Jump to content

More Nonsense In The IPCC - Who Would Trust Their Reports?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, arguments like this never convince anybody but for what it is worth, my $0.02:


Full disclosure, I am a scientist, but not a climatologist.


There are really three intertwined debates that are related, but not the same:


1. Is there a general climate warming trend (are glaciers melting, sea ice receding etc)?

2. If so, is this related to CO2?

3. If it exists, is the trend man-made?


Question one: Hard to say with certainty in the mid-term, since temperature records past a hundred years or so ago must be inferred from secondary sources (tree rings etc) but most evidence seems to suggest a warming.


Question two: If there is a relationship, it may be inverse (CO2 levels seem to rise AFTER temperatures, not before and in any event CO2 seems a minor greenhouse gas as compared to others).


Question three: Here is the real argument! Here it pays to be skeptical. Are glaciers receding: Seems yes, did we do it? Seems no.


Why? For one piece of evidence, look at this link to the US Govt. map of Glacier Bay AK showing the historic extent of the glaciers there since 1750: http://www.nps.gov/carto/PDF/GLBAmap1.pdf


You will note the glaciers have receded dramatically and steadily, but have been doing so since at least 1750 (the first year for hard data). Since no-one was driving SUVs or flying jet airliners at the time, and the industrial revolution did not kick off in a big way for another hundred years it seems the glaciers are receding rapidly but humans are not the cause. May have to do with warming or with precipitation changes. Similar data for Greenland , Newfoundland etc.


In the same vein, NASA says Mars is warming too.


So are we the cause of warming? At the very least, this is debatable (sorry Al Gore, the debate ON THAT is not over!).


And as a scientist, but not a climatologist, I will say that keeping raw data hidden and trying to censor peer-reviewed journals is a real red face offense and they should be ashamed and suffer the consequences, but I have known folks who have done it in my field (scientific arguments can be very heated and some folks will do anything to prevail, including not playing fair).


My take, based on the data I have seen: The globe is warming (but not nearly as hot as it has been in the past) and our emissions may have some effect but are not the whole story. If we can clean up our act, reduce emissions and pollution, lets do so. Why pollute if you dont have to? But it is not time to panic and bankrupt national economies until we are a lot better informed than we are now.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandspur, I agree with your analysis of the core issues.


1. Is there a general climate warming trend (are glaciers melting, sea ice receding etc)?

Obviously, without political bias, there is a trend that indicates the earth is getting warmer. Anyone who denies this, is just sticking their head in the sand.


2. If so, is this related to CO2?

That's where the scientists come in. I don't enough about climatology to question them. Most say yes. I don't know if that is because of their political bias, but it makes sense to me given my limited climatology background. So I defer to them.


3. If it exists, is this a trend man-made?

Don't know. This is where the political agendas come to play. But it is unarguable that humans are now extracting billions of tons of CO2 out of the ground and spraying it into the atmosphere. CO2 that took billions of years to settle in to the earths depths. Is it causing #1? don't know. Is it accelerating #1, don't know. Does it have any impact on #1, any reasonable person wouldn't discount this.


The problem is people like Brent want to denigrate any theories that go against his political agenda. He uses digressions by a few as a case against the whole, all the while portraying himself as an objective observer.


But really, what is the cost?


If I am wrong, we adopt an economy based on self sustainable alternative energy.


If you are wrong, we continue to accelerate towards the cliff of environmental Armageddon, destroying the future for our great grand children.


Link to post
Share on other sites



Once again, you tend to allow your dislike of those who do not share your views cloud your reading. I have been reading these threads closely. I believe that the consensus is that there is global warming just as there is warming on Mars. CO2 levels have increased over the last few years (where there is actual data before that the CO2 levels are inferred and could be off by orders of magnitude) but the correlation with temperature increase is poor. The climate models are flawed because they have not been able to predict the northern hemisphere cooling. All have questioned AGW but all realize that, especially with the recent revelations, a judgment is impossible. As Sandspur says, we should not make decisions based on consensus opinion on AGW. Trying to reduce fossil fuel utilization is a good idea from national security and long term sustainability views. There has been no one that I am aware of that says decreasing fossil fuels isn't a good goal. Just do it for the right reasons, not potentially wrong reasons.


Once again, the earth has been warmer in the past and life flourished. Greenland still has villages covered by glaciers. The converse is not true. If most of north America is covered by glaciers, most of the world's life will be extinguished. So it is better that the earth is warming rather than cooling. A cooling earth is a major disaster. Some warming is not (before you jump on this statement - the operative word is some).


It is interesting to me that Sandspur has not been a major contributor to these threads but you believe him and his credentials without questions. Whereas, you and others have questioned the credentials of others even though they have demonstrated a clear understanding of science. It appears that your clear dislike of people who hold views that differ from yours jades your judgment. Let us keep it on the science and if we do then you now basically agree with us!!

