The IPCC consensus is phoney: According to Mike Hulme

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Consensus or not HOZ, show me a solidly researched paper that refutes any of the arguments of recent papers that point to anthropogenic warming.

Stop obfuscating. Deliver the goods. Where is the research saying that we are not having an impact?

Blogs, conspiracy theories, and bolded text do not count.

DUDE....obviously you are too obtuse to comprehend the first post since you have not read it.

Should I show you Gore's new coastal, and I mean REALLY COASTAL, house he divorced his wife for? Or is she in the house of GREEN?


Lets start from the beginning....WHICH SCIENTIST did I quote?

Answer:

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

DUDE....obviously you are too obtuse to comprehend the first post since you have not read it.

Should I show you Gore's new coastal, and I mean REALLY COASTAL, house he divorced his wife for? Or is she in the house of GREEN?


Lets start from the beginning....WHICH SCIENTIST did I quote?

Answer:

Sigh Al Gore, buys a big house and this debunks science.

Here's what I posted to the Climategate thread in march, since we're heading down partisan lines again:

Well its like two guys yelling at each other from extreme ends while the rest of us sit in the middle shaking our heads.

This debate has gone from important to muddled, confused and to put it mildly, wildly partisan.

I mean I do worry about our contributions to the warming, am I as freaked out as most are about the possibilities of what that means? not really. But I don't want the debate to be talking points or people just reading web pages that support their view without the seeking of truth being their end goal.

I mean whats sad is that lamens are all now thinking they are experts and because some emails and the greed of people has then apperantly to them turned all of the science into junk. When the truth is we have a lot to worry about, whether we are seeing the start to an incoming ice age to us putting the planet on a tipping point; either of which would mean disastrous consequences for this planet.

I want reasonable discussions, reasonable solutions to start moving us towards green energy, smart and intelligent use of our resources and especially protecting our fresh water and oceans because if we don't we are creating some very major future problems for our future generations.

Thats not hippy thinking its not lets panic and bankrupt our nations over it, its not lets make people rich on carbon trading crap, its just common sense.

But its hard to get that discussion going because of the damn noise from the extreme sides of each point of view.

Its very frustrating.

[Pastiche]

Laugh. Al Gore?

You couldn't get more cliche if you tried.

Seriously. This discussion is worthy of a Tom Tomorrow comic strip. Good one HOZ.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Like I've said many times before, I've been skeptical of both sides and from my non scientific knowledge I'm worried about the damage we're doing to our planet, especially our oceans and key eco zones that hold a high diversity of life.

As for warming, the fact we are dumping so much crap into our atmosphere is bad, we need to work are way out of doing that, and yes man made warming to all the things I've read is real.

Do I believe the hysteria over predictions of doomsday because of warming, no, I'm recently more interested in some evidence suggesting a warming period is common right before an abrupt change in climate to an ice age, something we've found tantalizing clues about recently.

Not sure why I'd be embarrassed about consensus, anyone who understands how science works knows that any paper published by anyone will be scrutinized and any bunk will be shown the door, sometimes takes time, sometimes takes fierce debate.

I'm however not all or nothing on this issue, I don't believe there is no harm in what we are doing, I also don't believe we with our air pollution can destroy the planet, but I do think it will have repercussions as possible one being hastening the next ice age.

Neat how I did all the above without links, videos or snappy comments; save for this one

Well since you have been honest....

I simply don't know one way or the other. My skepticism comes from the many chicken little that have been so proven wrong. SO WRONG! EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, EVERY MONTH...yet 30 years from noW theY KNOW....REALLY? Plus the fact that the AGW people tend to be socialist/anarchist/communistS cloaked in green. Since when do the commies get to wear green?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sigh Al Gore, buys a big house and this debunks science.

Here's what I posted to the Climategate thread in march, since we're heading down partisan lines again:

LAST TIME
WHICH SCIENTIST DID i QUOTE?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

LAST TIME
WHICH SCIENTIST DID i QUOTE?

Some guy from a bold university? But you did post Al Gore buying a house, again why do we have to bring that baboon into the discussion.

