One really has to laugh at the repackaging attempt by AAAS. Meanwhile:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Releases “What We Know” and Kicks Off Initiative to Recognize Climate Change Risks
March 17, 2014 – (Washington, DC) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is announcing the launch of a new initiative to expand the dialogue on the risks of climate change. At the heart of the initiative is the AAAS’s “What We Know” report, an assessment of current climate science and impacts that emphasizes the need to understand and recognize possible high-risk scenarios.
“We’re the largest general scientific society in the world, and therefore we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one,” said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS. “As the voice of the scientific community, we need to share what we know and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue.”
Nobel laureate Dr. Mario Molina, distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography and co-chairs, Dr. Diana Wall, distinguished professor of biology and director at Colorado State University’s School of Global Environmental Sustainability and Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard, chaired the climate science panel that generated the report. They, along with the 10 panelists spanning climate science specialties, will engage in the initiative in various ways, from speaking engagements to testimonial on a forthcoming interactive web site to knowledge sharing with other professionals. The initiative encourages Americans to think of climate change as a risk management issue; the panel aims to clarify and contextualize the science so the public and decision-makers can be more adequately informed about those risks and possible ways to manage them.
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Even among members of the broader public who already know about the evidence for climate change and what is causing it, some do not know the degree to which many climate scientists are concerned about the risks of possibly rapid and abrupt climate change — that’s something we are dedicated to discussing with multiple audiences, from business leaders and financial experts to decision makers in all walks of life.”
Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions with the panel on how to accurately measure climate-related risks and the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management.
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts — especially potential economic damages. Economists understand how to create incentives to limit pollution production with maximum effect and minimum collateral damage, but crafting the appropriate response is a complex valuation process that requires quantifying those same uncertainties,” Litterman said. “To do so requires scientists and economists to work together, ask tough questions, and break the boundaries of their professional silos. That’s what’s this initiative aims to do.”
Litterman will join AAAS CEO Dr. Alan Leshner and panel co-chair Dr. James McCarthy on a phone conference tomorrow to discuss the report, the new initiative and why framing climate change as a risk management issue is critical. (that phone in is long past at 9AMEST today, sorry, Anthony)
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts — especially potential economic damages”.
They recognize the considerable uncertainty? Then why bother?
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,”
————————————————
This is exceptionally strong evidence that AAAS is still under the control of zealots who have no real understanding that science should be based on real evidence.
So they are going to reiterate old tipping point arguments for mitigation. Their only problem is that there is no credible scientific evidence for any tipping points. Every single paper I have run down claiming same has been fatally flawed, whether on crop yields, sea level rise, Asian fresh water (Himalayan glaciers), Caribbean fresh water, species extinction and habitat change, ocean acidification and oysters…
Just more collateral damage to science generally by climate science charlatans increasingly desparate to keep a failed meme going.
In the Guardian’s response, they use the 8F/5C global temp rise to highlight the danger. One wonders whether many warmists see only the worst scenario, not the “reasonable” one pushed by the IPCC, and whether the average warmist belives in sudden, “tipping point” catastrophism as the nature of nature.
It is a belief that God can visit a Noahian deluge at any moment, without warning. Science and trends mean nothing in this mindset. And if things turn out badly, they will turn out as badly as they can because that is how God has organized His universe.
If you start with the assumption that climate MIGHT change, suddenly and extremely, you can justify almost any response, no matter how expensive or how unlikely to work.
The disengenuity of the strawman language here is self-evident and shameful (emphasis mine)…
I’ll not insult any informed reader here with rebutting the obvious.
It would be interesting to know how much Kepos Capital has invested in “green energy” companies.
Re: “ask tough questions”
How can AAAS “mitigate” (prevent) or “adapt to” probable expected massive unemployment among “climate scientists” due to irrelevant and inaccurate global climate models?
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Wow, they are really getting desperate and pulling out all the stops, aren’t they? All because they’re terrified of a “Wave Election” coming this fall, and with it, the end of any government mandated climate action. This is all political, and tied to the US politician election season – that is the only thing that explains the desperate timing, because they look stupid coming out with this on the heels of this ridiculously cold winter we’ve had. But this is meant to dovetail with Kerry’s nonsensical climate ramblings lately. (Hey John, don’t you think you should be paying attention to your pal Putin a bit more???)
And then they have the nerve to talk about “the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management…” They don’t DARE talk about this through the “lens of risk management”, because that means a rational cost/benefit analysis, based upon most likely scenarios, and that means that the wisest course of action, given what the hard data says, is to not do much of anything now, and if necessary, pursue some mitigation efforts in the future.