Link to post
Share on other sites


My political agenda is freedom. I don't care to give it up to a bunch of control-freak progressives. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. There is no proof that what we are seeing is anything other than natural cycles.


When "scientists" have to exaggerate to scare us into to action, my BS detector starts pinging.


When the vocal leader of the AGW movement (Al Gore) lives a lifestyle that produces 10 - 15 times the amount of carbon of the average citizen, my BS detector gets even louder. Actions speak much louder than words.


When the scientists at the CRU are deleting emails and hiding data that have been requested in an FOI act, my BS detector is ringing like an alarm clock.


Funny how I have an agenda, but the scientists relying on grants to study supposed global warming don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, you only wish to attack the messengers. I have no time for that. I do not wish to debate with someone with as much vitriol as you. Your bias drips from every post you make.


Vol, you have shown over numerous threads and topics that you have a strict religious/conservative prism with which you view the world. That has tempered my acceptance of your faith to the scientific process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the earth has been warmer in the past and life flourished.


Yah, this is true, eh? Nobody is claimin' that life is going to be wiped out, or human life.


Da issue is displacements. It might be great for Canada, eh? They become the breadbasket of the world. That's not so good for Kansas and Oklahoma, where we get dustbowl crops. Great for tropical critters, not so good for Polar Bears or coral.


Life will go on. But da economic and social costs from the potential displacements are staggering. The last time those Greenland villages were around we lost several major civilizations in da Americas - from the Anasazi in da U.S. southwest to the major civilizations of Central and South America.... and a big chunk of da European population to the plague.


Now, vol, since yeh seem to keep insisting there's been northern hemisphere cooling for a year and a half... how do you know? On what basis would you accept that temperature data as factual when you are willing to nitpick and find detailed fault with decades of temperature data derived from the same sources that show warmin'.


Whereas, you and others have questioned the credentials of others even though they have demonstrated a clear understanding of science.


No disrespect, vol, but I haven't read anyone here yet who has demonstrated a clear understanding of the science.




Link to post
Share on other sites

No disrespect, vol, but I haven't read anyone here yet who has demonstrated a clear understanding of the science.


Yes you have, you just seem to be putting blinders on for some reason (which is rather unlike your behavior on most threads I've seen you contribute to). I also by the way posted a link to a peer-reviewed German paper at arxiv.org rebutting the so-called scientific basis behind the AGW hypothesis a couple weeks before you claimed no one had produced peer-reviewed literature. 115 pages of physics. I have referred to the writings of actual physicists, climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, etc. who have based their skepticism on SCIENCE or data analysis methods. I have also referred people here to "lukewarmists" like Roger Pielke, Jr. and Lucia Liljegren.


Don't take it from vol or Sandspur or me, take it from one of the lead authors of the IPCC AR4. Reported in the Jan 24 Daily Mail:




The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.


Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.


In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the reports chapter on Asia, said: It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.


It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.


Continue believing in AGW if you want to but don't say it's because the science is settled or claim that skepticism is all a product of some mythological neocon conspiracy or brainwashing. By the way, you don't have to accept GISS, CRU or GHCN measurements to believe actual measurements have shown cooling since 1998 -- the satellite measurements from the University of Alabama-Huntsville have shown it. For what it's worth, Jim Hansen is claiming 2005 was the warmest year on record after some of his now infamous homogenization of surface temperature records. It's funny what happens when you throw out the 75% of data that doesn't agree with your predetermined hypothesis ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have, you just seem to be putting blinders on for some reason (which is rather unlike your behavior on most threads I've seen you contribute to).


Sorry, HICO, I haven't.


Referencin' one paper or a set of fringe arguments that have been featured prominently in a special interest PR campaign isn't an understanding of science.


Yeh mentioned earlier in the thread Science, and I see yeh haven't yet referenced any of the dozens of articles on climate change in that reputable journal.


None of yeh have yet given a balanced presentation of the evidence on both sides. It's pretty easy from that to conclude that yeh just don't understand the science enough to do that. You're just willing or unwitting participants in a special interest lobbying campaign. No different than tobacco farmers quoting tobacco lobby press releases that there's no "scientific proof" that smoking causes cancer.


I will say from a PR perspective da smear campaign bein' directed at the IPCC is creative and effective. Of course the IPCC is political. It was a body formed specifically to provide direction to politicians, eh? It may be that you've never personally dealt with politicians, but I have. Yeh can't talk real science to 'em. You have to frame things in ways that they can grasp in sound bites, popularity, and money. And then light a fire under their tails. :) That means that reports are inevitably simplified and dumbed-down. IPCC reports aren't scientific studies, they are summaries written on tight deadlines and across dozens of languages to convey a message to politicians. There are goin' to be typos and errors and oversimplifications. Doesn't bother me in the least.


