Guest post by Ron Cram
Since Climategate, PachauriGate, GlacierGate and AmazonGate, a number of mainstream and skeptical climate scientists have been very critical of the IPCC. Some are suggesting the IPCC should be disbanded and future assessment reports should come from international science organizations. I would like to make a more modest proposal, a proposal which may have a chance to become reality.
Before you write this off as a hare-brained scheme, hear me out. The proposal is starting to get some traction. It was mentioned by Tallbloke (who liked the idea) and DeepClimate (who didn’t like the idea). It is a workable plan, but first let’s review the current situation.
Criticisms of the IPCC Process
After Climategate, many people have put forward criticisms and ideas to improve the IPCC process. Ryan Maue wrote a fine piece for ClimateAudit titled “What to do with the IPCC?” which describes some of the thoughts by different climate researchers. There are a number of criticisms we should consider more closely.
Roger Pielke is an ISI highly cited climatologist. He has criticized IPCC for a number of biases, including ignoring articles on problems with the surface temperature record (UHI and poorly sited stations) and ignoring or downplaying papers showing the climate change effect of land use/land cover changes (which he calls a first order climate forcing). Pielke has also criticized the IPCC for cherry-picking papers to “promote a particular conclusion on climate change.”
Judith Curry has criticized the IPCC for a number of reasons also. She claim the IPCC broke its own rules to accept papers prior to peer-review and assigned high-status positions to untested researchers who happen to make claims which support the IPCC narrative of impending doom. Curry is still worried about global warming but says she no longer feels the need to substitute the IPCC for her own personal judgment.
Eduardo Zorita is also very concerned about future warming, but he is concerned that uncertainty is being hidden from policymakers. He has criticized Climategate researchers and called on the IPCC to ban them from any participation in future IPCC assessment reports, a worthy proposal but one the IPCC is almost certain to ignore. Zorita has also written about the pressure put on climate scientists to toe the line. He thinks policy makers should be made aware of “the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.”
Patrick Michaels claims the IPCC ignores the conclusions of peer-reviewed papers they find disagreeable. As evidence for this criticism, he points to Climategate emails.
Steve McIntyre’s experience as an IPCC reviewer has not convinced him the process is fair or unbiased. As a reviewer, McIntyre advised the IPCC not to truncate data but to show and fully discuss the Divergence Problem, but McIntyre’s recommendations were rejected out of hand. McIntyre seems to feel reviewer’s comments are routinely ignored by Coordinating Lead Authors.
Richard Lindzen, professor at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences, has served as a lead author for IPCC. He says the “most egregious” problem is the IPCC represents its reports as the consensus findings of thousands of scientists when none were asked if they approved of the final version of the report.
John Christy has also served as a Lead Author and has been critical of the IPCC’s selection process of Lead Authors because of the reliance on nominations by national governments. Christy says, “Indeed, the selections for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented a disturbing homogeneity of thought regarding humans and climate.” Christy has proposed a living ‘Wikipedia-IPCC.’ While this is an interesting idea, anyone who has ever been involved in an edit war on Wikipedia knows how frustrating it can be.
Ross McKitrick has written about his frustrations in getting simple IPCC errors corrected. He is convinced IPCC data is contaminated with industrialization effects and he has called for the IPCC to be disbanded.
What does IPCC Chairman Pachauri say to all of this criticism? He says:
IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out.
As the links above show, this statement is clearly untrue. A great many of the world’s finest climate researchers have expressed significant criticisms of the IPCC process and the final assessment reports. But it appears nothing will change unless an idea is put forward which is so compelling and so obvious a solution that it cannot be ignored. The alarmists have seized the apparatus of editorship and will not relinquish it.
A Modest Proposal
If policymakers want a less biased picture, there is only one way to achieve it. It is necessary for the IPCC AR5 to consist of a Majority Report and a Minority Report. Going into the process, no one will know which of the competing reports will be named the Majority Report and which the Minority Report. That decision will come after both reports are completed and voted on by the climate scientists involved.
Climate scientists will be asked to vote for the report they believe best represents a careful presentation of current science. The requirement the final report must gain the approval of contributing climate scientists will be new for the IPCC. It will require the Coordinating Lead Authors to be more responsive to reasonable reviewer comments and will tend to make the assessment report less alarmist. If it fails to make the report less alarmist, the “consensus report” may find their report named the Minority Report.
