.
What’s your take pm 9/11?
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
It’s pointless talking to you… you never state any facts to dispute mine, your entire conversation is one giant attack ad hominem. Most people who read this thread will get a more balance view though. Take it easy, and learn to back your theories up better.
LikeLike
Simple question. What is your take on 9/11?
I ask because I notice that’s local forum is advancing a conspiracy on 9/11 as part of a discussion on climategate and the local attacks on our NIWA scientists.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Here’s what I believe on 9/11:
Pick the odd one out? Then read this:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_binladen01.htm
It’s pretty damn convenient he’s switched to audio tapes now huh? I don’t know who’s responsible, but it’s not always bad to question a ludicrously convenient explanation that allows us to launch a war in a completely unrelated but oil rich country.
LikeLike
You’re just doing a Gish Gallop of man-made global warming drones’ talking points.
Huh? Name one.
It shows all the dubious hedging around the cap and trade bill in congress, how Al Gore stands to PERSONALLY profit from the carbon trading scheme, how draconian the provisions of this bill are, and how real climatologists (and not railroad engineers) with solid qualifications and credentials are in complete disagreement with the theory that a gas that composes less then 1% of our atmosphere could be responsible for any significant climate change.
None of which answers my question.
Any conspiracy theorist can tell me the “why” part.
Conspiracy theorists LOVE to talk ENDLESSLY about the “why” part.
They’ve got that all figured out, yessiree!
😉
However, I want to know about the “how” part.
Not the “why”.
The “how”.
As in….”How do they do it”?
How does the global scientific conspiracy actually work?
Connect the dots.
How did “they” create a global scientific consensus on global warming?
You could start with NASA, for example.
Here’s what I believe on 9/11:
Hmm, so you’re a 9/11 Truther too?
Ok.
What’s your take on the whole JFK thing?
(As an aside, I want to give you bonus points for originality. You are the first conspiracy theorist that I have interacted with that felt that linking to a youtube video that was 2hrs 30min long was somehow a good idea. Wow.)
LikeLike
oooh conspiracy theorist. I’m hurt. more labels. this is old, you have no data, no facts, just labels. Oh i’m a “9/11 truther” now … no you’re a 9/11 denier. Just dispute that photo I put up. Simple question … do you claim that the Osama in picture E is in fact Osama Bin Laden. Simple question … no hedging, no personal attacks.
Is that Osama Bin Laden? Yes or No?
Because that is the only video of him conveniently confessing to the 9/11 attacks. Ever. No more diversions, how about you answer one of my questions. Otherwise the case rests.
LikeLike
Oh and you guys are the original ones lol ….linking me to 10000 page bland documents that would take hundreds of hours to drudge through. How about you just give me some quotes from it?
At least mine is only 2.5 hours long, and I even pointed out the exact 10 minute stretch you need to watch to get my point. Talk about lazy. And hypocritical.
LikeLike
Oh i’m a “9/11 truther” now … no you’re a 9/11 denier. Just dispute that photo I put up. Simple question … do you claim that the Osama in picture E is in fact Osama Bin Laden. Simple question … no hedging, no personal attacks.
Wha..?
Why are we suddenly talking about Osama Bin Laden?
LikeLike
What world do you live in? Because the government tells us that Osama is responsible for 9/11.
LikeLike
Because the government tells us that Osama is responsible for 9/11.
No, that’s not what I mean.
I mean why have you switched from talking about Osama when you’re supposed to be talking about a different conspiracy.
The whole global warming thing, remember?
Can we get back on track?
You’re just doing a Gish Gallop of man-made global warming drones’ talking points.
Huh? Name one.
(Still waiting)
I want to know about the “how” part.
Not the “why”.
The “how”.
As in….”How do they do it”?
How does the global scientific conspiracy actually work?
Connect the dots.
How did “they” create a global scientific consensus on global warming?
You could start with NASA, for example.
Oh, and what’s your take on the whole JFK thing?
(Just asking ’cause I’m curious. This is NOT an invitation for you to start going on about “magic bullets”, the KGB, “the grassy knoll”, etc.)
LikeLike
I think the point is that it requires a conspiracy theory mentality to accept the current denier claims about the IPCC, climategate, glaciergate, etc.
The same mentallity is required for the creationist/ID story – all scientists are in an “expelled”-type conspiracy.
Similarly, the 9/11 truthers require a huge conspiracy scenario.
So it’s not surprising to see several such conspiracies in the same individual.
This seems to be the case with some of the more active climate change deniers in NZ.
Given such an attitude such people are not going to consider evidence rationally. And I think that shows in the extreme arguments they put up and the emotion behind them.
They do seem to have a real thing against scientists and their evidence.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
We’ll have to start calling them global warming truthers before long.
LikeLike
So it’s not surprising to see several such conspiracies in the same individual.
I find people who believe in conspiracies fascinating.
I have no idea who Rob really is.
It’s entirely possible that he’s just a Poe.
Yet…people like him really exist.
It honestly would not surprise me at all if he was a JFK conspiracy theorist as well.
Think of that.
A trifecta!
(Could this be Rob on the phone? He calls himself Shaun but how do we really know? Hmm. The public has a right to know.)
Nor would it be unreasonable to guess that he’d be into Intelligent Design as well.
The same scientists that are lying to him about global warming are (naturally) lying about evolution as well.
Then we have the anti-vacc crowd.
