Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[sps49]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations body that evaluates climate change science
…

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

I’m just stating facts…

Of course you are, the facts as you see them. Only it’s not as simple as the noble altruistic organization you paint the IPCC to be. Their Summary for Policy Makers is a clever combination of selective truths, which gives short shrift to the uncertainties embedded in their “summary.” Perhaps they ran out of ink. In truth, it is a collection of subjective opinions, unmolested by the uncertainties inherent in the main body of work. To claim it is balanced is to make one wonder what it is balanced with. The Summary is indeed a political document, that is it’s purpose, to influence policy.

 

[Karen107]

Of course you are, the facts as you see them. Only it’s not as simple as the noble altruistic organization you paint the IPCC to be. Their Summary for Policy Makers is a clever combination of selective truths, which gives short shrift to the uncertainties embedded in their “summary.” Perhaps they ran out of ink. In truth, it is a collection of subjective opinions, unmolested by the uncertainties inherent in the main body of work. To claim it is balanced is to make one wonder what it is balanced with. The Summary is indeed a political document, that is it’s purpose, to influence policy.

Actually what you just said was your opinion. But they are agreeing with what MOST of the scientists are saying in our own country. If Most of the scientists were saying that climate change were not the result of mans doing, I might give pause, but they dont. It’s as simple as that. I believe the experts. Of course they intend to influence policy. Change can’t happen without someones influence. Certainly we can ignore them, but it wouldn’t be wise to ignore what the majority of experts are saying. I’m not a doctor, if I were to ignore what the majority of my doctors advice would be regarding my health, I might as well never have need for a doctor. But I believe at some point I must place my trust in the doctors who have more expertise than I and I think that is wisdom.

 

[sps49]

Actually what you just said was your opinion. But they are agreeing with what MOST of the scientists are saying in our own country. If Most of the scientists were saying that climate change were not the result of mans doing, I might give pause, but they dont.

It is indeed, an informed opinion. The Summary is designed as a policy instrument, therefore it is political. They gloss over the uncertainties because that would make it more “confusing” to the layman for which it is designed. The lack of objective tests in the bulk of the IPCC work means that the opinions must be made by the opinion of experts, and hence subjective. As anyone who has done this kind of work knows, expert opinion is just dandy, until you ask another expert.

By in large, most of our technical advances were made possible by repeatable propositions which are measured objectivity, not by the quantity of scientists piled upon scales, pro and con. Except climate change, whose proposition is so weak that it needs a political tool, consensus, to survive.

A life time in science and engineering makes it possible to read primary research, reviews and interpret these claims myself, with out relying on activist organizations to spoon feed the answer to me. Being a responsible citizen investigating science claims is not easy, but it is rewarding; I recommend it to everyone. The learning curve is a bit steep, but it will make the material accessible

 

[sps49]

Change can’t happen without someones influence. Certainly we can ignore them, but it wouldn’t be wise to ignore what the majority of experts are saying. I’m not a doctor, if I were to ignore what the majority of my doctors advice would be regarding my health, I might as well never have need for a doctor. But I believe at some point I must place my trust in the doctors who have more expertise than I and I think that is wisdom.

Informed change is the goal, I would think. Your Dr analogy might be applicable if you had gangrene, a pronounced tumor, or were the victim of an industrial accident. Happily for us this is not the case. Like I said before, science does not work by pro and con consensus, it operates by objective repeatable propositions and experiment. That way, one can check for oneself if the proposition is true without relying on advertising, pleas for belief, or other non objective non repeatable means.

 

[Karen107]

It is indeed, an informed opinion. The Summary is designed as a policy instrument, therefore it is political. They gloss over the uncertainties because that would make it more “confusing” to the layman for which it is designed. The lack of objective tests in the bulk of the IPCC work means that the opinions must be made by the opinion of experts, and hence subjective. As anyone who has done this kind of work knows, expert opinion is just dandy, until you ask another expert.

By in large, most of our technical advances were made possible by repeatable propositions which are measured objectivity, not by the quantity of scientists piled upon scales, pro and con. Except climate change, whose proposition is so weak that it needs a political tool, consensus, to survive.

