Remember me
▼ Content

The Confusion & Deceipt of Climate Change


The Confusion & Deceipt of Climate Change06-06-2017 05:07
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
With all the dissent following the announcement by the USA President Mr Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, it's timely to make some salient points to the non-biased followers of the climate change issue.

Pronouncements by the world's leading authority the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, may not be as accurate or as diligently honest as they profess to be.

There can be no doubt that the Earth is currently on a warming trend, but it's far from being scientifically accepted across the board that it will continue unabated, or that human activity is to blame, or even that greenhouse gases including CO2 are the prime threat to human life as we know it.

Limiting the Scope of Temperature Predictions


Meteorology today is by no means a perfected science. That is not a critical reflection because the subject is so profoundly complex. But even with all the technology and information available today, meteorologists cannot always get it right. There is a reason why you will not see weather forecasts usually no further than (say) a week ahead in the newspapers or broadcasts. There are just too many vagaries in the planet's weather processes. Determination of near-future weather relies to some degree on what meteorological events can be observed today in real time, and outside of that it comes down to skilled deduction – read educated guesswork.


Fig SPM.4 from AR5 – IPCC Fifth Assessment Report of 2014, Summary for Policymakers. It shows temperature rises around 2ºC to 3ºC for a low emission scenario by 2100, and temperatures up to 11.7ºC with a high emission scenario out to 2100.


So ... if they can't consistently get it right for a month or even two weeks ahead, then how are we to believe the IPCC when they give us such forbidding global temperature projections for (say) two or 12 or even 83 years from now?

Certainly they can put up what blinkered ardent followers and others who can't think outside the box might consider a good case, but leaving aside the question of mankind's activities for a moment there's also the planet's natural climate trends to consider – something the IPCC doesn't seem to give a lot of thought to.

They do at least recognise it in AR5 which was their last report stating, "Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use." They also say there is "High Confidence" in the (existence of) uncertainties of interlinked human and natural systems. But then they go on to emphasis just the human aspects.
See: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers 2014 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

Dr Judith Curry is an eminent American climatologist and author who challenges the IPCC about their failings to address the "Uncertainty Monster" when projecting future climate trends. During an interview on 6th February 2017 she talks about how the IPCC processes have robbed (non IPCC aligned ) scientists opportunities to explore natural climate change. Among other points of interest she noted the failure of their climate models to address the pre-1950 natural climate variation saying, "If science can't explain climate shifts pre 1950, how can we trust today's climate models?"
Read more: WUWT – Dr. Judith Curry on climate science's fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/09/dr-judith-curry-speaks-out-on-climate-sciences-fatal-flaw-the-failure-to-explore-and-understand-uncertainty/

Pros & Cons of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

It's highly likely one of the IPCC's (and many of their advocates) officially unstated aims is to frighten us, the people of the world into agitating our respective governments to take action to reduce greenhouse emissions. That may sound like a true sceptic's view but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that "cause noblesse" i.e. delivering untruths for what they believe to be for the greater good, continues to happen. A classic case was Senator Al Gore with his, "An Inconvenient Truth" in his 2006 documentary.

Yet even if it isn't, the wording in the Assessment Reports are getting more and more alarmist. Among many other claims they say CO2 levels are rising at a rapid rate.

Currently the content of CO2 in the atmosphere is 406 ppm – parts per million. According to the IPCC an excess of greenhouse gases created by mankind including CO2 has tripped a natural climate warming trend into a higher gear, thus making the planet approx 1ºC warmer since about 1850. If the IPCC is correct then CO2 levels are projected to reach around 500 ppm by 2050 which would probably make the Earth an extra 1ºC to 2ºC warmer – albeit in particular places and especially at the poles.

One global warming supporter is Nicola Jones who is a freelance journalist with a background in Chemistry and Oceanography. In a refreshing argument for the global warmers, Jones explains why the content of future carbon in the atmosphere should be kept below 400 ppm in an article published 26th January 2017. At face value and assuming what she says is factually correct then she makes some very good points, particularly in relation to ancient levels of CO2 and it's relationship to temperatures at the time, that have been overlooked or ignored by climate deniers.
Read more: How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

On the other hand there's Malcolm Roberts, a Senator elected in 2016 to represent the State of Queensland in Australia. The Senator was annoyed that because of poorly researched climate policies, people have lost jobs, paid higher taxes, wasted opportunities, lost businesses and fritted away scarce resources, and that billions of dollars had been wasted on mothballed white elephants such as useless desalination plants. In September 2016 the Senator challenged the Australian leading scientific organisation, the CSIRO to present its case on climate change.

