How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Error 17, on the precautionary princicple, could be debated one way or the other. The remaining errors 13-18 are simple errors of fact.

Error 17. Trenberth says, “At least we should plan for the coming changes.” The “precautionary principle” – plan against a danger even if the scientific basis for it is unsound or incomplete - killed 30 to 50 million people from malaria when the environmental movement succeeded in getting DDT banned worldwide. Before the ban, 30 years ago, just 50,000 people a year were killed by malaria. After the ban, the mean annual death-rate rose to 1 million. On 15 September 2006, the World Health Organization at last lifted this murderous ban, caused by needless and heedless “planning”. Its spokesman said that science and the data had to replace politics in future.
Trenberth, please note.
​

No evidence of mental illness through "Error 18", and two errors found that could possibly be debated one way or the other (eg, possibly not "errors" depending on how you look at it).

Error 19. Trenberth says, “The IPCC process is very open.” It is not.
Error 20. Trenberth says the IPCC’s reports “are thoroughly reviewed”. They are not.

Error 21 is worthy of repeating ir its entirety.

Error 21. Trenberth says, “Most of the so-called ‘deniers participate” in the IPCC process, “and their comments are fully taken into account”. This is known to be untrue. For instance, Paul Reiter pointed out during discussions on the draft 2001 report that the ban on DDT had done far more to spread malaria than “global warming,” that the malaria mosquito does not need temperatures any higher than 15 degrees C and is not therefore tropical, and that the largest recent outbreak of malaria was in Siberia in the1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected and 600,000 died, 30,000 of them at Archangelsk on the Arctic Circle. All his comments were rejected in favour of a nonsensical statement to the effect that “global warming” would spread malaria. It will not. When Paul Reiter asked for his comments to be taken into account, the IPCC refused. He resigned, and then had to threaten to sue before the IPCC would take his name off the defective chapter on the imagined ill effects of “global warming” on human health.
​

No evidence of mental illness though "Error 21". I'm beginning to wonder about the mental health of someone who would flippantly assert ad hominems such as mental illness to make a point on an internet forum.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, it is, and you will find other common behaviours and claims summarised in the OP.

Welcome. All intelligent interruptions are appreciated.

In the discussion I refer to the poster has made himself quite clear about his scientific literacy by calling CO2 an hydrocarbon even after being corrected.

When it was pointed out that wine is produced in Canada and England now as well as in Roman times and asked repeatedly how grape production is then indicative of climate change he fell silent on the topic.

He is a subset of the GWS group then, one which is on that path purely for political reasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

[Monckton] is mentally ill, IMO, a classic narcissist in everyway.

A bit harsh, I think. You have to consider his social background (including a Harrow education) along with his egotism. He is quite clever in some ways. I've never met him, but I can fit him to a type.

Way over pumped evaluation of himself, his abilities, his importance.

Also something of a fantasist.

I'm pretty sure I saw him holding court once, in a restaurant in Finchley. We spent a little time discussing the social dynamics of his party and he (or someone very like him) was definitely taking the lead quite effortlessly. The owner was fawning on him, so he was definitely a Tory panjandrum of some sort.

To think he is accepted so readily tells you a lot about the denier crowd.

Lets face it, old chap, they'll take anybody. Beggars cant be choosers, what?

 

[CapelDodger]

Error 17. Trenberth says, “At least we should plan for the coming changes.” The “precautionary principle” – plan against a danger even if the scientific basis for it is unsound or incomplete - killed 30 to 50 million people from malaria when the environmental movement succeeded in getting DDT banned worldwide. Before the ban, 30 years ago, just 50,000 people a year were killed by malaria. After the ban, the mean annual death-rate rose to 1 million. On 15 September 2006, the World Health Organization at last lifted this murderous ban, caused by needless and heedless “planning”. Its spokesman said that science and the data had to replace politics in future.

Do you believe any or all of that? Do you believe that DDT was ever banned for the purpose of mosquito eradication in the first place?

Can you believe Monckton?

 

[CapelDodger]

He is a subset of the GWS group then, one which is on that path purely for political reasons.

I'd put "wishful thinking" at the root of it, but wishful thinking ofen underlies people's political leanings so it's much of a muchness. This guy only knows sound-bites he's found to his liking; there's no sign of him wanting to know the full (or at least wider) picture.

It's a common feature of GWSceptics that they have a scattered knowledge across a wide range of subjects. They don't care to know about the full context of their factoid.

A well-known example is the old "they grew vines in England in medieval times then climate change made that impossible so there's nothing new going on" line. If that's true, how come the German wine industry wasn't equally screwed? In fact, vine-growing has never died out in England, and its decline was far more to do with politics and economics than with climate. That's the wider context.

They hate that .

