Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
For a brief period, the New York Times added a column to their best-seller book list. It identified the percentage of people who finished reading the book. As I recall, the outright winner for lowest percentage was Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose with only 6%. It is an excellent and fascinating book if you understand the Catholic church, its theological disputes, know much about medieval mythology, understand Catholic religious orders, and are familiar with the history of Italy in the Middle Ages. As one reviewer wrote, “I won’t lie to you. It is absolutely a slog at times.” This phrase struck me because it is exactly what a lawyer told me after reading my book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”
I told him it was a slog to research because it required reading all the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a task that few, certainly fewer than 6%, ever achieve, including most of the people involved with the production. This is the tragedy. There are so many people with such strong, definitive views, including among skeptics and the general science community who have never read the Reports at all. The challenge is made more difficult by the deliberate attempt to separate truth and reality from propaganda and the political agenda.
In media interviews or discussions with the public, the most frequent opening challenge is; “But don’t 97% of scientists agree?” It is usually said obliquely to imply that you know a lot, and I don’t understand, but I assume you are wrong because you are in the minority. I don’t attempt to refute the statistics. Instead, I explain the difference in definitions between science and society. Then I point out that the critical 97% figure is that at least 97% of scientists have never read the claims of the IPCC Reports. How many people reading this article have read all the IPCC Reports, or even just one of them? If you have, it is probably the deliberately deceptive Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Even fewer will have read the Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Naively, people, especially other scientists, assume scientists would not falsify, mislead, misrepresent, or withhold information. It is worse, because the IPCC deliberately created the false claim of consensus.
I wrote earlier about the problem of communications between groups and the general public because of the different definition of terms. Among the most damaging, especially in the public debate, is the word consensus. Exploitation of the confusion was deliberate. On 22 December 2004, RealClimate, the website created to manipulate the global warming story, provided this insight;
We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).
In other words, it is what the creators of the Reports consider a consensus. This is classic groupthink on display. One characteristic of which says they have,
“…a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained.”
The source of the 97% claim in the public arena came from John Cook et al., and was published in 2013 in Environmental Research Letters. It was titled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” I acknowledge to people some of the brilliant dissections of this claim, such as Lord Monckton’s comment, “0.3% consensus, not 97.1%.” If I have time, I explain how the plan to exploit the idea of consensus was developed by the same people and corrupted science exposed in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.
Harvard graduate, medical doctor, and world-famous science fiction writer, Michael Crichton provides an excellent riposte.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
The attempt to deceive and divert was built into the structure, format, and procedures of the IPCC. Few people know that a major part of the deception is to identify all the problems with the science but only identify them in the Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. They know most won’t read or understand it and can easily marginalize the few who do. In 2012 I created a list of several of these acknowledgments, but only one is sufficient here to destroy the certainty of their claims about future climates. Section 14.2.2. of the Scientific Section of Third IPCC Assessment Report, (2001) titled “Predictability in a Chaotic System” says:
“The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system.”
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (My emphasis).
This is not reported in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that is deliberately different. David Wojick, an IPCC expert reviewer, explained,
“What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.”
He should add, it is deliberate advocacy, as the RealClimate quote shows.
The SPM receives scant attention from the media and the public, except for the temperature predictions and then only the most extreme figure is selected. The Science Report receives even less attention, but that is by instruction because it is released months later. All of this is why I quoted German physicist and meteorologist Klaus Eckart Puls (English translation version) on the cover of both my books.
“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” “Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
The real challenge of the 97% consensus claim is to get more of the 97% to do what Puls did, read the Reports and find out what the IPCC did and said. They need to do it because the misuse and loss of credibility of science aren’t restricted to the climate deception. As I read and hear from all sectors of science and society, it is endemic (fake news) and potentially devastating. I think one of the most important achievements of my successful trial with Andrew Weaver was to go beyond the defamation charge, against my lawyer’s advice, and show that the misuse of science will and must elicit passionate reactions. So, next time you are confronted with the 97% oblique charge, simply ask the person if they have read any of the IPCC Reports. Just be prepared for the invective.
The science is settled? Like dust has settled on the truth?
Since we live in the real world eventually the real world will confirm or refute AGW. Maybe the real impact of increased CO2 levels will be most appreciated in the biosphere.
At 550 ppm the nutritional value of food crops is compromised.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179.epdf?referrer_access_token=JO5Cx15VIByF9XHsgrNoCdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PMO7CPYghaROZ8qcdXJ1XpBQ-HSZ0qsiW_gsnZNm-k2tQbZpybQuj_TyTm_QE_T7II9y4nRL-jY0UkROfWdT1g3NdF9gmLMeBqs01HH2Xo8PB4vIL7lwQOXZ47uL_YLfNA3-VWMo7CfppkXmjFBq1bzRQI9LzVja_VQDRgtK_7Ug%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com
At 800 ppm human cognitive processes are affected.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037
Increased CO2 lelvels result in increased predation by pests.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18375762
no, the food value of crops is not compromised.
the proportions of nutrients change, but the absolute amount increases.
tricky accounting only fools you.
there is no 800ppm of CO2 happening, so let’s make up some better horrors to get you that gothic frisson, shall we?