To this day I'm more annoyed he made that movie not because it might have some truth to it, but because as a Democrat liberal the debate then became not about science but about political ideology.

Whats the point of this thread or any of these debates if there is ZERO discussion on what we can do safely and profitably in our countries to clean up our act, because if more evidence does become conclusive to us harming the planet in some risky ways we will have been working on it already.

If its shown conclusively that we can keep pumping all this crap in the air and the earth has no problems with it, well then we'll still have cleaned up our act a bit and hopefully continue down that path.

Can't ignore the smog/asthma, chemicals/biomedical crap in our water/rivers, and our frighteningly worsening oceans (fish stocks, dying reefs, floating pollution area the size of Texas in the pacific)....

Every single time we have these threads its like a haha I told you so, its exactly like listening to CNN, FOX or any American media when its not even about debate, real debate I mean where people act civil and discuss differing ideas without resorting to yelling or being uncivil.

I just don't get it, why do you get off on this so much, at best your right and steps made to clean up our act are for the benefit of all humanity, especially later generations.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Some guy from a bold university? .

SOME GUY?

I am some guy.


He is NOT


Consensus on AGW is a fallacy.

[Thor]

I wasn't taking a shot at your source, but how everything I said you just skimmed over and you keep going back to him.

Again, like I've explained while he states about the numbers of people he also states if you read the whole thing that it doesn't mean the science is telling us AGW but that we need to be transperant, honest and not push an agenda without the backing of the evidence to do so.

Which I wholeheartedly agree with, not only on this issue but every issue facing us, I am a skeptical thinker and I'm more than happy to challenge any and all ideas, its healthy.

But you are too eager to find things agreeing with your own bias (we all have our own biases), while others who in these debates post countless counter 'links/videos'..

I mean again what is the point, you have your perceived bias towards this issues, others have their own counter, while most reasoned people I would think tend to lie centrist on the debate while leaning towards the evidence which is still even without massive consensus on the side of man made global warming, even if its a less significant factor than some have hastily proclaimed.

Its still a big matter of doing something intelligent, productive and decisive because if we are facing some very serious future consequences the time to start changing our ways is now, not 20yrs from now when the obvious affects of any potential incoming warming phase is here.

Now having said that, we could be on a natural cycle of warming which a fair number of scientists warn from studying past ice ages is a sign of an incoming ice age; there is even data to support showing that ice ages can come on with a vengeance 50-100yrs of massive ice growth and cooling of the planet. This would be devastating to the planet and would surely kill off billions.

Then there is the opposite possibility, we are entering a hot planet which could last for a long long time, this also has extreme dire consequences man made or not; its still stuff we need to really really be aware of and start thinking more about.

But we can still just post links and play gotcha while nobody goes anywhere with anything because it seems debate in this day and age isnt about reaching consensus and finding solutions but rhetoric and all the silliness we see in the global warming debate.

[Hack&Lube]

I'm not anti-global warming. I'm anti-anthropogenic global warming cult hysteria and the effect it has on politicians rushing to make haste decisions out of popularism and scientists looking for grant money.

[Pastiche]

So you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? Despite all evidence to the contrary?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

So you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? Despite all evidence to the contrary?

So you have 100% complete and unwavering faith in anthropogenic global warming? Despite all the evidence that shows flaws or that the science is incomplete?

[Thor]

I don't but I believe the evidence points strongly in that way, is it rock solid, no but its our best guess at the moment.

There are holes in evolution, even the most ardent biologist would never say evolution is 100% correct or absolute, since there might be tweaks/changes and thats to an idea going through 150 yrs of rigorous debate.

Just because its not perfect do you ignore signs and evidence leading us to these theories on climate change?

Climate science is how old?

So if your looking for certainty this is certainly not the field you should be interested in.

[Ryan Coke]

There is bad science on both sides. This thread is reflective of the debate. Pastiches condescending bias on one side, Hoz's hard to read ramblings on the other.

Climate change exists, the cause is little more than hypothesis that has generated a near cult like following. There is certainly plenty of science, but little in the way of reliable conclusions. The published beliefs full of bias and inertia, on both sides.

