by Judith Curry
Who assesses the assessors of climate science research? A new paper reviews the climate change reviewers by comparing references in the NIPCC and IPCC reports.
In September 2011, I had a post NIPCC discussion thread. The NIPCC provides a report that parallels the IPCC assessment report in structure, but comes to starkly different conclusions.
A very interesting new paper has been published that explores some of the differences between the IPCC and NIPCC reports, and asks the question:
Should we take the ‘contrarians’ and their arguments seriously or not?
Reviewing the climate change reviewers: Exploring controversy through report references and citations
Ferenc Jankó, Norbert Móricz, Judit Papp Vancsó
Abstract. There is a growing need to analyse the knowledge controversies about climate change. Human geography has a role in understanding of the motivations and sources of the participants in the debate. In this study, we explore the scientific background of the contrarian arguments, using Climate Change Reconsidered published by the conservative think tank Heartland Institute, in comparison with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The Physical Science Basis. Firstly, we surveyed the reference lists, which showed that in general the contrarian report used the same journals, as their most important sources. However, the differences are in the details: journals dealing with paleo-issues are more important for the contrarian report. Further, it is noteworthy that we found only 262 identical references (4.4% of all references) in the reports and their contextual analyses revealed that the rhetoric can be remarkably different, as can the way in which an article is used. These results indicate that we cannot state that the opponents use completely different sources, but the complementarity of their reference list raised some questions which are discussed in the last section of the paper. Should we take the ‘contrarians’ and their arguments seriously or not?
Published by Geoforum [link] to abstract.
Philosophy and sociology of science offer some simple starting points to explore and understand the debate over climate change. The ‘scientific field’ concept of Bourdieu presents the controversy as mainstream science protecting the field of climate change from the attacks of the contrarians. According to the concept it may be suggested that the ‘field’ of climate change is not homogeneous; it has a changing structure, its agents have different amounts of scientific capital, and the boundaries of the field are continually being re-demarcated.
Studying climate change controversies therefore was not in the research focus of either science studies, or geography. Considering the debates in principle, it is difficult to bring climate change and science studies together. Paradoxically, science studies are traditionally identified with the ‘Academic Left’, while climate sceptics are usually connected to conservative ideology and politics. ‘‘Though there are no substantive connections’’ between them, the arguments of climate sceptics ‘‘exemplify many of the wider claims made in academic science studies about the construction of scientific knowledge’’. This situation is quite inconvenient for scholars of science studies. ‘‘Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said? Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why can’t I simply say that the argument is closed for good?’’ pondered Latour (2004).
The dispute around anthropogenic climate change is also an emergent field for geography and related thought (Hulme, 2009) as well as the history of climate change science.
Setting the references and in-text citations at the focus of our study, our research questions were the following:
- Analysing the reference lists, what difference is there in the scientific basis of CCR compared to the IPCC?
- Considering the identical references, what is the difference in how they are used (e.g. interpretation and context)?
- How does the rhetoric of the sceptical report differ from that of the IPCC report?
From the Conclusions:
‘‘The debate has only just begun’’ concluded Grundmann in his recent paper about the legacy of Climategate. Indeed, our results raise some further questions about the knowledge controversy escalating after the email incident. Analysing the difference between the reference lists, we concluded that scientific arguments were constructed from the similar material; references came mainly from the same journals and the same journals were among those most cited by both sides. Should we take the contrarian statements seriously? Should we consider them as well-established statements, legitimated with the same or similar peer reviewed journals? If we say ‘no’ and take the CCR (NIPCC) as a partisan report, produced by cherry-picking the literature (a mutual charge in the controversy), there is no end to the debate.
Our results show that some of the difference lies in the details; journals dealing with paleo-issues are more important for the NIPCC report. This raises a cautious question: is there an opposition in climate science palpable between paleoclimatology and the mainstream methods, similarly to the difference between observation and modelling? In other words, are there specific sub-fields in climate science, which provide some more evidence against the anthropogenic climate change idea? Another question is who are the authors of the references used by the contrarian report? We checked the original references only in some cases but we did not analyse these scholars. Only further research can give the answer to both questions.
Based on the above findings and because grey literature had only a small significance in both reports, we cannot state that climate sceptics use completely different sources to demolish the architecture of mainstream climate science. Thus, we should reject the assumption that the reference list of CCR (NIPCC) would differ markedly from that of the IPCC report. On the contrary, the contextual and rhetorical analysis of the extreme weather and paleoclimate chapters and sub-chapters revealed that not only do the contrarians have their key-authors, but so does ‘mainstream’ science and it was very instructive to see the pre-organised battle of these references with the pre-assigned winners, who were supporting the knowledge claims of the reviewers and ‘weakening the enemies’.
Further, not only the facts, but the readings of the same facts differ, which makes the assessment process flexible. What are the implications for science? There is a real concern that the controversy has so far had a negative effect on the reputation of science. From the perspective of an idealised public view of science, such a polarised debate about ‘truths’ may be confusing. Thus, social science with science studies in the forefront has a mission to change this obsolete view of science. Saying ‘yes’ to our first question we might have a somewhat ‘naive’ implication for the IPCC; improving and widening the reviewing process may be a possible answer to the contrarian criticisms. But when we take the contrarian arguments seriously, there is a chance to bring together the differing views and knowledge claims of the disputing ‘interpretive communities’.
Scientific reports should be viewed not only as a second level of peer review and canonization of scientific facts but also as a means of politicization of science. [T]here will be hope for better science for the public and for policy, for better constructions of the problem only when we fully understand the knowledge controversy around climate change.
First, it is very good to see the sociology of climate science moving away from the the reflexive defense of the consensensus position (e.g. the social psychology of deniers), to take a serious look at the climate controversy. By comparing the IPCC and NIPCC reports, the authors take on a very interesting topic but have only scratched the surface.
The paper reminds us that such assessment reports are a means of politicization of science. While on the surface the NIPCC might seem more open to this charge, the shoe fits the IPCC as well.
The statement: Not only the facts, but the readings of the same facts differ, which makes the assessment process flexible. This reminds of the challenges of reasoning about climate science complexity and uncertainty [link to Reasoning about climate uncertainty]
The concluding point is important: But when we take the contrarian arguments seriously, there is a chance to bring together the differing views and knowledge claims of the disputing ‘interpretive communities’.
I look forward to future papers on this topic.
Pejorative Contrarian what hubris
BBD, you mean?
I found 75 definitions of BBD
Big Balding Dufous
It’s an endangered species. They are distinguished by not being able to secure a mail server nor tempering their speech. Usually seen nesting in or near institutions of higher learning.
Big Bucking Deal?
What human folly it is to sacrifice the freedoms we enjoy today based on fears of future climate change and promises by government that the Western climate experts will bring about climate stability. “In a system as complex and chaotic as climate, actions with just one factor out of the thousands involved,” which is what Stott says government scientists are doing with their obsession with atmospheric CO2 levels, “may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is vital to remember that, for such a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, not doing something (i.e., not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something (i.e., emitting gases). Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.”
it’s a Pelosi-esq position – we have to destroy our freedoms now to save them from being destroyed later…
Are we ready for a global food-fight with water pistols?
Fear of global warming is like worrying about the Earth having a fever. Movements come and go. Political movements change. For example, fear of runaway global warming still is the preoccupation of Western scientists and governments. It also interests sociologists, psychologists and philosophers who are busy studying the effects that this mass mania on society.
We’re too close to see what’s happening now or to know who will be around to write the last chapter in the global warming alarmist saga. The Left’s anti-capitalism, anti-Judeo/Christian ideology of today may be the antidisestablishmentcapitalismglobal-warmanism Party of tomorrow. The future we do not know and cannot foresee will belong to others.
Far more dangerous is the coming glaciation.
Can we prevent that catastrophic cooling with billions of deaths?
“Can we prevent that catastrophic cooling with billions of deaths?”
Jim Let me rephrase to clarify:
1) What confidence do present global warming models give us that the current anthropogenic warming will be able to overcome the cooling that causes glaciation?
I see very little skill by GCM’s at present in predicting temperatures over 34 years.
2) Will engineers be able to generate sufficient warming to overcome natural cooling?
@David L. Hagen – the alarmists are trying. They want to kill them before the next glaciation.
The fact that climate models predict phenomena that aren’t observed in nature is proof climate models are a scientific failure.
It’s good that you are optimistic about engineers generating heat!
I’m not. The history of many hundreds of meters thick ice carving Seattle and Chicago makes me think of human insignificance. Ditto the last large Yellowstone eruption.
“There is a real concern that the controversy has so far had a negative effect on the reputation of science.”
That the infallability of science and scientists is being questioned is not necessarily a negative for science, though it may be for the fortunes and reputations of certain scientists. Important is the public realization that scientists are subject to the same confirmation bias that we all are. The canonization of science and scientists by the modern progressive has replaced religion for many.