Maybe this: when schools turn out idiots can’t think and instead merely regurgitate a tribal catechism, human cognitive processes are affected.
want to hear more valuable syllogisms?
if your dad is a donkey, the sky is blue.
if your donkey is made of straw, your facts are blue, too.
if your straw is made of ducks you are a forum genius.
are we galumphing yet?
It really is fascinating how the alarmists can make themselves believe anything.
Hot house tomatoes are grown at well over 1000ppm, with no decrease in nutrition.
Sailor’s routinely work at several thousand ppm, with no drop in cognition.
In freshman biology I used to teach the scientific method. In that through all levels to doctoral graduate classes, taken and taught, never do I recall the word consensus. I do recall the use once in a meeting about a non-scientific agreement, even then a surprise. No doubt my memory imperfect and it might be worth seeing how its use evolved and followed the politicization of science.
If there is such a thing as a consensus in science it is the 97% de facto, informal, individually decided, unforced acceptance not to challenge a concept any more because it works so well. Always keep the other 3% around just in case. Obviously what exists, and you among others here discuss well, does not fit that certainty. “Everybody does it” proves little, but might make it worth checking it out, too often stupidity found.
Keep it up.
Real story (short version):
In the wintertime, a number of us electric utility types were at the Anchorage, AK airport waiting on a small-plane ride across the Cook Inlet to inspect a generation facility. It was dark and blowing snowflakes rather vigorously. The pilot was asked if we could make it across. He said “Probably, but we might not make it back tonight.”
One of the higher-ups suggested we vote on taking off. Even though a lower level employee, I immediately grabbed my briefcase and made for the exit.
I don’t risk my life (or anything important) on consensus.
The consensus is not dependent on whether one has read the IPCC reports, nor should it be. The reason the IPCC reports were commissioned was to provide policy makers with a review of the science. There are plenty of other means of deciding whether one agrees that AGW is well-supported by the evidence. Scientists can read the peer-reviewed research itself without relying on the IPCC.
” Then I point out that the critical 97% figure is that at least 97% of scientists have never read the claims of the IPCC Reports.” Pure assumption!
“It is worse, because the IPCC deliberately created the false claim of consensus.” Nonsense.
“The source of the 97% claim in the public arena came from John Cook et al., and was published in 2013 in Environmental Research Letters.”
Others papers have supported evidence for a consensus, though not all suggest it’s 97%. The whole emphasis on this exact figure is a mistake, in my opinion.
“I acknowledge to people some of the brilliant dissections of this claim, such as Lord Monckton’s comment, “0.3% consensus, not 97.1%.”
There are many logical problems with this comment. For instance,
“‘An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al., 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change is happening (Lewandowsky et al., 2012).’
The implication is that the authors of all abstracts endorsing definitions (1) and (2) also endorse the catastrophist definition (3)”
The sentence in the abstract has nothing to do with the idea of “castastrophe.” And the claim of 0.3% consensus is downright laughable, ruining Monckton’s credibility – that figure could only be realistic if it referred to the “consensus” of those scientists who deny global warming.
“However, the sample size was insufficient to deliver a statistically reliable result, [true or not, Monckton offers no evidence of this] and the respondents were not asked whether they believed the anthropogenic influence on temperature might become sufficiently damaging to require a ‘climate policy’.” So what? Just because a question wasn’t asked is not any reason to ignore the results. It’s a fatuous idea that for consensus to exist, scientists must also agree about policy. The consensus should be seen apart from its policy context – it is a matter of agreement with a scientific idea. The consensus can be considered when it comes to policy, but not the other way around.
(It’s an extremely common flaw in many skeptics’ reasoning that they see science through policy. Unsupported assumptions that climate science is as a whole is tainted by politics are likewise irrational – especially the assumption that it is only the “consensus” side that is tainted when so many vocal contrarian scientists are affiliated with conservative, politically active organizations.)
“On 22 December 2004, RealClimate, the website created to manipulate the global warming story [“manipulate”? What do Dr. Ball’s posts do but try to manipulate opinion?], provided this insight;
‘We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).’
“In other words, it is what the creators of the Reports consider a consensus. This is classic groupthink on display.” Say what? How is this “groupthink”? If scientists agree with what is written in WG1, that is “groupthink”? Seems to me Dr. Ball is just looking for an excuse to get that word in somewhere. In fact, if he reads the passage closely, all it is saying is that the “consensus” of scientists hold the evidence of WG1 to be true. It’s not very clearly stated, but that’s no excuse to misinterpret it as an example of groupthink! Just because people agree, does that mean they are victims of cognitive error? Why not apply “groupthink” to skeptics, if one is going to make such unsupported accusations?
” In 2012 I created a list of several of these acknowledgments, but only one is sufficient here to destroy the certainty of their claims about future climates. … ‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible’ (My emphasis).”
