If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Aivar Usk:
"memorized IPCC dogma rather than developed a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates".
This is a highly misleading framing of the situation.
The IPCC working groups get together every few years to discuss what has happened recently in climate science. They review the reputable literature. All of it. And attempt to summarise. That is what leads to the enormous WG Technical Summaries (many hundreds of megabytes). Then there is the Synthesis Report, which is where all the arguing amongst the delegates from 100 or so countries comes in.
The Technical Summaries are a review of the literature as it is. If Bill says “here is my proof of anthropocentric global warming in the last 100 years” and Fred says “here is what is wrong with Bill's argument”, and these are both published in reputable journals, then WG1 will in general consider both Bill's contribution and Fred's contribution.
I say “in general” because, having worked on numerous program committees and standardisation committees, I am well aware of the things which don't go right. Any time you have more than about three people working on something like this, there are going to be disagreements and things not going optimally.
Let's consider two examples of matters which have come up here. First, Lindzen's assertion that there haven't been more, or more extreme, extreme-weather events recently. That is so obviously wrong that there is no way a reviewer for a reputable journal could leave it in a paper accepted for publication. So it won't get in the literature and thus won't be considered for AR7. Second, McKitrick's assertion that the Allen-Stett method leads to wrong results. He said it in a blog post, but he didn't say it in the paper. What was claimed in the paper is that the method is incomplete and leaves out some necessary checks. That is now in the literature. AR7 WG1 might well consider it.
The TS's, then, are not “dogma”; they are attempted summaries of the science as it has appeared in the literature, the “mainstream” as well as the “contrarian”.
Now let us consider how this misframing has actually been (mis)used in the discussion. Earlier on this page, AU quoted an assertion in climate science, and asked me if I agreed. I said no, and quoted Houghton's textbook Fifth Edition, Figure 4.4 as a reason. AU didn't attempt to say that Figure 4.4 was wrong; or indeed anything else about what Figure 4.4 says. He deflected, by finding a book review of Houghton, and then writing
[AU] Need we say more - no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.
Yes, we need say more.
The way this figure came about is likely
Another possibility is
Another possibility is
(I did not find the original in the graphics for either AR4 or AR5. I didn't look too hard; I may have missed them.)
In all of these cases, where the science came from has nothing to do with IPCC, “fertiliser” or “worship”, in fact it likely has little to do with IPCC at at (although it may well have been that at least one of the authors has been on some IPCC committee - many climate scientists have, at some point, including Lindzen).
The intellectual vapidity of AU's response now becomes clear. He can't criticise figure 4.4 on any technical basis. He just disparages a particular book where it appeared. Simon Barker was quite right to characterise this kind of argument as ad hominem. It has been pervasive in this discussion. It's vapid.
Aivar Usk:
"memorized IPCC dogma rather than developed a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates".
This is a highly misleading framing of the situation.
The IPCC working groups get together every few years to discuss what has happened recently in climate science. They review the reputable literature. All of it. And attempt to summarise. That is what leads to the enormous WG Technical Summaries (many hundreds of megabytes). Then there is the Synthesis Report, which is where all the arguing amongst the delegates from 100 or so countries comes in.
The Technical Summaries are a review of the literature as it is. If Bill says “here is my proof of anthropocentric global warming in the last 100 years” and Fred says “here is what is wrong with Bill's argument”, and these are both published in reputable journals, then WG1 will in general consider both Bill's contribution and Fred's contribution.
I say “in general” because, having worked on numerous program committees and standardisation committees, I am well aware of the things which don't go right. Any time you have more than about three people working on something like this, there are going to be disagreements and things not going optimally.
Let's consider two examples of matters which have come up here. First, Lindzen's assertion that there haven't been more, or more extreme, extreme-weather events recently. That is so obviously wrong that there is no way a reviewer for a reputable journal could leave it in a paper accepted for publication. So it won't get in the literature and thus won't be considered for AR7. Second, McKitrick's assertion that the Allen-Stett method leads to wrong results. He said it in a blog post, but he didn't say it in the paper. What was claimed in the paper is that the method is incomplete and leaves out some necessary checks. That is now in the literature. AR7 WG1 might well consider it.
The TS's, then, are not “dogma”; they are attempted summaries of the science as it has appeared in the literature, the “mainstream” as well as the “contrarian”.
Now let us consider how this misframing has actually been (mis)used in the discussion. Earlier on this page, AU quoted an assertion in climate science, and asked me if I agreed. I said no, and quoted Houghton's textbook Fifth Edition, Figure 4.4 as a reason. AU didn't attempt to say that Figure 4.4 was wrong; or indeed anything else about what Figure 4.4 says. He deflected, by finding a book review of Houghton, and then writing
[AU] Need we say more - no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.
Yes, we need say more.
The way this figure came about is likely
Another possibility is
Another possibility is
(I did not find the original in the graphics for either AR4 or AR5. I didn't look too hard; I may have missed them.)
In all of these cases, where the science came from has nothing to do with IPCC, “fertiliser” or “worship”, in fact it likely has little to do with IPCC at at (although it may well have been that at least one of the authors has been on some IPCC committee - many climate scientists have, at some point, including Lindzen).
The intellectual vapidity of AU's response now becomes clear. He can't criticise figure 4.4 on any technical basis. He just disparages a particular book where it appeared. Simon Barker was quite right to characterise this kind of argument as ad hominem. It has been pervasive in this discussion. It's vapid.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
