From Etwas Luft Monday, 30 September 2013
Last Friday, the IPCC report on climate change was released. George Monbiot of The Guardian describes it neatly:


Quote:

It's perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history.

For a good summary of the report, try Graham Readfearn's article, 'IPCC climate change report by numbers', or The Guardian's interactive infographic.

Essentially, if we keep injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Earth will continue to warm - the Earth being our domicile, that small rock, covered by a thin film of liquid and gases, hurtling through space, the surface of which we should really, really shouldn't screw up.
http://i.imgur.com/UgH06Jh.jpg
Earth is our only home, and it's worth keeping it liveable.
An updated image of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, taken from Cassini spacecraft underneath the rings of Saturn

Typically, we listen to experts, particularly when they're telling us about imminent danger. Yet, climate scientists have been burdened with an effective, angry and motivated crowd of climate 'skeptics' - fueled by talented pseudoscience communicators like Joanne Nova and Andrew Bolt. They derail the public confidence in the science of climate change by convincing people to demand 'evidence' that climate change is real. Tory Shepherd of the Adelaide Advertister describes the phenomenon well, in her Radio National piece, relating to anti-flouridians:


Quote:

Do your own research.  It sounds nice and egalitarian and democratic and of course people should do their own research.  But they also need to know the limits of their knowledge and how to research and who to trust......He meant don’t trust the scientists, the people with letters after their names.  Don’t trust the science, find your own truth.

An excerpt from Nova's 'Skeptics Handbook' - a handy PDF guide to haranguing 'warmists':
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nbAF498IC9I/UkeRSbRwR9I/AAAAAAAAEAo/oaGmGFRzl2I/s400/nova1.jpg

The concept that actual scientists should be the ones engaging in scientific discussions is classified by Nova as the sacred ramblings of 'religious dogmatists'. Nova masks her arrogant dismissal of scientific expertise as an 'appeal to authority'. Quickly, the discourse around climate data shifts from those with the necessary expertise to understand and interpret the science of climate change to a large number of non-experts. Climate 'skeptics' have kept this force constant, and it's easy to see it happening on social media, like Twitter:

    @ArghJoshi Negative, KJ. I'm asking you to show me one thing which will prove your AGW religion.
    — Derek Sorensen (@th3Derek) August 28, 2013


    Idiot of the week to van Onselen, who wouldn't have a clue about science if it hit him. Clue Peter, science is about data, not a vote!
    — Dennis Jensen MP (@DennisJensenMP) September 15, 2013

The logical fallacy of equating expert consensus with a deference to 'authority' is frequently and unashamedly deployed by climate change 'skeptics', and they're rarely called out on this sly maneuver. They assert that a large number of experts (including quite a few Australian scientists) have failed miserably, and that they themselves, (non-experts, but untainted by the 'green agenda'), have reached the true truth, via their unflinching dedication to the evidence:

    @ArghJoshi @GlenSpeering Perhaps you should ask them. Too much reliance on models and climate sensitivity, methinks.
    — Dennis Jensen MP (@DennisJensenMP) September 23, 2013

It's fairly obvious that their demands for evidence are tactical, rather than sincere. That it's literally listed in a 'handbook', described as a set of 'strategies and tools' should make this pretty clear. ...

- and if you hang fire just a few hours, you'll be able to download the Working Gp 1 report too.

Why should we trust an organisation that is 95% certain manmade CO2 has caused all the warming in the last 60 years based on their opinion......?????

Where is the evidence.........??????

What about the their models they have been out by a long shot and now they're finally starting to admit it....???


Quote:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong By David Rose A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong. The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy. Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007. Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models. But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions. The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures  – and not taken enough notice of natural variability. They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997. lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower. lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why. lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention. This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall. One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’. Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault. It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap. Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and  is in a state of flux’. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2gLAgI4XP

http://i40.tinypic.com/xvfcn.jpg

The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Why should we trust an organisation that is 95% certain presents unequivocal  and comprehensive factual evidence  that[/b] manmade CO2 has caused all the warming in the last 60 years based on their opinion......????? overwhelming evidence from hundreds of peer reviewed studies by the best qualified climate scientists in their field?

There. I fixed Rupert Murdoch's article, but it's now a rhetorical question, so he'll have to fill in the gap with some accurate reporting.

As for the graph, the one thing that it does not show is actual IPCC predictions with error shading. If it did, then it would show that the prediction has been extremely accurate to date.

http://i40.tinypic.com/xvfcn.jpg

Ajax, if I told you that the last point was outside the shaded area showing the 95% confidence limits, what would you say?

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:08pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why should we trust an organisation that is 95% certain presents unequivocal  and comprehensive factual evidence  that[/b] manmade CO2 has caused all the warming in the last 60 years based on their opinion......????? overwhelming evidence from hundreds of peer reviewed studies by the best qualified climate scientists in their field? There. I fixed Rupert Murdoch's article, but it's now a rhetorical question, so he'll have to fill in the gap with some accurate reporting.

I'm not a fan of Murdoch, so unfortunately for you it was scientists who made the admission, not Murdoch.


Quote:

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’. Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault. It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap. Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and  is in a state of flux’. She said  it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human  influence caused more than half  the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ –  90 per cent certain – in 2007. Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt. Starting a week tomorrow, about 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus – will hold a four-day meeting in Stockholm, together with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, established in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The governments have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause. Prof Curry said she hoped that  the ‘inconsistencies will be pointed out’ at the meeting, adding: ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would  better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.’ Others agree that the unwieldy and expensive IPCC assessment process has now run its course. Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2gLAgI4XP

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

I'm not a fan of Murdoch, so unfortunately for you it was scientists who made the admission, not Murdoch.