This destroys NOTHING. Future climate states refers to whether at a given time, a particular state of the climate (temperature, precipitation, etc.) is predictable. Of course it isn’t! That has nothing to do with whether average trends in climate are “predictable” given certain assumptions about future scenarios (such as CO2 emissions). Is Dr. Ball too ignorant to realize this difference, or is he simply trying to mislead people?
Grrr. This essay is just more propaganda from Dr. Ball.
“Is Dr. Ball too ignorant to realize this difference, or is he simply trying to mislead people?”
No Kristi, he’s pointing out the IPCC, even in their own documentation, contradicts the notion of CAGW as certain.
“That has nothing to do with whether average trends in climate are ‘predictable’ given certain assumptions about future scenarios (such as CO2 emissions).”
Actually, it would appear to have everything to do it. The full quote Dr. Ball is referencing is below. And it does destroy any logical reason to believe CAGW at this present state of climate science, unless you can contradict the statement with an update from the IPCC that suggests otherwise. Note the section in bold directly contradicts your objection:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
1) We don’t know enough about the climate to describe the physics of it with any certainty, therefore, it’s impossible to predict the long-term state of it.
2) The best we can hope for is the probability that we might have an accurate prediction based on a statistical analysis of the results of a bunch of climate model runs (ensembles).
3) But 2) is made more unlikely at the moment because we really don’t have adequate computer hardware yet to handle the complexity of the climate’s physics.
4) Even if we had 3) the climate models can’t be diagnosed.
5) Even if we had 3) and 4) they’re made moot because of 1), which, or so it seems to me, is the reason nothing else really matters.
You have to fix 1) to move forward at all. And you can’t do that Kristi. The IPCC states as much with certainty.
The notion that we can compute an ensemble of future climate possibilities is tantalizing. However, the reality is that the CO2-driven models of “climate science” do not model any of the physics that makes the atmosphere chaotic. They all presume that CO2 is the driver, and then they diddle with a magic “sensitivity” coefficient which links water vapor to CO2. It was worth a try, but as Feynman pointed out, the test is whether predictions based on the theory are borne out in reality, and here they fail. Lorenz had it right back in the late 60s, and nothing can change that. One might speculate that there are varying modes of chaos that exhibit somewhat stationary statistics, and perhaps in time we will be able to identify the conditions that characterize those modes. One that comes to mind is the mode where major portions of the Northern Hemisphere are covered with a few kilometers of ice. We know that the climate exhibited markedly different temperatures and sea levels in such times.
Robert,
There are ways to incorporate “chaos” or stochasticity into models. Here’s one paper https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1976.tb00696.x
No one assumes that CO2 is the sole driver. Improved solar data will be used in the next round of models, evidently.
“the test is whether predictions based on the theory are borne out in reality, and here they fail.”
This just isn’t true. I don’t know why people keep saying this. They aren’t perfect, but the are not bad in estimating some properties, both historic and paleoclimate.
“In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303
This is a super-long paper. I haven’t read it. It does show, though, that the mean of all models considered is quite skillful.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008972
“Climate models are based on well-established physical
principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed
features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate
changes (see Chapter 6). There is considerable confi dence that
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs)
provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate
change, particularly at continental and larger scales. Confidence
in these estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g.,
temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). ”
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1765216/component/file_1765214/content – this is quite an interesting paper, though long.
So, there are a few examples.
Kristi,
Thank you for the references. Have you watched Pat Frank’s video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
He makes (at least) two important points. First, you can replicate the “ensemble” predictions of the many climate models that existed when he made the video (2016) using a simple linear relationship on CO2. Second, the models can be fit to “predict” either temperature or water vapor (clouds), but not both simultaneously. If you fit temperature, the cloud parameter walks away from what it should be, and this is important because that value is used in subsequent temperature predictions. This error is compounded as time goes on, and it quickly becomes orders of magnitude larger than the change in temperature that the models predict. I encourage you to view the video and come to your own conclusions.
Looking at Hasselmann’s paper, I think he’s arguing that we can model chaotic behavior, but the issue is estimating the parameters for the model. So, for example, if we had detailed and accurate records of temperature and clouds in the Little Ice Age over some decent period of time, say 50 years, we could model those records. And in the same way, we might eventually get enough decent data from today’s weather to properly model characteristic parameters. But it is an entirely different problem to compute the weather from first principles. To put this in practical terms, Lorenz made the observation that the butterfly effect wasn’t as daunting as one might fear, because what one butterfly does, another can undo. So with millions of Monarchs, there could well be some quasi-stationary statistics. But there might well be many more Monarchs today than there were in 1650, and they might not be in the same place.
Kristi,
Regarding the improvement of model predictions, the question isn’t whether they get better with more and more data, they should, but whether they can predict the changes that will be caused by changes, plus or minus, in CO2 in the future. This is the political/policy question. This relies on properly modeling the physics of the many processes, and here all the models fail. They simply can’t model such physics because their grids are too coarse, and the data is too skimpy. Critiques of current models usually focus on some aspect of their predictions that are not verified by the data. This is fair enough, because if they don’t predict everything, then they aren’t really analogs of the Earth’s atmosphere. Just because they can reproduce some features of the existing data is not proof that they can predict the result of perturbations from the status quo.