Contrast The Right Climate Stuff who were able to bound predicted global warming to a maximum of 1.2 deg C – by realistic evaluation of transient climate sensitivity based on observations, and the limits of economically usable fossil fuels.
Hahahaha
The leadership of AAAS appears to be in the grip of an application of the equivocation fallacy. By logical rule, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation, that is, an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. To draw an IMPROPER conclusion is the equivocation fallacy. In the midst of global warming arguments, terms that include “science,” “prediction” and “validation” change meaning with the result that the pseudo-scientific methodology of global warming research appears to be a scientific methodology.
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.” Yeah, sure, while they scramble to explain the hiatus that wasn’t predicted.
After playing with my IR thermometer for 3 months I suddenly realized I could not read the temperature of the air directly. I googled “can an IR thermometer measure air temperature” and got this site: http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/Infrared%20Thermometers.pdf.
There it told me the air does not emit IR. So I am now confused as to what back radiation is?
Of course it has to be about Risk. Humans are terrible at assessing risk and statistics. We are wired to by evolution to err on the side of caution, to avoid risk. It’s a survival mechanism! That’s why alarmism is so successful. Not knowing something that “may” carry risk is scary! Doom and global catastrophe is scary! It always has been. This is why the story of Armageddon STILL scares people to death and Hollywood continues to capitalize on it.
But I love the bait and switch of it all. “We are the world’s biggest group of science guys and we’re going to talk about the unknown possibilities of how you and our planet _might_ die.” Their language is even clear that they don’t know, but that it’s not going to stop them from talking about it – because this stuff “might” have really scary implications and if our scary imaginations are right, you _will_ die. So much for the requirement of proof from science…
Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts
ROTFL…that one sentence was worth it all
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences) and I don’t remember being solicited for my opinions on this matter. Yet they presume to be the “voice” of their members in this matter. A bit of arrogant presumption on the part of our ‘betters.’ As Major Hoople used to say “Harumph!”
What I don’t understand is how stating the obvious is considered to be “risk management?” Yes Earth’s climate is changing and yes future climate change can seriously impact us AS IT ALWAYS HAS. We adapt, as we always have. Will they be talking about the risk of less food as the world cools, less energy, keeping third world people’s in poverty? I don’t think so.
I am so discouraged by what passes as science today.
Interesting! They did not mention malaria any more but still refer to West Nile fever which is a disease of birds occasionally transmitted to humans.
\\” . . . we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one,” said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS.//
Do we actually KNOW that “climate is a particularly pressing one[?]”
It seems to me that they are starting off with an assumption that has not yet been verified.
Maybe they should deal with that question before they start making assumptions. And, assuming they come up with an answer to that question in the affirmative, the next question should be, “Compared to what?”
Funny, the warmistas stay clear of one possible cause of the pause….the end of the Holocene.
Another thought. Does a normal thermometer actually measure air temperature or just radiation coming from nearby solid objects.
Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences)
….
Group W? (channeling Arlo here…)
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.”
CO2 has increased from 0.0315% in 1959 to ( almost) 0.04% today, an increase of 0.0085%. The dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse effect, is water vapor. Radio sonde balloon observations have shown that levels of water vapor in our atmosphere have been decreasing since the start of observations in 1949. Ferenc Miskolczi developed a numerical assessment of the greenhouse effect. He calculated the number of times, on average, a photon of infra-red energy would be captured and re-emitted by a molecule of either CO2 or a molecule of water vapor on its journey from the surface of the earth to space. This number, 1.87, has remained constant since at least 1959. This is “our solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.”
Several of these sort of “initiatives” are happening at once, at a time when the current and accumulated knowledge is trending strongly against the conclusion they are pushing. It would seem there is a coordinated effort occurring, to focus a last gasp attempt on 2014. Evidently, they have given up on the notion that it is going to get any warmer, and have decided to make the best of whatever they can gin up from current conditions. Get the fix in before it gets any cooler…
Well posted David:
David L. Hagen says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:25 am
Contrast The Right Climate Stuff who were able to bound predicted global warming to a maximum of 1.2 deg C – by realistic evaluation of transient climate sensitivity based on observations, and the limits of economically usable fossil fuels.
Keep in mind that the 1.2 deg C is an UPPER bound in the TRCS paper that will be reduced by (observed) increased albedo, both cloud and snow/ice, which reflects sunlight at wavelengths that pierce CO2 and DO NOT get re-radiated downwards!!!
