Global Warming Consensus?

[mhaze]

Something like this?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf

or this?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

Of course these are "politically motivated" sites and so they don't count.

Actually I like the IPCC and their reports. That is as a starting point for discussion; that has nothing at all to do with the validity of any particular conclusion.

As Big Al has mentioned, RC seems to be inundated by the "As*h*les of Global Warming", (commonly abreviated A-G-W).

My point though is that bulletin board and message sites of all styles produce FAQs internally, mainly to keep the same questions from being repeatedly asked. It is not me that would benefit from an FAQ but everyone who gets insulted.

Item #1 for the FAQ: If you ask a question about GW?AGW without at least a 42 word legal disclaimer that you are a true believer in consensus, you will be insulted, and made to repeatedly repeat that you are a true believer.

Required Legalistic Disclaimer:

I swear that I am a humble supplicant at the font of knowledge of minions of consensual climatologists and lackeys of scientific scientists.

 

[fsol]

Actually I like the IPCC and their reports. That is as a starting point for discussion; that has nothing at all to do with the validity of any particular conclusion.

As Big Al has mentioned, RC seems to be inundated by the "As*h*les of Global Warming", (commonly abreviated A-G-W).

I like to call them climatologists.

My point though is that bulletin board and message sites of all styles produce FAQs internally, mainly to keep the same questions from being repeatedly asked. It is not me that would benefit from an FAQ but everyone who gets insulted.

I was thinking about this today before I took my lonely seat at the campfire. It would be nice if someone would produce something like Gravys critiques of the 9/11 stuff, but on this subject in a readily digestible format. Have it link through various levels of complexity 'til it reaches the raw data. It probably exists somewhere. TheIPCC reports kind of do that already I suppose. Realclimate have also started to do a similar thing with regards a FAQ I think.

It is beyond the scope of this forum I would guess at the moment to have a global warming FAQ, I guess an unofficial one maybe, although they do seem to have managed to fill up that conspiracy theories section by going round and round on the same subjects again and again.

Item #1 for the FAQ:

If you ask a question about GW?AGW without at least a 42 word legal disclaimer that you are a true believer in consensus, you will be insulted, and made to repeatedly repeat that you are a true believer.

Required Legalistic Disclaimer:

I swear that I am a humble supplicant at the font of knowledge of minions of consensual climatologists and lackeys of scientific scientists.

Sure it's amusing an'all but it doesn't raise the level of the conversation any.

 

[rockoon]

Actually I asked you to back up the claim you made in that thread about the IPCC being caught in a lie in that thread. I pointed to that document because that was the document that addressed the issues brought up in that thread. I wasn't clear enough with my original question and I admitted that and tried to explain myself more clearly. But you already know that because I explained that in that thread.

No, I didnt know that. I stopped reading the thread because it was too long, and off topic. Much like this one is becomming thanks to you and and the folks like you.

The "lie" that you found was that the IPCC call CO2 a globally well mixed greenhouse gas and that the NASA GISS disagrees. Well I went and looked at the NASA site and again with references to their site showed you why this "lie" was perhaps not so heinous as you made it out to be.

Is it a lie? Yes, No, or Possibly? Those are your 3 choices.

You cited CO2Science reviews of Chinese studies, reviews that when looked at more closely appeared to misrepresent the studies.

No, I cited the studies, and linked to the CO2Science reviews of only some them.

Dont make yourself a liar too. I have no tolerance for liars on this subject because there are so many outright lies, misrepresentations, and cherry picking on both sides of the issue.

Now answer the ON TOPIC question, which has already been asked of you:

Do YOU have evidence, or can you cite any evidence, that suggests that there is a consensus among scientists as to AGW?

Yes, or No?

 

[mhaze]

Where has the IPCC lied? We should probably benefit by looking for lies in the conclusions. The conclusions do not necessarily or logically follow. In the conclusions, we have not the climate science but the entire belief systems and mythologies about "how to save the planet".

4th assessment report, "key mitigating technologies and practices". These suggestions they make, which if not outright lies are highly questionable.

Hybrid vehicles. I've shown in another thread that replacing all 500M cars in the world with Prius would reduce manmade GHG < 2%; adding in the GHG costs in the manufacturing process and the lifetime of the vehicles and its replacement cost/GHG cost, the net appears to be zero.

So unless my numbers are wrong, I'm calling them a liar on this one.

Recycling.

Probably a net loser on the GHG issue when implemented by governments and munincipalities by any reasonable standard. No consensus that recycling by governments and municipalities is a good thing, either economically or in GHG emissions. Intuitively it seems impossible that recycling programs are not GHG emission friendly as implemented. IPCC does not suggest implementation improvements to correct this, just the same old tired green agenda. Asserting it is a good thing for mitigating climate change is a lie.

