Let’s differentiate again between climate change sceptics (who are prepared to rationally consider and discuss the science) and climate change deniers (who have an emotional commitment to denying climate change and see the science as just the result of a huge conspiracy). Currently there is a feeding frenzy amongst the deniers. Hysterical claims are being made and promoted on the flimsiest of evidence, even against the evidence. They are promoting anything and everything that can possibly be misinterpreted to discredit scientific conclusions and scientists. And, yes, these attacks do get nasty and personal.
This must be making the true climate change sceptics very uncomfortable. More of them should publicly dissociate themselves from this hysterical anti-scientific campaign.
Warming since 1995?
Predictably, several local blogging deniers took on the misreporting of the recent BBC interview with climate scientist Phil Jones. Several of his statements have been used to make distorted, even completely fraudulent, claims. Here I only consider the misreporting of Jone’s comment on global warming since 1995:
“Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Answer: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
At least three local bloggers reported this as a u-turn. A concession that warming was no longer occurring. A denial of previous work! Essentially they were repeated the headlines of overseas conservaqtive and denier newspapers and blogs.
And Richard Treadgold at the Climate Conversation Group (the political arm of the NZ Climate Science Coalition) uncritically repeated the conservative and denier headlines Phil Jones: “No global warming since 1995″.
Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see these bloggers are completely distorting the whole meaning of Phil Jones’ comment. But, if you want to dig a bit deeper and get your head around the implications of statistical comments like this watch this video by potholer54. It deals specifically with this distortion:
The terminology is important: climate change is a fact, global warming is a fact, man’s contribution to global warming is a fact, but climate change driven by man is not.
From this understanding, it is appropriate to label those that deny the facts to be deniers but those that hold the final claim where the data indicates some correlation but not direct causation – that man-made activities drive climate change – are the only reasonable sceptics on the climate scene. And, yes Ken, to be associated in any way with ‘believers’ on either side of the debate of that final claim is very uncomfortable indeed.
The science doesn’t support you.
Your unjustifiable opinion makes no more sense than any of the other denialist “fallback” positions.
The only way you can maintain your belief is by ignoring mainstream science completely and sticking to the denialist blogs.
The very same denialist blogs that are making these infantile attacks on Jones and science in general.
Well, C, it’s because the evidence between global climate change is driven by man-made activity (greenhouse gas emissions) is not (yet) causal but correlational . What that means is that man’s activity has not yet been shown to be the primary engine of global climate change but one part of the whole.
tildeb – the IPCC assessment is that human activity is most probably the cause of much of the recent warming. Many climate scientists think that is too conservative.
However, I think that it’s pretty revealing that we just cannot account for recent temperature changes without incorporating human effects such as greenhouse gases and aerosols. The uncertainty on effects due to greenhouse gases is relatively small, and on aerosols is relatively large (and negative).
So I think the relationship is a bit more than correlational. There is enough evidence for governments to rightly consider action on this problem.
I actually don’t like the term sceptic to describe people who commit themselves to opposing the current consensus. This is because all scientists should be sceptical, and usually are. The system drives us to be.
There is plenty of room for questioning and further research, particularly around cloud and aerosol effect, and the influence of potential feedback mechanisms. There is no need to divide researchers into “warmists” and “deniers” or “alarmists” and “sceptics”. That is silly and unscientific.
I usually reserve the term deniers for those outside the scientific community (in attitude of not in fact) who behave emotionally, attempt to discredit any and all scientific conclusions they don’t like, advance conspiracy theories, etc. These people behave politically, not scientifically.
And we have seen a lot of that lately. The reaction to Jones’ interview provides plenty of examples.
If one stands back and objectively considers the current anti-science hysteria being directed at climate scientists and the IPCC I think all rational people should be concerned. Whatever our real problems and whatever the current and future research determines, the only real solution lies with science, not hysteria, irrationality and witch hunting.
I think even those who might consider themselves climate change sceptics but also rational should appreciate this problem and take a stand alongside colleagues who are also rational but have drawn different conclusions.
So I think the relationship is a bit more than correlational. There is enough evidence for governments to rightly consider action on this problem.
I could not agree more. It is only responsible to err on the side of caution and do whatever is necessary to get emission down to sustainable levels (neutral).
I think even those who might consider themselves climate change sceptics but also rational should appreciate this problem and take a stand alongside colleagues who are also rational but have drawn different conclusions.
And most of us do, but also many are leery of being seen joining the fervent believers that think climate change can be controlled by human activity, which is the dangerous flip side rarely enunciated of being seen to agree that man’s activities drives climate change. These believers are in for a surprise.
I can’t see your distinction. Perhaps you are just bring obstinate?
It’s not a matter of “believers”. Governments must take the best advice – the IPCC. Projections can be estimated for various economic scenarios and mitigation procedures. Prudent governments will use these to determine policies.
These projections do suggest we can limit global warming to some extent – why dhould’t we consider that?
I think you are playing with words. It’s not a matter of belief or driving.
Really it’s currently a matter of emotion witchhunts against honest scientists. That is the key issue.
I see believers and deniers as flip sides of the same unjustified assumption, that man’s activities are the primary cause – and thus the primary control – of climate change. It’s not a small point to remember, nor one that should be left alone, tucked away out of sight. We need to be honest in our scientific conclusions because jumping ahead of where our knowledge currently is and proclaiming belief that global warming is the primary driver or cause of climate change pollutes the real issue of reaching sustainable emissions and arms the deniers with unnecessary ammunition.
On the one hand, the believers who hold fast to the notion that global warming is the primary cause of climate change think that the science backs this conclusion up, which it simply does not do. The deniers think it’s all a hoax, which is also not true. The subtle distinction is two-fold, that man made activities contributes in major way to global warming (and here the science shows a significant correlation between human activity and warming), and that global warming contributes to climate change (and here the science is – to a sceptic – ambivalent).
I write this not to be obstinate, or play word games, but to clarify a vital misunderstanding. For any climate scientist to state unequivocally that man’s activities is the primary cause of climate change is overstepping the current data and our understanding of total feedback systems.
How can I say that?
Well, to put it another way, if our understanding was really good and the data sufficient, then the climate models would yield highly accurate predictions. So far, the models are getting better but do not yet yield this result. Why? Because our scientific understanding is not yet comprehensive in regards to climate change.
That being said – and it is important that it is said – the relevant and prudent advice from the scientific consensus is to address a known cause of global warming, namely, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels… levels that can be shown to be neutralized by the various feedback systems. This we do know. Upon this we can act in a meaningful way. In this regard, the science is unequivocal. Not acting responsibly on this thorough understanding of how emissions are a major contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations I think is criminal negligence and it is upon this knowledge we must hold our collective governments accountable. By doing so we will act upon our strength in scientific knowledge and almost unanimous consensus in climate science while at the same time eliminate the foundation upon which the extreme positions of both believers and deniers now stand.
Tildeb, you need to clarify some things otherwise I find the distictions you are trying to make very unclear.
First, who the hell are these “believers” you mention? Surely you don’t mean the climate scientists currently targeted by the witchhunt? Science is not about belief. It is about evidence and validation.
I don’t “believe” in global warming but I certainly accept the evidence for it occuring.
If your “believers” are extremists who take a religious judgemental approach to their felllow humans – I don’t identify with them either.
But these are not the targets of the witchhunt. Honest scientists and their science are.
Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
This is exactly right. We know emissions contribute to warming and we know that warming contributes to disruptive climate change. We need to take action and reduce emissions by 50% this century. This IS the science.