“Them there doctors are in the pay of “Big Pharma”, they’re lying to you. THEY’RE LYING TO YOU.
DEMAND THE TROOOOTH!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!”
(pant,…pant,…deep breath)
Sorry about that.
:0
Got a little carried away.
I just, well, I love my country so much and…I,…I fear for Glenn Beck’s internal organs.
One of the best books on conspiracies that I have ever read (well, on one conspiracy at least) is Case Closed by Gerald Posner.
It’s a captivating autopsy report on how all the JFK conspiracy theories got started and how they in turn spawned a cottage industry of crappy books and vaccuous documentaries that “keep the pot boiling”.
LikeLike
@Cedric – Ask your buddy Ken why we’re talking about 9/11. Better yet, scroll your screen up a few inches. Oh, so it was your guy that went off on irrelevant tangents. Even after I refused to rise to his bait once, he forced the issue. I see. I was perfectly fine debating and crushing your so called scientific consensus on man-made global warming.
Also, you can laugh titteringly and make all the vacuous comparisons you want… fact is you STILL haven’t posted a single fact or refuted any of my claims. You diverted once again … is that or is that not Osama in pic E? . You keep laughing, yet don’t dispute my facts? You’re insane, a blind sheep… the proof is right there in front of you. Can you even deign to comment? No, just more self-comforting laughter. I pity you and your superiority complex… you don’t rely on facts or rational argument, just attacks.
@Ken – No … it takes a skeptic mentality, something every scientist should have. You act rational and science dependent, yet you blindly believe anything told to you by media.
@Andrew W – Call me whatever you want, I call you blind unthinking sheep that buys everything he’s told. Refute any of my facts … go on, try that picture about Bin Laden, since you guys claim it’s a “conspiracy”. Please tell me you think it’s him in that video, so I can get my turn to laugh.
LikeLike
Oh, so it was your guy that went off on irrelevant tangents.
No. He just wanted to find out if you believed in other conspiracy theories.
It was not an invitation for you to start talking about Osama.
You did that all by yourself.
People who are prepared to swallow one conspiracy theory are usually happy to swallow others.
They are like peanuts.
It’s hard to stop at just one.
It’s like me asking you about your take on JFK.
Something tells me (call it a hunch) that you think that the public has not been told the trooth about what REALLY happened in Dallas on that fateful day.
Go on, be a sport.
Throw us a bone and tell us what you think.
😉
Now back to global warming…
You remember?
Global warming?
(The whole Osama thing can be talked about some other time or other.)
You’re just doing a Gish Gallop of man-made global warming drones’ talking points.
Huh? Name one.
(Still waiting)
I want to know about the “how” part.
Not the “why”.
The “how”.
As in….”How do they do it”?
How does the global scientific conspiracy actually work?
Connect the dots.
How did “they” create a global scientific consensus on global warming?
You could start with NASA, for example.
LikeLike
Yes, and I answered him (and you), and obviously my proof owned you, because you started whining about switching back. Pathetic… bring up a topic, get owned, then whine that it wasn’t permission to talk about it? You guys amuse me, but I can’t waste more time with drones… the facts are there in front of you, dispute them, or continue to live with your heads up each others asses and be smug.
LikeLike
As for how “they” did it, it’s called Money … maybe you’ve heard of it?
You only cite government / govt funded / agencies funded by people that benefit from these thesis. Anyone at Nasa that has a contrary opinion would be fired. There’s people out there like that, scientists that were fired from govt. positions for disputing the official position.
I cite an equal number of independent and reliable researchers. How do “they” do it.
LikeLike
Yes, and I answered him (and you), and obviously my proof owned you, because you started whining about switching back.
No.
Ken just wanted to find out if you believed in another conspiracy theory.
It really and truely was not an invitation to start talking about Osama.
It’s called “an aside”.
Please don’t talk about Osama.
Pretty please.
Maybe some other time.
Ok?
As for how “they” did it, it’s called Money … maybe you’ve heard of it?
Money?
(…awkward pause…)
Wha..?
Could you maybe expand on this a little bit?
Just a little?
Anyone at Nasa that has a contrary opinion would be fired.
Oh, I see. So “they” control NASA by “threatening to fire people”.
Um…
Well…
How does that work?
“Threatening to fire people” sounds like a very short-range method of controlling all the scientists in NASA.
How come the scientists don’t complain or go on strike or something?
NASA has thousands of scientists on their payroll.
It’s not like they HAVE to work at NASA.
Anybody with the brains and expertise to get a job at NASA could get a job doing something else.
What about the dozens of retirees that leave NASA every year?
What keeps them silent?
They can’t be fired.
How does the conspiracy work?
……………………………………………………………..
(Off-topic aside)
So what is your take on the whole JFK thing?
(Just asking ’cause I’m curious. This is NOT an invitation for you to start going on about “magic bullets”, the KGB, “the grassy knoll”, etc.)
LikeLike
I realise that this thread has long since departed from reality but I’m amazed that the press and individuals think “Glaciergate” is a big cover up (or even particularly significant). The IPCC process is way too open for that. They even publish the AR4 reviews on their website.
