The right wing's climate change "con"
August 31, 2010 3:42 pm ET by Matt Gertz
Yesterday, a distinguished committee of scientists released a 113-page review of the processes and procedures of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body that has provided the most comprehensive reports on the reality and danger of human-caused global warming. The UN had asked the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a multinational organization of the world's science academies, to assess the IPCC and make recommendations in order to "strengthen the IPCC's capacity to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports."
Unsurprisingly, the right-wing media are seizing on the IAC report, suggesting that it undermines the scientific consensus on climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth.
An August 31 report by the U.K.'s Express blares the headline "CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED," and reports:
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.
Matt Drudge promptly picked up Express' article. Under the headline "Climate change a con?," Las Vegas Review-Journalpublisher Sherman Frederick claimed that "A damming new report says shoddy research practices and conclusions based on little evidence produce plenty of questions over the credibility of the world's leading climate change body."
Reading these reports, you'd think that the IAC was saying that climate change was, well, "a con." In fact, while recommending changes to IPCC's structure and procedures in order to "enhance the quality and authoritative nature of future assessments," the review board and its chairman, Princeton professor Harold Shapiro, also praised the IPCC and its work.
The Associated Press reported that the IAC "didn't study the quality of the science itself, although Shapiro said the key recommendations in the climate report 'are well supported by the scientific evidence.'" Likewise, in his opening statement at the press conference releasing the IAC report, Shapiro said:
Overall, IPCC's assessment process has been a success and served society well. The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change.
The report itself confirms the IPCC's central findings, stating that "Climate change is a long-term challenge that will require every nation to make decisions about how to respond," and that "The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall."
The Washington Post's editorial board wrote that the report further shows the right-wing's critique of climate science has been "overblown":
Also on Monday, an international review panel from the independent InterAcademy Council released a report on the IPCC's procedures for producing "assessments" of climate science, which are supposed to provide policymakers with a rigorous guide to the evidence and its interpretation. Though Fox News claimed it "slams" the IPCC, the study doesn't show that the much-maligned assessment process was rigged or even fundamentally flawed. In fact, much of what the review panel suggests involves enhancing and making more transparent the procedures already in place, and the report's authors underscore how valuable the IPCC's work has been.
So the overblown critique of climate science that emerged early this year continues to underwhelm.
Conservatives' "overblown" critique is further exposed by the fact that the IPCC error they mention most often in their reports on the e IAC review is one that doesn't significantly undermine the science behind global warming.
The Express, Frederick, FoxNews.com, and the Washington Times editorial board all harp on how the IPCC's 2007 report "erroneously forecast the imminent melting of Himalayan glaciers."
But as we've noted, following reports of the error, the IPCC issued a statement that said it "regret[s] the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance," but that the broad conclusion about glacier loss in the report "is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment." Indeed, experts on glaciers have pointed out that despite the flaw in the IPCC's specific claim, glaciers have been melting.
In purporting to list various flaws in the 2007 report, FoxNews.com also falsely claimed that the report "erroneously forecast... dwindling Amazon rainforests." In fact, the claim that IPCC was wrong about the Amazon was originally made by the U.K.'s Sunday Times, and has since been corrected to acknowledge that "the conclusion about the Amazon was supported by peer-reviewed evidence."
Needless to say, the MMfA/Matt "nothing to see here" take is no surprise. So, in my attempt to steer us back to reality, here are some of the actual findings of the IAC MMfA purposely neglected to include in the article. Should I be surprised that the link to the IAC report does not work? Here is a working link so folks can read it for themselves minus the MMfA spin.
I'm guessing MMfA didn't really want the AGW faithful to actually read the report and instead rely on their alternate universe version of reality, and you of course unquestioningly complied (as would be expected of the true believers). Here are some nice quotes directly from the IAC that MMfA and you apparently missed. As Matt points out, they asked for it:
PDF Page 16:
Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to [/quote]refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.
PDF Page 16-17:
The communications challenge has taken on new urgency in the wake of recent criticisms regarding IPCC’s slow and inadequate responses to reports of errors in the Fourth Assessment Report. Such criticisms underscore the need for a media-relations capacity to enable the IPCC to respond rapidly and with an appropriate tone to the criticisms and concerns that inevitably arise in such a contested arena. In addition, IPCC leaders have been criticized for making public statements that were perceived as advocating specific climate policies. Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility.
PDF Page 17:
Thus, it is essential that the processes and procedures used to produce assessment reports be as transparent as possible. From extensive oral and written input gathered by the Committee, it is clear that several stages of the assessment process are poorly understood, even to many scientists and government representatives who participate in the process. Most important are the absence of criteria for selecting key participants in the assessment process and the lack of documentation for selecting what scientific and technical information is assessed.
PDF Page 29:
Recommendation: The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings more transparent.
PDF Page 30:
Frustration was particularly strong among developing-country scientists, who felt that some of their Government Focal Points do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications.
PDF Page 30:
The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment.
PDF Page 31:
An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III.
[I made a nice little comment on this a while back; looks like I vastly underestimated their use of grey lit (though I knew I was being far too generous) - enjoy, and that the IAC makes essentially the identical comment I made regarding the IPCC's few instances of following their own procedures in AR4]
PDF Page 31:
The current IPCC procedure requires authors to critically assess unpublished or non-peerreviewed sources, reviewing their quality and validity before incorporating them. Lead Authors must also provide a copy of each source used to the Working Group Co-chairs and Secretariat staff, who are responsible for supplying copies to reviewers on request. Non-peerreviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer reviewed.
PDF Page 31-32:
Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed. Some of the errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report had been attributed to poor handling of unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources. Moreover, a search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peerreviewed.
PDF Page 32:
Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered. Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views. As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.
PDF Page 34:
With the tight schedule for completing revisions, authors do not always do an adequate job of revising the text and Review Editors do not always require them to explain why they rejected a comment. In the case of the incorrect projection of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, for example, some of the review comments were not adequately considered and the justifications were not completely explained.
PDF Page 35:
Although implementing these recommendations would greatly strengthen the review process, it would not make the review process truly independent because the Working Group Co-chairs, who have overall responsibility for the preparation of the reports, are also responsible for selecting Review Editors. To be independent, the selection of Review Editors would have to be made by an individual or group that is not engaged in writing the report, and Review Editors would report directly to that individual or group.
PDF Page 37:
The governments’ line-by-line approval of the Summary for Policy Makers drew more concerns and suggestions for improvement by respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire than any other part of the IPCC assessment process. Although most respondents agreed that government buy-in is important, many were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated.
PDF Page 37-38:
Moreover, the choice of messages and description of topics may be influenced in subtle ways by political considerations. Some respondents thought that the Summary for Policy Makers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report. A recent review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, for example, observed that the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the fourth assessment is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report, an approach agreed to by participating governments.
