Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Hey Vil,
The change in opinion of several scientists are generally due to the way controversial ideas were addressed by the IPCC, not by the science, exactly... Many ideas have been brought up only to be dismissed out of hand that should have gotten more scruntiny. That the ideas that were passed over described the weather/synoptics of a warmer world with a lesser difference in temperature across latitudes, was not the focus of the IPCC at the time.
There comes a time in any document you have to decide the intent or plot. Though the theme was not different between the ideas being examined, the plot was different. One was to suggest the result of a given action by tbe dominat magafauna species, the other was to define the conditions that would exist in the resulting world. The two idea sets were not necessarily wrong, they only had different intents. That anyone who had as much education could not see the reason for the decisions made, begins to suggest that there may be a bit of "sour grapes" in play, not that, that is true; but could be construed so. If the individuals in question did not explore both points of view, when they made their declariation, it may suggest that they were not considering all aspects of the issue.
A new climate sceptic
#61
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5173
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 05 March 2012 - 15:08
#62 Guest_Village_*
Posted 05 March 2012 - 15:14
Possibly, or it could simply be that the IPCC are bias in favour of the AGW CO2 theory.
They would have good reason to be....they are paid for out of the same coffers which collect the new climate taxes. In effect, they benefit from the promotion of the theory.
They would have good reason to be....they are paid for out of the same coffers which collect the new climate taxes. In effect, they benefit from the promotion of the theory.
#63
Posted 05 March 2012 - 15:23
Back to the conspiracy-theorising again, Vill.
I'll just post this summary of the IPCC from Realclimate with my points in bold, as it's hardly worth wasting time typing something much the same:
Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort. The three working groups are:
Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.
Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.
Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.
Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record (see here and here for WG1 and WG2 respectively).
That should clear that one up.
Cheers - John
I'll just post this summary of the IPCC from Realclimate with my points in bold, as it's hardly worth wasting time typing something much the same:
Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort. The three working groups are:
Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.
Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.
Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.
Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record (see here and here for WG1 and WG2 respectively).
That should clear that one up.
Cheers - John
#64 Guest_Village_*
Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:07
Thanks John,
However, you have left out the most important point which backs up my statement. Which is:
The IPCC statements are not unencumbered statements made by independent scientists. Each statement is carefully proof read and subject to line-by-line approval by politicians.
The panel who review the reports are also hand picked representatives of governments.
So hardly independent as you maintain.
However, you have left out the most important point which backs up my statement. Which is:
The IPCC statements are not unencumbered statements made by independent scientists. Each statement is carefully proof read and subject to line-by-line approval by politicians.
The panel who review the reports are also hand picked representatives of governments.
So hardly independent as you maintain.
This post has been edited by Village: 05 March 2012 - 16:15
#65
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5173
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:22
Hey Vil,
So what, would you have the IPCC scientists elected... Or maybe you can choose them by qualifications, whoops, great minds on narrow subjects may not be great organizers. Hmmm..., it seems you would be required to create some form of examination then. Who creates the questions or scenarios? Do you simply create a unwieldly panel of each nations top scientists... Hmmm..., how are each nations top weather, climate and physics scientists choosen anyway...?
So what, would you have the IPCC scientists elected... Or maybe you can choose them by qualifications, whoops, great minds on narrow subjects may not be great organizers. Hmmm..., it seems you would be required to create some form of examination then. Who creates the questions or scenarios? Do you simply create a unwieldly panel of each nations top scientists... Hmmm..., how are each nations top weather, climate and physics scientists choosen anyway...?
#66
Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:24
Aye Vill, and some politicians represent socialist states, some represent conservative states, some represent dictatorships of various kinds, some represent monarchies, some represent secular states and so on. This is where this particular conspiracy theory is so weak. You have to get thousands of scientists working in hundreds of countries with governments that are often diametrically-opposed to one another and get ALL of them - every single one - to a) agree on this, 
tow the line on it for 24 years and c) not let the cat out of the bag, even whilst fighting wars with one another in some cases.
It would make faking the moon-landings, arranging 9-11 as an inside job and sneaking a Muslim into the US Presidency combined look like child's play, but I suppose there must be a baddie in a hollowed-out volcanic island base in the middle of nowhere sat in an expensive chair with a big map of the world with all lights on it who is really behind this after all and I can now go home and put my feet up!