Indeed, one of the reviewers for the Glaciergate section (Dr. Hayley Fowler from the University of Newcastle, see here for the reviewer comments for WGII Chapter 10) actually picked up the unjustified “2035” claim and suggested some proper peer reviewed papers to improve the relevant section. The report author’s response to Dr. Fowler’s comment was: “unable to get hold of the suggested references”. This response is clearly not adequate but it is more than conceivable that this point, which was one of the many suggested revisions, was missed rather than ignored deliberately to overstate the impact of a changing climate. Any half-decent cover up would have at least kept this review quiet and probably wouldn’t put it on their website.
LikeLike
Um ok, since you love NASA, here you go:
Look up Dr. John S. Theon. Ok, there you go, an ex *NASA* scientist that disputes global warming.
Of course, people that like you to live up their asses never look up the facts do they? They debate, then get owned by the facts, and still live in their own world.
The fact is there are PLENTY of instances like that. You laugh about it, without even bothering to look it up. YES, there are whistle blowers. But that’s not the point is it? You’re not looking for proof.
LikeLike
Here’s some more
”
A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that “There is a lot of money to be made in this… If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'”[158] Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux,[159] NASA’s Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[160]Accuracy in Media,[161] and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science.
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Funding_for_partisans
So there’s many more whistleblowers from NASA and IPCC. There goes your whole “how are there no dissenters?” argument. There are, but my CNN doesn’t tell me about them, so there aren’t duh.
LikeLike
& @Andy, this thread has not departed from reality, just your little cocoon of reality. State some facts, dispute my claims, or get out.
LikeLike
Now I’m wondering if Rob is a Moon landings conspiracy theorist, I’ve always wanted to psychoanalyze a Moon landings conspiracy theorist.
LikeLike
There goes your whole “how are there no dissenters?” argument.
No.
You don’t understand.
I am aware that there are dissenters.
That’s not my argument.
Duh.
🙂
Look up Dr. John S. Theon. Ok, there you go, an ex *NASA* scientist that disputes global warming.
Wow. One scientist.
(shrug)
How does this help you?
Do you have any idea how huge NASA is as an organisation?
Does Theon spill the beans on how people at NASA live with the “threat of being fired”?
Well no.
So why not?
Office memos?
Nope?
Any personal emails sent to him by disgruntled employees complaining at the draconian system of terror that stalks the corridors of NASA?
What! None?
Is it because he hasn’t worked there for 14 years and nobody even remembers him?
How come “the system” that failed to keep him silent doesn’t also fail for lots of others?
A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory.
So what?
How does this help you?
We’re talking about how the conspiracy works at NASA.
Not dissenters.
So there’s many more whistleblowers from NASA…
So why are you keeping silent about all the rest?
(….Are you part of the conspiracy too, perhaps?)
Do you realise how big NASA really is?
(It’s much. much bigger than your local Seven-Eleven, honest.)
We are dealing with thousands of people here.
Not a mere handful.
Try and get a sense of scale.
571 people joined NASA in 2008.
957 people left NASA during the same year.
People come and go from NASA all the time.
NASA is…….big.
Link.
Anyone at Nasa that has a contrary opinion would be fired.
Oh, I see. So “they” control NASA by “threatening to fire people”.
Um…
Well…
How does that work?
“Threatening to fire people” sounds like a very short-range method of controlling all the scientists in NASA.
How come the scientists don’t complain or go on strike or something?
NASA has thousands of scientists on their payroll.
It’s not like they HAVE to work at NASA.
Anybody with the brains and expertise to get a job at NASA could get a job doing something else.
What about the dozens of retirees that leave NASA every year?
(Ok, we have Theon from about 14 years ago)
What keeps them silent?
They can’t be fired.
What about disgruntled ex-employees.
Why don’t they blow the whistle on how NASA is run on the inside?
“Threating to fire people” would make for a poisonous working environment.
Where are the newbies that enter the system, are shocked by how the management treats them and so resign in protest?
How come they don’t go on strike?
How does the conspiracy work?
Connect the dots.
Don’t you see the practical problems with enforcing your conspiracy on such a large scale?
LikeLike
Any half-decent cover up would have at least kept this review quiet and probably wouldn’t put it on their website.
@ Andy
Ah, but that was part of their cunning plan all along.
Don’t you see?
Wheels within wheels, my friend.
Wheels within wheels.
Now I’m wondering if Rob is a Moon landings conspiracy theorist, I’ve always wanted to psychoanalyze a Moon landings conspiracy theorist.
@Andrew
Ooo, that’s a good one.
I’d forgotten to ask.
Yes, the moon landings!
No doubt the method NASA used to keep people quiet about that was by “threatening to fire people” too.
Then there’s “the money”.
Follow the money.
LikeLike
Do you know how to scroll? I made two posts, not one. There is a lot more than one scientist. Try Roy Spencer then. Or the ones from IPCC. You want me to look up more?
Oh, I see. So “they” control NASA by “threatening to fire people”.
Um…
Well…
How does that work?
Just like I said, money. Yes NASA is big, but a TINY fraction of them work on climatology. They’re actually a space agency remember? Rocket ships and all that?
Out of that tiny chunk, I’ve already got you two very high level and reliable CLIMATE EXPERTS, from the very organization you were claiming as some sort of holy grail of man made global warming consensus. You kept bringing NASA up, not I.
Don’t YOU see the holes in your stand? Let’s recap …
You: If there’s a conspiracy, how come there’s no dissenters?
Me: There are …multiple… here ya go.
You: But oh there’s others within Nasa that say they’re lying.
