Climate Change Skepticism

[Riverwind]

I actually think its more dangerous to assume that the current waming is normal (as defined by reason) and doesn't need any further investigation. The cost of being wrong is too high.

What about the cost of being wrong about CO2 and spending trillions on a non-existent/implacable problem? IMV, the science to date is not compelling enough to justify the interventions demanded by the GW advocates.

[jbg]

First off, I admitted in my last post that I accept that temperature changes great as the current may have occured in the past. So no need to try and convince me further of that.

Then why the response on your part that seems to bash the GW skeptics?

[Riverwind]

This blog is run by Stephen McIntyre who has an extensive background in statistical analysis. He and Ross McKitrick produced a paper which found some serious flaws in some of the data being used by the IPCC to justify their position on AGW.

The blog currently has many discussions and reviews of data produced by AGW supporters and skeptics. It is technical but extremely enlightening for anyone with a science or engineering background. The analysis and discussion there makes it very clear that AGW advocates are quite focused on producing data that supports their position and are quite selective in their choice of data to use and often manipulate the data using questionable statistical techniques. AWG advocates try to dismiss McIntyre's criticisms, however, the weight of evidence generally supports McIntyre's analysis.

McIntyre runs this blog as a personal project and does not get paid by anyone. He is one of the reviewers for the IPCC documents and he reported a problem he found with one of the data sets in the 2001 IPCC report. The full details are here.

The link describes a chart with many different temperature series that is in the IPCC report. One of these series only goes up 1960. McIntyre went back and looked at the original paper containing the data and confirmed that the IPCC deleted the data from 1960 to 2001. He reconstructed the chart with the complete data set and produced this. The green line is the data that was truncated.

McIntyre raised this issue with the IPCC before the latest report was released.

This is the response he got back from the IPCC

Mr. McIntyre, you know better than this. The IPCC knows all and sees all and will not permit you to present actual author responses, which have accordingly been hereby deleted. Readers, if you wish further information on how IPCC authors justified the deletion of the bad bits, please write to FOIA at NOAA.gov and ask for the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report, Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second-Order Draft. Mr McIntyre, you will not be warned again

Basically, the IPCC refused to explain why the data was deleted from the IPCC report.

You can find the IPCC report with the offending chart here. It is on Page 134

You don't need to be a scientist to understand the data was truncated in order to deceive the public. If the IPCC thought the series was unreliable they should have deleted the entire series - truncating it shows an extreme lack of professionalism.

This kind of unprofessionalism in the IPCC is not an isolated incident. At this point in time I have absolutely no confidence in the IPCC and the small group of scientists who are on the core team. These people cannot be trusted. Unfortunately, these people have managed to fool a lot of people. I find it frightening.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

What about the cost of being wrong about CO2 and spending trillions on a non-existent/implacable problem? IMV, the science to date is not compelling enough to justify the interventions demanded by the GW advocates.

Lets look at the two sides of this.

What happens if AGW is not occuring to a significant degree, but various GW advocate interventions are realized?

Reduced use of non-renewable resources.

Investment in renewable resource technology.

More efficient use of energy.

Reduced overall emissions from various sources.

I certainly don't agree with the rediculous carbon credit system, but making more efficient use of our resources and looking for cleaner (not just based on C02) ways to use non-renewable resources is a worthy cause.

In other words, I agree with the cure even if I don't agree with the diagnosis.

Balance this with the cost of doing nothing and being wrong about that:

1. Oceans rise, populated areas flooded.

2. Weather extremes grow.

3. As yet unknown changes in weather patterns that will have significant effects on humanity as a whole.

For me, and I know many will disagree, but I feel this still balances the scales in favour of continuing to commit to actions that reduce our dependence on non-renewable energy sources. I just read a somewhat overstated article about Great Britian using 50% wind power for homes by 2020. Now, even the article admits that is overstated, it may end up being around 20%, but what great progress! I then have to wonder, if AGW turns out to be completely false, will these great initiatives still occur? Will the current thrust for renewable resource technology continue? I would hope so, but I doubt it.

[stevoh]

I wish it was that dispassionate. The fact is the AGW advocates have abandoned scientific inquiry in favour of political activism and propaganda. Skeptics are not treated as colleagues with alternate views but as evil individuals seeking to destroy humanity.