Notice on what basis the AGU carefully correlates human activity to changing patterns and rates of climate change that are so disruptive. That’s honest because that is the data. Notice how the AGU recognizes the scientific uncertainties that even with those uncertainties the correlation of human activity to changes of patterns and rates is incontrovertible, and on that basis the science isstrong enough to warrant comprehensive action.
That is the issue and the scientific community should stick to it. Although the argument that climate change is caused by human activity is partly true in that human activity contributes these changes in increased rates and patterns, the scientific truth is that humans do not control climate change itself as a geophysical process. Climate change is a dynamic process that has been with us always and shall continue to happen regardless of human activity. All we can control is our contribution to the changes in rates and patterns and not the process of climate change itself.
Deniers think that human activity has nothing to do with climate change. They are wrong. Believers think human activity controls the geophysical process we call climate change itself. They are wrong.
If you look carefully at the denialist talking points, they are going after the assertions made about the human causation of climate change as a process, and refusing to recognize the human contribution to the changing rates and patterns. That’s their battlefield and they have gained a lot of traction because that’s exactly where scientific uncertainties really are – and scientifically recognized.
We need to fight this one on our battlefield where the science is solid: human activity directly contributes to the rates of climate change and the patterns of climate change. We have got to stop promoting this unjustified belief that human activity causes climate change.
… the scientific truth is that humans do not control climate change itself as a geophysical process.
Strawman. The scientists are not making that claim.
You can’t “control the climate” per se.
Climate change is a dynamic process that has been with us always and shall continue to happen regardless of human activity.
What a radical statement.
Not.
Believers think human activity controls the geophysical process we call climate change itself.
No they don’t. You are constructing a strawman from your own fevered imagination.
The science is very clear on the subject.
Forget the hippies.
Focus on the science.
…human activity directly contributes to the rates of climate change and the patterns of climate change.
So far, so good.
We have got to stop promoting this unjustified belief that human activity causes climate change.
Now we are back in word-game territory.
Unjustified “belief”?
As in “believers”?
Oh dear.
😉
Human activity “causes” climate change?
What happened to the word “control”?
(Very cute bait-and-switch there.)
With climate change(…) the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The CAUSE of disruptive climate change (…) is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
There is nothing in the AGU statement that supports your word games.
You are a blind man looking for a shadow of doubt.
Cedric, your may think what I’m clarifying is a word game, but even if it is, it is the root cause of why your certainty in the science behind the IPCC’s proclamation is losing the public relations battle. Your certainty misrepresents the real science which is far from certain that directly links human activity to causing climate change. As much as you may believe otherwise, or assume that I am abusing words, that statement is simply true and somehow you are going to have to come to terms with that. Your position of certainty is dishonest and misleading. In addition, it’s an extraordinarily stupid tactical position to take that opens up ALL the climate science to misrepresentation and dismissal. And that’s what’s happening. Your certainty is no help whatsoever: it’s fuel for the denialists but you’re too busy labeling others as blind to see what’s right in front of your eyes.
As a case in point, look at the highly influential National Post editorial in Canada: There are plenty of ways in which these disclosures have been crucial (about Climategate), but the principal change has been the uncertainty creeping into the remarks of former True Believers. Some of those who for years have insisted the science is “settled,” are now admitting we don’t know all we need to before making trillion-dollar policy decisions.
Read the piece and see how positions like yours – you know, the kind presented as science but that have moved past such trivial issues like possessing any shadow of doubt – play directly into the hands of those who wish to convince the majority of voters that radical or even cautious change in energy policies seem to be unnecessary:
…your certainty in the science behind the IPCC’s proclamation is losing the public relations battle.
Where exactly in the IPCC proclamation (or anywhere else in any of the scientific literature) does it say that…”… humans control climate change itself as a geophysical process.”?
Give me a direct quote in context.
(Plus a link, of course)
Where exactly in the IPCC proclamation (or anywhere else in any of the scientific literature) does it dismiss the pretty, bloody obvious statement that “Climate change is a dynamic process that has been with us always and shall continue to happen regardless of human activity.”?
Give me a direct quote in context.
(Plus a link, of course)
…look at the highly influential National Post editorial in Canada.
No, I’m sorry.
That won’t do.
I don’t get my science from “editorials”, no matter how breathlessly “influential” they may be.
I get my science from science sources.
There is no substitute.
…the kind presented as science but that have moved past such trivial issues like possessing any shadow of doubt.
Nice try at setting up a strawman so you can knock it down but…no banana.
😉
I assure you that the global scientific community still remembers the basic scientific principle that “all science is tentative”.
You are just a “concern troll” playing word-games.
That’s very concerning.
You got me, Cedric. I surrender. I yield to your certainty of scientific knowledge in the climate studies.
But there remains a puzzler for me, I’ll freely admit, but then I have the audacity to think that the science is not yet settled linking greenhouse gases emissions with climate change, which makes me the worst kind of denier in your mind… a living, breathing person you have made into a strawman because you know that the concerns that inform my thinking dare to refute what you call SCIENCE.
But I’ll leave you with one question, easily answerable I must assume by someone like you, now that I have been shown the error of my ways and the vastness of my own comparative ignorance having worked in climate science for merely two decades so what the hell can I possibly know:
Why do you think the climate models are neither predictive nor accurate?
I want you to tell us who these “believers” are. You seem to be tarring scientists with that label – which is very inappropriate.
If you don’t intend that – then who the hell are they?
You claim “science is not yet settled linking greenhouse gases emissions with climate change” as if this was a mantra someone is advocating. The IPCC uses the terminology “most probably.” Science is never completely settled. But there is enough evidence and surety for governments to take the problem seriously.
“Why do you think the climate models are neither predictive nor accurate?” Models are never completely accurate. But governments are used to using them, in fact require them, even when they are far less reliable. Just think of the huge decisions they make using economic models.
The IPCC reviews projections based on models. They stress the variability in these projections. They are the best we have to work with. Governments realise that.
Of course these improve as we learn more about the science (eg role of clouds is rather uncertain at the moment) and use more and more computing power.
But humanity would indeed be silly to wait until we had sufficient science and power to give accurate projections.
I just can’t see what your problem is. Why use the pejorative label “believers”? Why use the mantra of “settled science”?
Personally, I think the current attempts to discredit the science behind climate change is really a transference of the problem.
The problem is not scientific it is ethical. Do we have the right to ignore these projections when our grandchildren will suffer the consequences? People seem to be afraid of facing up to the ethical question and therefore look for an excuse.
Similar to the creationist hostility to science.
But in both cases they end up denying or distorting the science.
I yield to your certainty of scientific knowledge in the climate studies.
I read the statements made by the scientific community.
That’s pretty much it.
Not much magic or mystery to it.
I don’t get my science from editorials.
Nor do I just make stuff up at random.
I suggest you do the same.
I have the audacity to think that the science is not yet settled linking greenhouse gases emissions with climate change…
No. It’s not audacity.
It’s something else entirely.
…you know that the concerns that inform my thinking dare to refute what you call SCIENCE.
Your “concerns” are not informed.
They are uninformed nonsense.
This is why you are simply incapable of finding any statements representing anything by the scientific community that backs up your “concerns”.
Remember those links I asked you about?
Where are they?
Disneyworld perhaps?
…you know that the concerns that inform my thinking dare to refute what you call SCIENCE.
No.
It’s not what “I” call science.
I’m just some anonymous guy on the internet.
It’s what NASA calls science.
It’s what the Royal Society calls science.
It’s what every single scientific community calls science.
There is no “I” about it.
