Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

The Three Nos of the IPCC Consensus

1) No theoretical possibility that the sun controls the weather like it has for the past 4.5 billion years.

2) No money for skeptical research. Global Warming is not some ordinary piece of science, it is Truth, and no one who wants to question it deserves research money.

3) No debate. Again, global warming is Truth, not some nerdy "scientific method" which would demand rigorous skepticism.

Ross,

So it is considered cherry-picking when we bring up facts such as the recent cooling from 1998, but it is not cherry-picking when scientists declare that global warming is occuring due to man's interaction with the environment on 100-200 years of modern observable data? Really? The earth is over 3.5 billion years old. It is as if you base your investment philosophy on 1 second of data from the NYSE and define a long-term trend. That is my fundamental issue with the discussion about our climate.

I gauge my lack of alarm on the following:

*CO2 occurs naturally in our atmosphere
*CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to man's burning and using of fossil fuels.
*The total concentration of CO2 is around .04% of the entire atmosphere and 3.6% of all GHG's including water vapor.
*Of that figure, it is known that man-made additions only make up around .12% of the 3.6% CO2 GHG concentration.

Please explain to me how increasing the manmade component of the atmosphere by a factor of 100% or even 500% DRAMATICALLY changes the temperature on this planet. Show me the calculations since the fundamental argument is that higher CO2 concentrations are the sole reason for the temperature change we have seen in previous century.
I ask Yoram to repectfully discuss these numbers, and if the numbers I am using are wrong, let's get some numbers we can ALL agree too.

I think we forget that "global warming due to manmade CO2" is itself a hypothesis that has been held up as theory WITHOUT rigorous study within scientific circles. And now that it is being scrutinized and doubts are being expressed, the pundits are crying foul. And that Yoram, goes to the heart of your argument. You cannot be a sceptic at heart if your passions delude your rational judgement.

Keith

Ross:

Bauman says [the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is] “…“very likely” [which] is not the same thing as “absolutely certain”---but do you really want to bet the farm on a lousy hand

The point must be made that we are not “betting the farm.” If his admiration of the IPCC (and by extension, the authors of its papers) is complete, then he must recognize that Tom Wigley, a key pro AGW scientist and IPCC contributor, believes that “No treaty will prevent global warming”.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,68667,00.html)

Wigley used computer modeling to test several emissions scenarios for the "Annex B" countries—the industrialized and nearly industrialized countries called upon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the protocol.

He considered a … scenario in which Annex B countries continue to reduce their emissions after the Kyoto period by 1% per year (a scenario that, like the other two scenarios, assumes continued growth of emissions in developing countries at a business-as-usual rate). In this case, the warming reduction by 2100 would be some 14%. (The previous two paragraphs are from http://www.ucar.edu/news/record/) The 14% translates into a reduction of 0.35 degrees C. (14% x 2.5 degrees C., the 2.5 degrees being the midpoint in the range of projections of global warming.

We are betting the farm – the economic farm, if we allow politicians and bureaucrats to hamstring the developed world’s economies by implementing carbon taxes or cap and trade (CAT) schemes to “save the planet” from 0.35 degrees of warming. These schemes will adversely affect poorer economies by causing energy to be more expensive while providing undetectable climate amelioration. The third world needs clean water, not protocols. written by sniffy bureaucrats who seem to hold their conferences only in idyllic settings.

Additionally, no one seems to be discussing the uses of the tax revenue that might be generated – it seems we just need a tax, by golly, to rein in our recalcitrant behavior. WHERE WILL THE MONEY GO????

My beliefs regarding carbon-limitation schemes??:

1) No such schemes should be implemented without comprehensive scientific and economic cause and effect studies to show how the US economy will be affected, and said studies should show the resultant predicted temperature “relief” we could expect to enjoy if the US implements carbon taxes or CAT.

2) The disposition of the tax revenue should be identified. What is the government going to do with this new revenue stream?

