Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

You seriously can’t see the difference between:

1. Funding of scientific research.

Both are using the oil money for research, travel, etc. Unless, you have evidence to the contrary.

1. Funding of PR campaigns designed to convince the public that the results of the scientific research are different to what the science itself says or that the science is “unsound”.

Do you realy want me to go into PR campaigns? How much does GreenPeace OR WWF OR Suzuki spend on AGW for example?

Frederick W. Robertson said, “There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny.”

 

[JasonSB]

I’ve been told basically, IPCC isn’t deceitful.

YET:

All of which are quotes from Pachauri, yet again – the guy the Bush administration promoted to replace Robert Watson after ExxonMobil faxed them asking for Watson to be removed as head of the IPCC.

Pachauri was wrong. The IPCC is allowed to use grey literature. The recent IAC review of the IPCC re-affirms that “such material, which can include technical reports, conference proceedings, observational data or model results, often is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports”. (reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/OpeningStatement.html)

I asked for defects in the reports. Actual errors. Instead you quote Pachauri, Bush’s man, wrongly claiming that the IPCC is not allowed to use non-peer-reviewed material when, clearly, the IPCC’s own rules say it is, and then a bunch of posts pointing out that it does, in fact, do what it’s rules say it is allowed to.

What’s even more hilarious is what they flag. Take this, from Chapter 10:

“The range was the same as in an early report of the National Research Council (Charney, 1979), and the two previous IPCC assessment reports (Mitchell et al., 1990; Kattenberg et al., 1996).”

That simple statement about what previous reports stated – two of them IPCC reports! – is counted as three non-peer-reviewed-references!

Now I know you’re going to love this one:

“Science may be stimulated by argument and debate, but it generally advances through formulating hypotheses clearly and testing them objectively. This testing is the key to science. In fact, one philosopher of science insisted that to be genuinely scientific, a statement must be susceptible to testing that could potentially show it to be false (Popper, 1934).”

Yep – that’s another one! Referring to Popper’s treatise on falsifiability in the IPCC report was actually flagged by this citizen audit for the use of non-peer-reviewed literature!

This is the kind of “error” that your so-called “citizen auditors” found – the 7% of references that were not peer-reviewed include references to standard text books, Popper, and previous IPCC reports – among the most peer-reviewed publications ever produced!

As I said, I asked you for defects. Is there anything wrong with the science. Having the report quote Karl Popper does not cast doubt on its accuracy.

 

[kimmielittle]

That’s not the IPCC,

Ha ha ha! I believe, he’s well into his second term as head of IPCC. I believe, the second term was appointed BY the IPCC.

Isn’t it just a little disingenuous to use statements by a guy that the climate scientists didn’t want, who was a political appointment promoted by Bush and isn’t even a climate scientist, against the climate scientists?

No, its disingenuous to try to promote the IPCC as not being deceitful - Which Pachauri does.

Does the IPCC report say “Global warming is real – trust us, we’re scientists?” No. It clearly spells out the evidence in the scientific literature so everyone can see for themselves why the IPCC report reaches the conclusions it does. Quotes by Pachauri do not refute that.

AND we see the process isn’t as promoted. Why should the public trust their conclusions of IPCC, when I’ve offered many posts that go against IPCC’s own rules?

 

[JasonSB]

Note: it has also been stated a few times that IPCC has volunteers. As if this excuses mistakes made.

The IPCC only has ten full-time staff at the WMO in Geneva plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups plus the national greenhouse gas inventories group. All the actual work is done by thousands of unpaid volunteers who contribute as authors or reviewers.

And the only actual mistake that’s been found is the Himalayan glacier error in WG2 that conflicted with the correct statements found in WG1.

YET: this audit took ONLY 5 weeks work to find these - BY volunteers
. IPCC volunteers had 6 years

It only took me five minutes to prove that the entire premise of that audit was false – that the IPCC is allowed to reference non-peer-reviewed material, and that the so-called “errors” your audit found included references to the IPCC reports themselves, references to famous works by notable people like Popper, and PhD theses that are usually regarded as worth more than a peer-reviewed journal publication!