Me: Right, that’s the point, they’re whistleblowers. The people that have sold themselves are obviously gonna deny them. The fact is they’re there, and you acted like there wouldn’t be any, that there was consensus. You acted like that proof would matter to you.
You: HAHA No. Threaten to fire … lol people don’t care about money, or jobs, or research grants. Never mind that most of them wouldn’t be in related depts anyway and it isn’t necessary to “cover up” all thousands of them… why aren’t there 10 million witnesses? haha you fail I’m so smart.
Me:???
You: haha actually my mom told me I should be a standup comedian. Hey.. hey… what about the moon landing, and JFK… but don’t discuss it, no permission. hey, no stop with the facts, let me do this comedian schtick, my mom tells me I’m awesome.
LikeLike
Two more for you – Dr Joanne Simpson, and Michael Griffin. From NASA. look them up
LikeLike
And here’s Dr Roy Spencer’s very own site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/
That’s right, a Ph frickin D in climatology, an ex-NASA scientist like you asked, pressured to shut up like I said. Want more? Or is the rabbit hole too deep for Alice?
LikeLike
Rob – I guess the ease of relying on rumours, cherry-picked sources, etc., is one of the things that attracts people to conspiracy theory approaches. That and confirmation bias.
However, to get back to this post which you have attacked:
1: Your claim that the IPCC are just “administrators and secretaries.” Well my post lists the authors and reviewers taken from New Zealand. Tell me which ones are just administrators and secretaries.
2: Charges of alarmism and hysteria aimed at the IPCC are defeated by a simple read of their documents. They are balanced, and conservative.
3: The most basic conclusion from the IPCC that the global temperature is currently increasing was expressed tentatively in the early days. Now the IPCC concludes it is unequivocal. (This is depicted in my image). I don’t think any of the climate change sceptics deny this, many of the deniers also agree.
4: The other basic conclusion is that the temperature increase is basically caused (together with some natural inputs) by human activity. This is expressed as “most probable” – 90%. Careful and balanced.
5: These conclusions are based on reviews of the scientific literature. Their reliability can be checked by going back tio that literature. Conspiracy theories are just not worth listening to in this regard – it is the literature which counts.
6: The 2035 glacier date used from the WWF report is acknowledge as unreliable. It doesn’t negate anything else in the reports. In particular it doesn’t negate the conclusions about temperature increase and the most likely causes.
7: One can entertain one’s feverish mind with all sorts of conspiracies and attacks on personality. It doesn’t change or challenge the scientific literature one iota. This is what you have to deal with.
LikeLike
Don’t YOU see the holes in your stand? Let’s recap …
By all means, lets.
If there’s a conspiracy, how come there’s no dissenters?
Naughty, naughty.
🙂
Nope, that’s not what I said.
If you’re going to re-cap, then re-cap properly.
Do it like this…
Anyone at Nasa that has a contrary opinion would be fired.
Oh, I see. So “they” control NASA by “threatening to fire people”.
Um…
Well…
How does that work?
How does the conspiracy at NASA actually work? Connect the dots.
Yes NASA is big, but a TINY fraction of them work on climatology.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
The bigger a conspiracy, the less likely it becomes. So it makes sense that you would try to minimise the players involved.
Two issues here:
1) How many climatologists are you talking about? How do you know that it’s “tiny”?
Numbers?
Link please?
2) Why are you only including climatologists?
All of the Earth Sciences are represented at NASA and those science disciplines are used in gathering data and analysis of global warming.
It’s not just a group of climatologists, “tiny” or otherwise.
The terror that stalks the corridors of NASA must shut up those other scientists that NASA employs.
Gathering data and crunching the numbers is a collaborative effort.
Here’s an example of what I mean.
NASA and Global Change.NASA and Global Change.
And then there’s NASA’s interest in bees, of course.
So….how does the conspiracy work? How do you keep all those pesky scientists in line?
How?
There are …multiple… here ya go.
Actually, that’s not what you said.
You said that “…there’s many more whistleblowers from NASA…
So where is this “many”?
“Dr Joanne Simpson, and Michael Griffin. From NASA. look them up.”
Ok. Done.
Dr Joanne Simpson.
She seems like a sweet old lady that made great contributions to science. NASA seems to like her very much. Sadly, however, this doesn’t help you explain (drum roll please) how the scientific conspiracy works.
Same deal goes for Michael Griffin, Spencer, and Theon.
None of them seem to have anything to say on the matter.
Nothing.
Yeah, I get it that in your eyes they are dissenters but…that’s not what we’re talking about.
Dissenters or not doesn’t enter into it.
We’re talking about the workings of the conspiracy itself.
Not the dissenters.
Do you understand this now?
I ‘m not asking you about how many dissenters there are with a NASA connection.
I just want to know how the conspiracy is supposed to work.
How?
Spencer’s own site is an example of what I’m talking about.
He doesn’t say anything at all about people being fired or threatened to make them keep the conspiracy going.
He mentions people being rude to him and him being told to “Shut up” but I don’t see how telling people to shut up will do a very good job in making a scientific conspiracy at NASA work.
Sounds a little limp. Just a bit.
So how does it work?
How?
Expose it all. Reveal the trooth.
Don’t let them keep you silent.
Break it down for us in a simple, coherent, rational manner.
