The Global Warming Plateau

[waldo]

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.

the Heartland Institute NIPCC report has no standing! It's a sham written by a small cadre of quacks and charlatans. I put up an earlier post that spoke to the absolute disingenuous nature of the Heartland Institute... it's no surprise you would advocate for it! In your last edited post (your described "unnecessary rant") you chose to attack the blog Michael Hardner sourced from, per his post quoted below... it's a shame you didn't actually try to refute any of the statements made concerning the Heartland Institute... or the NIPCC report. We could have some real fun if you did!

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

[waldo]

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.

BS! There have been a small number of profiled situations... 2 or 3. These have been exhaustively beaten upon in past MLW threads - there is NO THERE, THERE, no matter how hard you continue to hang onto past Hackergate glories!

[waldo]

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.

oh my! The Heartland Institute providing a.... "public service"! This is one for MLW posterity! You've clearly outdone yourself and reached a new high in the nonsense you regularly trot out!

[Michael Hardner]

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.

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.

I disagree. There are degrees of bias, as I have pointed out. Even you have to admit that the bias of one group is more obvious than another.

The IPCC has dissenting opinions within the group, which is more than you can say about groups funded by oil companies to convey a specific message rather than to pursue science.

Edited to add: Yes, I can see the difference between fact and opinion: because I JUDGE TRUTH - which is the initial point you made above, and to which I replied to.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Michael Hardner
edited to add:

[Bitsy]

This is from the Heartland/NIPCC meeting in 2008, I doubt much has changed. The real take away from the NIPCC is the following.

The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?_r=1&ex=1362459600&en=0e42e2e8f8d7f2b6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

[waldo]

This is from the Heartland/NIPCC meeting in 2008, I doubt much has changed. The real take away from the NIPCC is the following.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?_r=1&ex=1362459600&en=0e42e2e8f8d7f2b6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

oh, but there's been a significant improvement in the caliber of "NIPCC scientist"... it now includes so-called "Sky Dragons" who don't accept/believe the Greenhouse Effect... it now openly includes prominent advocates for the position that CO² is innocuous and nothing more than "plant food"! ... it includes proponents of "it's the Sun that's causing the relatively recent warming"... etc., etc., etc.

[carepov]

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.

Good post and I agree. Humans are increasing CO2 concentrations and therefore less heat escaping our atmosphere and Earth is getting hotter. It is surprising that only 99.9% of scientists agree with this claim.

So what do we do about it?

a) nothing, let's ignore it

b.) nothing yet, let's continue to study and increase our understanding

c.) conserve energy

d) use more nuclear energy instead of coal

e) use more natural gas instead of oil

f) use more renewables

g) make more ethanol out of corn

h) ban the practice of making ethanol from corn

i) plant more trees than we cut

j) promote more rural/country living

k) promote more high-density living

l) ban gas-powered lawn movers

n) ban all lawnmowers

o) ban lawns

p) ban incandescent light bulbs

q) stop all new construction < 50 meters above sea level

r) ban modern agriculture

s) ban "organic" agriculture

t) increase/decrease aquaculture

u) scare the bejesus out of people to get hem to "act"

v) insist that this is the biggest issue facing mankind and we should direct almost all ressources at this problem

w) return to a pre-industrial society

x)...

What's the concensus?

[TimG]

The IPCC has dissenting opinions within the group, which is more than you can say about groups funded by oil companies to convey a specific message rather than to pursue science.

The only opinions that matter in the IPCC are the lead authors for the various parts because they control the editorial slant and, more importantly, decide how IPCC rules are interpreted. For example, despite claims to the contrary, IPCC rules do allow references to non-peer reviewed sources but only at the discretion of the lead authors. 5000+ plus such references exist but only to non-peer reviewed sources that support the alarmists narrative. All of the blatant errors that needed to be corrected were errors that made the report more alarmist.

Basically the IPCC report is just as biased as the NIPCC. The one area were the IPCC is better is it is more exhaustive.

In a world filled with biases we need groups like the NIPCC putting out alternative views so we can better assess the information available. If that means people don't take actions that you have decided are necessary because of your own biases then so be it. That is how free speech works.

Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The only opinions that matter in the IPCC are the lead authors for the various parts because they control the editorial slant and, more importantly, decide how IPCC rules are interpreted. For example, despite claims to the contrary, IPCC rules do allow references to non-peer reviewed sources but only at the discretion of the lead authors. 5000+ plus such references exist but only to non-peer reviewed sources that support the alarmists narrative. All of the blatant errors that needed to be corrected were errors that made the report more alarmist.

there is full/complete transparency within the IPCC process... review comments are available online - comments from any/all reviewers.

if I recall correctly, it was you that tried this same weaselly play in an earlier MLW thread. The physical sciences basis of climate change, the IPCC Working Group I Report, is entirely based on peer-reviewed sources. The use of so-called gray-matter (non peer-reviewed sources) does exist within the Working Group II Report... the basis/rationale for that allowance exists within the official IPCC '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

.