3) Any such scheme should have a sunset provision that provides for automatic repeal if not renewed by Congress in, say, eight years.

4) It should be recognized that without China, India, and Russia onboard, our efforts will have no practical effect. There is no glory in being a world leader if it makes us look like chumps. Unilateral carbon limitation should be off the table.


I am alarmed that politicians are talking about carbon limitation schemes as if they will have any noticeable effect on the climate. I can find no serious scientist that believes that such schemes will in fact provide any real relief. Warmers always seem to end their pleas with some variation of an exhortation that implores us to “do something.” Usually, no government interference is the best course of action.

Greg

Note that the warmers will not be satified with this Kyoto protocol or the next one:

“The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)

1. Speaking of externalities, accepting Jesus and his teachings has an obvious positive effect on individual and global human relations.

2.Rejecting the Christian community's consensus view that Christ was God on earth because of conspiracy theories about the Catholic church and her past misdeeds is foolish and the result of faulty correlation linking the deeds of man with the edicts and teachings of God.

3. Betting the farm, or in this case your immortal soul, by not accepting the consensus view that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour and only by accepting Him can you enter the gates of heaven seems like a bad bet.

Christian teaching should be required by world governments and a global action committee should be formed immediately!!!








I think I just bit my tongue and cheek off......

Dr. Bauman’s post makes clear that he either misunderstands the nature of the skeptical position or he is deliberately setting up a straw man argument that does not reflect the best arguments that the sky is not falling.

His initial assertion is inaccurate. While some “skeptical” scientists believe humans are incapable of altering global climate, the consensus opinion among skeptics is that humans are capable of altering global climate, but current levels of carbon dioxide emissions are not causing a global warming crisis. Some skeptical scientists assert the sun and other natural factors are responsible for all or nearly all of the warming of the 20th century. Other skeptics believe that humans may be responsible for much of the moderate warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but the current pace of warming (0.6 degrees Celsius for the entire 20th century, and no warming at all during the past decade) does not constitute any cause for alarm. For most skeptical scientists, the key issue in the debate is not whether the planet is warming or whether humans may have had some role in the very modest 20th century warming, but rather whether humans are causing a global warming crisis.

Bauman’s second point makes clear that he is not very familiar with the makeup of the IPCC. Bauman claims that IPCC is “the consensus statement of almost all the world’s best scientists.” Such an assertion is simply not true. IPCC is a branch of the United Nations. UN governments choose the participants. Not all participants are scientists, and those that are scientists are not selected according to any kind of objective merit system. They are selected by political entities, with predictable results. Nor does the IPCC final report represent the opinion of all the IPCC “scientists,” let alone “almost all the world’s best scientists.”

Among IPCC’s 2,600 participants, many are not even scientists. Many are NGO advocates and other non-scientist activists. Among the relative handful of lead authors that have sole discretion over the final document are staff members of Greenpeace and Environmental Defense. To assert that Greenpeace and Environmental Defense are the objective voice of the world’s best scientists is little different than if I were to cite a report, claiming that global warming is a myth, in which the lead authors were the staff of ExxonMobil and the National Coal Association. Can you imagine how the alarmists would react to that one?

Here is another example of how flawed the United Nations IPCC process is. Dr. William Gray is the world’s foremost hurricane expert, who for years has been authoring seasonal hurricane forecasts so reliable that the insurance industry has relied on it for setting insurance rates. The Weather Channel for years made him the face of its hurricane coverage. And the U.S. government funded his work as a means of better understanding hurricanes. IPCC, however, did not invite Dr. Gray to participate in its hurricane research because he is on record as stating that global warming is not a human induced crisis. Instead, far inferior scientists and non-scientists comprise IPCC’s hurricane research participants. Such blatant political selection processes are rampant throughout the UN selection process. This is “the consensus opinion of almost all the world’s best scientists?”