From what I can see, each side is equally guilty of being focussed more on the politics, propoganda, and insults than they are in finding out the facts.

[stevoh]

McIntyre runs this blog as a personal project and does not get paid by anyone. He is one of the reviewers for the IPCC documents and he reported a problem he found with one of the data sets in the 2001 IPCC report. The full details are here.

The link describes a chart with many different temperature series that is in the IPCC report. One of these series only goes up 1960. McIntyre went back and looked at the original paper containing the data and confirmed that the IPCC deleted the data from 1960 to 2001. He reconstructed the chart with the complete data set and produced this. The green line is the data that was truncated.

McIntyre raised this issue with the IPCC before the latest report was released.

Very interesting deletion, for sure. This also establishes my earlier point about only using climate measures that match what we know as fact. It is obvious from your link that the tree ring data is incorrect, as it shows a cooling trend in the latter part of the 20th century.

Note the recent disparity in density and measured temperatures

So, yes, tree ring data should not be included in historic temperature trend models until it is more robust.

Do you have any information about the accuracy of ice core data? How do they establish the accuracy of the temperature history they glean from this data source?

[margrace]

The scarry thing is that millions now have asthma from the air, if it is caused by the warming trend whatever is causing it then how will you bring them back. Perhaps you think you are God. I hope this never happens but it very well could. Its too big a game to play just for the sake of arguments and onupmanship.

Edited December 13, 2007 by margrace

[noahbody]

The scarry thing is that millions now have asthma from the air, if it is caused by the warming trend whatever is causing it then how will you bring them back. Perhaps you think you are God. I hope this never happens but it very well could. Its too big a game to play just for the sake of arguments and onupmanship.

CO2 is what you breathe out. It has as much to do with asthma as Ronald McDonald's balls.

Edited December 13, 2007 by noahbody

[Riverwind]

I certainly don't agree with the rediculous carbon credit system, but making more efficient use of our resources and looking for cleaner (not just based on C02) ways to use non-renewable resources is a worthy cause.

In other words, I agree with the cure even if I don't agree with the diagnosis.

There is a huge disconnect between what you perceive the 'cure' to be and what will actually happen given the current focus on reducing CO2 at all costs. There are going to be 9 billion people on this planet in 30 years and these people need energy. Most of this energy must come from fossil fuels unless there is an unexpected breakthrough in technology (we cannot assume it will happen). Alternate forms of energy simply cannot produce the amount of energy required. For this reason any mandatory caps on CO2 emissions will simply encourage investment in carbon sequestration and similar schemes which do nothing for the environment.

So, yes, tree ring data should not be included in historic temperature trend models until it is more robust.

Yet, this is the data the IPCC insists on using despite the fact that its failings have been pointed out over and over again. The scientists who produce the data in the IPCC reports consistently refuse to provide the raw data and computer programs to peer reviewers which means no one can verify the statistical manipulations that were used to produce the data. Some of the data is available now but only after skeptics used the Freedom of Information Act in the US to force disclosure of the data. This secrecy makes all of their conclusions questionable.

Do you have any information about the accuracy of ice core data? How do they establish the accuracy of the temperature history they glean from this data source?

The only analysis I have seen in the ice core data actually questions the CO2 measurements (i.e. it suggests the real historical CO2 levels were likely much higher than what is measured in the core samples). I assume that the ice core temperature data is reasonably reliable because no one on either side of the fence questions it. Edited December 13, 2007 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

There is a huge disconnect between what you perceive the 'cure' to be and what will actually happen given the current focus on reducing CO2 at all costs. There are going to be 9 billion people on this planet in 30 years and these people need energy. Most of this energy must come from fossil fuels unless there is an unexpected breakthrough in technology (we cannot assume it will happen). Alternate forms of energy simply cannot produce the amount of energy required. For this reason any mandatory caps on CO2 emissions will simply encourage investment in carbon sequestration and similar schemes which do nothing for the environment.

I agree that the specific focus on soley reducing CO2 emissons is too fine, a general focus on reducing pollutants and energy consumption is a more worthy cause.

I do have a question for you however. The atmosphere of the earth is made up of various concentrations of elements, of which CO2 is one. We do know for a fact that the current concentration and ratio of the elements in the atmosphere supports life on earth as we know it. We know we are making a significant change to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Doesn't going forward without understanding what potential effects this has seem a bit hazardous? I would be equally leery of doubling oxygen levels, or halving them, or any other major atmospheric element concentration level change.