Biofuels.

If highly controversial as to its benefits, then it seems an outright lie to support it as a good thing. There is no consensus that it is a good thing. Asserting it is a good thing is a lie.

Required Legalistic Disclaimer:

I swear that I am a humble supplicant at the heavenly fonts of impeccable and sublime knowledge of minions of consensual climatologists and lackeys of scientific scientists. I will not fall prey to evil whispers of slimy Exxon dogs of greedy capitalism. All hail the HypnoToad!

Decent general FAQ on global warming from IPCC, the International Panel of Consenting Climatologists

summary for policymakers

 

[ambrose]

So you're saying that all of these institutes that are stating that global warming is real and caused by man are doing it out of "political motivation":

1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
1.2 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.4 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
1.5 American Meteorological Society
1.6 American Geophysical Union
1.7 American Institute of Physics
1.8 American Astronomical Society
1.9 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
1.10 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.11 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.12 Geological Society of America
1.13 American Association of State Climatologists
1.14 American Chemical Society
1.15 American Quaternary Association
1.16 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

But The Heartland Institute (an avowedly Libertarian "think" tank) is not politically motivated?

Who is to gain if Global Warming is discredited?

The obvious choice is the oil industry. And wow, look, Exxon's spent millions of dollars trying to spread doubt about GW. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Who is to gain if Global Warming is real?

I really don't know. I guess Al Gore, maybe, but it must have been difficult for him to somehow convince the scientific boards of the 169 nations that supported the Kyoto Protocol to do so in order so that he can win an Oscar.

 

[fsol]

No, I didnt know that. I stopped reading the thread because it was too long, and off topic. Much like this one is becomming thanks to you and and the folks like you.

Is it a lie? Yes, No, or Possibly? Those are your 3 choices.

Answered in the other thread. I think I said that it depends on the accepted definition of a well mixed greenhouse gas. How mixed is well mixed?

As far as I am personally concerned a variation between about 365 and 380 PPM within the mid-troposphere seems to be fairly well mixed to me. But I don't make the rules and I didn't make the claim it was a lie in the first place.

No, I cited the studies, and linked to the CO2Science reviews of only some them.

Dont make yourself a liar too. I have no tolerance for liars on this subject because there are so many outright lies, misrepresentations, and cherry picking on both sides of the issue.

Here?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2637824&postcount=37

I don't see any cites of papers. A list of authors, but not exactly good usuable references, like...I don't know, journal names, volumes, page nos. paper titles, the stuff people usually include when they are citing work.

I actually asked you in that thread for links to the papers. Your reply was that you couldn't read Mandarin but that you could read the Kings English.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2638950&postcount=44

mhaze provided the abstract to the first paper and I then went and tried to find the full paper and found a follow up paper by the same authors instead.

In anycase, you know that post up there that you just replied to? Do you remember reading the bit where I wrote "The above is from memory. If you think I have misrepresented the discussion, it might be so." Do you remember that? Do you remember me linking the thread so that if I had misrepresented the discussion anyone interested could go and see for themselves?

In light of that and the further links I have provided, do you think it is fair to chastise me in the way you have just now?

Now answer the ON TOPIC question, which has already been asked of you:

Do YOU have evidence, or can you cite any evidence, that suggests that there is a consensus among scientists as to AGW?

Yes, or No?

Apparently, and stop me if I'm wrong on this or if you've heard it before, but...the IPCC report represents the consensus view on climate change.

 

[mhaze]

Are you asking these questions of me relating to post #104?

Not clear.

 

[ambrose]

I was asking those questions of you (and the other deniers) in general.

If you were not the progenitor of the "politically motivated" canard, then feel free to disregard that part.

 

[fsol]

Where has the IPCC lied? We should probably benefit by looking for lies in the conclusions. The conclusions do not necessarily or logically follow. In the conclusions, we have not the climate science but the entire belief systems and mythologies about "how to save the planet".

4th assessment report, "key mitigating technologies and practices". These suggestions they make, which if not outright lies are highly questionable.

Hybrid vehicles. I've shown in another thread that replacing all 500M cars in the world with Prius would reduce manmade GHG < 2%; adding in the GHG costs in the manufacturing process and the lifetime of the vehicles and its replacement cost/GHG cost, the net appears to be zero.

So unless my numbers are wrong, I'm calling them a liar on this one.

Recycling.

Probably a net loser on the GHG issue when implemented by governments and munincipalities by any reasonable standard. No consensus that recycling by governments and municipalities is a good thing, either economically or in GHG emissions. Intuitively it seems impossible that recycling programs are not GHG emission friendly as implemented. IPCC does not suggest implementation improvements to correct this, just the same old tired green agenda. Asserting it is a good thing for mitigating climate change is a lie.