Moreover, the final IPCC document is not even the opinion of the biased IPCC participants, let alone “almost all the world’s best scientists.” In 2007, for the first time, IPCC released the comments and critiques by the 2,600 IPCC participants. There were literally thousands of critical comments from participating scientists that were rejected or simply ignored. Only a relative handful of biased participants, some on the staff of Greenpeace and Environmental Defense, produced the final document, while thousands of critical comments from participating scientists were ignored. And yet the IPCC document is the “consensus statement of almost all the world’s best scientists?”

Bauman’s third point is a veritable journey into the looking glass, where black is white and white is black. One of the defining characteristics of the alarmist camp is their adamant refusal to in any way engage in the critical inquiry which is so essential to science and the scientific method. Bauman asserts that skeptics want “no serious scientific engagement.” Such an assertion makes me laugh out loud.

Want an example? In late February the Professional Engineers of Colorado (PEC) held their annual meeting Denver. Facing a Climate Action Plan from the governor’s office that would significantly affect their trade, they sought to devote one day of their conference to global warming science. Susan Solomon, a vocal proponent of alarmist global warming theory who was selected as science co-chair of IPCC despite having authored no peer-reviewed papers on climate science, at first indicated a willingness to speak at the event. When she was later informed that the panel would be scientifically balanced, including such highly qualified skeptics as the aforementioned Dr. William Gray, she refused to participate, claiming that such a forum was not a proper forum for the discussion of science. When asked if she could recommend any of her colleagues to speak at the event, she refused to recommend any, and further said she would advise them NOT to participate. For two weeks PEC searched high and low for any scientist to come give the IPCC side of the equation, but nobody would participate after learning that scientists such as Dr. Gray would be allowed to present contradictory evidence. I can report from first-hand experience that such comedy is repeated all the time, with IPCC apologists routinely looking for the nearest chair to hide under whenever they are invited to debate the science against learned skeptics.

Why do you suppose the alarmists are so afraid of fair and open debate? Consider the following. In March 2007 the prestigious New York City debating society Intelligence Squared held a public debate, broadcast on national radio, among six of the world’s leading global warming experts. Three alarmists and three skeptics were given a lengthy amount of time to present the best available scientific evidence. Before the debate, a poll of the attending audience indicated that by a 2-to-1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent), the audience believed that global warming is a crisis. After hearing the best science from experts on both sides of the issue, the audience voted by a 46-percent to 42-percent margin that global warming is NOT a crisis. No wonder the alarmists become more scarce than vegans at a Texas cattle roast when skeptics seek to engage them in serious scientific engagement.

Bauman’s final, curious assertion is that the merit of the two positions should be determined by real-world predictions and results. The assertion itself is not necessarily curious, but the fact that it is coming from an alarmist is. Skeptics have long predicted that 21st century warming will be no more than half, at most, of IPCC predictions. Some skeptics, such as Dr. Gray, have for years been predicting that temperatures will cool during the first quarter of the 21st century. The alarmists used to publicly laugh at that, but nobody would take Dr. Gray up on his public offer to make a sizeable wager on the proposition.

IPCC has predicted that temperatures will rise 3.0 degrees Celsius during the 21st century, and at least 0.2 degrees Celsius during each of the first few decades of the 21st century. However, temperatures have not risen at all since 2000, and even IPCC scientists now report (in a recent Nature study) that temperatures will likely cool for at least the next decade. The empirical evidence fully supports the skeptics and is making a mockery of alarmist predictions that temperatures during the 21st century will warm 5 times faster than temperatures warmed during the 20th century. Bauman says “you should either put up or shut up.” He needs to follow his own advice or switch sides while he can still save face in doing so.

Should Bauman be too stubborn to see the writing on the wall, I will wager this: global warming (as measured by objective satellite measurements rather than subjective James Hansen adjustments of the ground temperature data) during the first half of the 21st century will be closer to 0.3 degrees Celsius than to the 1.5 degree Celsius halfway point of IPCC’s projected 21st century warming. Any takers on this bet?