[Archived] Climate Change

[pg]

FYI since leaving my engineering career behind I've worked in remote sensing/numerical weather prediction for the past few years and thus have become quite familiar with the science behind the Earth's climate. I've also learned a lot about the science from some of Australia's best climate scientists, some of who are highly ranked members of the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) and contribute to the IPCC.

For those who are genuinely sceptical and who'd like to ask some questions regarding the science or Anthropogenic Global Warming, feel free to ask me some questions.

For those who regularly read pseudo-science blogs like WattsUpWithThat and regard the rants of David Rose and James Delingpole as evidence that it's all just one big conspiracy, I'll just ignore you as multiple studies have shown that you can't change the mind of a conspiracy theorists based on facts.

In fact I almost find the psychology behind climate science denial more interesting than the science itself. You can predict whether or not someone accepts/rejects climate science by there attitudes towards free markets and belief in conspiracy theories.

[ABBEY]

Climate change ?

It was winter and now spring .. Summer next .. Nowt changed

[Steve Moss]

I've seen it said that IPCC and ICW types have claimed there are no peer reviewed papers critical of their claims. Apparently, like so much else they say, that is false. As it stands now there are 1,350+ peer reviewed papers critical of the work performed by the IPCC and ICW.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And here's an article from Professor Stavins confirming that scientific integrity was sacrificed to support politician's agendas.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/climate-report-politicised-says-academic-robert-stavins/story-e6frg6xf-1226897703751#

[Paul]

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Criticism: Paper [insert Name] does not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.

....... and that's just a five minute scroll thriugh

[pg]

I've seen it said that IPCC and ICW types have claimed there are no peer reviewed papers critical of their claims.

Not true. The IPCC have never made such a claim.

[speeeeeeedie]

The US government has just released its national climate assessment. It observes that climate change is occurring inside the USA; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/science/earth/climate-change-report.html?_r=03

I read another article saying that scientists now have a 97% consensus on it.

[pg]

Take if from a professional Earth scientist. The fundamentals of Anthropogenic Global Warming are rock-solid. We know the wavelengths in which CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and we know that the Earth emits IR radiation smack bang in the middle of this absorption band.

We know that in the past the Earth's climate is sensitive because it's climate has always changed in the past when radiative forcing has changed.

We know that the Earth is warming due to an increase in its greenhouse effect because we've measured increasing downwards longwave radiation at the surface, and a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (in the CO2 absorption bands) from space. The spatial pattern of the observed warming (more at the poles than the equator, more at night versus the day) is consistent with an increase in downwards longwave radiation.

We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is based on fossil emissions based on atomic mass of observed carbon.

The areas of scientific debate come down to regional projections, i.e. what is going to happen to your neck of the woods in the next few centuries. Observed changes over the past few decades (increase in the Hadley circulation, reduction in mid-latitude storm tracks due to a reduction in the meridional temperature gradient) can be predicted with simple analysis. How ice sheets and other aspects of the climate react is still unknown. Feedbacks are also unknown (e.g. how long will it take the permafrost to melt, releasing more methane).

[otto man]

Take if from a professional Earth scientist. The fundamentals of Anthropogenic Global Warming are rock-solid. We know the wavelengths in which CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and we know that the Earth emits IR radiation smack bang in the middle of this absorption band.

We know that in the past the Earth's climate is sensitive because it's climate has always changed in the past when radiative forcing has changed.

We know that the Earth is warming due to an increase in its greenhouse effect because we've measured increasing downwards longwave radiation at the surface, and a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (in the CO2 absorption bands) from space. The spatial pattern of the observed warming (more at the poles than the equator, more at night versus the day) is consistent with an increase in downwards longwave radiation.

We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is based on fossil emissions based on atomic mass of observed carbon.

The areas of scientific debate come down to regional projections, i.e. what is going to happen to your neck of the woods in the next few centuries. Observed changes over the past few decades (increase in the Hadley circulation, reduction in mid-latitude storm tracks due to a reduction in the meridional temperature gradient) can be predicted with simple analysis. How ice sheets and other aspects of the climate react is still unknown. Feedbacks are also unknown (e.g. how long will it take the permafrost to melt, releasing more methane).