PDF Page 38:
Respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire were divided about the usefulness of the Synthesis Report. Scientists commonly found the report to be redundant with the Working Group reports and too political. Several thought that better integration among Working Groups would eliminate the need for a Synthesis Report. The selection of authors can be a mystery, involving an unexplained mix of Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.
PDF Page 45-46:
The use of the level-of-understanding scale, rather than the confidence scale , would have made clear the weak evidentiary basis for these statements. Another issue is whether it is appropriate to use quantitative subjective probabilities when statements are qualitative in nature or imprecisely stated. Many of the 71 conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true....In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of “very high confidence” will have little substantive value. More importantly, the use of probabilities to characterize uncertainty is most appropriate when applied to empirical quantities.
PDF Page 48:
According to the IPCC uncertainty guidance, quantitative scales should be used when the results are themselves quantified and when there is “high agreement, much evidence.” For many of the Working Group III conclusions, this is clearly not the case. Most (22 of 26) of the main conclusions in the Summary for Policy Makers are qualitative, such as the first and third statements above. The use of a likelihood scale seems inappropriate for such statements....Different modeling assumptions provide a range of distinct point estimates of the quantity of interest and this range should not be interpreted as being equivalent to a prediction interval for a single, correct model. Without further attempts to distinguish among models, it would be inappropriate to apply the likelihood scale to the resulting range.
PDF Page 48:
The IPCC uncertainty guidance provides a good starting point for characterizing uncertainty in the assessment reports. However, the guidance was not consistently followed in the fourth assessment, leading to unnecessary errors. For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.
PDF Page 49:
The IPCC uncertainty guidance urges authors to provide a traceable account of how authors determined what ratings to use to describe the level of scientific understanding (Table 3.1) and the likelihood that a particular outcome will occur (Table 3.3). However, it is unclear exactly whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How, exactly, a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.
PDF Page 49:
In addition, IPCC’s uncertainty guidance should be modified to strengthen the way in which uncertainty is addressed in upcoming assessment reports. In particular, quantitative probabilities, (subjective or objective) should be assigned only to well-defined outcomes and only when there is adequate evidence in the literature and when authors have sufficient confidence in the results.
PDF Page 49:
The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of “high confidence” that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or are difficult to refute. The Committee believes that it is not appropriate to assign probabilities to such statements. There is, moreover, a danger that the confidence scale may be misinterpreted as indicating a statistical level of confidence in an outcome.
PDF Page 53:
Recommendation: The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
[buh-bye Rajendra]
PDF Page 55:
Recommendation: The terms of the Working Group Co-chairs should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
[buh-bye Susan]
PDF Page 57:
Recommendation: The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
[I think you see the trend here]
PDF Page 59:
The communications challenge for the IPCC is exemplified by its response to the discovery of an error in the Fourth Assessment Report regarding the melting rate of Himalayan glaciers. IPCC’s official statement on the matter—issued more than a month after the error was widely publicized—did not state whether an error, in fact, had occurred or whether an erratum would be issued.
PDF Page 60:
IPCC’s mandate is to be policy relevant, not policy prescriptive. However, as noted above, IPCC spokespersons have not always adhered to this mandate. Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility. Likewise, while IPCC leaders are expected to speak publicly about the assessment reports, they should be careful in this context to avoid personal opinions. The opinion of an IPCC representative can be interpreted as the official IPCC position, regardless of how the representative voices his or her views.
PDF Page 64:
The Committee found that some existing IPCC review procedures are not always followed and that others are weak. In particular, Review Editors do not fully use their authority to ensure that review comments receive appropriate consideration by Lead Authors and that controversial issues are reflected adequately in the report.
PDF Page 69:
The extraordinary development of new measuring techniques and new digital technologies has enabled climate scientists to assemble vast quantities of data. However, the large size and complex nature of these databases can make them difficult to access and use. Moreover, for various reasons many of these scientific databases as well as significant unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature are not in the public domain. An unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to freedom-of-information requests were the main problems uncovered in some of the controversies surrounding the IPCC. Poor access to data inhibits users’ ability to check the quality of the data used and to verify the conclusions drawn. Consequently, it is important for the IPCC to aspire toward ensuring that the main conclusions in its assessment reports are underpinned by appropriately referenced peer-reviewed sources or, to the greatest extent practical, by openly accessible databases.
Ah, refreshing. With friends like that who needs the IPCC? It would have been nice of Matt/MMfA to share some of that with you, instead of the attempt in this article of trying to continue the whitewash trend by propping the IPCC and making claims that "the report itself confirms the IPCC's central findings." This conclusion despite the fact that, as stated, the report "didn't study the quality of the science itself'?
Wouldn't the science behind the CAGW alarmism be part of the confirmation needed Matt? Perhaps the core issue my friend, no? And please note that none of the whitewashes posing as inquiries into Climategate/Mann assessed the science either. I wonder why that is. I have your answer for you: CAGW science = political science. If it is truly dissected by anyone who is not in the AGW cult, the supposed science falls squarely on its face.
Why can't you guys just admit this is a political debate rather than a scientific debate? Now that would be truly refreshing. Off to enjoy some dinner and family time for now. I'll further dissect given the time later tonight. For now, Cheers!
I have no problem admitting that this is a political debate more than a scientific one. I can't imagine people going to the lengths that deniers go to desperately attack something simply because they're anti-science.
Enjoy your family time. I hope they're kind to you.
I find it rather amusing that you would call "cherry-picking" my exposure of Matt's vacuous, misinformed and misleading post as being just that. Perhaps you didn't notice that Matt was engaged in whitewash, but now that you see for yourself some of the conclusions drawn by the IAC about the IPCC, maybe you can explain how the MMfA version of reality meshes with actual reality.
I'll be the first to admit that I expected the IAC report to continue the whitewashing trend, so I was pleasantly surprised they chose to actually make some of the same criticisms folks like me have been making for quite some time now. You and Matt et al choose the other path, that of the flat-Earther who negates evidence that does not fit your personal paradigm. Tis a shame, but again, swell irony.
Here. We'll try a test. I'll excerpt and paraphrase some of Matt's conclusions from the article and provide the Matt version of what the IAC had to say and then I'll follow it with my assessment of the IAC findings. Then, Mr. Science, you can reply for the world to see with your opinion as to whose statement is a better reflection of what the IAC actually said.
