UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC 342
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.
Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else, this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
How do you know what is real? (Score:4, Informative)
However, there was scientific consensus in the 70s [youtube.com].
So -- how do you know what is real?
Re:How do you know what is real? (Score:4, Informative)
I'd suggest to any climate change denial to watch the video.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Catching scientists in a misrepresentation isn't "the scientific process worked", it's "the scientific process failed, but it could have failed even worse if they had gotten away with it". Lying is an attempted subversion of the process, not part of the process. You might say that being able to catch lies is part of the process, but not lying is still better than lying and being caught.
And many of the proposed anti-global-warming measures themselves have the potential to "eventually devastate our social a
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?
Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?
Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:4, Informative)
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
Really? Disparaged maybe, but the papers the CRU emails were talking about trying to "shut up" were published anyway.
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because as we all know, a single case study always generalizes to the whole. I think it's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.
As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues, I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it *usually* is very healthy. In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science. That said, I understand your criticism of the CRU emails. It made me mad too, but it has been blown out of proportion. If you look at the IPCC reports, many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included. These guys had some power in the discourse, but not as much as people attribute to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the CRU papers, please. There was political bias on both sides.
The CRU emails show show no such thing. (Score:3, Informative)
The CRU emails show show no such [youtube.com] thing [youtube.com].
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you also think it is the same with sciences?
In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
(b) The field is not as politically charged; or
(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
Even with other money-charged scientific fields, like medicine, the results ultimately play out in clinical trials and then general availability. The truth will reveal itself relatively soon, serious investigations will follow any serious problem, and the consequences to anyone who violates the rules are severe.
However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes. They just say that some "other, unforeseen factor" changed the outcome without contradicting their theory. And serious investigations are much less likely -- note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.
None of this means that the climate isn't changing. But it does mean that we will have a major problem getting accurate information, making useful predictions, and crafting effective policy regarding climate change (that is, if policy is the correct approach at all).
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Interesting)
There will always be problems with "indepenence" of scientific research when the main (only) funding agency is a political body and an incredibly long validation period. If you don't produce the results the political body wants, they'll cut funding. If they are the only funding source, your options are being broke but honest, or putting at least a little spin on your results to keep getting funded at some level.
My research has been pressured by funding agencies, but since the main funding source is industry I can always find funding from a competitor (it helps that there are several) to continue my work if the original funding agency doesn't like what my data indicates.
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Insightful)
In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result
Where is your proof of this. I have never seen one single shred of evidence for this outlandish claim.
(b) The field is not as politically charged
What difference does that make? How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it? And this wasn't always a political debate. President George Bush Snr publicly stated that the world needed to act to prevent the problems of global warming. Up until the mid 90s this had bipartisan support.
The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time
The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct.
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Interesting)
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
(b) The field is not as politically charged; or
(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
(a) is a pretty bold claim. Got any evidence, any what-so-ever, showing that climate scientists who don't argue for climate change aren't getting funding? That they're systematically being denied grants?
(b) is nonsense, there are many politically charged fields in science. Evolutionary biology? Vaccine research lately (thanks to people like Jenny "Oops, it wasn't autism" McCarthy)?
(c) is always just silly. Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales. Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is. (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out. That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine? how much salt is OK? does wine really help with cholesterol?)
However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.
Again, that's the norm for most areas of science. Most of us go a lifetime without seeing most of our work being shown to be wrong, even when it turns out to be way off. (Weak evidence often exists, but the really decisive evidence generally takes decades to emerge. The old joke about science is that new theories aren't so much accepted as the old theories' adherents just die off. That's because science, unlike the simple model you're taught in school, seldom moves forward from single, definitive experiments.
note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.
In as much as there was nothing in those emails that was incriminating, all of the innuendo and out of context quoting by FOX and others not withstanding, it's difficult to see what your point is.