Australia's CSIRO is highly respected and it supports the global warming theory. The Senator's findings with the assistance of two well known climate sceptics were that, "the CSIRO had no empirical evidence proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate, and that their presentation contradicted the empirical climate evidence". Basically what they are saying is that the CSIRO is simply "rubber stamping" everything it's being told about climate change without checking for themselves, and relying on theory and logic rather than proven facts.
Read more: Senator Malcolm Roberts – On Climate, CSIRO Lacks Empirical Proof http://citizensinquiry.info/MalcolmRoberts/CSIRO_Meeting_2016/CSIRO-LacksEmpiricalProof.pdf

Cherry Picking Temperature Records


Instrument Records

The earliest temperature measuring instruments didn't appear until the 16th century but it wasn't until 1714 that the first reliable thermometer using the Fahrenheit scale appeared. Not until 1860 was it thought there were enough observation sites around the world to begin measuring global temperatures.

Unfortunately the IPCC only uses instrumental records back to 1850. This gives them a mere 167 years of meteorological data out of a climate scale of tens of thousands of years to prove their theory of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming.

By over-emphasising the trivially short instrument record, and greatly under-emphasising the varied changes that exist in geological records ... the IPCC signals its failure to comprehend that climate change is as much a geological phenomenon as it is a meteorological one.
Prof. Robert M Carter – Climate: The Counter Consensus, 2010


Geological Proxy Data Ignored

Scientists have been able to study the ancient history of the Earth's climate using geological data aka proxy data e.g. tree rings, ice-cores, lake and ocean sediment, tree and fossil pollens.

Written human records are also used. Paleoclimatologists are skilled scientists who work on the climate of past ages using proxy data such as historical records, journals and diaries, newspaper reports, ship's logs, farm yields and so on.
Read more: IEDRO – Paleo Proxy Data: What Is It? http://iedro.org/articles/paleo-proxy-data/

Proxy data however is not entirely accurate. They leave large "error bars" or "percentages of uncertainty" which basically comes down to skilled but highly educated guesses. At worst, such proxy data at least provides a starting point towards what the climate was at a given time e.g. warm or cold, warming or cooling, the rate of the warming or cooling and so on.


The grey shaded areas indicate the range of uncertainty above and below the solid black line representing the annual calculated temperatures back to about 1760. Note how the range of uncertainty gets narrower with the gradual introduction of new technologies such as thermometers, weather balloons and satellites over time.


Weather and climate are both driven by the same processes and there is no real point in time where one can separate them. Both are driven basically by the movement of heat between the land, oceans and atmosphere and it happens in time frames that can run from seconds to millions of years. As well, there are many other physical, chemical and biological processes also happening which affect the planet to a more or lesser degree.

So at what point can we measure climate as opposed to weather?

The Misuse of Climate Measurements


People generally accept the word "normal" to mean what is usual. Therefore the term Climate Normal would ordinarily be considered to mean what might be expected or is usual. But in meteorology it means an average measurement of weather conditions that have actually occurred over a particular period.

In 1935 the WMO – World Meteorological Organization's conference in Warsaw agreed on a "Standard Normal" aka Climate Normal system by which climate could be measured over time. The basic idea was to have a benchmark against which past, recent, current or future meteorological conditions could be measured, and to provide a historic context to them e.g. to an recent extreme weather event.

Climate Normals are produced at local, national and global levels and they represent a 30-year average of meteorological data. This period was decided because statisticians believe 30 numbers gives them a reliable mean or average, but it's not compulsory. Each Climate Normal is assigned one data point which might be used (say) for plotting temperatures on a graph. Each data point is calculated as an arithmetic average for the 30-year period being analysed. The first Climate Normal was set for 1901-30, followed by 1931-60 then 1961-90. The WMO will not analyse the currently running Climate Normal until the end of 2020. Records prior to 1900 are not generally considered to be reliable.
Read more: WMO – The Role of Climatological Normals in a Changing Climate.http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/WCDMPNo61.pdf

