Abstract: (pdf)
An online poll of scientists’ opinions shows that, while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and with the largest group supporting the IPCC report, there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC’s WG1.
Claims that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing, or that ‘the science is more or less settled’, are found to be false in our survey. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.
More here (pdf) – Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Chnge;
While there have been some statistically significant minor improvements over the years the data suggests that the scientific community do not perceive the models to be the truth machine as often portrayed in the media. On the contrary, climate scientists seem all too aware of the limitations of climate models, demonstrating a minimal amount of faith in the output when if comes to making either long term or short term predictions.
page 7:
The purpose of this report has been to point out some of the controversy surrounding the survey of climate scientists and to high light some of the findings that have added to the controversy (and some that have not). Figures 31 to 100 (Appendix B) allow for the exploration of some of these issues in greater detail, with figures 69 – 100 pertaining to questions asked only on the 2003 survey. As the data seems to suggest, the matter is far from being settled in the scientific arena.
psssst..I think they’re onto us Al…better crank down the hysteria a notch or two before they yank our funding.
The biggist amount of HOT AIR comes from the mouths of AL GORE and the wackos from GREENPEACE and various eco-wacko groups if they realy want to curb it i suggest they have a special mask to wear over their mouths that filters it into a coforful balloon then its UP UP AND AWAY IN MY BUFIFUL BALLOON.SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Great Global Warming Swindle by next Wednesday? My son has come home from school this last week and told me his class has been shown an inconvenient truth and another pro AGW movie, the name escapes me. I’m going to parent teacher interviews next Wednesday and going to demand this teacher show the movie TGGWS. My son also told me several kids in his class were getting scared (he’s in grade 5) when algore was explaining how the world was going to flood. I’m pissed off and my sons teacher is going to get an ear full next Wednesday. Thanks to anyone who can help.
I remember once upon a time in about 1994-ish when I went to the American College of Physicians (ACP) annual conference in Philly. There was presented, by the vice president of the ACP, a paper which concluded that doctors were -for- gun control.
It is worth noting that the ACP publishes the medical guidelines that we all get treated by. They are also the home of “evidence based medicine”, wherein guidelines are developed using only the results of scientifically sound research. They have a whole network of people who vet this stuff, and they are very good at weeding out the crap to find the gold.
Yet, here’s this big cheese lady doctor, nice red dress and all, standing up in front of a whole conference saying this crap. I say crap because the questionnaire for the study was like a textbook on how to lie with charts. My favorite question was “Do you support the sale of plastic guns that cannot be detected by airport security?”
At the end I walk up, congratulate the nice lady on a fine speech, and then ask her “You know there’s no such thing as a plastic gun that doesn’t show up on a metal detector, right?”
Well, she had NOT known that before she started giving that presentation around the country but sure as hell had been told since, and was I going to freak out at her like the last bunch?
Seems there was some “spirited” disagreement among doctors on the subject. She was surprised.
She then opined that she has been roped in to giving the presentation and was going to choke the idiots that had done the roping. I said that sounded like a fine idea, offered to hold them while she hit them ~:D and left her to the tender mercies of the next guy in line. I believe he asked her “You know there’s no such thing as a plastic gun, right?”
Point being, you don’t see the VP of the ACP giving speeches supporting gun control these days, even though the UN continues flogging the eroded skeleton of this dead horse.
You will no doubt see the VP of the ACP and other such institutions talking about global warming and the impact it will have on medicine. If this fad stays on glide path you won’t be seeing that in another couple of years, because the US Congress will have yanked funding for all these climate weenies.
The IPCC will keep beating the corpse until it turns to dust, of course. UN is like that.
Very interesting. Even with highly questionable sampling methods, one finds the following results across the two survey:
– “No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%]” Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– As many believe that the IPCC underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 on AGW as overestimates. Both are in the minority. Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– Nevertheless, the relative majority of respondents concur with the IPCC’s position on the matter. Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– “Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.” Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 65% agree or strongly agree that “we can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.” Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 53% somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes” (compared to 29% who somewhat disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree). Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 78% somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree that “we can say for certain that, without change in human behavior, global warming will definitely occur some time in the future” (compared to 13% who somewhat disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree). Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 64% are favourable towards the statement that “the IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community” (compared to 18% unfavourable). Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 73% are favourable towards the statement that “the IPCC reports are of great use to the advancement of climate science” (compared to 13% unfavourable). Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 34% say that the media provides “too much coverage of the claims of skeptical scientists who dispute the IPCC consensus” (compared to 23% who say “too little.” Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
– 15% somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree that “there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions” (compared to 80% who somewhat disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree). Which directly contradicts at least several SDA readers’ opinions.