Climate research isn't really any different from any other area of science, except that there's a lot of money being thrown against it by various lobbying groups who don't like where it's pointing. (Which makes it a lot more like evolutionary biology than anything.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mentioned about baseless claims... yet you just made one. What lobbying groups are fighting the IPCC report? All I ever see and hear in the media (with exception to Fox 'News') is that climate change is man made, end of story, no room for questions, the end, it's done.
I hate that kind of crap, can anyone here
Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house (Score:5, Insightful)
The oil industry has been found to be funding at least one of the more prominent skeptical scientists, for a start. And even just yesterday, All Things Considered reported a story about how an industry lobbying group for the power industry is lobbying against the EPA's plan to regulate greenhouse gases, claiming that they're not a pollutant as the EPA claims.
We've also seen, in recent years, that the tobacco industry was helping lobby against climate change findings. (The logic being spreading doubt over one kind of science taints it all, apparently.) Link: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1819257 [slashdot.org]
So while I applaud your skepticism on such things, in this case, the data are there.
All I ever see and hear in the media (with exception to Fox 'News') is that climate change is man made, end of story, no room for questions, the end, it's done.
Which ignores the fact that the media widely has carried the counter-claims and stories about the leaked emails and other would-be scandals. One never really does feel that the media gives one's own side a fair shake, do they?
I hate that kind of crap, can anyone here think of a single other scientific theory that is so adamantly fought for by a group of people?
Evolution springs to mind. (I seem to recall at least one person being put on trial for teaching it, don't you?) Which is, as I said, similar in that it is also fought against viciously by another group. Which is why you get the strong support: the science community, under assault, are simply pushing back. And apparently, they're wrong to do so. What would you have them do, when their work and their very honesty is attacked?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN doesn't really do anything very well
Re: (Score:2)
The UN doesn't really do anything very well ... and this won't be any different.
What do you expect of a "democratic" body made up of representatives from almost entirely undemocratic/fascist/theocratic/monarchic and abusive regimes?
After all, this is the same body that makes a yearly game of putting countries like Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Zimbabwe on "human rights" panels so that they can issue reports bitching and moaning about how bad "human rights abuses" are in places like Europe, Canada, and the US. Al
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well for a start, calling those of us who have some skepticism "deniers" doesn't do you any favours. As to telling us what we will or wont be satisfied with is not your place either. We've just seen some of the leading proponents of AGW fudging data, destroying data, using personal influence in attempting to keep critical papers from being included in reports. If a second body can help bring some credibility back to the debate, then I'm all for it. The interest of anyone should be the truth and it's insulting to say that anyone who questions what they're told is doing so because they are trying to conceal the truth. It's by questioning that the truth is found and we shouldn't criticise people for questioning and saying someone is a "denier" when all they're saying is "the evidence hasn't convinced me" is wrong. And let's not even get started on your characterisations about black helicopters and commies. You think you understand climate science? I'd say you don't. The climate is very, very complicated and I doubt Phil Jones of the CRU is posting on Slashdot under the username Bemopolis. So don't mock other people who admit they don't know how the climate works and ask for explanations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what you are saying is that *no* amount of scientific data and publication will convince you, because the "peer review process" has been compromised. The same argument made about biology among the "Intelligent Design" crowd.
That's called denia
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:4, Informative)
Your tireless wholehearted and rather blind dedication for only one side is called zeal.
That makes you a zealot.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what you are saying is that *no* amount of scientific data and publication will convince you, because the "peer review process" has been compromised. The same argument made about biology among the "Intelligent Design" crowd.
That's called denial.
That makes you a denier.
So what you're saying is that *no* amount of malfeasance will convince you the belief system is invalid. The same argument made about the bible among the "Intelligent Design" crowd.
That's called faith.
That make you a member of a religion.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, because scientists being dicks to each other is out of character? Please. And as for dismissing the general public, you should have seen some of the bullshit mail I got from the general public as an astronomer (O may "God" bless you Honest John Malatich you crazy-ass sumbitch!). And that was just from the self-motivated whack jobs; I can only imagine the volume of shit what climatologists get from those in the general public, especially as they tend to be well-funded by those with financial and political agendas.
