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.
I have to say that Peter is not grasping the fundamental understanding that AGW is not catastrophic. Both Roger and Aviar have spent time to explain their position in great detail with honest opinion. And not once has Peter shown us that AGW is catastrophic or convinced us otherwise. I have to thank this debate for galvanising my gut feeling that we are being conned by alarmists, scientists with vested interests and twisted politicians. I've started to study more to understand the climate which a year ago I barely considered in my lifetime. Its an amazing subject, the understanding we have so far is mind boggling.
BTW I'm not a bot and consider myself Human.
Aivar Usk:
You are certainly free to keep your opinion; I remain open for changing mine when new scientific evidence provides a cause.
You have said repeatedly that you are unable to judge the scientific evidence.
, I have seen too many comments from disillusioned IPCC experts claiming that the processes are biased and politically steered.
It goes without saying that you have no experience with such processes.
But it would be interesting if you would say which IPCC experts you are talking about and quote to us what they think.
In addition, I have noticed "skeptical" climate scientists complaining that it is hard to get financial support for research
I think all they have to do is sign on with one of the institutes you are fond of quoting, which have money for supporting such work from the fossil-fuel industry.
And not to forget - the ClimateGate events analysis,
Such comments can indeed make or break your credibility in this community (even amongst those who do not think you are a bot). Most engineers and scientists can look at what information is available about this event, and quickly make up their minds.
I know and have worked with one of the members of the Muir Russell commission. What do you think I think about “Climategate”?
Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?
Once again, you decline to answer.
Indeed I am not a climate scientist;
Which we know, and you have used as a reason for not making assertions about climate science, and then not defending those assertions you did make.
A reasonable person takes that as a good reason you should shut up.
I tend to asnwer questions adn accusations.
Actually, you don't. You say “I'm not a climate scientist” and decline to answer questions about specific claims in climate science.
How not being an expert entitles you to give any opinion on who is and who is not doing good climate science is ……. an interesting issue.
I am not sure who else human is following this any longer.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
First, AU quoted an assertion of climate science, and asked for an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong and why. I gave my opinion (that it's wrong) and said why, quoting data from a reputable source. The response from AU is not to attempt to refute that data, but to find someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms.
Not seeing the difference between "someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms" and a publication on Researchgate by a reputable professional - which in fact was an article in Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union - looks like an indication of not bothering to check the link I provided, or an attemp to deceive the ones who did not have a look themselves. I could bet that there have been little, if any, changes in general "settled science" tonality of that textbook since 2005. I would certainly not rush into buying a $99 book to take a look at a graph.
You are certainly free to keep your opinion; I remain open for changing mine when new scientific evidence provides a cause.
BTW, if had had used the rhetorical style used by this entity to promote his preferred view, I could have written: ...
I would have had no problem with that; establishing competence of a witness is reasonable. As I have mentioned before, I prefer to make decisions based on input from dedicated professionals, not agitated teenagers. I have used that style to avoid accusations in relying on dubious sources. However, I agree with you that even a reputable source is not necessarily always right; one must apply own grey matter to draw a conclusion. Whether I am greeted with fulminations like "Ni!" or "How dare you!", no shrubbery until the real need is established credibly enough.
The IPCC is exemplary in regularly trying to summarise the entire state of knowledge in its science. ... The panels attempt to survey all the reputably-published literature in their field, and summarise the advances in knowledge, in detail, over the course of a couple of years.
In theory, this description should be right. In practice, I have seen too many comments from disillusioned IPCC experts claiming that the processes are biased and politically steered. In addition, I have noticed "skeptical" climate scientists complaining that it is hard to get financial support for research that may end up with "unsettled" output in the first place, and then research results even hinting on factors other than AGW are refused by publications, or held up in peer review process for months, even years. I would guess that this might be the cause why many scientists publish on websites and in blogs so much. That should explain at least to some extent why there are more of "climate bolshevik" research articles published, available for IPCC for analysis. I do not doubt that there are many devent people there, too.
There is a significant literature on science&pseudoscience and their controversies. All of it recognises the need for historical accounts. If you don't have a handle on the history, then you don't know when your “favorite” issues were raised, nor how they were handled, nor by whom.
That is true, history of climate science and developing differences in views is important. I would recommend a peek into somewhat superficial but entertaining "A Short History of Climate Alarm!" by Paul Homewood. And not to forget - the ClimateGate events analysis, not the watered-down Wikipedia writeup.