All those volunteers searching all those references for five weeks and all they accomplished was that. Not even a single, actual error?

And what of the WG1 chapter, the actual science?

Even by their rediculous standards, where citing Popper is considered an error, every single chapter of WG1 got an A or a B.

 

[kimmielittle]

Pachauri was wrong. The IPCC is allowed to use grey literature. The recent IAC review of the IPCC re-affirms that “such material, which can include technical reports, conference proceedings, observational data or model results, often is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports”. (reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/OpeningStatement.html)

The full quote

The use of non-peer-reviewed sources, which is sometimes called gray literature, also has been controversial and blamed for some of the errors. However, we found that such material, which can include technical reports, conference proceedings, observational data or model results, often is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. IPCC has guidelines for the use of such sources,** but these guidelines are vague and have not always been followed. ** We recommend that these guidelines be made more specific – including noting what types of sources are unacceptable – and that they be more strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is adequately evaluated and appropriately flagged in the reports.

 

[JasonSB]

ABSOLUTELY!!! BUT the person is walking.

Which makes no difference. Still.

 

[JasonSB]

The full quote

Well obviously they haven’t always been followed – WG2 made the Himalayan Glacier mistake, remember? By definition something went wrong. WG1 contains all the climate scientists. WG2 deals with the impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems and contains social scientists, ecologists, etc. The problem for the WG2 folks is that they rely on the climate science as produced by the WG1 folks but the WG1 folks are working in parallel. Hence WG2 was apparently unaware of everything that WG1 was working on. The irony of it is that the single, erroneous sentence in WG2 was immediately contradicted by the very next sentence, and this was actually raised by several reviewers, but was overlooked by the review editor.

If you look at the really full quote of the IAC review, you’ll see:

In addition, the large number of review comments may distract Lead Authors from fully addressing the most important issues. Having Review Editors identify the key issues that must be addressed would ensure that these issues receive due consideration. Allowing Lead Authors to document only their responses to noneditorial comments would reduce their administrative burden.

…]

The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.

I think I can guess the review comments they’re talking about.

But anyway, the point is this: a mistake slipped through the cracks. The IPCC’s procedures weren’t followed. Reducing the extraneous reviewers will help reduce the workload and help avoid this happening again.

Oh, and it doesn’t affect the science. But you must have known that already, because otherwise you would have posted actual flaws in the science rather than flooding the forum with copy-and-pasted reports that don’t actually show any flaws.

 

[kimmielittle]

This in IPCC citations

climatequotes.com/2010/02/01/ipcc-cites-boot-cleaning-guide-for-antarctica-tour-operators/

No that headline is not a joke. The IPCC cited a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing. Here it is.
The reference is in the Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II, section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic. The claim is:"**The multiple stresses of climate change **and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have **necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines **for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005)."

This is referenced as:

IAATO, 2005: Update on boot and clothing decontamination guidelines and the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic wildlife: IAATO’s perspective. Paper submitted by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp. iaato.org/info.html.
So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the “multiple stresses of climate change…have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines”. That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is the article doesn’t even mention climate change. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. Nothing!​

Read the document here

That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is the article doesn’t even mention climate change. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. **Nothing!

Seems deceitful to me
**

 

[kimmielittle]

%between%

    ***Climategate is one of many known IPCC failings***  **By Lawrence Solomon**

Two years ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the world’s most celebrated organization, guardian of the world against the peril of climate change and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for “its outstanding scientific work!”

Today, the IPCC stands among the world’s most infamous organizations, its reputation in tatters, unable to respond to a growing chorus of critics because the critics now include many of its once-fiercest champions, among them its own scientists, and because its chairman and chief spokesman, India’s Rajendra Pachauri, is himself thoroughly disgraced. “The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri?,” asks John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, “I don’t think so.”

What caused a fall from grace so sudden that IPCC’s insiders now demand Pachauri’s ouster, and that leads the Indian government to set up an “Indian IPCC” as a national alternative to the IPCC, declaring that it “cannot rely” any longer on the organization that its own representative heads?

