Global Warming backdown

[Michael Hardner]

I haven't...is either Christiansen or Svensmark on the lecture circuit? pushing a book? newspaper column? website?...not that I know of...

Ok, but it's also within their rights - probably even desirable that they do these things.

[wyly]

Ok, but it's also within their rights - probably even desirable that they do these things.

it's within their rights but it's not desirable...this isn't legitimate scientists challenging established knowledge in a objective manner in the peer review process...they have an agenda to deliberately spread misinformation to create controversy for personal profit, it's agnotology...

[Shady]

and would never see the light of day within legitimate peer review.

Of course it wouldn't. Because we all know what "peer review" really means. It means AGW true-believer review. It's like the cigarette comapanies reviewing what scientific studies they want and don't want to be published.

The whole peer review process has been corrupted. And we have charlatans like Phi Jones and Michael Mann to thank for it. Thanks for turning a what used to be very trusted system, into a purely poltical enterprise.

Peer review is the fallback position of the immoral and the dishonest.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

- Phil Jones (email)

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting approach by a blogger - Citizens' Audit Report on IPCC's 2007 Report. For details - see the link - it's pretty easy to read. Such an undertaking would serve little use or value to the public if not for the insistance of the IPCC and their proponents that the contents of IPCC reports are the Gold Standard for peer-reviewed current Climate Change science.

* all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined

* 5,587 are not peer-reviewed

* IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported

* each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used

* 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F

* 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project

Citizen Audit Main Findings

released April 14, 2010

Link: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

[Pliny]

Interesting approach by a blogger - Citizens' Audit Report on IPCC's 2007 Report. For details - see the link - it's pretty easy to read. Such an undertaking would serve little use or value to the public if not for the insistance of the IPCC and their proponents that the contents of IPCC reports are the Gold Standard for peer-reviewed current Climate Change science.

Link: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

The citizens audit report isn't comprised of sciencetits though.

[Keepitsimple]

The citizens audit report isn't comprised of sciencetits though.

And your point is?

PS: If it was a tongue-in-cheek remark, I apologize.

[Pliny]

And your point is?

PS: If it was a tongue-in-cheek remark, I apologize.

It was tongue-in-cheek but my spelling was supposed to be the attention grabber.

[Keepitsimple]

It was tongue-in-cheek but my spelling was supposed to be the attention grabber.

I caught the spelling mistake and thought it WAS funny - but I thought it was just a mistake. Boy, I sure know how to spoil a joke.

[Oleg Bach]

not to long ago I recieved a caution for using libs instead of liberals(ok, it's in the rules which I didn't read)so they are still around...but that pales in comparison to what I've been called...

BECAUSE there used to be some hard core acedemics on this site who were very arrogant and they knew that I was not formally educated they insulted me for a long while calling me a "rube" - a dumb hick..well in the end common sense and un-institutional thinking won out..and I am still here and hear little from the bearded wire glasses set.

[wyly]

BECAUSE there used to be some hard core acedemics on this site who were very arrogant and they knew that I was not formally educated they insulted me for a long while calling me a "rube" - a dumb hick..well in the end common sense and un-institutional thinking won out..and I am still here and hear little from the bearded wire glasses set.

I found the insults came from the rubes to well educated.... I ended the insults by putting those who do so on Ignore, now I don't feel the need to return the favour and the forum is a much better place...I get a some sarcasm directed at me but that's fair and I can give back as well....

[Pliny]

I caught the spelling mistake and thought it WAS funny - but I thought it was just a mistake. Boy, I sure know how to spoil a joke.

You thought I made a mistake?

[jbg]

I caught the spelling mistake and thought it WAS funny - but I thought it was just a mistake. Boy, I sure know how to spoil a joke.

That joke applies better to Guergis than to AGW.

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting approach by a blogger - Citizens' Audit Report on IPCC's 2007 Report. For details - see the link - it's pretty easy to read. Such an undertaking would serve little use or value to the public if not for the insistance of the IPCC and their proponents that the contents of IPCC reports are the Gold Standard for peer-reviewed current Climate Change science.

Link: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

This article doesn't seem to break down peer reviews by Working Groups. This is an issue because there is more criticism of working group 3 than 1 for example. I even heard a WG1 scientist criticizing WG3.

[Keepitsimple]

This article doesn't seem to break down peer reviews by Working Groups. This is an issue because there is more criticism of working group 3 than 1 for example. I even heard a WG1 scientist criticizing WG3.

Summary by Working Group: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php

Detailed WG/Chapter Breakdown: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php

As I said before, such an undertaking would serve little use to the public if not for the insistance of the IPCC and their proponents that the contents of IPCC reports are the Gold Standard for peer-reviewed current Climate Change science.