Isn’t a discussion a debate? The science isn’t settled anymore? Bring on the debaters. 🙂
This is clearly an article written by committee.
http://www.despair.com/teamwork.html
(Note the reference to Phil and the gang at East Anglia)
Is St Patrick’s Day the NEW April Fool Day? Or have we been drinking too much green beer – what I’m reading is green around the edges
kenw says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences)
….
Group W? (channeling Arlo here…)
—————————————————————
Sorry, had to Google it. I was never much of an Arlo Guthrie fan (liked his Dad’s singing much better.) Maybe I could ask the AAAS to change our designation to Section 8. 😉
AAAS Project 2061 was first created during the 90s version of Radical Ed Reform, but it remains around to be of service in the implementation of the Common Core and the model-oriented Next Generation Science Standards. This initiative should be seen through this Science for All Americans goal http://www.aaas.org/report/science-all-americans .
IPCC and AAAS’s work have to be seen through the constantly announced belief in the social sciences that “there is nothing as valuable as a good theory.” It is not that a good theory reflects reality. It simply provides a means for transforming reality once taken up by education and the media and institutions with regulatory power.
@Mumbles: regardless of your preferences, do yourself a huge favor and devote the required ~15 minutes to hear his “Alice’s Restaurant”. (it’s really his only claim to self-fame) The appropriateness is boggling!
JJ says: March 18, 2014 at 10:00 am
Little doubt we’re witnessing an orchestrated CAGW “Alamo” probably exacerbated by abject terror at the very plausible prospect of loss of both the Excecutive and Senate branches of government.
Even assuming that eventuality, the EPA CAGW still looms mightily, unelected and out of control.
“Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions”
This is all we need to know about the validity of the group. Follow the money.
Anthony,
I’d love to purchase a few t-shirts featuring your chart, “Warming Predictions v. the Real World”.
It’s a slam dunk, and it needs exposure.
Robin says: March 18, 2014 at 10:10 am
In that regard, the natives are, apparently, restless…
Wyoming rejects science education standards over climate change
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,”
————————————————
Of course it can. We are in an interglacial period. If we slide back into an ice age it will have a serious impact on natural and societal systems. As to that strong evidence the Earth’s climate is always changing and has changed considerably for its 4.5 by history.
Page one of the text includes the 97% error.
Why read further?
I’m curious how the figure at the top of the article was constructed. Looking at the referenced AMS “State of the Climate 2012” report I see Lower Troposphere temperatures plotted in figure 2.3 with trends , some qualitative discussion of the bulk troposphere with trends presented in table 2.2, and Stratosphere temperatures are plotted in figure 2.5. I don’t see anything that seems to correlate with your figure.
Dr. McCarthy writes:
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing…”
Aside from not understanding the definition of scientific evidence, McCarthy’s statement is the position of any scientific skeptic.
Skeptics have stated consistently that the planet’s climate is always changing. Only alarmists claim that the climate never changed until the industrial revolution [the long flat shaft of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick].
======================
kenw says:
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
To further educate Dr. McCarthy:
Models are NOT EVIDENCE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases…”
*snicker*. Explain that.
Gentlemen:
We need a way to keep the gravy train going. I propose that we argue that the magnitude of our rather obvious error in predicting global temperature change henceforth be called “uncertainty” and that we are ceratin that this “uncertainty” actually increases the risk of harm and the greater the risk of harm the more funding we need to save the
suckersworld. All those in favor?What we do know is that the earth’s climate does change, sometimes very suddenly (geologically speaking). What we should know is that short of an all out nuclear war, man really does not have any control over any climate other than that within his buildings. And what I do know, if the AGW crowd wins in the political arena, we will not even be able to control the climate within our homes.
Speaking as a career research scientist, the AAAS is not my voice.
The re-branding of multi-decadal ocean temperature cycles is not science and not good public policy, period.
Camille Parmesan is on the AAAS panel. The AAAS “What We Know” report cites three of her papers that purport impending ecological doom. Readers here will recall Jim Steele’s thorough exposure of the tendentious negligence of her work; here, for example, and here and here and here.
“The largest general scientific society in the world” is supposed to be the most objective yet what we find in this report is that they are least objective.
It is time to end all climate change funding because the people controlling the money have shown that they cannot act responsibly with it. That is all the rationale one needs when dealing with public money.
Follow the money or How to make money with Climate Change.