So, while you are correct that there is no literal consensus, it remains true that the majority believes that human activity does contribute to the problem, that we hear too much from the skeptics, and that immediate ameliorative/preventative actions are justified. All of which directly contradicts SDA’s views on climate change science.
“So, while you are correct that there is no literal consensus, it remains true that the majority believes that human activity does contribute to the problem”
Solid science is NOT based in “beliefs” and this is all AGW “believers” have: a theoretical belief unsupported bt conclusive uncontestable data…it is also the faith-based certainty of the AGW cult which SDA posters mock…and rightfully so.
Kate: Wow, I didn’t think you would post this, but thanks very much for doing so. I was going to post on the results, but I could add nothing to A’s very good summary.
I will note that there are two different surveys here, but both do something very wise. They both have a supporter of the “IPCC” side and both have supporter of the “Skeptic” side.
I will also note that the second survey is actually based on a 2003 survey that is not without its own problems – but that is another story.
Anyway, I would recommend the reading to all interested.
Regards,
John
“A” — if you keep it up, you may get voted off the Island — even before the sea levels rise and it is swept away forever anyway.
If you really believed that AGW was threatening the planet, you would stop posting immediately. Have you never considered the C02 implications of the energy required to operate a computer and a world-wide computer network? Do you really think your thoughts are so essential to the planet they are worth destroying the planet for?
Authentic, genuine AGW alarmists would a) stop driving, b) stop eating meat, and c) stop all internet posting immediately.
Otherwise, you’re one of us.
Welcome back.
for some unsettled science check out http://www.lavoisier.com
grantk1, i don’t know if it is still in the archives but lgf had it on sat march 10 2007.
@WL Mackenzie Redux: Solid science is NOT based in “beliefs” and this is all AGW “believers” have: a theoretical belief unsupported bt conclusive uncontestable data…it is also the faith-based certainty of the AGW cult which SDA posters mock…and rightfully so.
But here we have two surveys of climate scientists from across the believer-skeptic spectrum, assessing their fact-based opinions and subjective beliefs. While they are presented by Kate as demonstrating the lack of universal consensus, they nevertheless reveal that among these scientists, the majority holds the view that AGW is a genuine problem requiring immediate policy solutions.
Do you deny this, WLMR?
******
@Richard Ball:
I don’t count myself an alarmist, but my guess is neither do most of the scientists whose views on climate change are canvassed in the surveys reported above. And yet, despite not being AGW alarmists, the majority of them (and I) agree that AGW is a real phenomenon, that the IPCC Report is sound, and that steps must be taken now to reduce the impact of human activity on the planet.
At the societal level, policy levers are available to encourage/compel action (e.g., industrial regulation standards, tax incentives for self-initiated impact reductions, etc.). At the individual level, people will of course differ in their personal capacity and willingness to make such changes in their own lives — some will leave their cars behind, others will turn vegetarian, others still will step up their household recycling, etc. As long as the desire and commitment to reduce one’s impact is genuine, then no change is too small and nobody should be condemned for “not doing enough” (which is why your argument is either facetious or fundamentally misguided). But to claim that AGW is a complete hoax or to deny that humans can or should do anything at all is (1) an (increasingly) minority opinion, even among the scientists surveyed above, and (2) irresponsible and self-serving.
…there is no literal consensus…it remains true that the majority believes that human activity does contribute to the problem, that we hear too much from the skeptics, and that immediate ameliorative/preventative actions are justified.
AGW now officially downgraded from consensus to majority.
Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Great Global Warming Swindle by next Wednesday? My son has come home from school this last week and told me his class has been shown an inconvenient truth and another pro AGW movie, the name escapes me. I’m going to parent teacher interviews next Wednesday and going to demand this teacher show the movie TGGWS. My son also told me several kids in his class were getting scared (he’s in grade 5) when algore was explaining how the world was going to flood. I’m pissed off and my sons teacher is going to get an ear full next Wednesday. Thanks to anyone who can help.
Posted by: GrantK1 at November 21, 2007 10:03 AM
Don’t know if this helps but it was put out by UK Ch 4 If you Google for it it migh help at shert notice.
I saw it this weekend on Honk Kong TV
Who needs solid science when you can follow the people wearing the tin foil on their heads?
The problem I have with “A” and John Cross is that they continue to treat these “studies” (aka polls) as if they were done in a vacuum, free of confounding variables like conflict of interest, peer pressure, and simple ignorance. This isn’t some polite difference of opinion on the configuration of some fossil found in the Burgess Shale, this is a multi-zillion dollar industry. There’s big friggin’ bucks at stake here.
