The ever sharp Bishop Hill blog writes:
While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.
Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.
Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):
Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.
Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?
(h/t to WUWT reader Tom Mills)
UPDATE: There’s an update to the story at Dot Earth.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-an-old-climate-critique-still-hold-up/
16 commentsDiscover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Paul Daniel Ash (04:10:53) :
If the man says something that agrees with your preconceptions, he is “heroic” and “committed to the scientific method.” Yet if later he says something with which you disagree, he is doing it for the money.
You start from a conclusion, seize upon anything that supports your conclusion and discard everything that doesn’t fit. Isn’t that EXACTLY what you accuse “warmists” of doing?
Paul,
I can only speak for myself, but when you look at all the bad things that allegedly will be caused by global warming – http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm – I’m not sure how anyone can say with a straight face that this is all based on solid science. Like many others, I am here because my BS radar went off too many times with the likes of Gore, Patchouli, the RC crowd, etc.
I will cheer any scientist… even a “warmist” (for lack of a better term) who has integrity – in the Feynman sense of the word… which means they are forthcoming on the good AND bad of their findings.
Despite being labeled a “denier” more times than I care to think about, and despite not ever having receiving my long awaited cheques from “Big Oil”, I think there is a likelihood that CO2 causes some level of change in equilibrium temperature… but at the same time the extraordinary claims of “[we know everything and have managed all uncertainty in our models]” of the RC/GCM crowd, or constantly escalating apocalyptic predictions, do not seem to have the extraordinarily solid proof behind that should be there for any genuine scientist to sign their name to it.
In his comments Lacis seems to warn against overreaching, and in hindsight he seemed to be spot on. I don’t think that’s necessarily being heroic – it’s not like he fell on his sword and lost his position over this – but his comments seem to paint him as someone who is more concerned about scientific integrity than politics, and for that I DO applaud him.
Thanks hro001 .
So “peer review” of the IPCC report comprises 75 people, not all scientists, with any comments contrary to the political line being rejected.
Lacis’ comment was for a 2005 first order draft of the ES, not for the 2007 ARA4. Indeed, the reviewers comment immediately preceding Lacis’ generated a response that the ES was revised.
One expects more intellectual honesty and fact checking from WUWT. Or do we?
Anthony,
Any chance we might get an update to the update here with the link to Lacis’ comments like you just posted in the new article?
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-an-old-climate-critique-still-hold-up/?permid=62#comment62
@ur momisugly Shelama (13:35:32) :
Why don’t we let Lacis speak for himself? From the linked article in the update:
“The revised chapter was much improved,” he said. “That’s different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it’s a big improvement.”
Overall, he said, “I commend the authors for doing as good a job as they did. That’s the way the science process ought to work. You get inputs from everybody, find any bugs, crank through and the science moves forward.”
Based on that and his subsequent response in the comments that I just linked to, specifically:
The most severe criticisms of my IPCC review were leveled at this political consensus aspect of the IPCC report that tended to spill back unto how the science was being described and presented. More on this topic later.
…I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize his position as “[the finished product addressed all my concerns]”. I’m very curious to see what he has to say next
Mike Abbott (09:33:30) :
I believe there were several posts about Miskolczi on WUWT. For example, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/.
While discussion of Miskolczi’s science of remains underway, the treatment of his work by NASA is worth examination. One might wonder why no other journal will publish this work – if only to provide the review system a formal platform for critique. Here is the link to the eXaminer article:
http://xrl.in/4hn8
A variable optical density atmosphere sounds like an elegant system of temperature control not unlike other elegant natural systems e.g. photosynthesis.
” DirkH (14:59:47) :
“Bulldust (14:22:43) :
[…]
I’d love to know who the “We” are that reject such cogent criticism out of hand.”
The Hive.”
It’s the Royal We, the one one’s ruler adopts in addressing one’s subjects.
I’m not sure how anyone can say with a straight face that this is all based on solid science.
No, but that’s a fallacy of composition. Your list grabs things from the popular media (the “acne” entry led to someone’s blog filled with airy assertions about how climate change will affect your skin) as well as scientific studies and acts like they’re all equal.
Like many others, I am here because my BS radar went off too many times with the likes of Gore, Patchouli, the RC crowd, etc.