And this doesn’t begin to address the issue of the changes made to the “historical” record by the advocates of CO2 induced climate change. If anything, their adjustments make it even harder to figure out what constitutes the predictable features of our present climate.
It is like trying to compute the trajectory and orbital adjustments required to land on the Moon and return to Earth using the state of knowledge that existed prior to Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction. Only we know the physics, and we know it is daunting.
sycomputing,
I agree that we can’t predict climate with “certainty” – that’s asking too much.
I pointed out before that predicting future “states” is not what the models are aiming for. This is different from “prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states.” The difference is being able to say “It will be X degrees in 2050 (with avg. 759 mm precipitation, 5 hurricanes and droughts in Arkansas and Belarus),” versus, “There is a 65% chance that it will be X degrees in 2050’s, a 20% it will be X degrees in 2040’s, and a 15% chance, X in 2060’s”…and the confidence we have for this prediction is “highly likely” based on the business as usual emission scenario.
There are two parameters the IPCC talks about in reference to predictions: the likelihood, and the confidence. The likelihood is associated with a percentage probability.
“When scientists mention ‘confidence’, they are referring to the degree of confidence in being correct. … When scientists mention ‘likelihood’ they are referring to the probability of an event or outcome occurring. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) confidence levels are based on the evidence (robust, medium and limited) and the degree of scientific agreement (high, medium and low). The combined evidence and agreement results in five levels of confidence (very high, high, medium, low and very low)”
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b4ba2892-f126-4c4f-a47e-08ca3767eacf/files/wa-decoding-confidence-and-likelihood-ipcc.docx
The IPCC quote then goes on to say that it is only by model comparisons that we are able to make such probabilistic predictions – a measure of likelihood, not of confidence. There is no “probability that we might have an accurate prediction” – accuracy is not expressed in probabilistic terms.
“3) But 2) is made more unlikely at the moment because we really don’t have adequate computer hardware yet to handle the complexity of the climate’s physics.”
This is the case in some parameters, those with a low range of confidence. But high confidence indicates that the model are in good agreement with each other, there is good supporting evidence, and their predictions are probably right – this doesn’t mean, though, that the probability of something happening is also high.
“4) Even if we had 3) the climate models can’t be diagnosed.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “diagnosed.” But they can be tested (validated): they can be run to simulate time periods different from the one to which they are tuned, and test to see whether the emergent properties of the simulations coincide with observational data. Such validation has been successful, at least for some climate properties.
The individual parameters can also be adjusted to see what happens in a simulation. This gives an idea of the sensitivity of model to changes in that parameter. Different models are focused on getting different properties right (with high confidence), and that can be taken into account when model comparisons are done. In the future, comparisons of methods of tuning may also be taken into consideration, or at least discussed more and become more transparent.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that models are getting better, especially at regional predictions, something early models weren’t capable of making.
Anyway, this is my understanding. If there are errors, I hope someone will correct me.
(I would keep in mind, too, that you are quoting from TAR.)
“I pointed out before that predicting future “states” is not what the models are aiming for. This is different from “prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states.” The difference is being able to say “It will be X degrees in 2050 (with avg. 759 mm precipitation, 5 hurricanes and droughts in Arkansas and Belarus),” versus, “There is a 65% chance that it will be X degrees in 2050’s, a 20% it will be X degrees in 2040’s, and a 15% chance, X in 2060’s”…and the confidence we have for this prediction is “highly likely” based on the business as usual emission scenario.”
You seem to be making my case for me. If the models aren’t “aiming for” the actual future state of the climate with regard to temperature then they don’t seem to be aiming for anything of practical use to we humans, while at the same time making the case against their own premise. Therefore with your interpretation it would appear to me that I have exactly just as much reason to believe in the theory of CAGW as I do under my interpretation. I’m not interested in whether it “might be the case that the ‘probability’ of CAGW has ‘some possibility’ of being true, but we’re just not at all sure how much and to what probability the possibility exists that it is.”
And this from those who claim to be scientists??? Nay rather, the statement should better be interpreted with its plain meaning in mind, which is, “We don’t really have a clue. We’re shooting at ducks on a roller wheel and trying to hit 1 out of 10 (But we need to investigate further to make sure).”
The only real difference in your interpretation and mine is what appears to be a good deal of probability double-speak. If I grant your interpretation, then I would suggest the probability double-speak is due to the fact that the IPCC knew (and still knows), very well they didn’t (and still don’t) have any reasonable clue about how earth’s climate really worked, hence, to retain some credibility toward further investigating the matter they make the attempt at a probability scenario.