(Nice strawman though)
😉
…having worked in climate science for merely two decades…
Sorry but…I don’t care.
I truely, madly, deeply don’t care.
You could have worked in “climate science” for three (3) decades and I would be oh-so-unimpressed.
If you like you could even bring up your other qualifications and boast about your two dozen Phd’s and your time at Oxford.
I just don’t care.
(shrug)
Some anonymous guy on the internet boasting about how he “knows stuff” and promising that he’s really an “expert” does not send a thrill up my leg.
Shill that line to the suckers. Everybody’s an “expert” on the Internet.
If you’ve got something scientific to say then don’t waste your time here on this blog.
Take your case to the scientific arena.
Now.
Go.
Publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
A.S.A.P.
Have your work critically examined and vetted by the professionals.
Snap to it.
If they give you the thumbs up then…come back and tell us all.
Give the link.
Spell it out for us and glow in the warm glow of your vindication.
Now THAT would impress me.
I’ll happily eat a big slice of crow for you, freely admit it and you can take your own sweet time savouring your triumph of setting all of us straight.
That’s a promise.
Anything else is just gas.
You have a bad case of wind.
Why do you think the climate models are neither predictive nor accurate?
This is a PRATT.
We’ve been here before.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
For those of us new to this; can we get an update on what “denialism” means?
e.g. Are we supposed to “deny” that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years?
Are we supposed to “deny” that Phil Jones said this:
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
”
I am confused.
Naturally I want to put my kids to bed, like any free-thinking kiwi parent, and tell them that their planet is f**cked, and they will all be drowned by rising sea levels. We all want to tell our kids that they will be fried by the planet hitting a tipping point of global warming.
We all want are kids to grow up to be terrified and hate humanity.
Of that, I am sure we are all in accord.
So, why the confusing messages from Phil Jones?
Context please, I am sure these have been cherry picked by the right wing fossil fuel industry.
By the way, I have just realised that The Internet is powered by Coal (at least a significant part of it – just check out where Google’s datacenters are located)
So, as a result, I am going to go offline, live in my yurt, and eat lentils.
New to denialism: “How much of the IPCC AR4 report is peer-reviewed?”
Strange question. None of it I imagine. It’s not a scientific paper, as I understand it it’s a review of the current state of science and any other relevant knowledge on the state of the planet’s climate.
Do you mean: how much of the report is based on peer reviewed science?
You could just take a look for yourself, it’s available here:
OK, my question was:
“How much of the CONTENT of the IPCC AR4 is peer-reviewed”?
Oh, yes I can take a look myself, but it is a very big task to go through and figure out how much is peer-reviewed.
Luckily, there is a new project to do just this.
We are interested, because, as we know, the evidence is based on “peer-reviewed science”
Knowing how much is not peer reviewed and just statements from advocacy groups such as WWF and Greenpeace will provide a interesting insight, I am sure you will agree.
Oh, yes I can take a look myself, but it is a very big task…
Not really.
…the evidence is based on “peer-reviewed science”
Yep.
Scientists all over the world have been researching the climate of the planet for decades.
All their research is in peer reviewed journals.
That’s how the scientific consensus was slowly built up.
The old-fashioned way.
Scientists have the research.
Deniers don’t.
The overwhelming body of evidence that has been published supports AGW.
People have already looked into this. Link.
This is a very uncomfortable fact for deniers so…they’ve tried to throw up a smokescreen to “prove” that there’s lots of peer-reviewed papers that are anti-AGW too.
It didn’t work very well.
Too many people out there are willing to fact check. Link.
You don’t get it.
How much of the IPCC Ar4 is NOT peer reviewed?
Well, as Richard explained to you, AR4 is not a scientific paper.
The process of how AR4 was written is no secret.
The IPCC takes great pains to explain how how their publications are created and where they get their information from.
It’s really easy to figure out that not all the material used is not peer-reviewed.
They carefully explain this to the general public.
They even drew a nice diagram to make sure everybody could understand this simple point.
It’s right there in the link Richard gave you… Link.
There is no conspiracy.
This information has been publically available and written in plain English for a long time.
(shrug)
and some of these references in this Peer reviewed document include:
article in Climbing magazine
Boot cleaning guide to antarctica
Marxist textbook
Press releases from Allianz and WWF
Greenpeace propoganda
Newspaper clippings
etc etc.
May be if we could see the SCIENCE in the IPCC report we might actually understand, rather than padding it out with anecdotal evidence.
But I am sure you have a response to that. It’s like arguing with the Mormons.
But Pauchari said himself that the AR4 was all peer reviewed.
He did?
When?
Where?
Give the quote.
He certainly doesn’t say that in the video.
He said they “did not use newspaper clippings”
No he didn’t. Listen carefully.
You suffer from selective hearing.
He explains the process very well.
The IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings. This is on the basis of rigorous research that has stood the test of scrutiny through peer review.
That’s all true.
The IPCC reports are indeed based on peer review.
You seem to be focusing only on the inclusion of literature that is not peer-reviewed.
For example if you followed the link that Richard gave you, you would read…
Supporting Material
Workshops and Expert Meetings may be held to support the IPCC assessment process, to scope an IPCC Report or to advise the Panel e.g. on whether to prepare a Special Report. The IPCC may also co-sponsor workshops if its activity will be useful to the work of the IPCC.
Proceedings of IPCC workshops and expert meetings are normally published as IPCC supporting material. Supporting material is not subject to formal IPCC review processes. For some IPCC expert meetings or scoping meetings only summary reports are prepared, which can be found under meetings and documentation.
Ignore the spin from the anti-science sites.
The scientists are not out to get you.
The reason why you are so confused is probably because you get your information about climate science from denial blogs and news media pundits. Link.
But what is the purpose of includin NON-PEER reviewed articles, e.g newspape clippings, in the IPCC report.
Apart for unsubstantiated propoganda?
You keep bleating about the “deniers” (of which I am not one, btw) not having any “peer-reviewed” papers, but WHAT IS THE POINT OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS IN THE IPCC report?
These “reports” have been show to contain completely unsubstantiated information, and only degrade the quality of the IPCC report
It serves NO VALUE whatsoever to have this anecdotal evidence in the IPCC report.
But what is the purpose of includin NON-PEER reviewed articles, e.g newspape clippings, in the IPCC report.
Well, maybe you could…read the link that Richard gave you?
The IPCC is not a secret society.
They are not a closed shop.
Maybe, just maybe, they talk about why they include non-peer reviewed literature in reports.
This kind of thing is all publically available.
If you are genuinely interested then it’s not all that hard to find out.
Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?
Is that how the scientific world operates?
Seriously?
😉
I am a PhD qualified scientist
So?
(yawn)
Sorry but…I don’t care.
I truely, madly, deeply don’t care.
You could have a dozen (12) Phd’s and I would be oh-so-unimpressed.
If you like you could even bring up your other wonderous qualifications and boast about your time at Oxford.
I just don’t care.
(shrug)
Some anonymous guy on the internet boasting about how he “knows stuff” and promising that he’s really an “expert” does not send a thrill up my leg.
Shill that line to the suckers. Everybody’s an “expert” on the Internet.
If you’ve got something scientific to say then don’t waste your time here on this blog.
Take your case to the scientific arena.
Now.
Go.
Publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
A.S.A.P.
Have your work critically examined and vetted by the professionals.
Snap to it.
If they give you the thumbs up then…come back and tell us all.
Give the link.
Spell it out for us and glow in the warm glow of your vindication.
Now THAT would impress me.