Al Gore lead off the group, Bob Litterman (Kepos Capital) page 6. His thoughts on climate change investments.
http://www.rijpm.com/key_insight_files/Ten_Strategies_for_Pension_Funds_to_Better_Serve_Their_Beneficiaries_June_20_2013.pdf
“…and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue.”
So these guys think they now run the country or what?!
Perhaps they need to subpoena the president so they can tell him what to do about it.
Incredible.
Science, my AAAS.
How seriously should we take this press release when it does not use the correct name for Bob Litterman’s former company — Goldman Sachs not Goldman & Sachs Co.
Looks like they pulled that report….
…out of their AAAS.
[puts on sunglasses]
YEAAAAAAAAH!
“Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions with the panel on how to accurately measure climate-related risks and the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management.”
Translation……risk management = hundreds of trillions in phoney derivatives trading for Bob and his cronies to skim from…..then there is the CCX owned by Goldman, JPM, Al Gores Generational Investment Partnerships and other cronies…then there is trillions in carbon taxes for our increasingly bankrupt government…..and all will come from the middle class
@ kenw “his “Alice’s Restaurant”. (it’s really his only claim to self-fame)”
Small disagreement, and off topic so I shall be very brief. Remember “City of New Orleans”, a classic American train song by Arlo Guthrie. No, Arlo was not his father, but those were VERY big shoes to fill. City of New Orleans is enough to keep Arlo remembered for another century or so.
“This means the world needs to invest an average of $1 trillion per year in clean energy for the next 36 years to avoid climate catastrophe.” from http://www.ceres.org/investor-network/investor-summit No wonder Kepos Capital hangs around these people. Help dictate the inane policy and you take a lot of risk out of your investments. I guess its an easy way to get rich nowadays. Just ask Mr.Gore.
Climate scientists agree: Humans are driving climate change
Many Americans believe scientists disagree. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are changing the climate.
This HUGE LIE is the basis for their entire spiel about risk management, etc. Even worse, not only is the 97% concensus itself a fib, so is the “well-established evidence” a fib.
How low AAAS has fallen. I’d be ashamed to be a member.
Kelvin vaughan says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:38 am
Dr. Spencer did such an experiment here.
Reposting from JRM above: http://www.rijpm.com/key_insight_files/Ten_Strategies_for_Pension_Funds_to_Better_Serve_Their_Beneficiaries_June_20_2013.pdf
Now I’m finally starting to understand. 1) The useful idiots buy this stuff hook line and sinker. 2)They get the politicians to put in policies that mitigate your investment risks for the next 40-50 years. 3) You sit back and rake in the money. The .pdf links on page six of the link above are very interesting.
I recommend readers look at the minority AGU Statement I prepared and contrast that with the AAAS report’s statements in http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf. My statement is
Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]. Minority Statement in response to AGU Position Statement on Climate Change entitled: “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action” released on 8/5/13. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf
The AAAS report is even worse than the AGU and AMS Statements (and I thought that would be hard to do). I know several of the authors of the AAAC report, and respect their science within their immediate area of expertise. However, the blatant advocacy and absurd statements such as
“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking
smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”
show that this report is just political theater.
There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.
Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly contact to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.
Another example (and their are many in this report) is
“decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of these other factors.”
is counter to established research which shows, for example, the first order importance of other human climate forcings; e.g. see
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
They also ignore the recent recognition of the heightened importance of natural climate forcings and feedbacks.
This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community. .
I’m truly amazed that this report, so called, doesn’t mention even in passing, the 15-yearish pause in warming. I mean, it is totally absent from the report. I am truly, truly astounded.
Did anyone attend the sub-forum on drowsing rods?
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases and yet cannot make long or mid term predictions at a success rate better than tossing a coin and calling head or tails .
So perhaps this is understanding is rather less ‘solid’ or even ‘settled’
Here is an interesting article from the Quadrant, which states that the American Physical Society has a 5 year reassessment review underway. “”There are 4 shockers for the warmist to digest.””
You might want to post on this topic.
Jason: Arlo didn’t write “City…”
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/
CORRECTED TYPO
Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly COMPARE to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.
zzzzzz . . .
I see Cook et al. 2013, and the atmo/hydrosphere being one of different parts of climate science, then there’s astronomy and geo-sciences. So, no.
pottereaton says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:50 am
Do we actually KNOW that “climate is a particularly pressing one[?]”
It seems to me that they are starting off with an assumption that has not yet been verified.