I think I read somewhere that Hansen, Mann, and the rest of the team were looking to sacrifice some virgins or lambs, or something to assuage the Co2 Gods…
Very well put.
Science has no reputation, only the people in that area. It’s written wrong. It’s not science, science doesn’t care. Science is what it is. The laws and the way things work will be there today, yesterday and forever. The negative effect will be on the people who have tried to squash debate for the last 17 years 10 months. Thankfully we live in a democracy. Of course the AGW people might disagree with that. If my thoughts have merit, it doesn’t matter whether I or anyone else is a scientist or not. That’s the real issue.
By the way for all the AGW people, the sun just went blank. Of course what do you care about that?
“Science” or “Climate science” could get a bad reputation with for a few years with the general public and funding could be cut (or not raised) for a few years as a result. Those who don’t understand science also can’t always distinguish between different kinds of science. The media will drive the story to some extent as always.
“The canonization of science and scientists by the modern progressive has replaced religion for many.”
Except that canonization is entirely situational. Modern Progressives deny the science behind GMO foods, nuclear power and medicine and attack the scientists who dare to participate.
We need to stop accepting the entirely false narrative that progressives have any respect for science at all, much less a greater respect than any other group. “Science” for progressives is anybody in a lab coat who is willing to say what they need to achieve a political end. They could care less if that message is honest (look at the “science” of anti-GMO or anti-nukes).
@Doug Badgero Not only are scientists subject to the same confirmation bias as the rest of us, but being smarter than the average bear they are pretty clever in hiding it behind a dense thicket of verbiage. They also get paid to peddle it which most of us don’t.
If I pick up a gun and go to a roof top and shoot 50 people, I’m considered a madman, evil even, and rightly so. But if I dazzle a bunch of self-aggrandizing, opportunistic politicians with scientific sounding rhetoric and whip up a mob mentality that results in a few million dead, there seems to be no downside for me. Rachel Carson and DDT is a good example. As a society, why are we keen to look the other way from politicians that enact legislation based on pseudo science that is damaging? Often they don’t even lose their jobs. Really? Are we that impotent in the face of that kind of reckless irresponsibility?
Re: the canonization of science by progressives. Progressives seem to be a psychological type that need enemies to vanquish. But not enemies like Hitler or Sadam Hussien or anyone who can shoot back. They need enemies like corporations that they can neuter in the courts without any consequences when they get it wrong, which they do most of the time. Again, as a society, why do we put up with this? Why do we tolerate a legal class that is the most rent seeking class ever created? CAGW is a symptom of the intellectual rot in our system. We can overturn the ‘science’ but to really defeat CAGW we need to recognize and defeat the philosophical ground that gave birth to it.
What the alarmists have done, in concert with academician institutions, government bureaucracies, scientific organization, the media, publishing houses, journals and Hollywood is not simply made a mistake. It’s not a matter of getting the data wrong and those of us who have opposed this ‘movement’ better wake up to the far more entrenched philosophical belief system that insidiously infects our culture.
There is within science, within the American academic institution, a strain of authoritarianism that is as ugly as any street thug you might ever meet. Perhaps uglier given the power it has for destruction. CAGW isn’t the only issue that reveals this cancer in our intelligentsia. That Plato thought philosopher kings were a legitimate answer to the needs of social organization and governance can be forgiven. That most scientists and academics think so, is totally unforgivable and needs to be challenged with as much moral courage as we can muster because that is what is at the root of our rot.
Something must be done to improve the “Peer Review” process, along the lines of seeking out respected contrarian positions, as opposed to “Pal Review” which rears its all too friendly head far too often!!!
I would like to see more of the type of discussion exemplified by this paper. I can think of no better mechanism for defusing much of the rancor in climate discussion than to move quickly away from the absurd idea and ethically corrupt practice of calling skeptics deniers and wondering what’s wrong with their brains.
Take skeptic arguments seriously. Not many of them are correct, but the ones that are potentially valid have serious implications.
Bring back Hansen, Trenberth and Santer. Let Mann, Gleick, Mashey and Prall shuffle off the stage.
Focus on the points made by Freeman Dyson, John Christy and Roger Pielke Sr. Ignore the political theater of Monckton and Morano.
And let the real games begin.
I’m not so sure about Hansen.
Gleick has failed ethically/ideologically, but his technical work may be sound.
While I sympathize with your point (and your selection I might add), someone has to keep their finger in the dyke while the architects and engineers come up with rational solutions. Political theater or not Monckton and Morano are to be commended for able and spirited arguments. You can’t always choose the field in which to fight and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. I do agree, however, it is past time for reasoned debate.
I agree that not many of the skeptics arguments are correct. However, the few that are, greatly outnumber any valid arguments of supporters of CAGW or even serious AGW. Look at the facts Tom, even Monckton and Morano are generally far more supportable by facts than Hansen, Trenberth and Santer. Freeman Dyson, John Christy and Roger Pielke Sr. are just the tip of the iceberg of numbers of reasonable people on the issue. A few more, but still a tiny fraction include:
Richard S. Lindzen (Climatologist Professor MIT)
Frederick Seitz (Former Head of the NAS and Rockefeller U)
Edward Teller (Physicist)
Hendrik Tennekes (Former Director Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute)
William Gray (Professor Atmospheric Science CSU)
Michael Griffin (Former NASA Administrator)
Jack (Harrison) Schmitt (Astronaut, Senator)
Buzz Aldrin (Astronaut)
Burt Rutan (Engineer, Innovator, Environmentalist)
Roy Spencer (Climatologist U of Alabama & Satellite expert)
Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize Physicist)
Hal Lewis (Physicist)
Patrick Moore (Early Greenpeace Major Player)
James Lovelock (Environmentalist)
The quality of these and many more people should give you pause in your slight but obvious biased thinking.
Hansen has NY already under 3 ft of water based on his early work, and is not backing off for the future. Trenberth is still looking for the hidden energy (I have a rug he can look under). Santer seems reasonable in his actions, but he is not supported by data (sensitivity seems a lot too low).
The near future (say 5 years or so) will either demonstrate the total failure of models, or let them live. I clearly suspect the former. That is not to say human activity has had no effect, just that either large natural variation dominates it completely, or that sensitivity is so small (due to negative feed-backs) that it is lost in the noise. Both of these result, have been proposed by skeptics, along with the claim that the models are simply inadequate to show anything useful (they have NEVER shown any skill regionally or average over the Earth).
One of the hallmarks of any theory is that it explains what is going on now, but also what happened in the past. The only way that the AGW people could do that was to explain away that the LIA and MWP were local and not world wide. Both have been confirmed that they were worldwide in the absence of fluctuation in co2 levels. Point of fact is that in the hockey stick graph they show levels of co2 and temps being rather flat during those time periods. In other words, the theory doesn’t conform. It’s invalid.
@ Leonard Weinstein
“The near future (say 5 years or so) will either demonstrate the total failure of models, or let them live.”
Sadly, you are wrong.
There are so many models and so many ‘projections’, all treating the ACO2 control knob as an axiom rather than a theory, that no matter WHAT the climate does in the next 5 years (or 5 days) it will plausibly correlate with one or several of the model outputs.
This will provide proof positive that the modelers were right all along, it is ‘worse than we thought’, and we can no longer afford to allow the anti-science deniers to delay amelioration policies which have become even more time critical due to their stonewalling.
And the decrees will (continue to) go out.
See the American Physical Society Climate Change Review Workshop with the excellent 6 experts, 3 on each side.
Full transcripts with very insightful questions
Springer, I believe I was the first (or one of the first, at least) to note that roughly a third of emissions recorded by CDIAC had happened since 1998.
Might I ask what you have done? All I see here is bile from you–perhaps your accomplishments have been achieved in other venues.
I don’t see any reason for defusing the “rancor” in the climate debate.
While I see a lot of dishonesty, confirmation bias and closed mindedness among the CAGW/decarbonization advocates, I think most of them actually believe that the risk of “global warming” is potentially so catastrophic, that the costs and harms warming greatly exceed the costs and harms of decarbonization. (I think they are delusional in their hubris as to the extent of their knowledge, but that does not make them dishonest.)
I know that I and many other skeptics genuinely believe the reverse: that the harms and costs of decarboniztion (and even decarbonization lite) are virtually certain and far outweigh the potential, future harms of warming, that mankind will be able to adapt to when and if the time comes, if we are not impoverished by decarbonization.
Broadly, I see those as the two dominant views in the climate debate. And yes, for the actual policy makers, they are proxies for the state oriented approach to problem solving favored by warmists/progressives, and the individual approach of skeptics/conservatives. Luke warmers like yourself say a pox on both out houses, but have never had, and likely never will have, sufficient political power to call the tune.
There are huge stakes, either way, between the majority groups. The way a democratic republic solves such debates is with wide ranging, raucus debates. Let Mann, Trenberth, Hansen and Gleick all say what they want. If they are dishonest, that will come out in the debate. If their temperature data ever starts matching their GCMs, that will come out as well.