Personally I will not waste my time discussing science with deniers face to face, any more than I will listen to rant about Jeebus as you try to hand me your pamphlet. Now skeptics are another matter, but you better be prepared to answer some basic physics questions, lest ye be a denier in skeptic's clothing. And besides, malfeasance is not counter-evidence. If it turns out that Isaac Newton was a child-molester who enjoyed stealing from the Treasury while screaming blasphemes about Christ's after-Last Supper activities at the Archbishop of Canterbury, it would not affect his theory on the motions of the planets or those on the nature of light.
Conversely, if it turned out he never kicked a puppy, gave his possessions to the needy, and died keeping the temple of his body virginal so he could sit at the right hand of God, it would not make his theory valid at speeds near that of light.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know that. And as a skeptic, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
Goodness! By using terminology like "hurt wittle feewings" and extrapolating from my skepticism about AGW that I must also disbelieve evolution, medical science and refuse to fly because I think aviation is unproven, you have completely refuted my own post which was a mere logical argument following from what you said. Well played, sir, well played.
But just so I don't get sucked into the same vortex of facetiousness that you have, I'll respond to some of your points anyway. You're likening of climate science to current medical science is very unfounded. The foundations of practical medical science (a) has been developed over a very long time whilst climate science in its current form is very recent and far more significantly (b) medical science is based on falsifiable experiments - many of them. Do you want to list some of the falsifiable experiments that climate scientists have carried out? We can compare them to the millions of repeated experiments that form the foundation of modern medical science. And remember, that medical science is frequently limited in scope. We try this single drug on 500 hundred mice with cancer and note its effect. The climate is a massive holistic system that makes it near impossible to isolate factors in the same way. Climate scientists simulate falsifiable experiments by looking for "natural" experiments in history and the environment today and that's valid, but it's not the same thing by a long shot. So we are very valid in making distinctions between medical science and climate science.
And I think your parts about heliocentrism and gravity are hillarious. The implication is that you think anyone who doubts AGW might as well doubt gravity. Really? They're equivalent in their obviousness? You're really prepared to say: "Well if you don't notice the impact of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and how that may cause increasing humidity from the oceans causing a runaway effect which is exasperated by released glacial methane but somewhat mitigated by the increased albedo of the planet and the greater level of carbon-absorbing oceanic life-forms and plantlife then you might as well just doubt that there's a force that stops you floating into space, moron."
Really, the point I made was "without studying all the material yourself and researching it, how can you state what the Truth is with great certainty". Do you want to explain how "how much of the literature have you read?" refutes my point? Because I don't see a connection. I say we don't know, and you respond with "well you don't know." That doesn't follow.
And for more poor logic, no, I didn't google "confirmation bias". I find it tiresome how many people try to argue by Google, as if looking up a word is akin to making an argument. You might want to explain how someone who says that they don't know the answer and haven't reached a conclusion, is guilty of "confirmation bias". But who knows. Maybe if you google "relevance" you'll be able to cut and paste the results into your reply.
If you want to reply again, this time please actually argue points, rather than a spiel about scientology and other attempts at argument through mockery.