________________________________________________________________
It has been verified. Concern about climate change as an issue ranks 14/15 in the US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
It’s obviously a pressing issue for those who have a stake in it. But you don’t need any sort of soft sciences degree to figure that out.
I would recommend a recent article in The Economist discussing why global warming has paused to anyone here who believes that humans do have an impact but question why global mean temps have increased by only .04 degrees Celsius in the last decade or so. It’s called “Global warming: who pressed the pause button?”
[Reply: a link would be helpful ~ mod.]
The following bits are from the WSJ by GEORGE VRADENBURG And STANLEY PRUSINER
March 16, 2014:
Alzheimer’s and Its Uncounted Victims
Deaths from the disease may be six times higher than reported. This is a cancer-size illness. We can begin by acknowledging that Alzheimer’s remains dramatically underfunded. Each year Congress invests $5.7 billion in cancer research, $2 billion in cardiovascular disease, and $3 billion in HIV/AIDS research. But Alzheimer’s research receives only around $550 million. This means we could potentially see millions of Americans dying each year in the most emotionally draining way possible.
So the AAAS kicks off an initiative regarding a non-issue and ignores a real crisis: priceless!
UC (my alma mater), Colorado, and Harvard… you could not get a more socialist leaning group of avowed bias if you tried…
How about we get the same “work” done by a group from the Colorado school of Mines, a good set of Geologists, and a couple of History professors from a nice conservative school that still teaches Latin…
EM Smith is on to something.
It is clear the Ivy League/lefty schools have failed in many ways.
It is time for truly progressive leadership (leaders who want actual progress for Americans) to make CSM, MIT, Texas A&M, Purdue and the other many excellent colleges that focus on engineering start leading the way.
And of course we can leave out the soft science departments, especially any department that claims to be studying climate but adheres to hyping the so-called cnosensus.
Is this part of the new “forget the facts” initiative?
Models are NOT DATA ……. but they have modeled the Data.
You can’t become a hero unless there is some monster danger to defeat, hence the gross exaggerations. Reminds me of SCTV’s old spoof Monster Chiller Horror Theater, in which the host tries to convince his young viewers that the very un-scarey film he was showing them was something to be frightened by. Count Floyd was the host of that show.
I find it sad that an organization established to advance science instead chooses to demean it.
Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS. “As the voice of the scientific community, we need to share what we know and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue.”
Pure Marxism!
Kathy Hayhoe is in the report… Says it all.
Molina’s presence in all this suggests the Montreal Protocol was indeed a general rehearsal for the future climate scam. Just like the EU is the lab for global governance.
From their doc:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on wellestablished
evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate
change is happening.”
———————————————-
97%…oops, time to stop reading.
As soon as I read this I knew it was a lie.
The worse part is everybody at their scientific level knows 97% is a lie.
They know it, we know it and they know we know that they know it’s a lie.
Is the word hubris or is it more?
cn
Jason Calley says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
@ kenw “his “Alice’s Restaurant”. (it’s really his only claim to self-fame)”
Small disagreement, and off topic so I shall be very brief. Remember “City of New Orleans”, a classic American train song by Arlo Guthrie. No, Arlo was not his father, but those were VERY big shoes to fill. City of New Orleans is enough to keep Arlo remembered for another century or so.
———————————————
Arlo may have given a most notable rendition as did Willie but I believe it was written by the late Steve Goodman.
cn
In the 102 models cited in the figure — were they distinct models, or were many of them the same with different parameters fed to them ? Also when one looks at the 5 datasets in http://www.climate4you.com/ for the duration of the stasis, it’s apparent that they differ, but none seem less than 12 years (when I look at the charts). The 17 year figure is the one often quoted, yet it appears to be an outlier. How solid do people think this is?
Jason Calley says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
@ kenw “his “Alice’s Restaurant”. (it’s really his only claim to self-fame)”
Small disagreement, and off topic so I shall be very brief. Remember “City of New Orleans”, a classic American train song by Arlo Guthrie. No, Arlo was not his father, but those were VERY big shoes to fill. City of New Orleans is enough to keep Arlo remembered for another century or
============
Arlo Guthrie sang City of New Orleans, but he most certainly didn’t write it. That would be my college chum Steve Goodman.
kenw says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences)
….
Group W? (channeling Arlo here…)
—————————————————–
Maybe they want him on the Group W bench.
Isn’t that where you go when you don’t conform?
cn
“Ask the tough questions” is code for “How do we enslave the hoi polloi?”
kenw says:
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
To further educate Dr. McCarthy:
Models are NOT EVIDENCE.
