Open letter to UN Secretary General from 125+ Scientists

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ask the right question and you get the right answer. Statistics are designed, not researched. Its time for a reality check here. We are talking about the weather. Modern science has us at about fifty percent accuracy in forecasting local weather three days in advance. We are talking about trends that may or may not manifest themselves in specific or general terms over a period of time measured in years not days. Half the time we get it right over a few days and someone wants you to believe they will be right about the weather how far into the future? Got a quarter? You too can be a weather man! Or a climate predicting scientist for that matter.

Impact and consequences is what must be qualified first before making any judgements. Impact can be drawn from historical references and consequences are a matter of historical record as well. When it is all said and done and the time comes to face reality, we will be able to say that the weather is changing and it will impact us in a detrimental manner. We will be able to say that we can identify what the problems will be. We will be able to say that we know why the weather changed. We are not there yet.

The function of the scientific community is to identify and resolve issues. Research is focused on funded and identified problems for the most part. Discovery takes a back seat to practical application. In this case the efforts are well funded but the data is not functionally organized, leading to false trails being explored. To resolve the problem an international organization is required to administer an effort that would avoid wasted effort. The impact of climate change is adverse, there is no upside at all. Our society is geared toward our climate, changing one changes the other.

[Guest]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/02/carbon_dioxide_pollution_emissions_reach_new_record_2011.html

Although emissions are falling in some of the most developed countries, it “is more than matched by continued growth in developing countries like China and India,” reports the New York Times. While the United States decreased emissions by 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons and Germany by 4 percent to 0.8 billion tons, China’s emissions soared 10 percent to 10 billion tons and India’s rose 7 percent to 2.5 billion tons. Global emissions increased 3 percent in 2011 and are expected to rise another 2.6 percent this year.

So, carry on building windmills then?

[The_Squid]

  We are talking about the weather.

This shows the level of understanding by the climate change denier community. Climate is not the same as weather. We are certainly NOT talking about weather.

If you are going to try and debate something, at least have a tiny bit of basic knowledge about the subject, otherwise you're just regurgitating some denier talking points.

Edited December 2, 2012 by The_Squid

[Michael Hardner]

We are actually in adult land. Give me authority I can trust. When Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN can lie to the American people straight faced and be first in line for a promotion I have to question the authority. When the Son of the Secretary General of the UN is involved with a Food for Oil scam let alone the scam exists, When it can appoint a man like Moamar Ghadaffi as head of a Human Rights Council, and I could go on and on then I have to question that Authority.

If the UN is suspect, then every government is suspect.

A conspiracy theorist generally attempts to find and assign responsibility to some evil agents or agency as an explanation for things they don't understand. I don't believe George Bush was evil - inept perhaps. Obama is not evil but totally a socialist ideologue and I consider socialism an already proven failure only those that believe they have a mission to save us all would forward it.

Ok, well it sounds like conspiracy to me. Bogeymen abound. I don't think there's a basis for discussion about government-led solutions with somebody who doesn't believe in government.

[TimG]

If the UN is suspect, then every government is suspect.

Governments can be ejected by voters in democratic countries - this allows for regular house cleanings that keep the people in power accountable. The UN is run by career bureaucrats that are not accountable to anyone. This makes it suspect.

I don't think there's a basis for discussion about government-led solutions with somebody who doesn't believe in government.

Would there be a basis for discussion about private sector led solutions with someone who believes that profit making is evil? Edited December 2, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

Ask the right question and you get the right answer. Statistics are designed, not researched. Its time for a reality check here. We are talking about the weather. Modern science has us at about fifty percent accuracy in forecasting local weather three days in advance. We are talking about trends that may or may not manifest themselves in specific or general terms over a period of time measured in years not days. Half the time we get it right over a few days and someone wants you to believe they will be right about the weather how far into the future? Got a quarter? You too can be a weather man! Or a climate predicting scientist for that matter.

forget the quarter Jerry I'll bet my home against yours I can predict the climate for the west coast, east coast or prairie regions for the next 25years...

the problem here jerry is a familiar one, you don't comprehend the difference between climate and weather...

and another thing weather prediction is really very good... far, far, far better than your "half the time" claim

[wyly]

Governments can be ejected by voters in democratic countries - this allows for regular house cleanings that keep the people in power accountable. The UN is run by career bureaucrats that are not accountable to anyone. This makes it suspect.

Would there be a basis for discussion about private sector led solutions with someone who believes that profit making is evil?

this conspiracy gets more unbelievable by the day, there are dictatorships, kingdoms, socialists, communists, the UN and every type and level of government you can think of all in cahoots with the same CC plot, plus all the scientists(and their wives) in those countries,,,and in this grand conspiracy of millions if not tens of millions of people, not one single person is spilling the beans to some tabloid...

[cybercoma]

One part of the problem is not the obvious bias introduced by the funding sources but the unwillingness of people to acknowledge that government funding bodies have a bias that is driven by political considerations.

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?

Edited December 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?

The UK body is quite open about their political biases: http://www.nerc.ac.u...esscriteria.asp

NERC's strategic priorities for science funding are set out in its strategy 'Next Generation Science for Planet Earth'. NERC's theme action plans then identify the research programmes needed to address the science challenges and priorities identified by the strategy. Each research programme's specific objectives and requirements are set out in the announcement of opportunity.

These documents make it clear that research that science that supports the IPCC political agenda is more likely to be funded.

Edited December 3, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

If the UN is suspect, then every government is suspect.

How the heck do you make that leap of "logic"? You seem to be saying that if a group is suspect, then every member of that group is suspect, which is an obvious logical fallacy.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Bonam

[Sleipnir]

But the thing that really made me laugh: the paper makes the claim that since winter deaths always exceed summer deaths that the data overestimates the number of deaths due to extreme cold! ROTFL. Seems to me the fact that deaths increase during the winter with or without extreme cold events is pretty compelling evidence that cold days with less sunshine are worse for humans.

Try reading the conclusion of the paper.

[cybercoma]

The UK body is quite open about their political biases: http://www.nerc.ac.u...esscriteria.asp

These documents make it clear that research that science that supports the IPCC political agenda is more likely to be funded.

Did you even read the publication on their aims? I don't see where it says "research must support IPCC political agenda." Can you cite a page number where it says this?

The best definitions I have for their aims are on pg 5:

This research will produce key science outcomes that will lead to:

I climate prediction on regional to local and

daily to decadal scales;

I confidence levels on the safety of carbon

capture and storage and nuclear waste

disposal;

I the best locations and whole life costs for

renewable energy systems;

I analysis of the impact of environmental

change on ecosystem services such as clean

water, air, soil and food;

I assessment of the risk of the thermohaline

circulation collapsing;

I reliable predictions of the intensity and track

of wind storms;

I knowledge of the factors associated with the

spread of disease;

I understanding the role of biodiversity in

determining whole ecosystem function; I exploitation of technological advances to develop improved methods of monitoring

environmental change.

Something in particular here that you find political? I don't see an agenda here.

[TimG]

Something in particular here that you find political? I don't see an agenda here.

From the introduction:

Stern’s key economic finding is that, without mitigating strategies, the overall cost of climate change will be equivalent to losing five percent global GDP each year, now and for ever. Starting science-driven mitigation and adaptation solutions now would limit the cost to around one percent GDP each year.

This is a clear reference to the mitigation political agenda. It is clear to any reader that research papers that re-enforced this agenda are welcome. A scientist that wished to pursue research that suggests that the IPCC/Stern reports are wrong in their conclusions and that climate change is not a serious concern would be at a disadvantage because such research would not fit into 'strategic goals' of the funding body. Any scientist that wished to put food on the table would understand this and adapt their research proposals to suit the clearly indicated political agenda.

The evidence is a much clearer that I expected but it does not surprise me that you reject the evidence. Too much of your self identity is wrapped up in the illusion that government funded science is some non-partisan search for the truth when the facts show it is driven by politics.

Edited December 3, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

A scientist that wished to pursue research that suggests that the IPCC/Stern reports are wrong in their conclusions and that climate change is not a serious concern would be at a disadvantage because there is no evidence to support those claims.

There. I fixed it for you.

[Merlin]

I want Canada to remove itself from the UN. It does nothing good for the west. It only serves the worlds despots.

[TimG]

There. I fixed it for you.

This is the kind of close minded zealotry that has me so disgusted with the scientific establishment. You may feel that climate change is something that you are concerned about - but that is an opinion - it is not an unarguable fact. You corrupt science by trying to pretend that your political opinion is a scientific truth. The trouble is the scientific establishment is filled with people like you who cannot separate your person political opinions from actual facts and evidence. This is why the scientific establishment has no credibility. Edited December 3, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

It seems part of your modus operandi is to bait people with some general statement that could only be interpreted as or assumed to be originating from a very partisan view or some "mindless zealot" and then spend countless posts refuting the assumption and outlining your centrist, pragmatic, open-minded, fence-sitting, wishy-washy position making your antagonist appear an extremist because he holds an opinion with which you have some disagreement.

[cybercoma]

This is the kind of close minded zealotry that has me so disgusted with the scientific establishment. You may feel that climate change is something that you are concerned about - but that is an opinion - it is not an unarguable fact. You corrupt science by trying to pretend that your political opinion is a scientific truth. The trouble is the scientific establishment is filled with people like you who cannot separate your person political opinions from actual facts and evidence. This is why the scientific establishment has no credibility.

A whole lot of crying to say nothing. If there was evidence to support the deniers claims, there would be debate in the scientific community. There isn't because there is no evidence to support the nonsense of denial. Climate change is a serious concern. But you just keep your head tucked firmly in the sand, while the world marches on and looks for sustainable energy solutions.

[TimG]

If there was evidence to support the deniers claims, there would be debate in the scientific community.

If I am right then there would be no debate because the community is biased. You need to provide evidence for your assertion. I provided evidence of a bias in the funding bodies.

Climate change is a serious concern.

Based on nothing but unverified computer models and there is plenty of evidence that these models are suspect. Yet the position of the funding body takes implies they are beyond reproach. That kind of attitude is unscientific zealotry. An unbiased funding body would not make such an assumption implicit in their 'strategic' objectives.

The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge the uncertainties when it comes to the climate models illustrates that your own position is uninformed dogmatism rather than one based on an examination of the evidence.

BTW - the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge the obvious bias in the documents I presented perfectly illustrates the group think which undermines the credibility of climate science. You have become the proof that you demanded.

Edited December 3, 2012 by TimG

[Pliny]

A whole lot of crying to say nothing. If there was evidence to support the deniers claims, there would be debate in the scientific community. There isn't because there is no evidence to support the nonsense of denial.

And a petition to the UN by 125 + Scientists from the scientific community means case closed, no debate, nothing? Be objective and the attempt to quash debate becomes obvious. You do believe there are too many people on the planet, don't you? Isn't that the big problem in your view?

[Guest]

And a petition to the UN by 125 + Scientists from the scientific community means case closed, no debate, nothing? Be objective and the attempt to quash debate becomes obvious. You do believe there are too many people on the planet, don't you? Isn't that the big problem in your view?

The petition to the UN was to bring home the message:

"Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused"

Given this, which I posted earlier, can anyone deny that that is a reasonable request?

http://www.slate.com...ecord_2011.html

Although emissions are falling in some of the most developed countries, it “is more than matched by continued growth in developing countries like China and India,” reports the New York Times. While the United States decreased emissions by 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons and Germany by 4 percent to 0.8 billion tons, China’s emissions soared 10 percent to 10 billion tons and India’s rose 7 percent to 2.5 billion tons. Global emissions increased 3 percent in 2011 and are expected to rise another 2.6 percent this year.

Edited December 3, 2012 by bcsapper

[Pliny]

Try reading the conclusion of the paper.

Try reading the title.

[wyly]

nope that's bs...you comparing country to country, do the same comparison on a per capita basis, china has four times the population of the USA and india 3 times,...on a per capita basis the USA leads the lead china by a large margin and India isn't even close....

Edited December 3, 2012 by wyly

[Guest]

nope that's bs...you comparing country to country, do the same comparison on a per capita basis, china has four times the population of the USA and india 3 times,...on a per capita basis the USA leads the lead china by a large margin and India isn't even close....

Pliny posted in the way, there. Is that a reply to my post two back?

[wyly]

The petition to the UN was to bring home the message:

what the petition brings home was that it was fraudulent/misleading/inaccurate worthless, it's already been tossed in the trash bin....anyone can send a letter to the UN that doesn't make it relevant or respectable...