Regards,
H.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a pertinent question. When someone claims that there is effectively no evidence in favor of AGW, they'd damn well better know what is actually being written in the relevant science journals otherwise it's little different than what the creationists do. i.e. a YEC claiming evolution doesn't exist ought to be fairly knowledgeable of any scientific papers on the subject of evolution just as AGW deniers. This isn't an unreasonable request, that is that if your going to make a claim either way you ought to know what the hell you're talking about.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Interesting)
A fair point and one Hell of a lot better put (and more politely) than the GP. But it's essentially a different point to the one the GP was making. He was stating that anyone who says they don't know if AGW is reasonably certain or not is a "denier" and believes the default position should be that we take it on faith that AGW is correct and that it is a binary affair: you believe in AGW or you're a "denier". I, like many others, fall into the agnostic position, for want of a better term. Your point is a very valid rebuttal to the "atheist" position, those that say categorically that there is no AGW. And truly, your logic is correct, imo. My point, and I hope it hasn't become lost in this, is that it is wrong to shout "denier" at those who are simply skeptical but that unfortunately this is what appears to be happening quite a lot right now. Certainly there are examples in the comments here on Slashdot and I've seen that logic (I use the term loosely here) in the mainstream media. I think there are few if any people who say that the climate isn't changing - it's the climate, that's what it does. ;) There probably aren't that many who say that man isn't having an effect on the climate (I think we probably are). But there are many that don't know what that effect is and so far haven't been convinced that AGW is correct (to a reasonable degree). I say it's wrong to label such people as deniers, yet this seems to be popular.
This is off-topic, but I'm probably an odd case. I originally thought that AGW was very probably the correct. I grew up learning about global warming and, not being an expert on climate science, I worked on the logic that a lot of people who studied it in depth with no apparent motive to misrepresent it said it was so, therefore my best course of action in any case where I was required to act according to whether AGW was true or not was to assume that it was. Also, a few poorly thought out stunts by groups funded by Exxon and pals helped me look on those arguing against AGW with great suspicion.
Now I haven't undergone some great conversion and started denouncing AGW as a huge conspiracy or anything. But I've since had some first-hand experience with bias, propaganda and selective reporting in the mainstream media on the subject of AGW. Not in the acceptable manner of refuting AGW critics with logic or data, but with simple ad hominems, suppression and out-of-hand dismissals. And we've seen examples here and there of the same behaviour in the academic community. Having worked in academia, I also came across a frightening amount of group think on the issue of AGW and, though AGW may even be correct, I have seen first hand that a lot of its proponents are arguing it on faith rather than facts. That's very disturbing. And also in this time, I've seen it shift from "Global Warming" to (when the former turned out to be too hard to prove) to "Climate change" which is pretty much irrefutable, and pretty much useless as well. I've read more on the subject and realised just how very complex this really is. We're a long way from the 'pollutants build up in the upper atmosphere and trap heat on Earth like a greenhouse' that I was given in school. I don't know that AGW is false, but exposure and interest have caused me to move my position to one of thinking we don't have enough certainty to say 'yes' or 'no' yet, or more accurately, enough to say it's reasonably probable. Naturally I object t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And also in this time, I've seen it shift from "Global Warming" to (when the former turned out to be too hard to prove) to "Climate change" which is pretty much irrefutable, and pretty much useless as well.
So far as I understand, the name change was purely political, because labeling it "global warming" required explaining that it's the average temperature is going up, not the local one for every single guy asking this question - and there were (and still are, as evidenced by Slashdot discussion) surprisingly a lot of them.
Even though they name it "climate change" now, the prediction is the same - global average temperature going up. So it's not any more or less refutable - all you need to do is measure it an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, you go wrong on the very first line of your post. If I ask you what 5 + 3 gives and tell you to pick an answer from [1,7,9,11] then that's no good at all. And your post is similar. You list a few positions which you have created so that you can point out what is wrong with them and tell me to choose which applies to me? Well none of them, I'm afraid, or have you not read the posts you are replying to? I think we're more or less done here, but I'll cover the last few bits of your post.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
As to telling us what we will or wont be satisfied with is not your place either.
Actually, it is quite reasonable to say what the deniers will be satisfied with because they are so predictable. For example, look at your own post:
It is all cookie cutter stuff. You did miss a few points, though.
(Warning! Do not use this in the same post as "there is no debate because we get censored")
But seriously, if you are indeed a genuine skeptic, then you should recognise that the denier tag is not being attributed to you. You must have spotted that there ARE people out there who will not be convinced on this subject no matter how much science you can show them.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:4, Funny)
Warmerbot:
The new evidence does not invalidate the science *click!*... invalidate the science *click!*... invalidate the science *click!*... invalidate the science *click!*...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
calling those of us who have some skepticism "deniers" doesn't do you any favours.