Matt's version of events (a pretty fair assessment of what he said I believe):
Despite the reporting of right-wing media to the contrary, the IAC report on the IPCC has not at all undermined the scientific consensus on climate change. The IAC report simply recommended some changes to the IPCC's structure and procedures to enhance the quality and authoritative nature of future assessments. None of their recommendations reflected poorly upon the IPCC. To the contrary, the IAC praised the IPCC and its work. Despite not having assessed the quality of AGW science, the chairman of the IAC board assured us that the IPCC's recommendations are well supported by the scientific evidence. The IAC report itself confirms the IPCC's central findings and the success of the IPCC assessment process, if one removes an assessment of AGW science from the equation and instead focuses just on the highlighting of the challenges nations face in dealing with climate change. In fact, the study doesn't show that the much-maligned assessment process was rigged or even fundamentally flawed. On top of all that, the peer-reviewed evidence supports melting glaciers and the conclusion about the dwindling Amazon rainforests.
And you called me a cherry picker? LOL. I'll reserve commentary for the most part on that synopsis (though I would still love to see the peer-reviewed evidence supporting the Amazon conclusion) and let you make your assessment of it. Now here's my version of events:
Despite the existence of "nothing to see here" articles such as that written by MMfA's Matt Gertz, the IAC report on the IPCC shared some dramatic failings of the IPCC process and highlighted many of its shortcomings. Among the report's revelations: IPCC authors put high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence; IPCC spokespersons have strayed into advocacy and thus hurt IPCC credibility, not adhering to the IPCC mandate to not be policy prescriptive; over 1/3 of the IPCC AR4 references are to non-peer-reviewed or unpublished sources and only rarely did the IPCC follow its own procedures in citing such "grey" references which numbered over 5,000; avoidable errors in AR4 were caused by over-reliance on grey literature and failure to make revisions that should have been prompted by review comments; IPCC processes, procedures, author/participant selection, reasoning for rejecting comments, and how authors assess ratings describing the level of scientific understanding lack adequate transparency; critical review comments on controversial issues are not adequately reflected in the report; the Summary for Policy Makers is too political and unduly emphasizes what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors; the process for creating the Summary can be influenced by political motivations and is vulnerable to governmental/individual manipulation; confidence scales to characterize uncertainty were used inappropriately; in some cases uncertainty guidance was applied to vague statements that cannot be falsified and for which there is little evidence, leaving the incorrect impression that the findings presented were substantive; the top levels of the IPCC hierarchy should be limited to working on only one assessment; and finally, and perhaps most importantly, some of the controversies surrounding the IPCC were mainly caused by an unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to FOI requests. The IAC did not assess the quality of AGW science, so claims such as Gertz's that the IAC report itself confirms the IPCC's central findings are inaccurate since the science is supposedly the core of the AGW initiative. In light of these findings by the IAC, it appears that the justly much-maligned IPCC assessment process is rigged and fundamentally flawed.
So Andy, what version of events more closely resembles reality? Before answering, please note that a lot of my statement is taken directly from the IAC report itself, something Gertz was apparently unable to do. Statements that do not fit that description were included to counter some of the misinformation presented in the original article.
For future reference, using the actual source kind of helps one's arguments. That's the problem with the propagandist nature of articles like this one. When some passerby here reads both versions of events and then actually reads the report, those supporting the "nothing to see here" attitude are exposed for their inherent spinning. Unfortunately for them though, they fall into their own webs. Cheers!
On a related side note, I am guessing that Donna Laframboise is wildly cheering the IAC report as her effort has been apparently vindicated. She received much grief for her citizen audit report card on IPCC usage of grey literature. If the IAC numbers are correct, it turns out that she was being too conservative in her numbers (WG1 she had 7% grey vs. 16% for the IAC; WG2 she had 34% grey vs. 41% for the IAC; WG3 she had 57% grey vs. 64% for the IAC). For all three groups she and her group underestimated the use of grey literature, yet her report was met with ridicule and scorn. Go figure.
The AGW theory has largely been falsified and no attempts by you, MMfA, or the rest of the Church will be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. That won't stop you from trying though. Cheers!
I'll admit, I fall into rambling, long-winded mode at times, but I like to think it's usually in an effort to clarify a point. You seem to pad your posts in the opposite direction.
You might think about picking out what you think is your strong point, and spending the rest of your time explaining why you think it's strong. That is, rather than thousands of copy/pasted words followed by " See all those words? I must have done something", try 40 or 50 choice words, followed by your own words being specific about what you're trying to show.
If you think the volume is absolutely necessary, have you considered starting a blog, and linking to it? That way, those who are interested in and susceptible to your interpretations could go there and get what they want.
Other who have seen the reruns could save some mileage on their scroll wheels.
I don't get the impression you're the type who wants advice, just doing my due diligence as a human.
Since you are a fan of due diligence, reading the report before commenting as you admitted below you did not do would have been a good idea. I suppose it is easier to remain in your high chair though and continue to be spoon fed your talking points.
You know what concise posts countering AGW are routinely met with: "Sources?" So why not pre-empt that. I'm sure if I simply said, the IAC said the IPCC relies on grey literature 1/3 of the time and hardly ever cites it as such, you and others would not have asked for support, right?
Regardless, you are hopefully a fan of free will as well. If so, I have some advice for you. Next time you come across a rant of mine simply ignore it and move on. No harm done. That way you can remain in ostrich mode and I'm sure your scroll wheels can take it.
And BTW occasionally, one of my diatribes does bear fruit. Have a read if you have the time. It will give you a pretty good idea about what is driving AGW and the sheep who follow it.
B1 Sustainable Development is the UNFCCC/IPCC goal. An honest assessment of their material leaves no room for arguing that point. So, are you on board an agenda that will halve global wealth by 2100? If you support SD, then the answer is yes.
I would add one thing to the breakdown; when picking a chairman, pick one that actually has a background in climate science, not a former railway engineer!
As for your added note, I actually disagree. Who better to navigate the IPCC AGW gravy train than a former railway engineer?
Do you think I'm stupid? I thought you'd give me more credit than that. Further, terms of debate were never agreed upon because you, as any good control freak would do, attempted to fully dictate said terms. Or perhaps you can direct me to where I agreed to your terms.
As I said then before my "contract excuse" I am not your puppet. Never have been, never will be. You can attempt to excise the politics from this debate, but then what are you left with? Your "robust" science that weakens further with each passing week?
Why don't you start your debate with those? You chicken? Plenty more examples like that available to you if you'd like (speaking of chickens afraid to debate). Man enough? Quick, run and check if your buddy at skepticalscience has updated his site and provided you with some talking points about those. And maybe you can drop MMfA a note and ask them to get more active with their AGW propaganda. A whole month? Then maybe you'll see more of me.
I'm sure you'll be back for another round and I'll continue my assault upon your lack of reason tonight if the opportunity arises, but my son's awake now and time with him is a bit more enjoyable than the time I spend correcting clowns like you, though that is loads of fun too. Until then, Cheers!
You denialists have nothing. You had your "a-ha!" moment with "climategate", but that fizzled like all your "proofs".
