The thing(s) with climate change

[Zzyzx_Road]

When we’re presented with the image of Michael Mann fighting to keep his methods and algorithms private, the image of James Hansen caught fiddling with NOAA data on at least two occasions, the East Anglia email cache, the IPCC Himalaya glacier disappearance prediction, the failure of most if not all AGW-originated climate models to predict the climate since 1998, the talk of carbon tax and transfer payment schemes, the involvement of bankers in cap and trade schemes and so on, it’s sorta hard to trust the scientist (and politician) supporters of AGW in general. If it was just one thing, I could let it go. But no, we are presented with this sort of thing often enough over the years that any open-minded person is going to have at least some skepticism. For which, we are named and shamed because the “science is settled”.

The “science is settled”? Really? I find that the height of arrogance in the light of all that has occurred. How arrogant is it to point one’s finger on a temperature scale and say that is the earth’s normal temperature when we know that the climate has fluctuated back and forth for many millions of years. Even within the last 20000 years, what exactly is normal? How about putting one’s finger on CO2 levels and saying that’s normal? Most AGW supporters dance around both of those. What happens if we go through another solar minimum as has been posited by some scientists? I wouldn’t be that afraid of warming, I’d be a lot more afraid of cooling because it’s going to be a lot harder and more energy consuming to raise enough food to support our world population. Look at the past minimum periods, the Dalton in the 19th century and the Maunder in the 17th, they were very difficult and chaotic times for the people and countries that lived through them.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I doubt not driving an SUV would have changed any of that.

But it is a fascinating event.

Oh, I don’t really have a firm position on causation.

But the permafrost is melting.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Z Road,

When yer right yer right.

I was going to present Hansen and the temperature fiddlers as my exhibit B, but you beat me to it.

I am waiting to see how Leaf tries to rehabilitate (“I’m gonna sue you!”) Michael Mann. I am unwilling to leave him alone because I saw him on TV yesterday promoting his new book and got freshly irritated. This is the guy who used the “F” word (Fraudulent) with reference to one of his critics and then turned around and sues folks when they justifiably return the favor.

When the deadline expired for filing amicus briefs in his case against National Review, Steyn, et al, not one was filed on behalf of Mann. If ever there was an opportunity for folks to “take a stand for science” against the evil Koch-funded deniers, that would have been the time. Yet no one stood up for him. Where was the American Academy of Science, Royal Society, and all the rest?

Mann has plenty of critics, especially since McIntyre and McKittrick’s expose’ when it became safe to do so. But even more damning are the private criticisms made by his colleagues which were made public by the Climategate emails. One called Mann’s work “sloppy,” With regard to Mann’s sanctimonious arrogance, one of his co-authors said to another colleague, “Excuse me while I puke.”

This Mann, described by noted scientist Henrik Tennekes as a “disgrace to the profession,” is still a member in good standing with climate science establishment. He still participates in the IPCC process. What does tells us about the credibility of the climate science establishment?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I was going to present Hansen and the temperature fiddlers as my exhibit B, but you beat me to it.

I am waiting to see how Leaf tries to rehabilitate (“I’m gonna sue you!”) Michael Mann…

I have no need to rehabilitate Mann. You are laboring under the misconception that this whole global warming thing is an invention of Mann and Hansen. Well, I am waiting to see how you try to denigrate 34 separate national academies of science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the United States National Research Council, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the African Academy of Sciences, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the European Science Foundation, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Agronomy, the European Federation of Geologists, the European Geosciences Union, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of London, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the American Meteorological Society, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the American Quaternary Association, all of whom are on record as substantially concurring with the findings of AGW. Although I can understand why you would rather this debate degenerate into a discussion of the sorid personal failings of a few individuals.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Leaf,

I have no need to rehabilitate Mann. You are laboring under the misconception that this whole global warming thing is an invention of Mann and Hansen. … Although I can understand why you would rather this debate degenerate into a discussion of the sorid personal failings of a few individuals.

OK, I don’t need to further expose the failings of Drs. Mann and Hansen. I am glad you agree they are not credible witnesses.

However, I am not laboring under the misconception that this whole global warming thing is an invention of Mann and Hansen. But they each have played their part, and their respective contributions to the case against CO2 now stand discredited.

Mann was brought into the establishment because he could help them get rid of the medieval warm period. (They actually made him a lead author even though his phd was only a few months old.) His signature “achievement” remains the IPCC’s conclusion that the warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented in 2000 years. So let’s toss that conclusion out, and the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC’s grand conclusion is weakened.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

However, I am not laboring under the misconception that this whole global warming thing is an invention of Mann and Hansen. But they each have played their part, and their respective contributions to the case against CO2 now stand discredited…

So, do you accept the conclusions of the 50+ scientific institutions I referred to?

 

[HelenRose]

I figure that until an “climate expert” can explain to me what triggered the last ice age and what triggered the end of the last ice age and will explain to me what will trigger the next ice age, they really do not have a clue about climate.