But which branch or discipline? (if you prefer) Earth science covers a huge spectrum from Geology to Oceanography and a gazillion things in between. Do you specialise in the climate? If not, what are you qualifications that allow you to make such definitive statements and could you please explain why eminently qualified members of the scientific community take issue with statements or hypotheses such as yours?

[pg]

No eminently qualified members of the scientific community take issue with any of the above statements.

That's because they are facts.

[otto man]

pg, on 08 May 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Take if from a professional Earth scientist. The fundamentals of Anthropogenic Global Warming are rock-solid. We know the wavelengths in which CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and we know that the Earth emits IR radiation smack bang in the middle of this absorption band.

We know that in the past the Earth's climate is sensitive because it's climate has always changed in the past when radiative forcing has changed.

We know that the Earth is warming due to an increase in its greenhouse effect because we've measured increasing downwards longwave radiation at the surface, and a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (in the CO2 absorption bands) from space. The spatial pattern of the observed warming (more at the poles than the equator, more at night versus the day) is consistent with an increase in downwards longwave radiation.

We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is based on fossil emissions based on atomic mass of observed carbon.

The areas of scientific debate come down to regional projections, i.e. what is going to happen to your neck of the woods in the next few centuries. Observed changes over the past few decades (increase in the Hadley circulation, reduction in mid-latitude storm tracks due to a reduction in the meridional temperature gradient) can be predicted with simple analysis. How ice sheets and other aspects of the climate react is still unknown. Feedbacks are also unknown (e.g. how long will it take the permafrost to melt, releasing more methane).

But which branch or discipline? (if you prefer) Earth science covers a huge spectrum from Geology to Oceanography and a gazillion things in between. Do you specialise in the climate? If not, what are you qualifications that allow you to make such definitive statements and could you please explain why eminently qualified members of the scientific community take issue with statements or hypotheses such as yours?

No eminently qualified members of the scientific community take issue with any of the above statements.

That's because they are facts

Anthropogenic Global warming( ie man made) is the subject of HUGE debate and one which many of your colleagues dispute. Now THAT is a fact and the FACT that it is, by your own admission subject to"scientific debate" at all, indicates disagreement. Now would you please answer the original question or are you going to continue to dissemble?

[Al]

No eminently qualified members of the scientific community take issue with any of the above statements.

That's because they are facts.

Can't abide people who claim their theories to be facts. Flat Earth and Phlogiston were once claimed to be facts by "eminently qualified members of the scientific community".

[pg]

Can't abide people who claim their theories to be facts. Flat Earth and Phlogiston were once claimed to be facts by "eminently qualified members of the scientific community".

Absolutely. You are correct. There are no such things as facts. Galileo was wrong and the Earth is the centre of the solar system.

A recent movie showed the current state of the science regarding whether or not the Earth is the centre of the Universe. Apparently some of top scientists in the world prove that Galileo was wrong.

PS Don't vaccinate your kids because big pharmaceutical companies are scamming us.

And chemtrails are real.

[pg]

otto man - I recently attended and presented at this conference. http://www.amos2014.org.au/

Here is the programme. If what you said was true, that "Anthropogenic Global warming( ie man made) is the subject of HUGE debate and one which many of your colleagues dispute. "... then the conference program would be full of talks denying the physical foundations of human-induced climate change.

How many presentations can you see that seemed to be representative of the HUGE debate amongst professional Earth scientists? How many dispute the existence of AGW?

[otto man]

otto man - I recently attended and presented at this conference. http://www.amos2014.org.au/

Here is the programme. If what you said was true, that "Anthropogenic Global warming( ie man made) is the subject of HUGE debate and one which many of your colleagues dispute. "... then the conference program would be full of talks denying the physical foundations of human-induced climate change.

How many presentations can you see that seemed to be representative of the HUGE debate amongst professional Earth scientists? How many dispute the existence of AGW?