.

5. Treatment in IPCC Reports

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.

your described "blatant errors"... were not! The so-called "errors" all associated to the aforementioned WG2 Report. We had in-depth discussion on each and every one of these trumped up, so-called "errors", in past MLW threads. They're an easy MLW search away if you'd care to play (once again)

Edited September 21, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

In a world filled with biases we need groups like the NIPCC putting out alternative views so we can better assess the information available. If that means people don't take actions that you have decided are necessary because of your own biases then so be it. That is how free speech works.

again, the NIPCC has no standing... and is written by, quite literally, quacks and charlatans. It is a sham effort put out/supported by the industry tied, denialist led/bent, Heartland Institute... you know, the Heartland Institute you just a few posts back declared was, 'doing this in the interests of public service'!!!

[Shady]

there is full/complete transparency within the IPCC process... review comments are available online - comments from any/all reviewers.

if I recall correctly, it was you that tried this same weaselly play in an earlier MLW thread. The physical sciences basis of climate change, the IPCC Working Group I Report, is entirely based on peer-reviewed sources. The use of so-called gray-matter (non peer-reviewed sources) does exist within the Working Group II Report... the basis/rationale for that allowance exists within the official IPCC 'Statement on IPCC Principles and Procedures':

your described "blatant errors"... were not! The so-called "errors" all associated to the aforementioned WG2 Report. We had in-depth discussion on each and every one of these trumped up, so-called "errors", in past MLW threads. They're an easy MLW search away if you'd care to play (once again)

In a way you're correct. Things done on purpose aren't really errors. As the famous alarmist mantra goes..... hide the decline!!!

[TimG]

Good post and I agree. Humans are increasing CO2 concentrations and therefore less heat escaping our atmosphere and Earth is getting hotter. It is surprising that only 99.9% of scientists agree with this claim.

You may find this article interesting:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/the-ipccs-inconvenient-truth/

The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself. The IPCC’s consensus building process relies heavily on expert judgment; if the public and the policy makers no longer trust these particular experts, then we can expect a very different dynamic to be in play with regards to the reception of the AR5 relative to the AR4.

...

If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

...

Scientists do not need to be consensual to be authoritative. Authority rests in the credibility of the arguments, which must include explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance and more openness for dissent.

[waldo]

In a way you're correct. Things done on purpose aren't really errors. As the famous alarmist mantra goes..... hide the decline!!!

as you were one of the loudest barkers over those perceived WG2 report errors, you should resurrect the past MLW related MLW threads that exhaustively dealt with this/your nonsense... to allow you (and your stable of go-to British tabloid newspaper "journalists") another shot at attempting to make a case for those so-called "errors" - and what significance, if any, they may even have had.

of course, let's make sure to reinforce the point that there were no errors, not even perceived, in the IPCC WG1 Report... the report dealing with the physical climate science basis as principally assessed by climatologists. Perceived errors associated with the WG2 Report were trumped up through your original cited British tabloid newspaper sources - the WG2 Report associated with the impacts of climate change as principally assessed by social scientists.

as for your continual raising of the favoured denialist 'Hide the Decline' meme, I challenge you to raise past MLW threads that have dealt with this nonsense in the past.

[waldo]

You may find this article interesting:

yes, from the, affectionally known, 'crazy aunt' Curry! Since you are ignoring the essence of what member 'carepov' has asked you... since you appear to want to highlight denialist Curry's "uncertainty idiocy", I suggest you trot out her "Italian Flag' special! Then we can have some real fun, hey?

[waldo]

Good post and I agree. Humans are increasing CO2 concentrations and therefore less heat escaping our atmosphere and Earth is getting hotter. It is surprising that only 99.9% of scientists agree with this claim.

So what do we do about it?

as you can see, the MLW member you directed your post/question to has chosen to ignore your questions in favour of a deflection. You also need appropriate perspective on the post you, yourself, are replying to. The words in that post are purposely crafted to allow that MLW member to intentionally obfuscate his real position on increasing atmospheric CO² emissions and their impact on global warming/climate change. That MLW member does not accept that increasing atmospheric CO² emissions, as attributed to mankind's burning of fossil fuels, is the principal cause for global warming... that member advocates exclusively for a practice of adaptation to the effects of warming... to his complete and utter disdain for any considerations toward mitigating the use/effects of warming; i.e., "Adaptation Good - Mitigation Bad"! Cause, like... that MLW member is strongly opposed to alternative energy pursuits... that MLW member advocates exhaustively for continued reliance on fossil-fuels!