(waits patiently)
LikeLike
Cherry picking sources? YOU are the one cherry picking sources my blind bearded friend … I have quoted sources from all sides of the spectrum. hundreds of independent climatologists with impeccable credentials, Ex-NASA climatologists like you asked, Ex-IPCC climatologists.
In addition, I looked into YOUR sources as well, and pointed out multiple flaws … allegations of corruption, lack of credentials from a vast majority (remember our lovely railroad engineer friend and his band of administrators?), massive scandals involving their data and integrity, yet you accuse me of cherry picking.
It’s a good thing you’re not a judge in a court, you would fired or lynched by an angry mob for your continual bias in disregarding an enormous mounting pile of witnesses, evidence and scientific testimony. Of course you are not though, you’re just some pretend pseudo-intellectual that is so emotionally invested in an issue (running his own blog on the matter, on which his self esteem depends) that you are willing to ignore any amount of proof I bring to your court. Go on, ask me for more … name your org, I will name dissenters and whistleblowers.
If you were in the middle ages, you’d be running after Galileo with a pitchfork, because he told you the earth wasn’t flat. You are completely dependent on the established, biased view and cling to it ignoring mountains upon mountains of contrary SCIENTIFIC evidence. Because that is where your emotional security lies. Let me address your 7 pitiful points:
1.. You give me the names of a couple dozen scientists (a good chunk of whom are geologists, not climatologists, and a big majority of the remaining belong to one single org – NIWA) to counter my claim that the IPCC is full of bureaucrats and unqualified individuals? I gave you more climatologists in that one Wiki link. The Father of climatology, Reid Bryson (look him up), the guy that started half the weather science we have today, thinks man made global warming is ABSURD.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13541
The IPCC is composed of NINETY PERCENT PLUS of non-climatologists, like our railway engineer friend that won the nobel prize for his work on climatology (much like our President did, for his amazing “peace” work waging 3 wars and tanking our economy even further from his retard predecessor.). It’s relative strength of climatological staff is FAR outweighed by it’s opponents within the climatology community, therefore it inflates it’s numbers with administrators, engineers and bureaucrats. How many of the remaining climatologists are influenced by grants and toeing the established line? There were plenty of “scientists” back in the middle ages that laughed at a spherical earth too.
2. They ARE alarmist… you offer no proof that they are “balanced and conservative” except their own propaganda.
3. That .6 degrees rise in your graph is pathetic, the graph itself shows that it swung almost as far on the other side of the pendulum earlier. You’re telling me it’s “balanced and conservative” to tell every citizen on this planet to freeze to death instead of burning that log fire in a winter, because of that absurd .6 degree swing, that has gone both ways? When there are HUNDREDS of climatologists (including arguably the best and most famous ones ever), testimonials and whistleblowers (from the very orgs YOU told me to pick) that point to it’s flaws and absurdity?
It’s like telling me to read Lenin and saying “See! Communism is utopia! Don’t read accounts from those poor tortured souls in the Soviet Union, or the defectors, or the journalists and researchers with solid evidence”. You are NOT rational my pretentious friend, you are emotionally committed and media influenced. You see the nobel prizes and CNN telling you what to think, instead of looking at credentials and scientific proof.
4. Laughable. Again you quote nothing but propaganda, whose scientific validity I’ve already pointed holes in… with GlacierGate (no matter how you try to spin it), and hacked emails showing scientists being “encouraged” to base graphs off inflated data. Quote:
” I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack
How about you point a SINGLE hole in the validity, integrity, work or scientific claims of any of the dozens of climatologists I’ve stated? Go on, try Reid Bryson for example.
5. These conclusions are based on biased, funded research from corrupt, unqualified people, meant to lull pseudo intellectuals like you that base their self esteem on conformism, instead of real research. Perhaps there are some honest climatologists in the mix too, the point is the debate is far from settled. It’s not about being a “denier”, it’s about being a scientist.
6. It was not acknowledged to be unreliable until it was caught and exposed, and that is no sort of acknowledgment at all. @Andrew again, in that ginormous review document you posted, I searched for anything on “Glacier”, and found no such review or criticism … could you be so kind as to point out where this mysterious criticism is? And did you read this document line for line before the scandal, are you sure it wasn’t altered?
7. One can entertain one’s fragile ego with all sorts of rationalizations, labels, and attacks on personality (funny how you accuse me of that … as I recall I’ve been called a “denier”,”truther”, “creationist”, “conspiracy theorist” and so on already). It doesn’t change or challenge all the scientific literature, testimonials, proofs, defectors, debate, vested interests and motives that I have posted. That is what YOU have to deal with, my emotionally committed friend.
I have however repeatedly pointed holes in the credibility of your “scientific literature”. Any research is only as good as it’s integrity and credibility, otherwise I can point you to “scientific research” from my neighbor that claims he can fly using meditation.
LikeLike
@Cedric – Those NASA scientists have plenty to say on man-made global warming. Let me help you out there my Google challenged friend:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
As for a NASA conspiracy… you misunderstand the magnitude of control needed here. This is not something like the Holocaust, where you need to literally shut up hundreds of soldiers about ghastly crimes (though you might wanna ask the Nazis how they managed to keep in line all those “pesky soldiers” and keep the German people from finding out, until the accounts started leaking out YEARS later, but I digress).
