Global Warming

[Freezer]

Here you go Merv, I think it answers your questions.

Come on Disco, that seems flimsy at best.

Less than a third of the scientists could be bothered to respond, and "Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change." So at best, 268 have spent at least half their time on the subject; of which, no more than 157 say they are 'climate scientists'.

Considering this was a 'global' survey, that's a pretty insignificant sample size.

And how broadly based can two questions get...?

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

How can a scientist give a meaningful answer to such general questions, in a 2 minute, on-line survey? And to use such a leading question as (2) seems pretty unprofessional.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

But Pantha this is getting at the crux of the issue for me. Governments and other alarmists are able to put out these 'findings' into the public domain, they become the accepted wisdom, yet when the peer-review process does its job, as you're suggesting it is in the links Merveille provided, we hear no more about it. The damage is done.

The Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. The world accepts it because it came from a "scientist", but when the findings are called into question, nothing happens. No font page news saying the Himalayan glaciers may in fact last a little longer than 25 years!

If you need a grant, just mention global warming/climate change and it's yours.

The point is that the consensus is still very much in favor of AGW. Details and models are debated in the scientific literature, but that is more in the predictions being made, not on the impact that humans are having. So there is an imperative to do something about the status quo.

The peer reviewed literature provides us with the 'best picture' of our understanding of the current situation. If you (or any scientist) disagrees with the conclusions they are welcome to publish their alternative explanation in the scientific literature (with the requirement to support your assertions with evidence).

Your point about media beat-ups and misrepresentation of scientific findings is perfectly valid IMO and many science 'journalists' are guilty of sensationalism on numerous topics. I think this contributes to the poor image of science in the general public, but in no way invalidates the actual science that they are supposed to be reporting on.

 

[tigersnake]

Doesn't mean I shouldn't be taking the builders to task over why they keep telling me the house is fine, when clealy it's not. If you're happy living in a house with sh!t woodwork and things that don't work, good luck to you. But I'm gonna keep on at the builders until they sort it out.

Of course you should take builders/ scientists to task if they make a blue Freezer, but you seem to have missed my point, and my point stands. I didn't say '*smile* woodwork' Freeze, don't put words in my mouth, I said the odd, inevitable detail that needs ironing out, as occurs in every house construction. The sceptics would have us believe that because there is a kitchen cupboard sticking and a mis=matched skirting board, the whole house should be demolished. Clearly freezer, this is ludicrous. Freeze, its dumb.

The analogy applies to climate research, its been going on in a lot of institutions for a lot of years, of course there are going to be the odd blue in the details, same with any major task. The sceptics would have us beieve the whole body of research and data is fundamentally flawed because of the odd non-dotted i or crossed t or number in the wrong column. Clearly Freezer, that is ludicrous.

 

[tigersnake]

If you need a grant, just mention global warming/climate change and it's yours.

I think you'll find the opposite is true Freeze. You need a grant, mention a theory you'd love to explore that the Earths climate is not changing, air pollution is good and coal sprinkled on your cornflakes cures cancer, Then you could take your pick of grants, industry grants that is.

 

[tigersnake]

Come on Disco, that seems flimsy at best.

Less than a third of the scientists could be bothered to respond, and "Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change." So at best, 268 have spent at least half their time on the subject; of which, no more than 157 say they are 'climate scientists'.

Considering this was a 'global' survey, that's a pretty insignificant sample size.

And how broadly based can two questions get...?

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

How can a scientist give a meaningful answer to such general questions, in a 2 minute, on-line survey? And to use such a leading question as (2) seems pretty unprofessional.

I fail to see what the problem is with these questions. they cut straight to the guts of it. Its what good science reporting is all about, unlike the sceptics typical half-baked tangents. Often years of research culminates in a simple, clear fact. 'Does smoking increase the threat of lung cancer?', (yes), 'Does drinking during pregnancy increase the chances of impinging learning in children?' (yes), 'Is Zinc usually found alongside lead in mineral deposits?' (yes). I reckon your problem with the question reflects your own bias, The responants could have said 'no', and 'no', but not many did.