 

[David Rodale]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to whether the lower stratosphere should be cooling or not. Anyone?

 

[CapelDodger]

Something from mhaze elsewhere http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3519248#post3519248

Ok, we all ignore the warnings of an anonymous Internet poster, Alric, at our own peril.

I've noticed this thing about anonymity spreading through the blogosphere. To be contrasted with, say, just to pluck one out of the air, Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit. A paragon of transparency. And self-promotion. After all, he'd be "Steve Who?" if he wasn't of ClimateAudit. No wonder he eschews anonymity. Where's the buzz if nobody knows who you are?

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to whether the lower stratosphere should be cooling or not. Anyone?

You GWSceptics do tend to be demanding. And evasive.

Do you mean the lower tropical stratosphere, or all of the lower stratosphere?

 

[Pipirr]

I've noticed this thing about anonymity spreading through the blogosphere. To be contrasted with, say, just to pluck one out of the air, Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit. A paragon of transparency. And self-promotion. After all, he'd be "Steve Who?" if he wasn't of ClimateAudit. No wonder he eschews anonymity. Where's the buzz if nobody knows who you are?

I think I know what you mean, if we are thinking of the same thing. There's a few climate bloggers that come to mind that are posting pseudonymously, and I've seen the occasional effort to expose them. Considering the vitriol, I can't blame them for keeping themselves off the grid.

The inestimable Orac wrote about this a while back, regarding the mercury militia's attempts to expose him. He puts it so well:

Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that at least one true mark of a crank, particularly medical cranks but certainly not limited to them, is that they are obsessed with who the opposition is. Pseudonyms drive them crazy. When they find someone posting material refuting their pseudoscience to Usenet, discussion boards, or a blog under a pseudonym something that criticizes their views, their first reaction is to try to unmask that person, not to refute their criticism. Because their position is so tenuous and because there is no legitimate scientific rationale for it, their only fallback it to attack the person, which is why they obsess on who I am and to find any way they think they can embarrass me or even (at least in their minds) threaten my career.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to whether the lower stratosphere should be cooling or not. Anyone?

It would save everyone a lot of time if you could just state your claim and provide the evidence for it.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I responded to what you posted. "Misinterpret" is at least a step above "misrepresent" (aka strawman), but if you were clear there'd be no room for that.

No, you did misrepresent my argument as well. I nowhere suggested that the IPCC do primary research, so your suggestion I did was a misrepresentation and a strawman. If you were unclear, you should have asked, rather than assumed.

Explain what? There's a very distinct lack of clarity in that contribution.

Wow, you are hard work. It really isn't very difficult. But I'll lead you by the nose through an example to show how you might go about explaining a disagreement in a literature review.

First a bit of background. Contradictory papers happen all the time in science. It is just the way it is. You get different teams with different views or perspective who promote their own position. They gather evidence to support their own views and seek to design experiments which will resolve the disagreements. The question is: how do you explain this in "A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change"?

Let's pretend our disagreement here is a scientific one, and needs to be described to someone who doesn't participate in these forums.

It's simple. You point out that there is disagreement on a particular topic. In a scientific document you wouldn't name names but we can do so here. Ideally, your description should include the scope of the issue. "CapelDodger and CoolSceptic disagree over whether there is a bias in the IPCC".

It is unlikely in a literature review, but you may present the existing evidence to support either side. "CoolSceptic presented evidence by linking to a list of a dozen or so papers on one topic, by several different scientists, which were ignored by the IPCC. CoolSceptic argues that this is evidence of the bias, as the papers introduced uncertainty which was contrary to the view the IPCC presented. CapelDodger accused the author of the list of throwing a hissy fit, but presented no evidence."

Again, not essential in a literature review, but it may be appropriate to describe what is being planned to resolve it, and when resolution of the problem might be expected. For example, "CapelDodger and CoolSceptic plan to resolve the problem by arguing continuously on the internets for decades. A resolution is expected when one of them realises what a pointless exercise it all is or gets bored."

Most importantly, the literature review should describe the consequences of the disagreement. It may be that there are no consequences, but if the debate has raged in the scientific literature, it is important in an effective review to describe why the debate has no consequences (or if it does have knock-on consequences - e.g. increased uncertainty in other areas - these should be outlined). For example, "The disagreement between CapelDodger and CoolSceptic has absolutely no consequence because they are a pair of powerless geeks on the internet and nobody else is listening."

See? An explanation of the disagreement, no primary research required, no resolution of the problem, just a nice clear disposition of the present state of scientific research.

But, as noted, this is not what the IPCC do. "Multiple Strands" (where did I get that line from?) of evidence that the IPCC reports have a bias; that the process is weak and easily abused; resulting in my view that the IPCC contains an institutional bias.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Seems to me that CS is demanding that politicians be micromanagers and scientists.