What's interestin' is the lobbying tactic being used against 'em, holding 'em to a much higher standard than any other group that writes reports or summaries. Like how vol is willing to question decades of temperature data but not the year and a half he claims show northern hemisphere cooling. That kind of selection bias is hysterically funny, eh? But what's really interestin' (and a sad example of our poor education system) is that it seems to actually work on some folks.


I can't evaluate da science of climate any more than I could evaluate the science of cigarette smoking and lung cancer. But in both cases it's not hard to figure out who has real expertise and who is just lobbyin' for a special interest.


Now here's da real kicker - who is behind the special interest lobby that opposes global warmin' responses? Who aims to benefit the most from it? The Russians, the Chinese, belligerent Arab states, Venezuela. You're quotin' the arguments of our enemies, that want America to remain energy weak and keep da balance of trade in their favor to continue to impoverish us. And they've done such a good job with their PR campaign and payments to the American oil lobby and some political groups that yeh all think you're being patriotic.


Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, most of the papers in Science, Nature, etc. are on the effects of global warming rather than on ascertaining the magnitude or source. One of the reasons so many physicists and statisticians have issues with the AGW hypothesis lies in fact in the sourcing of the data. Many researchers have published studies assuming they could rely on the input data they were receiving from CRU and GHCN when we can now see how they were shading and altering the data. By the way, science is not judged by weighing or counting papers but by the content of those papers -- and the whole campaign undertaken by CRU and Michael Mann to distort the peer-review process should have waved you off from that false metric anyway.


You talk about a PR campaign to smear the IPCC, what I have seen over 20 years was a PR campaign to create and prop up the IPCC. We're not trying to hold the IPCC to a higher standard, we're trying to hold them to the SAME standards since the IPCC report is being held up as THE definitive reference. Surprise, surprise, much of the IPCC aren't even scientists much less climatologists. Even AGW proponents were troubled by the unethical manipulations and distortions of science behind the scenes. This is why I read and reference the so-called "lukewarmists"; you should also have warning klaxons going off when scientists who are predisposed to believe in some kind of global warming or human effect take issue with the underlying science of the theory.


vol and others have brought you to the water trough, we can't help it if you won't drink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IPCC report is being held up as THE definitive reference


Yah, the definitive political reference, eh? Being held up by politicians.


I think what's goin' on here is that yeh neither understand the science nor the way politics and lobbying is done.


So yeh can't make good judgments about the science, and yeh can't recognize when you're lookin' at a PR/lobbying effort by a special interest.


I can't make any judgments about the science, eh? Though it sure seems like if there are a lot of papers on the effects of something (and we are seeing a lot of effects), then odds are it's happening. So despite all the blather, we've got clear and convincing evidence that warming is happening. Causation is always harder and more complex, eh? I get that. But then when we're lookin' at an economic security issue of this type, I'm inclined to take action based on reasonable suspicion. And we're well past that level of proof.


While I can't assess da science, I can make judgments about public policy and PR and lobbying, eh? I know how that world works and have done a fair bit of it myself. And what you guys are quotin' is part of a PR and lobbyin' effort by special interests that don't have the good of the U.S. at heart. I choose to be highly skeptical of such stuff, no matter how much yeh want me to drink da kool-aid. ;)




Link to post
Share on other sites



I believe that several posters here have provided more than adequate information that we are scientists. Your comment is quite right - you seem to be unable to understand science and the process by which science verifies models. Since we are all scouters here, I have assumed that we took each other's credentials as fact. Clearly, if one is not in keeping with certain thought processe then their credentials are discredited. My sophomore honors physics professor told us to question everything in science, to always be skeptical, and to require a high level of agreement before considering any theory to represent a fundamental understanding. Brent, HICO, Sandspur, myself and others are doing just that. This thread has convinced me that science education has been poor much longer than I would have thought. I have seen so many mis-representations of science that it is indeed frightening. It seesm hopeless to me. The others are folks like Gern who believes that his viewpoint of the world is the only proper one and is too bigoted to admit that thoughtful, well educated, intelligent people do not agree with his world view.


Bye to all!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? You don't know my background. I know you are a doctor who left your medical practice because of your conflict with your religious/political views. Your previous posting to other threads has convinced me you cannot divorce yourself from those ties.


But you have no idea my scientific background or what my field of expertise is. Yet, you obviously know that I'm unqualified to even enter this debate.


I do not know HICO's or Brent's professional background. For all I know both work as deli clerks at the Piggly Wiggly, which only qualifies them to tell me whats on sale.


You are correct in one aspect. My political agenda conficts with your's and it effects both of our positions on this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...