As with my anecdote earlier, peer pressure, grants, tenure and bent studies are a fact of life. Just because you’re the vice president of the friggin’ ACP doesn’t mean you’re up to speed on the paper you presented.
And just because a “majority” believe doesn’t mean its true.
Put it this way: The UN is lying about gun control, they are lying about the true extent of AIDS in Africa (google it!) and there is nothing I’ve seen to make me think they aren’t lying about this too.
IPCC credibility at an all time low gentlemen. Accelerating downward past zero and into negative territory any time now. Won’t be long before they join the Brady Campaign in well deserved penurious obscurity. May they freeze in the dark.
AR4 Synthesis Report, Page 13
“Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass due to increased snowfall.
Some global warming . . the Antarctic ice sheets are NOT melting after all.
GrantK1
“My son also told me several kids in his class were getting scared (he’s in grade 5) when algore was explaining how the world was going to flood”
Maybe you can just bring in a copy of WaterWorld instead. Sure it’s a work of fiction, but so is Al Gore’s Movie…..
Pissedoff: If you search on eBay, you may be able to get a copy with Buy It Now. Depending on where you are, getting delivered by next Wednesday may be possible.
The Phantom: Just because you’re the vice president of the friggin’ ACP doesn’t mean you’re up to speed on the paper you presented. And just because a “majority” believe doesn’t mean its true.
And just because these surveys are not done “in a vacuum,” and just because “there’s big friggin’ bucks at stake here,” doesn’t mean that these scientists’ views and opinions are incorrect.
there is nothing I’ve seen to make me think they aren’t lying about this too.
First, you need to decide once and for all whether or not you value “expert” scientific opinion.
If yes, then you have to acknowledge that the survey results above, along with the IPCC report and the formal statements made by the Joint Science Academies, the AMS, AGU, and other professional bodies, are statements made by experts, and that these statements support the view that anthropogenic climate change is real.
If no, then in rejecting those experts who support the AGW thesis, you also need to reject the experts who deny/are skeptical of the AGW thesis. After all, if you don’t value expert opinion, then to be consistent, you shouldn’t value ANY expert opinion.
Otherwise, please explain why you would endorse the science of the skeptics, but reject the science of the supporters?
IPCC credibility at an all time low gentlemen. Accelerating downward past zero and into negative territory any time now.
Based on what evidence do you make this assertion, Phantom? According to the second survey, which I acknowledge has dubious methodology but which Kate feels is sufficiently valid to post on her blog, from 1996 to 2003, support for the IPCC reports and recognition of their value have actually GROWN. Also, anticipation among public and policy circles over annual IPCC reports has only INCREASED year over year. How do you explain these trends?
I don’t think that the ‘science of the promoters of AGW’ is science; it is modelling, and that is speculative.
The sceptics of AGW are using scientific data to show that the models are hypothetical beliefs.
Therefore, I don’t think that you can make a valid comparison between the two groups. Furthermore, to bring in yet another group, SDA readers, is irrelevant.
Also, the statement ‘no scientist is willing to conclude that global warming is a fabrication’ is conceptually empty. After all, climate change, both cooling and warming, is a scientifically proven fact. How could any scientist deny this?
To claim that human activity has no ‘significant effect’ is yet another problematic comment. Certainly human activity has effects. So does animal and plant activity. And, the term ‘significant’ is subjective. The statement is, again, meaningless.
Another problem with the survey is its sample population. The abstract clearly outlines problems. How were the respondents selected and encouraged to reply? Were sceptics contacted, and did sceptics bother to take the survey? The abstract says that the majority surveyed were published in journals and attendees at a conference. I suggest that this is a biased sample. Indeed, the survey authors themselves declare that the poll can’t be viewed as scientifically valid.
Of the 1807 contacted, there were only 140 responses. That’s less than 10%, and in a non-random sample, this is unacceptable. Again, this sample base was ONLY those who chose to respond, and I think that it cannot be assumed that they represent the scientific community.
Furthermore, take a look at the ‘questions’. They aren’t simple statements but ‘essays’ which include several sentences. You might agree, in part, with one of the sentences but not the full statement. I can understand why the majority of scientific respondents refused to answer this survey. It’s methodologically unsound.
This problem with the sample population affects the results.
That ‘78% somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree that “we can say for certain that, without change in human behavior, global warming will definitely occur some time in the future” (compared to 13% who somewhat disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree)” is nonsense.
It’s a circular question, requiring the respondent to agree to AGW, and agree that climate change (warming) is both a direct result of human behaviour and that it is directly controllable by humans.
Notice the answers to some of the questions, eg, how well do you think models can deal with…etc, and the mean response on a scale of 1-7, is, below the average. That is, models are understood to have serious problems in..modeling reality.