No. That is not my position. Let me summarise the debate for you:

1. I claimed the IPCC contained a bias by ignoring key research and data which disagreed with their findings. I used the phrase "buried" with respect to these papers.

2. CapelDodger pointed out that the papers were not "buried", but still in the scientific record.

3. I pointed out that policymakers are unlikely to go to the scientific record when the IPCC are supposed to be summarising the science for them.

So, to be accurate, I am not suggesting politicians should be micromanagers and scientists. I am suggesting politicians would expect to rely on balanced and comprehensive reports; I am arguing that the IPCC is failing to provide a comprehensive coverage of the scientific research, and is promoting a narrow view of the science from a policy advocacy position. Because of this, unless policymakers become micromanagers or scientists, they are unlikely to get a balanced view of the science.

My proposal for resolving this is not, as you assume, to make policymakers micromanagers, but to strengthen the IPCC process to get some checks and balances, to give reviewers some teeth to actually get the reports to reflect the state of the science.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think I know what you mean, if we are thinking of the same thing. There's a few climate bloggers that come to mind that are posting pseudonymously, and I've seen the occasional effort to expose them. Considering the vitriol, I can't blame them for keeping themselves off the grid.

Steve McIntyre, of course, lays himself open to all the screaming nutjob vitriol of the Algoreans. He bears it well. Seems he's a big star in his own world.

The inestimable Orac wrote about this a while back, regarding the mercury militia's attempts to expose him. He puts it so well:

Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that at least one true mark of a crank, particularly medical cranks but certainly not limited to them, is that they are obsessed with who the opposition is. Pseudonyms drive them crazy. When they find someone posting material refuting their pseudoscience to Usenet, discussion boards, or a blog under a pseudonym something that criticizes their views, their first reaction is to try to unmask that person, not to refute their criticism. Because their position is so tenuous and because there is no legitimate scientific rationale for it, their only fallback it to attack the person, which is why they obsess on who I am and to find any way they think they can embarrass me or even (at least in their minds) threaten my career.

Clearly not a new phaenomenon. I've picked up on it fairly recently as "anonymous" has crept into the GWSceptic lexicon. It's a diversion, and they're always in need of those.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, you did misrepresent my argument as well. I nowhere suggested that the IPCC do primary research ...

I nowhere suggested that you did. What you said was

"Yes, I am aware that the IPCC is essentially a literature review. And a literature review should review all of the literature, not
just the bits that support one side of an argument. If the IPCC disagree with the contents of a paper, then fine, report it and
explain it."

This I construed quite reasonably to mean that the IPCC reports should contain an analysis of every single published paper that might have a bearing on the subject.

Which is, of course, nonsense and I pointed that out.

so your suggestion I did was a misrepresentation and a strawman. If you were unclear, you should have asked, rather than assumed.

Your words were clear enough. They might no longer be the words you wished you'd used, but there they are.

Wow, you are hard work.

You have no idea.

It really isn't very difficult. But I'll lead you by the nose through an example to show how you might go about explaining a disagreement in a literature review.

The IPCC reports are not literature reviews, they are policy reviews. Which makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, to be accurate, I am not suggesting politicians should be micromanagers and scientists. I am suggesting politicians would expect to rely on balanced and comprehensive reports; I am arguing that the IPCC is failing to provide a comprehensive coverage of the scientific research, and is promoting a narrow view of the science from a policy advocacy position. Because of this, unless policymakers become micromanagers or scientists, they are unlikely to get a balanced view of the science.

Going back to when we started, I readily classed you as a GWSceptic because of the commanding role you assign to the IPCC. All you've done since is reinforce my initial impression.

The influential governments of the world have their own scientific advisors and institutions to offer them far more intimate advice than the IPCC can. You have the time-line skewed : the IPCC was set up because national scientific institutions had got through to the powers-that-be that there really might be a problem here. That might not matter much in one nation, but when it comes up in casual conversation at the G8 summit or whatever and a bunch of people say "Yeah, I've heard about that" you know it wasn't Al Gore behind it. The result, of course, was to set up a panel to look into it and report back in five years.

My proposal for resolving this is not, as you assume, to make policymakers micromanagers, but to strengthen the IPCC process to get some checks and balances, to give reviewers some teeth to actually get the reports to reflect the state of the science.

Again with the fixation on the IPCC. The checks and balances are there in the research institutions that provide the IPCC's feedstock.

The IPCC is not the only interface between science and government. That's a simple point, but a telling one.

 

[Hindmost]

Not at all absurd.
[/left]
[/center]

I have to join in here...linking CO2 emmisions to economic growth is one of the most blatant false dichotomies I have seen in a bit. If we don't emit CO2, then we won't have growth. Or correlation without causation if you prefer.