And yet, calling people global warming alarmists [google.com] and warmists [google.com] is fine... ... regardless, what would you prefer to be called? Calling someone who denies global warming theory a "global warming denier" seems to be somewhat logical - rather more intellectually honest than those who would then immediately "Godwin" [wikipedia.org] any further discussion by pretending that they have been called a Nazi. Does denying that the world is flat make you a Nazi? No. Does denying that the moon landings have occurred make you a Nazi? No.
Re:Extra, Extra! (Score:4, Insightful)
They are however rejecting that human activity is the primary driving factor and that things will go to shit and the sealevel will reach the moon before the end of next week if we do nothing.
To condense it, there's two main disagreements: The cause; Man vs Nature. And feedback; negative or positive.
To the latter i may add that negative feedback is more often found in nature, perhaps because it dutifully returns towards its origin and can experience feedback once again, whereas positive feedback once put in motion is not likely to stop or return anytime soon. If negative feedback, i'm buying a SUV. If positive, i'll buy an amphibic SUV, because even the most dreamy scenario of 30-50% reduction in CO2 emissions would still not be enough to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
The aberration of starlight. The phases of Venus. Measurement of the Earth and Sun's gravitational influence on interstellar probes. To name a few.
Yes, yes I have. In fact, I am in the office on a Saturday writing code to trace out asteroid orbits.
No, but I am an end user of the Hipparcos database. I guess that would fall under "trust".
"will be appointed" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"will be appointed" (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?
Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside can accomplish. He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of, and took as "givens."
I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming, in one way or another. Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You left an important word — qualified outsider.
Repeat after me — "Weather is not climate; climate is not weather."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, if you need grey literature, what it really means is you need to do more research. That is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science vs. Government (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently. When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science.
Can't imagine what they hope to achieve (Score:3, Insightful)
The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions. This is what has been said all along.
The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy. They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.
I suppose it's intended to demonstrate integrity, to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist (and possibly even uncover others). They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors, should they exist. But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing. Nor can I imagine what would.
Re: (Score:2)
You're stating the conclusion in advance of the investigation and you don't see how that's evidence of, if not conspiracy, something very wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I am stating a prediction. An informed guess, based on the fact that the report has been closely scrutinized and no significant errors were found yet, only simple ones. I am not on the investigating team and my prediction carries no weight with them.
I am also stating the observation that there is no conceivable way for this report to clear the project, since they will simply be regarded as part of the conspiracy if my prediction holds true. There is no way to disprove a conspiracy, so what is the point o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The climate change supporters always say "they just don't understand the science" so then why don't the climate scientists explain things very nice and clearly instead of making wild claims and picking on the minors and ignoring the majors and all the while refusing to show anyone their raw data.
It is kind of like not showing your work in math class then whining th
Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda. They have insinuated themselves into the process and have tainted some of the research.
There is also a loose gathering of industrialists trying to use the same thing as a bullet point to help separate you from your dollars. From the greenwashing of GE using their mouthpiece of every show on NBC, to the auto companies with their claims of 200+ mpg hybrids (which, of course, get a "small" portion of their motive energy out-of-band...), to the electric utilities with their "we need you to approve another rate hike because those windmills we haven't installed yet cost twice as much per kW as conventional fuels" plans.
There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't care about your race, class, political party, gender, sexual preference, or anything else aside from your ability to evaluate the facts.
I do care that if you're going to express an opinion on climate change that you have a source other than blogs, and enough science background to evaluate the claims.
There do exist climate change skeptics. I've met a few. They have a science background and grasp the complexities involved.
Those who deny it without the science background, believing it to be nothing mor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd have to assume that those that agree with 'climate-change' and don't have a the appropriate science background are irrelevant as well?
In fact, yes.
If I as a non-scientist cannot have an opinion, then you cannot have my money.