Kumbaya is a great song around the campfire (OK, no it’s not, but I’m trying to make a point here.), but on difficult policy issues, not so much.
Gary, rancor never improves a debate. And I like Kumbaya… or I did the last time I heard it… 50 years ago…
Fuller is now pretending to be an expert in debate. Rancor *never* improves a debate he says. Isn’t that just precious?
Say Tom, what exactly have you done in your life that you think is relevant to the climate debate other than being co-author on a narrative tome The CRUTape Letters?
It took more than a rancorous debate to get 19th century progressives to give up their slaves in the US. Rancorous debate also gave us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the undoing of Democrat imposed Jim Crow, the passage of the Civil Rights Acts over Democrat filibuster opposition, and the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War over progressive opposition, to mention just a few.
Oh wait, I can see why you might not like it. Whenever there is an open, rancorous debate, progressives don’t seem to fare so well.
Y’all do much better with back room deals for legislation nobody ever read before passing – like Obamacare. Presidential edicts and bureaucrat re-writing of legislation are the progressive style. “The debate is over” their battle cry on a plethora of issues besides globalclimatewarmingchange.
Guess that’s why progressives throughout the west are imposing speech codes and trying to limit political speech by the opposition (aka “campaign finance reform”). Gotta control that rancor.
GaryM. Wait a minute. Here you attempt this reasonable, balanced view that CAGW proponents are honest believers in what scares them to death. I disagree but your very next response is to lay waste to the progressives who are 90% of the Alarmists and their dishonesty and back room deals, their pc codes and authoritarianism which I find much more realistic in describing someone like Hansen and Mann et al.
Which is it Gary?
The CRUTape Letters authors, neither of whom have a professional STEM bone in their bodies, should be among the first to “shuffle off the stage”.
Well, I dropped my math major sophomore year, but I see no reason why I should not engage in the debate. Why shouldn’t they? Particularly since the underlying debate is really about politics/policy. And shoot, everybody’s an expert on that.
Thanks, Dave. Appreciate the vote of confidence. Can you post what we wrote on Page 8 to refresh everyone’s memory?
This article is a good start. I would like to see an analysis of which report is actually trying harder to be balanced. I suspect the NIPCC as they need to reference many of the same articles as IPCC in order to explain their position and then use other references to show why they disagree.
“I would like to see more of the type of discussion exemplified by this paper.
Ignore the political theater of Monckton and Morano.”
Yes. Your suggestion is very good.
You ignore the political theater at your own peril. Political theater is important, it is part of the fabric needed to understand the reality and those of you who think you are above it are missing an essential piece of what has given the progressives, has given rags like the NYT and science journals and hacks like Mann and Hansen the power they have.
Do you not get that political theater is 90% of the Left and 90% of CAGW is Left Wing World View and that if you don’t go at the political theater you leave yourself open to being ignored?
Of course, here I mean by political theater everything that isn’t formal science and philosophy, though they can be used in the service of political theater.
Treating political theater with contempt is to blind yourself to very important aspects of reality. This is not a drawing room debate.
Pleased to see the authors pick up the politicisation by the IPCC and its threat to science’s reputation.
Pleased to see JC pick up the significance of “when we take the contrarian arguments seriously, there is a chance to bring together the differing views and knowledge claims of the disputing ‘interpretive communities’.”.
“But when we take the contrarian arguments seriously, there is a chance to bring together the differing views and knowledge claims of the disputing ‘interpretive communities’.”
When we don’t take them seriously, we for the most part forego bringing them together. I rarely mention our President. He doesn’t seem to be working to bring people together on this issue.
Should have been:
When we don’t take them seriously, we for the most part forego bringing ‘people’ together.
I don’t have to be taken seriously. The data pleads my case for me.
Yes indeed David. There is no possible rapprochement between the NIPCC and the IPCC. The actual data and observations are all on the side of the NIPCC and the sooner this is widely accepted the better. CAGW is plain and simply false on every reasonable scientific measure. .
“I rarely mention our President. He doesn’t seem to be working to bring people together on this issue.”
Name an issue on which he is working to bring people together. He’s the most purposefully divisive President I can think of. It seems to me, his sneering arrogance must be unprecedented for an occupant of The White House. It’s especially egregious in that he ran for office on the promise of uniting the country.
I used to laugh when I saw “George Bush-Worst President Ever” signs because I thought it was true. He was an easy man to laugh at. That Obama has proven even worse has forced me to reevaluate everything I thought I believed in as a political person. This time, I’m not laughing.
Obama makes Biden look credible. But, it was GW who stopped Al Gore from leading the country off a cliff and stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.
I find it ironic when I hear my friends talk about how intelligent our current President is, particularly in comparison to our previous one, based primarily on his speaking abilities. Not only is that a shallow means of assessment, the plain fact is that President Bush looks pretty good in comparison when it comes to speaking without a prepared script.
“when we take the contrarian arguments seriously”
To get more respect from experienced scientists in other fields, I recommend that climate science researchers quit focusing on the unrealistic and hypothetical Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric and focus more on Transient Climate Response (TCR) metric, or even better Transient Climate the Sensitivity (TCS), as The Right Climate Stuff Research Team of retired NASA scientists and engineers has defined it.
TCS is the change in global average surface temperature that results from doubling the atmospheric GHG level by the actual historical slow rise of GHGs in our atmosphere. TCS can actually be verified by physical data, while ECS and TCR cannot. This anomalous characteristic of mainstream climate science, that is overly influenced by un-validated model “projections” sets it apart from more well-developed scientific fields of study.
The ECS simulation is unrealistic in that it employs a step function forcing, that instantly doubles the radiative force of GHGs, and artificially holds this external radiative force at the doubled level, while ignoring the actual climate system dynamics that result in the earth’s eco-system removing about half of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels. Moreover, the ECS simulation results in a final earth surface temperature increase that is realized after more than 1000 years of artificially imposed doubled GHG levels, making it totally unsuitable for regulatory use focused on climate changes over the next 300 years. Does the earth have enough reserves of fossil fuels to support a doubled atmospheric CO2 level for 1000 years? Nevertheless, our EPA is currently using a hypothetical and highly dispersed statistical distribution of ECS values (allowing ECS values as high as 10 deg C!) in a contorted scheme to forecast AGW for the next 300 years to compute the Social Cost of Carbon values used to economically justify its CO2 emissions regulations. All ethical, competent climate scientists should be protesting this abuse of their science, whether caused by incompetence or scientific fraud, to satisfy political agendas of our Executive Branch of government and political appointee heads of our agencies authorized (?) by the Legislative Branch to control CO2 and other GHG emissions.
TCR forcing simulations, rather than ECS simulations, are much more representative of the climate responses to the actual slow rise of atmospheric GHG levels. Increasing CO2 levels by 1 percent per year until they reach the doubled level (takes about 70 years) in a TCR climate simulation is much more like the more realistic climate forcing by GHGs. The modeled GHG radiative force is sufficiently slowly changing, such that the TCR value from an accurate climate model (if anyone has one) and an empirically determined TCS value are arguably the same, as current atmospheric CO2 rise rates are only about 0.5 percent per year. If the TCR atmospheric GHG rise rate is slow enough to approximate a statically applied force response of the climate system, then the actual more slowly changing GHG levels also can be considered to cause a static force response and both solutions should have the same result. Both TCR and TCS values are determined by such very slowly changing forcing functions such that they can be more simply and accurately analyzed as a statics problem with an approximately constant externally applied radiative force. Therefore it is scientifically immature in search of the truth regarding AGW, to try to analyze anthropogenic climate change within the framework of a much more complex and uncertain dynamics problem.
Analysis of TCR and ECS solutions of the same climate models studied and reported in Table 8.2 of the IPCC AR4 Report, show that on average that
ECS = 1.8(TCR)
and that the standard deviation of ECS values from the models studied are twice as large as the TCR values from the same models. Therefore TCR climate model solutions are much more representative of actual climate changes due to anthropogenic forcing than ECS simulations, and TCR values have much less uncertainty than the most often quoted and published ECS values. We need to remove as much uncertainty as possible from AGW forecasts in order to achieve a much less dangerous CO2 emissions regulatory policy.
There’s a problem with TCS. It can be measured and it isn’t scary.
Well that explains that.
dont tell cripwell.
I guess you meant TCR can be measured if we make an assumption that most/all warming from 1950 is manmade. Since that assumption is supported only by circular reasoning (ie assume nature does nothing then the remainder must be manmade) then even that unscary TCR measurement is just an upper bound. The lower bound is still the no-feedback 1K rise, which itself is based on an overly-simplistic, 1D, back-of-the-envelope calc. plus another assumption about the relative warming contribution of CO2 among the other greenhouse gases.