Here’s how the idea would work: Both reports would have its own set of Editors. One report would have traditional IPCC editors, the other will have editors who have been critical of the IPCC process. All climate researchers are free to contribute to either report in any invited capacity. Researchers do not have to choose a “team.” In fact, the safest career choice for climate scientists will be to contribute to both reports and be a reviewer of both reports.
This represents the best chance for the IPCC to fulfill its mission of providing policymakers with a balanced assessment of climate science.
Scope of the Effort
Working Group I of AR4 was dominated by relatively few scientists. The report lists two co-chairs, Susan Solomon and Dahe Qin. Another six people are listed on the editing team for a total of eight. Here is the breakdown of authors by chapter:
| Chapters | Coordinating Lead Authors | Lead Authors | Contributing Authors | Review Editors |
| Ch 1 | 2 | 6 | 26 | 2 |
| Ch 2 | 2 | 13 | 37 | 2 |
| Ch 3 | 2 | 66 | 0 | 3 |
| Ch 4 | 2 | 9 | 44 | 2 |
| Ch 5 | 2 | 11 | 53 | 2 |
| Ch 6 | 2 | 14 | 33 | 2 |
| Ch 7 | 2 | 13 | 60 | 3 |
| Ch 8 | 2 | 11 | 76 | 0 |
| Ch 9 | 2 | 7 | 44 | 3 |
| Ch 10 | 2 | 12 | 78 | 2 |
| Ch 11 | 2 | 15 | 40 | 2 |
| Totals | 22 | 177 | 491 | 23 |
If counted correctly and all of these were different people, there would be 721 total editors and authors. We know some people served in more than one capacity. For example, Kevin Trenberth served as Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 3 and Contributing Author of Chapter 7.
The number of Lead Authors is high because Chapter 3 credited every involved scientist as a Lead Author with zero Contributing Authors. Normally, each chapter has 2 Coordinating Lead Authors, 2 or 3 Review Editors and 10 or 11 Lead Authors. So then AR 4 Working Group I was dominated by about 150 scientists and another 500 served as Contributing Authors.
In reality, AR4 Working Group I was dominated by about 150 climate scientists, but the most important were the eight editors and the 22 Coordinating Lead Authors. It would be very easy to duplicate this effort by climate scientists who have been critical of the IPCC.
The alternate report could be edited by the team of Roger A. Pielke, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Eduardo Zorita, Judith Curry, Hans von Storch, John Christy, Garth Paltridge and Richard Lindzen. These names are only a suggestion but, a team like this could not be easily dismissed. It includes strong proponents of global warming theory, strong skeptics and luke-warmers. It has representatives from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. It has experts on the Arctic, Antarctica and the tropics and specialists on oceans, atmosphere, radiative transfer and more.
An editing team of this strength would find it easy to attract top quality coordinating lead authors for each chapter. Roger Pielke alone has probably written papers with 150 (just a guess) different climate scientists as co-authors, all of whom respect him and would stand in line to join him in an assessment report. Richard Lindzen is a member of National Academy of Sciences and also commands tremendous respect. He also could attract many top climate researchers to write an unbiased assessment report. The same is true of Christy, Curry, Akasofu and the rest.
What if the IPCC refuses?
It is possible the IPCC will not bow to pressure to publish two reports. In that case, climate scientists simply come together to publish an alternative assessment report without the IPCC. Since IPCC authors and reviewers are not paid, funding is not a problem. Since the book-sized assessment report can be published on the internet, there are no real publication costs.
Yes, I am familiar with the Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate. While it was written by an international panel of scientists, there were only 24 authors. It suffers by not getting the buy-in of a larger segment of the climate science community. I am proposing a full and fair assessment of climate science. It should be timed to be published at about the same time as, or shortly after, AR5.
It is hard to imagine that Pielke, Christy, Akasofu and others would not like to see an alternative assessment report to the IPCC – an effort dedicated to correcting the poor methods of the IPCC – a report which actually considers comments from reviewers. It is difficult to imagine they would not like to be a part of such an effort. And it is just as difficult to imagine that would not like to see their report put to the vote against AR5. This will be a time-consuming and unpaid effort. But it will be a grand effort and one that future generations will be very grateful for.
The question now is: Is this a project Pielke, Curry, Lindzen and others are willing to take on?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Roy Spencer:
Yourself and John Christy are members of the group of researchers who are actually doing real research into climate, as opposed to politically influenced advocacy.
I would ask you, how has the IPCC influenced you? Negatively or positively? You and Christy have progresses in spite of the IPCC, rather than because of it.
Presumably there are genuine researchers acting under the IPCC, and they have produced valuable results, but that is less than obvious from the IPCC reports that the public sees.