The point is, they’re not trying to hide some massive calamity or murder or something, merely promote one scientific view over another. There IS scientific opinion for man made global warming as well, it’s not like they are trying to promote something that has no base support. They are just ruthlessly promoting one view over all scientific opposition, by selective promotions, grants and pressures. They don’t have to actively “threaten to fire” each and every scientist that joins their ranks, most of them couldn’t care less about these things. They’re not being asked to conceal murder or something, just “encouraged” by fear of ridicule and diversion from the established opinion. It’s called political correctness. They just have to shout down the few that have the balls to actually put their asses on the line. And Dr. Roy Spencer DOES talk about that.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It’s not in open and shut case, so it’s not like there’s thousands of scientists that have it figured out and each one of them has to be shot dead and buried in the backyard. It’s just a stifling of scientific debate within the govt. orgs, but virtue of funding. And STILL, I bring you plenty of people who’s technical qualifications and integrity will not allow them to stand down to such pressures as most would.
LikeLike
And as for your vacuous moon-landing conspiracy comparisons, no I don’t believe in that. Because unlike you, I base your opinions on expert opinions, insider testimonials and scientific proof. If established space experts from within NASA came to me and told me that the moon landings were faked, I’d listen. As it stands, there are none.
Man made climate change is different. There are tons upon tons of renowned scientists, insiders, climate experts from these orgs that support my views.
Fools like you however will lump them together with cutesy labels like “flat earthers”, “deniers” etc.
LikeLike
What’s the matter guys? Too much to chew on? Let me guess, you looked up Reid Bryson and realized he would piss all over your so called “science background” … like literally, take that Bachelors in Psychology degree of yours from Gondor Community College, NZ right off the wall, and piss all over it. Face it, this guy is the most cited man in climatology research papers IN CLIMATOLOGY HISTORY. His word and research alone should set alarm bells ringing in your “open parachute” of a mind, if it truly is open. This is without even including all the others that I’ve cited, balanced against upjumped railroad engineers with slick marketing.
Ok, sorry about getting personal there. Actually I tried my best to not make this issue personal, but there it is… I was once a staunch supporter of the man-made global warming theory myself, because that’s what’s been shoved down our throats all these years. I’d run out with the latest personal “carbon footprint” reduction scheme because of course that is what you do, as a responsible educated person right?
This isn’t personal guys, or about being liberal/conservative, evolutionist/creationist etc. We’ve allowed these issues to be clubbed together and lost our personal judgment within convenient allegiances and labels. All I’m asking you to do is look at both sides of this SCIENTIFIC issue, and keep an OPEN MIND as you so proudly proclaim in your header. You might be surprised at the degree of rational scientific proof that overwhelms the propaganda. Because for all the ridicule you put on “creationists” and all that, you are acting like the very guys that laughed at proponents of evolution, or Galileo when they kept bringing up evidence after evidence.
If you still maintain your scientific stand after looking at both sides of the evidence, more power to you. But as of now, you are not a rationalist or scientist, just a blind manipulated drone being fed one side of a vast scientific debate.
LikeLike
Move on Rob. You don’t have any credibility here. Your raving has discredited you and you are not capable of objective consideration of evidence. Just venting hatred for honest work and scientists.
I certainly won’t waste any more time on you.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
You have done nothing to discredit me, my biased pretentious friend, you have only shown your own hypocrisy when it comes to an “open, scientific” mind. I have no hatred for honesty or objective science, but I see I shall find none here. You are not capable of open analysis, not matter what you claim. Sad.
LikeLike
They don’t have to actively “threaten to fire” each and every scientist that joins their ranks, most of them couldn’t care less about these things.
That’s not what you said before.
You said…Anyone at Nasa that has a contrary opinion would be fired.
So what gives?
The point is, they’re not trying to hide some massive calamity or murder or something, merely promote one scientific view over another.
Um. Well…
That’s what scientists do.
If they think they’ve got the right idea on something because they’ve dug up some evidence then of course they are going to promote it.
They would hardly sit on their hands and pretend not to have done any work.
You don’t get Nobel prizes that way.
They are just ruthlessly promoting one view over all scientific opposition, by selective promotions, grants and pressures.
Ok.
How?
How do they do this?
This is the kind of thing that leaves a paper trail a mile wide.
Memos, emails, grant proposals ignored etc.
Where is the evidence for these shocking (if true) workplace practices?
It’s just a stifling of scientific debate within the govt. orgs, but virtue of funding.
Fine. Let’s work with this.
Once again, this is something that would leave a paper trail.
How does it work?
When does it happen?
Give us the details.
Yes NASA is big, but a TINY fraction of them work on climatology.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
The bigger a conspiracy, the less likely it becomes. So it makes sense that you would try to minimise the players involved.
Two issues here:
1) How many climatologists are you talking about? How do you know that it’s “tiny”?
Numbers?
Link please?
2) Why are you only including climatologists?
All of the Earth Sciences are represented at NASA and those science disciplines are used in gathering data and analysis of global warming.
It’s not just a group of climatologists, “tiny” or otherwise.
The terror that stalks the corridors of NASA must shut up those other scientists that NASA employs.
Those NASA scientists have plenty to say on man-made global warming.
Well, no.
They are not NASA scientists.
A NASA scientist is, by definition, … a scientist…who works for NASA.
None of the people you have mentioned qualify.
They are now just people who used to be scientists that worked at NASA.
(The exception being Michael Griffin. He was an administrator at NASA, not actually a NASA scientist.)
Spencer describes himself on his own web-site as a “former NASA scientist”.