I’ll happily eat a big slice of crow for you, freely admit it and you can take your own sweet time savouring your triumph of setting all of us straight.
That’s a promise.
Anything else is just gas.
You have a bad case of wind.
:Some anonymous guy on the internet boasting about how he “knows stuff” and promising that he’s really an “expert” does not send a thrill up my leg.
Shill that line to the suckers.”
But it’s OK if you find some “stuff” and put it in the IPCC report.
Even if it is completely unsubstantiated.
As long as it is scary enough.
Like if I had a newspaper clipping that said the temperature in my town hadn’t changed in 30 years
Would that get in?
I doubt it
You don’t care that I have a dozen PhD’s from Oxford, but you expect the world to listen to a ski instructors “evidence” as overheard in the pub?
But it’s OK if you find some “stuff” and put it in the IPCC report.
Well, it depends on what the “stuff” is and why they put it there and what importance they give to it.
Even if it is completely unsubstantiated.
As long as it is scary enough.
Nope. That’s not how the scientific community works.
Let go of your paranoia.
A while back, you mentioned this interesting list ….
“article in Climbing magazine
Boot cleaning guide to antarctica
Marxist textbook
Press releases from Allianz and WWF
Greenpeace propoganda
Newspaper clippings”
Ok.
I’ll bite.
Where did you actually get this list from?
Sources please.
(Oh and do you truely believe that this is what the IPCC reports are really based upon, as opposed to being based upon peer-reviewed literature?)
The IPCC relies upon the global scientific community for scientific literature.
The global scientific community is not run by “Hard left statist marxists”.
NASA, for example, is not a hotbed of communist activity. It never has been.
(Plus they really did send people to the moon)
You certainly didn’t wait for an “independent audit” a few posts ago.
Why the sudden change?
Don’t let “the man” keep you silent.
Break through the shackles of censorship!
The people have a right to know!!!!!
I presume that your list did not just magically appear.
Where did you get it from?
Your local newspaper?
A toilet wall?
Or maybe, just maybe,…a blog?
😉
Go on.
Name the blog. Give the specific link.
It wasn’t a…denialist blog by any chance?
Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
How did you find out that the IPCC were all “Hard Left Marxists”?
That’s quite a bit of stunning detective work.
Amazing really.
What evidence do you have to support such a jaw-dropping claim?
How come nobody else (including NASA and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society etc) are mentioning this?
Could it be that they all have been taken over by “Hard Left Marxists” too?
All of them?
Really?
Do tell.
Give us all the details.
It sounds…fascinating.
Well, of course my information about the newspaper clippings comes from “denier” blogs, as you call them, such as WUWT. However, you can trawl through the IPCC report to find them.
As for “hard left”, well you only need to look a the EU and see how it is destroying the UK economy through its marxist totalitarian views and its obsession with climate change.
The lights will go out in about 5 years in theUK.,
Their energy policy has nowhere to go. All driven by IPCC myopia
“So, Richard, you are OK with the IPC including non-peer reviewed articles are you?
Governments are forming public policy based on this”
Of course I am, as Cedric tried to explain to you the methodology and scope of the report is explained in AR4 and on the IPCC website. Try reading and understanding it
before you criticise it. It is a fool’s errand to criticise anything before attempting to understand it.
“Lets get those deniers eh!!”
No need, they do it themselves, as this thread illustrates. Frequently criticism of the science has its roots in political or social ideology. Not in the science at all.
Cedric seems to have a knack of bringing it to the surface. All the same I’m surprised at how quickly the conspiracy theory erupted here.
“New to denialism”, that was a nifty trick, managing to change your avatar to same one as “a true believer” has.
That was a neat trick.
Real smooth.
Marvelous what a “Phd” can do for a fellow.
🙂
Or maybe, just maybe…it was the “Hard Left Marxists” that were responsible?
:):)
All the same I’m surprised at how quickly the conspiracy theory erupted here.
Conspiracy theorists are a hoot.
I’m sure we all remember “Rob”.
Ken was the first to nab “Rob” with him being not only being a climate denier but als0 a 9/11 Truther .
Reading between the lines, I felt sure that Rob was a JFK “grassy knoll” type as well.
I’ll say one thing for him.
At least Rob was coherent enough to avoid confirming or denying anything about what happened to JFK.
(Though that would have made a nice trifecta.)
He did leap out and say that he believed that NASA did indeed go the moon.
Yet he just didn’t feel comfortable revealing what happened on that fateful day in Dallas.
Curious.
“New to denialism/A true believer etc” is a different breed. He dived headfirst into the krazy pit when offered the chance.
The very phrase “Hard Left Marxist” speaks volumes all by itself.
“Hard Left Marxist”.
Wow.
It’s impossible to make a phrase like that up.
It has to be cut from whole cloth.
Remember boys and girls:
How do we know that the IPCC are “Hard Left Marxists”? Well….um…..well… Look at the EU! Just look at it!! The EU is “Hard Left Marxist” therefore the IPCC is “Hard Left Marxist”.
I’ll be proved right in five years. Just you wait.
Q.E.D.
Of course you’re not suggesting a conspiracy theory.
Absolutely.
Sure.
🙂
You just think that the IPPC is secretly run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Which (of course) you believe because…the whole of the European Union in the 21st century is run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Why, absolutely everybody knows and understands this.
Eminently reasonable.
No conspiracy or paraniod delusions to see here, folks!
🙂
Let’s differentiate again between climate change sceptics (who are prepared to rationally consider and discuss the science) and climate change deniers (who have an emotional commitment to denying climate change and see the science as just the result of a huge conspiracy). Currently there is a feeding frenzy amongst the deniers. Hysterical claims are being made and promoted on the flimsiest of evidence, even against the evidence. They are promoting anything and everything that can possibly be misinterpreted to discredit scientific conclusions and scientists. And, yes, these attacks do get nasty and personal.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Open Parachute 
The terminology is important: climate change is a fact, global warming is a fact, man’s contribution to global warming is a fact, but climate change driven by man is not.
From this understanding, it is appropriate to label those that deny the facts to be deniers but those that hold the final claim where the data indicates some correlation but not direct causation – that man-made activities drive climate change – are the only reasonable sceptics on the climate scene. And, yes Ken, to be associated in any way with ‘believers’ on either side of the debate of that final claim is very uncomfortable indeed.
LikeLike
…but climate change driven by man is not.
The science doesn’t support you.
Your unjustifiable opinion makes no more sense than any of the other denialist “fallback” positions.
The only way you can maintain your belief is by ignoring mainstream science completely and sticking to the denialist blogs.
The very same denialist blogs that are making these infantile attacks on Jones and science in general.
LikeLike
Cedric, you hyperbolic rascal, sometimes I just want to give you a big hug.
LikeLike
…but climate change driven by man is not.
But seriously folks…
😉
Where do you get this stuff from?
It doesn’t come from the regular, run-of-the-mill scientific communities.
LikeLike
Well, C, it’s because the evidence between global climate change is driven by man-made activity (greenhouse gas emissions) is not (yet) causal but correlational . What that means is that man’s activity has not yet been shown to be the primary engine of global climate change but one part of the whole.
LikeLike
tildeb – the IPCC assessment is that human activity is most probably the cause of much of the recent warming. Many climate scientists think that is too conservative.
However, I think that it’s pretty revealing that we just cannot account for recent temperature changes without incorporating human effects such as greenhouse gases and aerosols. The uncertainty on effects due to greenhouse gases is relatively small, and on aerosols is relatively large (and negative).
So I think the relationship is a bit more than correlational. There is enough evidence for governments to rightly consider action on this problem.
