Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Although it is encouraging that the Royal Society now acknowledges that climate science may not be as settled as it previously implied, the Society’s new report still stands as an embarrassment to science because it fails to offer justifications based on science (and policy analysis) for a number of its (politically correct) statements.
First, it claims in its opening sentence, “Changes in climate have significant implications for present lives, for future generations and for ecosystems on which humanity depends.” But two paragraphs later it acknowledges that, “[T]he impacts of climate change … are not considered here.” Hence, the RS has no scientific (or other basis) for this claim. At most it could say, “ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT CONSIDER THEIR IMPACTS, changes in climate COULD have significant implications for present lives…, IF SUCH CHANGES ARE VERY LARGE.” [Suggested INSERTIONS in the RS’s original language are in UPPERCASE letters.]
For the same reason, the RS’s statement in the very last paragraph (number 59), “However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made”, is unsupported by any evidence.
Equally embarrassing are statements regarding the cause (or attribution) for recent warming. In paragraph 2, it states, “There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity.” But we are talking climate, not weather, and half a century doesn’t even span a one full cycle of the AMO or PDO, nor does it span the length of the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, or other historical periods of climatic change.
Moreover, what is the “strong evidence” referred to in the preceding quote that allows the RS to claim that warming has been “caused largely by human activity”? This “strong evidence” comes down to the RS’s acceptance of the methodology underlying the IPCC’s claim of attribution (see paragraphs 37 to 39). But as noted in another WUWT post, this is an “argument from ignorance”— certainly not what one would expect from as august a scientific body as the Royal Society.
In addition, this argument assumes the validity of models, even though they have never been validated using “out-of-sample” observational data, and are, moreover, unable to simultaneously provide reliable estimates for surface temperature AND precipitation at less than continental scales (see Appendix A). The inability of models to generate reliable estimates for surface temperature at such scales is noted in paragraph 50, but the RS is conspicuously silent on their inability to do any better with precipitation. These issues (and others) are noted on the annotated PDF of the RS report here:
RS_ClimateChange_SummaryofScience (PDF)
Third, it is disappointing to see the RS use the term “predict” in conjunction with model results. The IPCC does not “predict”, it “projects”. As Kevin Trenberth has noted, the IPCC makes “no predictions … instead [it] proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
APPENDIX A: IPCC Models Have Not Been Validated
IPCC models have not been validated using out-of-sample data under conditions of high greenhouse gas concentrations.
It is insufficient for a climate model to accurately reproduce the spatial and temporal pattern for one climatic variable; it should be able to do so for the ensemble of variables that have a significant effect on impacts. This includes not just temperature but, perhaps more importantly, precipitation. But little confidence can be placed in the IPCC model results to simultaneously reproduce results for both temperature and precipitation even when “in sample” data are used, let alone when out-of sample” data are utilized.
As noted elsewhere (Goklany 2009, pp 12-13, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1548711
[F]or a climate model to be valid, it should be able to simultaneously forecast with reasonable accuracy the spatial and temporal variations in a wide variety of climatic variables including temperature, pressure and precipitation, as well as endogenously produce the patterns and rhythms of ocean circulation (among other things). But we know from the AR4WG1 that models are unable to do this even for “in sample” data. As it states, “Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller [that is, less than continental] scales” [AR4WG1: 10.] And this [is] what it says about projections of climate change:
“ There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).” (AR4WG1: 600, emphasis added)
This tacitly acknowledges that confidence is low for model projections of temperature at less than continental scales, and is even lower for precipitation — perhaps even at the continental scale. Notably, it doesn’t provide any quantitative estimate of the confidence that should be attached to projections of temperatures at the subcontinental scale. This lack of confidence in temperature and precipitation results at such scales is reaffirmed by recent reports from the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP):
“Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50 to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers.” (CCSP 2008:3).
In summary, modern AOGCMs generally simulate continental and larger-scale mean surface temperature and precipitation with considerable accuracy, but the models often are not reliable for smaller regions, particularly for precipitation.” (CCSP 2008: 52).