As long as we are putting things into everybody's air, we are going to have to come to a conclusion. In a democracy, all those people get a vote, regardless of the fact that their opinions are ill-founded.
But if you want to actually win an argument, rather than an election, you need to be able to back up your opinion.
2 big problems in that report (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2 big issues I've heard about that report are the citing of a non-peer reviewed source for the Himilaya glacier and an incorrectly phrased line about flooding in the Netherlands (propertly cited, just incorrectly stated)
Now those two mistakes should not be in a paper from such a highly regarded organization, but...
THE PAPER WAS OVER 3000 PAGES LONG.
If I were to write a 3000+ page paper and only had 2 significant mistakes in it, I would be freaking estatic! I mean really, we are humans, there are going to be mistakes in everything we do. That the IPCC has been so responsive in retracting the parts of the paper that have not stood up to review and that out of such a huge document so few mistakes have been reported, shouldn't we instead see this as a great work?
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, so those are the only two errors or just a couple that were really obvious? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Given that the entire thing is based on bad data (if it weren't it would have been released), I'm not even sure why we're still discussing this. It's a sham.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, so those are the only two errors or just a couple that were really obvious?
If the errors were really so obvious, then why did it take two years for anyone to notice them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I find two major errors in such an important report that was supposedly written, edited, and reviewed by some of the top experts in the world - I wonder what other mistakes slipped by. Checking your writeup against your sources and verifying those sources is something even Wikipedia enforces.
I'm doubly suspicious when it takes the people derided as 'deniers' to find the errors, but the people who support the conclusions can't be bothered to take time out of their cheerleading to double check t
Re: (Score:2)
Two?
You're drinking the wrong Kool-Aid
Re:2 big problems in that report (Score:4, Insightful)
A little mistake is fine. Referencing a WWF report is not a little mistake. Arguing that "gray literature" is required to get an accurate picture basically blows your credibility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ceoyouo confuses the camps. The "scientists" who say we need gray literature are those who produce the gray literature. The gray literature is almost entirely supportive of the denialist political camp. The UN would panel, if it leaves out the gray literature, will most likely end up fully supp
Re: (Score:2)
Working group 2 of the IPCC seems to have made some embarrassing mistakes. Upon seeing the letter [liberation.fr] in Science, I wondered why I'd never noticed these ludicrous statements before. Then I realized that the mistakes weren't in working group 1 report, which is all I'd ever bothered to read. Here's [www.ipcc.ch] what each working group does:
Premis Fail (Score:2)
When your premis is false your entire argument is false no matter how long winded your argument is.
Claiming that 2 significant mistakes is no big deal is like claiming that if you built a bridge out of a million stones and only two in the base were severely damaged you'd be happy. The bridge collapsed. Why are you happy?
Crucial means CRUCIAL. (Score:2)
"Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
If it's crucial, it should be peer-reviewed. If no one has time to peer-review the material, it shouldn't be part of the basis for multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions. How is that non-obvious?
Gray literature (Score:2, Informative)
One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,
The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched, having assumptions that are probably correct. If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you cannot scan the article, and especially not its conclusions, but you will have to check everything! So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles. If that's not done by someone qualified, having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research' included is dangerous in that it
you're giving it too much creditibility (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years. It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".
That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.
Debate the Solution, not the Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Debate the Solution, not the Problem (Score:4, Informative)
That is typical. In other words; "Don't argue with us; we are right. Case closed".
There were no political attacks on the science. There were political attacks on the politics. If you can't keep those two straight, then it's no wonder that you are an acolyte in the Church Of Global Warming.
Maybe this will help (http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092):
ClimateGate - This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate - The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate - An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate - An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate - Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II - Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.
SternGate - One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose th
Re:Debate the Solution, not the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
As Independent as Philip Campbell? (Score:3, Informative)
Philip Campbell was one of the "scientists" selected to join the "independent" review panel for the UEA leaks. He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642 [channel4.com]
I'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN's review of the IPCC. This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money.