Presumably also, at least some of this research would have occurred without the IPCC.
What the world needs is more of this research, completely removed from any political interference.
I vote that a small percentage of what is proposes to be spent on carbon reduction should be set aside for genuine climate research. It should be stipulated that the results as well as the peer reviews should be pooled and made available to any person or group who wants access.
Poof! No IPCC required, just appropriate application of existing, established protocols, kinda like other branches of academic research already work.
Click on organization in the IPCC web site. They claim honesty in review, rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. They also as their title shows are dedicated to proving climate change.
Why is their title International Panel on Climate Change and not International Panel on Climate, it they were looking for the truth?
Problem is, it is not two opposing views. It is rather dozens of views, just look at the different interpretations that are made in different disciplines: those who study oceans tend to say they rule the roast, climate modellers tend to be on the side of the IPCC, Svensmark et al point to cosmic activity, others believe that land issues is a dominating factor, some point to ultra violett light etc. Climate science is far to immature as a discipline to boil global warming down to just two opposing views. Heck, some say it is hardly warming at all.
Personally, I think there is no way to have governments and the UN in effect perform research without political bias. These are POLITICAL organisations after all. Disband the IPCC and get back to real research, where all sides of the argument recieves funding.
I think this is a very dangerous proposal as opposed to a modest one. I think a proposal like this is akin to the skeptics agreeing to put our collective heads in the noose. The IPCC is corrupt to its very core and any process that on the surface may appear to add legitimacy of this group will be gamed and twisted to support their goals. To think this wouldn’t happen would be foolish.
The goal behind the push for AGW was never to be right but to grab as much cash and power as possible before the roof caved in. It was never about the science, it was greedy sociopaths collectively saying “We have a real opportunity here”. We are at the point now where the walls are caving in, people are openly mocking the IPCC and the AGW cabal. Why attempt to sanitize the turds in the punch bowl when we are so close to to having the tainted batch thrown out and we can start fresh?
I propose funding of both camps rather than just one camp, then lets see if some turncoats turn up in the new camp.
The IPCC is a creation of the UN, a place where the Saudi’s end up being chair for the human rights commission.
Let’s just put the Saudi’s in charge of the IPCC. Problem solved.
Dear Mr. Cram,
Please review your grade school literature for the term “A Modest Proposal”. I think you will find that you have missed the common usage for that idea in your application of it here.
Never forget that the IPCC was set up to publish sciencein support of the AGW ‘consensus’. It is just not in its remit to publish anything which contradicts that. So the first step has to be to get the IPCC’s terms of reference changed.
That’ll be really easy…….
Hello Anthony,
Just read your post on disbanding the IPCC/minority report etc. Very interesting and you should do the report regardless of whether the IPCC cooperates or not.
There was also the idea to have the report written as a wikipedia style project. As you also point out I can imagine the difficulties that could be associated with that and the danger it would degenerate into a wiki edit war.
What I am still left wondering about is whether it would not be useful to have a climate realist wiki project? Well maybe it already exists and I have not noticed. But as is the bits and pieces about climate are all over the internet and published literature. For the public this can perhaps be confusing. The wiki project could distill from all available sources a structured text that would methodologically address each and every aspect of the discussion. The main focus would be to set out what we know and what we do not know climate change based only on the scientific method. Every climate myth, straw man, and political spin could be debunked there centrally and the climate realist wiki serve as a reference point for all those involved in the discussion.
Listening to the debate between warmists/alarmists and realists/sceptics/deniers or whatever names each side wants to give the other it seems to be too much of mud-wrestling and mud-raking and debating the same issues over and over again. Maybe such a wiki project could help “settling” the points of debate one at a time so the debate could be more structured and it would be more difficult to constantly derail the debate by resurrecting old ghosts that have already been put down?
Obviously, in order to avoid a wiki edit war, such a wiki would have to be under the supervision of one or more supervising editors that would have to approve the contributions before they would take effect. Sort of a peer review process if you like. This would probably not make it invulnerable to climate deniers sort of criticism but would hopefully provide a better platform from which to carry on with the scientific process of finding out the truth. Could maybe make it part of the WUWT website?
Well anyway just a thought on how to move this forward. All comments welcome.
Rúnar
You assume that there is a solution, or that there should be. David Ball nailed it:
Time is the enemy of the IPCC and they know it.
Public support for climate science is plummeting, as they get the feeling that something’s fishy. We can all talk about the details, but when Jon Stewart talks about “Hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature trick”, then the public is well and truly on to the real game.