Why mess with the concentration of any element in the air we breathe when its so vital to life on earth? Isn't "we don't yet know what the effect is" a pretty weak argument for something that could potentally have such large effects?

[Riverwind]

The atmosphere of the earth is made up of various concentrations of elements, of which CO2 is one. We do know for a fact that the current concentration and ratio of the elements in the atmosphere supports life on earth as we know it.

We know that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at least 3 times higher in the past and that our current era is CO2-deprived. We also know that the earth supported extremely diverse eco-systems even when the CO2 levels were high. Therefore I do not feel that there is any real concern about upsetting the 'balance of nature' with higher CO2 levels.

I would rather worry more about known pollutants such as smog. I read one study that suggested that soot (not CO2) was responsible for glacier melting because it made the snow absorb more heat. I read another study that suggested surfactants (i.e. soap scum) on the oceans interfered with CO2 consuming algea. Humans affect the planet is so many ways it is a mistake to focus on just one. In fact, I am worried that this current hysteria over GW will actually undermine environmentalism in the future because it undermines the credibility of science - especially if GW turns out to be a complete hoax fabricated by a small group of scientists with an agenda.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

We know that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at least 3 times higher in the past and that our current era is CO2-deprived. We also know that the earth supported extremely diverse eco-systems even when the CO2 levels were high. Therefore I do not feel that there is any real concern about upsetting the 'balance of nature' with higher CO2 levels.

I would rather worry more about known pollutants such as smog. I read one study that suggested that soot (not CO2) was responsible for glacier melting because it made the snow absorb more heat. I read another study that suggested surfactants (i.e. soap scum) on the oceans interfered with CO2 consuming algea. Humans affect the planet is so many ways it is a mistake to focus on just one. In fact, I am worried that this current hysteria over GW will actually undermine environmentalism in the future because it undermines the credibility of science - especially if GW turns out to be a complete hoax fabricated by a small group of scientists with an agenda.

Rich Crazy bastards have wrecked the place and can not stop themselves...forget warming or cooling or cycles...just to much human waste in the atomosphere - simple as that - crazed power crazed greed heads have deficated all over the house of earth - and we talk about "CO2" - but the problem is the people we admire who are nuts and very very very rich have shit on the floor like arrogant dogs and expect us to suffocate in their industrial and economics social waste...to hell with them - just wish they would die off and go away.

[Riverwind]

Lone Voice of Dissent Censored by United Nations

CHICAGO, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.

The ICSC is a group of scientists from Africa, Australia, Europe, India, New Zealand, and the U.S. who contend sound science does not support the outrageous claims and draconian regulations proposed in Bali.

The ICSC team leader, Bryan Leyland, an expert in carbon and energy trading, reported, "This morning I confirmed we had the main conference hall for 9:00 AM tomorrow. At 4:30 PM today, I found that Barbara Black bumped us off the schedule and closed further bookings. I'm fuming."

Black is NGO liaison officer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.

Earlier in the week, UN officials in Bali closed down the ICSC's first press conference there. Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises.

Black's efforts are part of the United Nations' ongoing censorship of dissenting voices at Bali. ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits

Can someone explain to me why we should trust these yahoos that seek to shut down legimate debate?

[Riverwind]

A facinating report on the number of scientists who actually reviewed the IPCC's latest report: http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ip...ed_analysis.pdf

Chapter 9 is the single most important chapter of the entire report because it is where the IPCC

states, "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the

observed global warming over the last 50 years".

...

The IPCC leads us to believe that over 600 impartial reviewers diligently examined chapter 9 and

a very high proportion agreed with its findings. It is difficult to see how this impression could be

much further from the truth - 7 reviewers who were probably impartial, only 2 of whom made

more than one comment; just 5 reviewers endorsed the chapter but most of those had potential

vested interests.

Concensus? What consensus?

[jbg]

Can someone explain to me why we should trust these yahoos that seek to shut down legimate debate?

The unwillingess to doebate shows that AGW has become more of a religion than a science.

Similarly the article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Excerpts below (link):

Will Al Gore Melt?

By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG

January 18, 2007; Page A16

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

*snip*

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

[Oleg Bach]

The unwillingess to doebate shows that AGW has become more of a religion than a science.