Well just for starters there's 15 pages of debate about it on a small town football club message board and that in itself is indicative of just how contentious a subject this is. Granted none (excluding yourself) on here are, to my knowledge scientists who claim expertise in this area, but to deny that there isn't debate about climate change within the scientific community and just how great mans influence is or isn't affecting this change is frankly ludicrous. Do you live in a bubble? All you have to do is Google the subject to see page after page of links to articles debating this very subject. Give it a go, you may learn something!

Here's just one link to get ya going.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

And there's a further gazillion and one articles on there debating the issue of AGW and the fact you seem ignorant of the whole debate just (for me at least) calls into question your bona fides. Frankly you've lost any credibility before you've even earned it.

[Al]

Absolutely. You are correct. There are no such things as facts. Galileo was wrong and the Earth is the centre of the solar system.

A recent movie showed the current state of the science regarding whether or not the Earth is the centre of the Universe. Apparently some of top scientists in the world prove that Galileo was wrong.

PS Don't vaccinate your kids because big pharmaceutical companies are scamming us.

And chemtrails are real.

When all else fails resort to sarcasm.

[pg]

Well just for starters there's 15 pages of debate about it on a small town football club message board and that in itself is indicative of just how contentious a subject this is. Granted none (excluding yourself) on here are, to my knowledge scientists who claim expertise in this area, but to deny that there isn't debate about climate change within the scientific community and just how great mans influence is or isn't affecting this change is frankly ludicrous. Do you live in a bubble? All you have to do is Google the subject to see page after page of links to articles debating this very subject. Give it a go, you may learn something!

Here's just one link to get ya going.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

And there's a further gazillion and one articles on there debating the issue of AGW and the fact you seem ignorant of the whole debate just (for me at least) calls into question your bona fides. Frankly you've lost any credibility before you've even earned it.

Scientific debate is not the same as people arguing on an anonymous internet messageboard. Scientific debate relies on the presence of coherent scientific arguments backed by objective scientific data.

Roy Spencer indulges in classic pseudo-science. He picks the scientific facts that suit his message (i.e. radiative transfer theory, the greenhouse effect) but rejects those that don't. Are you aware that Roy Spencer says that ice ages were caused by natural variations in the Earth's cloud cover? According to him, the entire theory of Milankovitch cycles is wrong, despite the theory having existed for almost 100 years and never being disproven.

In fact, recent research shows that theory is as robust as ever.

I'm curious, though why you think Roy Spencer is correct, and not Richard Lindzen, or Ian Plimer, or any other peddlar of pseudo-science?

Why do you think that a scientist who specialises in satellite remote sensing is in the position to dismiss the fundamental cornerstones of paleoclimate science as nonsense?

Why do you think that only Roy Spencer has the correct answer? While the Royal Society, the American Institute of Physics, NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre, every single scientific academy on the planet are wrong?

BTW I presume you are aware of the fundamental flaws in Roy Spencer's satellite temperature climate dataset?

When all else fails resort to sarcasm.

Absolutely. When people take the position that 'there are no such things as facts' all you can do is have a laugh.

On a philosophical note, how do you decide what are facts and what aren't? Do you know for fact that the Earth is round? That the Sun is made of Hydrogen? That the Earth is not the centre of the solar system?

Do you know for a fact that vaccinations stop measles? That smoking causes lung cancer? That increased greenhouse gases alter the radiative balance of the Earth?

On what basis do you accept some facts and reject others?

[pg]

How the media influences people's perception on the state of the science

Or to put it another way:

[otto man]

Scientific debate is not the same as people arguing on an anonymous internet messageboard. Scientific debate relies on the presence of coherent scientific arguments backed by objective scientific data.

Roy Spencer indulges in classic pseudo-science. He picks the scientific facts that suit his message (i.e. radiative transfer theory, the greenhouse effect) but rejects those that don't. Are you aware that Roy Spencer says that ice ages were caused by natural variations in the Earth's cloud cover? According to him, the entire theory of Milankovitch cycles is wrong, despite the theory having existed for almost 100 years and never being disproven.

In fact, recent research shows that theory is as robust as ever.