The economic growth is facilitated by cheap energy and the energy just happened to emit CO2. If plutonium 238 were plentiful and easy to handle safely, we would all have thermionic generators in our cars and homes and no CO2 emissions. And economic growth.

glenn

 

[Round Robin]

I have been enjoying this discussion of the purpose and obligations of a proper literature review (e.g., the IPCC reports) and have reached the boundary of my precious-little knowledge, so I have a sincere question:

Does the mere existence of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal make it a priori relevant and worthy of inclusion in a "state of the science" literature review like the IPCC reports? I see so many people on both sides of this debate (and many other debates!) tossing out articles published in peer-reviewed journals as though they are pure, distilled, single-malt fact. (The relevant example in this thread being the enumeration by Pielke of papers being ignored by the IPCC) I have (perhaps erroneously) always considered getting published in a respected journal as merely the first peer review, which is followed by the arguably more rigorous peer review: being read and evaluated by the readership and being: repeated/accepted/discredited/verified/argued/refined/etc... I suppose I had expected a paper to only be relevant after it has received a certain degree of acceptance by more than the few peers required to get published in the first place.

I am not necessarily accusing any of the papers mentioned by Pielke, etc. as being discredited or bogus; I'm just curious if their mere presence is compelling, or if they require subsequent evaluation to determine their validity and worthiness to appear in a literature review (and I am ignorant of whether or not they have actually achieved this level of acceptance). The same question applies to any paper authored and successfully published by Mann, Hansen, etc.

 

[mhaze]

Error 19. Trenberth says, “The IPCC process is very open.” It is not.
Error 20. Trenberth says the IPCC’s reports “are thoroughly reviewed”. They are not.

Error 21 is worthy of repeating ir its entirety.

Error 21. Trenberth says, “Most of the so-called ‘deniers participate” in the IPCC process, “and their comments are fully taken into account”. This is known to be untrue. For instance, Paul Reiter pointed out during discussions on the draft 2001 report that the ban on DDT had done far more to spread malaria than “global warming,” that the malaria mosquito does not need temperatures any higher than 15 degrees C and is not therefore tropical, and that the largest recent outbreak of malaria was in Siberia in the1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected and 600,000 died, 30,000 of them at Archangelsk on the Arctic Circle. All his comments were rejected in favour of a nonsensical statement to the effect that “global warming” would spread malaria. It will not. When Paul Reiter asked for his comments to be taken into account, the IPCC refused. He resigned, and then had to threaten to sue before the IPCC would take his name off the defective chapter on the imagined ill effects of “global warming” on human health.
​

No evidence of mental illness though "Error 21". I'm beginning to wonder about the mental health of someone who would flippantly assert ad hominems such as mental illness to make a point on an internet forum.

Error 22. Trenberth says, “Gore’s statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.” Though Trenberth “played a major part” in the IPCC process, he somehow failed to point out that the IPCC itself has said that temperatures
would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice.

Error 23. Trenberth says that Al Gore’s climate change movie “should be viewed by all children. I recommend it.” However, only weeks ago a High Court Judge in the UK found nine serious departures from the scientific mainstream in the film, which he referred to as “errors”, and said that if the UK Government had not agreed to send to each school a list of corrections to the movie he would have found its distribution of the movie to all UK schools to be unlawful. There are in fact some 35 serious scientific errors in the movie, which ought not to be shown to any child.

AUP errs in saying Monckton exhibits symptoms of mental illness.

 

[Round Robin]

However, only weeks ago a High Court Judge in the UK found nine serious departures from the scientific mainstream in the film, which he referred to as “errors”,

Hmm.. my reading of the judgement is that the judge accepted that 9 out of many errors proposed by the prosecution were controversial enough to be relevant to the court case:

Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

The justice also said, referring broadly to the film:

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

(my emphasis)

Still, I don't recommend AIT to people who want to learn about A/GW; I accept that it is an advocacy piece. For people who want to learn, I generally send them to the NAS*, and others of that ilk.

*although... typesetting the report in Optima is a questionable choice!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Hmm.. my reading of the judgement is that the judge accepted that 9 out of many errors proposed by the prosecution were controversial enough to be relevant to the court case:

The justice also said, referring broadly to the film:

(my emphasis)

Still, I don't recommend AIT to people who want to learn about A/GW; I accept that it is an advocacy piece. For people who want to learn, I generally send them to the NAS*, and others of that ilk.

*although... typesetting the report in Optima is a questionable choice!

RR, that is an honest and accurate reading of the judgement.

You will have noticed how most GWS appear to be unable to mention this case without grossly misrepresenting it, or simply telling bare-faced lies about it.