I actually don’t like the term sceptic to describe people who commit themselves to opposing the current consensus. This is because all scientists should be sceptical, and usually are. The system drives us to be.
There is plenty of room for questioning and further research, particularly around cloud and aerosol effect, and the influence of potential feedback mechanisms. There is no need to divide researchers into “warmists” and “deniers” or “alarmists” and “sceptics”. That is silly and unscientific.
I usually reserve the term deniers for those outside the scientific community (in attitude of not in fact) who behave emotionally, attempt to discredit any and all scientific conclusions they don’t like, advance conspiracy theories, etc. These people behave politically, not scientifically.
And we have seen a lot of that lately. The reaction to Jones’ interview provides plenty of examples.
If one stands back and objectively considers the current anti-science hysteria being directed at climate scientists and the IPCC I think all rational people should be concerned. Whatever our real problems and whatever the current and future research determines, the only real solution lies with science, not hysteria, irrationality and witch hunting.
I think even those who might consider themselves climate change sceptics but also rational should appreciate this problem and take a stand alongside colleagues who are also rational but have drawn different conclusions.
The alternative is not nice.
LikeLike
So I think the relationship is a bit more than correlational. There is enough evidence for governments to rightly consider action on this problem.
I could not agree more. It is only responsible to err on the side of caution and do whatever is necessary to get emission down to sustainable levels (neutral).
I think even those who might consider themselves climate change sceptics but also rational should appreciate this problem and take a stand alongside colleagues who are also rational but have drawn different conclusions.
And most of us do, but also many are leery of being seen joining the fervent believers that think climate change can be controlled by human activity, which is the dangerous flip side rarely enunciated of being seen to agree that man’s activities drives climate change. These believers are in for a surprise.
LikeLike
I can’t see your distinction. Perhaps you are just bring obstinate?
It’s not a matter of “believers”. Governments must take the best advice – the IPCC. Projections can be estimated for various economic scenarios and mitigation procedures. Prudent governments will use these to determine policies.
These projections do suggest we can limit global warming to some extent – why dhould’t we consider that?
I think you are playing with words. It’s not a matter of belief or driving.
Really it’s currently a matter of emotion witchhunts against honest scientists. That is the key issue.
LikeLike
I see believers and deniers as flip sides of the same unjustified assumption, that man’s activities are the primary cause – and thus the primary control – of climate change. It’s not a small point to remember, nor one that should be left alone, tucked away out of sight. We need to be honest in our scientific conclusions because jumping ahead of where our knowledge currently is and proclaiming belief that global warming is the primary driver or cause of climate change pollutes the real issue of reaching sustainable emissions and arms the deniers with unnecessary ammunition.
On the one hand, the believers who hold fast to the notion that global warming is the primary cause of climate change think that the science backs this conclusion up, which it simply does not do. The deniers think it’s all a hoax, which is also not true. The subtle distinction is two-fold, that man made activities contributes in major way to global warming (and here the science shows a significant correlation between human activity and warming), and that global warming contributes to climate change (and here the science is – to a sceptic – ambivalent).
I write this not to be obstinate, or play word games, but to clarify a vital misunderstanding. For any climate scientist to state unequivocally that man’s activities is the primary cause of climate change is overstepping the current data and our understanding of total feedback systems.
How can I say that?
Well, to put it another way, if our understanding was really good and the data sufficient, then the climate models would yield highly accurate predictions. So far, the models are getting better but do not yet yield this result. Why? Because our scientific understanding is not yet comprehensive in regards to climate change.
That being said – and it is important that it is said – the relevant and prudent advice from the scientific consensus is to address a known cause of global warming, namely, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels… levels that can be shown to be neutralized by the various feedback systems. This we do know. Upon this we can act in a meaningful way. In this regard, the science is unequivocal. Not acting responsibly on this thorough understanding of how emissions are a major contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations I think is criminal negligence and it is upon this knowledge we must hold our collective governments accountable. By doing so we will act upon our strength in scientific knowledge and almost unanimous consensus in climate science while at the same time eliminate the foundation upon which the extreme positions of both believers and deniers now stand.
LikeLike
Tildeb, you need to clarify some things otherwise I find the distictions you are trying to make very unclear.
First, who the hell are these “believers” you mention? Surely you don’t mean the climate scientists currently targeted by the witchhunt? Science is not about belief. It is about evidence and validation.
I don’t “believe” in global warming but I certainly accept the evidence for it occuring.
If your “believers” are extremists who take a religious judgemental approach to their felllow humans – I don’t identify with them either.
But these are not the targets of the witchhunt. Honest scientists and their science are.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
…that global warming contributes to climate change (and here the science is – to a sceptic – ambivalent).
Not according to NASA or any other of the scientific communties on the planet.
…the believers who hold fast to the notion that global warming is the primary cause of climate change…
Word games.
They are not “believers”.
The correct term is scientist.
… if our understanding was really good and the data sufficient, then the climate models would yield highly accurate predictions.
Denialist PRATT.
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.
(yawn)
LikeLike
From the AGU:
Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
This is exactly right. We know emissions contribute to warming and we know that warming contributes to disruptive climate change. We need to take action and reduce emissions by 50% this century. This IS the science.
Notice on what basis the AGU carefully correlates human activity to changing patterns and rates of climate change that are so disruptive. That’s honest because that is the data. Notice how the AGU recognizes the scientific uncertainties that even with those uncertainties the correlation of human activity to changes of patterns and rates is incontrovertible, and on that basis the science isstrong enough to warrant comprehensive action.
That is the issue and the scientific community should stick to it. Although the argument that climate change is caused by human activity is partly true in that human activity contributes these changes in increased rates and patterns, the scientific truth is that humans do not control climate change itself as a geophysical process. Climate change is a dynamic process that has been with us always and shall continue to happen regardless of human activity. All we can control is our contribution to the changes in rates and patterns and not the process of climate change itself.
Deniers think that human activity has nothing to do with climate change. They are wrong. Believers think human activity controls the geophysical process we call climate change itself. They are wrong.
If you look carefully at the denialist talking points, they are going after the assertions made about the human causation of climate change as a process, and refusing to recognize the human contribution to the changing rates and patterns. That’s their battlefield and they have gained a lot of traction because that’s exactly where scientific uncertainties really are – and scientifically recognized.
We need to fight this one on our battlefield where the science is solid: human activity directly contributes to the rates of climate change and the patterns of climate change. We have got to stop promoting this unjustified belief that human activity causes climate change.
LikeLike
… the scientific truth is that humans do not control climate change itself as a geophysical process.
Strawman. The scientists are not making that claim.
You can’t “control the climate” per se.
Climate change is a dynamic process that has been with us always and shall continue to happen regardless of human activity.
What a radical statement.
Not.
Believers think human activity controls the geophysical process we call climate change itself.
No they don’t. You are constructing a strawman from your own fevered imagination.
The science is very clear on the subject.
Forget the hippies.
Focus on the science.
…human activity directly contributes to the rates of climate change and the patterns of climate change.
So far, so good.
We have got to stop promoting this unjustified belief that human activity causes climate change.
Now we are back in word-game territory.
Unjustified “belief”?
As in “believers”?
Oh dear.
😉
Human activity “causes” climate change?
What happened to the word “control”?
(Very cute bait-and-switch there.)
With climate change(…) the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The CAUSE of disruptive climate change (…) is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
There is nothing in the AGU statement that supports your word games.
You are a blind man looking for a shadow of doubt.