Interesting that you are fond of quoting “Professor so-and-so, of <prestigious institution>”, and preface many of your references with “peer-reviewed”, but when it comes to those who discuss contrarian contentions, they are no longer “Professor so-and-so of <Oxford, Harvard, Pennsylvania State, Exeter>”, all with extensive “peer-reviewed” publications, but merely “alarmist heavyweights".
As I have noted, I do value professionalism, therefore I avoid pseudoscience and do not bother reading stuff on conspiracy theories served by poorly informed bystanders. I am sure that every scientist has their motivation behind their claims; my goal has been trying to understand it before deciding whether to believe their theories when I am not able to verify them myself. After learning that government scientist Doctor Yamaka proved that a woman's brain is "the size of squirrel", I tend to look for second opinions on any government scientist claims ;)
Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?
As you have said yourself, the information is out there, hopefully answered satisfactorily when searched for properly. I have no time to start serving everything up here, I believe that we have spent already too much time. Beyond ClimateGate revelations, just enter Mann or Oreskes at some comprehensive skeptical websites run by scientists and read what analysis comes up.
I recall that you present yourself as an entity who is not a specialist in this science. How do you tell if an assertion is incorrect? Is the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful?
Indeed I am not a climate scientist; my closest formal encounter with the subject was in mid 1990's when I created and run a minor undergraduate course at a technical university called "Environmental measurement". AGW was not in focus those days yet, content was purely technical. However, with background in electronics, measurement and data analysis, I sympathize with those criticizing manipulation of historic temperature measurement data and discounting significant inaccuracies that could render trending meaningless. Dr. Brown's excellent essay referred to by Jon Steward above also touches that aspect. I would join in to carry his banner "Keep your hands off of my money while the theory is still unproven and not in terribly good agreement with reality!"
I would consider the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful when such refutations agree with my general understanding of the subject, although as Albert Einstein once pointed out, even one should be sufficient. In case of climate science, there are so many that I find it hard to consider all these people "bots"; I would rather guess that personal integrity is at play. If science is too foggy, have a look at what these former NASA engineers have to say - I find their conclusions most reasonable:
"We, a group of retired and highly experienced engineers and scientists from the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station eras, have volunteered our time and effort conducting an objective, independent assessment of the AGW alarm and reality of the actual threat. We have reviewed hundreds of reports and technical papers relevant to the subject matter, and discussed key issues with experts on both sides of this controversy. ...
There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes."
Sorry for a long posting, I tend to asnwer questions adn accusations. When I find some time next week, I'll certainly have a look at publications of the still ongoing 14th International Conference on Climate Change to judge the weight of skeptical arguments:
[PBL] But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing
[AU] I did run a web search for Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing and stumbled on a book review on Researchgate……
Let us observe the type of argument being used here. Again.
First, AU quoted an assertion of climate science, and asked for an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong and why. I gave my opinion (that it's wrong) and said why, quoting data from a reputable source. The response from AU is not to attempt to refute that data, but to find someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms.
It is hard to see how such a line of argument can possibly convince any sentient being of anything. For almost anything that has been published, there is someone somewhere writing on the Internet that it's no good. I've been seeing that for nearly forty years now, since Usenet groups took off.
BTW, if had had used the rhetorical style used by this entity to promote his preferred view, I could have written: “These data are from the fifth edition of the long-established textbook by Sir John Houghton, former Professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Director of the Appleton Laboratory (now the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory), former Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office, and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Science, which contributed to all six IPCC ARs, with 2 lead authors, 2 coordinating lead authors, and 1 review editor in the latest report AR6, and which has produced more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature since 1990, which have appeared across 200 different journals and have almost 200,000 citations. Knighted by the Queen in 1991.”
.no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.
I would think that would be a very good thing. The IPCC is exemplary in regularly trying to summarise the entire state of knowledge in its science. No other science I know does that (although sciences usually divide into subjects, many of which try to do so).
The panels attempt to survey all the reputably-published literature in their field, and summarise the advances in knowledge, in detail, over the course of a couple of years. Then half the countries in the world get together and develop a consensus summary of all that, for use as guidance by the politicians trying to negotiate a global human response to global warming. Climate science is, as far as I can tell, the only science in which you can pick up a regularly updated 1500pp book which summarises accurately the entire state of the art in that science as of its writing.
There are some anecdotes of how this process actually progresses in Peter Stott's new book.
[PBL] Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
[AU] I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into;
Then you are missing out on an essential component of the discussion, namely its history.
These are the books which detail the discussions and controversies which have accompanied climate science ever since Singer and Seitz and Co. got into it on behalf of fossil-fuel companies. If you want to know who claimed what, when, and why, these books are where you find out.