Ice is the Earth’s natural state. Warm periods are a blessing - not a curse and there will come a time when the planet is once again cold.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

So, do you accept the conclusions of the 50+ scientific institutions I referred to?

I am not impressed by summary endorsements by scientific organizations. How did they arrive at their conclusion? Was it majority vote by the members, or did a select committee decide? Who knows.

I am willing to talk about specific organizations and their credibility. Which ones do you have in mind? How about the American Academy of Science or the British Royal Society? But then both of these elite organizations disqualified themselves as fair and objective authorities, both by their conduct in the recent scandals and also by public statements made by their heads.

Or maybe we should look to the US National Climate Assessment. But in what ways are the participants in the National Climate Assessment independent of the IPCC, and why should we trust them if they all they do is parrot what the IPCC says?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am not impressed by summary endorsements by scientific organizations.

So, you just relabel them as “summary endorsements” and that justifies ignoring them?

How did they arrive at their conclusion?

I’m still trying to figure out how you arrived at your conclusions.

I am willing to talk about specific organizations and their credibility. Which ones do you have in mind? How about the American Academy of Science or the British Royal Society? But then both of these elite organizations disqualified themselves as fair and objective authorities, both by their conduct in the recent scandals and also by public statements made by their heads.

That’s two down and 48+ to go.

Or maybe we should look to the US National Climate Assessment. But in what ways are the participants in the National Climate Assessment independent of the IPCC, and why should we trust them if they all they do is parrot what the IPCC says?

Who told you that IPCC is not to be trusted? And why do you trust them? (the ones who told you that IPCC is not to be trusted) And how do you know that the National Climate Assessment is mindlessly parroting the IPCC?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Leaf,

We are justified in ignoring endorsements of global warming alarmism by scientific organizations and learned societies because they have given us ample reason to distrust them. Take elite organizations such a the American Academy of Science as an example. They now are dominated by the likes of Paul Ehrlich (the most discredited scientist in the world!), Susan Solomon (IPCC bigwig) and John Holdren. Ralph Cicerone, the honcho at the AAS, played a lead role in the fight to save the Hockey Stick. For years the Academy has been admitting light-weight activist scientists such as these via an expedited back-door process. In short, they have gone political.

Or take the American Meteorological Society. Their first alarmist statement published in 2006 was the product of small committee and was adopted over the strong protest of the general membership. The same story with the American Geophysical Union.

[BTW, my comment on the National Climate Assessment was based on their panel presentation of the most recent report on CSPAn. I think Carl Wunsch from MIT was talking and it sounded like he was reading from the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Same talking points.]

I don’t think we need to examine credibility of the other 50+. The trend is not good.

Besides, everyone of them would acknowledge that their pronouncements don’t carry the same weight as the IPCC’s.

If the IPCC is the preeminent authority on climate let’s reexamine why they shouldn’t be trusted either.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

So why shouldn’t we trust the IPCC?

1. It is biased and incapable of writing fair and objective reports. Remember it serves a climate treaty which concluded from the beginning that CO2 was guilty of causing dangerous global warming.
2. It has acted in accordance with this bias on occasions too numerous to count. It has allowed itself to be dominated by activist organizations such as Greenpeace.
3. Its scientific credentials are highly exaggerated. It does not utilize the best and brightest scientists. Its vaunted review process is a joke. Remember they embraced the Hockey Stick.
4. It isn’t really a scientific organization. It is an organization of governments in which the politicians rule, not the scientists.

In sum, it is corrupt political enterprise masquerading as a scientific organization.

You asked, “Who told you that IPCC is not to be trusted?” . Fair enough question. The most devastating take-down of the IPCC comes from Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise. Read Andrew Montford’s books, The Hockey Stick Illusion and Climategate. The Hockey Stick scandal reveals so much of the corrupt inner workings of the IPCC and climate science establishment. Christopher Horner’s books are good and so is Lawrence Solomon’s the Deniers.

 

[Theo520]

Richard Lindzen retired Professor of Atmospheric Physics at MIT summarized the situation best.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

 

[Trident_H]

Reminds me of Y2K. All over again.

We just seem to like to get excited. And we never question those doing the exciting. We never question them enough.

 

[Theo520]

At least the **Friends Of The Earth **green group recognizes the Paris agreement was a sham

Paris climate deal is a sham
PARIS, FRANCE, December 12, 2015 – The climate deal to be agreed today is a sham, according to Friends of the Earth International.

“Rich countries have moved the goal posts so far that we are left with a sham of a deal in Paris. Through piecemeal pledges and bullying tactics, rich countries have pushed through a very bad deal,” said Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International climate justice and energy coordinator.

A detailed policy analysis of the Paris Agreement will be available at foei.org/what-we-do/paris

“Despite the hype, the Paris agreement will fail to deliver. Politicians say it is a fair and ambitious deal – yet it is the complete opposite. People are being deceived,” said Dipti Bhatnagar, Friends of the Earth International climate justice and energy coordinator.