At the end of the day only observations tell us which assumptions are valid and so far the result is that none are: We conducted the experiment of large-scale planetary CO2 injection and nothing happened – nature clearly still dominates the planetary climate by means as yet unknown. Scientists who don’t admit they really don’t know what drives climate are guilty of the fallacy of “looking for their keys under the light”, ie what they don’t know is assumed to be unimportant.
All this alarm of course is based on a paltry 0.6K/century, none of which was that recent.
jamesg. could not have said it better myself. please excuse the typing, but I have had brain cancer surgery. the cancer is incurable, so I have a limited time to live.
one of these years the empirical data will show that global temperatures are declining, and then the science of the skeptics will have to be taken seriously. unfortunately, I wont be around to help open the champagne.
Jim, best wishes for dealing with your illness
So very sorry to hear your news.
Beth the serf.
It will still give an upper bound of TCS (as you seem to imply).
like Andrew I will include you in my prayers.
Jim C. I’m very sorry about your illness.
Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) can be measured with data, but TCR cannot, because atmospheric CO2 has been rising at a variable rate since 1850 and currently at only about half the rate of 1 %/yr. assumed in the TCR simulation. In the report I referenced you can review how we determined an upper bound for TCS using available data on atmospheric CO2 history and the HadCRUT4 dataset of global average surface temperature anomaly over the time period. 1850-2012. You can also read our theoretical arguments for why a value of TCR computed from an accurate climate model should equal TCS. I agree that to determine TCS, one must separate anthropogenic and natural effects in the temperature data. To determine conservative, as well as, upper bound values for TCS, we assumed no continued natural warming out of the Little Ice Age after 1850, but did identify a natural temperature cycle of 62 year period with amplitude +/- 0.15 deg C that we ignored in attributing the longer term temperature rise to all GHG and solar TSI effects. If we attribute some of the long term trend warming after 1850 to the same long term climate cycle of about 1000 years that is associated with The Roman Warm Period, The Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age, we extract a lower value for TCS. We determined that TCS for all GHG is in the range of 0.8 to 1.8 deg C. The IPCC’s highly publicized range for
1.5 < ECS < 4.5 deg C really isn't useful (actually highly misleading) for understanding how our climate will actually respond to rising GHG levels over the next few hundred years. Those climate scientists who continue to promote highly uncertain larger ECS values to the media, public and policy-makers, as the warming we will actually get from doubling CO2 levels on our current path of burning fossil fuels, should be called out for their lack of credibility.
1st- Putting Phd next to you name seems like you are trying to claim expertise. Let the merits of your analysis speak for itself.
You have written a few things that do not seem to make sense.
Both what you describe as TCS and TCR are both descriptions of sensitivity over a specific period of time. How does it matter whether the addition of GHGs was from humans directly or from a response from nature? It seems what matters is the change in atmospheric concentrations and how that impacted temperature. Both measures may well vary greatly over time as the overall system changes.
That news saddens me, Jim. Best wishes for you and your family.
I believe this is the first time consideration of the Roman Warming Period & MWP in calculating sensitivity has been shown on this blog. I can’t speak to the data but the logic seems to be appropriate as is making an estimate of the proportion between man made & natural warming.
Jim, sorry to hear that news. I have enjoyed our many dialogues despite having different views. Thanks for participating. My thoughts are with you.
I’m very sorry to hear that. Best wishes.
Just drink the champagne now, you deserve it.
Here’s to living as long as you have.
Jim’s been nominated for the office of Vice-President in charge of the Beer Engine.
I accept your criticism for my appending PhD to my name. I have put my full identification out there for all to see and evaluate the merits of my analysis. People who know me can verify, that use of Dr. when addressing me over the last 44 years is very rare. Far more important, is my experience, expertise and successful track record in solving complex dynamics problems where modeled phenomena and predicted results were verified by experimental data. I strive for accuracy in solutions to complex dynamics problems with minimal uncertainty. Typically, obtaining the correct answers to these dynamics problems in our manned space program have life or death consequences for astronauts, so we focus on accuracy, a reasonable/affordable level of conservatism and safety.
To address your remarks quoted, “It seems what matters is the change in atmospheric concentrations and how that impacted temperature. Both measures may well vary greatly over time as the overall system changes.”
Our analysis is exactly to your point of trying to determine how changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations (regardless of source) over time have affected earth surface temperatures over the same period of time. This relationship of atmospheric GHG and surface temperature is generally referred to as a transient response of the climate system that includes effects of all short term climate system feedbacks due to the external radiative forcing of the system by increasing atmospheric GHG levels. The IPCC uses the term Transient Climate Response (TCR) to define the simulated surface warming from a climate model that is forced with a specific profile of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels at the rate of 1 %/yr. TCR does not include longer term climate feedback effects that are postulated to occur in climate simulations seeking the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric for climate sensitivity that are postulated to occur after over 1000 years or more of doubles atmospheric CO2 levels.
We defined a similar metric to TCR that we called Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that is not computed with a climate model, but that was extracted from the physical data measuring the actual surface temperature response to measured rising GHG levels over 163 years from 1850 through 2012. The data from 2013 for both atmospheric GHG levels and earth surface temperature did not materially change the TCS value extracted from the 1850-2012 data period.
As you note, TCR and TCS climate sensitivity are based on a certain period of time for which we have data to guide our current decision on the threat posed by atmospheric GHG, regardless of the source of this GHG. Time to go until a critical level of atmospheric GHG level is predicted is an important factor to be considered in any critical decision made about what to do today. That is, what do we have to do now to monitor this threat, how much time do we have to get smarter about it and develop several possible courses of action to mitigate the threat before making a critical decision on the optimal course of action that maximizes safety and minimizes cost?
I’m not sure what you are referring to in my previous remarks that did not make sense to you.
If I have a critical decision to make now on what actions we should take regarding the atmospheric GHG concern, what is more reliable?: (1) TCS climate sensitivity based on the last 164 years of data where atmospheric GHG levels have been slowly increasing and are forecast to continue to slowly increase for the foreseeable future, or (2) the projections of un-validated models running ECS simulations that have not demonstrated adequate skill to make critical decisions with potentially severe unintended adverse consequences? Climate Sensitivity to atmospheric GHG levels is a critically important factor in assessing the atmospheric GHG threat.
Available data does not indicate that the climate system that responds to atmospheric GHG is changing rapidly as you seem to worry about in your remarks quoted: “Both measures (TCR and TCS) may well vary greatly over time as the overall system changes.” This is speculation on your part that is not supported by available data. The value we extracted for TCS did not change over the 163 years of the data analysis period, indicating that the earth’s climate system did not change significantly (for analysis purposes) during those years.
I say upper-bounded TCS values, based on the last 164 years of climate data to forecast AGW for plausible emissions scenarios over the next 300 years is a conservative, and much more reliable approach than TCR values from un-validated climate models and certainly much more reliable than ECS values computed from the same climate models. However, our EPA is using ECS values (as opposed to TCS values based on physical data or model-obtained TCR values with only half the uncertainty of ECS values computed by the same models) to guide its decisions regarding CO2 emissions regulations. The EPA’s economic justification for CO2 emissions regulations only results from the very high, and highly uncertain AGW projections based on extremely high (> 4.5 deg C postulated statistical values for ECS). This is irresponsible when such high impact threats to our economy are expected to result from impositions of these CO2 emission regulations and much less uncertain AGW projections for the next 300 years can be made using TCS or TCR climate sensitivity values for such projections.
To your point about the source of rising GHG in the atmosphere, there is good evidence to conclude that the slow increase in atmospheric CO2 levels for the past 164 years is primarily related to the increased burning of fossil fuels (anthropogenic) and not natural phenomena. The fact that the atmospheric CO2 increase each year is only about half of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, indicates there are some naturally occurring phenomena in the earth’s eco-system that scavenge a net amount of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, although there are massive ongoing exchanges of CO2 between atmosphere, land and oceans. However, it is the earth’s surface temperature response to those measured increases in atmospheric CO2 levels (regardless of source), the climate sensitivity, that is uncertain, since some of the temperature changes may be due to natural phenomena not related to atmospheric CO2 and other GHG levels. Our analysis approach attempted to sort out what temperature changes could possibly due to rising GHG levels and what changes were due to natural phenomena. We could “fence off” some natural causes identified as a sinusoidal variation in temperature of +/- 0.15 deg C with a period determined to be 62 years, but we could not be confident about the existence or amplitude of a natural 1000 year cycle in earth surface temperature that was observed in proxy temperature data occurring in the 1850 years prior to 1850.
If we attribute some of the long term warming since 1850 to this 1000 year natural climate cycle, then we found a lower value of TCS = 0.8 deg C gave about the same goodness of fit to the temperature data as a combination of no amplitude for the 1000 year cycle and a TCS value of 1.5 deg C. Using the most conservative interpretation of the atmospheric CO2 data and earth surface temperature data, we determined an upper bound for TCS = 1.8 deg C. Any climate sensitivity greater than TCS = 1.8 for use in regulatory decisions is conjecture, not supported by available physical data. We should not be shooting our fragile economy in the stomach (much worse than shooting it in the foot) with CO2 emissions regulations based on outrageous AGW speculation by bureaucrats and political appointees in the Executive Branch assuming ECS values as high as 10 deg C.