One answer is Climategate — the unauthorized release of emails in November that showed the duplicity of scientists associated with the IPCC. Unquestionably, Climategate opened the floodgates to the torrent of scandals that have since poured out, seemingly without end. Many of the new scandals, some of them sporting “-gate” as a suffix, were little known before the Climategate emails were released; many were well known, but not publicized by a compliant press. Their sheer number deserves cataloguing.

Glaciergate: The post-Climategate scandal with the greatest repercussions involves a scientifically impossible yet much-touted IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. This claim originated in a conversation in 1999 between a UK journalist and an Indian glaciologist, who made an off-hand remark about India’s glaciers disappearing. The World Wildlife Fund then cited this glaciologist’s speculation in a fundraising and advocacy campaign in 2005. Then the IPCC cited the World Wildlife Fund’s campaign material as the source for the imminent end of the Himalayan glaciers.

At no point did the IPCC require anything remotely resembling peer-review to test the speculation that the end of the Himalayan glaciers was nigh, and this was deliberate. As Murari Lal, the IPCC’s coordinating lead author for the glacier chapter explained, he knew the work hadn’t been verified but felt scary scenarios were needed to rouse public concern: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

More WWF: The IPCC’s reliance on the World Wildlife Fund as an authority in Glaciergate was no anomaly. Blogger Donna Laframboise thought to do a search on the IPCC’s own site of “WWF” and found it turned up dozens of times, and was a source on everything from mudflows and avalanches to fish in the Mesoamerican reef.

Greenpeace et al.: Ms. Framboise then checked out Greenpeace and found that this advocacy organization, too, was an IPCC source. For example, Greenpeace’s report, The Pacific in Peril, was the sole source for a claim that linked global warming to coral reef degradation. On a roll, she then found that members of other advocacy organizations, such as people from David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defense and Friends of the Earth were among the IPCC’s “expert reviewers.”

Ice-capped mountains: The IPCC relied on even sketchier sources in deciding that ice was disappearing from the world’s mountain tops. In blaming global warming for the loss of mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa, the IPCC’s most recent 2007 report cited two papers as the basis for its conclusions. One was authored by a geography student and climate change campaigner who was trying for the equivalent of a master’s degree at Switzerland’s University of Berne. The student made his case on the basis of interviews with mountain guides in the Swiss Alps. The second paper was a popular article in Climbing, a magazine for mountain climbers that quoted mountaineers about the changes they had observed.

More

%between%

 

[kimmielittle]

Well obviously they haven’t always been followed – WG2 made the Himalayan Glacier mistake, remember?

Mistake?

As Murari Lal, the IPCC’s coordinating lead author for the glacier chapter explained, he knew the work hadn’t been verified but felt scary scenarios were needed to rouse public concern: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

.Seems like deceit, to me.

 

[JasonSB]

OPEN to interpretation “90% likely”

No doubt it will be said that some of these papers don’t mention AGW because it’s taken for granted.

Wow, that takes me back!

First, some background. Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928 papers in refereed scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the scientific consensus. This report was peer-reviewed and published in the journal Science.

Al Gore used this result in his film.

Benny Peiser disputed this and claimed 34 rejected or doubted the consensus. When Tim Lambert asked Peiser for his list and checked them only one paper on his list of 34 actually rejected the consensus (from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists!) and it wasn’t a peer-reviewed paper. Oreskes was right.

Fast-forward nearly a year and we get Schulte’s effort. Tim Lambert decided to audit his claims.

The result? Only three actually reject the consensus: One published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; one “arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn’t explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn’t changed over that period”; and one “which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published. (What is the next number in this sequence? 60. Their answer is 60.)”

But even without the audit, let’s take the quote from your article:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

And now let’s report exactly the same results with different words:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 7 (1%) gave an explicit rejection of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” rejection (rejecting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 6%. However, while 244 papers (45%) accept the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, that do not address the cause of global warming.

So:

45% accept the consensus.

6% reject the consensus.