“Vulnerable and affected people deserve better than this failed agreement; they are the ones who feel the worst impacts of our politicians’ failure to take tough enough action,’” she added.
Read more: foei.org/press/archive-by-subject/climate-justice-energy-press/paris-climate-deal-sham

 

[Theo520]

More bad news for Climate Change alarmists.
It looks like developing countries are charging ahead with coal fueled electricity. I was surprised at Japan though.

A Mere 2440 Coal Plants Being Planned Globally
…
There are 2440 planned coal plants around the world (2), totalling 1428GW, which could emit approximately 16-18 percent of the total allowed emissions in 2030 (under a 2°C-compatible scenario, medium range).

Including existing capacity with a technical lifetime beyond 2030, total emissions from coal-fired power generation could reach 12 GtCO2 in 2030.

Despite the need to phase out emissions from coal-fired power generation to hold warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, many governments - and the EU28 - are still planning to construct significant amounts of coal power capacity. In many emerging economies, coal capacity is constructed to meet rapidly increasing electricity demand, while in the EU28, new coal plants are mainly to replace existing capacity.

The CAT also looked at the eight countries that plan to build more than 5GW of capacity: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, the Philippines, Turkey – as well as the EU28. (3)
…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi Leaf,

We are justified in ignoring endorsements of global warming alarmism by scientific organizations and learned societies because they have given us ample reason to distrust them. Take elite organizations such a the American Academy of Science as an example. They now are dominated by the likes of Paul Ehrlich (the most discredited scientist in the world!), Susan Solomon (IPCC bigwig) and John Holdren. Ralph Cicerone, the honcho at the AAS, played a lead role in the fight to save the Hockey Stick. For years the Academy has been admitting light-weight activist scientists such as these via an expedited back-door process. In short, they have gone political.

Or take the American Meteorological Society. Their first alarmist statement published in 2006 was the product of small committee and was adopted over the strong protest of the general membership. The same story with the American Geophysical Union.

[BTW, my comment on the National Climate Assessment was based on their panel presentation of the most recent report on CSPAn. I think Carl Wunsch from MIT was talking and it sounded like he was reading from the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Same talking points.]

I don’t think we need to examine credibility of the other 50+. The trend is not good.

Besides, everyone of them would acknowledge that their pronouncements don’t carry the same weight as the IPCC’s.

If the IPCC is the preeminent authority on climate let’s reexamine why they shouldn’t be trusted either.

You have deliberately chosen to believe those who claim there is gross corruption in the field of climate science and ignore the claims of those I mentioned. Have you considered that the voices raised in opposition to these scientists are just as likely to be corrupt as the scientists they are criticizing? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary justification. It is extraordinary to claim that 50+ scientific organizations are all either corrupt or incompetent. You have not presented that extraordinary evidence. In fact, you have presented no evidence at all supporting your claim.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

You have deliberately chosen to believe those who claim there is gross corruption in the field of climate science and ignore the claims of those I mentioned. Have you considered that the voices raised in opposition to these scientists are just as likely to be corrupt as the scientists they are criticizing? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary justification. It is extraordinary to claim that 50+ scientific organizations are all either corrupt or incompetent. You have not presented that extraordinary evidence. In fact, you have presented no evidence at all supporting your claim.

From your point of view, the corruption on the other side means something but the corruption on your side should always be ignored. Nothing to see there, move along. Or maybe it’s if you can just overshout the other side about the beam in their eyes, just maybe we’ll forgive the plank in yours.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

From your point of view, the corruption on the other side means something but the corruption on your side should always be ignored.

Not at all. I am for treating all information sources, both pro and and anti AGW, equally. I only brought up possible corruption of the anti side in response to the claims of corruption on the pro side. But I would be perfectly happy if both sides could stop crying “corruption”, OK?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

You have deliberately chosen to believe those who claim there is gross corruption in the field of climate science and ignore the claims of those I mentioned. Have you considered that the voices raised in opposition to these scientists are just as likely to be corrupt as the scientists they are criticizing? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary justification. It is extraordinary to claim that 50+ scientific organizations are all either corrupt or incompetent. You have not presented that extraordinary evidence. In fact, you have presented no evidence at all supporting your claim.

Let establish what kinds of evidence should convince a reasonable person that the climate science establishment is untrustworthy. I will then attempt to supply (and resupply) such evidence.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Not at all. I am for treating all information sources, both pro and and anti AGW, equally. I only brought up possible corruption of the anti side in response to the claims of corruption on the pro side. But I would be perfectly happy if both sides could stop crying “corruption”, OK?

From this following quote taken from your previous posting and your previous dismissals of any talk of corruption in AGW ranks, I’m not convinced that you are as open minded as you think you are.

In fact, you have presented no evidence at all supporting your claim.