Naturally, when “scientists” speak people listen. And a trillion dollar per year industry was born…
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/environmental-science
“The job outlook for environmental scientists is excellent. Employment is projected to grow 15% from 2012 to 2022, which is faster than the average for all occupations.
https://www.environmentalscience.org/careers
“Employment of environmental scientists and specialists is projected to grow 11 percent from 2016 to 2026, faster than the average for all occupations. Heightened public interest in the hazards facing the environment, as well as increasing demands placed on the environment by population growth, are expected to spur demand for environmental scientists and specialists.”
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/environmental-scientists-and-specialists.htm
“When scientists mention ‘confidence’, they are referring to the degree of confidence in being correct. … When scientists mention ‘likelihood’ they are referring to the probability of an event or outcome occurring. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) confidence levels are based on the evidence (robust, medium and limited) and the degree of scientific agreement (high, medium and low). The combined evidence and agreement results in five levels of confidence (very high, high, medium, low and very low)”
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b4ba2892-f126-4c4f-a47e-08ca3767eacf/files/wa-decoding-confidence-and-likelihood-ipcc.docx”
Once again, thank you for making my case for me:
George Washington – “Doc, I’ve got a sore throat, can you do something for me?”
Doctor – “Of course, Mr. President! Among everything else the consensus of the best physicians in the world say to do, we’ll drain 40% of your blood this evening. We’re highly confident you’ll be fine in the morning!”
Washington – “Doc…40% of my blood? Are you sure? I’m already feeling really weak.”
Doctor – “Of course, Mr. President, as I told you, we’ve assessed the situation and found that the best available evidence for this treatment has been evaluated as “robust.” Moreover, the degree of scientific agreement that bloodletting will be an effective methodology to cure this sore throat is high. Therefore, we’ve an evidence based consensus that suggests a very high level of confidence you’ll probably be just fine in the morning.”
No, President Washington died that night. And the overwhelming consensus opinion of the medical community 219 years later is that HIS DOCTOR’S KILLED HIM due to a consensus of stupidity that seemed ever so righteous and true AT THAT TIME.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bloodletting-blisters-solving-medical-mystery-george-washingtons-death
I’m not yelling, just making sure the point is crystal clear. Consensus without valid evidence is nothing but speculation. That’s all you have.
“This is the case in some parameters, those with a low range of confidence. But high confidence indicates that the model are in good agreement with each other, there is good supporting evidence, and their predictions are probably right – this doesn’t mean, though, that the probability of something happening is also high.”
You mean as in all the best physicians at the time being “in good agreement with each other,” that their prediction based upon “good supporting evidence” that bloodletting was viable for Washington’s ailment wouldn’t kill him?
Thank you for making my case for me once again.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “diagnosed.” But they can be tested (validated): they can be run to simulate time periods different from the one to which they are tuned, and test to see whether the emergent properties of the simulations coincide with observational data. Such validation has been successful, at least for some climate properties.”
It isn’t me saying the models can’t be diagnosed, Kristi. It’s the IPCC. I would argue the plain meaning of the text indicates that the models cannot be diagnosed as to their veracity. This would make sense if one didn’t have enough information about the physical processes involved in earth’s climate, which is exactly what the first sentence of the quote in question states unequivocally. You, however, seem to desire to contradict the very consensus to which you argue for your position?
“I think it’s important to keep in mind that models are getting better, especially at regional predictions, something early models weren’t capable of making.”
Getting better at what exactly? You’ve already argued the purpose of the model isn’t to attempt to predict the future state of the climate, i.e., at least the temperature of the climate at some future date. If that isn’t exactly what your side is proposing to be the problem with the continuation of the burning fossil fuels then what is?
You seem to be contradicting the very consensus opinion that you so often here cite, ma’am. In which case, don’t you contradict yourself?
And the way too much bolded is an HTML tag error.
I’m sorry about that…not yelling…just failing to proofread.
One thing I have noticed about Kristi, she never attempts to actually refute arguments.
She just insults those who don’t believe as she’s been trained to believe.
I think you have a valid criticism.
Kristi?
What say you about my answer to your objection to Dr. Ball’s quote of IPCC WG1?
sycomputing,
You are saying MarkW has a valid criticism? MarkW? Really? Do you have any idea how many times he has insulted me without addressing my arguments? Sheesh. All he’s ever done is insult me.
And I do go to some lengths to refute arguments. I spend a lot of time looking up and reading original literature to support my arguments. Not always Dr. Ball’s posts, though – I get too irritated by his insulting, unsupported generalizations – but I did refute some of his points in this post. Presumably you read it, so why are you saying I only insult? Do you think pointing out unsupported, insulting assumptions is not worthwhile? What makes that any more offensive than making them in the first place? Can’t you see that half of what Dr. Ball is saying is opinion? Why should I then not express my own opinion?
I’ve read Cook et al., 2013. I looked for errors in the methods. I couldn’t find any. It’s significant that they not only looked at abstracts, but contacted authors to rate their own papers – so it’s not just a consensus in the literature, but of scientists themselves. Monckton’s critique doesn’t hold water.
It’s also significant that as expertise in climate science increases, so does consensus and that a critique of Oreskes’s paper was retracted due to its own methodological errors.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm (I know this isn’t a balanced site, but neither is WUWT.)
