AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@layman,

You got a bunch of quotes taken out of context and unsourced. Easily debunked.

Trenberth has stated: "It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."
Source: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/

Tom Wigley, one of the world's foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline, has argued that the IPCC has been too optimistic about the prospect of averting harmful climate change by reducing greenhouse emissions through the use of renewable technologies alone, and argued that any realistic portfolio must include significant contributions from nuclear energy. He has also pointed out that "the human-induced changes that are expected over the next 100 years are much, much greater than any changes that societies experienced in the past."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/wigley.html

And your quotes of Tom Crowley and Phil Jones are irrelevant to the debate.

Now what? You gonna run around in circles again? Run as fast as you can little chick, faster than the climate if you can...

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Tol estimated the world spends $100 million a year sending people to U.N. climate talks....I just wish I could be at some of them wild-ass U.N. climate conferences parties.

The hookers on 42nd Street tell me it's a BIG payday for them when these climate conferences hit NYC. Sure, half these 3rd world pygmies stink to high heaven, but they pay GOOD, I hear-tell.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You got a bunch of quotes taken out of context and unsourced. Easily debunked.

If it's so "easy" why couldn't you come up with "refutations" that address the issues? The issue here is NOT what these guys might claim they believe.

Is this true, or aint it?:

Quote:

“None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

How bout this here?:

Quote:

… there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results... by IPCC …”

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You want a source for Trenberth quote? Signed by him? Here ya go:

Quote:

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. [Who knew?] The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable..There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. ...we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning.

Kevin Trenberth

Climate Analysis Section, NCAR

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

Is this what the supposed 97% of scientists agree with, ya figure? Is this the "settled science" we always hear about from alarmists? "possible self consistent “story lines," that it?

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE, I TELLYA!!

"So the science is just beginning"<----LIAR!

2 Replies

@layman,

Would you be so kind as to source the quote within a broader context? As presented, it's not clear what it means. Do your own home wirk. You're just being a tool for big oil billionaires right now. Try and readearch the issue seriously for a change.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Would you be so kind as to source the quote within a broader context?

Done done it. See my last post (the one before yours), eh?

0 Replies

@layman,

His argument is that while the models work on a global scale, there are no reliable model for local evolutions of climate (in 2007). Forget about the math and read his conclusion, starting from:

Thus future climate change is guaranteed.

So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.

However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?

Is it true or not true, lay, that your hero Trenberth said that?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Thus future climate change is guaranteed.

Sho nuff. Always has been, always will be.

Quote:

A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause.

Yeah! By a 189-1 vote, no less! Based on what, though? Let me look again...git back to ya on that next post.

1 Reply

@layman,

Oh, yeah, now I see. Based on this here, eh?:

Quote:

there are no predictions by IPCC at all...There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Vote stands, muthafukkaz! FINAL. SETTLED.

Did I already quote this guy? I forget...

Quote:

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

1 Reply

It is interesting that we see here the same kind of quote-mining that one sees among young earth creationists attacking evolutionary science. Same crew, same tactics. I hope for their sake the energy industry greases them up with some KY before they screw 'em . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Same crew, same tactics.

Yeah, tell it to your commie-ass homeys, eh?

Keep the faith, Baby!

0 Replies

@layman,

Need more context?

Quote:

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer (economist) is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection...The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization....if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/

I wonder how they just happened to pick Cancun, eh? Just draw a name out of a hat, ya figure? Whatever, they done it right. I can tellya first hand, them senoritas is HOT, and CHEAP, too!

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there....And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

I'm sure those warlords can find a good use to put it too, aint you? Idi Amin would know!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

An assault on science, or perhaps more of an assault on certain areas of science, as others have pointed out, has been an evolving phenonemenon over many years. It generally has followed (it's not always the case of course) that the less educated members of society are the folks that deny evolution and the more politically conservative deny climate change.
The arguments against scientific findings, from the general public, have been less data-based and more politically or religiously connected . Angus Reid 2010 data that were collected across 3 countries showed the general trends

Quote:

Americans are creationists; Britons and Canadians side with evolution.". Angus Reid Public Opinion. 2010-07-15. Retrieved 2012-06-02. "Poll question: ...whether their own point of view is closest to the notion that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, or the idea that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Results (Britain): Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years (68%); God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years (16%); Not sure (15%)"

0 Replies

I guess there are people who think there is an anti-science attitude prevalent in society...but it seems to me there is much more awe and admiration for science and what science has been able to achieve. MUCH, MUCH MORE!

There will always be a bit of anti-science among the dedicated religious fundamentalists...but best to just blank them out.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I guess there are people who think there is an anti-science attitude prevalent in society...but it seems to me there is much more awe and admiration for science and what science has been able to achieve. MUCH, MUCH MORE!

There will always be a bit of anti-science among the dedicated religious fundamentalists...but best to just blank them out.

This is exactly what I want to argue against. The "anti-science" is not just among religious fundamentalist. There is anti-science in liberal circles as well, and in society at large.

The GMO issue I already brought up is an example of this. The ubiquitous "1 in 5" figure from flawed sexual assault surveys as another. The anti-science reaction of the general public during the Ebola crisis is another.

The problem of a general lack of scientific literacy in the US is not limited to one side of the ideological divide.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max...

...a HUGE percentage of the people I speak with each day (conservative, middle of the road, and liberal) are in AWE of science...and what is happening in the world these days.

It actually amazes me how many people think our progress (thanks to science) is so impressive that they make it a staple of conversation.

Except for conversations on the Internet with religious fundamentalists (like Q)...I hardly ever hear anything in the opposite direction.

Apparently that is not your experience.

Okay. It is mine.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

There is perhaps too must respect for anything to do with 'science' with special note of unproven computer models.

As I already stated this seems to had begin with the Club of Rome think tank of the 70s driven by their computer driven models that predicted that our technology society would run out of the needed raw materials to maintain itself in a very near time frame.

Their 'solution' made the ideas of the now days extreme climate changes people look mild indeed.

We seems to have too must faith in unproven computer models that model only a few elements of very very complicated real world situations.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

are in AWE of science...and what is happening in the world these days.

I don't know what you mean by people being in "AWE" of science. They don't trust science.

When scientists told people during the Ebola scare that there was no significant risk of an Ebola outbreak in the US, people pretty much ignored them and went on demanding that nurses be quarantined.

There is very little real respect for science.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bill,

Give me an example where a scientific consensus was wrong about something that they were "certain" about. By scientific consensus I mean statements from all of the major scientific institutions and agreement by more than 95% of scientists in the field.

It took science about 60 years to do the studies, take measurements, publish papers and reach this conclusion. But now we are here. Right now, you have urgent statements from every major reputable scientific organization, from NASA to the AAAS to APS, they are all on board.

We have now done the reasearch, the results are in, the verdict has been made.

The scientific community is stating, unequivocally, that human induced climate change is happening and is a real risk.

Sometimes it takes a while, but once the scientific community reaches this type of consensus and makes such a strong statement, it has always turned out to be right.

2 Replies

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know