A life time in science and engineering makes it possible to read primary research, reviews and interpret these claims myself, with out relying on activist organizations to spoon feed the answer to me. Being a responsible citizen investigating science claims is not easy, but it is rewarding; I recommend it to everyone. The learning curve is a bit steep, but it will make the material accessible

There used to be scientists who ‘denied’ that cigarettes were harmful to peoples health because they were in the pockets of big tobacco lobbyists. They’d point out that some smokers would live to 95 so therefore smoking isn’t dangerous. denial denial denial… This is a similar to that where scientists who are denying humans impacting climate change are really out there compared to what the scientists are actually saying… …So really who’s on the political end of this… ? the majority of scientists who say we have to act in a responsible way to protect our future which may call for sacrifice on our part, or the deniers who would cause inaction and more of the same old way and see what happens approach… There are two ways to look at this. I think on this we should take a proactive approach instead of a reactive approach, especially since we’re seeing the changes already.

 

[Karen107]

Informed change is the goal, I would think. Your Dr analogy might be applicable if you had gangrene, a pronounced tumor, or were the victim of an industrial accident. Happily for us this is not the case. Like I said before, science does not work by pro and con consensus, it operates by objective repeatable propositions and experiment. That way, one can check for oneself if the proposition is true without relying on advertising, pleas for belief, or other non objective non repeatable means.

So is your claim that you believe the 90 plus percent of scientists don’t do the needed research about climate change? That they’re all quacks? I mean we’ve helped my daughters go through university training to get a science and engineering degrees. Are you proposing that most of the scientists they learn from are quacks and politically motivated and no real science happens except the science you believe in?

Actually if I saw facts that weren’t overwhelmingly in favor of Man made climate change i would have to say there’s something to that but I’m a realist and I believe the scientists. Really I having seen any scientific data opposing what I believe and the MAJORITY of scientists are saying. Convince me with actual evidence please if you are up on it. Words are words and they are meaningless if they’re not backed up with facts on the same scale as what the 90 plus percent of scientists are saying. .

 

[Karen107]

edit…good night…

 

[sps49]

There used to be scientists who ‘denied’ that cigarettes were harmful to peoples health because they were in the pockets of big tobacco lobbyists. They’d point out that some smokers would live to 95 so therefore smoking isn’t dangerous. denial denial denial… This is a similar to that where scientists who are denying humans impacting climate change are really out there compared to what the scientists are actually saying… …So really who’s on the political end of this… ? the majority of scientists who say we have to act in a responsible way to protect our future which may call for sacrifice on our part, or the deniers who would cause inaction and more of the same old way and see what happens approach… There are two ways to look at this. I think on this we should take a proactive approach instead of a reactive approach, especially since we’re seeing the changes already.

The epidemiology and cell pathology of cigarette smoking as a repeatable science made itself apparent in the 20th century, and so much so that the different conditions of risks were identified: smokers, smokers who worked in asbestos/related industries, smokers who were exposed to radon. In this case, ignoring the data made one irrelevant because of the repeatable nature of the effect.

Climate change as a politically sensitive “Science” has been with us for 40 years, with a noticeable increase in attention in the last 27 years. In the same period of time, 40 years, we had the evidence from smoking that was clear and unambiguous, but not so for climate change. By inferring that people who disagree with the public pronouncements and political theater of AGW are the same as smoking is to engage in revisionist history and generalizations that are unsupportable. The people who disagree are not the ones who made it political, but the pro-AGW consensus messaging organizations, and even they now admit that it is a counter productive effort.

In your last point, by proactive you mean that mitigation measures must be taken before the physical system is understood. If you intend to muck around with global economies and energy systems, then you had better know enough about the physical systems that you can intelligently design a proper mitigation system if necessary. Otherwise, your design will likely not converge, and your costs will spiral without benefit. Acting out of fear is not a virtue that will be rewarded, when it comes to science and engineering.

 

[sps49]

So is your claim that you believe the 90 plus percent of scientists don’t do the needed research about climate change? That they’re all quacks? I mean we’ve helped my daughters go through university training to get a science and engineering degrees. Are you proposing that most of the scientists they learn from are quacks and politically motivated and no real science happens except the science you believe in?

Actually if I saw facts that weren’t overwhelmingly in favor of Man made climate change i would have to say there’s something to that but I’m a realist and I believe the scientists. Really I having seen any scientific data opposing what I believe and the MAJORITY of scientists are saying. Convince me with actual evidence please if you are up on it. Words are words and they are meaningless if they’re not backed up with facts on the same scale as what the 90 plus percent of scientists are saying. .