Biofuels.

If highly controversial as to its benefits, then it seems an outright lie to support it as a good thing. There is no consensus that it is a good thing. Asserting it is a good thing is a lie.

Required Legalistic Disclaimer:

I swear that I am a humble supplicant at the heavenly fonts of impeccable and sublime knowledge of minions of consensual climatologists and lackeys of scientific scientists. I will not fall prey to evil whispers of slimy Exxon dogs of greedy capitalism. All hail the HypnoToad!

Decent general FAQ on global warming from IPCC, the International Panel of Consenting Climatologists

summary for policymakers

You could help us out with page numbers and maybe some quotes so we can see what they actually say right? Then we know that we are all talking about the same thing.

And then you need the studies that back up your assertions about the points you have raised. Otherwise we can't really have much of a useful discussion can we?

There is alot of interesting stuff (positive and negative) to be said about biofuels, recycling and the like, and I don't really think that a quick paragraph or two is enough to do it justice.

 

[rockoon]

Apparently, and stop me if I'm wrong on this or if you've heard it before, but...the IPCC report represents the consensus view on climate change.

No, the IPCC claims that there is a consensus among scientists. They do not demonstrate that such a consensus exists, nor have they tested the hypothesis that there is such a consensus. We can forgive them for that, because the IPCC does not do either science or statistics, they only review the science (its their stated purpose.)

Their summary claims that a consensus among scientists exists. Surely they based this claim on evidence, right? Where is it? Who did the study which lead to this facet of the summary? Perhaps they simply failed to cite the evidence for a consensus. Alas, we might be able to find it inspite of their failing to cite it.

Where is it?

 

[Pipirr]

Isn't the IPCC itself the consensus? There you have a large number of scientists, working together to produce a report, the findings of which they all generally approve.

The IPCC is perfectly entitled to claim that there is a consensus among the scientists involved in the IPCC.

 

[Big Al]

On the "who gains if global warming is real" question... well, it might wean the West off Middle East Oil and the necessity of making nice-nice to the Arabs.

 

[mhaze]

You could help us out with page numbers and maybe some quotes so we can see what they actually say right? Then we know that we are all talking about the same thing.

And then you need the studies that back up your assertions about the points you have raised. Otherwise we can't really have much of a useful discussion can we?

There is alot of interesting stuff (positive and negative) to be said about biofuels, recycling and the like, and I don't really think that a quick paragraph or two is enough to do it justice.

Actually, a quick paragraph is enough. By your own general knowledge you know it is a blatant lie to assert that these things are good. They are possibly good, and they are possibly not good.

The document is SPM040507, table SPM 3. I only see it in PDF.

Basically, here is what we seem to have. After all the hoopla and the "science" and the "consensus", they got to actually suggest something, right? And this table is the short story version - basically a laundry list of everything everybody has claimed was a good thing, including a bunch of old hackneyed green concepts like recycling. They add up the probable effects of these solutions (optimisticly) and conclude the future is dismal. Sounds familiar, right? Kind of like the debacle of Kyoto? Or the current prices for carbon offsets and carbon credits?

For an actual solution go here.



Required Legalistic Disclaimer:

I swear that I am a humble supplicant at the heavenly fonts of impeccable and sublime knowledge of minions of consensual climatologists and lackeys of scientific scientists. I will not fall prey to evil whispers of slimy Exxon dogs of greedy capitalism. All hail the HypnoToad!

Decent general FAQ on global warming from IPCC, the International Panel of Consenting Climatologists

summary for policymakers

Go nuclear and stop bitching about global warming.

 

[rockoon]

Isn't the IPCC itself the consensus?

Sure. But a consensus who whom?

Is it a consensus of 2000+ scientists, or is it a consensus of politicians?

Perhaps you might want to investigate the process the IPCC uses to produce their reports. They begin with scientists who each investigate and review a small facet of the published literature. Then, in the end, it all gets handed over to the politicians who are the ones who draw the conclusions and decide what gets in and what doesn't.

There you have a large number of scientists, working together to produce a report, the findings of which they all generally approve.

You have been mislead. The general approval is among the member nations politicians. The reviewers never get to approve of anything in the report.

The IPCC is perfectly entitled to claim that there is a consensus among the scientists involved in the IPCC.

Even if those scientists do not agree?

 

[varwoche]

No more surveys of opinions of scientists found in your google search, eh, Var?

I place more weight on peer-reviewed studies than dated, crevice-derived opinion from dubious sources (and N hand rumors about same).