David Rose is a Daily Mail reporter.

- and you're taking the quotations out of context.  The main concern was the fact that the IPCC selected the papers with the least severe outcomes.

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:11pm: I'm not a fan of Murdoch, so unfortunately for you it was scientists who made the admission, not Murdoch. David Rose is a Daily Mail reporter. - and you're taking the quotations out of context.  The main concern was the fact that the IPCC selected the papers with the least severe outcomes.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming religion is sinking....!!!

More holes appearing every day dude......!!!!!

Don't worry I will not be a smart arse once it all goes under... :-* :D ;D ;) :)

Can I ask you how old you are Ajax? I hope you live to see the more severe effects.

(I'm 57)

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Can I ask you how old you are Ajax? I hope you live to see the more severe effects. (I'm 57)

I'm not far behind you, and I say we will see the death of the AGW religion some time in the near future...!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

Quote: [size=12]One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Myles Allen's Reply:

Quote:

First of all, I did not talk to David Rose about the content of the IPCC report. I did not say this should be the last IPCC report, I said that in my view producing a massive volume once every six years has become counterproductive. […] For what it is worth, I would favour much shorter annual update reports, plus special reports on specific issues...

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:11pm: Quote: [size=12]One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’. Myles Allen's Reply: [quote] First of all, I did not talk to David Rose about the content of the IPCC report. I did not say this should be the last IPCC report, I said that in my view producing a massive volume once every six years has become counterproductive. […] For what it is worth, I would favour much shorter annual update reports, plus special reports on specific issues...

[/quote]

source please...........????

This was not my original source, but you can see the same thing here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/16/climate_change_more_nonsense_by_the_mail_on_sunday.html

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:08pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why should we trust an organisation that is 95% certain presents unequivocal  and comprehensive factual evidence  that[/b] manmade CO2 has caused all the warming in the last 60 years based on their opinion......????? overwhelming evidence from hundreds of peer reviewed studies by the best qualified climate scientists in their field? There. I fixed Rupert Murdoch's article, but it's now a rhetorical question, so he'll have to fill in the gap with some accurate reporting. As for the graph, the one thing that it does not show is actual IPCC predictions with error shading. If it did, then it would show that the prediction has been extremely accurate to date. http://i40.tinypic.com/xvfcn.jpg Ajax, if I told you that the last point was outside the shaded area showing the 95% confidence limits, what would you say?

Observed warming in the last 15 years is 0.05C per decade.

I think that's why the 195 nations want the IPCC to please explain......!!!!


Quote:

The IPCC 1990 FAR predictions were wrong Have the 1990 IPCC predictions been proved completely, unarguably and utterly wrong? Yes. They predicted that if our emissions stayed the same, temperatures would rise by 0.3 C per decade, and would be at the very least 0.2, and the most 0.5. Even by the most generous rehash of the data, the highest rate they can find is 0.18 C per decade which is likely an overestimate, and in any case, is below the very least estimate, despite the world’s emissions of CO2 continuing ever higher. Climate Scientist Matthew England called that “very accurate”. Since when did 0.18 = 0.3? (Shall we call it “climate maths”, or just call it wrong?) The IPCC had a whole barn wall to aim at, and a battalion of government funded gold plated AK-47s to hit the target, but they still missed. Both England and the ABC owe Minchin an apology. The un-Skepticalscience page uses a pea and thimble trick to argue the IPCC 1990 predictions were right (“Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR”). As usual John Cooks site looks  “technical” but uses complexity to hide the way they redefined the prediction in order to pretend it wasn’t wrong. Excuses excuses. Intellectual wordsmiths who bore you to death. The un-Skepticalscience page essentially says that GHG forcing was lower than the IPCC predicted. So if you allow for the fact that the IPCC got the future concentration of CO2 wrong, then, hey, really their models are “very accurate”. Figure that estimating the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is far simpler chemistry and much less complex than getting the whole kit and caboodle of a climate model to work. If the IPCC don’t even know how big the sinks and sources of CO2 are, why would anyone trust them to get a multivariate equation with clouds, rain and ocean-turnover right? Here’s how you can spot the pea-and-thimble trick in the un-SkepticalScience site: 1/ There is no direct quote of the IPCC prediction. 2/ The IPCC used the term “prediction” — but unskeptical science repeatedly used the term “projection”. They even retitle graphs. 3/ They didn’t use the original captions on the graphs, instead writing their own. 4/ The IPCC talked of “emissions” leading to a temperature rise. Skeptical Science talks of “radiative forcing”. (A clue, emissions are measured in gigatons, not in W/m2. The SkS page is discussing something other than the main point.) But if you were a casual reader you wouldn’t know that unless you bothered to be skeptical, and go to the source to check. Let’s quote the IPCC Prediction: “If emissions follow a Business-as-usual pattern" Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C – 0.5C)” [IPCC FAR summary] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/

What was the confidence interval for that prediction?

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

muso wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:36pm: Can I ask you how old you are Ajax? I hope you live to see the more severe effects. (I'm 57) I'm not far behind you, and I say we will see the death of the AGW religion some time in the near future...!!!!!

Lol, internet fascists are go!!!!!!!!!!  :D :D