Your hyperbole is noted, but not relevant. You made it possible for your daughters to be educated in science and engineering, fine. But that does not guarantee an outcome, now does it? By making the claim that if the scientists are wrong they are quacks further confirms my suspicious that you are not familiar with how research works. Failures add needed data as much or more than the successes. Your all or nothing approach simply is not reality, nor is it my words.

All I can do is to implore you to look at it yourself, as I do. Read the research papers, educate yourself to do this, to understand the aims of the research, the conclusions, methods and uncertainties. If you think someone is going to give you the treasure map that says “dig here,” you are sadly mislead. There may not be an answer that will satisfy your bias, your personal belief in AGW, or a desire for a similarly “clean” answer. All I can say is that having read about a lot of it my self, I find it wanting, especially in terms of the doomsday-like predictions and worst case catastrophic scenarios. The data do not at this time support the conclusions and proposed political actions.

 

[Karen107]

Your hyperbole is noted, but not relevant. You made it possible for your daughters to be educated in science and engineering, fine. But that does not guarantee an outcome, now does it? By making the claim that if the scientists are wrong they are quacks further confirms my suspicious that you are not familiar with how research works. Failures add needed data as much or more than the successes. Your all or nothing approach simply is not reality, nor is it my words.

All I can do is to implore you to look at it yourself, as I do. Read the research papers, educate yourself to do this, to understand the aims of the research, the conclusions, methods and uncertainties. If you think someone is going to give you the treasure map that says “dig here,” you are sadly mislead. There may not be an answer that will satisfy your bias, your personal belief in AGW, or a desire for a similarly “clean” answer. All I can say is that having read about a lot of it my self, I find it wanting, especially in terms of the doomsday-like predictions and worst case catastrophic scenarios. The data do not at this time support the conclusions and proposed political actions.

I’m not familiar with how research works? Wha?? The point is that the deniers, like yourself are ignoring what MOST of the scientists are saying as if to say they’re not credible. Or… in other words… If they believe in man made climate change, the scientists must be quacks, or politically driven. all the 90 plus percent of them… See how that doesn’t make you sound very credible?

Still more words… no convincing data…

Look if you are trying to say they don’t get government grants unless they believe in man made climate change just say it…

 

[Karen107]

In your last point, by proactive you mean that mitigation measures must be taken before the physical system is understood. If you intend to muck around with global economies and energy systems, then you had better know enough about the physical systems that you can intelligently design a proper mitigation system if necessary. Otherwise, your design will likely not converge, and your costs will spiral without benefit. Acting out of fear is not a virtue that will be rewarded, when it comes to science and engineering.

We are so wasteful, it’s going to be near impossible for anyone to change their way of living unless there is a push… You call it fear, I call it a step in the right direction.

 

[sps49]

I’m not familiar with how research works? Wha?? The point is that the deniers, like yourself are ignoring what MOST of the scientists are saying as if to say they’re not credible. Or… in other words… If they believe in man made climate change, the scientists must be quacks, or politically driven. all the 90 plus percent of them… See how that doesn’t make you sound very credible?

Still more words… no convincing data…

Look if you are trying to say they don’t get government grants unless they believe in man made climate change just say it…

The use of the pejorative “denier” is indicative that you may not be interested in a reasoned discussion. Your preconception that if the claims of the pro-AGW are incorrect that they are then quacks or not “credible” is a distorted view, influenced by political activism. Politically driven? Yes the activist scientists who promote the use on incendiary language are political. You have been sold a bill of goods, that there is a clear answer to a complex question. The good guys and the bad guys, eh? Sadly, the world is not this simple.

As regards the “data” you so eagerly desire, it’s all there for the taking. Read the research papers, pay close attention to the “methods” and “conclusions” sections. See if they talk about the uncertainties in analysis, whether or not they distinguish between the possible (huge set of possibilities) or the plausible (smaller but more realistic set of possibilities).

Having been in R&D for a huge part of my career, I will admit that there is an art in maintaining grant flow to keep labs open, but you brought it up, I did not. I have no particular comment about grant structures outside of my sphere, nor am I interested in speculating about funding sources. I think if you look back on my posts, you will see that I have not mentioned this.

 

[sps49]

We are so wasteful, it’s going to be near impossible for anyone to change their way of living unless there is a push… You call it fear, I call it a step in the right direction.