Similarly the article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Excerpts below (link):

Greed makes the planet dirty - end of story - and I do not want to eat the waste product that comes from the body of a class of people that have no limit to greed and destruction ----we are eating the shit of the super rich - that is climate change - that is pollution - we don't need to have the insanely rich shit in our mouths as if it is manna from heaven - the planet is dirty and they made it dirty and do not want to clean it up - certainly it was not the poor African watering his corn frield by hand that destroy the climate!

[Riverwind]

Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming.

Al Gore is an advocate - not a scientist. Trying to score publicity points by going after him directly is a waste of time. It makes more sense to focus on the media and demand that that do a better better job of explaining how poor the science really is and how little we really know. Edited December 14, 2007 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

We know that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at least 3 times higher in the past and that our current era is CO2-deprived. We also know that the earth supported extremely diverse eco-systems even when the CO2 levels were high. Therefore I do not feel that there is any real concern about upsetting the 'balance of nature' with higher CO2 levels.

I would rather worry more about known pollutants such as smog. I read one study that suggested that soot (not CO2) was responsible for glacier melting because it made the snow absorb more heat. I read another study that suggested surfactants (i.e. soap scum) on the oceans interfered with CO2 consuming algea. Humans affect the planet is so many ways it is a mistake to focus on just one. In fact, I am worried that this current hysteria over GW will actually undermine environmentalism in the future because it undermines the credibility of science - especially if GW turns out to be a complete hoax fabricated by a small group of scientists with an agenda.

How many hundred thousand years ago was CO2 3 times higher than it was now? How rapidly do organisms adapt to changing levels of CO2? I may agree that the earths climate has changed at a rate as fast as it is today, but I don't agree that current rate of CO2 change has. And if there are major events in the past that have the abiity to double CO2 in our atmosphere within 100 years, these events were typically catastrophic. Major changes in CO2 concentrations in the past that were not catastrophy based took thousands of years. This time period allows organisms on earth to reasonably adapt to the changes, both from the direct effects of CO2 concentration and the indirect effects on the climate that we are discussing here. Sure, we may have had 3 times the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere a million years ago, but the earth was a considerably different place than it is now.

Making any significant change to the air we breathe is a bad idea. Until we truly understand the consequences.

[capricorn]

Al Gore is an advocate - not a scientist.

That's the way I see Gore too. I don't begrudge his immense success as a businessman but I draw the line when he feeds on global warming hysteria all the while lacking any credible credentials in the field. That's why I can't understand what Al Gore was doing in Bali addressing the conference. Listening to him speak there and the adulating reception he received well, he truly sounded like some sort of prophet. Prophets are not what we need to address this important issue. We need people who are accredited and know what they're talking about from all sides of the argument. He's been dubbed the Goracle in many circles, a very apt description.

[Riverwind]

Making any significant change to the air we breathe is a bad idea. Until we truly understand the consequences.

If your computer is inside then you are probably breathing in 10x the theoretical CO2 levels. CO2 levels vary during the day and seasonally - CO2 levels at twice the theoretical levels occur everyday in most places. There are lots of things that are probably worth avoiding based on the precautionary principal. I would put CO2 very low on the list of priorities. Edited December 14, 2007 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

That's the way I see Gore too. I don't begrudge his immense success as a businessman but I draw the line when he feeds on global warming hysteria all the while lacking any credible credentials in the field. That's why I can't understand what Al Gore was doing in Bali addressing the conference. Listening to him speak there and the adulating reception he received well, he truly sounded like some sort of prophet. Prophets are not what we need to address this important issue. We need people who are accredited and know what they're talking about from all sides of the argument. He's been dubbed the Goracle in many circles, a very apt description.

You don't have to be a scientist to see that the land is sick - just a man of the land - a layman with experience within the natural world can call a spade a spade as far as climate destruction...as far as "warming hysteria" - better if you concentrate on ridding the world of terrorist hysteria that is a prime force of control in the west as far as law making and the climate change taking place in the courts....Al Gore needs a cause - he has always been a man without a dream or a cause - he is a dis-service to climate repair - much like that parisite blue collar film maker Micheal Moore is a dis-service to the people of America - being a cut throat opportunist at the expense of Bush - AND the citizens - Gore is a creep and so is that fat paristite Moore...we don't need this kind of ambtion - we need not ambition but dedication to the cause of climate repair.