This is also an interesting article about bias against skeptics in science. Not at all scientific, but interesting anyway. It closes with a quote from Andres Millan:
“”Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere,” he wrote.
“Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.
“And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided.”
Kristi, Sceptics are doing their full job finding fault with a scientific theory. Its not their task to find an alternative. However, to show that natural variation has had extremes well beyond what we see today and to show by bumper crops and the “Great Greening Epoch ^ тм” that so far “carbon” is convincingly net beneficial is sufficient to peg the CO2 scare invalid so far. Look up Bertrand Russells illustrative proposition of a tiny teapot orbiting beween Mars and Jupiter that cant be detected and ask what the skeptics role in this theory should be!
“You are saying MarkW has a valid criticism? MarkW? Really? Do you have any idea how many times he has insulted me without addressing my arguments? Sheesh. All he’s ever done is insult me.”
Just because someone behaves badly doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
To contradict myself, however, I’ll admit that with at least this particular article, you’ve really responded to a lot of comments directed toward you. In my experience you hardly ever respond at all.
I’m not reading this blog quite as much lately though. My apologies if past behavior isn’t present!
All the best and take care!
And let me be clear, Kristi, you’ve never insulted me. Not one time.
🙂
As a reality check, Dr. Ball could don a body camera and attend a few national meetings of the AMS and the AGU , and ask the first 100 people he bumps into what they think of this essay.
I look forward to the undited results.
aren’t you just full of ideas what other people should do for your amusement?
are you inviting people to suggest activities for you?
asking for a friend.
Utterbilge, you’re correct about one thing. Your name reflects accurately what you post which is utter bilge.
In other words, ask one group of politicians whether they agree with another group of politicians.
I preferred when it was just believers and unbelievers divided up into heretics, apostates, those who were out to lunch, and various factions of the falsest of true believers, and the truest of true-believers (who generally thought each other were not virtuous enough and deserved hell-fires for it … hard core people full of god’s Love or something … I hope it’s not catching).
BTW, most of them never slogged through a Bible either, so a fairly common feature there, not a bug.
Plus everyone knew the Church congregation was 97% hypocrites.
And on that point there was abundant consensus.
And yes, they picked your pocket with it.
I did read an IPCC report once (seriously). But I was not interested in reading another. I’d rather read long-winded monotheistic diatribe, demanding blinkered obedience, verses hell-fire, as that would at least be more persuasive an argument.
It really is sad how much hatred you have towards believers.
For a good” long-winded monotheistic diatribe, demanding blinkered obedience, verses hell-fire,” it’s hard to beat the Cornwall Alliance.
Whether the world becomes warmer or cooler, humanity will need reliable and inexpensive energy in much greater quantities to maintain living standards of the presently prosperous and to uplift the lives of the hundreds of millions who presently suffer from lack of access to energy. The malign effect of the global warming cult has been two-fold. Firstly the purposeless squandering of vast resources which should otherwise have been applied to assist the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed. Secondly a deliberately dangerous reduction in the capacity to provide reliable and inexpensive energy (South Australia is one of many examples). If the world becomes hotter, the shortage of reliable and inexpensive energy will be a problem. If the world becomes colder, as indeed it may, the shortage of reliable and inexpensive energy will be a calamity. Millions will die unnecessarily from cold and hunger. The criminals who have sanctimoniously sabotaged reliable inexpensive energy should be held accountable. These are hostiles who put their own ideology and in many cases their own wealth far above human life. I welcome contact from allies to my facebook page or to mrmmichaeldarby@hotmail.com.
At its ‘best ‘ the infamous 97% was a selection of sub-selection of Journal articles from one time period reviewed via a poor methodology . And that is ‘at its best ‘
It was never 97% of scientists , not even climate ‘scientists’ , a term that has little meaning given its been applied to failed politicians with no science training at all. Although to be fair good science has never been a requirement of those practicing climate ‘science’ , unlike a massive ego and an ability to smell which way the funding wind is blowing .
The coming IPCC Special Report:- “Global Warming of 1.5ºC”
On Monday 8 October 2018 the IPCC is going to commit another giant act of misrepresentation. It is going to release a report that was actually written by politicians but pretend that it was written by scientists.
This is yet another example of what I have blogged about in more detail here.
http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/ipcc-reports-are-poltics-not-science.html
This new IPCC report is not a full “Assessment Report” because the next full AR is “AR6” and won’t come out until next year.
This particular report is a “special” report whose full name is:-
“Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty”
This “special” report – like all IPCC reports – will have the “Summary FOR Policymakers”, (written by some scientists and academics) re-written by non-scientists into a “Summary BY Policymakers.”
The people who do this re-writing will be not be scientists and academics. They will be diplomats and bureaucrats – policy wonks.
Whole new bits of “science” will be lied into existence by these non-scientists. Similarly, actual bits of science will be lied out of existence by these same non-scientists. Science will be transformed into propaganda.
