K
Karen107
Guest
Does the 3% of skeptics make the 97% wrong? Let’s go back to the cigarette analogy.
- Status
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
[The number of participating scientists and the implied agreement among them is greatly exaggerated.]
FOC: Dr. P, we are often told about the thousands of scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports.
P: Yes, there are thousands.
FOC: As many as four thousand?
P: If not more.
FOC: However, once duplicate names are removed, doesn’t the actual number drop down below 2,900? [see http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf]
P: So what, we are still talking thousands.
FOC: In addition, if we count only those who contribute to the writing of the all-important Summaries for Policymakers, doesn’t the number drop down to around 60?
P: Yes, that is true. It is not possible for thousands of scientists to write the summaries.
FOC: If only 60 scientists write the summaries, is it fair to say that all the participating scientists are in agreement with the summaries?
P: I think so.
FOC: Even if the participating scientists only contribute in a narrow area? How can they express agreement in areas where they are not competent?
P: Er.
FOC: Do some scientists participate as reviewers and not authors?
P: Of course.
FOC: And isn’t it true that some of the reviewers’ comments are quite critical?
P: Sure. That’s inevitable.
FOC: Then, when you tout the number of participating scientists who endorse your conclusions, are you careful to exclude those critical of the reports and summaries?
P: This is getting tiresome. Would you like to talk about the racy novel I’ve just written? telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
FOC: Dr. P, we are often told about the thousands of scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports.
P: Yes, there are thousands.
FOC: As many as four thousand?
P: If not more.
FOC: However, once duplicate names are removed, doesn’t the actual number drop down below 2,900? [see http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf]
P: So what, we are still talking thousands.
FOC: In addition, if we count only those who contribute to the writing of the all-important Summaries for Policymakers, doesn’t the number drop down to around 60?
P: Yes, that is true. It is not possible for thousands of scientists to write the summaries.
FOC: If only 60 scientists write the summaries, is it fair to say that all the participating scientists are in agreement with the summaries?
P: I think so.
FOC: Even if the participating scientists only contribute in a narrow area? How can they express agreement in areas where they are not competent?
P: Er.
FOC: Do some scientists participate as reviewers and not authors?
P: Of course.
FOC: And isn’t it true that some of the reviewers’ comments are quite critical?
P: Sure. That’s inevitable.
FOC: Then, when you tout the number of participating scientists who endorse your conclusions, are you careful to exclude those critical of the reports and summaries?
P: This is getting tiresome. Would you like to talk about the racy novel I’ve just written? telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that is probable. I have been raising specific challenges to specific assertions she has made in the hope that a demonstration of the weakness of some of the arguments underlying her belief in AGW might cause her to reevaluate the certainty with which she holds that belief. This is why I asked earlier for her to support the claim she made that warming is still occurring…a challenge to which she has not responded.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Let’s not argue the validity of AGW by analogy to other issues; AGW needs to stand or fall on its own. The point here is that the study asserting that 97% of climate scientists believe man is responsible for global warming is a misrepresentation of what the study itself claimed to find. They never made the claim that is attributed to them. What they claimed is more than a little suspect given their approach, but even they never went so far as to claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe in AGW.
Ender
E
estesbob
Guest
the 3% Percent skeptic figure is bogus. Unless, of course, one thinks there are for only 74 climate scientist in the world.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s one of those psychology perception tests that’s really to see if peers (or ideology) can make people lie about what they really see just to go along with their peers (or ideology).
Now is the overall trend in this image up, down, or flat?
http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/halfway2hell_650.jpg
What about the past 20 years - up, down, or flat?
How about the past 2.5 years (from graph on the right)?
Now is the overall trend in this image up, down, or flat?
http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/halfway2hell_650.jpg
What about the past 20 years - up, down, or flat?
How about the past 2.5 years (from graph on the right)?
S
sps49
Guest
That analogy was already demonstrated to be inadequate for your cause, since during the same 40 years climate science has yet to provide objective repeatable research as regards the catastrophic events claims. Also, the adoption of a right/wrong-pass/fail-competent/quack criteria is blinding you to avenues of reasoning that would lead you to a more realistic and accurate picture. You have reduced a legitimate inquiry into a two dimensional cartoon caricature, where reasoning is abandoned and invective is king.
E
estesbob
Guest
GIGO
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
*[Pachauri has boasted that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed articles. Not true.]
*
FOC: President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, tells us that the IPCC is the source of “the most important conclusions” about climate change and that these conclusions rest on: “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals.
P: Yes, yes. If it isn’t peer-reviewed we don’t use it. I’ve said the same thing publicly many times.
FOC: But what about the IPCC’s claim in the 2007 Report that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035?