In 2011 the WMO introduced a second tier of Climate Normals ostensibly to account for the "rapid pace of climate change" which provides for measurements of current temperatures. The new tier retains the 30-year period but is updated every 10 years instead of 30 years e.g. 1961-90, 1971-2000 and 1981-2010 (which is the current baseline period) used by the WMO.
[i]Read more: WMO – New Two-Tier approach on "climate normals".
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/new-two-tier-approach-"climate-normals"


Changing the Message

Some scientists have calculated 30-year and 20-year climate normals by going back to 1850 which gives them even more data points. However there are those who believe the early temperature records should not be used. Among other concerns there is no real guarantee that temperature readings were always observed under similar conditions, or that some temperature extremes may have been recorded pre-1910 using non-standard equipment and that they could be location specific, or that other warmer or cooler data may not even have been entered into the database.

To confuse the issue even further there are other systems of measuring temperature being used. "Period Averages"http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/GCDS_1.php allows analysis of a minimum period of 10 years and 20 year graphs are fairly common. "Normals"http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/GCDS_1.php are used for any period as long as it's three consecutive 10-year periods. Another is the "Hinge Fit" https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/defining-climate-normals-new-waysused by the NOAA -National Centers for Environmental Information. On top of everything, the use of the terms "climate normal" and "normal" are often misused by people who don't fully understand them.

Using the Tier 2 Climate Normal and other systems can no doubt be justified, but they can have unfortunate side effects. They can cause confusion for non-scientists and lend themselves to bias or flat out deception. The following highlights one common type of deception used by the IPCC.

Below:Typical Climate Normal graph showing "anomalies"
i.e. departures in degrees either above or below the
mean temperature average for a selected period.



Approx 160 year graph from around 1880 to 2007 showing anomalies up to 0.7ºC below the average before about 1980, and up to 0.8ºC above the average by about 2010. This is typical of an IPCC graph with no historic context provided.
Graphs like these are commonly used to demonstrate an "unprecedented" temperature spike in the late 20th century.



2000 year graph providing historic context to the late 20th century temperature spike. It shows a warmer period during the MWP – Medieval Warm Period at almost 0.6ºC above the mean average followed by the LIA – Little Ice Age during the 1600s. This was followed by rising temperatures to about 0.4ºC by year 2000. At that time the temperature was believed to have been cooler than during the MWP by the researchers.
Graphs showing temperature rises in historic context do not look quite so alarming.


Of course there are other ways to misrepresent Climate Normal (anomaly) type data on graphs. For instance once might select a different baseline period that has a hotter or cooler mean average temperature thus making the anomalies higher (warmer) or lower (cooler) on a graph.

Jo Nova is an Australian Bachelor of Science, author and blogger on the science, funding and politics of climate change. For three years she was an Associate Lecturer on Science Communication at the Australian National University. In a light-hearted manner she discusses some of the methods that are actually used to misrepresent climate change.
Read more: Jo Nova – How to make climate graphs look scary — a reply to XKCDhttp://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/how-to-make-climate-graphs-look-scary-a-reply-to-xkcd/

In recent years there has been much brouhaha in the USA about a perceived global warming pause and even a possible cooling trend. It's not surprising then that some presenters have probably been cherry-picking the data and building anomaly graphs to prove their case.


What it all boils down to is that deception abounds and non-scientists should be careful of any presenter today who shows a temperature graph purporting to prove excessive warming or cooling.

As we've seen, climate changes occur naturally in time intervals of thousands of years. And despite claims by climate warming advocates that the late 20th century warming spike is unprecedented, non-aligned IPCC scientists have shown by using geological proxy data, temperatures similar to those recorded at the end of the 20th century have occurred since the emergence of mankind or at least very near to it.

One example is the CET – Central England Temperature. This is considered to be a reliable source of regional data for Central England. Many believe it is also a reliable proxy dataset for analysing past climate in Europe and also the North Atlantic. The CET shows at least two warming spikes over just a few years since around 1820. Both were of shorter duration to the one which occurred at the end of the 1900s. Yet the people in that region have flourished apparently without the calamitous climatic events which the IPCC is predicting about to happen to us.