Statements by the IPCC and Media: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

Edited April 18, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

Summary by Working Group: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php

Detailed WG/Chapter Breakdown: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php

As I said before, such an undertaking would serve little use to the public if not for the insistance of the IPCC and their proponents that the contents of IPCC reports are the Gold Standard for peer-reviewed current Climate Change science.

Statements by the IPCC and Media: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

Thanks for that. So WG 1 had a count of 7% of references not coming from peer-reviewed literature ? That could be terrible, or it could be fine.

The report is supposed to have its findings based on peer-reviewed literature, so what were the other references for ? Can they refer to non-peer reviewed items if they're not part of the basis for the case ?

Is there some kind of feedback process to the IPCC report ? It came out 3 years ago so what exactly is this webpage ?

As for this web page, here's what the 'about' page says about it:

http://noconsensus.org/about.php

Begun in early 2009, the NOconsensus.org web site is wholly researched, written, designed, and published by Donna Laframboise, a self-employed photographer.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[waldo]

As I said before, such an undertaking would serve little use to the public if not for the insistance of the IPCC and their proponents that the contents of IPCC reports are the Gold Standard for peer-reviewed current Climate Change science

ah yes, the trusted denier fall-back… and your particular favourite ploy, hey Simple? When you have nothing else, when you can’t rely upon actual scientific challenge, you presume to attack your favoured boogeyman, the IPCC. The very fact we’ve been down this path previously, clearly shows – not that there was ever any doubt – your principle aim remains to cast doubt and uncertainty in any manner you can. Standard Simple routine!

like I showed back in a MLW February post, when referencing to the Statement on IPCC Principles and Procedures, the IPCC formally includes provision for utilizing so-called 'grey matter' (non-peer reviewed materials). I reinforced that IPCC formal provision for utilizing non-peer reviewed materials in the follow-up discussion where I highlighted your “concern troll” status. You know, Simple – where we discussed that plethora of fabricated British tabloid initiated nonsense over the IPCC sub-group WG2 quote mined statements... the so-called 'social sciences' report within the grouping of the assorted IPCC reports.

here Simple, let me override your selective recall and remind you of the previously posted reference to the following within the Statement on IPCC Principles and Procedures:

ANNEX 2 - PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS

Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent

in your continued pattern of falsification, you ignore the underlying context of the significance of IPCC references that highlight actual peer-review… that formal positions held by the IPCC, as reflected within the summary report, the Syntheses Report… or the Summary for Policymakers Report… those formal IPCC positions are most certainly subject to peer-review supporting material. Step up and show a formal position of the IPCC that is not based on actual peer-review supporting material… step up, Simple ton.

in that February exchange, the one you now so brazenly ignore, we talked at length about the sub-group WG2 statement concerning Himalayan glaciers… when I challenged you with the actual related WG1 statements (the related Physical Sciences report statements on glacier melt), when I challenged you with the actual formal IPCC position within the Synthesis Report, when I challenged you with the subsequent IPCC statement issued in response to the so-called “Glaciergate” denier fabrication attempt, when I challenged you with the recently released AGU presentation on Himalayan glacier melt… when I challenged you with all of that… you muted yourself and scurried away. You were in standard Simple ton mode where it was sufficient for you to parrot the so-called “Glaciergate” denier meme that didn’t care that the WG2 statement didn’t reflect upon the related WG1 Physical Sciences reference, that it didn’t find its way into the summary Synthesis Report, that it didn’t reflect within the Summary for Policymakers Report… that the WG2 sub-group statement wasn’t a formal position of the IPCC. None of that mattered to you – it was simply another opportunity for you to ignore the actual science… another opportunity for you to cast doubt and uncertainty.

so now, the denialsphere is content to ignore the formal position of the IPCC concerning use of non-peer review information… and rely upon… “citizen auditors”! But Simple, who is auditing the "citizen auditors"? For a lark, I thought I would have a quick look at the report….. has anyone here actually done that? Ya, right?

following the reports actual summary detail, I simply picked the first offered WG1 chapter and the first offered references to the first WG1 chapters first 10 citation references… as shown in their summary details, 3 “citizen auditors” were involved and their results, as stated within the actual summary detail, show that none of the 3 “citizen auditors” agrees with the others. Not even 2 of 3 "citizen auditors" can even agree on the first 10 cited references within the first chapter of one of the sub-group IPCC reports. Ya, right… who is auditing the “citizen auditors”? Epic fail… “citizen auditors”!

And Michael Hardner… you were involved in some of that exchange… you don’t remember the reference I offered to the IPCC formal statement on the use of non-peer review sources?

Edited April 18, 2010 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

And Michael Hardner… you were involved in some of that exchange… you don’t remember the reference I offered to the IPCC formal statement on the use of non-peer review sources?

Waldo.... no. I'm not surprised that I don't remember it, though.

[Oleg Bach]

I found the insults came from the rubes to well educated.... I ended the insults by putting those who do so on Ignore, now I don't feel the need to return the favour and the forum is a much better place...I get a some sarcasm directed at me but that's fair and I can give back as well....

Wnen a fool attacks - I relish the idea of putting them in their place--it does not take a great education to use logic along with the doctrine of honour and dignity....to smack em down...Once they figure out you have teeth the stop biting. No need to ignore..when you are the king- carry yourself with authority and understand what it is...those that see authority for powers sake alone are powerless.

[Keepitsimple]

like I showed back in a MLW February post, when referencing to the Statement on IPCC Principles and Procedures, the IPCC formally includes provision for utilizing so-called 'grey matter' (non-peer reviewed materials). I reinforced that IPCC formal provision for utilizing non-peer reviewed materials in the follow-up discussion where I highlighted your “concern troll” status. You know, Simple – where we discussed that plethora of fabricated British tabloid initiated nonsense over the IPCC sub-group WG2 quote mined statements... the so-called 'social sciences' report within the grouping of the assorted IPCC reports.

Here's what Annex 2 says on the use of non peer-reviewed information:

Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published.

When I look at all the references, I do not see any comments that indicate that non peer reviewed references were not published. I don't question that a goodly portion of those references are valid and useful - even though they are not peer reviewed......but if one just looks at the references, they do NOT have the qualifying statement that they are "not published" (A simple NP would suffice) and thus they ALL appear to be peer-reviewed. As with many IPCC issues that are bubbling up, it's mis-leading.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Simple... excellent - now that we've dispatched with your and your "citizen auditors" misunderstandings. As I asked, just who is auditing your "citizen auditors"?

BTW, you know that actual science related thingy you prefer not to get engaged in... how are you coming along with finding examples of significant formal IPCC position statements that don't have peer-review support behind them?

[Oleg Bach]

Volcanoes seem to be in direct competition with the works of man...I wonder who will win.

[wyly]

Volcanoes seem to be in direct competition with the works of man...I wonder who will win.

short term blip, no long term affect on man...

[waldo]

Volcanoes seem to be in direct competition with the works of man...I wonder who will win.

short term blip, no long term affect on man...

yup - Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes - USGS

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

[Keepitsimple]

CO2 from volcanoes is a moot point. Volcano eruptions actually cool the earth through their discharge of particulate matter that reflects sunlight back into space:

The Royal Society is backing research into simulated volcanic eruptions, spraying millions of tons of dust into the air, in an attempt to stave off climate change.

The society will this week call for a global programme of studies into geo-engineering the manipulation of the Earths climate to counteract global warming as the world struggles to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It will suggest in a report that pouring sulphur-based particles into the upper atmosphere could be one of the few options available to humanity to keep the world cool.

The intervention by the Royal Society comes amid tension ahead of the United Nationssponsored climate talks in Copenhagen in December to agree global cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

Preliminary discussions have gone so badly that many scientists believe geo-engineering will be needed as a plan B.

Ken Caldeira, an earth scientist at Stanford University, California and a member of a Royal Society working group on geo engineering, said dust sprayed into the stratosphere in volcanic eruptions was known to cool the Earth by reflecting light back into space. If I had a dollar for geo-engineering research I would put 90 cents of it into stratospheric aerosols and 10 cents into everything else, said Caldeira.

The interest in so-called aerosols is linked to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, the second largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century. The explosion blasted up to 20m tons of tiny sulphur particles into the air, cooling the planet by about 0.5°C before they fell back to Earth.

Link: http://www.4to40.com/geography/index.asp?id=135

Edited April 21, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

CO2 from volcanoes is a moot point. Volcano eruptions actually cool the earth through their discharge of particulate matter that reflects sunlight back into space:

Link: http://www.4to40.com/geography/index.asp?id=135

thanks scoop! We talked around this point several times in the past... yes, some of the recent large volcano eruptions have been shown to cause a temporary decrease in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (believed to be mainly due to sulfates ejected causing the soil and biosphere to sequester more CO2 than usual).

discussion around volcanic CO2 impact is simply in the context that it has often been the denier premise/argument that mankind's CO2 contribution paled in comparison to those of volcanoes... of course, an outrageously false denier premise/argument.

hey Simple, given the recent MLW foray into geo-engineering discussion, will this now become your cause celebre! (as I said at the time, many prominent deniers/organizations have latched onto geo-engineering as an alternative to lowering emissions... so... it's a natural for you). Any backing by the Royal Society or legitimate climate scientists towards geo-engineering is toward scaled appropriate R&D concept testing... in the context of targeting the worst-case scenarios that may arrive in spite of (presumed) emission reduction acceptance).

Edited April 21, 2010 by waldo