And here again, you’re conflating different sorts of people and saying they’re all the same. Gore’s not a scientist, and I’m assuming that by “Patchouli” you mean Rajendra Pachauri, who’s also not a scientist. “The RC crowd?” Does that refer to the Real Climate blog?
Both sides commit the error of taking the worst arguments of the other side and saying it represents the whole. Some, but not all supporters of the scientific consensus view do so ofpreconceived notions about capitalism and industry, and use it as a justification to advance an agenda. Some, but not all skeptics (or realists, or whatever term you prefer) take that view because it supports their political views about the government and academia.
Neither group helps their side of the debate. But neither group should define the debate.
Paul Daniel Ash (07:01:11),
There is a clear distinction between those pushing the CO2=AGW hypothesis, and scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists, period].
Skeptics ask [unanswered] questions. And skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the alarmist crowd that stonewalls when asked for their data and methods, because they have plenty to hide.
There is right and wrong in this debate, and the climate alarmists have a corner on wrong.
Smokey, I agree about alarmism and skepticism. However, not all people supporting the consensus are alarmist, and not all people questioning it are skeptics. Both groups have unscientific ideologues who are hijacking the debate to further an agenda.
I’m aware of my biases, and I try to correct for them as I’m learning about the subject. That’s what I’m doing here, in part: looking for the holes in the consensus position and trying to see both sides of the debate. What’s unhelpful is when either side says “all of the people who don’t believe as I do have an ulterior motive.” Yes, many do, and those are the loudest voices in the media. But I try to ignore the media circus and am looking for the serious, scientific voices on both sides.
Paul Daniel Ash (08:21:09),
Every group of any size has ideologues. That is not the point, and it appears to be an attempt to re-frame the problem.
The AGW hypothesis states that a rise in human emitted carbon dioxide will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe [CO2=CAGW].
That hypothesis is the basis for the entire “carbon” industry, supported by the jaunts of thousands of taxpayer funded agendized bureaucrats to Bali, Copenhagen and other fun locations, all with marching orders to sell their proposals to give the UN supra-national authority at the expense of Western taxpayers. It is also the goal of those using the “carbon” scare to enrich themselves through the scam of carbon credits, and to transfer enormous new taxes to the UN [in the form of the UN’s proposed .7% annual World Tax on GDP, to be paid into the opaque and unaccountable UN – with almost all non-Western countries exempted].
Those are facts, which have been discussed here in detail.
On the other side of the debate are scientific skeptics, who want full access to the data, methodologies, code and algorithms that the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is based on, in order to try to falsify the hypothesis. Whatever is left standing is accepted as science, and is on its way to becoming theory.
The scientific method requires that those putting forth a new hypothesis must fully cooperate with other scientists and interested parties in attempting to falsify the hypothesis. The proposers of the hypothesis have the same responsibility to try and falsify their own hypothesis, because the goal of the scientific method is to arrive at scientific truth.
Instead, the purveyors of the AGW hypothesis turn the scientific method on its head, and demand that skeptics must prove their position. That is duplicitous; skeptics have nothing to prove. They are simply skeptics regarding unproven new ideas.
If you are serious in your search for the truth, you have no choice but to demand that all data and methods [including all raw data] must be promptly provided to the skeptics’ side in a transparent and cooperative manner. If the raw data no longer exists, the holders of the new hypothesis must start over, by collecting new data – with the oversight of skeptical scientists.
But rather than cooperate with skeptical scientists, the climate alarmists deliberately connive to stonewall requests for data, and instead, they tell everyone to trust them. That is exactly what Bernie Madoff did.
We do not trust people who hide the truth, and who invent entire temperature data sets and pass off their fabrications as legitimate raw data, and who are paid enormous sums by outside NGOs and quangos with a heavy pro-AGW agenda, while putatively being in the employ of the taxpaying public. None of that is honest.
There is no similarity between the climate alarmists and skeptics, none at all. The alarmists have shown themselves to be dishonest; corrupted by money, status and power, and by their absolute refusal to follow the scientific method.
Skepticism is a principle requirement in science. Without it, we would still be going to witch doctors to treat diseases. Until the purveyors of their alarming hypothesis completely “open the books” to the public that employs them, they remain dishonest. And anyone who defends that dishonesty by comparing skeptics with them has an agenda.