Simpson describes herself as a “private citizen”.
As for a NASA conspiracy… you misunderstand the magnitude of control needed here.
Well, you don’t seem to be willing to talk about it or explain it in any detail.
I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain how the conspiracy at NASA works but…
(shrug)
I want to know how the conspiracy actually works.
The nuts and bolts of the operation.
You have given nothing useful in that department.
LikeLike
After reading the article, and the comments, and following this issue as a civilian non-scientists (as well as having the advice of a family PhD of Physics with a programming emphasis’) I can easily conclude that “Ken” is much less open than he claims to be. Ignoring the fact that the peer-review process is and can be wholly corrupt, and especially that the IPCC has a clear-cut agenda (as does Fox News, CNN, and SPPI) really takes away from the credibility. As soon as I hear anyone label a skeptic as a denier, the only thing I can think of is religion. The very same science driven individuals who will openly bash religious followers in turn disgrace themselves by overtly labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a “denier”. I am not religious, but the same “believe us or go to hell” overtones are very apparent. Skepticism does not equal denial.
On the other hand, I would say that Rob claiming all of the AGW science as a conspiracy is equally paranoid and shallowly founded. YES, there is a lot of money and conscription behind it (AGW). YES, there is a lot of cherry-picking. However, many scientists are doing what they think is right and there are plenty of honest scientists who agree it may be our fault. The media blows this up, but judging that Ken and Rob purport themselves as interested outsiders like myself, I think it is nearly impossible to come to a conclusion.
Most of the scientific world, whether reported or not, doesn’t even know what’s going on! We just don’t know yet. Our models are unreliable, and our instruments are far from perfect. Basically, if you have solid unshakable opinions, you are letting your own personal bias get the best of you.
Also, as a final point, Ken only serves to make a fool of himself by polarizing the issue so heavily. I find you hard to take seriously or that any of you words are credible. I suggest re-learning the term ad-hominem and applying that knowledge appropriately.
LikeLike
Eric – I don’t think you are neutral on this subject.
My post gave examples of people involved in the IPCC writing and reviewing work. I asked those who claimed that the IPCC is practically all bureaucrats to show me which of these people were bureaucrats. In fact they are employed as scientists within NZ.
Rob insisted on making this same claim, rejecting my evidence without providing evidence of his own and in fact against all evidence. He was clearly very emotional about it and not really capable of a respectful informed discussion. After several attemtps to provide him with information I eventually told him it was pointless and I wouldn’t waste further time on him. He took the hint.
Now, Eric, I have made clear here and in others of my posts that I differentiate between sceptics and deniers. Sceptics tend to be more honest and discuss the science and what they see as flaws in it. It is possible to talk with sceptics and I respect them.
However, there is a whole group of people now who are not sceptics but are deniers. They are not interested in the science except to distort and misrepresent it to fit their own preconceived beliefs. They do tend to be arrogant, emotional and disrespectful in their contributions. They also tend to fall back on conspiracy theories. Probably natural because if you are going to reject the science you have to explain away somehow why scientists have produced these results. So they fall back on conspiracies. Ridiculous.
Eric. You can lament about models, etc. But the conclusions from the IPCC are few and well accepted by governments. They are careful, conservative, balanced and (I think) underestimate the situation.
Basically they are:
1: The global temperature (over the last 50 years) is currently increasing. That conclusions is now unequivocal (see my graphic).
2: This current temperature increase, while it has some natural components, is basically most probably (90%) caused largely by human activity.
It is not me who polarises the situation. it is those who are making malicious attacks on honest science and scientists.
I guess that is what motivates me. These dishonest and malicious attacks on science really only strengthen those forces who would like to drag us back to the days of superstition and ignorance. And really that takes away the only hope that humanity has of solving the problems we face globally.
LikeLike
Rob, your patience is admirable but you must have noticed by now that the folks you are arguing with are determined not to be confused by facts.
For example, the SPPI “CO2 reports” are based primarily on satellite data that can readily be checked. Relevant papers are carefully referenced to each issue. If there was even a minor inaccuracy in these reports it would be trumpeted from the AGW rooftops. Instead all you get from the Climategate deniers is ad hominem attacks and a refusal to face reality.
On the other hand the IPCC and the Hockey Team are caught in one huge lie after another and the same folks see nothing wrong.
LikeLike
Galloping – get real. I showed here where your mate Monckton lied about the “Hockey Stick” issue. He claimed a statement in the NRC report which just isn’t there. He claimed the graph had been discredited which just isn’t true.
Now what lies had the IPCC got caught with? Quote from their report and provide evidence of purposeful misrepresentation. A hint, the 2035 mistake is freely acknowledged as a mistake and is being corrected. It doesn’t count.
But you did claim “one huge lie after another” so you should be able to produce plenty of quotes? Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Ignoring the fact that the peer-review process is and can be wholly corrupt…
Wha..?
How can you possibly ignore the peer-review process being corrupt?
Wow.
Present your evidence.
(…crickets chirping…)
As soon as I hear anyone label a skeptic as a denier, the only thing I can think of is religion.
Certainly. There’s no such thing as a denier.
No such thing at all.
There’s no such people as HIV deniers.
Nor Tobacco-Cancer deniers.
Nor Holocaust deniers.
Nor Vaccination deniers.
These people are merely “asking legitimate questions” and “refusing to be bullied by the majority”.
Hmm.