Wrong response (Score:2, Insightful)
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-toba
Change the name of the panel (Score:2, Interesting)
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years. But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study. Doesn't that prejudice the findings? What if (just a hypothesis) the data shows that the climate is not going through any kind of change that is out of line with historical patterns of change. The conclusion would be that the current dynamics of that climate to not represe
I am for this if... (Score:2)
UN should create panel to review skeptic funding (Score:2)
In the name of balance, it would be good also if a financial audit panel were created to
review and disclose in a public report the funding sources and amounts which
prominent climate change skeptics and denier-advocates have received.
I'm not accusing anyone. I just think it is fair that, as part of the vitally important public debate,
we should know who is behind the various positions we are hearing on this issue.
The Main Problem with these dang Climatologists... (Score:3, Funny)
... if they want people to take their science seriously, they've got to quit getting misquoted in Oil Company backed blogs and media. I mean, that stupid nonsense about their article on the world freezing over from that magazine they had nothing to do with, is a great example of why this controversy still exists. Even when people point out that it's a bogus and that science can always change -- it gets repeated over and over again. What's up with that, Climatologists? Your opinions are only like a few thousand, and there are many more non-climatologists getting quoted on this controversy -- you can't even beat out a Russian Economic Think tank that gets money from US oil concerns.
Heck, the LOL-Cat has more press savvy than you guys.
Instead of 100% of you Climate Scientists lying for that $10,000 grant, and your Grad Students being in on this huge global conspiracy -- you should go out and earn 10 times more with your math skills on Day Trading, get a lot of money, and learn how to rent-to-own press outlets. Maybe some of your grant money would be better spent on advertisements on CNN rather than all this blinking electronic equipment.
Stupid scientists!
Re:My particular facts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you've already decided that people [especially relatively rich Westerners] are the significant contributors to your already decided 'changes' in environment, you're just the kind of 'scientist' being solicited for the 'independent panel'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My particular facts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My particular facts. (Score:5, Informative)
Every year for the last ten years has been setting record temperatures.
Wrong, unless you are talking about localized records, in which case that will always be true.
Its been cooling a bit for the last 8 years... the trend began in 2002. You are either making things up, or repeating what you heard from someone else who was making things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that trend statistically significant?
Northwest Passage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Every year for the last ten years has been setting record temperatures.
and the counter claim was
Its been cooling a bit for the last 8 years
so out of our sample of 10, we have 8 conflicting with the original claim, then yes I would say that is statistically significant. You could pull back farther into the past (I have no idea what the weather patterns were 40 years ago) but the problem with that is the claim that we dirty Americans with our pollution are causing the change. 100 years ago CO2 emissions were small compared to what they are today. So we have this problem were
Re:My particular facts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its been cooling a bit for the last 8 years... the trend began in 2002.
Wow! I can't believe anyone seriously uses that argument anymore. This last decade as been the hottest decade on record. Any slight cooling doesn't change that. You make it sound like it must be much cooler than the record books, but 2009 was globally the 5th hottest year on record.
Have a look at any temperature graph [wikipedia.org] and tell us how significant is your cooling period. Can you spot any other similar cooling pattern in the preceding decades? If so, did those times also prove that it is getting cooler, or did it just bounce back even higher?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, older thermometers are less reliable and hence temperature data has to be corrected for just like things like urban island effect has to be corrected for today.
Unfortunately, it appears the modus operandi is to correct the real rural stations UP to match the urban stations, exactly opposite what any rational person would do.
And apparently my joke went over your head. Yes, of course the ice core data is used by AGW proponents (and climatologists in general). The seeming discrepancies in the ice core data, at least in recent time, is well accounted for in models, actually; I don't mean fudged, btw--things like the Medieval Warm Period occurring in Greenland and/or Europe doesn't mean that it was a global event (Souther Hemisphere data indicates it wasn't). It very well might have had to do with the North Atlantic Current.