Smokey (09:34:33), Paul Daniel Ash (08:21:09)
Bravo Smokey, well said.
Every paragraph is a gem, but this one is the best:
“If you are serious in your search for the truth, you have no choice but to demand that all data and methods [including all raw data] must be promptly provided to the skeptics’ side in a transparent and cooperative manner. If the raw data no longer exists, the holders of the new hypothesis must start over, by collecting new data – with the oversight of skeptical scientists.”
As a layman, one thing I have observed since Climategate is that all of the 4 major datasets appear (from my reading) to be grossly manipulated, massaged, and hence corrupted.
I am not even sure how any (allegedly) serious scientist can apply such apparent credence to these second and third order “climate proxies.” It is quite shocking.
Smokey, I made it clear that I believe that there is “no similarity between the climate alarmists and skeptics.” I also believe that there is no similarity between skeptics and people who are using the debate to further a political agenda independent of the science. People on both sides of the debate have agendas. For you to suggest that only one side is flawed, while the other side is motivated by purely noble ends is disingenuous at best.
Your assertion that raw data is being hidden is somewhat bizarre. I’m only left to believe that you misunderstood what happened at CRU to mean that somehow all climate data everywhere had been modified and/or destroyed. This is simply not true. Many people in different places are studying the climate, and they are working from different data sets, most of which are public records.
Historical records are available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/ and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2, also at http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/ Sea surface temperature data is available at http://icoads.noaa.gov/ .
You are absolutely correct that science requires the open sharing of data. This happens all the time. I’m not sure why you’re asserting that it isn’t. In the case of CRU, they’re being investigated for their failure to comply with what the UK government ruled were legitimate FOI requests. That is one case. Are you saying that there have been others? Can you be specific?
Garry, I’d like to understand better what you mean that “all of the 4 major datasets appear (from my reading) to be grossly manipulated, massaged, and hence corrupted.”
For Paul Daniel Ash
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1207/1224260240126.html
Albert Kong
I am tired of hearing all of this pseudoscience. The complex non-linear dynamic system that it is, long term climate prediction is simply impossible. If there is a problem, which we can’t say, our only hope is climate control.
Climate has many variables (solar activity, volcanic activity, orbital variations of the planet, CO2 atmospheric concentrations etc.). Of these sets of variables the only one we can possibly control is CO2 concentrations. For this there is no consensus on the sensitivity of climate to this variable. Even if it were significantly sensitive, it is the only one we can control.
To put this in simpler terms it would be like trying to drive a car (which has many control variables) when all that you can control is the accelerator (no brakes, no steering wheel). Control also requires accurate short term predictive models (turn the wheel right the car goes right). That we don’t have that is dramatically demonstrated by the deception attempt by climate scientist, the car went right when it should have gone left, and they tried to pretend it was going right even to the point of trying to silence occupants seeing it going left.
So they are not really in the drivers seat, the question is should they collect a fare from each passenger, grossly enriching themselves nevertheless? That is the question?
Ash – cont.
According to Richard Tol at http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=95688 the following “Summary for Policy Makers is very selective, up to the point of twisting the chapters’ findings beyond recognition. In case of SAR WG3 Chapter 6, this was done against the will of the authors. The IPCC has learned from that. The selection process for authors is now more careful (awkward people like myself are not welcome) and there is self-selection too (David Pearce withdrew).” Richard Tol
CLIMATE POLICY—FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond
http://media.hoover.org/documents/epp_102b.pdf
(In particular refer to page 19/20: ‘Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.’ Here examples are given of ‘substantial changes … made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed.The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)
Long-term climate prediction is simply impossible
That’s a very confident statement, but there’s no support for it. The climate is non-linear, absolutely true, but most of it can be described by equilibrium radiation physics: the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs and emits radiation in a predictable way, and far outweighs the effects from the Sun, volcanoes etc. These variable inputs cause a small amount of chaotic behavior compared to the deterministic, predictable greenhouse gas forcing over the long term.