P: Oh let’s don’t get exercised by one tiny mistake!
FOC: But wasn’t the source of that “tiny mistake” based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine and not from a peer-reviewed journal?
P: Well, so another tiny mistake, out tens of thousands peer-reviewed sources.
FOC: So maybe you should have advertised that the IPCC reports are 99.9% based on peer-reviewed studies?
P: I suppose so. [laughing]
FOC: But even that wouldn’t factual, wouldn’t it?
P: What do you mean?
FOC: Aren’t your aware that journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed?
P: Oh dear. But 72% is still the majority.
FOC: But 72% isn’t 100%, isn’t it?
P: No.
FOC: Any every time you’ve boasted publicly about 100% of the studies being peer-reviewed, you didn’t speak truthfully, isn’t that right?
*
FOC: President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, tells us that the IPCC is the source of “the most important conclusions” about climate change and that these conclusions rest on: “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals.
P: Yes, yes. If it isn’t peer-reviewed we don’t use it. I’ve said the same thing publicly many times.
FOC: But what about the IPCC’s claim in the 2007 Report that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035?
P: Oh let’s don’t get exercised by one tiny mistake!
FOC: But wasn’t the source of that “tiny mistake” based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine and not from a peer-reviewed journal?
P: Well, so another tiny mistake, out tens of thousands peer-reviewed sources.
FOC: So maybe you should have advertised that the IPCC reports are 99.9% based on peer-reviewed studies?
P: I suppose so. [laughing]
FOC: But even that wouldn’t factual, wouldn’t it?
P: What do you mean?
FOC: Aren’t your aware that journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed?
P: Oh dear. But 72% is still the majority.
FOC: But 72% isn’t 100%, isn’t it?
P: No.
FOC: Any every time you’ve boasted publicly about 100% of the studies being peer-reviewed, you didn’t speak truthfully, isn’t that right?
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
*[The vaunted IPCC review process is not very scientific or rigorous.] *
FOC: John Holdren also says, with respect to the scientific literature reviewed by the IPCC, that “they have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” Is that true?
P: Yes. In fact, you can call our review process a second layer of peer review. No one else is as rigorous as we are.
FOC: Really? Let’s examine that. According to a 2002 critique of the IPCC process written by Sonja Boehmer-Chritiansen and Aynsley Kellow, the IPCC process falls short of the usual standards of peer review.
P: I don’t understand.
FOC: Well, isn’t traditional peer review anonymous?
P: [cautiously] Yes…
FOC: That way reviewers can speak freely, which ensures that their comments will be judged on their own merits?
P: I suppose.
FOC: But doesn’t the IPCC identify each of its expert reviewers?
P: Well, yes…
FOC: Doesn’t that lack of anonymity invites lead authors to dismiss comments outright because of the author’s bias or prejudice?
P: Oh no. Our authors are more professional than that!
[FOC then, based on the above-referenced article, proceeds show how the IPCC review process is deficient in four other respects:
FOC: Finally, Dr. P, on the difference the much praised IPCC review process and normal peer-review, let me ask: Which academic journal surrenders final editorial control to a governmental entity?
FOC: John Holdren also says, with respect to the scientific literature reviewed by the IPCC, that “they have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” Is that true?
P: Yes. In fact, you can call our review process a second layer of peer review. No one else is as rigorous as we are.
FOC: Really? Let’s examine that. According to a 2002 critique of the IPCC process written by Sonja Boehmer-Chritiansen and Aynsley Kellow, the IPCC process falls short of the usual standards of peer review.
P: I don’t understand.
FOC: Well, isn’t traditional peer review anonymous?
P: [cautiously] Yes…
FOC: That way reviewers can speak freely, which ensures that their comments will be judged on their own merits?
P: I suppose.
FOC: But doesn’t the IPCC identify each of its expert reviewers?
P: Well, yes…
FOC: Doesn’t that lack of anonymity invites lead authors to dismiss comments outright because of the author’s bias or prejudice?
P: Oh no. Our authors are more professional than that!
[FOC then, based on the above-referenced article, proceeds show how the IPCC review process is deficient in four other respects:
- In traditional peer review the author’s identity is shielded from the reviewers, again to ensure that the paper is judged on its own merits and not on the prestige of the authority or lack thereof. But with the IPCC the lead authors are well known to the reviewers, which can influence reviewers’ opinions.
- In traditional peer review, the journal is supposed to be a neutral party under the control of an objective editor. But with the IPCC there are no neutral parties or referees. The process is stacked in favor of the authors who themselves decide to accept or reject a reviewers comment.
- In traditional peer review the reviewers read the entire paper. At the IPCC reviewers comment on whatever portion interests them out of a report with over 3,000 pages. Because reviewers aren’t assigned specific sections, many parts of the report receive no scrutiny.