Jim Cripwell, I am very sorry to hear your news.
Your wisdom will live on in the archives of Climate, Etc. Thank you for your many contributions to this blogsite. You will know the truth about AGW before the rest of us. My vision of heaven is that I will finally understand the many mysteries of this universe. My prayers are with you.
I’ll put you on my prayer list.
I’m sorry to hear this bad news. I’ve enjoyed your posts!
All my best,
I’m terribly sorry to hear this. A reminder of what’s important in life, Wishing you the best..
I am very sorry to hear your news.
Thank you for all the contributions, to the scientific understanding of the debate.
Science ought to be conducted like a democratic government, where basic assumptions are periodically reviewed by the populace at large, and where deemed necessary, recast. To some extent conventional climate science has become more like a dictatorship, where a limited number decide what is best for the public at large, and that is set in stone. Most practicing scientists, if they feel free to follow their instincts, will “sense” when something no longer “smells” quite right about a scientific paradigm. To subvert this normal and desirable process of the scientific method is to endanger science itself.
See The Right Climate Stuff where ex NASA space shot engineers evaluated global climate models and found them wanting.
Hmm,the Tobacco Institute says that smioking is OK.
Let’s ‘explore the controversy’!!
Gimme a break.
Yeah California’s prop 8 says you’re okay too. Go figure.
Terrible argument Michael. But nice try. The greens have all the money, and you damn well know it.
I couldn’t figure out whether to put this in the philosophy post or this one, so I just went with the most recent post. I am skeptical because this article only characterizes conservatives and basically paints them as little more than a modern day Fred Flintstone. So for those of you who love to wax philosophic on how we know what we know, do you believe these guys actually know any more than when they began the study? I don’t think I do.
From the article:
Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics.
That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway)
In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.
The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. “One possibility,” they write, “is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene,” when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed. (The Pleistocene epoch lasted from roughly 2.5 million years ago until 12,000 years ago.) We had John Hibbing on the Inquiring Minds podcast earlier this year, and he discussed these ideas in depth; you can listen here:
I think this is hog wash.
So if conservatives are the ones who are hyper-vigilant WRT threats; why is it that liberals tend to be the ones running around, hands waving over their heads, screaming that we are going to fry because of ACO2?
I would urge you to read Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012)” for a more comprehensive treatment of these ideas. He claims that the conservatives tend to have a more balanced set of values than do the liberals or progressives.
Consensus climate science and consensus climate scientists have become pawns of the Green movement’s overarching desire to destroy the world economy and prevent development. For the most part the mainstream media have been co-opted by the Greens (look at BBC as well as any US TV network).
Thank goodness for the work of Nigel Lawson and the GWPF and the Heritage Foundationtion’s NIPCC.
“…journals dealing with paleo-issues are more important for the contrarian report.”
Is it the difference one of historical weighting? Sometimes there is a focus on the now. We have to act soon. This is unprecedented. Where do we gain our insight from, the past or the now?
Hansen I gather had his early sensitivity work almost canonized. I am not saying by him as I don’t know. Now we have our answer. But an historical perspective would tell us there are more answers to come.
I remember once being told how a city was to give money away to attract downtown businesses, who would then pay a lot of property taxes that would lower my property taxes. History reminds us that we’ve been pitched many great ideas by authorities that didn’t pan out. So when we are told, now things are different, it just reminds us of the past.
A primary reason for paleo emphasis was to correct Mann’s Hockey stick where he tried to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period by the flat handle etc.
See Chapter 4: Temperature
4.1.3 Potential Problems with Climate Proxies
4.2 The Non-Uniqueness of Current Temperatures
4.2.1 The Warmth of Prior Interglacial Climates
4.2.2 A Global Medieval Warm Period
4.2.3 Prior Warm Periods in Northern Hemisphere
I don’t rind the NPCC report surprising. In the hundreds of blogs I have made in these columns, I have never labelled myself a denier, nor a skeptic. That is because I agree with many of the conclusions of the IPCC reports. For example, I agree that anthroprogenic global warming has occurred, but is limited in both time and magnitude to be far less of a threat than the IPCC proposed, This difference is largely because the IPCC failed to recognise the on/off nature of climate change and that failure to the 1940 singularity which was largely below the IPCC’s horizon. Unfortunately the mathematical models which are the real meat in the debate have never been transparent to the public view. So the debate has proceeded in almost a vacuum. In the quotes provided by our mentor there seems to be no review by the NPCC of the 20 or so mathematical climate models supported by the IOCC.
… ‘failed to recognize’ or did the UN purposefully participate in a knowing deception to eliminate history because they were motivated by hatred of America are to this day blinded to the demonstrable failure of Leftist ideology in the real world.
See Climate Change Reconsidered: II
Chapter 1: Global Climate Models and Their Limitations
Errata Links: NIPCC Reports
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
there seems to be no review by the NPCC of the 20 or so mathematical climate models supported by the IOCC. [Sic}
When Model Output does not match real data, there is no need for additional review. Flawed is flawed!
Let’s see. IPCC AR5 WG1 report had 800 authors and 1000 reviewers = 1800 total. NIPCC “equivalent” report seems to be the work of 50 people tops. 1800/1850=0.97, so 97% of total report participants worked on AR5 WG1. Hmmm. Where have we seen that number before?
= Logical fallacy of appeals to authority and popularity.
In other words, many many of the best qualified people saying the same thing.
i.e., the lemming effect aka “Type B Measurement Uncertainty
Thank you, David Hagen, for your table of contents of a relevant document. If I can bring up its contents, I’ll study it. It is refreshing that there is some paper on the models. What do you think of their work? Do they explain the reasons for their decisions? Are the models truly independent? If so, why have 20 when one good validated one would do?
Alexander Biggs FYI NIPCC Document links:
Climate Change Reconsidered II
Chapter 1 Models
Chapter 4. Observations: Temperature
The IPCC might want to consider halving their number of authors and reviewers.
I think Lindzen said.. the brightest people don’t go into climate science
Lindzen was asked what he thought of the “consensus” – at which point he got his manicured claws out:
“I think the majority of people working in climate science will go with the view that climate science is serious. I don’t think that would be surprising to anyone. There are very few people in any scientific field who say ‘My field is not serious’. Other than that there is so much penalty for saying that this is not an important problem that I don’t think people would go out on that limb, either.”
He went on:
“I’ve asked very frequently at universities: ‘Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate […or meteorology or oceanography…]?’ And the answer is usually ‘No one.’”
Here’s one very bright person who went into climate science – Tim Palmer receives the prestigious Dirac Award for physics
Tim Palmer. The exception that proves the rule. Classic.
Talking about bright, Lindzen, Pielke, Lewis and Curry, seemed to have stayed well clear of the NIPCC report whose author numbers are partly made up by economists and consultants, and that is for the physical science report. They could have done with some help.
I don’t know how anyone can really judge whether or not someone is bright. It is completely subjective. I would also suspect that even the brightest could have their blindspots. Further, it seems to me that climate science would be very appealing intellectually speaking? I did read some of Lindzen and he seemed fairly bright he must be grumpy as well.
“I think Lindzen said.. the brightest people don’t go into climate science”
no he didnt. he said, of the brightest people he knew.
he doesnt get out much
Harvard/MIT wonderkind science professor needs to get out more. Precious.
I suppose if he got out more he’d give the two ignominious flash-in-the-pan uncredentialed inexperienced authors of CRUTape Letters the props they so righteously deserve, huh?
the brightest people don’t go into climate science
The brightest people are always skeptical.
The consensus Climate Clique does not allow skeptical people in.
Sometimes they get in anyway, but they often get kicked out because they are not allowed to disagree and stay in.
popesclimatetheory | July 18, 2014 at 2:32 am |
“the brightest people don’t go into climate science”
Sad – we have people who can barely tie their shoe-laces becoming climate ‘scientists’ and the super-genius ‘polymaths’ spend their time saying stupid things on blogs.
The world is a crazy place!
Tim Palmer’s award: ““for the development of probabilistic weather and climate prediction systems.””
A critically important field for coupled nonlinear chaotic systems with little comprehensive historic data –
The field which as barely been explored due to deterministic global warming model hubris.
That is also studied by D. Koutsoyiannis et al.
wasnt even openly reviewed. process wise its garbage.
Lack of open review makes it garbage. Well, there go the climate journals in general. Not to mention the GCMs, paleo-climate, the primary temp reports and most of the rest of the scientific literature in other disciplines.
A small fee of $1500 could have gotten the NIPCC paper reviewed and published in one of those pay-for-play journals-of-last-resort. Process wise that’s checking the box. Ain’t it, Steven?
Quick somebody pass Mosher the Aloe Vera gel because he’s been BURNED!