As for the papers you cite, what's your point? What exactly is the point you are trying to make by citing them? What's your position on them? And of course, once I look into them to uncover yet another failed attempt to discredit climate science, the postings will close. You'll move on, hoping we won't remember.
But, not to fear. I'll take a look at them anyway. I wouldn't know what you are getting at, but thanks for the leads.
You act like that other denialist, Plimer. He wouldn't debate Monbiot, until this.
You denialists are all hot air. Rants without substance.
So just how is that climategate thing going now? Any new leads on that conspiracy angle? Did you uncover more failures of climiate science?
Like everyone else associated with the CHURCH you don't when to clean house. Good luck spreading the gospel with your google site. Hope you don't get lost with the other 48 million sites that come up!
In order to have a truly informed opinion about how politicized the IPCC is, you would have to pour over thousands of documents with a fair and objective disposition. Since few of us have time to do this, I'm afraid we must trust the opinion of qualified experts. Such is the human condition. And no, reading a published document and regurgitating a few context-free quotes does not give your opinion equal weight with professionals.
Full disclosure: I didn't read the entire IAC REview, I had only read over a few selected points in it. Most people learn at a pretty young age to get an overall view of something, and decide if there's anything surprising or revealing there.
Full disclosure, pt. II: I didn't read either of Gally's posts completely. It only took a few seconds to see what was going on there, highlighting a few lines that he interpreted ( or was told to interpret), as damning evidence against the IPCC.
I also had the benefit of having recently read some older GW threads at this site, and had a preview of Gal's performance there. He seems to be a quantity over quality type, stuffing the page with copy & pasted bits that appear to say something, and linking repeatedly to the same unreliable sources.
His posts remind me of that not-too-attractive young woman at the bar or nightclub who compensates with too much make-up and an excess of cleavage. She catches the blurry eye of the guy who's desperately looking for something ( sorry, Tbone), but not really convincing to those with a lot of options.
The clergy of the Denial Cult will lead them by the nose on this one, just as they did with "climategate", and , once again, they'll be convinced that this is the nail in the coffin they've been waiting for.
Galileonardo seems like many dudes I've met. He probably treats those to close to him to his bountiful knowledge of multiple fields. Most people don't have the heart to burst the bubbles of these individuals, and so the Galileonardos of the world continue with their fantasies that they are learned renaissance men. All we can do for these unfortunate souls is pray that they will see the light, and maybe have some fun with them.
You may very well be right, IS, but I have a different take on this type. The reason I respectfully disagree with you is that your theory rests on the people surrounding Gally ( friends, family and co-workers) being so polite or non-confrontational that they never tell him that he's full of crap.
Maybe I'm biased and blessed by the people I grew up with, and deliberately associate with, but I can't imagine anybody who knows Gal , and is on to him, being that disciplined. My friends will call bullsh|t well before anybody gets to the point G seems to start out at.
Even more polite types will occasionally hit their limit, get a few drinks in them, or have some personal difference that will bring out their true thoughts.
I believe personalities like Gally's only develop when raised like veal, or one of those mass-farmed turkeys that can't walk on their own. It's an ego shielded from its natural predators. This is pretty obvious in looking at this thread. Everybody else is asking him to make a clear point, and laughing at him, but it doesn't even seem to register. He just goes on where he left off.
It's entirely possible that he really doesn't believe what he's writing, and just enjoys typing and name-calling, but that's the long shot. I meet this type in real life.
They're easy to spot on the internets by their pretentious screen names ( Look for any variation of "Truth", "Patriot", "Proud","American", "mentalgiant", etc). A combination of Galileo and Leonardo might be a tribute to the Mutant Ninja Turtles, but I think it's a little more delusional than that.
These are people who have never been questioned or interrupted, probably raised on a steady diet of praise.
One way they get there is being the spoiled only child. I've seen a lot of these.
Another is the "Big fish, little pond" route. We have a lot of transplants from around the country where I live, and I see this in the only college kid from the farm town, or the valedictorian of the worst high school in the state.
The San Fernando Valley has a thriving porn industry filled with the prettiest girls and best actresses from schools across the nation. They keep telling themselves they're stars.
Then again, he could just be the most articulate guy at his corner bar, the one the other barflies call "professor".
Better to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth (or type in this case) and remove all doubt
I know it must be hard seeing the faith and the church being tarnished like it has over the last couple of years, but you had to realize that the tenets would be exposed at some point. To make the charade work they had to ever increase the timeline hoping beyond hope they could make the square peg fit into the round hole.
This review is part of the political angle of Climate change. It's partially a reaction to the Denier Cult and their crusade against science.
The two of you keep obsessing over the point that many of us didn't read every word of it. That's not as significant as you seem to think it is.
I get what you're trying to do, to imply that those who didn't pore over this review are commenting without being informed. That's just ignorant.
The science has been going on for years, and little attacks like Climategate are going to happen, and they're going to force reactions at times.
These are mostly of interest to the Deniers, who will spend half of their lives tweaking on them, reading what they want to, and applying bold font to the parts that get their tinfoil hats buzzing.
Nobody's debating because G hasn't really made any points. Neither have you. I'd just as soon spend my time "debating" somebody who believes in Bigfoot, or trying to convince somebody that the President isn't a Muslim.
Lastly, those weren't personal attacks on G, only a conversation with IS about the psychology of right wing authoritarian types. If it's not clear to you yet, that's a big part of what this site is about. Right wing propaganda, and the people who love it.
We're studying primate behavior, and like others doing that, we don't waste a lot of time asking the chimps their opinion, or debating with them about the reasons they fling poo, or the substance of their chattering.
Get it ?
From the third paragraph:
There can be little doubt that our friend with an unfortunate name read this part of the report. However, he seemed to think it was just another bullet point. Or maybe, like the guy who searches the entire house to find his wallet before looks in his pocket, he just skipped it in his urgency to find out the article's position.
Either way, he doesn't seem very good at summarizing large amounts of information. So he regurgitates thousands of words and highlights the parts he thinks support his beliefs, as though this consitutes "research" and "analysis".
Thanks for posting those paragraphs, they sort of confirm what I was saying, and what seems to totally escape our proselytizing Denial Cult amigos, that this is partly a reaction to the political element of the topic.
That's why I got a good laugh out of G noting that I "admitted" that this was a political debate, not a scientific one. I think it went over his head that it was only a political debate because of his ilk.
Evolution has become a political debate, in the same way, but not because of scientists.
Oh well, probably see more of this nonsense in a few months, when it starts snowing in parts of the country. :)
I take the denial Cultists about as seriously when they use terms like "global warming faithful".
It never seems to click with them, that if they had any actual science behind them, they wouldn't need to spend their lives breathlessly waiting for actual scientists to write something down that they could, through dishonesty or confusion, misinterpret.
They'd be working on some actual science.