- Boehmer-Christiansen and Kellow observe “there is no possibility that the draft chapter will not be published. This means that the worst, most dreaded outcome associated with the academic peer review process—that a paper will be rejected outright—is completely absent.”
FOC: Finally, Dr. P, on the difference the much praised IPCC review process and normal peer-review, let me ask: Which academic journal surrenders final editorial control to a governmental entity?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I’m not going to blame him for not knowing. I myself made the same mistake, but while doing some research for a paper I was writing on AGW back in 2007 or 2008 I came to realize that Working Group II -“Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” – did allow non-peer-review materials.
Since no one actually cares about how we are harming people in Asia in various ways thru AGW, it seems I was the only one reading WGII’s Chapter 10 - “Asia,” when I came upon pg. 493 that said the Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035. I was frankly quite astonished by the 2035 date, since several years earlier I had been working on something else re AGW and wanted to know when the glaciers would all melt and the sea rise by 60 meters, so I contacted a climate scientist and he wrote back it wouldn’t be for 100s of years, since it took glaciers such a long time to melt.
So I looked at the source, WWF, and got their report and looked at WWF’s source – The New Scientist, which is NOT a top-tier, peer-reviewed science jnl and decided not to use that tidbit about 2035, since my paper WAS going for peer-review … and I didn’t need that info anyway, since the AGW harms to Asia were quite humungous as it was.
Now I respect WWF and their reports, which are for the most part very good and useful – a synthesis in understandable language of mostly difficult to read science, and mostly peer-reviewed; but for heaven’s sake they made one little mistake, which got onto one sentence in the many 1000s of pages of the IPCC’s AR4.
Later as it turns out a glaciologist – NOT a CC denialist – discovered that mistake on p. 493 of Ch 10 - “Asia” and brought it to light, with IPCC addressing it and correcting the error.
Since, as I mentioned NO ONE cares a bleep about Asia and the harms AGW are and will be doing to the billions of people there on into the future, that info was not seen or used by ANYONE before it was found and corrected, except me, & I didn’t use it. So NO HARM DONE AT ALL!!!
The real take-away message is it took so long for someone other than myself to find that error because NO ONE gives a #%$%^$ about Asia and whether Asians live or die from our GHG emissions profligacy ('cuse my French). That is the real story re glacier-gate. Take that and chew on it.
Now WGI - “The Science” does only use peer-review studies, as well as top quality data sources. That is probably what Pachauri was thinking about, as I was, when we mistakenly thought the whole of the IPCC reports used only peer-review. Again a small mistake that pales when compared with the millions and billions would will be harmed and dying from AGW over the next 1000 or more years, since a portion of CO2 can stay up the in atmosphere for up to 100,000 years and the end-Permian great warming which killed 95% of life on earth lasted some 200,000 years.
Actually it is. It is the gold standard of science, with 100s of expert top scientists donating their precious free time to work on it, using 1000s of peer-reviewed studies. And, as mentioned, WGI “The Science” uses only top level peer-reviewed studies and data, and even WGII and WGIII use very good sources for the most part – the glacier-gate fiasco is bound to make these reports even better and more error-free.
What is not scientific or rigorous is all the flack, no-science (nonsense), and fake-science from the professional oil-funded CC denialist industry. It amounts to deceit, fraud, cover-up, and a big fat crime against humanity. They should be prosecuted. By the time most of the victims on into the distant future get around to spitting on their graves, however, they’ll probably be spitting in the ocean.
E
Ender
Guest
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Bogus data from a weatherman blog. Why not try getting it from working, practicing, publishing climate scientists…
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Lynn,
I think we should blame him. He knew, or should have known, that this claim was false at the times he said it. If he didn’t know, then his staff, or even the authors themselves, should certainly have clued him in. In any event, it doesn’t speak well about the integrity of the whole outfit. The other point is that Dr. P was in the habit of exaggerating the credentials of the IPCC. Another fine example, even less defensible, are his statements about the IPCC only using the best the brightest scientists. Using grad students as lead authors? Gimme a break.
Please read the official transcript of the Dr. P’s cross-examination at 166, 171, 195, 200, 2007, and 2008.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
We can discuss this some more, but in the mean time the cross-x of Dr. P continues…
FOC: Dr. P, I have some more questions about the integrity and rigor of the IPCC review process. [Dr. P groans]. Dr. P. does the IPCC check on the data quality of the studies it incorporates into its reports?
P: Of course we do.
FOC: What then do make of journalist Laframboise’s report that IPCC insiders admit there is no data quality assurance performed on the studies reviewed by the IPCC?
P: She’s lying.