Same thing with ‘the current state of knowledge being adequate’. The average (mean) is – no it isn’t.
On the question of models enabling predictive capacity, eg, for ten years, Fig 19, the mean is – not that great.
Overall, this survey, as noted, has serious flaws in its methodology and questions. AND, the answers, even given by what can only be a biased set of respondents, show that the use of models – which is all that AGW is based on, and predictive capacities are scientifically weak.
GrantK1 (10:03 AM)
If all else fails…
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-362012684958510556
At least it can still be viewed at Google Video.
I posted this (below) at Tigerhawk a few days ago; I believe it applies here, too.
I honestly think that no politician ANYWHERE believes the manmade climate-change pap. As well, most scientists know the manmade climate-change thing is a load of hooey; ALL objective scientists know that human induced climate change is, unambiguously, nonsense. No nominally intelligent person could sanely posit that manmade climate change is possible, based solely on ANY evidence objectively obtained and studied to this point in time.
This can only mean that there is some other impetus behind the climate change “debate”; I contend that it’s strictly geopolitical reality which is driving the issue forward. No, I’m not some weirdo conspiratorialist (is that a word?), but I firmly believe politicians have discovered that, to get their way and do the things which REALLY need to get done –get off fossil fuels, get on to nuclear energy– it’s far, far easier to play off of peoples’ silly fears… maybe a better way to put it is play off fatuous voters’ fears, by reinforcing this clearly idiotic concept which was jogged out there by some dizzy socialists with agendas of their own.
Consider this; “Nuclear energy, BAD!” The socialists still believe it. But, hold on… the evidence clearly shows the icecaps are melting because of our reliance on fossil fuels! Say, did you know that 1 pound of uranium could fuel 1,000,000 SUVs for the next 300,000 years, with ZERO carbon emissions?! (er, something like that)
For now, the politicians have discovered they have common cause with the “greens” and the socialists, despite the fact the politicians’ reasons for this alliance couldn’t be more divergent from BOTH those left leaning groups.
“Also, anticipation among public and policy circles over annual IPCC reports has only INCREASED year over year. How do you explain these trends?”
A – If I were to tell you that with each year since 1967, anticipation among the residents of the GTA over the chances of the Toronto Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup has INCREASED year over year, would you be prepared to admit that maybe, just maybe, belief and consensus are not valid indicators of reality?
A asked: “How do you explain these trends?”
Propaganda.
The thing is, when you have a media which we know is biased to the Left, and you have universities which we know are biased to the Left, and you have the UN which we know is crooked as all hell (can you say oil for food?) then is it imprudent to simply accept what they say as if it were true.
So I just look at who’s saying what, discount the ones I know will lie if it suits them, and am left with a controversy where serious people do not agree and both sides have cogent points in their favor.
As to the popularity of global warming, the way to figure that out is by following the money. Currently the money is moving with the global warming crowd, therefore I am safe in assuming most of what is said is about grant money and being on the fashionable side.
People AGAINST the grain are much more believable because they don’t get paid to say what they say. They lose brownie points too. As an academic you don’t risk brownie points unless you are very sure of your stuff.
Compare Bjorn Lomborg and Algore. Who’s getting paid? Who’s going to parties with the in-crowd and who’s getting investigated by the Danish Parliament? Chances of Lomborg being right in what he says are seriously higher than with Algore.
I also happen to know that pretty near everything Algore has ever said about gun control was profoundly untrue. If he consistently lies one place, will he lie another?
Can someone explain how us adding CO2 to the atmosphere contributes to “forcing” when there is more than enough CO2 to absorb almost all the energy available to it?
For CO2 to contribute to more warming there needs to be more energy available to be absorbed. Until the scientific community explains where this energy is comeing from, and why it is not being detected by satellite, I can not support the IPCC.
For the people who want to see The Great Global Warming Swindle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS3L0wyPjGY. I am not sure if this is the actual video or just the discussion as an adendum to the video.
Otherwise, please explain why you would endorse the science of the skeptics, but reject the science of the supporters?
…and vice versa, right?
GrantK1: I Have a copy and I live in Rosetown. DK1
A
Whether the conclusions agree with some SDA readers is besides the point. The point is whether they agree with the pronouncement that there is a consensus.
And according to these two items you posted, that is clearly not the case:
– 65% agree or strongly agree that “we can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.”
– 53% somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes” (compared to 29% who somewhat disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree).
There is a lot of science still to be done, and it would help everyone if the demagogues would step aside.
“There is a lot of science still to be done, and it would help everyone if the demagogues would step aside.”
Right you are, chip. However, Al Gore receives on the order of $150,000 per talk. What could possibly persuade him to walk away from this amazing amount of money?
