I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should have a debate about it. Only the scientifically proven facts are important, not heresay based on heresay based on heresay. And the skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are going to argue about without looking at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to interpret the data. And I put my money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at them.
T. On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:31 AM, David Connors <da...@codify.com> wrote: > On 23 February 2010 21:18, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> > wrote: > > I never label people as âdeniersâ, nor do I cut people off. If > you have an > > alternate viewpoint, Iâd like to see what evidence you have to > support that > > viewpoint. Since youâve 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. > > > Iâm 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 doesnât 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, thatâs > not in WG2 > > â itâs 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 > > âThe 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).â > > (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 â 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 > weâd 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 > > thatâs 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 donât want to > publish in a > > peer reviewed journal, thereâs 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 doesnât 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. > > > Iâm 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 wouldnât cause warming or why that > change > > isnât bad (other than you are skeptic, Iâm not actually sure > what you are > > skeptic ofâ¦) > > > 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 >