The IPCC does not say that “all” features of current climate or past climate changes can be reproduced, as a good model of climate change ought to be able to do endogenously. In fact, it notes:
“Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1). “Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days).” (AR4WG1: 601; emphasis added).
Robert Austin asks “how many of the “consenting” majority were fully informed and actively endorsed the RS’s position statement?“.
OK, it’s a valid question and at the heart of the situation in which large numbers of scientists can apparently be endorsing the IPCC position – it seems to me that scientists tend to accept published papers outside their personal range of expertise. But please don’t think I am getting at you if I say that I’m fed up with consensus-type thinking, we must stop counting people and just check the evidence.
—–
tonyb – thanks for posting the old RS links. The 2nd works OK but the first says “There was an error opening this document. The file is damaged and could not be repaired.”.
Smokey says: (October 1, 2010 at 7:04 am) The IPCC and its mindless supporters should be on “WANTED” posters everywhere.
Strong words, Smokey. They need repeating… often. Perhaps add “Dead or Alive” to underline the enormity of their crime?
[REPLY – I don’t think we should go there. It does us no good. Leave that sort of thing to the alarmists. ~ Evan]
[REPLY – I don’t think we should go there. It does us no good. Leave that sort of thing to the alarmists. ~ Evan]
I’ll accept that, Evan, and replace it with another endorsement of words from Smokey in the same comment: “In a just world the UN/IPCC would be disbanded as a waste of public funds and as a source of misinformation, and its corrupt scientists would be universally reviled as the self-serving charlatans they are.”
Andrew30 says: (October 1, 2010 at 12:25 pm) King Canute is reputed to have had his throne placed on the beach so he could sit and command the tide not to come in.
No he did not, Andrew. He had it placed on the sand to show his foolish subjects he could NOT control the tide.
See: Now Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician. He knew his limitations…
JPeden says:
October 1, 2010 at 8:00 pm
National science academy public statements endorse the quality of work and findings of climate scientists. The distinguished reputations of the multi disciplinary scientists that these institutions represent add authority to the scientific basis of AGW whether you like it or not.
Next you try to argue that 31000 signatures from a motley bunch of science graduates (few of whom are publishing climate scientists) with a covering letter from a tobacco lobbyist is more authoritative than an explicitly worded statement from a host of national science academies warning of the dangers of AGW and the need to control CO2 emissions? Fair enough.
I think politically it’s perfectly understandable that China and India would opt out of carbon capping legislation. Here’s one clue why. Emissions of CO2 (tonnes per capita)..India 1.2 tonnes, China 4.6 tonnes, USA 19.1 tonnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Here’s another GNI per capita. http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/ddpreports/ViewSharedReport?REPORT_ID=9147&REQUEST_TYPE=VIEWADVANCED GNI per capita. India $ 1235, China $ 3000, USA $ 48000.
The IPCC ‘acted to exclude’ nations from the Kyoto protocol? You’ll have to show me some evidence for this accusation because I believe it to be unfounded.
I’m sure you realise that the IPCC doesn’t do it’s own original research. It collates and assesses the work of climate scientists and scientists in related fields. Not only is the work in WGI peer reviewed in the first place it’s then re-reviewed and re-re reviewed by representatives of some 113 Governments. The workings of the IPCC have since been re-re-re-reviewed by the Inter academy council who have made recommendations for future procedures.
It’s not perfect, as the AR4 blunders have proven but equally the ‘robust findings’ in WG1 are…..robust. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains6-1.html
Which is what the national academies and a host of scince institutions worldwide are endorsing to this day.
Tim Williams says: (October 2, 2010 at 1:32 am) Next you try to argue that 31000 signatures from a motley bunch of science graduates (few of whom are publishing climate scientists) with a covering letter from a tobacco lobbyist …
“Motley bunch” — “tobacco lobbyist” :: You’re taking in water, Tim. Pump the bilges…
Tim Williams:
You make meaningless claims concerning the organisations that have stated their opinions concerning anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). They amount to an assertion that “science” consists of the opinions of people and organisations who agree with you.
No! It does not!