When the demagogues stop getting rewarded, whether in currency or attention, I expect they’ll find something else to do.
A; Lets for arguments sake say your right.Where are the largest polluters in the world located?Europe,Asia and Africa.Yet India,China Russia,and a whole lot of other countries are exempt from the Kyoto protocals.Dont you think that this is odd?We in the west have to curtail emmissions while the largest polluters on the planet can grow theirs and at a far greater rate than we have to curtail?Where is the net saving?Remember that kyoto is based on emissions per person of population and if the countrys pop.increases at a slow rate or goes down,emmissions per person will go up as the pop. ages.If the countrys pop.increases at a fast rate then the EMP (emmissions per person) will go down because babys and children pollute very little.We ran into this in farming.If we double our acreage and by using no-till use two-thirds of the fuel that was used to conventional till the same land our per person use has increased and we are the bad guys even tho we are using less fuel to do the same work.
GrantK1
You can find the Great Global Warming Swindle in five parts at: http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/11/the-global-warming-swindle-video/
Scroll down below the cartoon of the day and you can find them there.
I don’t know if you can copy them, but one could take a laptop to school and play them for the children that way.
@The Phantom:
You still haven’t provided any evidence demonstrating that “IPCC credibility [is] at an all time low.”
As to the new points that you’ve introduced, if you believe the UN is corrupt, then dismiss the IPCC reports if you must. But how do you reconcile the fact that many other, non-UN, non-university groups also endorse similar positions? These include a number of national academies (including those of China and India) as well as professional bodies like the AMS and AGU. And even if you dismiss all of those groups on the premise, using your same (increasingly tenuous) argument, that while they are themselves separate from left-wing universities, their members are in many cases university professors, how do you reconcile the fact that the US Federal Climate Change Science Program, which was commissioned by Pres. Bush and has as much an interest in equivocating on the issue as anyone else, also acknowledges humans contributions to climate change?
Follow the money, you say? Certainly there is much grant money available to be secured. But there are even more vested interests hoping to disproving the AGW thesis, and they have even greater amounts of (usually private sector) money available too. So why follow the money only with respect to the AGW supporters, in an attempt to discredit them, but not follow the money with respect to the AGW skeptics, who by your logic could equally be discredited on the same grounds?
As I understand it, Bjørn Lomborg is doing just fine at the Copenhagen Business School. The sales of his books have made him quite wealthy as well. So does his affluence now discredited him too? Surely not, I would think.
You say that “People AGAINST the grain are much more believable because they don’t get paid to say what they say.” Is that a general rule for you, or just in regards to climate change? Because there’s a small but vocal group in the public health field who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. In your view, are the chances of them being correct higher than those who support the HIV-AIDS link? Because they’re certainly going against the professional grain, they’re not getting paid to say what they’re saying, and they’re getting a lot of flak from their colleagues for doing so.
@bobzorunkle:
The statement you quote was in response to The Phantom’s assertion that the credibility of the IPCC — and by insinuation, the AGW thesis as a whole — is at “an all time low.” One indicator of the credibility of an issue/thing is how much public and political support that issue/thing has. With respect to the IPCC reports, this support remains high, suggesting its credibility is far from in the trough.
I am not saying that, simply because the majority believes something, that it therefore must be true in every case. But that is neither to say that it therefore must be false in this particular case.
Chip: The point is whether they agree with the pronouncement that there is a consensus. And according to these two items you posted, that is clearly not the case
The issue of consensus has become highly contentious not primarily because of the absolute numbers themselves, but because of what the implications are for action.
The extreme AGW supporter argues that a universal consensus does exist, hence “the science is settled,” hence we must proceed to action.
The extreme AGW skeptic argues that a universal consensus does not exist, and until such time as an absolute and universal, “down to the last person” consensus is reached, no action should be taken.
Both of these positions are self-interested and flawed. But my point is that the consensus question is secondary to the more important question of, “Given our current state of knowledge, and recognizing that there remain many areas still to be researched and controversies to be settled, do we know enough to justify immediate action?”
On that score, this is the most telling survey finding: “80% somewhat somewhat disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement that “there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions.”
In other words, 4 of 5 scientists surveyed endorse the precautionary principle, that in spite of incomplete scientific knowledge, given the potential costs to current and future generations of inaction, it is our responsibility to act today.
And bear in mind that this is a survey of climate scientists, who make their living from government research grants into global warming.
A – as I pointed out in my post above, the survey was profoundly, methodologically, flawed and therefore, your percentages of “80% etc’ cannot be taken as valid of the scientific community.