[Michael Hardner]

In a world filled with biases we need groups like the NIPCC putting out alternative views so we can better assess the information available. If that means people don't take actions that you have decided are necessary because of your own biases then so be it. That is how free speech works.

No, we don't. We need groups that strive for objectivity, not groups that set out with an agenda - either to support conventional views, or simply to challenge them. Free speech isn't the point. These aren't poets, they're scientists. They do have the right to lie and misinform on purpose, but part of free speech is the public's role in judging the truth, and the speaker. In this case, they should be thrown out.

[Michael Hardner]

In a way you're correct. Things done on purpose aren't really errors. As the famous alarmist mantra goes..... hide the decline!!!

Climate Science has proven that it will modify its theories based on reality - this is the search for truth. The same can't be said for advocacy groups who are aiming to disinform people. Does the NIPCC ever issue corrections and changes, I wonder ?

[TimG]

We need groups that strive for objectivity, not groups that set out with an agenda - either to support conventional views, or simply to challenge them.

Objectivity is a delusion. It does not exist. Trying to pretend that some groups are objective and some are not is fundamentally dishonest. Informed discussion starts with recognizing the bias of anyone expressing an opinion.

In this case, they should be thrown out.

That is your opinion that is based on your general tendency to lump all arguments against the church of the IPCC as heresy.

If you had more interest in understanding the issues you would realize that there are many different skeptical arguments and while some of them are garbage many of them are as valid as any the IPCC makes. They only don't get a fair hearing because the world is filled with zealots that refuse to consider anything that does not come from the priesthood.

Bottom line is the NIPCC has a right to express their views no matter what you may think of them. And anyone that chooses to listen to them should keep in mind that they are biased.

Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

the church of the IPCC... from the priesthood

a most encapsulated summation of your complete lack of credibility... particularly buttressed up against your advocating for the Heartland Institute and the quack/charlatan sourced NIPCC.

If you had more interest in understanding the issues you would realize that there are many different skeptical arguments and while some of them are garbage many of them are as valid as any the IPCC makes.

do tell, do tell! Which skeptical arguments is the IPCC suppressing? Do tell, do tell!

They only don't get a fair hearing because the world is filled with zealots that refuse to consider anything that does not come from the priesthood.

ah yes, your oft favoured claims of world-wide conspiracy and "gate-keeping"... of "zealots keeping the poor downtrodden denier man down"!

Bottom line is the NIPCC has a right to express their views no matter what you may think of them. And anyone that chooses to listen to them should keep in mind that they are biased.

yes, Heartland Institute funded/sourced bias... views without substance, views without accepted scientific foundation.

[Michael Hardner]

Objectivity is a delusion. It does not exist. Trying to pretend that some groups are objective and some are not is fundamentally dishonest. Informed discussion starts with recognizing the bias of anyone expressing an opinion.

You keep talking past my point. We can acknowledge that true objectivity doesn't exist, while still striving for it.

Anything else is just cynical and destructive. It's like the hoary "all human acts are selfish" argument - even if you accept it on a certain level, does it mean that society should just give up on all morality ?

That is your opinion that is based on your general tendency to lump all arguments against the church of the IPCC as heresy.

No, I don't think the IPCC is a church. You have followed my thinking as I have traced these arguments over the years, up to the point where I decided that the science they're producing is good. I think this is the first time you have actually come up to say that I'm not objective, probably because I ended up disagreeing with you in the end.

And who should be branded as the religious one in this example ? Me - who read the arguments and came to my own conclusions, albeit one you didn't agree with ? Or you - who helped me through my thinking process until they point where I disagreed with you, whereupon you "shunned" me like the Puritains put out a witch ?

If you had more interest in understanding the issues you would realize that there are many different skeptical arguments and while some of them are garbage many of them are as valid as any the IPCC makes. They only don't get a fair hearing because the world is filled with zealots that refuse to consider anything that does not come from the priesthood.

There are problems with science, of course, and there are zealots on both sides. Climate Science has produced reasonable results, in my opinion, and for people to obsess on their smallest error as proof of a world wide conspiracy is a greater sign of zealotry than anything else I have seen.

Bottom line is the NIPCC has a right to express their views no matter what you may think of them. And anyone that chooses to listen to them should keep in mind that they are biased.

Right. So does the KKK and any other band of drunken liars that rides through on a wagon. Again, you're talking past my point. If they portray themselves as scientists, rather than slapstick comedians or whatever they truly are, then the public will judge them - and hopefully reject them - on the lack of merit in their arguments, or their lack of basic professional ethics.

To reiterate: saying "objectivity is an illusion" doesn't excuse people from the responsibilities associated with making statements, and it certainly doesn't release us - the public - from the moral imperative to hold them to a standard.