Read more: Met Office Hadley Centre – CET (HadCET) Dataset
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Bill Whittle is an American conservative blogger who, among other things discusses climate change issues. In this short video he discusses several of the issues mentioned here about how we are being deceived by only getting part of the story, whether the sciences is real, plus some other issues not known about by this writer:
Watch video: Bill Nye – The Science Liehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_RuverrEZ4

Do We Change Our Economic Policies?


Using the WMO Climate Normal system provides only three full climate data points on which to plot a hypothetical graph of global temperatures. The Tier 2 climate normal system provides up to 11 data points based on 10 yearly intervals but as mentioned these tend to be misused. Yet no matter what system is used for representing alleged dangerous global warming, there is still only 167 years of recorded temperature data available, some of which is not considered reliable.

That's not much on which to base changing a countries entire economic policies. And yet we have one State in Australia soon to be followed by another, that is currently implementing a policy to replace it's baseline energy system to renewable energies and decommissioning it's coal fired power-plants. It's already experienced huge blackouts when storms damaged the renewable systems infrastructure and they had no backup system, other than to ask another State for help.

"Oh but it's okay" they say, "we've fixed the problems and it won't happen again" they say.

Yeah right ....

Ultimately, basing policies on just 160 years or so of climate records at the least must be considered a bit short sighted. In fact it's more about idealism than practicality. And let's just be real ... it certainly cannot help anyone make accurate judgements whether the climate is going to continue trending up or down instead of just assume it will happen. And it's pointless to keep throwing so much money at something with no real scientific resolution after almost 30 years, and which might eventually be a non-problem anyway.

Are We Prepared for a Catastrophic Event?

On the face of it the outlook for the World populations is bleak, but not necessarily from climate change. The real issue is about the actions now being taken by collective countries to solve what may turn out to be a non-event, and who are being led by an ideal driven organisation that bases its opinions on theory and logic rather than practical science and procedures. So much money is being wasted to try and prevent something that may very well happen anyway – or not, with or without additional greenhouse gases.

But unfortunately something even worse could happen. The climate warming trend could potentially reverse course into an even more disastrous cooling trend – don't laugh just yet.

At the moment the Earth is in an Interglacial Period i.e. between alternating ice ages. Based on previous Milankovitch cycles the onset of thousands of years decline into another Ice Age is overdue. One of the triggers is when summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere fail to rise above freezing for years, snowfall doesn't melt and compresses then turns into ice sheets over time.

Some scientists are even suggesting the current AGW greenhouse effect is preventing that onset. As silly as that may seem now, consider that the last real Ice Age finished about 12,000 years ago when mankind was in it's infancy, and that Interglacial periods have historically lasted about 10,000 years. Is it as far fetched as the Earth being round or that mankind would walk on the moon?

Right now there's probably no one looking into how the massive loss of grain growing farms in the Northern Hemisphere can be substituted to prevent famine ... just in case the world needs because of some catastrophic disaster (let's say a meteor strike or super volcano?)

In any case farms are being bought out now anyway due to continuing urban sprawl so hopefully somebody is starting to look into it. Or maybe we should have more scientists looking into ways of reducing famine in places like Somalia instead of meeting obligations of funding research in global warming.

Recommendations

Billions of dollars is spent annually to the false god of the AGW hypothesis. If the people of the Earth are to make any headway into the issue of climate change, either warming or cooling then thought might be given to the following:

1. The IPCC should be disbanded or reconstituted into a purely scientific organisation because:

* It's staff is entirely bureaucratic. As such it's political by nature and subject to political manoeuvring. It's member countries have too much input into the final Assessment Reports.
*There's every indication that it has been corrupted as a result of "cause noblesse" i.e. not being truthful for what it believes is to the greater good.
*It's scope of research was limited to just the instrumental meteorological records right from the start. No real regard is given to natural climate processes.
*It does not consult geological proxy data in order to determine any historic context against what's happening now, or whether alarming the world as it has, is justified.
*It assumed right from the start that mankind was responsible for global warming without using proper scientific proof procedures.
*It's primary focus continues to be related just to mankind's activities in relation to it's effect on climate.

2. Ideally, a purely scientific organisation needs to be raised to monitor and try to determine the possible future of the Earth's climate and if possible:

*should remain under the charter of the UN and World Meteorological Office;
*be autonomous to the extent that it should not be influenced by the desires of individual countries i.e. no member countries;
*issue a scientific paper every 10 years as to the state of research in climate activities over the previous decade based on 30-year Climate Normals;
*any and all scientific theories and papers to undergo proper scientific testing and approbation prior to public release; and
*research better ways of investigating earlier warning and response system for climatic disasters.

