On 23 February 2010 21:18, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote:
I never label people as “deniers”, nor do I cut people off. If you have an > alternate viewpoint, I’d like to see what evidence you have to support that > viewpoint. Since you’ve put the claim out there… > I didn't say you did. I thought you might have found those as 'in jokes' from reading the UEA material. Sorry - bad assumption on my part and I apoligise. The 'big cut off' was a reference to the mail from Schlesinger to Andy Revkin of the NYT. Revkin's mail was unkind, but Schlesinger reply was revealing. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-scientist-threatens-boycott-of.html So you need to write pro-AGW in the New York Times or we won't talk to you. Awesome. > I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working > Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. > > > You won't be seeing much of a scientific basis or otherwise for discussing > any other point of view in anything out of the IPCC by design. Jones, Mann, > Pachauri, et al seem to have that pretty stitched up. > > Science doesn’t start from preconceived notions and eventually whatever if > the theory that best describes what we are able to observe will win out. > That have been shown time and time again, whether it be Relativity or > Evolution or our model of the Universe. > > And again, what is produced need to be signed off by 150 odd governments > (some of which have a vested interest in pumping more oil, or exporting more > coal), and a large number of scientific bodies. It is not possible for a > handful of people to continually suppress scientific evidence to the > contrary. > Au contraire. :) Read on. How many AGW articles did william connelly edit by hand as a one man band? 5000+ wasn't it? > It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, > and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly > compelling evidence. > > I think the average punter, and *especially* policy makers, are more > interested in the output of WG2 (the part of IPCC AR4 that deals with > *impacts* and what we are to expect). > > Since we seem to be debating the actual existence of AGW, that’s not in WG2 > – it’s in WG1 > I think the existence of AGW is a foregone conclusion by everyone else on this thread so I'm just along for the ride. ;) AGW is too broad a term to be useful in discussing the world's climate IMO. More usefully: 1. Is the world warming or cooling or staying the same? 2. If so by how much? 3. Is it unprecedented? 4. Given 2, how much is dangerous. 5. Given 2, how much is caused by man vs not. 6. Given 5, what can we reasonably do to offset 4. or something like that. > Are you aware of any issues from WG2? :) > > Do those issues actual detract from the central messages in WG2? > <insert any debacle here> does not disprove any of the science of AGW is the catch cry of UEA etc. They wrote off the entire hack archive as such - but even a cursory reading of the material really makes you stop and think if you look at it with an open mind. Specifically re WG2 ... we know we're only to use peer-reviewed science and Mann & co have been calling people pretty awful stuff for not quoting "the peer reviewed literature" for some time ... so citing: - over a dozen WWF brochures/reports - From the synthesis report: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." "Publicly available IPCC archives of the review process show that during the formal review, the Japanese government also questioned the 2035 claim. It commented: "This seems to be a very important statement. What is the confidence level/certainty?" Soon afterwards, a reference to the WWF report was added to the final draft. But the statement otherwise went unchanged." (Source? Ahhh ummm... 2005 report via WWF (they're not biased) - but don't worry - they did quote a 1999 article from New Scientist from a telephone interview with some guy in India) - Climbing (a mountain climbing magazine) - an antarctic tourism operator guide for advice on how to clean you shoes hopping on or off boats “The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).” (NOTE: cited instructions on how to clean your shoes does not even mention climate change .. just ... ummm - how to clean your shoes getting on and off boats to protect the pristine antarctic environment.) - Numerous newspapers. Hell it would not surprise me if this thread showed up in AR5 citing "Schaefer and Connors, 2010" etc Call me a horrible skeptic but the above is citations are REALLY rich considering most the AGW community have been pillorying the average blogger for far less. No I am not making these citations up - google/bing for them. > I agree that we can still expand our knowledge of impacts – we need better > models and we need more data. But if we look at the vast body of evidence > that has been accumulated between AR1 and AR4, we are at least heading in > the right direction in accumulating data. > Or doctoring it - depending on your point of view. I note that Phil Jones has come out in his most recent interview noting that - holy heck - there was a medieval warm period and it might have been global (somewhat of a departure from previous UEA opinions and he appears to have changed his tune since he stood down amid accusations of unethical behaviour, deleting of data, non-compliance with the FOI act in the Uk etc,) > Peer reviewed science should have a higher weighting, otherwise we’d just > have a bunch of opinions. About 6 billion of them. > It has the utmost weighting on the IPCC and is used as a stick to stifle dissent (except when it suits their purposes to quote word docs on how to clean your shoes, tabloid science mags or a mag on how to climb mountains). > But **science** should be evaluated, and that means people publishing > verifiable papers. Those tend to be found in peer reviewed journals because > that’s what scientists do. I used to work in a Science Faculty (at UNSW) for > several years, and publishing in papers was what researchers did. Like > posting on email lists for developers. If you don’t want to publish in a > peer reviewed journal, there’s no need to do so, but you still need to have > other people be able to repeat your experiments, or test your hypothesis. > Most stuff published on various anti-AGW places doesn’t meet that standard. > Do you think that might have something to do with those with funding having a good handle on manipulating the peer review process? And if peer review is so unbiased - why do they quote news papers and the trash I posted above? What about their climate science compendium citing Hanno 2009 - the only problem being that it was some random graph lifted from wikipedia, with no permission or knowledge of the author (who subsequently crapped his dacks when he realised he was in way over his head and asked for it to be pulled). THe IPCC naturally did what they always do - silently edited it out of the relevant PDFs with no commentary or admission of error. I agree with everything you said in the previous paragraph regarding peer reviewed science - but I think you have a very idealised view of how a lot of these people work when they're licking their chops looking at millions of bucks in fundings. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt IPCC has had to admit that the WG2 statement re Himalayas was BS and has to be retracted - then they come out with this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf Yet glaciologists state that the melt rate has to be 25x higher than the current and prior melt rate for this to be true. So recap: -some citation form some guy in India, -interviewed by New Scientist a decade ago, -written into a WWF report -picked up by the IPCC, then chucked in the reference section as a citation Factually rubbish. They get caught with their pants down and then post a PDF saying that the "This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment." ... "but we regret the poor citation." And I'm like - WTFBBQHAX! These guys are so good as misdirection that you question your own sanity reading both sides of the story. Puchauri even had to gall to call people who disagreed with the Himalayas finding as being into 'voodoo science'. Except those people who were ridiculed just months ago ... were actually correct. > But, I openly invite you to please put forward the things you believe > should be read. > Jump on Google and read both sides of the argument. It is ironic that I found realclimate (the main pro-AGW clearing house on the Internet) via a link from climateaudit from Google. Note that the latter links to the former, not the other way around. > From my personal preference, I prefer scientific papers. Others may prefer > something lighter. > I prefer a multitude of view points and the UEA leaks/hacks show a pretty well run program to exclude "contrarian"/"denier" view points "even if they have to change the definition of what peer reviewed literature is!" I ended up reading both of the above blogs for some time culminating in reading a christmas/new year article where they review top 'stuff' from the previous year. Here are some of the headlines (and please keep in mind this is the unofficial site form people at NASA, run mostly by Mann other people who came up with the hockey stick graph): * Most clueless US politician talking about climate change * Most bizarre new contrarian claim * The S. Fred Singer award for the most dizzying turn-around of a climate pseudo-skeptic * Pottiest peer on the contrarian comedy circuit So yeah, really great scientists without pre-conceived notions AT ALL. These are from REAL scientists at the CENTRE of AGW research. I meekly posted a comment at the end of the article stating that I was (then) a fence sitter and that articles like this weren't really helping me reach the conclusion that these guys (real climate) are an unbiased and factual source of information. I'd love to post my exact quote. Why can't I? Because it was deleted by the site administrators. Again, no preconceived notions at all. > I’m also interested in what you believe are the flaws in our scientific > understanding or evidence for increased carbon emissions (CO2-eq from other > gases) > I don't believe a multitude of view points have been given a fair run for a number of very wrong motivations. "The debate is over", "The science is settled", etc. There has never been a debate. > and why you might think that wouldn’t cause warming or why that change > isn’t bad (other than you are skeptic, I’m not actually sure what you are > skeptic of…) > I'd be a LOT less skeptical if I didn't constantly hear "The debate is over" and people like Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd saying that people who are skeptical of AGW are flat Earthers ... yet they gloss over the IPCC using random citations like I have pointed out above. Any reasonable person would view any of the citations I provided above as dead-set clangers. Re not being sure of what I am a skeptic of - my position is nuanced - much to the annoyance of pro-AGW people I talk to. :) 1. Is the world warming or cooling or staying the same? - Warming somewhat in fits and starts since well before pre-industrial times. 2. If so by how much? - Not much. 3. Is it unprecedented? - No. 4. Given 2, how much is dangerous. - Warming generally corresponds to times of prosperity for mankind. We all die and starve in ice ages because you can't farm jack shit on ice with no rain. 5. Given 2, how much is caused by man vs not. - Given that the MWP is as hot as today or near enough (even Phil Jones admits now the science is perhaps not settled on this point), and that warming has been happening since pre-industrial times, it is difficult to say. 6. Given 5, what can we reasonably do to offset 4. - That is a pointless question because people will not change their lifestyles and go backward in terms of prosperity. If you bulldoze Australia into the pacific then China will make up the saving in a year or so. IF the problem is real (and I don't think a lot of what comes out of the IPCC is worth a cracker - which is not to say their conclusion is wrong btw) money should be spent on adaptation measures. 7. Bonus answer - Yes I think we should do what we should to preserve the environment, use less energy where it does not inhibit the prosperity of future generations of mankind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b49Iwfp8U-U I think the IPCC, UEA, GISS's climate guys, need to be disbanded and replaced with a neutral body who does the science right from first principles with fixed grants on a fixed timeframe so there is no motivation for corruption + solid oversight. No more dodgy dendro records with 10 trees from one place obscure guiding entire reports. No more dodgy station siting with dodgy corrections and adjustments, etc. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