Science says the number of people who believe something exists says nothing about the scientific truth of what they believe.
More people believe in Santa Claus than believe in AGW. That is NOT an indication that Santa Claus exists in a physical reality.
And the authority of the believers has no relevance, either. If it did then Galileo would have been wrong.
Science is about what is demonstrable. You clearly do not understand this, so I will try to explain it to you.
Science says gravity exists because, for example, if you let go of an apple it will fall towards the centre of the Earth. But if the apple set off towards space flung by the rotation of the Earth then that would show the Earth’s gravity is small. And if the apple’s travel away from the Earth showed no acceleration (i.e. change in speed and/or direction) then that would show the Earth’s gravity is too small to be discernible if it exists.
Science does not say gravity exists because a number and/or a majority of scientists (or organisations claiming to represent them) say they believe in it. Science says gravity exists because its existence is demonstrated by replicable evidence.
Similarly, science does not say AGW exists because a majority of scientists who are paid to investigate AGW say they are 90% sure it exists.
There is no empirical evidence for AGW; n.b. none of any kind.
And there is empirical evidence that refutes the existence of discernible AGW (e.g. the tropospheric ‘hot spot’ is missing).
So, the science cannot say that AGW exists in reality. All that can be said is that AGW is too small to be discernible if it exists.
And the number of persons and/or organisations which believe in AGW does not affect this one jot.
Richard
I started researching Climate Science on the Internet in Feb. 2010 and learnt Political Science instead.
Richard S Courtney says:
October 2, 2010 at 4:11 am
Indeed it doesn’t make them right, but as I’m not a publishing climatologist, I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m inclined to believe the word of the IPCC and every national science academy (and Government) in the world, plus…the American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of Australia,International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society , Royal Meteorological Society,World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research ,American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology, Geological Society of America to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-43
…who have all seen fit to issue public statements in support of the IPCC, over the unreferenced claims of some bloke on the internet that thinks he knows better?
Many of those institutions are not paid to investigate climate change but have weighed in anyway.
Yeah yeah, I know numbers, qualifications, scientific pedigree count for nothing but would you concede they may actually be right about this?
Theo Goodwin says:
October 1, 2010 at 5:25 pm
“……Can you name one national science body that has maintained a contrarian opinion?”
Tim, try this: “Galileo, can you name one cardinal, bishop, or priest of the Inquisition who has held that Earth moves?”
James Hansen? (You’re going to love this…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-horton/youre-no-galileo_b_355799.html).
Offtopic – but people need to know.
Over at DeepClimate’s blog in Open Thread #6, we were discussing the Royal Society’s statement and Andrewo asked for textbooks on climate science. Someone gave him a list of resources, all of which were alarmist. I wrote a reply which appears below after it was severely edited by DeepClimate.
Andrewo,
If you only want one side of the story, then you should read only those listed. Spencer Weart’s Discovery of Global Warming is actually quite good as a history of climate science. It shows the science is still in its infancy.
[DC: It shows nothing of the kind. Climate science, including AGW, is rooted in well-established principles and observations. ]
If you would like resources by acclaimed climate scientists who do not hold to the majority view, I would suggest:
* Human Impacts on Weather and Climate, a book by William Cotton and Roger A Pielke Sr.
* Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor by Roy Spencer.
* The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists by Roy Spencer.
* Climategate: The Crutape Letters by Steve Mosher and Thomas Fuller.
[DC: I’ve edited out your misleading descriptions.
End quote.
I responded to his charge of “misleading descriptions” as below but the comment is still awaiting moderation.
Ron Cram | October 1, 2010 at 10:14 pm |
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Deep Climate,
You say my descriptions are misleading. If you believe so, why not leave the descriptions in and explain to readers why you believe they are misleading?
Is it misleading to call Dr. Pielke an ISI highly cited climatologist? No, it is an objective fact.
Is it misleading to say William Cotton is an environmentalist? The man rides a bicycle to work and recycles (his trash, not his bicycle – although I guess it is fair to say he recycles his bicycle home everyday).