So I repeat my challenge: I have cited a slew of recent studies that stand as evidence of scientific consensus. Please cite peer-reviewed studies conducted since 2005 that contradict these studies. No more whack-a-Bacon evasions please.

Well?

 

[mhaze]

I was asking those questions of you (and the other deniers) in general.

If you were not the progenitor of the "politically motivated" canard, then feel free to disregard that part.

I think there is always a component of political motivation in a large body, IPCC is a part of the UN, that's not got the very best history there....
Not that political motivation is bad, but if a solution is needed and the politcal motivation is contra logical solutions, then it gets very bad very quickly.

I am a denier? No, I swore I am not.


Required Legalistic Disclaimer:

I swear that I am a humble supplicant at the heavenly fonts of impeccable and sublime knowledge of minions of consensual climatologists and lackeys of scientific scientists. I will not fall prey to evil whispers of slimy Exxon dogs of greedy capitalism. All hail the HypnoToad!

Decent general FAQ on global warming from IPCC, the International Panel of Consenting Climatologists. IPCC summary for policymakers

Go nuclear and stop bitching about global warming. Are hybrid cars a scam? Where has the IPCC lied?

 

[Pipirr]

Sure. But a consensus who whom?

Is it a consensus of 2000+ scientists, or is it a consensus of politicians?

Perhaps you might want to investigate the process the IPCC uses to produce their reports. They begin with scientists who each investigate and review a small facet of the published literature. Then, in the end, it all gets handed over to the politicians who are the ones who draw the conclusions and decide what gets in and what doesn't.

Sure, I understand how the IPCC works. It's hard to imagine an undertaking of that size working effectively, if everybody had an equal say at all stages in the process. It seems reasonable to me to assume that the views of the scientists at the bottom rung are fairly represented and reflected in the final report.

If there is a significant percentage of those scientists saying, after the report was produced, that they were in fact misrepresented or ignored, then the IPCC consensus could be challenged on that basis. But I am not aware that such a situation has arisen.

 

[mhaze]

I place more weight on peer-reviewed studies than dated, crevice-derived opinion from dubious sources (and N hand rumors about same).

So I repeat my challenge: I have cited a slew of recent studies that stand as evidence of scientific consensus. Please cite peer-reviewed studies conducted since 2005 that contradict these studies. No more whack-a-Bacon evasions please.

Well?

No, I do not know that I have objections to any of your studies. That was not the subject; you would like to change the subject. You asserted that I had devious motives in picking stuff from google. You have a good list of articles there, certainly.

My dog has fleas today, also. Neither is related to my question, so I take it that you have done a quick look at google, and have found the results to be as I presented. Thank you.

 

[rockoon]

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the views of the scientists at the bottom rung are fairly represented and reflected in the final report.

Why do you think that this a reasonable assumption? Remember that each of the politicians involved has to agree on each and every statement in the summary.

I have been led to believe by the alarmists that the American politicians (along others, such as Chinese and Russian) have an agenda other than the science. That the summary is "watered down" because of it.

If it is watered down, then surely it doesnt reflect the reviewers opinions?

As far as which reviewers object: The IPCC hasnt released a list of the reviewers. They say that "hopefully" they will release this list in the later half of 2007. Now THAT is unbelievable! Are they releasing summaries before the list of reviewers of said summary is complete?

 

[Pipirr]

Why do you think that this a reasonable assumption? Remember that each of the politicians involved has to agree on each and every statement in the summary.

I have been led to believe by the alarmists that the American politicians (along others, such as Chinese and Russian) have an agenda other than the science. That the summary is "watered down" because of it.

If it is watered down, then surely it doesnt reflect the reviewers opinions?

As far as which reviewers object: The IPCC hasnt released a list of the reviewers. They say that "hopefully" they will release this list in the later half of 2007. Now THAT is unbelievable! Are they releasing summaries before the list of reviewers of said summary is complete?

Well, it seems reasonable to me, because I'm working on the assumption that, if the scientists' views were not being accurately represented, the scientists would have made a fuss. If the people involved were not happy with the conclusions expressed in the IPCC reports, they would have complained. Certainly they should have.

As for watering down the conclusions, I guess you are talking about the arctic melting rates. Another way of looking at it was that they were being overly conservative and non-alarmist, but still, it didn't seem to me to be much of a change from the broad findings of the scientists. It is, we are told, a consensus, so there must have been some give and take between the reviewers, the report writers and the government representatives involved.

I'll fully accept the fact that not every climate scientist in the world agrees with the findings of the IPCC. However, before I accept the idea that the findings of the IPCC itself do not represent a broad consensus of it's participants, I would want to see some evidence. As I mentioned earlier, I am not aware of any significant dissent.