I'm curious, though why you think Roy Spencer is correct, and not Richard Lindzen, or Ian Plimer, or any other peddlar of pseudo-science?

Why do you think that a scientist who specialises in satellite remote sensing is in the position to dismiss the fundamental cornerstones of paleoclimate science as nonsense?

Why do you think that only Roy Spencer has the correct answer? While the Royal Society, the American Institute of Physics, NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre, every single scientific academy on the planet are wrong?

BTW I presume you are aware of the fundamental flaws in Roy Spencer's satellite temperature climate dataset?

Absolutely. When people take the position that 'there are no such things as facts' all you can do is have a laugh.

On a philosophical note, how do you decide what are facts and what aren't? Do you know for fact that the Earth is round? That the Sun is made of Hydrogen? That the Earth is not the centre of the solar system?

Do you know for a fact that vaccinations stop measles? That smoking causes lung cancer? That increased greenhouse gases alter the radiative balance of the Earth?

On what basis do you accept some facts and reject others?

I notice you've still failed to provide us with your bona fides. But please tell me. Where did I say Roy Spencer is right?( I thought as a scientist you'd be a lot better at absorbing data) I simply responded to your laughably ludicrous claims that the whole issue is not contentious and up for debate,hence providing you with a single link( To "get ya going". Remember?) Now can I suggest you go back and check out the "Gazillion and one" others?

Taken directly from his own site.

,

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

As a layman he seems eminently qualified to me. So I'll ask you again;(For the 3rd time!) Your bona fides?

.

[Steve Moss]

Here's a list of scepetics:

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
• ^{Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences}
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).^[20]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry

^{Here's a list of scientists stating climate change is not man-made:}

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
• Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
• Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
• George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.

^{Here's a list of scientists stating that the source of climate change is unknown:}

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

^{Here's a few who claim climate change may be beneficial:}

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

The list is drawn from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I personally try to keep in open mind on the issue. But all in all, until the IPCC and its supporters stop acting as if they are keepers of the sacred truth and allow true and open scientific inquiry, debate, testing, etc., without trying to castigate those who have different hypothesis, I don't consider them as acting the part of scientists but rather as priests and politicians. Which means I'm very skeptical of any assertions they may make and will align myself with the skeptics until further notice.

[Baz]

I understand your points in the last paragraph Steve, but theres equal if not more of the same behaviour from the skeptic side of the argument. Its much easier to stand outside the science, and pick micro holes in macro data, than to engage fully and really pull the argument apart and put your theory forward as the better piece of research.

I personally would like to see who is funding any of the research actually being done (both sides), as its not uncommon for research to be biased towards a favourable outcome for your backers cause.

Also on another issue theres a lot of geologists in that list, I can tell you that geology is not a related subject matter. Theres at best some overlap on marginal issues, but its like a chemist and a botanist. Thats not to say as individuals they haven't studied outside their main are of expertise.

[broadsword]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2626564/The-medical-experts-refuse-use-low-energy-lightbulbs-homes-Professors-stocked-old-style-bulbs-protect-against-skin-cancer-blindness-So-YOU-worried.html

Doesn't sound good to me ... could domestic lightbulbs really make that much difference to emissions anyway or are they just a convenient target?

[Steve Moss]

I personally would like to see who is funding any of the research actually being done (both sides), as its not uncommon for research to be biased towards a favourable outcome for your backers cause.

Which is exactly one of the major faults with the IPCC process.

Both Richard Tol (a professor at Sussex University) and Robert Stavins (a Harvard professor) worked on the IPCC most recent report and both have denounced the process as being overly politicized and alarmist at the behest of government officials. The IPCC's paymasters have an agenda and the IPCC is showing itself a willing lapdog.