And it’s not just the public – this post opened with an excellent overview of scientists who smell something fishy as well.
As far as political impact, AR5 is already dead on arrival. I would recommend that the proper response to anything further from the IPCC is to ask if it also includes “Mike’s Nature trick”. The public gets this. That’s where the battle is.
Once enough scientists see the way that wind is blowing, you’ll see more of them thinking that job security lies in transparency and public trust. Until then, there simply isn’t a solution.
Mockery. That’s the solution.
In the climate of a corrupt organization, a minority report is no different than a minority party established in Egypt to appease protestors. Those with vested interests in the preferred message still hold all the keys and passes to the process. What’s more, they’ve demonstrably acted in a biased way before and they have no reason to stop now when their chosen narrative is on the line.
I’m sorry to sound so negative about the proposal, but trying to convince the organization that gave us Climategate to create a “minority report” is like asking the Harlem Globetrotters to pick an opponent. Their intent isn’t to present reality, so they’re just going to create the Washington Generals.
What’s more, I honestly don’t care what happens to the IPCC at this point in terms of their scientific workings. Like all useless Bureaucracies I want their funding reduced to a donut, but one more floating around that I can ignore isn’t going to kill me. Their message is spent, and it’s about to look entirely wrong and downright dangerous.
The problem is that real respectable individuals who will not be ideologues do not gravitate towards these positions of power. The problem with your proposal is that the final two products will be chicken little and chicken big. Maybe you can keep them honest, but the only way you can keep them honest by taking on a very draconian oversight role, which in the end will degrade the end product considerably.
What really should be produced is a majority report and minority report and a we do not support either report report for each and every single aspect of the current report. Then individual scientist credibility will be on the line and they will be less likely to support significantly flawed reports that will end up making them look like morons.
The IPCC is the child of the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change the mission of which is, from their web site, “…to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable.” They start with the premise that AGW exists and that their purpose and that of their child is to tame the CO2 beast and thereby save the world. Hyperbole? Perhaps but inaccurate. No, just go to their web sites and read their mission statements. When both a working group and the group that spawned it claim that their purpose is to do task X, doing so then becomes their raison d’etre and all of the discussions and recommendations about how to improve the process are of no value. There are no incentives for those who are involved to do otherwise. It violates the rationale for their existence.
1) As the top levels, who edit/alter the final draft of the reports, have shown that they have no integrity and use their power to alter and promulgate their agenda, these people need to be expelled from the IPCC.
2) The IPCC should not be part of a political organization (the UN). As long as the IPCC is affiliated with a political organization, it cannot be a scientific body or produce scientific results. It is simply beyond the abilities of politicians not to alter and misrepresent to get what they want.
3) All implicated Climategate researchers need to be banned. They, too, have shown that they lack integrity and are not honest scientists.
4) No one person or Committee should be in charge of the two reports being proposed. Somehow, they should be separate and competing. Any selections for participants or invitees need to be independent of the central body.
5) The voting for Major or Minor status could become corrupted and given more weight than it should.
6) The temperature data needs to be removed from all bodies who have been shown to alter the data in irrational, agenda-biased ways. The raw data from a subset of properly maintained sites from around the world should be established and protected from alteration. If the sites are all rural, judiciously chosen, and well sited and maintained, the results will show real changes.
There is no reason to have every little part of the world represented, as most people use the assumption that the planetary temperature goes up and down all over. On the other hand, if the temperature is not a unitary value, then the sites should be again evenly distributed and plotted; changes in regions should be detectable. Again, there is no reason to have hordes of sites unevenly distributed that change in number and location over time and there is also no reason to fill in temperatures in unmeasured areas simply to have a filled in map.
The concept that the Arctic or Antarctic need to be filled in, in order to have temperatures from the whole globe for an average, is not needed. Take the average of the selected sites and use it as an indicator of planetary changes. As long as the average is from a consistent set of sites, changes will be meaningful. To take a person’s body temperature, we accept a reading from only the mouth, ear, or anus. We do not do the whole body, even though we know that the limbs and extremities are at lower temperatures.
7) Beyond the global temperature monitoring and real scientific study of the real factors that create our climate, why would we need to have two reports or even one? Is not the scientific method and the open and properly peer-reviewed publication method good enough? Let the decision makers read the real science and get rid of the middle men.
To continue thinking that we need to have summary reports is to continue to labor under the assumption that we have two groups: one trying to blame climate on humans and the other trying to show that nature is in charge. We should cancel the whole report idea; we do not have any other body of scientific data that requires such reports, except for climate which has become a political football for various dishonest reasons.