Is it wrong to call Dr. Spencer an award-winning scientist from NASA? Or to say he is one of the keepers of the UAH satellite temperature record? No. Both are objectively provable facts.
Why censor facts? Why would you be afraid of your readers having all the facts?
End quote
I don’t understand how people can expect to be persuasive when they are afraid of facts or censor facts so their readers don’t know. It only makes him look ridiculous.
Here’s another comment at DeepClimate that is still awaiting moderation.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
JBowers,
The issue of Australia’s poor regional climate forecasts on seasonal timescales is not subject to interpretation. The BoM has admitted in the press they are right about half the time. Unfortunately, it is hard to find archived news stories. Perhaps this quote from the Australian Parliament report will persuade you the BoM is not pleased with their own accuracy.
“BoM stated that existing seasonal forecasts for Australia appear to have reached their peak level of performance, and may even be declining in skill as the climate changes. BoM further explained that recent initiatives are focused on developing next-generation dynamic seasonal prediction models that can take changing climate conditions into account.44″ (p. 16)
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isi/weather/report/fullreport.pdf
The quote does not spell out the fact the “peak level of performance” was never really any good, but it does tell you they are not happy with the accuracy (or the criticism they have taken for the poor forecasts).
In another report by Perry Wiles of the BoM:
“The current skill of seasonal forecasts in most regions of Australia is currently only moderate and, even so, varies throughout the year. Further, the probabilistic terms in which these forecasts are usually expressed are often not well understood, which can lead to a lack of confidence in using them for practical decision making. The latter can be addressed through greater end-user consultation and education, the former stands the most chance of being addressed with further improvements in dynamical seasonal forecasting and a consequent shift to these dynamic models for operational forecasting. Even so, improvements in skill and reliability are likely to be evolutionary rather than evolutionary. The levels of certainty we might wish for in our seasonal forecasts will in all likelihood remain an alluring prospect – an elusive holy grail veiled by the chaotic nature of the climate system.”
http://www.irec.org.au/reser_f/09_pdf/Long%20range%20and%20seasonal%20forecasting.pdf
Here Dr. Wiles appears to be admitting that seasonal climate forecasts are not likely to get much better. Of course, the Met Office in the UK also has a very, very poor record of seasonal climate forecasts.
Endquote
@Tim Williams
The link you reference and Galileo, or Copernicus, is/was James Hansen, this is a real intelectual Jump the Shark moment by David Horton at the Huffington Post.
Tim Williams:
Thank you for your reply to me. It says that, according to your logic, facts, evidence and empiricism have no value.
I beg to differ.
As I said:
“There is no empirical evidence for AGW; n.b. none of any kind.
And there is empirical evidence that refutes the existence of discernible AGW (e.g. the tropospheric ‘hot spot’ is missing).”
To prove that wrong all you have to do is to cite one, tiny piece of evidence. I and many others (including the IPCC and the RS) would be very grateful if you (or anybody else) were to present such evidence.
Until you do, I and many others would be grateful if you were to shut up or to assist in ridding the world of the unfounded AGW scare.
Richard
Thanks, then a ‘shut up’…nice.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Any good?
“Tim Williams says:
October 2, 2010 at 1:32 am”
Snap out of it, Tim! China and India certainly have, that is, if they ever needed to.
As has been well proven by now, because it’s about the only thing which makes sense of this whole mess, IPCC CO2CAGW “Climate Science” = Post Normal Science is a complete scam, only a massive Propaganda Op. designed for a relative few to loot and control as much of the World as possible, with your help in your [effectively ignoble] role as an alleged Savior of the World, and of course with the help of grant seeking “scientists” and other parasitizing profitteers such as the World Wildlife Fund and many commercial “green” gamers! The gigantic pot of money draws many such people. [“Why do you rob banks?”…”Because that’s where the money is.”]
You are falling for this ploy and, again, simply persisting to assume “on authority” that the IPCC Climate Science is real Science, when it just isn’t.