Seriously Mosher, don’t you ever get tired of playing the dumbass with delusions of expertise in STEM subjects?
I agree. Process wise. It leaves an obvious reason for people to dismiss it. Steven, have you read it (I have only skimmed the beginning of it)? Is it an honest attempt? Do they more references and from differing view points? That is the most important thing.
‘I agree. Process wise. It leaves an obvious reason for people to dismiss it. Steven, have you read it (I have only skimmed the beginning of it)? Is it an honest attempt? Do they more references and from differing view points? That is the most important thing.”
1. Yes I read it.
2. I focused on the Areas Im published in
In that section the main author McKittrick continued to quote his own papers on UHI when he knows that there are material errors in his data handling. I’ve pointed these errors out here and to him personally.
The chapter is a joke. They did not open it up to outside review.
“I agree. Process wise. It leaves an obvious reason for people to dismiss it. Steven, have you read it (I have only skimmed the beginning of it)? Is it an honest attempt? Do they more references and from differing view points? That is the most important thing.”
Check out the chapter on observations.
They are still thumping the white paint on stevenson screens garbage,
people forget that Anthony did a field test on this.. unpublished
now, long forgotten……
It seems kind of cold to accuse Ross M. of knowingly citing papers that contain alleged material errors. Could it be that Ross doesn’t agree that the errors you informed him of are actually errors? Could it be that Ross is not as impressed with your credentials as you are?
Are you still proud to have the papers you assisted on published in a pay-for-play journal in the notorious OMICS stable of pay-for-play journals:
It kinda looks like the Geoinformatics and Geostatistics journal is defunct. Their website doesn’t show any publications since December, 2013. Since their first inaugural in December, 2012, they published 16 articles. The BEST group were the authors on 4 of the 16. Did BEST pay for any of those 4 articles to be published? If not, why not?
==> “It seems kind of cold to accuse Ross M. of knowingly citing papers that contain alleged material errors. Could it be that Ross doesn’t agree that the errors you informed him of are actually errors? Could it be that Ross is not as impressed with your credentials as you are?”
This from a “skeptic” who presumably decries “appeal to authority.”
I love “skeptics.”
More BS from Mr. Mosher. Dr. McKitrick already responded to these claims in this paper:
It seems like Mr. Mosher does not do his homework.
@Jim D – Every time you turn on an insurance commercial you see that figure. Are you now contending that insurance commercials are science?
In a way they are. They have found that psychologically, people will buy a figure of 97% as being “everyone”, but not 100%. So they always make the unfounded claim, based upon bogus numbers, to play with the psyches of people.
So where else do you see that being done?
AU Carbon tax is gone: Repeal bills pass the Senate 39 to 32
I’ll bet even Faustino is an Aussie today.
Al Gore is disappointed.
One thing that strikes me as missing from this analysis is that it appears to overlook the fact that – notwithstanding (lame-duck) IPCC Chair Pachauri’s ignorant claim to the contrary – the IPCC is, in effect, a (creation and) “grandchild” of the United Nations.
In particular, the IPCC is a “child” of the ever-expanding, self-glorifying – and 'do as we say, but not as we do' – never-chartered United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
The mileage of others may well vary, but when I see text such as:
purportedly emanating from the keyboard of UN head honcho, Ban Ki-Moon’s newly (i.e. July 15) appointed “Special Envoy on Climate Change” [see: http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/un-secretary-general-appoints-special-envoy-on-climate-change/ for details] … then I believe that proponents and practitioners of “climate science” (of all stripes) have far more to worry about than NIPCC vs IPCC.
The bureacracy replicating itself. Lovely!
Child of the UNEP?
‘A freckled whelp hag-born – not honour’d with
A human shape.’
‘The Tempest ‘ Act 1 Scene 11
It’s all about social justice and “for the children” don’tcha know.
“Taking a climate justice approach to climate change means you respect human rights.”
This is the philosophical rot that I was talking about. I wonder how many of you here know how to interpret this? Do you just ignore it as the babbling chatter of a bureaucrat? Do you have any inkling of how Orwellian this rhetoric is? Any idea of what it is attempting to introduce into the world? Do you know what philosophical principles are needed to combat the insidious set of ideas under girding this rhetoric? Do you think you can ignore this and it will simply go away? Do you care?
The last thing the UN cares about when it speaks of ‘human rights’ is individual rights. It is collectivism from a world body that the US underwrites with money borrowed from China whose bill is being passed on to the unborn.
This is a far worse threat to freedom and prosperity than CO2 could ever hope to be. Should we just ignore it and hope for the best?
I’d appreciate clarification of their opinions, from Dr. Curry and others: Is the NIPCC actually trying to do science? Do they have any chance of matching the qualifications and depth of those on the IPCC? Or is it just a political maneuver to dispel the notion of a “consensus”?
In my question, I am ignoring the obvious very political nature of the IPCC, to take note of the obvious scientific qualifications of the IPCC. I want to know if the NIPCC can match both aspects, or just the politics.
Do they have any chance of matching the qualifications and depth of those on the IPCC?
Have you read about who the lead writers of the IPCC junk are. No one would want to match the lack of qualifications and lack of depth there.
The people who contribute to the IPCC, who do have qualifications and depth are ignored. Many have left and told or wrote about the sad state of the IPCC.
go to heartland.org and listen to the many presenters who are part of the NIPCC and read about their qualifications.
The most important qualification they all have is they are still skeptical. Real Scientists are always Skeptical. The Consensus People have lost that and they are not really Scientists, if they ever were.
Is the NIPCC actually trying to do science?
Yes, they are still skeptical. That is how Science happens, skeptical people try to find answers.
No. Yes. No.
Niether are have anything to do with science other than reviewing literature for making policy recommendations. The NIPCC simply show a more rational response to what expectations, risk, and uncertainty.
“First, it is very good to see the sociology of climate science moving away from the the reflexive defense of the consensensus position (e.g. the social psychology of deniers), to take a serious look at the climate controversy.”
As a “denier” (your term not mine) I suggest you skip all the “social psychology of deniers” BS and cut to the core of the topic.
The climate science community has made EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS: IE we know what the average temperature of the Earth will be in 2100.
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS require EXTRAORDINARY PROOF, and so far the climate science community has; NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, NOTHING….
So how about the deniers give the climate science community a “fresh start”, let’s say we give you a few years to “start over from scratch” and tell us what the average temperature of the Earth will be in say 2020 (six years to clean up your act seems more than fair). Then, IF AND ONLY IF the climate science community is within plus or minus 1/2 degree F, we will consider giving you another decade (with reduced funding, say 10% of the money wasted so far) to see if your predictive skills can last for another whole decade.
Then in 2030, if the errors between reality and the predictions are more than plus or minus one half degree I say we “call the whole thing off” and simply give up on predicting the weather decades from now.
Seems fair, the climate science community claims to be able to predict the weather decades in advance, so here is the chance to “put up, or shut up”.
And 2030 is long enough so folks that picked “predicting the weather decades from now” as a career choice can “reconsider” and find something else useful to do with their skills.
“social psychology of deniers”, WHAT TOTAL CLAPTRAP…..
The climate science community started this whole; “We understand and can predict the climate” STUFF, it is fully on your shoulders to PROVE IT, or else SHUT UP. So far your are not scoring very well.
you dont understand what science does.
let’s see if I can help
name the dude who said this
“Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, “Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.” It is just more likely. That is all.”
I am, therefore I must be:
Let’s put it a different way, is cagw or even agw sufficiently likely to justify onerous legislation that is likely to cause economic harm, or, is it more likely that if we promote the use of abundant, affordable, and reliable energy (fossil fuels) that we will have the economic base to continue strengthening our inftastructure to help us adapt to an ever changing climate?
Steven Mosher | July 18, 2014 at 12:20 am | Reply
“you dont understand what science does.”
And you do?
Haha. This coming from a guy who peddles squiggly line drawings.
How about proof (evidence is a better word) that the models have a track record of making accurate projections? Not absolute proof.
No, Mosher, YOU are the one who doesn’t understand science. Yes, it is generally impossible to prove a negative – “prove flying saucers don’t exist”. I am with you on that. But your activist position and constant snark in support of the IPCC frauds makes it clear where you stand on their political demands that ‘looming global catastrophe REQUIRES the Almighty State to ration energy’.
REAL scientists follow the Scientific Method. Their work can be replicated (or falsified) by independent reseachers because they make available their data and algorithms. “Climate scientists” REFUSE to do so. They claim “credentials” and “position” are the only qualifications necessary to be a scientist. They claim to have such precise understanding of climate dynamics that they KNOW exactly what the Earth’s temperature has been and will be – to a tenth of a degree.
Steve McIntyre long ago asked for an “engineering level” explanation of CAGW. He has never recieved it, and never will. The C in CAGW requires that the Earth’s climate is dynamically unstable in response to temperature perturbations.