Have you heard how Anthony Watts managed to get himself onto one of the AR5 review panels, Dave? Positively full of himself about it, he was!
Cheers - John
tow the line on it for 24 years and c) not let the cat out of the bag, even whilst fighting wars with one another in some cases.It would make faking the moon-landings, arranging 9-11 as an inside job and sneaking a Muslim into the US Presidency combined look like child's play, but I suppose there must be a baddie in a hollowed-out volcanic island base in the middle of nowhere sat in an expensive chair with a big map of the world with all lights on it who is really behind this after all and I can now go home and put my feet up!
ldavidcooke, on 05 March 2012 - 16:22, said:
Hey Vil,
So what, would you have the IPCC scientists elected... Or maybe you can choose them by qualifications, whoops, great minds on narrow subjects may not be great organizers. Hmmm..., it seems you would be required to create some form of examination then. Who creates the questions or scenarios? Do you simply create a unwieldly panel of each nations top scientists... Hmmm..., how are each nations top weather, climate and physics scientists choosen anyway...?
So what, would you have the IPCC scientists elected... Or maybe you can choose them by qualifications, whoops, great minds on narrow subjects may not be great organizers. Hmmm..., it seems you would be required to create some form of examination then. Who creates the questions or scenarios? Do you simply create a unwieldly panel of each nations top scientists... Hmmm..., how are each nations top weather, climate and physics scientists choosen anyway...?
Have you heard how Anthony Watts managed to get himself onto one of the AR5 review panels, Dave? Positively full of himself about it, he was!
Cheers - John
#67 Guest_Village_*
Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:33
John, can you please keep to the subject of the thread and refrain from repeatedly talking about conspiracy theories. It doesnt help in you making a coherant point of view.
The German professor: Fritz Vahrenholt who has clearly stated that he is now deeply sceptical about the CO2 climate change theory because the IPCC simply brushed asside the hundreds of errors he found in the proposed theory.
He stance has nothing to do with conspiracy theories of yours or your repeated claims that others are making out there is one.
Can we now continue with a proper discussion about the thread subject without the nonsense please.
The German professor: Fritz Vahrenholt who has clearly stated that he is now deeply sceptical about the CO2 climate change theory because the IPCC simply brushed asside the hundreds of errors he found in the proposed theory.
He stance has nothing to do with conspiracy theories of yours or your repeated claims that others are making out there is one.
Can we now continue with a proper discussion about the thread subject without the nonsense please.
This post has been edited by Village: 05 March 2012 - 16:35
#68
Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:44
Sorry Vill, but I'm going to leave you to it for today. Busy busy.
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#69 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 05 March 2012 - 18:51
Vill, you really are a one man band aren't you. You don't even acknowledge people that support your view!
#70
Posted 12 March 2012 - 21:26
But what is S Fred Singer up to now?
"Climate Deniers are giving us Skeptics a bad name" is the title of his piece, in which he reserves vitriol for both camps and stations himself in the middle. Read on:
http://www.independe...cle.asp?id=3263
Sometimes, the debate has more twists and turns in it than Spaghetti Junction!
Cheers - John
"Climate Deniers are giving us Skeptics a bad name" is the title of his piece, in which he reserves vitriol for both camps and stations himself in the middle. Read on:
http://www.independe...cle.asp?id=3263
Sometimes, the debate has more twists and turns in it than Spaghetti Junction!
Cheers - John
#71 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 31 March 2012 - 16:00
Well, there is no debate any more John because most of the people who have disagreed with AGW either aren't allowed or choose not to post on here any more.
Our way or the highway I am sorry to say
And that is not good on a site that only 3 years ago welcomed alternative opinion.
Our way or the highway I am sorry to say
And that is not good on a site that only 3 years ago welcomed alternative opinion.
#72
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5173
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:07
Hey Chris,
Hmm..., I don't know that is true... Unsupported opinions are discouraged; but, not disallowed.
As to most opinions shared here, it is generally the presentation which raises concerns. For instance, even though it is clear to me that human activities are contributing, I do not believe in AGW exclusively. Others make statements which deny known fact. Given the difference which idea would you rather have your name and reputation associated with? Which opinon do you think that the main body of participants here on UKww would prefer to be associated with?