Keep the temperature data sacrosanct and unaltered. Let the science develop as it will. Let the scientists hash out which science is valid and has integrity
We should recognize that the IPCC report was only created as a propaganda instrument, nothing more, to create a case for Draconian national and global control of energy usage.
Olen
I agree with you. Also why is the mandate of IPCC to only study “man-induced “climate change and not to study all causes of climate change in equal depth . Again we see predetermined and preselected cause of climate change and the science seems then to be cherry picked to support the predetermined cause.This is not an honest attempt at science at all. If the seed of the apple is bad , the apple will be flawed also.
Firstly, I think that we should recognize overtly, that the plot of ‘Jaws’ and ‘Volcano’ and other disaster/catastrophe stories, appears to be innate aspect of human nature. The ignored call of alarm from the ‘hero’ followed by disaster only saved at the last minute by the hero. It appears that everyone in research wants to be in the role of the hero warning of the shark.
There has to be a forecast catastrophe, a hero, and people who start to listen to avoid or be rescued from the forecast catastrophe. Then the hero gets a reward like a Nobel Peace Prize. Telling the people trying to play the role of hero that they are actually in the group ignoring the real call, is not popular and these putative ‘saviors of the world’ will do their best to remain cast as the ‘hero’.
Secondly, the politicians, financiers and some in industry, saw in the ‘AGW’ hypothesis an ideal way of raising money from taxes, virtual commodity markets, and ‘green industry’. These people are even more difficult to shake from their positions especially politicians for whom being shown to have been wrong is an anathema; even more so as they have been applauded if not lauded for imposing myriad ‘green taxes’ and support ‘green industry’ with lavish subsidies from the raised taxes.
Thirdly, for any research to be funded in the last decades, it has been almost de rigeur to claim that the research supports AGW/Climate Catastrophe/Climate disruption. The conclusions in the report of the research whatever it is on, are also expected to have a ritual hat-tip to global warming or climate change; even if the content of the paper is stating the opposite. Although recently cracks are starting to show in this approach.
Therefore, not only will there be huge opposition to any idea that undercuts the heroics of AGW proponents or their money making schemes, but also the vast majority of ‘peer reviewed research’ since 1990 will appear to support AGW.
Nevertheless, rather than try to close the IPCC – which won’t be done, or just do nothing, this suggestion has some merit.
Probably the best course would be to set up a “Parallel Group” to the IPCC made up of the people proposed. They would in turn set up a similar parallel set of lead authors. However, ALL papers submitted to the IPCC would be considered also by the “Parallel Group” and all papers submitted to the “Parallel Group” would be passed to the IPCC. A commentary should be created by the “parallel Group” for each paper on why it was, or was not considered and the points taken from it. Rather than any voting this approach would just generate two reports based on the same input information. Ideally, both reports would have the same level of quality assurance but it may be that the IPCC would have to improve the methodology or risk looking amateurish against a quality product with documented procedures and traceability and visibility of all papers and comments on them. That aspect alone should change the output from the IPCC.
If both reports:
* are identical in warning of impending climate catastrophe then we are in the status quo.
* State that previous forecasts of impending climate catastrophe were over blown then the AGW hypothesis will follow phlogiston theory.
However, the most likely assumption is that the “Parallel Group” report does not support AGW while the IPCC Report does support it. Given two separate Reports with differing conclusions, politicians may blame the workings of the IPCC and gracefully abandon AGW as they ‘had been mislead’. As soon as cracks in the edifice appear the hedge funds and financial scams will move to another area and industry seeing its supporting subsidies wane will also change tack.