Temperature perturbations from any source, whether a change in solar insolation, heat release from ocean depths, volcanos, CO2 increases, etc. All turned into CAGW by the water vapor increase-temperature increase-water vapor increase, etc., etc. “positive feedback” hypothesis. If that were true, we would have seen the “seas boil” (per James Hansen) during the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. Or turned into a real Ice Age during the Little Ice Age. There is no honest justification for the draconian political policies of the warmists.
I bought your book several years ago, and I thought you understood the difference between real scientists and “climate scientists”. I’m merely an engineer with a fair understanding of controls engineering and an admiration for those who follow the Scientific Method – wherever it leads. I’m sorry I misunderstood you.
is see none of you figured out who said this.
Feynman explains that science is not about Proof.
Feynman spins in his grave
It was obvious it was Feynman.
Feynman is spinning in his grave over the anti-science of CAGW.
Don’t pay any attention to Mosher. You are correct. Climate scientists have to provide proof. We with science degrees know what this means.
PSST.. That’s Feynman’s quote
I thought you were ignoring me, Mosher? Anyway, while there is no such thing as absolute proof, to which you refer but don’t specify, there are standards of proof in the practice of science.
1. A controlled experiment, well designed and replicated. Also, with some agreement in the field, eventually, that the experiment did prove something.
2. A lesser degree of proof, but still proof, achieved by a prediction followed by observation which either confirms or denies the prediction.
This second sort of proof would apply to climate science. Like astronomers or cosmologists don’t have a second universe to use as a control, climate scientists don’t have a second Solar system to use.
Black holes were predicted to exist by theory. One prediction was that one should observe gravitational lensing in the vicinity of a black hole. Observations were undertaken and such lensing was observed, supplying an element of proof.
You are being sloppy when you harp about proof. And your continual claims proof doesn’t exist appears to me to be an attempt at obfuscation.
standards of proof.
I’ll stick with feynman on this one.
If you want to redefine the word “proof” ( cant be wrong) to cover science, then have your way humpty dumpty
Mosher – no amount of waffling on what proof is can save the climate models. Real scientists do have standards of proof. And they know what they consider proof isn’t absolute proof. Feynman would have no issue with this.
Fortunately, scientists don’t care what Mosher thinks about their standards of proof.
“…are there specific sub-fields in climate science?”
It would be nice if enthusiasts of the miasma-enveloped swamp called “climate science” would stop referring to areas of more solid knowledge as “sub-fields” of their swamp.
If you do research in geology, physics, chemistry or any number of other disciplines, you are a scientist. If you want to be a “Climate Scientist,” all you have to do is toe the consensus line, find some basis for arguing that you have found out that “it’s worse than we thought,” and submit your grant request.
I think you get the secret decoder ring with your first grant.
“Should we take the ‘contrarians’ and their arguments seriously or not?”
Well have contrarians ever been correct? Yes – all the time!
By contrast have the consensus ever managed to be correct? Not yet!
I have personally predicted the drop-off in hurricanes after 2005, the recovery of the Actic sea-ice after the sudden drop, the finding that corals are suffereing because of fishing (not warmer waters), the current plateau in temperatures, the financial crash, the stabilisation of the oil price at $100 and many more. It just so happens that contrarians turn out to be correct a lot; because they believe in observations and logic rather than opinions and unproven models.
If contrarian economists had been listened to then the financial crisis could have been averted. Also contrarian scientists are responsible for many huge leaps forward in science. Should we have listened to the consensus of doctors who refused to wash their hands, or who thought that malaria was from bad air? etc, etc.
Unfortunately the wisdom of crowds often gives way to the madness of crowds due to cognitive dissonance. Climate science is only one of many fields that have suffered from massive hubris but it became important only because it affects our energy supply policy. And as Christy truly says; “life without energy is brutal and short”. I have been a lifelong supporter of alternative fuel tech and I’m still working on nuclear fusion tech. but I am forced to acknowledge that fossil fuels are still the best options yet. We should start from that simple truth and work back the way if we want to avoid rancour. It isn’t like the tobacco industry story: We don’t actually need tobacco!
With your record of prediction can you tell me if the Orioles are going to win the World Series?
@TimG56 – The Orioles will win the World Series. I have predicted it.
That noise you hear is Karl Popper spinning in his grave.
There are many highly prominent Conservatives who are concerned about Global Warming. They include every Republican President EPA Administrator, Michael Gerson (Washington Post), David Brooks (N.Y. Times), Rod Dreher (American Conservative Magazine), Andrew Sullivan — to name just a few. Unlike the radical Tea Party rhetoric that dominates this Blog, many Conservatives don’t believe everything is a “Liberal Conspiracy Theory”. And for the Bloggers who invoke religion and “Christian Values and Beliefs” into the Global Warming debate — there is a phrase for you: “Worst Persons in the World”.
Thanks for that proof-less rant, Stephen.
I’m sorry you have ADD and I need to always re-post this OP/ED and Congressional testimony from EPA Administrators from Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush ( Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly, Whitman): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0
Thanks, for that link Stephen. I must say I’m truly impressed by that testimony from two lawyers, as psychologist, and someone with a degree in government. Truly.
Jim2 — You and others continue to miss the point. Global Warming isn’t the “Liberal Agenda” you and others always blog about. There are Conservatives who are concerned about this also. Maybe these EPA Administrators are right on the science, maybe they’re wrong — But they are Conservatives.
No Segrest – they are Republican. You have not provided any evidence they are conservative.
Stephen – the real point is a big so what? There are likely prominent liberals who are skeptical as well – the most prominent I can think of off the top is Patrick Moore of Greenpeace fame. And frankly, I tend to give more credence to those who have come over to the “dark” side given the level of acrimony that comes from the left when someone goes off the reservation.
Well, Stephen, my impression is that more prominent liberals continually call for “action” on global warming than conservatives.
How many of these NGOs that advocate “action” on global warming are essentially conservative?
The only reason the US is reducing emissions is because of the groundwork laid by conservatives to promote the natural gas revolution in face of liberal opposition.
Meanwhile, the left has spent 20 years trying to use the issue to justify taxes and redistribution.
Conservatives look for ways to solve problems. Liberals look for ways to take advantage of them.
Sorry, I didn’t post the NGO link.
I agree with Barnes – so what? There are a considerable number of commenters here that politically would not consider themselves conservatives.
jim2 — The question continues to be: Can you be a Conservative and yet believe that GW is occurring? Many on this Blog say NO! Its a litmus test for Conservatism.
Do you believe that Jon Huntsman was treated fairly by the Tea Party on his position on GW? All he said was he believed it is occurring. I know of no exact policy positions he took (although he did allude to addressing GW through international trade which he’s really big on).
Gov. Huntsman had one of the most comprehensive conservative voting records of any of the GOP candidates in the 2012 primaries.
Are Al Gore and Jon Huntsman both “Liberals” with the difference only the degree of their liberalism?
I believe that in today’s ideological toxic world, President Reagan would be labeled “Liberal” by his actions on ozone depletion (which Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute still believe is “unproven science” and that President Reagan’s action was wrong).
@Stephen Segrest – I am not one that you categorize as “being conservative and not believe in GW” (Actually AGW). However, the proposed solutions to date, which all have the characteristic of being ineffectual, government centric, and expensive are NOT conservative.
Huntsman did have some liberal-leaning ideas now that you bring it up. I still contend most people in the extreme environmental movements like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and many of the environmental NGOs, the people who tend to be against fracking, against nuclear power, and against genetically modified food plants are liberal. Sorry, but that’s the way I see things. Just because you can cherry pick an occasional conservative or RINO who believes in CATASTROPHIC global warming, not merely that the Earth has warmed, is meaningless.
Useful tip for Stephen Segrest: Ideological labels are affixed as the result of policy positions and philosophies taken by a person. If you take conservative positions, you are conservative. Policy positions do not take on ideological coloration based on the people who adhere to them, people whom you suppose are somehow “essentially” conservative or liberal. That kind of essentialism is a fundamental philosophical error.
I have some friends that are ‘concerned’ about global warming.
Strangely, they are ones who have moved from 1. Alaska and 2. Upstate New York to enjoy life in the US Southwest desert. Lost on them, of course, is that they’ve induced much greater ‘climate change’ by moving than will ever occur from CO2.
People lack perspective.
You wrote- “Bloggers who invoke religion and “Christian Values and Beliefs” into the Global Warming debate — there is a phrase for you: “Worst Persons in the World”.”
You must not travel around the world or read what is happening around the world to write such a statement or remotely believe they are the worst persons in the world.
Your post really means nothing.
Go make a list of highly prominent Democrats who disagree with something.
Your comment about religion is gratuitous and pointless.
Jeffn — I am Conservative (albeit a RINO to Tea Party types). I believe GW is occurring but don’t really have a clue as to magnitude and timing. I hate the concept of a carbon tax. Any way you slice or dice it, it is a regressive tax. Cap and trade would be another derivative financial toy for Wall St. to manipulate.