For this there is no consensus on the sensitivity of climate to this variable
No consensus on the upper limit, no. It’s pretty clear what the lower limit of the sensitivity of global temperature averages to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Knutti 2005: 1.5 to 6.5°C – with 3 to 3.5 most likely
Annan 2006: 2.5 to 3.5°C.
Royer 2007: not lower than 1.5°C (with a best fit of 2.8°C).
Lorius 1990: 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992: 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993: 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002: minimum 1.5°C.
Chylek 2007: 1.3°C to 2.3°C.
Tung 2007: 2.3 to 4.1°C.
The the probability distribution for climate sensitivity looks like this: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/probs.jpg
Paul Daniel Ash:
Raw data is being hidden/destroyed. CRU admits this, and provides a lame excuse for their negligence and deliberate malfeasance.
And “one case”?? CRU is being investigated for ignoring more than 100 FOIA requests. The Climategate emails show conclusively that they have subverted the FOIA officer, who never bothered to ask for the data requestors’ input.
Despite your assertion, the willing and open sharing of data rarely if ever occurs in government and IPCC climate ‘science’.
Since you’re new here, you can be temporarily excused for not knowing the background of this corruption. It is clear that you have been fed misinformation. I suggest you get up to speed on the facts by reading the Climategate archives here, starting last November. Click on “Climategate” at the top of the page.
Finally, regarding the climate sensitivity number, the glaring omission in your list is that of the internationally esteemed Prof Richard Lindzen, who heads the department of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. Dr Lindzen gives the sensitivity number at somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0. Prof Lindzen has probably forgotten more than the others on your list have ever learned. Why do I say that? Because the planet itself verifies Lindzen’s numbers: as beneficial CO2 steadily rises, the planet has been cooling for most of the past decade. So who are we to believe, those with a vested financial interest in alarming scenarios? Or planet Earth?
Anything at or below a sensitivity of 1.0 means that the effect of CO2 is so insignificant that it can be completely disregarded as inconsequential. That fact threatens a lot of people’s grant income, so naturally those who are ethically challenged will exaggerate the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is a function of the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Numerous peer reviewed studies show that the maximum residence time of CO2 is on the order of ten years or less: click
As you can see, the UN/IPCC feels that it must artificially exaggerate CO2 persistence. Their case falls apart otherwise. So they simply make it up as they go along. That is not science, that is advocacy of their self-serving position.
Those who follow the Best Science site on the internet know about these shenanigans. Rather than come here chameleon-like and futilely try to convince us that down is up, black is white, evil is good, and global cooling is caused by global warming, try to adhere to the scientific method. By doing so, you will eventually understand that the IPCC and its sycophants are trying to sell everyone a pig in a poke.
That doesn’t fly with the intelligent folks who follow this site. And the public is also starting to see that AGW is a financial scam that makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.
Andy Revkin has a follow-up article in his NYT Dot Earth blog this morning.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yeklbz4 Lacis now appears to be confirming what most of us suspected all along.
“It turns out that my basic criticisms might well be substantially the same as before, except perhaps (being now a few years older and wiser) I might be inclined to tone down the volume on some of my statements.”
Then comes more job-saving spin:
“Little do [the deniers who congratulated him] realize that the basic thrust of my criticism of the I.P.C.C. draft was really to register a clear complaint that I.P.C.C. was being too wishy-washy and was not presenting its case for anthropogenic impact being the principal driver of global warming as clearly and forcefully as they could, and should.”
Ok, you get to keep your job. But someday pleasse explain how they could present the case “more forcefully.” They had no case.
I asked “Are you saying that there have been others? Can you be specific?” Your response: “the willing and open sharing of data rarely if ever occurs in government and IPCC climate ’science’.” Simply repeating the same assertion just won’t do, nor will condescending remarks like “Since you’re new here, you can be temporarily excused.” I am asking. Please be specific. If you can.
Please also provide support for your assertion that “the planet has been cooling for most of the past decade.” I am interpreting your use of the word “planet” to mean “planet:” that is to say the ocean and atmosphere as well as the land.
Finally, I’d just like to fully understand who are the people you believe has “a vested financial interest in alarming scenarios.” Are you asserting that each and every scientist that I cited – including all the graduate students that worked on those projects, and, presumably, each scientists who reviewed every one of those studies – has a conflict of interest, and is actively distorting data to yield a predetermined result? What support do you have for this notion?