There is a significant literature on science&pseudoscience and their controversies. All of it recognises the need for historical accounts. If you don't have a handle on the history, then you don't know when your “favorite” issues were raised, nor how they were handled, nor by whom.
For example, rather than observing that I didn't answer all Roger Bryant's contentions, you'd have known that some of them were answered satisfactorily a quarter century ago.
Interesting that you are fond of quoting “Professor so-and-so, of <prestigious institution>”, and preface many of your references with “peer-reviewed”, but when it comes to those who discuss contrarian contentions, they are no longer “Professor so-and-so of <Oxford, Harvard, Pennsylvania State, Exeter>”, all with extensive “peer-reviewed” publications, but merely “alarmist heavyweights".
But that's what bots do. When the previous rhetoric is not getting traction, the style is changed.
I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions.
Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?
I recall that you present yourself as an entity who is not a specialist in this science. How do you tell if an assertion is incorrect? Is the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful?
Aivar Usk:
I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into; I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions.
Instead, I can recommend a book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters" by former Obama-Biden federal scientist Dr. Steve Koonin. He also declares his climate dissent on FOX if you prefer a video statement - "Research debunks climate "threat" narrative".
To add to the not ‘settled science’ debate, one of the best essay’s I've read so far.
Why CAGW theory is not “settled science” – Watts Up With That?
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing
What sensible person would turn to a student textbook when results of recent scientific research are being discussed - would such attitude not end up in stagnation and downfall of the civilization? ?
Nevertheless, I did run a web search for Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing and stumbled on a book review on Researchgate. Although recommending the book for students, the reviewer criticizes it for simplifications and the fact that "detailed controversies within the scientific community are glossed over in favor of the consensus view", leaving up several warning flags:
"So, for example, Figure 4.3 shows the same 1000-year reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature featured in the last IPCC report, with no mention that there are several other reconstructions substantially different from this one, including, for example, a warmer medieval warm period and colder little ice age. Similarly, where IPCC modelers drew a line in the sand in order to deal with tractable problems for model intercomparison purposes, this book also does not tread. Thus the chapter on climate modeling provides a nice description of IPCC enhanced CO2 scenarios, but there is no attempt to present process studies, paleoclimate modeling, data assimilation, or biogeochemical models.
... phenomenal book. On the other side of the coin, if a consensus textbook like this one is followed too closely, it presents the danger that some students, particularly those who do not pursue advanced studies in global change, will be tempted to memorize IPCC dogma rather than develop a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates.
KEITH ALVERSON, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris"
Need we say more - no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.
Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into; I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions.
Instead, I can recommend a book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters" by former Obama-Biden federal scientist Dr. Steve Koonin. He also declares his climate dissent on FOX if you prefer a video statement - "Research debunks climate "threat" narrative".
An interesting look at AR6 by Judith Curry:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I’ve been reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors. Topics like ‘deep uncertainty,’ model ‘fitness-for-purpose’ (common topics at Climate Etc.) actually get significant mention in the AR6. Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter. you seem to be a moderately articulate sort of guy.
What's your perspective on this from Willis.
Where Have All The Disasters Gone? – Watts Up With That?
Aivar Usk:
"... the flux changes from doubling the concentrations of greenhouse gases, a very substantial change, reduces the radiation to space by only a few Wm-2. This is only a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space, or the 91 Wm-2 change of solar flux between winter and summer. And cloud cover ... further diminishes the influence of greenhouse gases. It
is very hard to convince people with technical common sense that such small changes will have any harmful consequences."Would you agree with that? If not, what is your basis for counterargument?
Another assertion about climate. Good. Takes us up to 3.
No, I don't agree with it.
He seems to be right about “few” W/m^2 – Houghton Figure 3.13 gives radiative forcing estimates in 2011 relative to 1750. The total anthropogenic RF in 1950 was 0.57 (90% CI 0.29 to 0.85); 1980: 1.25 (90% CI 0.64 to 1.86); 2011 2.29 (90% CI 1.13 to 3.33) all W/m^2.
But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, Fifth Edition (Cambridge U.P, 2015) It shows, from 1870 to 2010, the global surface temperature, the solar contribution to that, the volcanic contribution to that, the internal variability (mostly related to ENSO), and then the anthropogenic component (the rest). It is about 0.9°C, and over half of that has been since about 1982.
[PBL]. ... There are a few climate scientists who continue to disagree with major results, such as the Hockey Stick. A few.
[AU]Depends on what exactly "a few" means
Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
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