In addition, your statement that “humans contribute to climate change’ is weak. Do they contribute by breathing, by manufacturing, by industrial devt – how? And since plants and animals also contribute to ‘climate change’ (including beavers and their dams) – then, such statements are so vague and general as to be meaningless.
Provide proof that the anti-AGW have”even greater amounts of (usually private sector) money available”.
Again – the survey was so methodologically flawed, both in its sample population and its questions, that it cannot be taken as having any validity or reliability.
Right on ET , and by the way “A” your copy of “The Life and Times of Chicken Little” is in.
Mr. A, I have indeed provided evidence the IPCC is not to be trusted. IPCC=UN= oil for fraud, gun control, crooked AIDS estimates, etc. That’s evidence of untrustworthiness, wouldn’t you say?
I suppose its possible this one time they -aren’t- lying, but I don’t like the odds.
The IPCC’s credibility, such as it is, relies on the media hyping it day in and day out, because their science is mostly models and some pretty dodgy measurements. I refer you to Kate’s on-going pictures of NASA ground stations with the barbecue next to the thermometer.
At a certain point, you’re going to have to admit that most of the global warming endorsement crowd have all the sincerity of a TV evangelist. Basing public policy and the entire economy of the Western world on their pronouncements seems foolish to me.
In fact, the whole conversation around “consensus” is mainly to cover up the threadbare nature of the actual evidence. To continue your HIV-AIDS allusion, yes there is a small contingent of IDIOTS in the healthcare community that continue to deny the causality of AIDS is the HIV retrovirus. This despite the fact that HIV is isolated from AIDS patients on a fairly casual basis these days, and that it is currently possible to test for the presence of the HIV virus itself, not just the antibodies.
You show me evidence of that caliber coming out of the IPCC, maybe I’ll have another look.
“In other words, 4 of 5 scientists surveyed endorse the precautionary principle, that in spite of incomplete scientific knowledge, given the potential costs to current and future generations of inaction, it is our responsibility to act today.”
I think most people would agree that more movement has to be made toward better fuel efficiency and lower industrial emissions. But that’s where opinions diverge along ideological lines.
I think it’s clear that more multi-billion dollar government programs overseen by a self-interested international bureaucracy will be next to useless. But tax breaks for better research and technology is a proven winner.
One of the ways the Left gets the population to believe its false claims (like the claims of the IPCC) is to LIE.
Yes. The Left has no ethics, nor morals, as a movement. They believe that the ends justify the means, even when the ends are greed-based and not what they’re claimed to be and when the means are as we’re seeing, like ostracizing, censoring, threatening anyone who dares to question the IPCC political correctness orthodoxy and its so-called “science”.
Therefore, the whole AGW/climate change thing is a Big Lie. The MSM and politicians buy into this lie due to its awesome power of intimidation and Machiavellianly manipulative persuasion.
This Big Lie not only is being constantly trumpeted by those with vested interests and their accomplices in the MSM, etc., but is also being repeated by those who have fallen victim thereto and end up perpetuating this lie as useful idiots.
I promise all that it IS a Big Lie that we’re being told to believe in. Believe me, you will all see.
And those of us who have the courage today to think for ourselves and not accept claims, scaremongering and threats, preferring to demand real proof, not undemonstrated claims of proof based on theory and hypothesis-based computer modelling utilizing flawed/invalid/even conveniently fabricated data… will in the future be the ones with credibility.
Those who blindly submitted to the AGW myth will be seen as having been foolish and guillible, if not worse.
So people should learn to take such alarmism with a grain of salt unless they can see the proof right before their eyes. And there’s no proof. It doesn’t feel warmer, nor is the climate changing. We can’t see it, as it’s not happening, except in some esoteric “computer modelling” based on highly suspect “data”…
An ideological substratum to the theme (not theory) of AGW, is that it is based on a politico-economic agenda.
Interestingly, the pro-AGW proponents assert that those people who are against AGW, who are sceptical of AGW, operate within a politico-economic agenda. You Deniers Are Funded by Big Oil, is the claim made by the pro-AGW people. This can be proven as invalid, but, that’s almost beside the point.
But wait, the pro-AGW gang are ‘also’ funded by a politico-economic agenda. This is the anti-western agenda of the UN, which seeks to demolish and/or inhibit western industrialism while at the same time, building up non-western (‘developing countries’) industrialism.
The western industrial countries must comply with the Kyoto reductions in emissions. This will – cost an enormous amount to switch to more expensive fuel sources, most of which are, scientifically, only theories in the lab. Some of them are out of the lab but the cost of production is enormous – and, heh, makes even more emissions.
OR, the Western industry can simply shut down.
OR, the West can pay huge fines. These fines go to ‘developing countries’ which are EXEMPT from Kyoto emissions.