For someone who claims “skeptics have nothing to prove,” you certainly do make a lot of assertions.
@ur momisugly Paul Daniel Ash “Finally, I’d just like to fully understand who are the people you believe has “a vested financial interest in alarming scenarios.” Are you asserting that each and every scientist that I cited – including all the graduate students that worked on those projects, and, presumably, each scientists who reviewed every one of those studies – has a conflict of interest, and is actively distorting data to yield a predetermined result? What support do you have for this notion?”
Actually, that’s not far from the facts and it doesn’t take much to understand why. AGW became a meme in the research community. It was a gold mine, provided that your hypothesis was in support. Professors need grants to keep their jobs so they can write papers that get accepted and they can get more grants and grad students into the loop. Grad students quickly pick up on how they are being judged. Then there is “peer review.” All the evidence points to a very small group of believers doing reviews in a small number of journals who all scratched each other’s back. In addition, they actively collaborated to keep contrary views out of print. They were not completely successful, but the evidence is all there, both in the Climategate emails and in testimony by solid academics who had a lot of trouble with anonymous peer review when they tried to present contrary evidence.
This is not some vast conspiracy. It’s human nature to follow the path of least resistance. But it is bad science.
Paul Daniel Ash (06:24:26) :
That was not my response to your question. I answered: “…one case”?? CRU is being investigated for ignoring more than 100 FOIA requests.”
The alarmist contingent routinely stonewalls legitimate requests for data and methodologies. There are numerous examples of this, both in the WUWT archives and in the leaked CRU emails. I am not going to do your homework for you. I’ve pointed out where you can find that information, if you truly have an interest in learning about it.
I also provided a chart showing that the planet has been cooling since 2002: click. Notice that NASA/GISS, and both satellite records, and HadCRU all agree that the planet has been cooling for most of the past decade.
In addition, the 3,300 ARGO deep sea buoys show that the ocean has been cooling during the same time period. Those records cover both the land/ocean surface and the atmosphere.
The fact that government grants to ‘study global warming’ have totaled more than $50 billion over the past decade [compared with a few tens of millions for skeptical studies/rebuttals] show the vested financial interest in promoting alarming AGW scenarios. How could it not? If you want pigeons, throw out bird seed. If you want pro-AGW opinions, throw out $billions.
It is a fact that, per the scientific method, skeptics of a hypothesis are not required to prove anything. The burden is entirely upon those proposing their hypothesis, to show that it explains reality better than the established theory.
In the case of AGW, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis must show that it explains reality better than the long established theory of natural climate variability. It fails, primarily because it cannot make accurate predictions. Conversely, no one has falsified the existing theory of natural climate variability.
Further, there is no empirical [real world] verifiable evidence showing that a quantifiable increase in CO2 results in a specific global temperature rise.
Evidence must be testable, replicable and falsifiable. Otherwise, it isn’t science. Computer models and peer reviewed papers are not evidence. Models are simply tools [and very inaccurate tools]; and studies are not evidence – they are opinions that can be, and usually are, falsified. [80% of all peer reviewed papers are eventually falsified; close to 100% in the case of AGW studies.]
Climate alarmists must show evidence supporting their claims, but such evidence is extremely rare. The entire AGW edifice is fueled by grant money.
But after tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent, I note that the planet’s climate remains benign, and is well within its long term parameters. Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring, and more public spending on AGW is an unconscionable waste of taxpayer resources.
Paul Daniel Ash (06:24:26) : “Finally, I’d just like to fully understand who are the people you believe has “a vested financial interest in alarming scenarios.”
Are you joking Mr. Ash? What exactly is it that you’re looking for that is apparently so elusive to you?
Have you tried a Google search on “emissions trading?”
Are you looking for the detailed rundowns of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri’s extensive financial interests as published in a variety of major newspapers over the last three months?
Are you unaware of Al Gore’s extensive financial and business interests which are dependent upon the existence of AGW?
Have you looked at the membership of either the Chicago Climate Exchange at http://www.chicagoclimatex.com or the European Climate Exchange at http://www.ecx.eu?
Have you spoken with any university researchers or faculty in the last decade or two?