Acting without the necessary information to make changes on a physical system without the necessary understanding to ensure success, especially on a global level is not a rational act. You are of course welcome to run your life as you see fit, but don’t expect to agitate for changes that affect others unless you have the compelling, objective proof necessary. Other wise you shall be challenged, much as I am challenging you now. I would suggest that you get used to it and settle in.

 

[Karen107]

Laudato Si identifies climate change as an environmental problem that demands immediate action. Pope Francis believes that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming or climate change. Is he justified in this belief?

Yes…

 

[Brendan_64]

We are so wasteful, it’s going to be near impossible for anyone to change their way of living unless there is a push… You call it fear, I call it a step in the right direction.

And how then do we deal with 3rd World industrial polluters. Do we tell them that they have to change their ways, stop polluting and meet CO2 emission targets? The irony is that the industry causing pollution is pulling these nations out of poverty. Or do we who have built our own huge prosperity on major industry turn round (now that we have secured our people’s prosperity) and say to other nations who are now building up their own nation’s prosperity to slow down, stop and invest in more expensive ways of generating wealth for their nations.

Industrialisation brings people out of poverty, are we now not guilty of condemning the very thing that creates prosperity in nations? Are we not effectively telling the 3rd World that they cannot have what we have, and that they have to do it in a very different way than we did even if that means their people suffer economically as a result?

The science is not conclusive on climate-change by any means. Should we really be calling on 3rd World nations to slow down their industrial economic growth based on a theory that is not conclusive? What right do we have to do that, particularly since we ourselves have done very nicely out of industrialisation?

 

[estesbob]

Why ?

Because the UN really has only two purposes Condemn Israel as often as possible and suck as much money out of the US as possible. The IPCC is dedicated to the latter.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

THE EPIC TAKEDOWN OF RP AND THE IPCC CONTINUES… PART 3

[The expertise of the IPCC is not as advertised.]

FOC: Dr. P you have boasted on many occasions that the IPCC’s scientists are the best and the brightest, tops in their fields?

P: Yes, our scientists are the best in the world.

FOC: Dr. P do you acknowledge that participating scientists are chosen by the IPCC’s member governments?

P: That’s public knowledge. How else are we to do it?

FOC: How about letting the scientists choose their best and brightest?

P: Oh, that would be too political.

FOC: Are you aware that Canadian journalist Donna Lafromboise reports that, in actual practice, IPCC scientists are chosen for reasons of diversity (sex, race, region) rather than expertise in their fields?

P: Well, these things are important too!

FOC: Are you also aware that many world-class experts are excluded from the IPCC?

P: Not possible.

FOC: Have you ever heard of Hendrik Tennekes, Antonio Zichichi… (reads long list)?

P: Never heard of them.

FOC: Are you aware that some world class experts, such as Paul Reiter and Christopher Landsea, have quit the IPCC and will no longer participate because of how they have been treated?

P: Can’t please everybody. There’s always a few malcontents.

FOC: Are you aware that mere graduate students, years away from their doctorates, have served as lead authors?

P: Oh, they must have been very exceptional.

Pachauri has repeatedly misrepresented and exaggerated the expertise of the IPCC scientists.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Because the UN really has only two purposes Condemn Israel as often as possible and suck as much money out of the US as possible. The IPCC is dedicated to the latter.

 

[Ender]

The point is that the deniers, like yourself are ignoring what MOST of the scientists are saying as if to say they’re not credible. Or… in other words… If they believe in man made climate change, the scientists must be quacks, or politically driven. all the 90 plus percent of them… See how that doesn’t make you sound very credible?

Surely you don’t believe that over 90% of all climate scientists believe man is primarily responsible for global warming? There may be a majority who believe that man has contributed something to warming, but that is a far cry from believing that most of the warming of the last 150 years is due to human activity. If you believe the 90% figure you have been grievously misled.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Surely you don’t believe that over 90% of all climate scientists believe man is primarily responsible for global warming? There may be a majority who believe that man has contributed something to warming, but that is a far cry from believing that most of the warming of the last 150 years is due to human activity. If you believe the 90% figure you have been grievously misled.

Ender

I believe she is referring to the peer reviwed study that looked at thousands of peer reviwed papers on climate, they threw out all but 74 and said 97% of the 74 supported AGW. Basically they said 97% of scientists who support AGW support AGW . One must wonder why it wasn’t 100%?