To further educate Dr. McCarthy, I say
Models in order to be scientific must make falsifiable predictions. These models are not data, the models are not evidence AND THE MODELS SHOW NO SKILL IN PPREDICTION AND ARE THEREFORE FALSIFIED. Produce a new model please!
This reminded me of the American Chemical Society, maybe, biting off more than they can chew with their recent Climate Science Initiative and their “Climate Science Toolkit” which intends “… helping others who are not scientists be attentive to the issues relevant to maintaining the climate.” Written by 2012 ACS President Bassam Shakhashiri in University of Wisconsin’s “Badger Chemist”.
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing (as it has always done), and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems (as it has in the past)” Brackets mine.
If this is their point then I have no choice but to fully accept their argument (sarc).
Why is it that these people are not able to comprehend that the natural environment changes due to natural effects? Maybe the lack of understanding is with them.
Here is the link. I did not know if it was allowed to post outside links.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
Your graph Anthony, does it really show that there is an 0.1C difference between 1980’s temp and 2013? ‘What we know’ is that behind all this there must be a juicy collection of emails when you see the coordination between where the Fed is going with this and the initiatives of scientific, economic (Goldman Sachs can smell the gravy). AAAS probably doesn’t want to be outdone by the disgraced and now irrelevant Royal Society. The central concern of these guys is the threat to cash flow. They also have a looming deadline imposed on themselves. They know that they have to get iron-clad government policies promulgated before the end of Obama’s term. The next government will be faced with resolving real problems, like the survival of America’s once vibrant economy.
I’m appalled that scientists can sign off on a statement that, “human-caused climate
change is happening.” This statement is essentially meaningless. Without defining the ways in which the climate is changing and the magnitude of the change, there’s no way to say whether the statement is true or false.
I thought thus was the IPCC’s job?!
Is this an implicit acknowledgement that the IPCC is defective?
‘this’ not ‘thus’…
Flippin’ predictive text.
Bart says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Thanks.
Yet another rider on the tax payer funded gravy train desperately seeking a problem for their solution.
And to anyone who tries to say the AAAS is above politics and grabbing money – http://www.aaas.org/news/agency-budgets-first-act-and-america-competes
*respectful golfclap*
That is a great graph that leads off this post! What is the source?
I didn’t see it in the State of the Climate report. I’d like to use it, but need a citation.
REPLY: The graph was a rendering by the Wall Street Journal, based on data noted by Dr. John Christy and Dick McNider. It was originally published here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266.html
-Anthony
I strongly disagree with the Earth Climate Stability Deniers. The Earth has the most stable climate of any known celestial object, accept of course those objects that have almost no climate at all, like the moon.
Your graph Anthony, does it really show that there is an 0.1C difference between 1980′s temp and 2013?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:2013
There is around a 0.1C difference between 1983 and 2013 in HADCRUT4. Minus 0.1C.
(I encountered this just-for-grins cherrypick when some nut claimed that there had been 0.25-0.4C of warming over the last thirty years, so I went to W4T and plotted the last thirty complete years. Imagine my surprise!)
Regarding thermometers:
Ordinary thermometers work by equilibrating the “system” that makes up the thermometer (presumed to be large enough and have various other properties such that it can have a well-defined temperature itself) with another, usually much larger “system” (ditto). When they are placed in thermal contact, heat flows between the systems until the two temperatures are equal. The thermometric system is designed so that it has some simple macroscopic property that is a (usually nearly linear) function of the temperature (for example, the volume of a given mass of mercury or alcohol) that can be measured on a scale that converts the volume change or a voltage or whatever into a temperature. The devices are normalized and centered using well-defined chemical temperatures, e.g. the temperature of a water-ice mixture, the temperature of water boiling at 1 atm of pressure.
Infra-red thermometers work by using electrical transducers that directly measure at least some part of the electromagnetic spectrum and compare the intensity(s) to a blackbody spectrum. Under ordinary circumstances, though, they are not going to work well to measure incoming flux from things at around the same temperature as the thermometer itself, because it generates and measures its own blackbody flux in addition to incoming flux. Objects that are colder than the device are not going to show up well.
However, more expensive instrumentation (or instrumentation that is designed to make this sort of measurement and corrects for the temperature of the device and physical surroundings) can indeed measure back radiation. It is real, and substantial. But even if you point a comparatively cheap IR thermometer straight up, it isn’t going to read 3K, which is the actual radiative temperature of “space” above the atmosphere in any direction but the sun.
rgb
Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases
No they haven’t.