Then Andy chimes in and jumps straight on board the Soldyer bridge to nowhere and uses it as confirmation of what "totally escapes" me. More meatballs from you guys? And then Andy's back to more denial of the politics that drives his position and Soldyer then says something I actually mostly agree with. You adherents of Global Warming doctrine are mostly the same: blinded by "the light." And finally Andy throws the cherry on top with more projection about the science. Great work folks. Please do keep enlightening us "anti-science" types.
I like your next move too: when all else fails, cry conspiracy theorist! Where's the conspiracy? The SD rats are operating right out in the open "hidden in plain sight" you dolt. You are just too brainwashed to see the transparent and available-for-all-to-see agenda.
Tbone and I know perfectly well what is going on here. You continue to dance around the issue and talk about irrelevant things like your conspiracy theory and poo fetishes and continue to say absolutely nothing substantive. Same old ridicule, marginalization, and "nothing to see here" tomfoolery skeptics have grown used to seeing from AGW cultists. So when you use terms like "crusade against evidence" it prompts laughter. Your ilk are unable or unwilling to speak to the substance because it is much easier to keep grazing in your little green pasture like good little sheep.
Right wing authoritarian? Honestly. Not even in the ballpark and exceptionally rich coming from a left-wing totalitarian. Stock up on your incandescents folks. Andy's World is on its way! Complete with personal methane monitors. Did you eat steak again Tbone? Pu! Better get some extra credits from, you guessed it, Big Al's Methane Credit Discount Emporium! And what world would be complete without...historical climate debt and a side of massive income redistribution? Yes, Andy's World promises less freedom and less money for everyone! Economy, shmeconomy! Who needs it? All you need is love. All together now!
Yeah, good luck with that Andy. Your totalitarian future makes for such an attractive pitch. About as pretty as a chattering chimp flinging poo. Cheers!
I think most are just sheep toeing the company line, but they apparently don't even realize what they are fighting for. Their faith-based initiative is trying to steer us toward economic suicide and prolonged poverty amongst the world's poorest, and luckily for us, it is failing miserably. The square peg won't fit and I'm loving it.
Charade. Ivory tower of cards. Fraud. Whatever we call it, more and more people are removing the wool and seeing this movement, in the smelliest sense of the word, for what it is, and the folks we encounter here for the most part will be among the last left standing. Maybe we'll witness Cultist's Last Stand here. Who do you think will be there at the end? SLRTX? Delly? I know one thing for sure. It won't be pretty. Look at the lather SLUR is in. He built his little web and nobody is coming to play.
They dare talk about deniers? They can't even admit that this IAC report contains some very damning recommendations and that Gertz was trying to pitch a whitewash. Even when they have zero evidence to back up their claims, they yield not even an inch. Do they ever?
I'm not making those quotes from the report up obviously, so they willfully choose to ignore them or label my actions as cherry picking and refuse to be surprised by the amount of grey lit or the lack of transparency or the censoring of dissent or the unwillingness to share data or the exaggeration of claims or even the politicized nature of the organization.
That last one kills me. Soldyer and Andy both think we are the ones introducing politics into this debate! How ridiculous are these people? AGW science is about as politicized a scientific field as one can imagine. Name one that comes even close to it. Politics is the cornerstone. But they are on a mission to save us and the world and we skeptics are just plain evil. Meanwhile they wholeheartedly back a disgustingly inhumane agenda. I'll say it again. They are ridiculous hypocrites.
They cannot deny that Sustainable Development will be the direct cause of death of tens of millions of people that would have otherwise lived because it is an absolute fact. 18 million people a year currently die because of poverty. I project that number would be under one million by 2050 if these clowns would get out of our way, but instead they want the poor to have the economic power they would have had by 2050 a full fifty years later! How humane. I guess some of those poor can continue to cook with rhino dung, if there are any rhinos left by the time we get back to the world's actual environmental problems.
They deny the agenda, they deny the politics involved, and they deny the gaping holes in their science. They bring little to the table because there isn't any substance. Just empty plates promising more empty plates without even realizing it. Without the propping of political propagandists, a compliant media, and the likes of the engineer and Michael MannMade and James "Coal Train" Hansen, what do the AGW zombies have left?
It's rather sad watching puppets flail but I can't help but laugh a bit. As you pointed out with that consensus and all they thought they had it in the bag. Expect them to squeal to the very end. If I'm not careful I'll waste my day off addressing the rest of this clown show, so I'm off for another round. You've been more consistent than I, so keep up the good fight. This brand of Neo-Inquisitor is no match so the pickin's easy. Oh, and not that I need to say this, but don't take SLRTX up on his offer at his "web" site. These folks will never stop trying.
It is also amusing that as the house of cards tumbles down around them they dig their heels in even more. Very telling. The first signs of thought reform? As you alluded to several times, while they're tilting at windmills REAL environmental problems are relegated to the back burner along with the plight of the worlds poor. Nice job there warmists.
Thanks for the links on SD. Great work as always. Enjoy the time off and I'll see you on the next "sky is falling/AGW/left-wing misinformation" thread!
AS for SLRTX's site...it may be hard to find among the other 48 million hits on "the google" for this topic! He'll need some luck with that. I don't think we have to worry about a left wing Matt Drudge anytime soon!
So here's how you got your fantasy about me wrong. I grew up, with siblings no less, in one of the toughest, most-densely populated neighborhoods in my region of the country, lower/middle-class blue-collar folk. Plenty of predators and opportunities to test fight or flight. No spoiling going on. If you didn't earn it, you didn't get it, and you usually had to fight for it because there were a lot of us. It was a great experience learning about what hard work, competition, community and perseverance are all about. I still live here. I'm sure in light of that you'll somehow revise your theory (try revising AGW instead) to fit some other routine, but since we're playing that game, let's try you out.
I see a middle aged man, late thirties to mid forties, no children, never married or maybe divorced, a transplant himself from the Midwest perhaps (more projection from you?), most certainly moved to a much cooler and informed area of the country. A farm kid from a farm town who made it. Very wealthy and doesn't work that hard to get paid well (are you one of those San Fernando movie stars you mentioned?). Doesn't work 40 hours a week, baby smooth hands, heated pool, 3/4 mill. house (conservatively), high-price high-HP low-mileage vehicle, a dog named Chet (a Golden that loves tennis balls and diving after them in the pool), a potential limousine liberal, doesn't return "home" much to mingle with the unwashed and ignorant he is anecdotally so blessed to know, except of course to visit aging family because "he cares." Circle of friends is very narrow from a political perspective and the members rarely stray from the narrative. He welcomes the quiet isolation of groupthink, the numbness it provides. Occasional illicit drug user, Class A. I could go on Anti, but I think that'll do.