 

[AngryAnt]

yes I have made arguments, regardless of Antman’s dribble

Nice work Mervs!

You have made arguments and I've responded to them. That's where it all seems to get a bit too hard for you. Anyway, carry on. I can't argue with a man who refuses to take the bait :hihi

 

[Disco08]

Come on Disco, that seems flimsy at best.

Less than a third of the scientists could be bothered to respond, and "Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change." So at best, 268 have spent at least half their time on the subject; of which, no more than 157 say they are 'climate scientists'.

Considering this was a 'global' survey, that's a pretty insignificant sample size.

And how broadly based can two questions get...?

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

How can a scientist give a meaningful answer to such general questions, in a 2 minute, on-line survey? And to use such a leading question as (2) seems pretty unprofessional.

How would you have worded the second question Freezer?

 

[Freezer]

How would you have worded the second question Freezer?

Here-in lies the problem with the two minute, on-line survey. The question that should be asked, something along the lines of "What is/are the major contributing factor(s) to global warming?" or "Exactly what percentage of global warming can be attributed to human activities?" (but we know no-one knows the answer to that anyway), requires much more than a tick box answer.

I understand that was the nature of the survey, but that's also why I won't pay much credence to it.

 

[jb03]

Here-in lies the problem with the two minute, on-line survey. The question that should be asked, something along the lines of "What is/are the major contributing factor(s) to global warming?"

That is a leading question too and assumes the world is warming.

 

[Freezer]

That is a leading question too and assumes the world is warming.

I know, but I daren't add in the extra bit I wanted to "(even though it's been cooling since 1998)".

 

[jb03]

I know, but I daren't add in the extra bit I wanted to "(even though it's been cooling since 1998)".

Fair enough you flat earther you. ;D

 

[Freezer]

Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Co-Authored by:

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and now directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He received his Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. He was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University and has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Dr. Singer, Dr. Idso, and the contributors and reviewers of NIPCC donated their time and best efforts to produce this report out of concern that the IPCC--a government agency that is part of the United Nations–-is provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global warming based on incomplete and faulty science. They are especially concerned that the political process involved in the editing of the widely cited Summaries for Policy Makers are misrepresenting the true science of climate change."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From the preface of the book:

We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of “skeptics,” name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism.

We hope the present study will help bring reason and balance back into the debate over climate change, and by doing so perhaps save the peoples of the world from the burden of paying for wasteful, unnecessary energy and environmental policies. We stand ready to defend the analysis and conclusion in the study that follows, and to give further advice to policymakers who are open-minded on this most important topic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Principal findings of the book include the following:

• Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
  
  
• The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth--especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level--is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
  
  
• Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
  
  
• The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
  
  
• There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world’s oceans.
  
  
• There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.
  

 

[Freezer]

I fail to see what the problem is with these questions. they cut straight to the guts of it. Its what good science reporting is all about, unlike the sceptics typical half-baked tangents. Often years of research culminates in a simple, clear fact. 'Does smoking increase the threat of lung cancer?', (yes), 'Does drinking during pregnancy increase the chances of impinging learning in children?' (yes), 'Is Zinc usually found alongside lead in mineral deposits?' (yes). I reckon your problem with the question reflects your own bias, The responants could have said 'no', and 'no', but not many did.

And what is the bias of the 31,478 scientists that have signed the following petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

 

[Freezer]

The analogy applies to climate research, its been going on in a lot of institutions for a lot of years, of course there are going to be the odd blue in the details, same with any major task.

Sounds like the basis for any good scientific report! Just don't present it for peer review in case those "odd blues" get found.

 

[Disco08]

Here-in lies the problem with the two minute, on-line survey. The question that should be asked, something along the lines of "What is/are the major contributing factor(s) to global warming?" or "Exactly what percentage of global warming can be attributed to human activities?" (but we know no-one knows the answer to that anyway), requires much more than a tick box answer.