What is more, an ever-increasing majority of the population are aware of the fact.
No, on a 10F to 30F day they read from -40F to below -60F. Mine has some sort of temp source it measures against. On the 10F night, it sucked the heat out of it, I got a measurement as low as -95F, until I realized it had lost it’s calibration, I pointed at a ~70F floor and it read ~40F, once it warmed up, Tsky was about -65F.
I believe this is the temp of the collective sky above me is. What the surface radiates to. Now this was done on cold days to eliminate most of the water vapor, and clear skies. When I measure the bottom of cumulus clouds they have all about the same temp as surface air temp.
It has been pointed out to me that since my thermometer is sensitive from 8u to 14u it doesn’t detect any Co2 IR at 15u, but I also think that it does tell me the temp of the Co2 molecule, since it should be the same temp as the air around it.
The hubris of Man, to assume that this temperature right now is the optimum temperature. Mankind doesn’t do well in cold climates, but thrives in warm climates. So If you believe in mmgw , which I do not, then warmer would be better.
Anthony,
I notice that your chart doesn’t include any of the surface temp series.
I believe the underlying reason they are closer to the model outputs, as compared to the balloon and satellite series is that they are really a model, any the model they use falsely exaggerates surface warming. When you generate an average of day over day difference of station max temp for all stations you get this:
1940 0.004331323
1941 -0.011655915
1942 -0.016940516
1943 -0.024012908
1944 -0.005357664
1945 0.018503339
1946 -0.034857292
1947 0.009708909
1948 -0.020150262
1949 -0.012726653
1950 0.03034803
1951 0.05755246
1952 -0.015272131
1953 0.006870959
1954 0.018453817
1955 0.009325575
1956 0.004762409
1957 -0.008324643
1958 0.004638993
1959 -0.003763035
1960 0.000983612
1961 0.00311021
1962 0.003607934
1963 0.0166358
1964 0.003948814
1965 0.00551315
1966 -0.011938048
1967 -0.001872804
1968 -0.008008863
1969 -0.023206702
1970 0.012995327
1971 0.190409151
1972 -0.000615915
1973 -0.00072777
1974 -0.003604015
1975 0.008011016
1976 -0.023109636
1977 0.018130595
1978 -0.015232785
1979 0.012711224
1980 0.013986159
1981 -0.008344426
1982 -0.002339482
1983 -0.004265825
1984 -0.001722371
1985 -0.000295631
1986 -0.000173234
1987 0.005988259
1988 -0.005457181
1989 -0.004167501
1990 0.003957955
1991 0.000310341
1992 -0.018612187
1993 0.007652686
1994 0.003309613
1995 -0.004348344
1996 -0.003283686
1997 0.013476559
1998 -0.01135585
1999 0.005386765
2000 -0.010564991
2001 -0.010123728
2002 0.003673971
2003 0.0032195
2004 -0.000818579
2005 -0.004934727
2006 0.000639261
2007 -0.012907412
2008 -0.005272268
2009 -0.004396158
2010 0.002714458
2011 0.008314256
2012 -0.016896311
2013 0.001419746
On a station by station basis the change in max temperature is almost nothing, overall for ~120 million records the average increase is about 2 thousandth of a degree F (0.001931686). This is based on the actual measurements, not some model of GAT.
BTW, you do the same thing with Tmin, and you get this:
YEAR MNDIFF
1940 0.018876587
1941 -0.260422134
1942 -0.272887205
1943 -0.126290299
1944 -0.001354336
1945 0.024318356
1946 -0.027319502
1947 0.012547223
1948 -1.090221574
1949 -0.767862499
1950 -0.493794843
1951 -0.368527577
1952 -0.680398861
1953 -0.73146435
1954 -0.601905698
1955 -0.632690016
1956 -0.926756482
1957 -0.712618275
1958 -0.927621377
1959 -0.589037254
1960 -0.500414853
1961 -0.374688179
1962 -0.602018195
1963 -0.326155938
1964 -0.232831284
1965 -0.48154827
1966 -0.256069754
1967 -0.268822613
1968 -0.147531235
1969 -0.517321159
1970 -0.657344257
1971 -0.060231813
1972 0.00966412
1973 -1.073087172
1974 -1.11750032
1975 -0.756531644
1976 -0.658946978
1977 -0.638925116
1978 -0.686302039
1979 -0.782480242
1980 -0.82923742
1981 -0.697966335
1982 -0.313701976
1983 -0.196908997
1984 -0.16069457
1985 -0.184352998
1986 -0.281318287
1987 -0.224702919
1988 -0.144182243
1989 -0.195710472
1990 -0.169639773
1991 -0.260396059
1992 -0.322857142
1993 -0.396123248
1994 -0.294547041
1995 -0.237736931
1996 -0.160827433
1997 -0.089127921
1998 -0.104966199
1999 -0.126595068
2000 -0.119775911
2001 -0.101484547
2002 -0.078612393
2003 -0.055263775
2004 -0.030561067
2005 -0.052164782
2006 -0.056235853
2007 -0.054828589
2008 -0.03509169
2009 -0.031285506
2010 -0.042815354
2011 -0.025996964
2012 -0.061257231
2013 -0.032589153
Average of all years -0.343973958
This is all in degrees F
1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.