Yes.
Of course.
(grimace)
Skepticism does not equal denial.
Denialism does not equal skepticism.
(shrug)
Most of the scientific world, whether reported or not, doesn’t even know what’s going on! We just don’t know yet.
Total codswallop.
The only way you can believe that is if you studiously avoid asking the scientific community directly.
Go ahead.
Ask ’em.
Pick a scientific community.
Pick ANY scientific community on the planet.
They will all tell you the same three things.
1) Global warming is happening
2) We are responsible for it.
3) This is not good.
Seriously, ask any scientific community you like.
Link.
Our models are unreliable…
Not according to the global scientific community. Don’t believe everything you hear down at the pub.
Dig deeper.
Here’s a helpful link on climate models.
Basically, if you have solid unshakable opinions…
Strawman.
When NASA and all the other scientific communities on the planet reverse their position on global warming then I’ll be happy to change my mind.
LikeLike
For example, the SPPI “CO2 reports” are based primarily on satellite data that can readily be checked.
Why not ask the people who generated the satellite data?
Hint: NASA.
There’s not need to get your science information from some no-name blog pretending to be an “Institute”.
Go ask the scientific community directly.
They won’t bite.
LikeLike
Cedric: Fortunately James Hansen (NASA/GISS) does not have control over the NASA satellite data. That is why the satellite data still has credibility while the ground station data at NASA/GISS does not.
I am still waiting for your learned rebuttal of the new SPPI “CO2 report” that came out a few weeks ago. Please refrain from name calling and left wing mantras; just the facts.
When you talk about the “scientific community”, do you mean the IPCC, Penn State’s ESSC, UEA/CRU, NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, UCAR and the other Climategate suspects?
If so, we are talking about the thoroughly discredited “Hockey Sticks” resting on tree rings that are rotten to the core.
If you have something more convincing than the “Authorities” listed above, please share it with everyone.
LikeLike
Galloping, you repeat the lie about the “hockey stick” graph.
It just has not been discredited. In fact it has been confirmed by further and independent work. Have a look at my post on this.
You charge scientists with lying far too easily and with no evidence. It is objectionable and it discredits you. It shows you lack integrity and can’t debate the issues honestly.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Fortunately James Hansen (…) does not have control over the NASA satellite data.
To be more accurate, James Hansen does not have control over NASA.
NASA is…big.
It’s BIG!
It’s much, much bigger than one individual scientist.
😉
NASA has literally thousands of scientists on its payroll.
They are the ones that made the satellites that gathered the data in the first place.
If I want to know about satellite data then…I’ll ask NASA.
Simple.
I am still waiting for your learned rebuttal of the new SPPI “CO2 report” that came out a few weeks ago.
The SPPI is a slick website with a rented postal box address.
There is no actual “Institute”.
It doesn’t physically exist.
They just call it an “Institute” to make it sound sciency and impressive.
Nobody cares what the SPPI has to say.
They don’t do any work.
When you talk about the “scientific community”, do you mean…
I mean all the scientific communities on the planet.
All of the scientific communities representing all of the Earth Sciences.
All of them.
No, really…
🙂
ALL.
OF.
THEM.
Every single last one of them.
NO exceptions.
For example:
The Royal Society, NASA, the NAS, the CSIRO, the US Geological Society, The British Antarctic Survey, The American Quaternary Association, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, Royal Society of New Zealand, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Physical Society, European Science Foundation, American Geophysical Union, European Geosciences Union, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, World Meteorological Organization, Institute of Biology (UK), American Astronomical Society etc, etc,etc.
All of the scientific communities on the planet.
See here for the link.
If so, we are talking about the thoroughly discredited “Hockey Sticks” resting on tree rings that are rotten to the core.
You are just repeating a mantra that has been answered for you about seven times on this blog alone in the last two weeks.
(Vikings, vikings, vikings, vikings,vikings etc.)
Are you off your meds or something?
Focus.
Focus now.
There is nothing wrong with the Hockey Stick.
Just because some no-name web-site says that there is does not mean you have to believe them like some sheep.
If you want to know about the Hockey Stick then…ask the global scientific community.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week – “The Medieval Warming Crock”
LikeLike
If you have something more convincing…
I find reality convincing.
Try it sometime.
It’s so Cold, there can’t be Global Warming
LikeLike
Good grief, I watched about 20 minutes of the two and a half hour link posted triumphantly by Rob.
Words fail me.
Only in the USA.
LikeLike
Good grief, I watched about 20 minutes of the two and a half hour link posted triumphantly by Rob.
I managed slightly less than that but I did skim through the other scenes.
There’s a massive market for shockumentaries in the U.S.
The motto of the people who make that kind of wierdness seems to be “All conspiracy-all the time.”
For more of teh deep krazy, you should check out Jesse Venture’s series.
If anything, it’s worse.
😉
It’s titled (naturally) “Conspiracy Theory”.
On the show he looks at a different conspiracy theory each episode. He gets his “investigative team” to “investigate” and lo-and-behold they find out that…it’s all trooo!
This is the one on global warming.
Subtle, it ain’t.
Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory – Global Warming Part 1 of 6
LikeLike
Now you know what produces the Timothy McVeighs of this world.
LikeLike
Cedric: Many thanks for pointing to some of the links that Rob left. But for you I would have missed them.
Thank you Rob!
LikeLike
Seek medical help.
LikeLike