In the meantime, let's take the pressure of the world's scientists to do what they know best without political meddling, hindrance, misinformation or manipulation. Let's be really sure that when they do say something, that we can actually trust it – unlike now with so much disparagement going on between the two sides of the issue i.e. alarmists and sceptics.

Sources:

1. Climate: The Counter Consensus, Prof. Robert M. Carter 2010
Edited on 06-06-2017 05:39
06-06-2017 10:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science? Documents showed that Prof. Robert M. Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 by the Heartland Institute, an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, as part of their efforts to discredit AGW. The article, while superficially convincing, is riddled with factual and logical errors. It isn't science; it's propaganda.

The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous. Those attempting to discredit it, such as Prof. Carter, are overwhelmingly driven by political and financial, rather than scientific, motives.
06-06-2017 16:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
This is from Reuters;

In 2013, the panel reported a slowdown or "hiatus" in warming since about 1998, despite rising man-made emissions of greenhouse gases,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-ipcc-idUSKBN0TR23920151208


They want to be able to say what ever they want and then say "Lee will oversee the next cycle of reports from the IPCC, whose most recent findings in 2013-14 concluded that global warming meant risks of "severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts".

How do they go from a pause to severe risk ? Why wasn't any of that information in their 2013 report ? And why is it only the IPCC has any voice ? This is a link to an ice core researcher who states that historic changes in atmospheric temperature cannot be accounted for by CO2.

This is what the IPCC is missing. To them CO2 is job security and credibility.

There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees.

Because it takes circa 10.000 years for an ice age to gradually come to an end; but for a climate ripple (for example, the end of the Younger Dryas) the change in weather took, 25 years later, just one year, temperature wise.

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
06-06-2017 17:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Surface Detail wrote:
You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science? Documents showed that Prof. Robert M. Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 by the Heartland Institute, an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, as part of their efforts to discredit AGW. The article, while superficially convincing, is riddled with factual and logical errors. It isn't science; it's propaganda.

The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous. Those attempting to discredit it, such as Prof. Carter, are overwhelmingly driven by political and financial, rather than scientific, motives.


Consensus is not used in science. There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist' since they do not use or create science.

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.

Science is not made up of stuff that is not defined.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2017 02:14
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science?


Of course I realize it. And he's just one of the many. Same as for the many who advocate FOR climate warming, which I suspect highly outnumber the climate denier advocates. Doesn't make the points they make any loss valid provided the points they make are double checked before using them - as I have done.

Furthermore, the bulk of the article didn't use Prof. Carter as a source. He was just one. Look again and you'll see several links to other sources.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
07-06-2017 02:22
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
The article, while superficially convincing, is riddled with factual and logical errors. It isn't science; it's propaganda.


Frankly, I'm not interested in propaganda which is published by those who suffer from "cause noblesse" that is so rampant on both sides of the debate.

But again ... that is the usual rebuttal from blinkered alarmists with no substance. If it's got factual and logical errors then tell me what they are - but don't just give me your opinions. Give me facts from a believable source - not from the IPCC, WikiLeaks or any of the blatant climate warming sites. Give me facts from an independent scientist for example who has published a paper on whatever it is that you are disputing. Let me see so that I can judge whether it makes sense and whether I should adjust my position. Which I would do since I'm not one-eyed about the issue.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
07-06-2017 02:32
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous.


This is one of the pillars of support that global warming alarmists and is a highly contentious one. Some AGW advocates even go so far as to say that science is all about consensus, which is laughable. Consensus is about politics. Science is about finding facts (not theories) with conclusions that can be reproduced by independents peers. And don't get me going about the so-called famous IPCC peer review process


The IPCC got established in 1988 having arrogantly decided that AGW was causing global warming. They did NOT put the hypothesis out to the world's scientists at large and get approbation for it. They just went ahead as if AGW was actual fact.

Despite their claim they had a scientific consensus, it was not true. Not all scientists actually agreed with the hypothesis. More than 30,000 scientists including 9,029 PhDs even signed a petition that the AGW theory was extreme.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf

Among other points of contention their disagreements generally came down to the following:

*Natural world observations such as receding polar ice-caps and other endless attributions by advocates might be claimed to prove global warming, but not that it is or has been caused by humans.