Here's the article on Stavins- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614097/Top-climate-experts-sensational-claim-government-meddling-crucial-UN-report.html

Here's the article on Tol- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html

Here's a skeptic's article about the IPCC still refusing to share data (despite the alleged disaster's facing the world): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/04/the-ipcc-and-proprietary-rights-does-the-law-trump-justice/

And here's one skeptics analysis as to whether the IPCC has cleaned up its act and put in place the IAC's recommendations (the short answer is NO):

"In 2010 the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC), a scientific body composed of the heads of national science academies around the world, revealed crippling flaws in the IPCC’s peer-review process and other procedural problems – long pointed out by global warming skeptics but ignored by the mainstream media – that seriously undermined the IPCC’s credibility.<1> Two years later, the IPCC itself officially recognized the truth of the critique and promised to reform itself.<2>

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and fail to “consider review comments carefully and document their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer reviewed.

The IAC found “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “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” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected by politicians from a “club” of scientists and non-scientists who agree with the alarmist perspective.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists – a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers – is plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25). In other words, the Summary for Policymakers and the Synthesis Report are political documents, not scientific reports.

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

Despite its pledge to reform itself, the Fifth Assessment Report reveals that the IPCC is still operating in defiance of the IAC’s recommendations. A widely circulated draft of the Summary for Policymakers prior to the all-night sessions in Stockholm held in late September show that politicians and bureaucrats made extensive changes that removed admissions of uncertainty and attempted to hide key walk-backs of past findings. And once again, the full report is being edited (as this was written in early October 2013) “for consistency with the approved SPM.” This is not how truly scientific reports are produced.

[Baz]

Like I said both sides Steve :-)

From my recollection theres definitely some of the skeptics with funding from oil companies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2626564/The-medical-experts-refuse-use-low-energy-lightbulbs-homes-Professors-stocked-old-style-bulbs-protect-against-skin-cancer-blindness-So-YOU-worried.html

Doesn't sound good to me ... could domestic lightbulbs really make that much difference to emissions anyway or are they just a convenient target?

Its the weekly daily mail science scare story.

I'd be more inclined to beleive this comment:

This is all rubbish. While UV radiation is implicated in both cataract and Macular Degeneration, the UV radiation produced by low energy lamps needs to be put into context. Sitting VERY close - 10cm - to a low energy bulb for 8+ hours exposes the person to the same energy as produced by being outside for 6 minutes on a sunny day. The risk of eye damage by exposure to these lamps is insignificant and this article, as with many Daily Mail articles, is due to journalistic cherry-picking and not on true or accurate science.

[pg]

I notice you've still failed to provide us with your bona fides. But please tell me. Where did I say Roy Spencer is right?( I thought as a scientist you'd be a lot better at absorbing data) I simply responded to your laughably ludicrous claims that the whole issue is not contentious and up for debate,hence providing you with a single link( To "get ya going". Remember?) Now can I suggest you go back and check out the "Gazillion and one" others?

Taken directly from his own site.

,

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

As a layman he seems eminently qualified to me. So I'll ask you again;(For the 3rd time!) Your bona fides?

.

You've missed the point.

Yes, Dr Spencer knows a lot about measuring temperature in the atmosphere using Microwave Sounding Instruments.

However, has no professional experience or qualifications in the fields of paleoclimate. Despite this, he has decided that the entire theory of Ice Ages via Milankovitch cycles is complete garbage. However, he has provided no alternative theory to explain the evidence. He has discarded the theory purely because it shows that the Earth has a high climate sensitivity. Roy 'believes' that it doesn't...so he just discards what theories don't match his beliefs.

That is a perfect example of pseudo-science. You pick and choose which scientific facts support your belief, and pretend the other facts that don't support your beliefs don't exist.

That is a common strategy for most of the pseudo-scientists in your list. They may have published and had some expertise in some fields, however they then decide that other fields of science (e.g. paleoclimate) are nonsense. Ian Plimer, Garth Paltridge and Murray Salby are all perfect examples of this. Ian Plimer is notorious for writing books full of contradictory pseudo-scientific nonsense. Have a read here

My 'bona fides' are irrelevant. I'm not the one questioning that the every National Academy of Science on Planet Earth has got it wrong. I'm not the one suggesting that NASA/NOAA/UKMO are engaging in a huge conspiracy (which pseudo-scientists do). Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I understand how AGW works and how the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of scientific endevour all piece together to form the very robust theory of AGW.

