Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[beej67]

Wow!

So a week after Bengtsson joins GWPF, he is forced to resign by bullying within the scientific community.

[url

http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-sc...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

]link[/url]

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expect[ed] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these [sic] situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

This is not how scientists are supposed to behave. Behavior like this among the scientific community is directly responsible for the distrust being levied at that community. Period.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Distrust in the meteorology field? The weather guy I watch is not because he is often correct, but because he is funny.

They almost never predict rain correctly, but they do predict wind correctly.

 

[beej67]

Here's another take on this so-called 'controversy': (link)

Good lord.

I understand and expect that sort of brazenly pejorative language from a Huffpo blog, but to read down to the bottom and discover that the author is the head of an academic department at Penn State is simply ridiculous. How can anyone claim to be an unbiased scientist while authoring such obviously vitriolic articles? Seems to me Mann's article supports Bengtsson's claims.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Two “issues” here:
1) The rejection of Bengtsson’s paper
The paper was rejected because it was not a good paper. Pure and simple. The publisher of Environmental Research Letters, IOP Publishing, released a statement addressing the fabricated accusations put forward by the Times. They even went so far as to release the referee reports. Here are some highlights (my bold):
Referee One:
“The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”
“The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining our understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments…What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognizing and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.”
“And I can’t see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.”

Referee Two:
“On the second point [regarding developing an “understanding why any apparent inconsistencies and differences might exist”], the manuscript has little to offer”
“the authors have only superficially demonstrated possible inconsistencies. Moreover, in addressing the question of “committed warming”, the authors have inexplicably used the wrong equation”
“Even before making this error, there is a troubling shallowness in the arguments describing apparent discrepancies in estimates of forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity.”

With comments like that, Bengtsson seems like a perfect fit for GWPF!

Bengtsson even went so far as to denounce the Times story:

I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

For completeness, I included the latter portion of the quote. However, it’s rather odd that he’d say that amidst joining (and then leaving) a political advocacy group. It appears to be even more hypocritical given some of his politically charged comments, such as referring to global warming activists as “romantic green Communists” (translation).

2) The “harassment” of Bengtsson over him joining GWPF
It’s not like climate “skeptics” would EVER harass climate scientists! Joking aside, when these allegations come out, regardless of who is targeting who, it is ugly and unnecessary. However, the extent of the “harassment” is unknown. Outlets have asked for specific examples of the harassment, none have been provided. Lots of speculation, very few facts.

I’m sure that colleagues and fellow scientists told him that joining such an institution would seriously damage his credibility. Given the garbage we’ve seen come out of GWPF, I would suggest that it was probably sound career advice.

All-in-all, more rubbish from a rubbish paper about a rubbish institution. But a nice distraction for “skeptics” to use, given all the reports that have come out as of late indicating the severity of climate change.

 

[cranky108]

If China is going to continue to put carbon into the air, and probally more if we continue to buy from them. What is the real goal that we can achieve?
Is the UN goal obtainable? Or is this wishful thinking, or worst economic sucide?

 

[beej67]

Reading more into that Michael Mann character... he's a real hoot. I'm not sure I'd call him the most unbiased source of scientific commentary, given how he butters his bread.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

The randomness of these posts drives me up the wall. Let’s recap the conversation since May 2:

- Unrelated article by rb1957 from NIPCC regarding the LIA in central Mexico record (followed by a bunch of random posts from various people)
- I show that NIPCC purposefully took the quotes out of context, failed to link to the actual paper or abstract so reader’s couldn’t confirm and then drew a BS conclusion not supported by the paper. (rb9157, graciously accepts this correction) I attempt to bring the conversation back to the OP, which was about the credibility of NIPCC.
- Cranky posts something about taxes
- Controlnovice joins the conversation by attempting to link climate science to religion.
- Beej links to a video about a-bomb tests, suggesting it might be to blame for (at least part of the) global warming
- I address both controlnovice’s (no response) and beej’s random comments
- TenPenny takes exception to a single word in my post
- I address TenPenny’s concern (no response)
- Beej tries to defend this a-bomb/h-bomb hypothesis, says OHC was flat from 1975 to 1995 (no source), posts a doctored image from Joannenova of Jevrejeva et al 2008 (read the actual paper and other papers on sea level reconstruction). Followed by some random posts about funding, fusion and conservation of energy.
- I address the a-bomb thing, provide NOAA data clearly demonstrating that OHC was not flat from 1975 to 1995 (despite it being a cherry-picked period in the first place)
- Beej responds to my graph of GLOBAL OHC 0-2000m with NORTH ATLANTIC OHC 0-700m
- I point out this gimmick. (no response)
- TGS4 comes out of retirement to restate his problem with OHC data
- rb1957 posts some random points about paleoclimate
- More random posts about fusion
- Cranky posts something about taxes. Asks a question about solar influence on climate change.
- I address the question
- TGS4 jumps on the fact I didn’t properly reference the graph. Brings up GCR’s.
- Greg posts something about ENSO, says he’s doing some analysis (I’m not sure what he was getting at so I’m awaiting his results to hopefully clarify)
- I address GCR’s and solar influences in much more detail (no response)
- Cranky posts something about not trusting the UN
- Beej provides another random post about Bengtsson
- I address it
- Cranky posts something about China
- Beej chooses to drop the whole Bengtsson thing without comment and talks about Michael Mann

I get the fact that forum conversations will get side-tracked but this is absurd. It’s nothing but Gish Gallop! Throw enough mud against the wall and hope something sticks. When your argument is debunked, ignore it and move onto the next unrelated argument. All of these are either factually incorrect, unsupported by data/studies, random opinions, superficial, non-sequitars, pure sophism or a combination thereof. This is so representative of climate change “skepticism”.

 

[beej67]

I missed the bullet proving that turning over control of an arbitrarily concocted derivatives market, designed to manipulate all carbon emissions, to the same clowns who crashed the US economy for giggles in 2008, is supposed to reverse global warming, without any participation from China, India, or the Middle East.

Which post was that again?



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[GregLocock]

Different things appeal to different people, and it is a huge subject that runs across science, economics, politics and psychology. So yes it'll be unstructured.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JJPellin]

I think it would be less frustrating for many of us if we broke this problem into subjects that could be explored in detail. For example, one thread could discuss if the planet is really warming or not. Nothing about causes. Nothing about solutions. Just the evidence for or against warming. Another thread could be founded on the base that the planet is warming and talk only about causes. People who do not believe warming exists could choose not to participate in that one. Another thread could discuss possible solutions. This would be nice. But, I already know that it is impossible.

If I start a thread discussing the use of a particular material for pump shafting, I would not expect arguments to break out in the thread about whether that same material should be used for wear-rings. I would not expect people to insist that because this material is a poor choice for wear rings that it should be excluded from use in any pump parts. I would not expect arguments about the safety conditions in one of the mines that produces one of the constituents of that shafting material. I would not expect an argument about the relative merits of API pumps versus ANSI pumps in that same thread. When we are discussing an engineering subject, we do a pretty good job of staying on topic. Why can't we do the same thing when it comes to global warming?

Johnny Pellin

 

[ewh]

Like Greg posted, this is a HUGE subject area that includes many sub-topics and as such will naturally tend to wander. I don't think breaking it down as suggested would work; we would just end up with several threads wandering.
Posting specific engineering questions leaves much less leeway for such situations to take root.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[TGS4]

rconnor is upset that:
a) we all don't bow down before his awesomeness
b) some of us don't participate on his schedule
c) many of us don't follow his schedule and discuss topics when he wants us to
d) we don't follow his topical coherence on a topic that is the subject of hundreds of billions of dollars of ongoing research worldwide
e) we don't bow down to the majesty of his quoted pal-reviewed articles
f) we are not convinced, as he is, by the computer gamesimulations, of which he has no professional experience, nor any academic experience, and so relies on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority - the authority of which has demonstrated zero skill in even short-term forecasting ability, let alone long-term ability

Well, cry me a river.

 

[cranky108]

The answer is no we don't have to all agree on that global warming/global cooling is real and that taxes are the only way to solve it. Oh, and that it is man caused, and only the UN can fix it.

I disagree with the solution for so many reasons, the least of which is there is only one proposed solution.

I don't want an orginized debate. I want a complete explanation on why your conclusion is the only conclusion that works? And how you came to that conclusion? And for you to answer every question I may have.