Being concerned about GW (and trying to learn some science on Dr. Curry’s Blog) doesn’t mean that I or other Conservatives “buy-in” to a “Liberal Agenda”.
Let’s talk science and economics on this Blog and stop making GW a “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” battle.
“I believe GW is occurring but don’t really have a clue as to magnitude and timing.”
Why do you believe it at all then? Sounds strictly appeal to authority to me. A conservative is dubious of such claims as GW, especially if they are coming from gubmint agencies.
Bad Andrew — If I had to explain in a simple blog post it would be Dr. Molina’s question: Is it a bad idea to take a trajectory course to +800 ppm? Dr. Molina says its a bad idea and I agree.
“Dr. Molina says…”
I rest my case.
A much better framing of your point.
Stephen, you said:
“Let’s talk science and economics on this Blog and stop making GW a “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” battle.”
“GW” is a battle between wishfulness and concrete empiricism.
So, you want to talk science and economics while ignoring philosophy?
How do you talk science and economics while ignoring the ideas they are founded in? I can understand a discussion of the physics of CO2 without reference to the philosophy of science but as soon as you start talking about the implications of the ‘science’ for policy, you are in an area where your philosophical assumptions will guide your thinking. How do you avoid that?
Steven Mosher wrote
you dont understand what science does.”
And yet politicians are saying exactly that science KNOWS what the climate is up to, that among all rational people THE DEBATE IS OVER, and that all of mankind must submit to the directives of a few unelected leaders or we will soon suffer huge consequences.
Scientists who are honestly working away in an attempt to truly understand how this all works should become more vocal about the real state of the science.
“And yet politicians are saying exactly that science KNOWS what the climate is up to, that among all rational people THE DEBATE IS OVER, and that all of mankind must submit to the directives of a few unelected leaders or we will soon suffer huge consequences.”
so a skeptic says something stupid and your response is to say that he is no more stupid than politicians.
and yes the debate is over. Obama has a pen and a phone.
republicans had their chance to offer a no regrets response to climate change. But, they squandered that chance by playing the denial game.
it is simple.
The left will manufacture a crisis to push an agenda.
you have two choices. deny the crisis or flip the crisis to your own advantage.
Libertarian groups like R tret get this
My response was not party specific as it was intended to reflect a worldwide picture of where we are.
Today, anyone skeptical of the more expensive directives is at a double-disadvantage. (For the purpose of this post, ignore the fact that many of these proposals destroy vast amounts of wealth for all and delay the incredible productivity gains and population growth reductions of electrification for billions.)
First, skeptics are often in the camp of “stay the course” which seems to some to be a “do-nothing” stance. The medical profession has relearned the value of such caution and coined the term “watchful waiting”.
Secondly they are pilloried by a MSM, which never let its appalling lack of technical expertise get in the way of forming and advocating an agenda in technical arenas.
Your work at BEST is certainly serious-minded. However, the body of work “only” reaches back 250 years, and the error bands from the 18th century extend to within a few tenths of a degree K of your temperature for the past decade. The period from about 1820 to about 1940 show about 1 degree rise in temperature and several earlier periods show rates of increase very similar to the late 20th century, with total amplitude of 70-80% of the “post CO2” period jump. As I see it, for a vast and complex natural system the graph from about 1820 to to present is strikingly constant, with only one significant anomalous pause from the 1940s-1960s.
So certainly there is plenty of room for conjecture as to the “control knob”, long before the follow-on discussions of how best to proceed for optimum result. And that assumes that BRICS will follow follow any prescribed course of action…. not likely.
Australia’s rejection of the carbon tax yesterday exposes the weakness of the plan hatched by the Eurocommies to effect an the economic paradigm shift away from affordable energy: the US may also decide not to commit economic suicide and then… academia might start looking for and reporting the real facts.
Always inventing new words to manipulate the public with more effective government-funded propaganda the soulless mainstream Left of Western civilization is sliding away from referring to CO2 a poison: from now on it will be called a, “climate pollutant.”
The EU’s carbon tax pyramid scheme was pretty much already on life support when the countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia refused to join up (many Arab states actually subsidize the use of fossil fuels–e.g., Iran). But, when participants like Australia abandon the dog and pony show altogether, like fleeing a burning building, the jig is up!
A previous note from Climate Etc’s Team Denialism:
This is a meme commonly promulgated by NIPCC-affiliated denialists and demagogues. But is it true?
STEP 1 Climate Etc readers are invited to ponder (for themselves!) “Nature as an Ally: An Interview with Wendell Berry“
STEP 2 Climate Etc readers are invited to ponder (for themselves!) the IPCC’s immense success in catalyzing follow-on work by well-balanced teams of religious and political leaders, historians, economists, technologists, scientists, and even pholosophers.
The IPCC’s success is *VERY* impressive, eh Climate Etc readers?
STEP 3 Climate Etc readers are invited to ponder (for themselves!) the NIPCC’s utter failure in catalyzing follow-on work (as documented by Naomi Oreskes’ plenary lecture “Scientific Consensus and the Role and Character of Scientific Dissent“).
The NIPCC’s utter failure is *VERY* notable, eh Climate Etc readers?
QUESTION How-and-why is the IPCC succeeding so notably, where the NIPCC is failing so utterly?
Especially with young researchers and young voters?
The world wonders!
yet again you demonstrate that you have no interest in or capability for reasoned, fair-minded discussion.
Not only is your screed above unresponsive to my point, but by malicious thread-hopping and tearing the matter away from its original context you conflate and confuse very different matters. This is typical of your odd imbecility.
I was not responding to your comments and linked texts above, since (obviously) they had not yet appeared.
What I commented upon (which you appear unable or unwilling to defend) is the list you quoted from Berry regarding 9 requirements for acceptable technological innovations. Number 9 alone, before even considering 1-8, will rule out vast numbers of innovations, arguably ALL that have any significant human impacts (no matter how much anyone may prefer or value some new innovation, it is simply not allowed if it can “replace or disrupt” anything good). Not even the “better” is allowed to displace anything previously thought of as “good”):
Ban entirely the “industrial revolution” and everything that followed, for it is impossible to have any widespread economic and technological changes without violating Berry’s #9.
That, FOMbs, is something that should be obvious to *EVERYONE* …. eh?
Even a crank fanatic like FOMT should be able to see that Berry’s “anything” (in his #9) implies….. ANYTHING. As in …. any…..thing…..
Climate Etc readers are invited to consider for themselves whether Berry’s well-respected humility, humor, and tolerance suffice to address Skiphill’s concerns.
FOMD…I think one would be hard pressed to find any more idiotic advice about how to live than the sophomoric, vacuous, fatuous nonsense of Wendell Berry. Perhaps Paul Erlich.
You should try reading Julian Simon, Thomas Sowell, Frederic Bastiat, Richard Epstein among many who have a grasp of life that doesn’t require people to shoot themselves in the foot nor march backwards in timie to attain a decent life.
I think one needs to be rather careful about the claims — Speaking of “sources” it appears that the IPCC has some very serious problems in this regard, as exposed by Donna Laframboise:
Donna Lamframboise exposes the IPCC [text] —
IPCC Exposed by Donna Laframboise Part 1[video]
IPCC Exposed by Donna Laframboise Part 2 [video]
IPCC Exposed by Donna Laframboise Part 3 [video]
IPCC Exposed by Donna Laframboise Part 4 [video]
So where is the evidence to accept the statement, “Thus, we should reject the assumption that the reference list of CCR (NIPCC) would differ markedly from that of the IPCC report.” ? Without such evidence plus Laframboise evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe the claim.
“The paper reminds us that such assessment reports are a means of politicization of science.”
That is but a surface issue. The politicization of climate science stems from the obvious facts that (a) it it politically financed, and (b) its financier has a vested interest in the outcome (alarmism means more taxes etc).
The IPCC falls into the same vested interest category, since everyone who works there is on government money too.
Though there are of course a handful of exceptions.
At the National Weather Service, they have employed a format in their Technical Discussion product where, in addition to their reasoning behind the projections/forecast out the next 7 days, they also include a specific section that presents confidence levels and (briefly) “alternative scenarios”.
Case in point, but you should be able to find it for most/all NWS Discussions across the country:
Why is it that presenting alternate scenarios to help fully describe risks for those who need to manage it makes a stronger product even in the 24-48 hour period, and yet is criticized and encouraged to be omitted when it comes to projections of the 24-48 “years” period? Seems to me if they can cobble together a scientific ‘alternative scenarios’ or perhaps even a ‘dissent’ section on these things it could still get the main thrust together for risk / policy managers, with credibility no less. Otherwise, why bother with alternative scenarios in the first place?
I think it would be up to the skeptics to produce this “alternative scenario” because only they know their alternative physics that would produce it.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.’ TAR 184.108.40.206
There is a core of valid science – but reality is not the strong suite of space cadets like Jimmy Dee..
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?