That the TSI (total solar insolation) has varied by as little as 3 watts/m^2 over the last 200 years, we have only had calibrated measures for little more then 50 years. On the otherhand, the IR retention of CO2 is proven.
To include that advection or "horizontal convection" appears to have increased, pushing warmer air/ocean currents further into the polar regions supports the idea of CO2 as a driver of climatic change. The question remains though, is the CO2 increase solely driven by combustion for electrical power and transportation? If so then it would be a simple matter of governments mandating alternatives. If the question of the sources have not been certified then we are where we should be, on the cusp of change, waiting for the proof, IMHO... So given these thoughts do you still stand behind your observation?
Hmm..., I don't know that is true... Unsupported opinions are discouraged; but, not disallowed.
As to most opinions shared here, it is generally the presentation which raises concerns. For instance, even though it is clear to me that human activities are contributing, I do not believe in AGW exclusively. Others make statements which deny known fact. Given the difference which idea would you rather have your name and reputation associated with? Which opinon do you think that the main body of participants here on UKww would prefer to be associated with?
That the TSI (total solar insolation) has varied by as little as 3 watts/m^2 over the last 200 years, we have only had calibrated measures for little more then 50 years. On the otherhand, the IR retention of CO2 is proven.
To include that advection or "horizontal convection" appears to have increased, pushing warmer air/ocean currents further into the polar regions supports the idea of CO2 as a driver of climatic change. The question remains though, is the CO2 increase solely driven by combustion for electrical power and transportation? If so then it would be a simple matter of governments mandating alternatives. If the question of the sources have not been certified then we are where we should be, on the cusp of change, waiting for the proof, IMHO... So given these thoughts do you still stand behind your observation?
#73
Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:45
Indeed Dave, I think Chris is wide of the mark here.
What has happened over the past two years or so, and has largely been driven by the opposition camp, is that there has been a move away from outright denial of the Greenhouse Effect as was practised by certain mostly ex-members. Google S Fred Singer "why deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name" for details as just one example. Spencer is onto this too, as is Monckton and to a large extent Watts. Singer is firmly - very firmly - in the opposition camp but he doesn't half let rip in that article, laying into the conspiracy theorists etc. It illustrates the sea-change that has taken place of late. Everything pretty much is now centered around climate sensitivity WRT 2pCO2 and feedbacks. What these guys are basically doing is trying to define a middle-ground (them) with the IPCC way out one side and the deniers (their word - Singer uses it repeatedly) way out on the other. However, as I showed in a recent Skeptical Science post, Singer's piece did involve a certain amount of carelessness i.e. he requoted a misquote of something Sir John Houghton said. But despite that, the debate has moved on. For most of the key players, anyhow. It will be interesting to see where it heads next! Take it as read that I'll still continue to stick up for the peer-reviewed science, unless it is clearly stuff that should never have made it through to publication due to shoddiness.
Just to regurgitate (!), the debate has mostly switched to climate sensitivity to pCO2 and feedbacks.
Cheers - John
What has happened over the past two years or so, and has largely been driven by the opposition camp, is that there has been a move away from outright denial of the Greenhouse Effect as was practised by certain mostly ex-members. Google S Fred Singer "why deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name" for details as just one example. Spencer is onto this too, as is Monckton and to a large extent Watts. Singer is firmly - very firmly - in the opposition camp but he doesn't half let rip in that article, laying into the conspiracy theorists etc. It illustrates the sea-change that has taken place of late. Everything pretty much is now centered around climate sensitivity WRT 2pCO2 and feedbacks. What these guys are basically doing is trying to define a middle-ground (them) with the IPCC way out one side and the deniers (their word - Singer uses it repeatedly) way out on the other. However, as I showed in a recent Skeptical Science post, Singer's piece did involve a certain amount of carelessness i.e. he requoted a misquote of something Sir John Houghton said. But despite that, the debate has moved on. For most of the key players, anyhow. It will be interesting to see where it heads next! Take it as read that I'll still continue to stick up for the peer-reviewed science, unless it is clearly stuff that should never have made it through to publication due to shoddiness.
Just to regurgitate (!), the debate has mostly switched to climate sensitivity to pCO2 and feedbacks.
Cheers - John