[octothorp]

Very interesting read, HOZ, thanks for posting this link. However, I would argue that you're misrepresenting what the paper actually says: it's more about the problem of a consensus-building mandate than about whether the science here is actually wrong. As the paper says, the consensus-building mandate has actually resulted in the IPCC communicating at times too aggressive and at times too conservative estimates of the effects of man-made climate change:

"But consensus- making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’."

Of course, the paper also contains the part that you reference, about work that's done by a single, expert working group is presented as being done by the entire membership of the IPCC. But it's not suggesting that there's a dissenting opinion in the IPCC, nor is it suggesting that all 2700 members need to approve the work; simply that it should be communicated as being from the working group, not the entire membership.

Anyway, I can understand, HOZ, why you would want to use this paper to support your position that the science done by the IPCC is wrong, or is silencing dissenting voices, but that's not what this paper is saying at all.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

So you have 100% complete and unwavering faith in anthropogenic global warming? Despite all the evidence that shows flaws or that the science is incomplete?

Certainty is not an adequate criterion for action under any scientific rubric. So much science is uncertain. We have regulated the dumping of dioxin in water from pulp mills because it shows to have highly cancerous effects on lab rats. Unfortunately, replications of dioxin exposed humans show much lower incidence of cancer. Do you think amid all of this uncertainty that we should start dumping dioxin back into our water supply?

The whole certainty gambit is based on this arrogant and false pretense that I should not have to change unless I am absolutely certain that what I'm doing is bad. In environmental sciences that is just not possible and completely off-base.

Despite all of the holes in the science (of which almost all of it shows demonstrable human effects on global warming) you are deciding to ignore it and clutch onto niches and anodyne critics of individual studies. Despite all of this, you are willing to actively ignore the consequences of your actions on generations of species in the future. Are you that consequential in your assumptions of the sciences so as to completely ignore and obfuscate the likelihood of your actions on not only your children but other species and other societies living in climate prone regions? Will you be hypothetically willing to tell your children that you advocated to doing nothing because you didn't believe/couldn't understand/didn't want to in times of drought or mass extinction. Are you willing to stand up for the choices that you make in the event of reckoning?

That's the ethical argument. There are numerous bevies of economic arguments to act as well considering the relative low-cost of acting now.

[Pastiche]

Oh yes, because I've read and digested most of the summaries of science supporting climate change I am biased. I've also read most of the critiques of climate science and found their refutations entirely adequate. I am biased for believing in science. That's a good one.

[Thor]

To further the idea of absolutism or the commonly argued statement "there are holes in your theory!!"

Perfect timing from one of my favorite blogs, Astrophycist Ethan Siegal:

As many of you know, I'm a scientist and a science educator. It's what I've chosen to do with my life, and I'm happy with that choice overall. But one thing that I find amazingly difficult to deal with is trying to explain some of the biggest ideas supported by modern science -- such as evolution, the big bang, and dark matter -- to people who respond, "well, but your theory doesn't explain _____________."

I've got news for you. There is no Theory of Everything. Even the ones that claim to be don't claim to explain or predict every fathomable thing.
When you have any scientific theory, it has a range of validity. Think about that phrase for a minute: range of validity. What does that mean?

and a funny comic that I'm sure a few geeks will enjoy:





http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...o_everythi.php

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Certainty is not an adequate criterion for action under any scientific rubric. So much science is uncertain. We have regulated the dumping of dioxin in water from pulp mills because it shows to have highly cancerous effects on lab rats. Unfortunately, replications of dioxin exposed humans show much lower incidence of cancer. Do you think amid all of this uncertainty that we should start dumping dioxin back into our water supply?

The whole certainty gambit is based on this arrogant and false pretense that I should not have to change unless I am absolutely certain that what I'm doing is bad. In environmental sciences that is just not possible and completely off-base.

Despite all of the holes in the science (of which almost all of it shows demonstrable human effects on global warming) you are deciding to ignore it and clutch onto niches and anodyne critics of individual studies. Despite all of this, you are willing to actively ignore the consequences of your actions on generations of species in the future. Are you that consequential in your assumptions of the sciences so as to completely ignore and obfuscate the likelihood of your actions on not only your children but other species and other societies living in climate prone regions? Will you be hypothetically willing to tell your children that you advocated to doing nothing because you didn't believe/couldn't understand/didn't want to in times of drought or mass extinction. Are you willing to stand up for the choices that you make in the event of reckoning?