Sorry, I missed the joke. Currently the Southern hemisphere really isn't seeing warming anywhere near the trends of the Northern hemisphere; perhaps the relative lack of land down South stabilizes the temperatures (being so totally dominated by oceans)? Nevertheless, data is data, and many of the most vocal proponents of AGW appear to have
Re:My particular facts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of which side of this debate you are on, you must realize that 10 years doesn't mean anything in this debate AND if we're all honest with ourselves, the past 200 years barely scratch the surface. Both camps will claim(when it is convenient for them) that the longer trends are what is important. Hell, we just recently learned of a 60 year cycle in the climate*** and yet we're still bringing up 10 years as if it means something. Knowing there's a cycle that lasts 60 years should mean we should be looking at the past 2,000 years before we open our mouths...
I personally am skeptical of both sides. I can see how AGW would be plausible but I can also see that some of what the so-called deniers are claiming is also factually true and being glossed over.
***That climate cycle just shifted to its cool pattern in the past year so I'm even more skeptical of the claims of "global warming is causing this bad snow", though it *could* hold some truth..I just think they're declaring a winner before the race has even begun.
AND to top it off, the AGW side wants non-peer-reviewed science to be counted on their side but if it's not peer-reviewed and it says the opposite then it's considered garbage. Double standards are not the way to go here if they want to be believed.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing there's a cycle that lasts 60 years should mean we should be looking at the past 2,000 years before we open our mouths...
I see. You do know that by relying on millennial length climate records, you're just walking into Phil Jones's little trap.
Blame Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no global warming since 1995.
No, he said that there was warming since then but the trend failed to meet a 95% significance level.
Suppose we have a coin that might be biased. You flip it four times and it comes up heads all four times. A statistician kindly points out that while there's indications of bias, it doesn't meet the 95% significance level. You then say "Aha! The expert says the coin is not biased!". That is of course not what the statistician said -- essentially he said that four tosses is not yet sufficient to conclude that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, how about you quote what Phil Jones actually said? It's not hard, and yet somehow the words that came out of his mouth directly contradict what you claim he said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's an interesting toy at this website [climate.gov]. It's called the global climate dashboard. You can view Temperature, carbon dioxide, incoming sunlight, sea level, arctic sea ice for various periods, adjusting the siders to zoom in on various decades and so on. (Pay attention to the vertical axis, though)
The interesting thing is that 1998 stands out like a sore thumb. 1997 was cooler and so was 1999.
But the naughties? Warmer than 1999. Warmer than 1997. Most of the decade was just slightly cooler than 1998, with
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The sun is the primary source of the far strongest greenhouse gas.. water vapor.
The sun does not emit water vapour. You probably meant to repeat Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas [newscientist.com] and Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans [climatemyths].
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction alone is not important.
The effects of water vapor are so large that even the small uncertainties in its effects are more significant than the effects of all the others combined. The uncertainties are anything but small, because water vapor is responsible for clouds, a poorly understood playe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
are we even sure there's a correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature ? And, if that's the case, what those gases are and where they come from ?
I've just listened to a 1-hour program on national radio, with kinda independent climatologists (a French luxury, where many scientists do work for the government), about climate change. These guys don't really seem to agree on anything, with one them them strenuously making the point that earth temperature was mainly linked to solar activity... to the poi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And here's a good example of how destructive this AGW debate is becoming. The climate is monstrously complex. I personally don't think we've reached the point that we can argue with sufficient certainty how much different factors contribute to climate change and in what ways, but my opinion is irrelevant. There are lots of reasons to want to cut down on some of the proposed causes of global warming. Cars generate pollution that is bad for us regardless of any effect on the climate. Coal power is probably w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. For example, if there were no greenhouse effect at all (that is, if components of the atmosphere were transparent across the EM spectrum), the Earth would be about 35 degrees Celsius cooler than it is given its distance from the Sun. Venus has an atmosphere about equal in mass to our total atmosphere (that is, air + oceans) but composed almost com
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it's a lot better than just believing anything somebody at the WWF decides to write.