48% of the papers were neutral, neither accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. Why? 24% (half of the neutral papers) were simply reporting new data/observations on climate change. 2% were conducting new research on the consensus question. No idea about the rest. However, the point is they did not address the issue – just like many other papers on completely unrelated topics. Should we include those too? That will make the percentages really small.

Of course, the only thing we can meaningfully do with papers that do not address the issue is ignore them.

If we do that we find over 88% of the papers published between 2004 and 2007 that addressed the issue of AGW accepted the consensus, and only 12% rejected it. Auditing shows that of those 12%, only three actually reject it, and they aren’t exactly Earth-changing.

The clincher? After all that, Schulte’s paper was ultimately rejected. By Energy and Environment! So you’re using a paper that failed peer review. Does that count as “grey”?

 

[kimmielittle]

And what of the WG1 chapter, the actual science?

Even by their rediculous standards, where citing Popper is considered an error, every single chapter of WG1 got an A or a B.

And 71% of total of IPCC’s whole six years work got a C or less.
56% got a D or less.

UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 'F’s on Report Card

• all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
• 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
• IPCC chairman’s claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
• each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
• 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
• 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project

•  [full      report card here](http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php)

• detailed results here

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I bet with that ratio I could get a college grant, Or at least a PhD, if you were on the board

 

[kimmielittle]

It only took me five minutes to prove that the entire premise of that audit was false

Actually no. This would be a fallacy in logic.
As long as they carried out their scoring according to their rules which are listed ].

Your logic fallacy would be much like saying, “I don’t deserve an F because I’m an A student in other classes”, IMO

 

[kimmielittle]

that the IPCC is allowed to reference non-peer-reviewed material,

Another fallacy in logic. It doesn’t matter what is allowed. It’s what has been presented by the head of IPCC - that is what it was graded on / against.

"People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of **peer-reviewed ** literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

 

[John21652]

Now the sick secret is out. The totalitarians want to get their hands on the world’s financial levers.

IPCC Official: Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

 

[kimmielittle]

Wow, that takes me back!

I think, the pearl is within the article. That is why I labeled it " OPEN to interpretation “90% likely” ". Sorry you missed it.

Here is the pearl.

The figures are even more shocking ** when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here** Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming.

Bolding mine

IMO AGW has applied the word “consensus” so loosely throughout it’s campaign - it means nothing anymore, to either side of the AGW debate.

 

[kimmielittle]

The totalitarians want to get their hands on the world’s financial levers.

IMO it has never been about the environment.

I think it started out against coal -

CO2 is the only thing coal can not “clean”, for now.

Coal is cheap and abundant.

Coal competes with oil and other energy.

Coal had to go.

Oil money and other energy sources funded CRU.

Because, CRU promoted CO2 the only thing coal can’t clean ] as the main driver of Climate Change.

Then the economists - governments - World Bank … got involved.

In all my researching, I find nothing to contest my opinion of this.

 

[Ender]

Now the sick secret is out. The totalitarians want to get their hands on the world’s financial levers.

IPCC Official: Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Given that Edenhofer is the co-chairman of the IPCC Working Group III his comments should be taken quite seriously.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.

Yes, by all means, let’s discuss the confiscation … I mean, redistribution … of wealth from the developed countries.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

The IPCC only has ten full-time staff at the WMO in Geneva

And 6 years time.

This audit had 40 volunteers and 5 weeks time…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[kimmielittle]

Given that Edenhofer is the co-chairman of the IPCC Working Group III his comments should be taken quite seriously.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.

Yes, by all means, let’s discuss the confiscation … I mean, redistribution … of wealth from the developed countries.

Ender

All one has to do is look at the “solutions” offered by IPCC / UN, to see it was never about the environment.

Cap and Trade
Carbon Credits
Population Control

Does not address the poor
Does not address the environment

How anyone can hang Good Stewardship of the environment - OR poor - on economic - eugenics “solutions” as being environmentally sound, or to help the poor…

I spend my monies on the poor.
I spend my monies on the environment.

Not to bolster IPCC / UN AGW schemes