Something else about me Anti that didn't enter your notions, I'm a father. I want my son to have the best opportunity to achieve the American dream. If you have your way, his grandson will retire with far less wealth and a shorter life expectancy. Thanks. I will fight against this inhumane agenda until it is torn asunder. Your ilk who promote SD try to sentence the world to death, economic suicide, deliberate and unbelievably destructive restraint of a world that is at the precipice of greatness, and we would achieve it if your ilk would just back off, lick your wounds, and try to repurpose your ideology into something equally foul so you can try again.
For now, let the adults move us forward at the natural pace. Global wealth is the solution to most of the world's problems. Get out of the way. Get out of my son's way. Go found some Utopia you can dominate and practice your slavery rites and show the world what's up. Let the rest of us pass you up and actually get the job done you purport to want done. Wealth is the answer. From the IPCC:
Pollution abatement efforts appear to increase with income, growing willingness to pay for a clean environment, and progress in the development of clean technology. Thus, as incomes rise, pollution should increase initially and later decline, a relationship often referred to as the "environmental Kuznets curve."
Population will peak in 2050 at 9 billion, drop to 7 billion by 2100. With your panacea properly squashed, the world in its entirety will be extremely rich by today's standards, economic conditions unparalleled in history. Your solution is destruction of western civilization and prolonged poverty. Why on Earth would you try to put on the brakes now? Whatever. Step aside child. I know you wish you could silence folks like me, but you can't. Part of that perseverance I mentioned, or the tenacity you offered. And I'm a father.
Perhaps rather than instruct me as to how I should post and explain to me how I should "register" your comments, you can finally provide some answers to the questions I asked and add something other than denial to the conversation. I'll be sure to remind you to do so before I part.
So I was right that you hadn't read the report and instead relied on a "few selected points" to form the basis of your one-liner to open the thread. This is the crux of my presence here, since what I routinely witness is the definition of delusional groupthink. What I see are a bunch of ignorant loud mouths who fail to actually explore the evidence and fail to see that they are unwitting sheep (though some do so wittingly). This thread is more evidence of that.
Sorry you don't quite have a monopoly, and sorry the message continues to spread. Sorry, you lose. You lose because, first and foremost, you attempted to hijack the science and use it as the vehicle of implementing your political ideology. More and more people are realizing that AGW-associated CO2 mitigation is more control-freak SD agenda than scientifically-based need.
And you lose because you fail to ever yield even an inch in the debate, so that when a report like this comes along instigated by the IPCC itself and they give them the back of their hand, folks like you who don't even read it feel the need to once again proclaim "wingnut" and "exaggeration." That's your scientific method? Swell. Who here has presented evidence? Who is hamming it up in their ivory tower offering not even an informed opinion? I'm sure the AGW fence-sitter who might have come across this thread is highly impressed with your thoughtful insights.
I quoted extensively from the report and to claim that none of the IAC recommendations about the IPCC status quo are damning is absolute delusion. Do you support the IPCC's overuse of grey literature? Remember Pachauri's arrogant response about "voodoo science" and his touting of peer-review versus "unsubstantiated research?"
Now we have confirmation that more than a third of the sources used by the vaunted IPCC are unpublished and non-peer-reviewed, and almost always improperly cited (that's about 5,000 mistakes right there), and that's no big deal to you? Give me a break. Same goes with the other IAC findings I highlighted. Nothing to see here, right? Here's the synopsis again, this time in a nice little list for you:
• High confidence in statements for which there is little evidence
• Strayed into advocacy
• Not adhering to IPCC mandate to not be policy prescriptive
• Excessive reliance on unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature
• Not following procedures for citing grey literature over 99% of the time
• Failure to make avoidable revisions
• Lack of transparency in many IPCC processes and procedures
• Failure to adhere to established IPCC processes and procedures
• Critical review comments on controversial issues not adequately reflected
• SPM is too political and unduly emphasizes what is known, sensational, or popular
• SPM process can be influenced by political motivations and vulnerable to manipulation
• Confidence scales to characterize uncertainty used inappropriately
• Uncertainty guidance applied to vague statements that cannot be falsified and for which there is little evidence
• Unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to FOI requests
None of that matters, right? I guess it's easier to go the lazy black helicopter route than to face this reality: you are a propagandized tool. You project that I am "told to interpret" while simultaneously you admit to being told how to interpret the report by relying on a "few selected points" like this MMfA article. It's laughable.
So who exactly is being led by the nose here? Someone like me who actually independently explores the material and draws their own conclusions, or someone like you who nakedly swallows the AGW scripture and its trimmings such as this article? Say "baaa" Andy.
Moreover, the choice of messages and description of topics may be influenced in subtle ways by political considerations. Some respondents thought that the Summary for Policy Makers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report. A recent review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, for example, observed that the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the fourth assessment is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report, an approach agreed to by participating governments.
You added:
It appears whenever you read the buzzword "political" you automatically assumed the IAC had confirmed your belief that the IPCC has a pro-global-warming agenda, and didn't bother to find out in what way politics influenced the findings.
Actually, I base my "informed opinion" upon extensive research into this subject. If you parse some of the other quotes I provided, the pattern clearly emerges. The IAC even used the word "advocacy" to describe public statements from IPCC leadership, and they admonished the IPCC for their over-reliance on grey literature and their apparent inability to properly cite such references.
Are you honestly trying to say that numerous references to material from the WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and a host of other AGW-advocacy groups does not show the IPCC being excessively in favor of action on Global Warming? And what of their strident advocacy of Sustainable Development? Does pushing SD wholeheartedly qualify as being "excessively in favor of action on Global Warming?"
The fact that you think there is any chance whatsoever that the IPCC does not favor action on Global Warming is telling. As the chairman of the IAC put it in the article, the IPCC has "driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change" and the IAC report itself states that "Climate change is a long-term challenge that will require every nation to make decisions about how to respond."
So, really, are you saying that the IPCC is not excessively in favor of action on Global Warming? I doubt you are. Why would COP15 even have happened and why would AR4 openly advocate SD were that true? I am afraid that you have trusted the opinion of qualified propagandists. There is no shortage of those.
Did you not read the preface of the report? If you have, read it again. Where do you find any accusation of political manipulation of the reports in favor of action on climate change? The general criticism doesn't seem to have anything to do with bias one way or another. It merely seems to suggest better methods of presentation, data-gathering and fact-checking, just as Matt Gertz described. Sometimes when scrounging through the trees, it pays climb on a rocky outcrop, and to take a look at the forest.
Here's what I think your problem is; you're reading a report that is very technical in nature through the prism American eco-politics, and that's causing you to see things that aren't there. It pays to take everything very literally when reading a document like this, and if you do that, I think you'll see that this is a bland list of suggestions, not an explosive revelation that will finally EXPOSE THE DARK FORCES BEHIND THE MANUFACTURED GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
It pays to take everything very literally when reading a document like this.