LikeLike
Cedric, your may think what I’m clarifying is a word game, but even if it is, it is the root cause of why your certainty in the science behind the IPCC’s proclamation is losing the public relations battle. Your certainty misrepresents the real science which is far from certain that directly links human activity to causing climate change. As much as you may believe otherwise, or assume that I am abusing words, that statement is simply true and somehow you are going to have to come to terms with that. Your position of certainty is dishonest and misleading. In addition, it’s an extraordinarily stupid tactical position to take that opens up ALL the climate science to misrepresentation and dismissal. And that’s what’s happening. Your certainty is no help whatsoever: it’s fuel for the denialists but you’re too busy labeling others as blind to see what’s right in front of your eyes.
As a case in point, look at the highly influential National Post editorial in Canada: There are plenty of ways in which these disclosures have been crucial (about Climategate), but the principal change has been the uncertainty creeping into the remarks of former True Believers. Some of those who for years have insisted the science is “settled,” are now admitting we don’t know all we need to before making trillion-dollar policy decisions.
Read the piece and see how positions like yours – you know, the kind presented as science but that have moved past such trivial issues like possessing any shadow of doubt – play directly into the hands of those who wish to convince the majority of voters that radical or even cautious change in energy policies seem to be unnecessary:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=9ed4f421-6134-4484-98be-d9f4f18d4a9c
LikeLike
…your certainty in the science behind the IPCC’s proclamation is losing the public relations battle.
Where exactly in the IPCC proclamation (or anywhere else in any of the scientific literature) does it say that…”… humans control climate change itself as a geophysical process.”?
Give me a direct quote in context.
(Plus a link, of course)
Where exactly in the IPCC proclamation (or anywhere else in any of the scientific literature) does it dismiss the pretty, bloody obvious statement that “Climate change is a dynamic process that has been with us always and shall continue to happen regardless of human activity.”?
Give me a direct quote in context.
(Plus a link, of course)
…look at the highly influential National Post editorial in Canada.
No, I’m sorry.
That won’t do.
I don’t get my science from “editorials”, no matter how breathlessly “influential” they may be.
I get my science from science sources.
There is no substitute.
…the kind presented as science but that have moved past such trivial issues like possessing any shadow of doubt.
Nice try at setting up a strawman so you can knock it down but…no banana.
😉
I assure you that the global scientific community still remembers the basic scientific principle that “all science is tentative”.
You are just a “concern troll” playing word-games.
That’s very concerning.
The extremely complex nature of the Earth’s climate system as well as that of human society makes predictions about future climate patterns and their impacts especially tricky and open to continued scientific research and debate. But this does not mean that scientists cannot ever know anything with a high degree of confidence or that they are completely divided over global warming.
LikeLike
You got me, Cedric. I surrender. I yield to your certainty of scientific knowledge in the climate studies.
But there remains a puzzler for me, I’ll freely admit, but then I have the audacity to think that the science is not yet settled linking greenhouse gases emissions with climate change, which makes me the worst kind of denier in your mind… a living, breathing person you have made into a strawman because you know that the concerns that inform my thinking dare to refute what you call SCIENCE.
But I’ll leave you with one question, easily answerable I must assume by someone like you, now that I have been shown the error of my ways and the vastness of my own comparative ignorance having worked in climate science for merely two decades so what the hell can I possibly know:
Why do you think the climate models are neither predictive nor accurate?
LikeLike
tildeb – you ignore my request for clarification.
I want you to tell us who these “believers” are. You seem to be tarring scientists with that label – which is very inappropriate.
If you don’t intend that – then who the hell are they?
You claim “science is not yet settled linking greenhouse gases emissions with climate change” as if this was a mantra someone is advocating. The IPCC uses the terminology “most probably.” Science is never completely settled. But there is enough evidence and surety for governments to take the problem seriously.
“Why do you think the climate models are neither predictive nor accurate?” Models are never completely accurate. But governments are used to using them, in fact require them, even when they are far less reliable. Just think of the huge decisions they make using economic models.
The IPCC reviews projections based on models. They stress the variability in these projections. They are the best we have to work with. Governments realise that.
Of course these improve as we learn more about the science (eg role of clouds is rather uncertain at the moment) and use more and more computing power.
But humanity would indeed be silly to wait until we had sufficient science and power to give accurate projections.
I just can’t see what your problem is. Why use the pejorative label “believers”? Why use the mantra of “settled science”?
Personally, I think the current attempts to discredit the science behind climate change is really a transference of the problem.
The problem is not scientific it is ethical. Do we have the right to ignore these projections when our grandchildren will suffer the consequences? People seem to be afraid of facing up to the ethical question and therefore look for an excuse.
Similar to the creationist hostility to science.
But in both cases they end up denying or distorting the science.
LikeLike
I yield to your certainty of scientific knowledge in the climate studies.
I read the statements made by the scientific community.
That’s pretty much it.
Not much magic or mystery to it.
I don’t get my science from editorials.
Nor do I just make stuff up at random.
I suggest you do the same.
I have the audacity to think that the science is not yet settled linking greenhouse gases emissions with climate change…
No. It’s not audacity.
It’s something else entirely.
…you know that the concerns that inform my thinking dare to refute what you call SCIENCE.
Your “concerns” are not informed.
They are uninformed nonsense.
This is why you are simply incapable of finding any statements representing anything by the scientific community that backs up your “concerns”.
Remember those links I asked you about?
Where are they?
Disneyworld perhaps?
…you know that the concerns that inform my thinking dare to refute what you call SCIENCE.
No.
It’s not what “I” call science.
I’m just some anonymous guy on the internet.
It’s what NASA calls science.
It’s what the Royal Society calls science.
It’s what every single scientific community calls science.
There is no “I” about it.
(Nice strawman though)
😉
…having worked in climate science for merely two decades…
Sorry but…I don’t care.
I truely, madly, deeply don’t care.
You could have worked in “climate science” for three (3) decades and I would be oh-so-unimpressed.
If you like you could even bring up your other qualifications and boast about your two dozen Phd’s and your time at Oxford.
I just don’t care.
(shrug)
Some anonymous guy on the internet boasting about how he “knows stuff” and promising that he’s really an “expert” does not send a thrill up my leg.
Shill that line to the suckers.
Everybody’s an “expert” on the Internet.
If you’ve got something scientific to say then don’t waste your time here on this blog.
Take your case to the scientific arena.
Now.
Go.
Publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
A.S.A.P.
Have your work critically examined and vetted by the professionals.
Snap to it.
If they give you the thumbs up then…come back and tell us all.
Give the link.
Spell it out for us and glow in the warm glow of your vindication.
Now THAT would impress me.
I’ll happily eat a big slice of crow for you, freely admit it and you can take your own sweet time savouring your triumph of setting all of us straight.
That’s a promise.
Anything else is just gas.
You have a bad case of wind.
Why do you think the climate models are neither predictive nor accurate?
This is a PRATT.
We’ve been here before.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
LikeLike
For those of us new to this; can we get an update on what “denialism” means?
e.g. Are we supposed to “deny” that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years?
Are we supposed to “deny” that Phil Jones said this:
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
”
http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/1120593115.txt
I am confused.
Naturally I want to put my kids to bed, like any free-thinking kiwi parent, and tell them that their planet is f**cked, and they will all be drowned by rising sea levels. We all want to tell our kids that they will be fried by the planet hitting a tipping point of global warming.
We all want are kids to grow up to be terrified and hate humanity.
Of that, I am sure we are all in accord.
So, why the confusing messages from Phil Jones?
Context please, I am sure these have been cherry picked by the right wing fossil fuel industry.