Have you ever watched the documentary The Burning Season which is very much a pro-AGW film but which unintentionally reveals the gold-digger impulse behind all “carbon trading” schemes?
You say ” skeptics of a hypothesis are not required to prove anything.” I am skeptical of your claim that scientists are hiding/distorting data. By your own words, it’s incumbent upon you to support your case. It’s not my homework, it’s yours.
The data on cooling since 2003 is interesting. I’m going to study it more fully so that I’m sure I understand it. I’ve noted that there have been short term cooling trends within the long term trend of warming temperatures: 1981 to 1987 showed a similar trend. Still, weather balloons, satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures, sea surface temperatures, ,a href=”http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html”>bore hole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long term warming trends. What do you think short-term cooling inside a long-term warming trend indicates?
Also, there’s been more than one ARGO buoy study. The Leuliette study from 2009 looked at the exact same data set and showed slight warming, not cooling. Eric Leuliette notes the main difference between his study and an earlier Willis study showing cooling had to do with the fact that the Willis study relied more heavily on early ARGO data, when there were fewer buoys. There are known issues with the ARGO floats, and a later Cazenave study used ARGO data corrected with satellite gravity measurements, and got results similar to Leuliette. Are the later studies wrong, and the one you cite correct? I would imagine that would be your assertion. On what basis?
Different studies will show different results, because of the experimental methods used, and of course the possibility of error. How then are we to come to an understanding of what is going on? I think it’s a mistake to rely on a single study. When multiple analyses of the same raw data show similar results, it’s an indication that the science is zeroing in on a root cause: the concept of consilience applies here.
That is my approach. What is yours? How to you suggest we resolve contradictions between different analyses? if you say “studies are not evidence – they are opinions that can be, and usually are, falsified,” then what method should we use? Didn’t you just quote a study to me in support of your argument?
I’m concerned that you and I may not be using the same definition of “asserted.” Do you understand that merely making a statement like “If you want pro-AGW opinions, throw out $billions” does not make it so? Again, using the standard you yourself claim to adhere to, this hypothesis must be backed up with facts and evidence.
What exactly is it that you’re looking for that is apparently so elusive to you?
Evidence that every climate researcher – from Ph.D’s on down to grad students – and every reviewer is in it for the money. That’s what you’re asserting about not just some, not even most: but every researcher with whom you disagree.
Merely asserting a thing doesn’t make it so. I am a “skeptic” in this regard. It is your hypothesis, and it is up to you to prove it. Hold yourselves to your own standards.
@Paul Daniel Ash. “Merely asserting a thing doesn’t make it so. I am a “skeptic” in this regard. It is your hypothesis, and it is up to you to prove it.”
Nonsense. The hypothesis here is not whether the globe is, on average, warming. Most people would agree. In fact, it has been warming since the last ice age, ~10,000 years ago. There have been periodic small reversals and, if geologic history is any guide, there may soon (geologically speaking) be a dramatic reversal as we plunge toward another ice age. The issue is whether or not climatologists have proven there is a significant component in warming that can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2. If there is, Mother Nature is keeping it very quiet. That’s why the alarmists have to fudge the data (hockey stick) and put phoney parameters into the models to make it look like a stronger effect than it really is.
The climate models simply do not explain climate patterns in the past and are not doing a good job predicting the future. There are dozens of examples of temperature records (that have not been tampered with) showing no apparent effect of increasing CO2 causing temperature increases. Tree growth, yes. Temperature effects, no. For example, the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
Ok, I know that Wikipedia is not always reliable because William M. Connolley tweaked so many entries in favor of AGW, but the chart there appears to have minimum tampering. However, I have never seen any discussion of whether this area of England is affected by increasing Urban Heat Island effect.
Bottom line, if you can find a chart that suggests temperature began to increase when CO2 began to increase and it accelerated in proportion to the acceleration in CO2 release, look very, very closely at how that chart was constructed. The original data and all adjustments must be made available to the public or the chart has no credibility. I have never seen one that stood up to scrutiny.
More assertions. “Skeptics ask [unanswered] questions.” Mine remain unanswered.
You are doing exactly what you accuse “warmists” of doing: cherry-picking the research that supports your pre-determined conclusion, and discarding anything that doesn’t fit.