No I don't trust the goverment or the UN, nor have they given me a reason to trust them.

And why should we change anything?

 

[GrandpaDave]

Folks... Isn't rconner a self-appointed expert who is all knowing on subjects of this thread.
No one should challenge is expertise.

Oops... There I go again. My tongue is stuck against my cheek again.
I am all ears if this isn't so.

 

[2dye4]

Many of you skeptics should be ashamed of yourselves.

Rconner has posted a lot of really good solid information. He has done so with more politeness than I could muster.

You skeptics have.

Ignored evidence counter to your position ( repeatedly )
Keep bringing up these points despite not addressing his criticisms.
Fallen into conspiracy thinking and inditing science itself as for sale without *any* evidence.
And lastly resorted to mocking and insulting rconner simply because you cannot answer his challenges.

I know who is the adult in this room.

 

[TenPenny]

I know who the adults in the room are, too.

They stay very very quiet.

 

[rconnor]

I’m disappointed by your reply TGS4. Not because it is purely ad hominem , as many of my replies have become so curt (due to my frustration with the lack of coherency of the discourse) that they, frankly, merit (or at least spur on) some personal attacks. Instead, my disappointment is because your response seems to offer validation to this charade, at least implicitly. Out of any other skeptic here, I’ve found that when you offer an argument, for the most part you support it with data/references as best you can and acknowledge and response to criticism of your arguments (GregLocock, on occasion you deserve credit for this as well). I believe that your conversations on the BC tax, humidity and models have lead to some fruitful discussions, exactly for this reason. This is why I’m surprised and disappointed that you so bluntly rejected a call for a more rational, higher quality discussion.

I understand that this is a broad topic with many different facets which will lead the conversation to be pulled in many different directions, as GregLocock suggested. However, that is not the issue here or, at least, that is not my issue. The problem is that arguments are not supported and not defended. When a rebuttal to an argument is presented, it is ignored and then another, unrelated argument is put forth. Later in the conversation, the original argument, with the rebuttal still not addressed, is brought up again. This leads to a hodge-podge of posts where nothing is actually discussed or debated, let alone learned.

This forum is one of very high quality; the technical aspects are tremendous. I’m asking that this quality be extended to this conversation. I find it disheartening that by doing so, I’m being tagged as arrogant or forcing others to “bow down before [my] awesomeness”. I’ll fully admit that I am strident, curt and, at times, down-right disrespectful in my responses and so will take the jabs that come from that and accept that I’m partly responsible for the denigration of this discussion. However, this needs to be disconnected from a plea for an increase in the rationality and coherency in this discussion which, to any outside observer, is sorely lacking. Having said this, part of me knows that this just isn’t the place to have a good quality discussion on climate change, as much as I’d like it to be.

(cranky, I’m actually working on a post (new thread) which outlines the theory in its completeness, rather than a piecemeal defense that I’ve been doing thus far. My hope is that it will address many concerns all in one place. It will likely be my last, much to the joy of the eng-tips community.)

 

[cranky108]

At any time you propose a change, including new regulation, or taxes, I believe you have a burden of proof as to why a change needs to be made.

There is no reason that people who like the status quo, need to defend that position. Why is this subject different?

The proof maybe in, to Al Gore, but it has not been presented to the satification of other people.

One point is that we may never have all the information on the reactions of ... say the Chineese, so a margen must be accounted for in those cases.

So I ask, if I assume your issue is true, why are economic cripling taxes the only answer?
Why should I trust goverment funded science? Or even why is the AMA even in this discussion.
And what are other countries going to do in responce to our actions?

And why are my other solutions, to a problem I don't believe in, being ignored (like some clame I have been doing)?

I don't expect real answers here, but a better understanding of the complexities of the issue.

 

[GrandpaDave]

It may be a good idea to close this thread
down if the creator, ewh, has heard enough.
Does he still come on this thread or did he
start it on purpose to turn engineers against
each other?

 

[beej67]

cranky, I’m actually working on a post (new thread) which outlines the theory in its completeness

Sweet. Don't forget the most important part:

...proving how turning over control of an arbitrarily concocted derivatives market, designed to manipulate all carbon emissions, to the same clowns who crashed the US economy for giggles in 2008, will reverse global warming without any participation from China, India, or the Middle East.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com