These developing countries can then use these monies, which are not loans but UN laundered money, to put up their own energy guzzling and polluting factories (eg, China, with its one new coal factory a week economy).
Theoretically, ie, on paper, the ‘developing countries’ are supposed to use the West’s money to put up non-emitting plants. yeah, sure. If the West can’t afford it, if the West doesn’t have the technology – then – are you serious that the developing countries will put up one ’emissions free’ factory instead of one hundred emissions-polluting factories??
So- if anyone tries to insert the Sin of The West meme, by suggesting that anti-AGW people are ’embedded in oil money’ etc…I’d like to point out that pro-AGW people are embedded in UN corrupt money laundering agendas.
Cheers.
Wimpy Canadian: And bear in mind that this is a survey of climate scientists, who make their living from government research grants into global warming.
And bear in mind that climate scientists have used those research grants to research, write about, discuss, and warn public officials about the consequences of climate change for decades now, long before governments came around to realizing that this is an issue that needed addressing.
****
@The Phantom:
As I said earlier, “if you believe the UN is corrupt, then dismiss the IPCC reports if you must.” But what say you about all the other institutions/organizations/committees/groups, etc. that endorse the AGW thesis? Are all these groups corrupt as well?
ET: Interestingly, the pro-AGW proponents assert that those people who are against AGW, who are sceptical of AGW, operate within a politico-economic agenda. You Deniers Are Funded by Big Oil, is the claim made by the pro-AGW people. This can be proven as invalid, but, that’s almost beside the point. But wait, the pro-AGW gang are ‘also’ funded by a politico-economic agenda.
So the “You Deniers Are Funded by Big Oil” claim is invalid, but your “You Supporters are Funded by Big UN” and The Phantom’s “You Supporters are Funded by Big Government Research Grants” claims are not? Can we just agree that they’re all equally invalid and ridiculous, and move on?
This is the anti-western agenda of the UN…
What about the American Meteorological Society, the American Geological Union, the US National Academy of Sciences, or the US National Research Council? They all endorse positions similar to that of the UN and the IPCC. Do they also have an anti-western agenda? Are you saying the Federal Climate Change Science Program is also “embedded in UN corrupt money laundering agendas”? Does the White House have an anti-western agenda? What about George W. Bush himself?
A – as I pointed out in my post above, the survey was profoundly, methodologically, flawed and therefore, your percentages of “80% etc’ cannot be taken as valid of the scientific community.
I know, ET. I said so myself, way back at the top, during my first comment. But since Kate blogged about the results of these surveys without any comment about their obvious methodological weaknesses, I decided to proceed on her terms, which apparently are that the survey results are sufficiently valid to at least comment about.
What I find deliciously ironic is that while Kate initially framed these surveys as yet more evidence that There Is No Consensus, after it turns out that the results contradict the standard SDA position on climate change, folks like you are now dismissing the surveys on methodological grounds.
Which leads one to ask: How many other ostensibly “anti-AGW” studies that Kate has blogged about on SDA could also be dismissed on methodological or substantive grounds if only folks here had bothered to ask a few, more critical questions?
ET: Interestingly, the pro-AGW proponents assert that those people who are against AGW, who are sceptical of AGW, operate within a politico-economic agenda. You Deniers Are Funded by Big Oil, is the claim made by the pro-AGW people. This can be proven as invalid, but, that’s almost beside the point. But wait, the pro-AGW gang are ‘also’ funded by a politico-economic agenda.
So the “You Deniers Are Funded by Big Oil” claim is invalid, but your “You Supporters are Funded by Big UN” and The Phantom’s “You Supporters are Funded by Big Government Research Grants” claims are not? Can we just agree that they’re all equally invalid and ridiculous, and move on?
This is the anti-western agenda of the UN…
What about the American Meteorological Society, the American Geological Union, the US National Academy of Sciences, or the US National Research Council? They all endorse positions similar to that of the UN and the IPCC. Do they also have an anti-western agenda? Are you saying the Federal Climate Change Science Program is also “embedded in UN corrupt money laundering agendas”? Does the White House (3w.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment) have an anti-western agenda? What about George W. Bush (3w.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060626184958.a9erm3mw&show_article=1) himself?
A – as I pointed out in my post above, the survey was profoundly, methodologically, flawed and therefore, your percentages of “80% etc’ cannot be taken as valid of the scientific community.
I know, ET. I said so myself, way back at the top, during my first comment. But since Kate blogged about the results of these surveys without any comment about their obvious methodological weaknesses, I decided to proceed on her terms, which apparently are that the survey results are sufficiently valid to at least comment about.