The jargon word used by the IPCC for this transformation into propaganda is “approval” . This word is a masterful piece of Orwellian misrepresentation because most people would not think that “approval” means:- radical transformation from “Summary FOR policymakers” to “Summary BY Policymakers.”
This “approval” (re-write) takes 5 days of continuous political haggling.
“the approval of the Summary for Policymakers will take place on 1-5 October”
quoted from:- https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/cooperation-with-the-ipcc/ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-15-degc#eq-3
Then on Monday 8 October 2018 comes the proof that the misrepresentation is intentional.
“Subject to approval, the Summary for Policymakers will be released on Monday 8 October with a live-streamed press conference.
quoted from:- http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/ma-p48.shtml
PROOF 1
The IPCC will intentionally mis-represent the names of the people who wrote the report. It will list as the authors of the “Summary BY Policymakers” only the names of the authors of the original “Summary FOR Policymakers.” The names of the people who wrote the most quoted bits of this new, altered report will be deliberately left-out.
The list of authors of the new report will mention only the names of the scientists (and academics) who wrote the original “Summary FOR Policymakers” and not the names of the diplomats and bureaucrats who wrote the most politically important bits of this new report.
Why so shy about their contribution? Is it just modesty that forces the policy-wonks to leave their names off the report or is it deliberate deception? Are they trying to pretend that the “Summary BY Policymakers” is the “Summary FOR Policymakers”
PROOF 2
The radically altered “Summary BY Policymakers” will be released to a huge press fanfare under it’s original name of the “Summary FOR policymakers”
The original “Summary FOR policymakers” will never be released, because the IPCC make sure that it is kept confidential. The “Summary BY Policymakers” will be released only under the deliberately misleading name of “Summary FOR policymakers.”
PROOF 3
No mention will be made of the fake science that the new, altered report now contains. The new “science” will be presented as if it had been written only by scientists even though the most politically influential parts of it will have been written only by non-scientists (policymakers) instead.
I think that the malfeasance is deliberate and that – since it involves literally trillions of dollars of public money – should be investigated by the police forces of every country in the world.
The Church of Warming is a religion. I posit that one could probably not get a 97% consensus if polling Evangelicals about the veracity of the virgin birth. Disagreeing about the virgin birth gets you declared a heretic, similarly the COW declares you a “denier”.
“So, next time you are confronted with the 97% oblique charge, simply ask the person if they have read any of the IPCC Reports. Just be prepared for the invective.”
With the uttermost respect, I don’t think this invective responses really matter with respect to the question of ‘consensus’. This question is quite simply: do majority of scientist in the relevant fields (geophysics, atmospheric science, meteorology, possibly geology, something else) agree that (1) warming occurs in the recent decades and (2) this warming is predominantly induced by human activity (i.e. burning fossil fuels). Alas, the answer to this simply question is equally simply: “Yes”. True, there may be discussion how many exactly support this position (60, 85, 93%?). But the truth is – most of the scientist agree with AGW. If there was a large proportions scientists who do not agree with the above they surely would be ‘visible’ and audible for quite long time now. Belief that a large chunk of scientists opposes AGW but for whatever reasons choose silence is unfounded, I’m afraid (although there may be quite a few).
We’re like guerilla warriors fighting against juggernaut: professional, well organized and well sponsored army. There is a good news though: (1) that may change and (2) most of the public is much more immune against AGW scary propaganda than many people from academia and establishment.
Given the need for funding you have a faulty premise. I first got an anti AGW view from working in an engineering company with three ex climate scientists who could no longer get funding as from the rejection they showed me ” the work was incompatible with the university’s main source of AGW work and detrimental to the university’s funding. My daughter worked for a rail services manager in exactly the same position for showing the extent of urban heating in European temperature measurement errors.
The opinion of 97 % of a group selected by the ability to withhold funding for dissent from a given view proves nothing.
I can appreciate that relentless financial pressure may affect behaviour of quite few people in the bad way. Those people have stable positions, careers and dependents. Not everyone is willing to risk head clash with powerful climatic establishment, backed by most of the mass media and politicians. I’m sure there are scientists skeptical about AGW yet choose silence. Still, I don’t see significant minority, say 30%, within relevant disciplines that opposes official AGW narrative. Apparently, this minority must be so well hidden that is invisible like the recent warming trend 😉 In one way of another their voice would be heard. But so far we’ve got a silence.
” I first got an anti AGW view from working in an engineering company with three ex climate scientists who could no longer get funding as from the rejection they showed me ” the work was incompatible with the university’s main source of AGW work and detrimental to the university’s funding.”
Did they ever publicized their story? Helped write articles about AGW on blog platforms? Shame to loose such people. If I was sacked due to findings I regard true and important I would subsequently do some effort to make that visible.
I can gauge how close Dr. Ball is on the money by the amount, and the vitriol, of the personal attacks against him.
To Kristi Silber and her ilk. You want to believe AGW is real. It ain’t – Habibullo Abdussamatov – and it is to late for you to back peddle. We need more CO2 refer to Dr Patrick Moore.