Yeah, I've been trying to get you and the rest of the flock to do that, to no avail as of yet. So here goes another of the diatribes you guys love. Your description of the IAC's "bland list of suggestions" and your dismissal of a politicized SPM, the single most important document that the IPCC produces, tell me you yourself haven't climbed to the outcrop despite having claimed to have seen "the light."
And so you continue to try to argue that the IPCC is not biased in favor of action on climate change. It befuddles me that you would even suggest that, but can't we finally settle that one? I see you going on about it still in your other comments. We can settle it so that maybe you'll stop beating that horse. I'll even be "literal."
What was COP15? A failed meeting of the UNFCCC, right? Here is the COP15 negotiating text. What drives the language of that text? Let's get literal. Page 5, number 2 of their 15 preambular paragraphs:
PP.2 Acknowledging the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and more recent scientific information, that delay in reducing emissions significantly constrains opportunities to achieve low stabilization levels and increases the probability of severe climate change impacts and the consequent need for, and cost of, adaptation,
To hammer the point, in case it didn't get through, page 6, number PP.15:
PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.
1. [[[As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report] Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]
2. Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries [Parties].
Hopefully that literally establishes with you the alignment of the dictates of UNFCCC COP15 with IPCC AR4. As noted, AR4 says AGW is "unequivocal" and, based off of IPCC warnings, COP15 states "delay in reducing emissions significantly...increases the probability of severe climate change impacts." Conclusion: CO2 mitigation is paramount or the world will suffer "severe" consequences.
OK, OK, I'm scared, we'll sign up! Please save our grandchildren! What do we need to do?
Let's go literal again. Scroll back up to PP.8:
PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
Sustainable Development, lollipops and rainbows for everyone, most importantly, Gaia! SD is mentioned over 60 times in the COP15 text and nearly 300 times in AR4. It is unarguably the UN/IPCC path to our salvation, the opportunity for the West to right their wrongs and for developing nations to avoid the mistakes made by we selfish barbarians. And it is "the first priority." I can't keep a straight face anymore. A little fun at your expense ensues. The wolf and the sheep talk economics and the effects of SD Maybe you'll understand this better this way.
Sounds awesome! It even has a catchy name. Sustainable Development. Soooo, um, what's the catch?
Yeah, good news, bad news about that. The good news is, we will be a less material world and possess a high level of environmental and social consciousness. Governments, businesses, the media, and the public will pay increased attention to the environmental and social aspects of development.
Great, we sound wonderful. What's the bad news? And will there still be ponies? I've always wanted one.
Well, um yes, there will still be ponies, but they will of course have been afforded equal civil rights and you therefore can't own a pony. You could maybe befriend one and if the pony under its own free will cares to associate with you, then perhaps you might be able to forge a relationship. Back to the subject. Well to balance ourselves within Gaia, sorry, to best serve humanity and the environment we'll need to, um, have a few things like, um...oh my god is that an ivory-billed woodpecker? [whispers] massive wealth redistribution, taxes on carbon-intensive products and services, high food prices, tightly controlled suburban development, compact cities, green funds, environmental justice, environmental taxation, additional ODA above and beyond ODA targets, adaptation debt, a uniform global levy and levies on CO2 emissions, international transport, maritime transport and international transactions, fines for non-compliance, control over meat consumption, and finally, compensation for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity. [louder] Sorry it was pileated. [now yelling] And a global GDP of $350 trilllllllion dollars!!!!!!!
You had me at "there will still be ponies" but wait, $350 trillion? That's a lot of money. I guess all that investment in green technology and a 21st century economy really paid off. I knew this all made economic sense. Let's go hug some squirrels, um, if they want to.
[back to whisper] Well, economic activity will be greatly reduced to the tune of $200 trillion per year by 2100.
Come again?
If we go SD instead of our current EVIL path formerly known as the Golden Economic Age but now simply known as...SINISTER A1 [echoes], and not the delicious steak sauce, world GDP by 2100 will be $350 trillion instead of $550 trillion. But we need to do this! It will atone for our unforgivable historical climate debt and will allow us to make significant and deliberate progress toward international and national income equality.
Oh, I get it. A rising tide lifts all boats. We take the hit some because of our evil past and help those less fortunate realize wealth as well. Sounds fair. We'll still be rich anyway, right? What would our per capita income be?
$60,000.
Versus?
$100,000.
Sorry?
$100,000.
Hmm. 40%. Well OK, it's all for a good cause and we'll still have pony citizens and we'll be helping the poor so it's all good.
The poor will have their per capita income cut in half.
[laughs] Funny. I thought you said the poor will have their per capita income cut in half.
I did. Their PDI will be $35,000 instead of $70,000.
But wait, weren't you saying something about international and national income equality?
Oh my god is that an ivory-billed woodpecker? [sheep turns, wolf karate chops sheep to back of neck and feasts on him for dinner with some fava beans and a nice Chianti]
And so concludes your foray into Reality Theatre. Thought it would be a swell way to continue the conversation, see if you might get the joke that has been played on you and perhaps elicit a chuckle from any heretical skeptics that stumble across it. It's a win-win situation. Silence of the lambs is a good reference for what happened in this thread too: AGW-fattened sheep too busy gorging themselves to answer legitimate criticism.
A simple chain of events. The IPCC declares we must do something now about our "unsustainable" development, it spawns SD and selects it as the path to environmental enlightenment, the UNFCCC adopts the IPCC's science and its CO2 mitigation and adaptation schemes, the UNFCCC pitches SD and all of those wonderful adaptation and mitigation measures at COP15, COP15 fails, they will try again in Cancun with COP16, they will fail again, COP17 South Africa, fail, COP18 Qatar or South Korea, fail, and on and on it will go.
They will not give up their SD dream anytime soon. But more people have woken up to the agenda. That trend fortunately for the world will not come to an end. As I said regarding SD proponents in the article I pointed you to, CO2 mitigation was their pot of gold, their path to Utopia, and the rainbow is disappearing. And so you and Andy et al will continue your Invasion of the Body Snatchers pod people act and excoriate any of the unconverted that come across your path, but ultimately you will lose. Enjoy your time in your ivory tower of cards. It has a short shelf life.
SLUR, was that political enough for you?
What does is say about the level of a mind that knows their lies and exaggerations can be easily exposed with a click of a mouse yet they still lie and exaggerate?
Are you kidding, they didn't even ATTEND science class. They cut class and were making out in the eraser room or under the bleachers.
They ignore the findings and see what the what to see.
Then rumple jumps on board for some ivory tower fun. Common ingredient as per usual: delusion.
mike, I am guessing you meant "what they want to see" but in your AGW scripture-induced haze you messed it up. Your comment is a classic case of projection. See my comment above and you'll realize that this is a classic MMfA "nothing to see here" argument that, to pick up a phrase from the IAC report, "reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence."