What I find deliciously ironic is that while Kate initially framed these surveys as yet more evidence that There Is No Consensus, after it turns out that the results contradict the standard SDA position on climate change, folks like you are now dismissing the surveys on methodological grounds.
Which leads one to ask: How many other ostensibly “anti-AGW” studies that Kate has blogged about on SDA could also be dismissed on methodological or substantive grounds if only folks here had bothered to ask a few, more critical questions?
A- again, the survey has no validity or reliability. Its methodology was profoundly flawed. That means, that not only its questions were unacceptable, being multi-layered, biased, circular and therefore, unanswerable, but, its sample population was skewed. The survey is useless.
Now, the fact that “institutions/organizations/committees/groups, etc. that endorse the AGW thesis” doesn’t mean that the AGW thesis has any validity. You can’t scientifically claim that because Al Gore, Pat Roberston, and various lobby groups assert AGW, that such a thesis has any validity.
Compare that with other apocalyptic scenarios:
Steven Schneider, about 30 years ago, and the imminent Ice Age.
William Paddock, Famine 1975 predicting a worldwide famine in 1975.
The Coming Plague, a 1995 book.
The problem with the AGW crowd is that their predictions are based on models not facts. Furthermore, I am deeply suspicious of their agenda, because their solution (Kyotoism) is really a money transference scheme, and is not dealing with the robustness of the environment.
et: Just to note, you have mixed up the two surveys (yes, there were two separate and different surveys).
The entire MMGW argument is so full of bullshit,I don’t believe anything thing I hear from either side anymore.
It’s no longer about seeking the truth….it’s about ‘my’ side winning the ‘argument’.
How pathetically partisan.
And BTW….how can anyone believe the great Goracle,EXTREME carbon hypocrite that he is?
Oh…one more tidbit…trading your Humvee for a Pious doesn’t accomplish a freakin’ thing except adding yet another vehicle to rush hour traffic.
Well….what the hell do you think happens to traded in SUV’s?
They’re put right back on the road numbnuts!
Kate,thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts.
A: you said “Which leads one to ask: How many other ostensibly “anti-AGW” studies that Kate has blogged about on SDA could also be dismissed on methodological or substantive grounds if only folks here had bothered to ask a few, more critical questions?”
A good question and in fact there are quite a few. I should do up a list sometime. The Archibald study, the climate stations posts, the study about a lack of consensus that never made it to publication, these off the top of my head.
Regards,
John
truthsayer: you said ” For CO2 to contribute to more warming there needs to be more energy available to be absorbed. Until the scientific community explains where this energy is comeing from, and why it is not being detected by satellite, I can not support the IPCC.”
I take it that you don’t believe that adding a blanket to your bed at night causes you to be warmer since adding a blanket does not actually add any energy?
CS: are you censoring me since I have made several posts at your site over the last 24 hours and none have made it through?
Regards,
John
No, A, you cannot claim equivalence of non-validity. You cannot claim that the pro-AGW claims against sceptics that Sceptics Are Funded by Big Oil is equivalent to ‘Pro-AGW is funded by the UN’. Because the Pro-AGW ARE funded by the UN.
These other agencies that you site, are not Kyotoists and are not engaged in the notion of Sin Money being transfered to non-Kyoto, busily industrializing developing countries.
Furthermore, these groups do not all ‘endorse positions similar to the UN and its Kyotoism. For one example, the US Meteorological Society, although it states that there is significant human contribution, states that:
“Climate will continue to change due to natural and human causes” and that models must be used carefully.
Furthermore, scientists within the association contested their statement, stating that it did not reflect member’s views (Roger Pielke).
No, A, you can’t blame your opinions on kate. You accepted the data base of the survey. If you actually believed ‘highly questionable’ methods, then, you would ‘strongly question’ the results. Don’t blame someone else for your actions.
I’m against AGW because it has no scientific validity.
I pointed out that this pro-AGW survey has no scientific validity. You are now trying to suggest that anti-AGW research has ‘no scientific validity’. What are you – a tit-for-tat type?
It was pointed out to you that SDA’s opinions are not relevant to the survey’s results. I find it therefore strange why you are referring to kate and to ‘the SDA perspective’. What does that have to do with the survey?
John cross wrote;
“I take it that you don’t believe that adding a blanket to your bed at night causes you to be warmer since adding a blanket does not actually add any energy?”
John there is a vast difference between adding a blanket over a sheet and adding a blanket over a stack of 10 blankets.
A blanket does not add energy it helps prevent energy from escaping if no energy is escaping then adding more blankets will do little to keep you warm.
H2O vapour absorbs the same blackbody radiation that CO2 does. If little escapes to space then CO2 is already warming all it can.