LikeLike
New denier – did you not read my article?
Did you not watch the video?
I thought these would have answered your questions.
Unless, of couse, you are “in denial” and therefore wish to protect youself from the objective science by setting up a smokescreen.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
For those of us new to this; can we get an update on what “denialism” means?
This has been covered before.
Skepticism is not the same as denialism.
It’s like Holocaust denialism.
Or AID’s denialism.
Link.
LikeLike
I agree, we simply need to stop all deniers in their tracks
They are not worth listening to. They are trolls, playing russian roulette with the planet.
We need to restrict internet access to prevent these denialists poisoning The Truth .
Our children deserve this.
The denialists are not actually human. They are like a virus on the planet.
They are like a cancer tumour on my skin. Simply to be eradicated.
I hope we can all work in a positive and open manner in which to remove the denialist poison from our midst
LikeLike
By the way, I have just realised that The Internet is powered by Coal (at least a significant part of it – just check out where Google’s datacenters are located)
So, as a result, I am going to go offline, live in my yurt, and eat lentils.
Goodnight and non-God bless 🙂
LikeLike
Question:
How much of the IPCC AR4 report is peer-reviewed?
Any guesses?
LikeLike
New to denialism: “How much of the IPCC AR4 report is peer-reviewed?”
Strange question. None of it I imagine. It’s not a scientific paper, as I understand it it’s a review of the current state of science and any other relevant knowledge on the state of the planet’s climate.
Do you mean: how much of the report is based on peer reviewed science?
You could just take a look for yourself, it’s available here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
LikeLike
OK, my question was:
“How much of the CONTENT of the IPCC AR4 is peer-reviewed”?
Oh, yes I can take a look myself, but it is a very big task to go through and figure out how much is peer-reviewed.
Luckily, there is a new project to do just this.
We are interested, because, as we know, the evidence is based on “peer-reviewed science”
Knowing how much is not peer reviewed and just statements from advocacy groups such as WWF and Greenpeace will provide a interesting insight, I am sure you will agree.
LikeLike
Oh, yes I can take a look myself, but it is a very big task…
Not really.
…the evidence is based on “peer-reviewed science”
Yep.
Scientists all over the world have been researching the climate of the planet for decades.
All their research is in peer reviewed journals.
That’s how the scientific consensus was slowly built up.
The old-fashioned way.
Scientists have the research.
Deniers don’t.
The overwhelming body of evidence that has been published supports AGW.
People have already looked into this.
Link.
This is a very uncomfortable fact for deniers so…they’ve tried to throw up a smokescreen to “prove” that there’s lots of peer-reviewed papers that are anti-AGW too.
It didn’t work very well.
Too many people out there are willing to fact check.
Link.
The problem is that most people (especially creationists) are clueless about the value of peer review. They don’t know how it works. A few even believe that it’s like a private club designed to weed out new ideas that threaten the status quo.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Peer review is important for all branches of science.
Medicine, biology, physics are all good examples…
NASA and the rest of the world’s scientists are not involved in a giant communist plot to steal your money.
Forget Glen Beck, read up on the science.
LikeLike
You don’t get it.
How much of the IPCC Ar4 is NOT peer reviewed?
Lot’s of it.
LikeLike
You don’t get it.
How much of the IPCC Ar4 is NOT peer reviewed?
Well, as Richard explained to you, AR4 is not a scientific paper.
The process of how AR4 was written is no secret.
The IPCC takes great pains to explain how how their publications are created and where they get their information from.
It’s really easy to figure out that not all the material used is not peer-reviewed.
They carefully explain this to the general public.
They even drew a nice diagram to make sure everybody could understand this simple point.
It’s right there in the link Richard gave you…
Link.
There is no conspiracy.
This information has been publically available and written in plain English for a long time.
(shrug)
LikeLike
But Pauchari said himself that the AR4 was all peer reviewed. He said they “did not use newspaper clippings”
Both these statements are untrue.
Pauchari is a lier
*shrug*
But I guess it is OK to lie when you are on the right side, eh Cedric?
LikeLike
Try here
and some of these references in this Peer reviewed document include:
article in Climbing magazine
Boot cleaning guide to antarctica
Marxist textbook
Press releases from Allianz and WWF
Greenpeace propoganda
Newspaper clippings
etc etc.
May be if we could see the SCIENCE in the IPCC report we might actually understand, rather than padding it out with anecdotal evidence.
But I am sure you have a response to that. It’s like arguing with the Mormons.
LikeLike
But Pauchari said himself that the AR4 was all peer reviewed.
He did?
When?
Where?
Give the quote.
He certainly doesn’t say that in the video.
He said they “did not use newspaper clippings”
No he didn’t. Listen carefully.
You suffer from selective hearing.
He explains the process very well.
The IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings. This is on the basis of rigorous research that has stood the test of scrutiny through peer review.
That’s all true.
The IPCC reports are indeed based on peer review.
You seem to be focusing only on the inclusion of literature that is not peer-reviewed.
For example if you followed the link that Richard gave you, you would read…
Supporting Material
Workshops and Expert Meetings may be held to support the IPCC assessment process, to scope an IPCC Report or to advise the Panel e.g. on whether to prepare a Special Report. The IPCC may also co-sponsor workshops if its activity will be useful to the work of the IPCC.
Proceedings of IPCC workshops and expert meetings are normally published as IPCC supporting material. Supporting material is not subject to formal IPCC review processes. For some IPCC expert meetings or scoping meetings only summary reports are prepared, which can be found under meetings and documentation.
Ignore the spin from the anti-science sites.
The scientists are not out to get you.
The reason why you are so confused is probably because you get your information about climate science from denial blogs and news media pundits.
Link.
LikeLike
OK, fine
But what is the purpose of includin NON-PEER reviewed articles, e.g newspape clippings, in the IPCC report.
Apart for unsubstantiated propoganda?
You keep bleating about the “deniers” (of which I am not one, btw) not having any “peer-reviewed” papers, but WHAT IS THE POINT OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS IN THE IPCC report?
These “reports” have been show to contain completely unsubstantiated information, and only degrade the quality of the IPCC report
It serves NO VALUE whatsoever to have this anecdotal evidence in the IPCC report.
LikeLike
“The reason why you are so confused is probably because you get your information about climate science from denial blogs and news media pundits.”
You patronising wanker
I am a PhD qualified scientist
LikeLike
But what is the purpose of includin NON-PEER reviewed articles, e.g newspape clippings, in the IPCC report.
Well, maybe you could…read the link that Richard gave you?
The IPCC is not a secret society.
They are not a closed shop.
Maybe, just maybe, they talk about why they include non-peer reviewed literature in reports.
This kind of thing is all publically available.
If you are genuinely interested then it’s not all that hard to find out.
Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?
Is that how the scientific world operates?
Seriously?
😉
I am a PhD qualified scientist
So?
(yawn)
Sorry but…I don’t care.
I truely, madly, deeply don’t care.
You could have a dozen (12) Phd’s and I would be oh-so-unimpressed.
If you like you could even bring up your other wonderous qualifications and boast about your time at Oxford.
I just don’t care.
(shrug)
Some anonymous guy on the internet boasting about how he “knows stuff” and promising that he’s really an “expert” does not send a thrill up my leg.
Shill that line to the suckers.
Everybody’s an “expert” on the Internet.
If you’ve got something scientific to say then don’t waste your time here on this blog.
Take your case to the scientific arena.
Now.
Go.
Publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
A.S.A.P.
Have your work critically examined and vetted by the professionals.
Snap to it.