I think your idea has some merit Anthony but may need a little massaging 😉
REPLY: I think your comment has merit Ian but needs a recognition of who the author actually is 😉 – Anthony
A SMALL SELECTION OF QUOTES I LIKE
There are many, many, more, given the rumbunctious bunch that’s congregated at WUWT, but here are a few:
“I have a much simpler proposal …. Stop doing assessment reports altogether. Stop counting things and searching for things to count and assess … The warming/climate panjandrum then grinds to a halt, we can then instead of wasting trillions on fortune-telling, spend them on practical solutions to immediate problems, and we can all get on with the rest of our lives.” (John B, February 13, 2011 at 4:36 am)
“Why attempt to sanitize the turds in the punch bowl when we are so close to having the tainted batch thrown out and we can start fresh?” (bobbyj0708, February 13, 2011 at 7:46 am)
“The IPCC is a creation of the UN, a place where the Saudis end up being chair for the human rights commission …. Let’s just put the Saudi’s in charge of the IPCC. Problem solved.” (harrywr2, February 13, 2011 at 7:53 am)
“Any objective review of this matter over the last 18 months would conclude that The IPCC needs to be disbanded. Simple. The question ought to be, should it be replaced, and if so with what? … Of course, given the sums and stakes invested, this is never going to happen, at least not in the short term. Only a wake-up call from a prolonged period of cooling (with crop failures as came to pass in Mexico) will enable ‘our’ political ‘masters’ to come to their senses and see the dangers that they (and not CO2) are causing.” (“richard verney, February 13, 2011 at 4:58 am)
What we have, with the IPCC, is a very ugly, fat pig. Putting lipstick and rough on this pig will make it less ugly, but without trimming out Mann, Gavin, and the rest of the lipid team’s subversion… the IPCC remains a fat pig. GK
[snip]
The IPCC is a grand illusion. If it is permitted to exist at all, it will further its goals of using the good name of science in pursuit of advantage for particular political interests. If the good name of science is not to be dragged through the sewers indefinitely, the IPCC must be disbanded with the greatest fanfare. But the IPCC is only one of the problems. What people of good will must do is explain to the world that science cannot serve a process whose rewards and punishments are entirely political. For the short run, this means explaining to the world that the United Nations cannot create scientific bodies that support or make policy determinations because those scientific bodies cannot avoid corruption by the political processes who control all rewards and punishments.
The United Nations can and should draw upon the results of science that was created within the context of traditional science and under a system of rewards and punishments that serve science. The moment the United Nations becomes a funding agency for scientists or a promotional agency for science, the rewards and punishments are determined by political infighting and not by the traditional ends of science.
When government funds scientists, it is necessarily funding something like a Manhattan Project. The goal of that project was not scientific understanding but a nuclear weapon. Government must fund not scientists but the institution of science. At this time in history, the best way to do that is to provide block grants to universities and similar institutions and permit them to distribute the money as they see fit. If the universities serve science as they should, they will produce no Manhattan Projects.
Yes, it is sad. But we must all learn that there is no romance in science.
This is the funniest post I have read. Thanks for the laughs!
As Joe said “If policymakers want a less biased picture…. haha. it was a good proposal up to that point.”
Re: the minority report + democratic voting “Fair and balanced” proposal, my knowledge of the FCIC report is too fresh in my mind right now to do anything else but be greatly amused by the proposal.
Robb876 says:
February 13, 2011 at 7:10 am
“I have an idea… Why dosent the skeptic crowd just put together an intelligent paper filled with facts and clear evidence to disprove AGW… If you do that, people will inherently listen…”
This has been done many times. Roy Spencer published a scientific classic titled “The Great Global Warming Blunder” which explains in clear, concise language that the Warmista have failed to create physical hypotheses which could be used to explain and predict the “forcings” that are necessary to produce the dangerous warming that Warmista prophesy on their bible belt circuit. Without such physical hypotheses, there is no science that supports Warmista alarm. Do you have those hypotheses? If so, please state them here in your own words. I have asked this question so many times that I cannot believe I do not have boilerplate for it.
Runar
Please get in touch with me, click my name for website email. I’ve been working with the wiki idea for a while now. I believe passionately that we need one. In fact I already have the domain with a MediaWiki platform installed.
I hate to pour cold water on you, but if you seriously think this has a chance of working, well, the word “delusional” comes to mind. The IPCC is extremely well funded, extremely well backed politically and comprises scientists that are extremely well funded and are vigorous advocates of their point of view. In other words, the IPCC in specific and the alarmist community of scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, irrespective of what anyone says. They will never surrender to an external authority and they will never cooperate with anyone or any outside organization that threatens their ongoing existance.
Rethink this. All of it. It is full of the misguided notion that climate is somehow involved. If the possibility exists that the gold mine that is CO2 may not be found guilty as charged, this proposal is still born. If the outcome of the activity is that CO2 and all the transfer of wealth and power it represents is found not to be at fault this outcome will be rejected.
Any proposal put forth has to guarantee it will result in the same opportunity of power and wealth transfer proffered by CO2 or it’s going nowhere. In fact without that redistribution of largess there likely would be no interest at all outside the few uncorrupted halls of science.
Once that power and wealth is transferred there does exist the possibility if not the likelihood the IPCC will focus on the science and not the remedy process, and in that, I suppose, there is hope for humanity. Not before.