*Independent researchers found many errors in the computer models used by the IPCC which consistently over-predict the amount of warming.

*Scientific consensus is not scientific fact. Science is about finding facts. Consensus is about politics. Science requires a hypothesis to be published showing how it was proved. It then needs to be tested independently and to achieve the same result before it is considered to be fact.

*There are doubts concerning the accuracy of various historical thermometer temperature records which will be discussed in this article.

As to be expected the IPCC and it's huge reach of advocates immediately jumped on the anti-petition wagon train to denounce it. And as to be expected many of the denouncements are not to be trusted in the first instance. Like everything concerned with the IPCC, everything needs to be double checked.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
Edited on 07-06-2017 03:03
07-06-2017 02:39
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
Those attempting to discredit it, such as Prof. Carter, are overwhelmingly driven by political and financial, rather than scientific, motives.


As are both sides of the debate. And I've got news.
The issue of climate change ceased to be about science many, many years ago. In fact it ceased when the IPCC was first formed in 1988 to consist of a central core of about 38 or so bureaucrats and "member" countries many of whose representatives were also bureaucrats.

It was ALWAYS going to be political by the very nature of the organisation and which is why this forum - and many others like it - exist today.

If the IPCC is disbanded and replaced by a properly staffed autonomous organisation of accredited scientists, then we wouldn't have much to talk about. The reason why is that the world at large could at last TRUST what they are saying BECAUSE they wouldn't be pressured by any political agendas.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
07-06-2017 05:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science?


Of course I realize it. And he's just one of the many. Same as for the many who advocate FOR climate warming, which I suspect highly outnumber the climate denier advocates. Doesn't make the points they make any loss valid provided the points they make are double checked before using them - as I have done.

Furthermore, the bulk of the article didn't use Prof. Carter as a source. He was just one. Look again and you'll see several links to other sources.


Excellent counterargument!

Surface Detail often practices Bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2017 06:25
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:

The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous....


Just a bit more on this:

1. Where did the warmist brigades get the figure of 97% consensus of scientists of the world agree with AGW?
Q. Did they contact each and every one of them and confirm it?
A. I'd say they didn't - too monumental a task.

Q. Did they do a survey and extrapolate the results as representative of all the world's climate scientists?
A. This is the most likely given the propensity by the IPCC and their followers to take certain information and project it into the future e.g. projected temperatures, atmospheric CO2, rising sea levels and the like.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
07-06-2017 08:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous....


Just a bit more on this:

1. Where did the warmist brigades get the figure of 97% consensus of scientists of the world agree with AGW?
Q. Did they contact each and every one of them and confirm it?
A. I'd say they didn't - too monumental a task.

Q. Did they do a survey and extrapolate the results as representative of all the world's climate scientists?
A. This is the most likely given the propensity by the IPCC and their followers to take certain information and project it into the future e.g. projected temperatures, atmospheric CO2, rising sea levels and the like.


It wasn't even a survey. It is a completely manufactured number out of thick air.

The story goes that a guy analyzed research papers selected from some unknown population by some unknown means and declared the number to be true. In other words, bad statistical math.

The raw data was never made available.

The Church of Global Warming has been quoting this randU number as gospel since then.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2017 09:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous....


Just a bit more on this:

1. Where did the warmist brigades get the figure of 97% consensus of scientists of the world agree with AGW?
Q. Did they contact each and every one of them and confirm it?
A. I'd say they didn't - too monumental a task.

Q. Did they do a survey and extrapolate the results as representative of all the world's climate scientists?
A. This is the most likely given the propensity by the IPCC and their followers to take certain information and project it into the future e.g. projected temperatures, atmospheric CO2, rising sea levels and the like.


Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
07-06-2017 11:24
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."


I watched the video on your link.

Seems the researchers of this farce focused only on any scientific paper with certain keywords e.g. climate change in them.

So let me see if I've got this right:
1. 11,944 abstracts i.e. scientific papers were examined over 21 years.
2. Of these, 32.6% endorsed AGW.
3. And 97% of those endorsed the consensus?

And THIS is being representative of all the worlds' scientists who could legitimately contribute to a debate on climate change?