If they give you the thumbs up then…come back and tell us all.
Give the link.
Spell it out for us and glow in the warm glow of your vindication.
Now THAT would impress me.
I’ll happily eat a big slice of crow for you, freely admit it and you can take your own sweet time savouring your triumph of setting all of us straight.
That’s a promise.
Anything else is just gas.
You have a bad case of wind.
LikeLike
:Some anonymous guy on the internet boasting about how he “knows stuff” and promising that he’s really an “expert” does not send a thrill up my leg.
Shill that line to the suckers.”
But it’s OK if you find some “stuff” and put it in the IPCC report.
Even if it is completely unsubstantiated.
As long as it is scary enough.
Like if I had a newspaper clipping that said the temperature in my town hadn’t changed in 30 years
Would that get in?
I doubt it
You don’t care that I have a dozen PhD’s from Oxford, but you expect the world to listen to a ski instructors “evidence” as overheard in the pub?
LikeLike
“The mind doesn’t work if it’s closed” is the title on this blog.
How ironic
LikeLike
“Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?
Is that how the scientific world operates?
Seriously?”
Yes, you got it!
Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
Do you think these guys actually CARE about the environment or believe this crap?
LikeLike
But it’s OK if you find some “stuff” and put it in the IPCC report.
Well, it depends on what the “stuff” is and why they put it there and what importance they give to it.
Even if it is completely unsubstantiated.
As long as it is scary enough.
Nope. That’s not how the scientific community works.
Let go of your paranoia.
A while back, you mentioned this interesting list ….
“article in Climbing magazine
Boot cleaning guide to antarctica
Marxist textbook
Press releases from Allianz and WWF
Greenpeace propoganda
Newspaper clippings”
Ok.
I’ll bite.
Where did you actually get this list from?
Sources please.
(Oh and do you truely believe that this is what the IPCC reports are really based upon, as opposed to being based upon peer-reviewed literature?)
LikeLike
Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
The IPCC relies upon the global scientific community for scientific literature.
The global scientific community is not run by “Hard left statist marxists”.
NASA, for example, is not a hotbed of communist activity. It never has been.
(Plus they really did send people to the moon)
LikeLike
I’ll let you know later
An independent audit of the IPCC “grey” literature is being done
LikeLike
I’ll let you know later…
Huh?
Wha….?
What’s the hold up?
You certainly didn’t wait for an “independent audit” a few posts ago.
Why the sudden change?
Don’t let “the man” keep you silent.
Break through the shackles of censorship!
The people have a right to know!!!!!
I presume that your list did not just magically appear.
Where did you get it from?
Your local newspaper?
A toilet wall?
Or maybe, just maybe,…a blog?
😉
Go on.
Name the blog. Give the specific link.
It wasn’t a…denialist blog by any chance?
Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
How did you find out that the IPCC were all “Hard Left Marxists”?
That’s quite a bit of stunning detective work.
Amazing really.
What evidence do you have to support such a jaw-dropping claim?
How come nobody else (including NASA and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society etc) are mentioning this?
Could it be that they all have been taken over by “Hard Left Marxists” too?
All of them?
Really?
Do tell.
Give us all the details.
It sounds…fascinating.
LikeLike
Well, of course my information about the newspaper clippings comes from “denier” blogs, as you call them, such as WUWT. However, you can trawl through the IPCC report to find them.
e.g
As for “hard left”, well you only need to look a the EU and see how it is destroying the UK economy through its marxist totalitarian views and its obsession with climate change.
The lights will go out in about 5 years in theUK.,
Their energy policy has nowhere to go. All driven by IPCC myopia
LikeLike
You out them pretty quickly Cedric.
It’s beautiful to behold, like listening to a maestro.
LikeLike
@Richard Christie
So, Richard, you are OK with the IPC including non-peer reviewed articles are you?
Governments are forming public policy based on this
Are you OK with governments taking your tax based on unsubstantiated rumours?
LikeLike
Hey Richard, Cedric!
Big up!
Lets get those deniers eh!!
Ship em off to the gas chambers just like we did with the Jew in WW2
Hahaha
A
LikeLike
“So, Richard, you are OK with the IPC including non-peer reviewed articles are you?
Governments are forming public policy based on this”
Of course I am, as Cedric tried to explain to you the methodology and scope of the report is explained in AR4 and on the IPCC website. Try reading and understanding it
before you criticise it. It is a fool’s errand to criticise anything before attempting to understand it.
“Lets get those deniers eh!!”
No need, they do it themselves, as this thread illustrates. Frequently criticism of the science has its roots in political or social ideology. Not in the science at all.
Cedric seems to have a knack of bringing it to the surface. All the same I’m surprised at how quickly the conspiracy theory erupted here.
LikeLike
So, you are OK with the destruction of western culture at the expense of your myopic ideology?
LikeLike
“So, you are OK with the destruction of western culture at the expense of your myopic ideology?”
Ab irato.
LikeLike
I suggest you all watch the UK’s economic demise over the next 5 years.
It will be a role model for New Zealand
LikeLike
“New to denialism”, that was a nifty trick, managing to change your avatar to same one as “a true believer” has.
😉
LikeLike
“New to denialism”, that was a nifty trick, managing to change your avatar to same one as “a true believer” has.
That was a neat trick.
Real smooth.
Marvelous what a “Phd” can do for a fellow.
🙂
Or maybe, just maybe…it was the “Hard Left Marxists” that were responsible?
:):)
LikeLike
All the same I’m surprised at how quickly the conspiracy theory erupted here.
Conspiracy theorists are a hoot.
I’m sure we all remember “Rob”.
Ken was the first to nab “Rob” with him being not only being a climate denier but als0 a 9/11 Truther .
Reading between the lines, I felt sure that Rob was a JFK “grassy knoll” type as well.
I’ll say one thing for him.
At least Rob was coherent enough to avoid confirming or denying anything about what happened to JFK.
(Though that would have made a nice trifecta.)
He did leap out and say that he believed that NASA did indeed go the moon.
Yet he just didn’t feel comfortable revealing what happened on that fateful day in Dallas.
Curious.
“New to denialism/A true believer etc” is a different breed. He dived headfirst into the krazy pit when offered the chance.
The very phrase “Hard Left Marxist” speaks volumes all by itself.
“Hard Left Marxist”.
Wow.
It’s impossible to make a phrase like that up.
It has to be cut from whole cloth.
Remember boys and girls:
How do we know that the IPCC are “Hard Left Marxists”?
Well….um…..well… Look at the EU! Just look at it!! The EU is “Hard Left Marxist” therefore the IPCC is “Hard Left Marxist”.
I’ll be proved right in five years. Just you wait.
Q.E.D.
Oh happy day.
😉
LikeLike
The policies suggested out of the UN/IPCC lobby are cut from the same cloth as the EU.
In fact, much of Pauchauri’s funding comes from the EU.
I have never suggested that there was a conspiracy theory.
Please wake up before it is too late. They want your money and your freedom.
LikeLike
I have never suggested that there was a conspiracy theory.
My dear Andy Scrace, I believe you.
Of course you’re not suggesting a conspiracy theory.
Absolutely.
Sure.
🙂
You just think that the IPPC is secretly run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Which (of course) you believe because…the whole of the European Union in the 21st century is run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Why, absolutely everybody knows and understands this.
Eminently reasonable.
No conspiracy or paraniod delusions to see here, folks!
🙂
LikeLike
If I were gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that! -Seinfeld), I think I could love you, Cedric. 😉
LikeLike
🙂
(I take a bow.)
Speaking of Seinfled references…
LikeLike