One thing I can’t resist, though, Tim. You say/repeat the tired old meme:
I think politically it’s perfectly understandable that China and India would opt out of carbon capping legislation. Here’s one clue why. Emissions of CO2 (tonnes per capita)..India 1.2 tonnes, China 4.6 tonnes, USA 19.1 tonnes.
So you are perhaps arguing that it actually does make sense for China and India to develop via essentially producing as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible so as to increase their own Countries’ currently abominable standards of living more towards that of the developed world? And maybe even to develop so as to be better able to survive any ongoing or further threat/disaster, which even the IPCC admits is an important factor to Countries when they say that ~”the poorer countries will be the worst affected” by their CAGW claims? [See also Indur Golanky’s work on this general issue, as published also right here at WUWT.]
But you can’t be arguing, can you, that China and India are knowingly proceding to commit every freaking kind of alleged suicide just because they want or “deserve” to have a more “equal” share in the total CO2CAGW “destruction of Creation” [James Hansen] or at least a more equal share in bringing about a more equal apocalyptic fossil fuel CO2 poisoning of the World per person, compared to the developed world. Right?
Or it’s not that they just want to go down partying more “equally” along with the rest of us, is it?
Tim, man up! The Chinese and Indians are simply not as stupid as you want/need them to be in order to maintain your CO2CAGW stance. Nor are we “sceptics” who are only demanding at the very least what the Scientific Method itself necessarily requires, especially as it relates to “scepticism”- open access to a study’s “materials and methods” and the right to respond. It’s something which you should also demand, instead of simply repeating memes or “tenets” on authority, right?
Or will you instead still choose to not snap out of it?
Tim Williams:
The IPCC ‘acted to exclude’ nations from the Kyoto protocol? You’ll have to show me some evidence for this accusation because I believe it to be unfounded.
What else would you call the fact that “underdeveloped” countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.5 billion people were not asked or pressured by the ipcc to participate in the Kyoto Protocols, such as the developed countries were? The underdeveloped countries even had their very own ipcc category. This was also the basis for the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Kyoto Treaty Protocols back in 1997, by a vote of ~95 to 0: the Resolution essentially said that everyone would have to participate in the strictures as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the Senate to even consider passing the Treaty.
Likewise, I would have thought that the place to nip the alleged CO2CAGW disaster in the bud would have been before the underdeveloped countries developed via using fossil fuel, not after.
But instead it appears that the ipcc does not even believe its own “science”. Gore doesn’t either, and nor do the many CO2CAGW proponents who similarly refuse to even follow their own rules, which they obsessively and urgently want to impose upon others, as a logical result of their own claims.
JPeden says:
October 2, 2010 at 10:16
What else would you call the fact that “underdeveloped” countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.5 billion people were not asked or pressured by the ipcc to participate in the Kyoto Protocols, such as the developed countries were?
Because it wasn’t the IPCC’s role.
Tim Williams : “Because it wasn’t the IPCC’s role.“.
Looks to me like you went through this discussion knowing that you were going to use that line at the end. Well, maybe it was the UNFCCC’s role, not the IPCC’s, but is there really any clear distinction? The UNFCCC was set up explicitly “on the basis of initial IPCC findings.” – and guess who gets to speak at the Copenhagen welcoming ceremony? You’re right : Rajendra Pachauri …
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/statements/application/pdf/rkp-welc-cer-cop15.pdf
… and in case you missed it, this link is a UNFCCC link (“http://unfccc…..”) and when you open the document … it’s an IPCC document.
How about we stop playing games, stop referring to authority, and settle the argument the only way a scientific argument can be settled – by examining actual evidence.
Tim Williams : “Thanks, then a ‘shut up’…nice.“.
Fair comment, but I can understand the frustration shown.
How about we get on with looking at the actual evidence. Bear in mind that when testing a hypothesis, any number of ‘white swans’ is outweighed by a single ‘black swan’. The TT hot spot (lack of) has already been put forward as evidence, and I would suggest we also look at ocean heat content increase (lack of).
Tim Williams:
Incomplete quotation is misrepresentation.
I wrote:
“Until you do, I and many others would be grateful if you were to shut up or to assist in ridding the world of the unfounded AGW scare.”