[Shady]

Climate Science has proven that it will modify its theories based on reality - this is the search for truth. The same can't be said for advocacy groups who are aiming to disinform people. Does the NIPCC ever issue corrections and changes, I wonder ?

Then they need to stop claiming that they know what reality is, if it has to be modified constantly. I'm not sure if shutting down dissenting voices is part of their so-called search for the truth. They already have in their minds what the truth is, and anything that comes in their way gets silenced. See the perverted peer review process as an example.

[waldo]

Then they need to stop claiming that they know what reality is, if it has to be modified constantly. I'm not sure if shutting down dissenting voices is part of their so-called search for the truth. They already have in their minds what the truth is, and anything that comes in their way gets silenced. See the perverted peer review process as an example.

what reality, as you say, "needs to be modified constantly"? If you're referring to this thread, your OP claim of a (global surface temperature) warming plateau, nothing has been modified, absolutely nothing. You've been shown the historical focus that exists in complete energy transfer study... in inclusive analysis that encompasses ocean warming. Of course, you ignore all of this as it doesn't fit your denialist predilection! Of course you do.

I suggest you peddle your 'perverted peer review, conspiracy, gate-keeping' nonsense elsewhere... there is no foundation to it. Again, there have been a handful (2 or 3, at most) profiled examples. Even if you accepted the denial spin on these (which has been shown conclusively to be wrong), you choose to rule, as an absolute ShadyDecree, that peer-review is corrupt! Unfortunately, for you, hundreds of skeptical papers regularly get published through your claimed corrupted peer-review process... equally, unfortunately for you, none of your 'silver bullet AGW killing' wished best stand the test of peer-response!

[TimG]

You keep talking past my point. We can acknowledge that true objectivity doesn't exist, while still striving for it.

The trouble are people who claim to strive for objectivity but only as a subterfuge to disguise their true biases. i.e. IPCC claims to be objective but the evidence says it is fixated on providing a scientific narrative to support the CO2 mitigation political agenda.

You, of course, will dispute this but that simply re-enforces my argument that it is not enough for organizations to claim to strive for objectivity - they must demonstrate it with their actions. If they fail to demonstrate objectivity then they are no better than groups like the NIPCC.

I think this is the first time you have actually come up to say that I'm not objective, probably because I ended up disagreeing with you in the end.

You proved that you were not a rational actor on the climate debate in the long thread on the mann paper. You see I have the academic and work background to understand the paper and know with 100% certainty that mann screwed up. The fact that you refused to see that after my long and patient attempts to explain it to you shows that you either 1) dont have the math/statistical skills to understand the problem 2) you are not a rational seeker of truth.

Now it is likely that you are so wedded to your biases that you honestly believe that you simply 'disagreed with me'. However, on the point in the mann paper disagreeing with me means choosing to believe in a falsehood. Choosing to believe in a falsehood is something most typical of followers of religions which is why I make the comparison.

Note that I don't claim that everything I say is truth - 99% if what I say is just my opinion and I could end up being wrong. I singled out that paper because it was an example of where I was 100% certain that I am right. You are free to claim that I am wrong but don't expect me to see you as anything other than a religious zealot seeking to rationalize your belief system.

Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

You are free to claim that I am wrong but don't expect me to see you as anything other than a religious zealot seeking to rationalize your belief system.

yes Michael... if you don't agree with TimG's parroting of the McIntyre rote against the Mann... you sir, you Michael, are a "religious zealot"!

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a decent article that may offend those who treat the IPCC as a biblical truth.....but it boils down some of the braod agreements in the scientific community. I'm sure the usual suspects will simply ignore the content and bash the author - Richard Lindzen.....but it's worth a read.

The Climate Issue: Widespread agreement and the choice of a moral policy.

The issue of global warming (or climate change or weather disruption or whatever the current

label is) is often put forward as a moral issue, but this does not change the need to pay attention

to the science. Indeed, the latter is a crucial prelude to the former. The situation here may not be

as complex as is sometimes suggested. Frequently the questions posed in public discussions are

so reductionist as to be silly. Is it warming or not? Is CO2 increasing. Is climate changing? Is

summer sea ice decreasing? Such questions actually disguise what are the real policy-relevant

questions. These are inevitably quantitative rather than yes-no in character.

Though it would be difficult to speak of universal agreement over any aspect of the issue, it is

nonetheless the case that there are many areas of agreement among most of the scientists on both

sides of this issue. Such agreement hardly insures that these views are correct, but, for the

moment, they are a reasonable starting point...........................continued

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Agreement_and_Morality-OrangeCtyRegisterRev-1.pdf

Edited September 21, 2013 by Keepitsimple