There are so many sub-disciplines of the sciences that relate to climate and weather that I'd hate to have to list them all here - must be hundreds at least.

So how many scientists do you think there are in the world who are doing research in all those fields?

And do you think ALL of them would have contributed a paper.
I think the answer would be ... no.

My take on this is that the researcher has focused on only one part of the issue to come up with a result, then assigned that result to a wider representation than was merited.

Sound just like the IPCC.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
Edited on 07-06-2017 11:48
07-06-2017 11:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."


So let me see if I've got this right:
1. 11,944 abstracts were examined over 21 years.
2. Of these, 32.6% endorsed AGW.
3. And 97% of those endorsed the consensus?

Nope. Try again.
07-06-2017 13:18
too
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Aren't climate change advocates really just solar change deniers? https://theobjectiveobserverblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/solar-change-deniers/
07-06-2017 19:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science?

There is no "climate" science, as you have made completely clear.


Surface Detail wrote: Documents showed that Prof. Robert M. Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 by the Heartland Institute, an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, as part of their efforts to discredit AGW.

Typical dishonest warmizombie. You have no science to support your WACKY religious dogma so you divert attention away from your scientific illiteracy to somebody else's paycheck, as if that is somehow a valid substitute for science.

Have you had any luck explaining how the earth's average global temperature supposedly increases without additional energy?


I thought not.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2017 05:20
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science? Documents showed that Prof. Robert M. Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 by the Heartland Institute,


This is a common cliché used by climate alarmists that those who are "making waves" don't have any expertise. And it's often just thrown out without checking anything beforehand.

If what you say is true, then surely it must be strange that the Heartland Institute would pay so much money to someone who had no expertise in climate science?

Prof. Carter was one of a handful of scientists with multiple doctrines and expertise who could claim to be a true climate scientist - or as true as one can get.

His credentials included a Geology BSc Hons at Otago University and Palaeontology PhD at Cambridge University. He also had a wide and varied career which gave him exposure to many of the other climate related sciences and awards which frankly are too long to go into here.

Prof. Carter unlike many of the today's alleged climate experts, based his writings on 40 years of personal research study into ancient environments and climates. This is one of the reasons why I often quote him as a source.

Many scientists claim, or allow people to believe that they are an expert in climate change when they only hold a single doctorate (say) meteorology or geology and have limited exposure to other scientific fields. Others just have supporting doctorates such as statisticians or computer modelling.

There are thousands of branches and sub branches that can be said to relate to climate change which stem from the 3 main branches: Physical, Earth & Space, Life sciences.

And unfortunately, we find "experts" in the lower branches who reckon they know all about climate based on their own relatively narrow science base, together with educated guesses on what they don't know. Or alternatively they just take on additional information at face value what someone else tell them.

And it doesn't have to be a single individual. It's possible that this sort of behaviour even extends to otherwise highly credible scientific agencies, as mentioned in the above article.

Whether Prof. Carter was paid or not is irrelevant. Anyone seeking to make any sort of claim publically should at least verify to the best of their ability that what they are passing on is truthful.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
09-06-2017 15:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
rwswan wrote: This is a common cliché used by climate alarmists that those who are "making waves" don't have any expertise.

It's not merely a cliché. It is a required retort of their congregation.

Direct from the Global Warming Debate Manual
Pg.. 63 - The Science Deniers Creed

"I reject Science and all its falsifiable models and it's empty promises.

"I believe in Climate, the all powerful yet incredibly vulnerable and fragile Mother Almighty who cradles the earth in a soft blanket of cuddly warmth, and without whom would be a dead ball of ice.

"I believe in "greenhouse effect," the Son of man and his activities, who was born of the "greenhouse gas," was thermally forced, feedbacked and was heated, rose from the bottom of the ocean and is now seated in the lower stratosphere over Norway.

"I believe in the Climate Scientists, the holy Consensus of the Church, the international conferences of Climate, the redistribution of wealth, the redefinition of the blackbody, and Threat everlasting. Amen. "

rwswan wrote: Prof. Carter was one of a handful of scientists with multiple doctrines and expertise who could claim to be a true climate scientist - or as true as one can get.

There is no such thing as a "Climate" scientist. There is no such thing as "Climate" in science. Yes, the word exists in the dictionary but not in science.

rwswan wrote: His credentials included a Geology BSc Hons at Otago University and Palaeontology PhD at Cambridge University.