[stevoh]

Can someone explain to me why we should trust these yahoos that seek to shut down legimate debate?

I really don't understand why a "skeptic" such as yourself would simply believe that story without looking into other potential reasons for these people not being allowed. If I had a post from greenpeace that stated something about them being denied access to a certain oil based conference, would you be as vocal about disallowing them to say their piece at that conference?

Being a skeptic is not about believing what one side says and dismissing the other, its about looking at ALL of the information and being equally skeptical, regardless of its source.

Speaking of greenpeace, they claim that the ICSC is a front organization for Heartland, which recieves significant funding from Exxon. They also claim that these people were being disruptive and offering free massages to anyone who would listen to them. I don't know if that is correct either.

I admire your search for truth, but that doesn't mean simply reading all of the arguments for one side and accepting them, it means having a skeptical eye on all information. Don't believe that the only reason this group of individuals was there was to provide informed science. Look deeper.

Edited December 14, 2007 by stevoh

[Riverwind]

Speaking of greenpeace, they claim that the ICSC is a front organization for Heartland, which recieves significant funding from Exxon. I don't know if that is correct either.

Greenpeace believes that anyone who disputes the CO2 hypothesis is a stooge of Exxon which means Greenpeace has little credibility on this front. However, I don't think it should automatically be a big deal would be even if they did receive funding from Exxon. I have found numerous examples of unprofessionalism, bias and tunnel vision among the government funded scientists who support the CO2 hypothesis so no one can credibly argue that government funded scientists are unbiased. I know people who work in research today who tell me that GW is the key to getting funding for just about anything now a days. That means scientists who may not have an opinion on GW are forced to spin their research in a way that connects it to GW even if they think the connection is ridiculous. If they don't play the GW game they don't get funding - it is simply a fact of life.

However, these biases in the system do not mean that all research must be disgarded. It simply means that no research should be treated as fact simply because some scientist publishes a paper that says it is fact. That goes for the skeptics as well as the advocates.

That said, you may be right about the other side of the story. Maybe they were being rabble rousers and were actually disrupting the event instead of simply holding a press conference. However, there was one fact that suggests that the organizers are attempting to suppress counter viewpoints: "ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits".

Edited December 14, 2007 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

Greenpeace believes that anyone who disputes the CO2 hypothesis is a stooge of Exxon which means Greenpeace has little credibility. However, I don't see what the big deal would be even if they did receive funding from Exxon. I have found numerous examples of unprofessionalism, bias and tunnel vision amoung the government funded scientists who support the CO2 hypothesis. Why does Greenpeace accept everything they say at face value? Why doesn't Greenpeace et. al. talk about the fact that governments pay people to research problems that require government action which creates an incentive to create problems that might not really exist?

That said, you may be right about the other side of the story. Maybe they were being rabble rousers and were actually disrupting the event instead of simply holding a press conference. However, there was one fact that suggests that the organizers are attempting to suppress counter viewpoints: "ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits".

All deversionary talk - no one wants to see their precious bank account drop by even 5 bucks in order to clean up this looming global environmental disaster - it gets down to your money and the money that trickles down from oil companies - imagine the Don Valley Parkway - or the 401..remove all the cars and in their place take a bucket of oil with a towel in it and light that baby up - now stand back and look at the millions of buckets of buring oil blowing up filth - mulitply this scene daily by every city in the world - and don't tell me there is no over load of CO2...this is the reality - a billion smoldering fires on earth like a billion smudge pots buring in an orange grove attempting to change the climate to ward off the frost..

.This is a disaster - and you greedy delluded fools will live in this dream till it is a night mare - the car culture not to mention the coal fired plants in Chinas have to be stopped - I mean the fires have to be put out and a readjustment has to be made or we will destroy the miracle and the heaven called earth - then we will die ...to me death is not an option - or is extinction - but to you who can not live a day with out spending 200 dollars - death and destruction seem to be an option - you are delluded - poverty breeds mental illness - so does extreme wealth - no one is immune to this insantity.

[jbg]

I admire your search for truth, but that doesn't mean simply reading all of the arguments for one side and accepting them, it means having a skeptical eye on all information. Don't believe that the only reason this group of individuals was there was to provide informed science. Look deeper.

You are trying to mask your AGW sentiments in neutral language.

Give it up.