FOC: Are you aware that Steven McIntyre has testified that IPCC administrators told him his position as an IPCC reviewer would be terminated if he continued to press for the data of a paleo-climate study under review?
P: He’s lying too, or else the author had good reason to withhold the data.
FOC: Is it a good idea to give IPCC lead authors veto power over objections raised by reviewers?
P: The buck has to stop somewhere.
FOC: What about conflicts of interest? Does the IPCC have policies to handle that?
P: Oh yes. Conflicts are not tolerated.
FOC: On that score let’s look at the conduct of Dr. Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame. Wasn’t he the lead author of the paleo-climate section of the 2001 report?
P: yes, he’s one our very best scientists.
FOC: While playing that role, isn’t it true that he not only evaluated the work of his competitors as well as his own?
P: that’ inevitable.
FOC: And didn’t he give his Hockey Stick curve prominence in that chapter?
P: Well, it deserved to be prominent.
FOC: We’ll look into that next…
K
Karen107
Guest
It is not. Scientists overwhelmingly believe in man made global warming. The ones who don’t are protecting the self interest groups in our country. Their main problem? Greed.
S
sps49
Guest
Considering the lack of argument, the claim “It is not” is, well, not too convincing. An argument as to how the tobacco analogy was inadequate to describe the current climate change debate was provided, and you reply with “It is not,” with no explanation. Not compelling at all.
When one examines the definition of the word “overwhelming,” don’t you find it inconvenient that there are still scientists and engineers who are not convinced? Don’t you find it a bit inconsistent that the narrative implied by “overwhelming” needs to be propped up by consensus messaging?
And then there is your coup de grâce, the word greed, that somehow explains both the behavior and science simultaneously, like some kind of silver bullet. Saying “greed” is like saying water is wet,or the sun is hot. It is not an explanation, only and exclamation. And speaking of self interest groups, it’s not like AGW is lacking in that arena, in fact an argument could be made that they turned it into a kind of misdirected and ineffective virture, better known as a vice.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, the data is from NASA satellites processed by RSS. If you dispute the data you are free to refute it with whatever you feel is more convincing. Your opinion, for example.
Oh, you mean from those like at Nature magazine, who said this in 2014:*Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
*If you don’t believe your own scientists why are you surprised when others have little confidence them?
Ender
K
Karen107
Guest
It’s simple. It comes down to simple words because people on this post are ignoring the facts. It’s like the cigarette analogy. Doctors spelled out all the evidence that proved that smoking cigarettes was hazardous to peoples health, but still there remained doctors who presented bias false data to convince the public that cigarettes don’t cause health problems so people would continue to smoke and continue to line the pockets of the Tobacco industry…
K
Karen107
Guest
That statement is specific to one period of time and doesn’t mean that it isn’t on a warming trend. Read this from YOUR article. Wecan’t ignore the rest of the article now…
For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.
Now read the last two paragraphs. Nothing here about global warming not being a problem it just accounts for the variance in weather patterns.
There are two potential holes in his assessment. First, the historical ocean-temperature data are notoriously imprecise, leading many researchers to dispute Cane’s assertion that the equatorial Pacific shifted towards a more La Niña-like state during the past century10. Second, many researchers have found the opposite pattern in simulations with full climate models, which factor in the suite of atmospheric and oceanic interactions beyond the equatorial Pacific. These tend to reveal a trend towards more El Niño-like conditions as a result of global warming. The difference seems to lie, in part, in how warming influences evaporation in areas of the Pacific, according to Trenberth. He says the models suggest that global warming has a greater impact on temperatures in the relatively cool east, because the increase in evaporation adds water vapour to the atmosphere there and enhances atmospheric warming; this effect is weaker in the warmer western Pacific, where the air is already saturated with moisture.
Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific.** Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.**
You see how easily people can be misled into thinking that climate change isn’t happening when it in fact is? I’ve already shown that the Atlantic Ocean is warmer and warming up faster than the Pacific. Well that makes sense because of it’s size and depth and the gulf stream factors, etc. Now the concern about that is that the gulf stream will change it’s direction and affect Europe.
Shutdown of thermohaline circulation[edit]
Main article: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
See also: Deglaciation
In 2005, British researchers noticed that the net flow of the northern Gulf Stream had decreased by about 30% since 1957. Coincidentally, scientists at Woods Hole had been measuring the freshening of the North Atlantic as Earth becomes warmer. Their findings suggested that precipitation increases in the high northern latitudes, and polar ice melts as a consequence. By flooding the northern seas with lots of extra fresh water, global warming could, in theory, divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe’s climate would be seriously impacted.[19][20][21]
Downturn of AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation), has been tied to extreme regional sea level rise.[22]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
Note Nothing I’ve show up there says the scientists are saying global warming will level out and not be a problem in the future.
- Status