Irrelevant.

Warmizomies deny any and all science that runs counter to their WACKY religious dogma. I dare you to try to discuss physics with Surface Detail. The utter rejection of science will gush forth like the water from a fire hydrant.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2017 15:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:Nope. Try again.

Run away, run away.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-06-2017 09:54
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Climate" scientist. There is no such thing as "Climate" in science. Yes, the word exists in the dictionary but not in science.


Basically I agree. But a lot of new words & terms have been coined since the issue of AGW began.

Take for instance the term "climate change". It's a nonsensical phrase with a literal meaning of a change in climate, but today is generally understood to mean dangerous global warming - thanks to the IPCC advocates spin doctors.

Similarly there's no such thing as a "climate scientist" or "climate "science" per se. I mean you can't go to a university and get a degree in "Climate Science". All you can do is get degree(s) in one or more of the hundreds of scientific disciplines which relate to some extent to weather or climate processes.

So it may be arguable, but I think the term "climate science" is in fairly common use and may be taken to mean science that is used in some way to research "climate change". And in much the same way, a "climate scientist" is someone who has some kind of expertise on the study of climate processes.

That's the way I see it, but of course I could be wrong.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
10-06-2017 14:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
rwswan wrote: Basically I agree. But a lot of new words & terms have been coined since the issue of AGW began.

If a coined term is itself a contradiction, or a weasel term to afford semantic wiggle room, then you should mock the term and ridicule the user.

For example, the word "climate" means local conditions during a specific short term time period. You can talk about the daytime climate of Phoenix during the summer, which of course differs from the nighttime climate of Phoenix during the summer. You can talk about the political climate in Washington DC prior to an election or about the fashion climate in Paris leading up to the upcoming Spring.

"Global" is the opposite of local. There can be no global local conditions, over any time period, much less non-delineated timelessness, i.e. anyone who employs the concept of a global climate is begging to be ridiculed.

But what will happen if you provide such a richly-deserved mocking? Said abuser of the English language will become EVASIVE and will engage in the very religious practice of establishing his/her Climate deity as completely unfalsifiable.

Since there can be no such thing as a global climate in nature you can rest assured that there will NEVER be such in science, i.e. there will NEVER be any such thing as climate science or climate scientists. Anyone employing either of those terms is begging to be ridiculed.

rwswan wrote: Take for instance the term "climate change".

Yes, let's.

Since there is no such thing as a global climate, it cannot change. It has to exist in order to change. I remind everyone that no global climate has changed during my lifetime.

I would mention that some colleges that care more about money than accreditation will offer "Climate degrees and curricula because of the perceived market demand. You *can* get a degree in "Climate" this or that, but it will either be a hodgepodge collect5of other sciences, as you noted, or it will be a purely political activism indoctrination of worthless misinformation.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-06-2017 21:31
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The article, while superficially convincing, is riddled with factual and logical errors. It isn't science; it's propaganda.


Frankly, I'm not interested in propaganda which is published by those who suffer from "cause noblesse" that is so rampant on both sides of the debate.

But again ... that is the usual rebuttal from blinkered alarmists with no substance. If it's got factual and logical errors then tell me what they are - but don't just give me your opinions. Give me facts from a believable source - not from the IPCC, WikiLeaks or any of the blatant climate warming sites. Give me facts from an independent scientist for example who has published a paper on whatever it is that you are disputing. Let me see so that I can judge whether it makes sense and whether I should adjust my position. Which I would do since I'm not one-eyed about the issue.


Surface Detail is a True Believer in the Religion of Global Warming. He will simply deny anything against the AGW theory even were we to fall into another little ice age. Mental illness runs in the AGW family.

If you look at the actual history of the Earth you can see that we are actually in one of the colder periods of the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history
Edited on 10-06-2017 21:40




Join the debate The Confusion & Deceipt of Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Volcanic & Green House Gases, Melt Polar Caps925-02-2017 21:38
Heliogenic global cooling & ice age this year4717-02-2017 04:25
Climate Change & Agenda 21107-06-2016 18:38
I present to you my Climate&Energy solutions and leads and quests I wrote/made over the past 2 years409-10-2015 22:01
When Science & Ideology Collide919-08-2015 08:01
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact