The Global Warming Plateau

[cybercoma]

Free speech is kind of like a soapbox. I don't think bad information should be banned, in most cases, but I wish people would stop perpetuating it. I have come to appreciate - moreover, to value - the conservative perspective, and I think that without conscientious criticism from that sphere we would be worse off.

But there's a difference between letting people speak, and pushing bad information. A tenet of free speech is that bad information will die on the vine, if a thinking public behaves as they're supposed to.

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

[Keepitsimple]

Everyone has some bias and prejudice, but there's a difference between those who try to be objective, who strive for truth, and those who propagate bad information for other reasons. If the IPCC report "concedes" (your wording, not mine) doesn't that undercut the assumption that there's a secret agenda there ? Does the NIPCC "concede" that warming is actually happening ? It seems so, from the devious wording of their statement that denies "dangerous warming" is happening. The politics of that statement should be so obvious that it should be a red flag to those who decry the so-called politics of scientific organizations.

The "silent majority" isn't well served by information, to my mind, and organizations that perpetuate stupid ideas are part of that. In an age of information chaos, it's easy to bring the shadow of doubt to institutions, and that's what's happened here. I'm talking about discussion of the phenomenon of AGW only, as discussion of possible solutions can't happen until people understand the problem.

The problem with the "bias and prejudice" that many associate with the IPCC is in their mandate - it's not to study Climate Change. It's to determine the influence that Humans have on Climate Change. In other words - way back at the IPCC inception - their mind was made up before they started their studies - their starting point was that Humans play a major role in Climate Change. This is their raison-d'etre. How can this NOT lead to severe bias and prejudice?

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

[Michael Hardner]

"risk of" ...

It's innocuous, when compared to the agendas of those who selectively release data to convince people that warming isn't happening.

[Shady]

Just take a glance at that pie chart of peer-reviewed academic articles on climate change and say that again.

But we already know that the peer review process has been corrupted. Read the emails from climate gate. They specifically talk about how they squash dissent and shut out anything that differs from the norm. Peer reviews is as significant as the FISA court approval. They've both become rubber stamps.

[bleeding heart]

But we already know that the peer review process has been corrupted. Read the emails from climate gate. They specifically talk about how they squash dissent and shut out anything that differs from the norm. Peer reviews is as significant as the FISA court approval. They've both become rubber stamps.

And the answer to this (explicitly made, by at least one poster) is that because of some potential issues with peer review....NON-peer-reviewed "papers" are actually intrinsically superior, and more trustworthy.

A pretty astonishing stance.

Edited September 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

And the answer to this (explicitly made, by at least one poster) is that because of some potential issues with peer review....NON-peer-reviewed "papers" are actually intrinsically superior, and more trustworthy.

A pretty astonishing stance.

Nothing of the kind. Despite the bluster from Climategate, there was nothing to indicate that a conspiracy to suppress information was afoot - as was clearly implied by the media at that time.

Imagine what would happen if your non-peer reviewed people had their emails hacked and published ? I guess we'll never know.

[bleeding heart]

Nothing of the kind. Despite the bluster from Climategate, there was nothing to indicate that a conspiracy to suppress information was afoot - as was clearly implied by the media at that time.

You're right.

Imagine what would happen if your non-peer reviewed people had their emails hacked and published ? I guess we'll never know.

Well, that's just it, and a good point.

I have no doubt that peer review can have potential problems. But why make the perfect the enemy of the good?

.....Especially in defense of the demonstrably LESS good?

Edited September 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Just take a glance at that pie chart of peer-reviewed academic articles on climate change and say that again.

Your chart is a pathetic red herring and it is a classic example of the bait and switch scam which alarmists around the world are using to dupe the public.

The scam works like this: start with a premise that is well supported by the science (e.g. that CO2 leads to warming) and claim that because that claim is obviously true then every other claim must also be true (i.e. that CO2 induced warming is a bad thing).

Anybody with any interested in understanding the issues would know that the only thing most skeptics dispute are:

1) The claim that warming is necessarily a net harm;

2) The claims that CO2 mitigation is a useful way to address any bad effects.

The trouble is there is no where near the same consensus for point 1) and there little empirical evidence to support it (all cases of reported bad effects are confounded by a million other factors that are more significant).

And 2) has absolutely nothing to do with science and no one should care what a scientist thinks.

Since Michael is so keen on seeing deceptive and misleading propaganda banned he can start with your chart....

Edited September 19, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Everyone has some bias and prejudice, but there's a difference between those who try to be objective, who strive for truth, and those who propagate bad information for other reasons.

The people behind the NIPCC honestly believe that the IPCC is a biased organization dedicated to twisting the facts to support a CO2 mitigation agenda. They are only providing an alternative view of that same science as a public service.

What right do you have to decide that their motives are any less noble that those of people working for the IPCC?

The "silent majority" isn't well served by information, to my mind, and organizations that perpetuate stupid ideas are part of that.

I agree. Lets ban greenpeace and all other environmental organizations that twist and misrepresent the truth in order get people upset enough to donate money to these organizations?

What? You don't agree with my assessment? That is kind of the problem. You really have no business judging what is the "truth" and what is "misinformation" because your opinion on such things is simply a reflection of your subjective biases and not based on any objective truth.

Edited September 19, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

The people behind the NIPCC honestly believe that the IPCC is a biased organization dedicated to twisting the facts to support a CO2 mitigation agenda. They are only providing an alternative view of that same science as a public service.

What right do you have to decide that their motives are any less noble that those of people working for the IPCC?

I agree. Lets ban greenpeace and all other environmental organizations that twist and misrepresent the truth in order get people upset enough to donate money to these organizations?

What? You don't agree with my assessment? That is kind of the problem. You really have no business judging what is the "truth and what is misinformation because your opinion on such things is simply a reflection of your subjective biases and not based on any objective truth.

Hopefully the contradictions in your stance don't need to be made more explicit than they already are.

[TimG]

Hopefully the contradictions in your stance don't need to be made more explicit than they already are.

The only contradictions that exist are a result of you making stuff up I did not say instead of trying to understand the point I am making. Edited September 19, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

The only contradictions that exist are a result of you making stuff up I did not say instead of trying to understand the point I am making.

But I am speaking precisely and only of your exact words:

The people behind the NIPCC honestly believe that the IPCC is a biased organization dedicated to twisting the facts to support a CO2 mitigation agenda. They are only providing an alternative view of that same science as a public service.

And then:

What right do you have to decide that their motives are any less noble that those of people working for the IPCC?

But you're not saying the IPCC has noble motives; you have already stated the opposite.

And simultaneously have determined your "right...to decide" nobility of motives...and lack thereof.

Now, if you mean this all as some sort of object lesson to expose Michael Hardner's intransigence, it rather falls flat...since you explicitly DO consider NIPCC honest, and IPCC...not so much.

So it appears your issue with MH is...wait, what again?

Then you give us this jaw-dropper:

You really have no business judging what is the "truth and what is misinformation because your opinion on such things is simply a reflection of your subjective biases and not based on any objective truth.

Evidently, you think higher standards need be met along these lines by other posters....but aren't necessarily applicable to your own (continual) declarations about what indeed is truth and what is misinformation.

[TimG]

And simultaneously have determined your "right...to decide" nobility of motives...and lack thereof.

You clearly do not understand sarcasm. I never have and never will mull about censoring people because I disagree with them.

[bleeding heart]

You clearly do not understand sarcasm. I never have and never will mull about censoring people because I disagree with them.

I already addressed the possibility that you meant to claim you did not mean what you have long asserted: that posters--except for yourself, who do it routinely--are remiss in speaking of "truth" and "misinformation."

Because, you see, everyone is blinded by their biases (maybe but maybe not the IPCC--who sometimes you claim are blinded by bias, other times claim are outright liars.)

Except TimG--bias-free!

Edited September 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Because, you see, everyone is blinded by their biases (maybe but maybe not the IPCC--who sometimes you claim are blinded by bias, other times claim are outright liars.)

Again you are making stuff up that I did not say. I have never claimed that I did not have my own biases. I am very much aware of them and often have to remind myself to be skeptical even when I hear something that aligns with my biases.

That said, I do object when people claim their pet source of information are unbiased. Such people are simply blind to their biases. If one does not understand their biases inherent in any source of information then one cannot claim to have knowledge.

Edited September 20, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Again you are making stuff up that I did not say. I have never claimed that I did not have my own biases. I am very must aware of them and often have to remind myself to be skeptical even when I hear something that aligns with my biases.

That said, I do object when people claim their pet source of information are unbiased. Such people are simply blind to their biases. If one does not understand their biases inherent in any source of information then one cannot claim to have knowledge.

Yes, but that's boilerplate. We all feel the same way.

[Michael Hardner]

The people behind the NIPCC honestly believe that the IPCC is a biased organization dedicated to twisting the facts to support a CO2 mitigation agenda. They are only providing an alternative view of that same science as a public service.

What right do you have to decide that their motives are any less noble that those of people working for the IPCC?

I agree. Lets ban greenpeace and all other environmental organizations that twist and misrepresent the truth in order get people upset enough to donate money to these organizations?

What? You don't agree with my assessment? That is kind of the problem. You really have no business judging what is the "truth" and what is "misinformation" because your opinion on such things is simply a reflection of your subjective biases and not based on any objective truth.

I try not make pronouncements on the 'nobility' of causes. There's advocacy, though, and there's information. You can't have A without B but you can have B without A.

You don't judge "truth" on a daily basis ? How do you make it to work without falling in open manhole covers ?

[Michael Hardner]

Speaking of Greenpeace, that's an advocacy group that's doing a good job of unmasking NIPCC as a lobbying group themselves:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/two-tweets-and-lie-greenpeace-responds-heartland-institute

[Bitsy]

All is good, Why the new view? Because the data show that global warming actually has paused since 1998. You would be forgiven for not knowing this, as in the last fifteen years climate alarmism has heated up. Thanks to multiple school-imposed viewings of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, an entire generation has been brainwashed into believing that unless we stop taking long showers and driving anything but a hybrid, we’re going to create a global Sahara.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/09/16/cool-news-on-the-climate-front/

No need for alarmism

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1226523/new-science-report-debunks-climate-scare

UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate

OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /CNW/ - "As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision," said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). "Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN's view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?

"With today's release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II - seehttp://climatechangereconsidered.org/, a 1,200 page report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approached," continued Harris. "Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong."

Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia, explained, "NIPCC's CCR-II report uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability. Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring."

CCR-II Lead Author for the extreme weather chapter, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, agrees, "When the earth was generally cooling between 1945 and 1977, there were as many extreme weather events as there are now, but climate scientists did not attribute this to human activity. The perceived link between global warming and extreme weather is primarily due to greater media attention on violent weather today than in past decades. Earth's climate is robust and is not being destabilized by human-added CO2."

We should be thankful that our gov’t didn’t buy into ponzi schemes committing Canada to tossing billions down the drain. Of course McGuinty's 'green energy' has already scammed Ontario into near bankruptcy.

I think this is a good analysis of the flurry of articles posted here extrapolating what the unreleased IPCC report will say.

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this esteemed report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:

•The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.

•Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;

•Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;

•Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;

•Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; and

•Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/17-0

Edited September 19, 2013 by Bitsy

[TimG]

I try not make pronouncements on the 'nobility' of causes. There's advocacy, though, and there's information. You can't have A without B but you can have B without A.

And the IPCC, like the NIPCC, is an advocacy organization. It exists to provide scientific rationalizations for carbon control policies. The only difference is you can see the bias of the NIPCC but are blind to the bias of the IPCC. I see both organizations as so biased that the information they provide is not useful without other sources that provide the other side of the story.

You don't judge "truth" on a daily basis ? How do you make it to work without falling in open manhole covers ?

A strawman that is not helpful. Surely you can see the difference between a simple verifiable fact and an unverifiable opinion on how changes today will impact the future. Edited September 20, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

[unecessary rant]

Edited September 20, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

[unecessary rant]

it was a gem - you should have left it!!!

[waldo]

The problem with the "bias and prejudice" that many associate with the IPCC is in their mandate - it's not to study Climate Change. It's to determine the influence that Humans have on Climate Change. In other words - way back at the IPCC inception - their mind was made up before they started their studies - their starting point was that Humans play a major role in Climate Change. This is their raison-d'etre. How can this NOT lead to severe bias and prejudice?

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

no sir – your own most significant bias is offering a most incorrect assessment. That IPCC role statement you quote is one arrived at more than 10 years after the inception of the IPCC… approved on Oct 2, 1998 at the Fourteenth Session of the IPCC

if you actually knew anything about the IPCC beyond your denier talking points, you would realize there has been a building iterative confidence level in mankind’s contributory influence on global warming… a confidence level that reflects upon the complete and equally building assessment of scientific works that associates with an increased focus and concerted effort by scientists. During that 10 year period you’re clearly unaware of (or purposely ignoring), the IPCC released 2 major assessment reports and 2 physical science based supplemental reports….. those reports and the subsequent 2 other major IPCC iterative assessment reports over the following ~15 years, are the build-up to the upcoming release of the next IPCC major assessment report later this month – the ‘AR5 Report’. Over that ~25 year period, across the iterative reports, the IPCC has shifted its growing confidence level in mankind’s attribution contribution to global warming from a 50% probability likelihood, to 66%, to 90%... to a 95% level finding within the upcoming AR5 report. This is your "IPCC mind made up"??? 25 years... it took them long enough, hey?

your stated premise of an IPCC ‘mind made up’ fits quite well with your past MLW denier rants against the IPCC… that alternative “sceptical” science is conspired against, is denied/ignored. Your denier victimization act never rests! Of course, you and other deniers are quite free to skirt the IPCC and bring forward any/all “sceptical findings” you feel trump the prevailing science. Oh wait… that’s what peer review/response is all about, hey! Oh sorry, I forgot… not only is the IPCC conspiring, so are all scientific journals! How does the poor downtrodden denier man ever stand a chance!!! Don’t fret – take solace in the Heartland Institute’s NIPCC Report – it’s got your denier back Jack! .

[waldo]

The problem with the "bias and prejudice" that many associate with the IPCC is in their mandate - it's not to study Climate Change. It's to determine the influence that Humans have on Climate Change. In other words - way back at the IPCC inception - their mind was made up before they started their studies - their starting point was that Humans play a major role in Climate Change. This is their raison-d'etre. How can this NOT lead to severe bias and prejudice?

No - the actual, as you say, ‘starting point of the IPCC’… your so-called “mandate”, is the following (per the 1988 UN General Assembly 70^th plenary meeting – A/RES/43/53):

Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind

The General Assembly,

Welcoming with appreciation the initiative taken by the Government of Malta in proposing for consideration by the Assembly the item entitled "Conservation of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind",

Concerned that certain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences,

Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,

Recognizing the need for additional research and scientific studies into all sources and causes of climate change,

Concerned also that emissions of certain substances are depleting the ozone layer and thereby exposing the earth's surface to increased ultra-violet radiation, which may pose a threat to, inter alia, human health, agricultural productivity and animal and marine life, and reaffirming in this context the appeal, contained in its resolution 42/182 of 11 December 1987, to all States that have not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, adopted on 22 March 1985, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, adopted on 16 September 1987, as soon as possible,

Recalling its resolutions 42/186 and 42/187 of 11 December 1987 on the Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond and on the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, respectively,

Convinced that changes in climate have an impact on development,

Aware that a considerable amount of valuable work, particularly at the scientific level and in the legal field, has already been initiated on climate change, in particular by the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions and under the auspices of individual States,

Welcoming the convening in 1990 of a second World Climate Conference,

Recalling also the conclusions of the meeting held at Villach, Austria, in 1985, which, inter alia, recommended a programme on climate change to be promoted by Governments and the scientific community with the collaboration of the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Council of Scientific Unions,

Convinced that climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital interests of all mankind,

1. Recognizes that climate change is a common concern of mankind, since climate is an essential condition which sustains life on earth;

2. Determines that necessary and timely action should be taken to deal with climate change within a global framework;

3. Reaffirms its resolution 42/184 of 11 December 1987, in which, inter alia, it agreed with the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme that the Programme should attach importance to the problem of global climate change and that the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme should ensure that the Programme co-operates closely with the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions and maintains an active, influential role in the World Climate Programme;

4. Considers that activities in support of the World Climate Programme, approved by the Congress and Executive Council of the World Meteorological Organization and elaborated in the system-wide medium-term environment programme for the period 1990-1995, which was approved by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme,be accorded high priority by the relevant organs and programmes of the United Nations system;

5. Endorses the action of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in jointly establishing an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies, and expresses appreciation for the work already initiated by the Panel;

6. Urges Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and scientific institutions to treat climate change as a priority issue, to undertake and promote specific, co-operative action-oriented programmes and research so as to increase understanding on all sources and causes of climate change, including its regional aspects and specific time-frames as well as the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate, and to contribute, as appropriate, with human and financial resources to efforts to protect the global climate;

7. Calls upon all relevant organizations and programmes of the United Nations system to support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

8. Encourages the convening of conferences on climate change, particularly on global warming, at the national, regional and global levels in order to make the international community better aware of the importance of dealing effectively and in a timely manner with all aspects of climate change resulting from certain human activities;

9. Calls upon Governments and intergovernmental organizations to collaborate in making every effort to prevent detrimental effects on climate and activities which affect the ecological balance, and also calls upon non-governmental organizations, industry and other productive sectors to play their due role;

10. Requests the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately to initiate action leading, as soon as possible, to a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to:

a - The state of knowledge of the science of climate and climatic change;

b - Programmes and studies on the social and economic impact of climate change, including global warming;

c - Possible response strategies to delay, limit or mitigate the impact of adverse climate change;

d - The identification and possible strengthening of relevant existing international legal instruments having a bearing on climate;

e - Elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate;

[waldo]

I think this is a good analysis of the flurry of articles posted here extrapolating what the unreleased IPCC report will say.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/17-0

big time denier damage control before the release of the upcoming IPCC AR5 report! There's an absolute frenzy within some of the usual suspect denier blogs. Of course, their best worst is yet to come!