I understand that was the nature of the survey, but that's also why I won't pay much credence to it.

Isn't the entire argument basically over mankind's effect on global warming? Don't most sceptics assert that man made emissions are having little or no effect?

If these are true then the second question is perfectly straight forward. "Significant contributing factor" can't be misconstrued, can it?

You also try to discredit the survey based on the number of respondents, but these figures are not only typical of most surveys, they represent a very significant sample of the core group of scientists with knowledge in related fields. If 100% of these scientists responded the expectation would be for a very small deviation from the results derived from 30%.

As for the Oregon Petition, it's largely a joke. What legitimate petition wouldn't ask the signatories to identify themselves with simple information like full name and address? As a meaningful representation of scientific thought on the subject it's been discredited many times.

Even if you only had a quick look at both that and the survey page I linked to, I can't believe you'd present the OP as something convincing but give little credence to the UIC survey.

 

[Freezer]

Isn't the entire argument basically over mankind's effect on global warming? Don't most sceptics assert that man made emissions are having little or no effect?

If these are true then the second question is perfectly straight forward. "Significant contributing factor" can't be misconstrued, can it?

You also try to discredit the survey based on the number of respondents, but these figures are not only typical of most surveys, they represent a very significant sample of the core group of scientists with knowledge in related fields. If 100% of these scientists responded the expectation would be for a very small deviation from the results derived from 30%.

As for the Oregon Petition, it's largely a joke. What legitimate petition wouldn't ask the signatories to identify themselves with simple information like full name and address? As a meaningful representation of scientific thought on the subject it's been discredited many times.

Even if you only had a quick look at both that and the survey page I linked to, I can't believe you'd present the OP as something convincing but give little credence to the UIC survey.

So they're as bad as each other. But these surveys are irrelevant really. Trying to win a battle over how many scientists are for or against global warming doesn't help sort out in my mind what the hell is actually going on in the world.

 

[Disco08]

No, one's a legitimate survey that only contacted scientists listed as experts in fields relevant to climate change (which can also name their respondents), the other is a petition with glaring problems exposed more than once for the sham it is.

The surveys are also far from irrelevant. Sceptics want us to believe that the science is far from settled yet here is clear evidence which suggests the exact opposite is true.

The only way any of us can try to sort out what is "actually going on in the world" is to head back to school and get ourselves a relevant education. Short of that I'm inclined to believe those who already have that education.

 

[Freezer]

The only way any of us can try to sort out what is "actually going on in the world" is to head back to school and get ourselves a relevant education. Short of that I'm inclined to believe those who already have that education.

Like the blokes in my reply 771?

 

[Merveille]

Um, the links you provide show the peer-review process doing its job, ie. identifying errors in conclusions drawn by individual scientists. It wasn't the 'skeptics' pointing out the flaws in some of the IPCC conclusions, but scientists (obviously not those involved in the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY :. All you are doing is revealing the strength of the scientific process.

If you want to actually discredit the scientific consensus re: AGW then you need to point out the flaws in the current data, or provide contradictory data and a better explanation. Flinging mud adds nothing to our knowledge and demonstrates your ignorance of the scientific process.

So, is what is written below slinging mud, or cause for concern? If any of the below is factually incorrect, I am sure you will set the record straight.
I acknowledge your next reply to Freezer, which at least acknowledges some issues with the science fraternity.

Take this claim from its 2007 report: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

In fact, we now know this bizarre claim was first made by a little-known Indian scientist in an interview for an online magazine, and then copied into a report by the green group WWF.

From there, the IPCC lifted it almost word for word for its own 2007 report, without checking if it was true.

It wasn’t, of course, as the IPCC last week conceded. The glaciers will be around for at least centuries more.

But why did the IPCC run this mad claim in the first place?

The IPCC’s Dr Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author responsible, says he knew all along there was no peer-reviewed research to back it up.

“(But) we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians ... “

Note: you are told not the truth, but what will scare you best.

 

[Merveille]

Like the blokes in my reply 771?

3 pointer