2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.
3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.
How sad.
With regard to 1, climate change has been “happening” as long as the earth has had a climate; unless, of course, you have some special meaning for that term–oh, yeah, you do.
With regard to 2, notice the multiple fudge factors here such as:
“at risk of” (doesn’t mean we actually are experiencing anything)
“pushing” (no way of quantifying that or even describing the actual means by which it could be done, other than in political wish-mode)
“our climate system” (a system that is so complex, so incompletely defined since what is actually known now about major drivers of temperature and cloud formation were not even guessed at 50 years ago, and so chaotic that any attempt to predict by computer modeling at present wouldn’t even reach the level of accuracy in attempting to build the Willis Tower with Legos–better to look throughout geological history and real temperature proxies to see how known cycles and processes interact to produce what effect in order to predict what we could expect given similar conditions now)
“abrupt” (again, no way at all of demonstrating this, except to point at abrupt changes in the past, such as the onset of the current interglacial period with temperature fluctuations and resulting climate change that are orders of magnitude higher than anything we have experienced over the past 150 years),
“unpredictable” (if unpredictable, then this is a declaration that there are great gaps in knowledge about the natural processes that lead to climate change, the players involved, and their relative impact, and, therefore, an admission that “what you know” is defective to the degree that you claim we need to do anything at all)
“potentially” (again, another ‘it hasn’t happened but it could happen to some degree or other which we haven’t been able to figure out by some means we haven’t demonstrated over a certain period of time we haven’t been able to define except as being critical enough for everyone to put all their economic eggs into the one basket’ you claim will be the best way of protecting them)
“irreversible” (again, no way of demonstrating the mechanism of this, only a spinning of scenarios based on outcomes of models that depend entirely on both the input variables that are defined by a preexisting belief about how things should be or are feared to be along with an unhealthy amount of major tweaking all along the way that, even then, can’t get the models’ outputs to conform with observation.
With regard to 3, given the near complete ignorance of all relevant factors in 2 that are needed to demonstrate, rather than merely stir fear about, the supposed danger, the sooner you act with incomplete knowledge based on a political agenda aimed at maximizing public hysteria to deliver ever greater areas of economic activity into the control of the agitators for climate change mitigation, the sooner you will waste untold amounts of money while destroying the very economic activities that generate that money.
Yes, there is much you can do. It’s always been known that for every single positive, effective thing that can be done to generate order or to create something of value, there are a multitude of ways to destroy it.
How can such credentialed montebanks remain this clueless? Of course Earth’s temperatures are a-changin’, as they always have and always will. But the question is AGW Catastrophism, not our Pleistocene Era’s periodic fluctuations.
Pigs whistle as AAAS grant-mongers determinedly Advance to the Rear. If it’s “science” you’re after, best look decisively elsewhere.
After suffering blow after blow to the credibility of their IPCC mantra, I sense that the global warming alarmists are making a fresh assault on the public minds with a new wave of misleading propaganda on the climate science. And seeing that they have the ear of government, and have little difficulty attracting government support to push their politically correct climate agenda, I fear this major assault will work in their favour and result in a permanent corruption within the field of climate science, and in academia.
I worry for the science of climate change. Sadly, it has got to the point where I have little faith in this field as it has become so corrupted. There is no point for a genuine scientist to produce any research that is in conflict with the IPCC mantra because, as soon as the paper is published, the alarmists publish two or three in no time at all claiming showing significantly different conclusions.
Are the people on this site real? Or is it just a few senseless conspiracy theorists cackling loud enough for their voices to echo around in this cavern of stupidity!
[we don’t know Mr. Huxley, are you real? -mod]