That's the ethical argument. There are numerous bevies of economic arguments to act as well considering the relative low-cost of acting now.

And if you had read my original post properly, this is exactly what my issue is with all of this. My second post was a sarcastic reply toward the unsupported absolute statement you made in regard to my opinion. I have no issue with the science. Of course all science operates in the domain of plausible uncertainty. That's the point of science, to increase our understanding of the universe because we have such a limited grasp of it all. I have no issue with actions taken in regard to science or for the preservation of posterity. My issue is completely with the socio-political and individual response in terms of the popularist cult-like hysterical reaction that this debate brings up and the effects it has on our governments and scientists as they are driven by social forces that treat the issue almost religiously or enter into debate after debate where people are attacked for having opposing viewpoints on this issue and are treated immediately as hostile such as how you are treating many people in this thread. It's fear mongering and not condusive to getting change and cooperation in changing the reality of the situation.

It's just like a debate on religion where you have two sides attacking each other and not trying to come to any common ground of acceptance or tolerance to the benefit of humanity. Not everybody will share your own opinion or views (even if they are absolutely wrong) but this hostility in any debate does not help anyone. It's human nature to take up causes and rally behind them whether it's Smelly Fred on religion, FanIn80 on Apple, you on climate change, etc. but nobody ever gets convinced to change their positions based on hostile posturing. Find common ground. Don't argue that people are inherently wrong and therefore they have to change. Teach people that there is a net good in changing our reliance on practices which use up unrenewable resources and which result in carbon emissions. Show people how they may benefit and they will change, attack them and you just make more enemies.

[Thor]

Totally, just like the Intelligent Design proponents get shouted down all the time and ignored by science.

Why is it the fault of those who agree with the science on this issue on turning it political? I mean if you took a poll amongst right leaning and left leaning, which side would have the highest number of AGW skeptics?

Its the realm of scientists not politicians to sort this out, the mechanisms are in place within science to deal with any fraudulent and misleading claims.

Its like the debate on evolution and creationism, when you watch debates laymen think hey look they aren't sure, I mean obviously why else would they have 1 scientist for it and one guy sitting there arguing against it.

The AGW debate has become the same, or at this point much worse as you are right people are becoming polarized and are now hurting any attempt at reasonable discourse. The science has to be done, and what we have seen so far all points in one direction.

Those scientists then do their best to model climate, sea rise, etc.. And they then postulate what it means, and certainly using the data we have from various sources back 100's thousands of years we can get a good idea of climate and how the ebb and flow of warming and ice age periods go.

Now to others here who've stated that its both sides to blame, I'll surely agree both have blame on handling this, but to still suggest that its 50/50 on the science side on the debate is silly. Alot of scientists are probably trying to duck away from this mess now as its become so volatile and those that do support the AGW might hold off enthusiasm as often one should when dealing with our best guesses based off the data.

The problem is again, non science folks on either side trying to tell the scientists what they are right and wrong about. Damn internet!

[Pastiche]

Common ground? Either we consider that our actions which are warming the planet are serious or they are not.

You think they are not serious and do not warrant action. You say that uncertainty means that we should do nothing or very little.

I say that climate change has a range of uncertainties with many of them very serious.

So you tell me, where is the common ground. Should I say that okay, you don't think that it's serious so lets meet half-way and do something half-assed (like what we're doing right now) in the spirit of compromise.

This has very little to do with a religious debate. It has some things in common like ignorance but the key difference is that we are debating about things we can measure and predict and touch. Religion we can only pontificate. No, right now we are seeing effects of climate change on our environment. That is not similar to a debate on religion.

So I ask you again, in light of all of the physical evidence: Greenland rising, sea level rising (it is happening we are recording it), Greenland melting, Antartica melting, permafrost melting, coral reefs dying, species migrating closer to the poles, average temperatures increasing, how shoudl we engage in a debate about compromise?