The basics of AGW can be understood with high school Maths and Physics. Pseudo-scientists a.k.a. skeptics can be detected at 20 paces with a good bullshit detector.

In order to contradict the findings of the IPCC you have to come up with a counter-argument to explain the evidence that

a) The Earth's greenhouse effect is increasing in strength in the CO2 wavebands

Paleoclimate data shows that the Earth's has always been sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations

c) Isotope analysis show the increases carbon in the atmosphere is from fossil-fuel burning

d) The measured warming over the past few decades is consistent with increased longwave downwards radiation

e) The oceans are acidifying due to absorbing more CO2

Finally, for every pseudo-scientist that says the IPCC is 'alarmist' I can find you hundreds that say the IPCC is not alarmist enough, and that it's projections are often overly conservative. Sea level rise predictions based on the Antarctic Ice sheets is but one example. Have a read

[otto man]

You've missed the point.(1)

Yes, Dr Spencer knows a lot about measuring temperature in the atmosphere using Microwave Sounding Instruments.

However, has no professional experience or qualifications in the fields of paleoclimate.(2) Despite this, he has decided that the entire theory of Ice Ages via Milankovitch cycles is complete garbage. However, he has provided no alternative theory to explain the evidence. He has discarded the theory purely because it shows that the Earth has a high climate sensitivity. Roy 'believes' that it doesn't...so he just discards what theories don't match his beliefs.

That is a perfect example of pseudo-science. You pick and choose which scientific facts support your belief, and pretend the other facts that don't support your beliefs don't exist.

That is a common strategy for most of the pseudo-scientists in your list(3). They may have published and had some expertise in some fields, however they then decide that other fields of science (e.g. paleoclimate) are nonsense. Ian Plimer, Garth Paltridge and Murray Salby are all perfect examples of this. Ian Plimer is notorious for writing books full of contradictory pseudo-scientific nonsense. Have a read here

My 'bona fides' are irrelevant.(2/a) (a) I'm not the one questioning that the every National Academy of Science on Planet Earth has got it wrong. I'm not the one suggesting that NASA/NOAA/UKMO are engaging in a huge conspiracy (which pseudo-scientists do). Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I understand how AGW works and how the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of scientific endevour all piece together to form the very robust theory of AGW.

The basics of AGW can be understood with high school Maths and Physics. Pseudo-scientists a.k.a. skeptics can be detected at 20 paces with a good bullshit detector.

In order to contradict the findings of the IPCC you have to come up with a counter-argument to explain the evidence that

a) The Earth's greenhouse effect is increasing in strength in the CO2 wavebands

Paleoclimate data shows that the Earth's has always been sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations

c) Isotope analysis show the increases carbon in the atmosphere is from fossil-fuel burning

d) The measured warming over the past few decades is consistent with increased longwave downwards radiation

e) The oceans are acidifying due to absorbing more CO2

Finally, for every pseudo-scientist that says the IPCC is 'alarmist' I can find you hundreds that say the IPCC is not alarmist enough, and that it's projections are often overly conservative. Sea level rise predictions based on the Antarctic Ice sheets is but one example. Have a read

(1) No! It's you who's missed the point. We are all aware that climate change is happening there is no disputing that. The point of this thread was/is to discuss the level of mans influence on it.(Can I suggest you go back and read the thread title again? Only properly this time!) if any. There are those within the scientific community who agree with you and those who don't and to what level you or they are right or wrong is what this thread has been about.( Within a lay persons understanding of course) in conjunction with how political bias influences those findings(if indeed at all)

(2/a) Your "bona fides" are irrelevant yet Dr Spencers and all those others that practice "pseudo science" are? Please explain. (a)Now please direct me to my post which made any such claim

(3) The list was provided by Steve not myself, I have to say your eye for detail seems rather poor (I do hope you pay more attention during your research)

And finally.Your whole rant was because I stated that it was a contentious subject and one that was subject to debate within the scientific community( Which you initially denied) Thank you for now confirming that it is.