And I explained the reason for the request.
I did NOT only write “… shut up …”.
Furthermore, the link you provide is to an item that gives rise to the problem which Trenberth says “it is a travesty” that we cannot explain. Far from being evidence for AGW, it is evidence that those who promote the AGW hypothesis do not understand climate processes (and nobody else does, either).
Richard
Mike Jonas says:
October 2, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“How about we stop playing games, stop referring to authority, and settle the argument the only way a scientific argument can be settled – by examining actual evidence.”
So in a thread dedicated to a statement from the Royal society the author considers to be an ’embarassment to science’, we can’t talk about how many other institutions have made similar statements, and think it’s a bit odd that such a huge proportion of the worldwide science community should all be so ’embarassing to science’? The national science academies are particularly interesting in this regard as they represent multi disciplinary science.
“How about we get on with looking at the actual evidence. Bear in mind that when testing a hypothesis, any number of ‘white swans’ is outweighed by a single ‘black swan’. The TT hot spot (lack of) has already been put forward as evidence, and I would suggest we also look at ocean heat content increase (lack of).”
If you insist.
Hot spot:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/langswitch_lang/im/
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/#comments
http://skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/abs/nature09043.html
Ocean Heat
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Robust%20warming%20of%20the%20global%20upper%20ocean.pdf
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42649
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=357
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/
Richard S Courtney says:
October 2, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“Until you do, I and many others would be grateful if you were to shut up or to assist in ridding the world of the unfounded AGW scare.”…”Incomplete quotation is misrepresentation.”
Please excuse me, but gven the choice on the table only the ‘shutting up’ option applied (an option I’m sure many on here would like me to take).
One reason I don’t believe AGW is an ‘unfounded scare’ is, partly, because around 97% of publishing climate scientists (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html) most of the worlds governments (except Saudi Arabia who are a bit obscure about this), the IPCC and the all the leading nations science academies assure me that anthropogenic global warming isn’t an ‘unfounded scare’.
Unless you’re doing your own original research into the climate all we can do regurgitate other peoples. I give more credence to research from respected institutions such as NASA or the EPA and articles and explainations by those publishing peer reviewed work. That’s not say that I’m closed to contrarian opinion, far from it, which is why I read this sort of stuff. But I am intrigued to hear why you [snip] believe the ‘unfounded scare’ of AGW has been so enthusiastically disseminated by national science bodies the world over.
Tim Williams : Of course you can talk about how many other institutions have made similar statements, but it can’t resolve anything because it is a reference to authority. In the end, only evidence counts. Nullius in verba.
And giving me a whole heap of links to plough through isn’t going to work. I do not have hours and hours of spare time, and how on earth am I to know which particular bit of each linked-to document is the bit that I am supposed to be responding to? You might as well just give me a link to the IPCC Report. If you want me to engage in any kind of discussion with you, then make the points you want to make in your own words, and back them up with links/quotes where appropriate.
But having said that … It just so happens that I am away for the next three weeks and will almost certainly not be able to participate in any discussion until near the end of this month. Fishing takes precedence over even AGW.
Tim Williams:
At October 2, 2010 at 11:13 pm you wrote to me saying;
“Unless you’re doing your own original research into the climate all we can do regurgitate other peoples. ”
Say what !?
Pease read my post above at October 1, 2010 at 5:35 am and comment on my “own original research” and that of Kiehl before posting more of your misleading and offensive twadle.
Richard
Sorry to be misleading. To clear up matters here’s a simple question that I’d like someone to attempt to answer, remember the thread is about a statement from the Royal Society.
What possible explanation can there be for the fact that the national science academies of so many different nations have issued joint statements, (or individual statements) in support of the IPCC findings and the need to control CO2 emissions if there really is such flimsy evidence to support that view?
Wiki has offered the following as a possible reason to issue a position statement…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the “inside” to the “outside” of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]
I’d quite like to give your peer reviewed paper a read Richard but it’s proving a little tricky to track down. “Energy and environment” wants me to pay for it.