During WWII a squadron of planes left Iceland, encountered a storm, were blown off course and performed an emergency crash landing in Greenland. All airmen rescued, planes abandoned. Recently they returned and using coordinates drilled down to the planes. Strike at a depth nearing 300′. That is a lot of ice and snow since WWII and a lot of melting to occur to get back to pre WWII levels.
You may wish to read Don’t Sell Your Coat by Harold Ambler along with the swag of books I have refuting AGW. Generally, intelligent people have not bought into AGW, emotional people have.
Oil and coal are not fossil fuels, they are abiotic excepting brown coal and peat.
Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
My geology and geophysicist friends are bemused by your abiotic claim. One local entrepreneur lost his shirt looking for abiotic petroleum.
Petroleum is a product of diatoms.
Coal beds consist of altered plant remains. When forested swamps died, they sank below the water and began the process of coal formation. However, more than a heavy growth of vegetation is needed for the formation of coal. There are four stages in coal formation: peat, lignite, bituminous and anthracite.
Jack, another line of evidence that Greenland is losing ice mass is the fact that accurate GPS measurements show that the rocks are uplifiting as the ice melts.
.
.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0040-z
The abiotic process. The gas is driven off the earths magma. Oil is a condensate from the gas. Through a chemical/bacterial action oil solidifies into coal. I suspect the coal and oil close to the surface to be different ie Middle East oil under the desert sands. The tail of a comet is full of hydrocarbons. It would appear in the distant pas that the earth may have passed through the tail of a comet, Velikovsky stuff and very interesting. I spoke with an Australian who served in their air force. They had problems with fuel lines clogging. In the laboratories they had bacteria growing in oil.
Speaking of court cases:
“22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5°C is correct.
23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5°C range.
47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.”
https://mn.gov/oah/assets/2500-31888-environmental-socioeconomic-costs-carbon-report_tcm19-222628.pdf
Why does one even need to look a the reports? A computer model is only as good as the data it is founded on and checked against.
Even the bottom end commercial products sold here in the UK for just £1.00 have to pas a QA inspection and since climate change is supposed to be world threatening surely it should pas this with flying colours and actually pass the far more stringent life critical applications like pacemaker controls.
Instead we have even recent data that is not compared against a quality checked standard like the US climate reference network at six monthly intervals for both instrument and measuring environment. This is compared to earlier data using instruments of a totally unknown standard and in a few cases where the earlier instruments are now in museums not of sub half degree accuracy that would be the limit visually anyway. Other data is secondary derived of an accuracy unlikely to be even accurate to a few degrees given other variables ignored by the blinkered scientists more determined to prove point than to prove their integrity and competence.
When the name was changed from global warming to climate change with its admission that there are regional differences it now needs one reference network for at least one in ten measurement areas and world averages are no longer valid. Instead it requires regions each with the relevant man made CO2 production and drift measurements to compare the warming with the relevant CO2 figures.
That is before you even start on the method used for prediction of normal which is almost so dated as to be laughable. Signal analysis methods used in marketing engineering and in security applications all show a very different answer which suggests a cyclic pattern not present at all in climate scientist’s predictions.
In short if the whole methodology is unsound then the final report is irrelevant.
Why oh why is there not an edit for us lousy typists who only spot the typos after posting? Please read pass for pas.
Dr. Tim Ball can certainly draw out the flaming trolls! It’s better that they can’t just hit the ‘down vote’ and now have to come out in the open.
Keep up the good posts, they’re in panic mode! We got 4 on the front line here and they’re giving all they got with their bony fingers. LOL
Leo Smith September 29, 2018 at 3:09 pm
i think the book most unfinished is either Finnegans Wake or Ulysses.
Name of the Rose is a great book and an excellent movie.
******************
I agree about the book -it’s one of my all-time favorites, up there with “The Leopard” by Lampedusa.
But…the sex scene in the NOTR movie , while extremely hot, was utterly gratuitous. Nothing like that happens in the book.
(but if you look closely in one of the interior scenes involving lowly monks turning a mill (?) you can spot a very young Ron Perlman, he of “Sons of Anarchy” and many other movies/TV series. He looks very much like a mental defective, which probably got him the “extra” part.)
The IPCC releases reports from groups, which are inherently a consensus of those who are in the group. The fact that a group of scientists came to an agreement is worth something, but the group seemingly would have you believe that it’s everything.
A lot of confusion arises because we are living at the intersection of science and politics. We’ve all seen members of the scientific community making political judgments such as what plan of action we should take, and then becoming defensive when they are challenged, saying the science is settled.
When I first heard the 97% statistic, I was mightily suspicious because I already knew that there is no hard-data-based proof in the peer-reviewed climate-related literature that supports the CO2/warming mechanism. That was immediately prior to my research (in press), which shows that back-radiation from CO2 is simply too cold to support global warming in Earth’s warmer surface and atmosphere. (Comments to davidlaing@aol.com, please. I don’t monitor this blog.)