Perhaps you can actually read the report yourself before chastising skeptics for their "right wing dyslexia" and playing the MMfA puppet. Too too rumple. I read the report in full. Can you say the same? Doubt it.
Up front, I haven't read the report.
I do know Koch Bros and friends pay quite alot for people much like yourself to fight this insidious attack on their profit line.
When I saw yet again not one critical voice in the comments I felt the need to expose the hypocrisy of those who tout being on the side of the evidence yet again. Nobody here apparently read the report yet they felt it was necessary to throw out stuff like "wingnuts" and "LIE" and "right wing dyslexia" and "ignore the findings" and "lies and exaggerations."
Huh? I've come across plenty of uninformed opinion in the MMfA AGW threads, but come on, can't somebody within the AGW church say one critical thing about this article? Are they all that brainwashed that they are incapable of any level of critical thinking and judgment? How can someone read the IAC report and side with Gertz's whitewash?
I think it is a sad state of affairs that those who claim consensus are too lazy to actually do any homework themselves and draw their own conclusions. That is cultish behavior and proves to me that most commenters here only consume what they are spoon-fed and simply regurgitate pre-approved talking points in line with their ideology. If you have the opportunity to read the report, let me know if you think this article reflects reality.
As for breathing the same air, I'm starting to think that perhaps that is not the case. Perhaps the AGW faithful have some other formula that causes this reality haze. Maybe some nitrous added to the mix. Or some steamed Kool Aid. Not sure what but I surely see the effects on their cognitive processes.
If you are able to line me up with some of that Koch Bros. squid, let me know. I could use the extra cash flow at the moment.
Such reports on the as I've seen, say errors have been called out, but the errors do not invalidate the IPCC's work in any structural way.
Give some time for an informed opinion to get to you. Declaring victory so soon tends to offend, and give the opinion that your not here for an honest debate.
We're all still waiting for that tide of peer reviewed articles to appear supporting something like your position.
Check the NYT article on the bros, start sending the various companies listed resumes. Send them here for positive feedback on your qualifications.
In contrast to you, I actually read the report and the conclusions you read are mine and mine alone. If you don't believe it, please go ahead and find me a blog or article that says what I said. I'll save you the time. You won't find it, but even if you do, it will just be someone else who actually read the report and simply drew the same obvious conclusions. It isn't that hard if you take off the AGW blinders.
So you have yet again projected since you apparently "picked up" your review on this blog page. Sad. Pure. Irony.
Yes, I tend to offend, but most of that name-calling I quoted was from before any skeptic had commented. It is par for the course here, so why am I going to waste time being civil with those that do not show civility? As for an honest debate, I welcome them when they rarely happen here, such as your previous edification regarding why CSP solar arrays are so destructive to what you called "arid wasteland." There's certainly room for civility, but then this isn't a civilized room.
As for your tide of peer-reviewed articles supporting something like my position, you can start here, the Warmists' favorite destination. Would 800+ be considered a tide? Dig in. You'll discover it's a big world out there, complete with an MWP and LIA.
I know that might be hard to believe with the cherry-picked hockey stick still fresh in mind, but break out of your shell a bit. The science is nowhere close to being settled, and the real-world empirical data against the AGW theory is truly "robust" when compared to the scant and biased model-based projections that support the theory of CO2-driven CAGW.
Perhaps you can direct me to your tide of empirical peer-reviewed articles that support your position (minus the 5000+ grey references of the IPCC), that CO2 will, despite all the actual data to the contrary, cause CAGW. Please also provide me peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 was the principal climate driver of past temperature fluctuations. And also perhaps some peer-reviewed empirical evidence suggesting that climate models have set feedback correctly.
You know, such things would be kinda nice since the agenda behind your position is the one that would dictate, and that is the proper word, Sustainable Development and totally alter all of our economic futures. That being the case, I would think the burden of proof lies with you. That tide never came in despite the premature and one-sided hype. Cheers!
Oh, and I'm a conservative. Based upon your unquestioning belief in the BS, I'm guessing that you're not . . . just a groupie.
I would expect to see some criticism in a critical review!
This has been happening with scientific review for a long time, and it will continue to happen. There's a lot of money dedicated to convincing people that science's greatest strength is a weakness.
I see a report that draws this conclusion:
CONCLUSIONS
The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound, although significant
improvements are both possible and necessary for the fifth assessment and beyond.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And am reassure that the science is sound and that the report is going to outline ways to portray that science to the world that will garner more understanding of the science. That conclusion says that while they are doing nothing wrong, there is always room for improvement, particularly given new technology that didn't exist when the group began.
You seem to read that same conclusion as saying if there is any possible better way of communicating, that must mean the science was wrong all along.
Yes, the report highlights some of the reasons the science has been misrepresented by the deniers and ways to avoid that in the future. They won't work though - the deniers only see what they want to see, so even if the message could be perfectly delivered in flawless second grade English, there will still be people claiming it says something else entirely.
There's a lot of money dedicated to convincing people that AGW science is strong and CO2 must be dealt with immediately or the world will reach a tipping point and worldwide catastrophe will ensue and we'll run out of water and there will be plagues of locusts and tornadoes of teeth and nails and we're all gonna die!!!I (Announcer) Unless you buy some credits from Honest Al's Carbon Credit Discount Emporium! Have no fear sheep, follow right this way...Cheers!
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Now thatsa robusto! Puhlease. I'm not sure what made you buy into the AGW fallacy, but for your own sake please revisit the evidence to which you have abandoned yourself (and reason). You have sided with the Neo-Inquisitors and those that would cut the wealth of the world in half. How does that align with your conservatism? Are you a [purses lips] compassionate conservative?
Based upon your unquestioning belief in the BS, I'm guessing that you're not. Otherwise how could you reconcile the devastation your SD agenda brings upon the world? How can you justify prolonging poverty among the world's poorest? And how exactly does a conservative conclude that the economic damage SD promises is for the betterment of humanity? Fan of the underclass, are you? Not ready to part with them just yet?
Oh, and I could give a you-know-what about your political ideology. As if it matters, my ideology transcends your labeling as it cannot be fit into a nice little category. I care more about what it is that you support. In the case of AGW I can safely conclude that you are comfortable with your death sentence of more of the world's poorest all in the name of Gaia. Very compassionate.
You've got that my way or the highway meme down.
Can't see the woods for the trees eh SLRTX? Since you're not paying attention (willfully or ignorantly?) it's been YOUR side that has drug the science into policy over the last thirty years.
Do any of the IAC findings I highlighted matter to you?
Do you support the IPCC's overuse of grey literature?
Do you support the implementation of the UN's Sustainable Development agenda?
If so, are you comfortable with halving global wealth by 2100 in order to achieve SD?
If so, why and how does SD mesh with your ideology?
Let me know. I'll be busy flinging poo over here.