Why I accept the scientific consensus on global warming, and what would change my mind

That is basically my view as well. The only real logical way to discredit AGW at this point (given what we know) is to make a convincing case that climate sensitivity is far lower than we currently accept. Anything else requires to claim (and provide evidence for) that a great deal of what science knows (in climatology and other disciplines) be wrong.

Unfortunately that isn’t an easy thing to prove. A recent paper in Nature shows that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 °C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years. And of course these measurements of sensitivity (including those used by the IPCC) exclude some long term feedbacks. This is the reason why Hansen’s estimate of climate sensitivity (which does include these long term feedbacks) is so much higher (6k) than the best estimate arrived at by the IPCC (3k).

John, let’s take a look at your point about the rise in CO2 over the past 50 years. I agree that the source, as best we now know, is human activity. And I host the CO2 Rise FAQ that gives the gory details on why we think this.

Is it impossible to disprove? No. Extremely unlikely, but it could be done. So we’re still in science. To disprove human activity as the source for the rise, what someone would have to do is a) find some other source that was also depleted in 13C, and devoid of 14C, that was large enough and find a large sink that was sucking up the anthropogenic CO2.

They’d have to find both, since we do know that human activity releases a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. And it would be a big plus if that sink could somehow distinguish between the CO2 released by human activity and that other (currently unknown) source.

That’s the research program if someone wanted to scientifically support a claim that the rise is not human activity. I notice the extreme absence of folks making that claim who are even attempting such research. Over in real science, in the 1990s some people (Pieter Tans is one name to look up) started investigating exactly what the sinks were, and discovered that the ocean was not as large a sink as previously thought — land was also fairly important. It isn’t that we can’t learn new things that cause us to revise our opinions.

@ Robert

Is it impossible to disprove? No. Extremely unlikely, but it could be done. So we’re still in science.

This seems to be true of much of the theory behind AGW. What upsets me is people that propose inappropriate tests to determine if AGW is right or wrong, and then complain when it is pointed out why such tests are inappropriate, claiming that somehow this means that AGW can’t be invalidated. It can, but only with appropriate tests of its validity.

It isn’t that we can’t learn new things that cause us to revise our opinions.

That is why I wrote this post. I have been accused several times of being a crank, which Nature defined over 100 years ago as “a man who cannot be turned.” And while ‘turning’ me isn’t easy (for good reason), I wanted to outline exactly what it would take for me (a non expert who could be fooled by convincing sounding but flawed arguments) to change my mind.

I also hope Gerlich and Tscheuschner have cut out this little bit from their paper “there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet”

That is of course absolute rubbish. One could claim that average surface temperature isn’t a useful measure, or that the methods currently used are flawed for some reason, but to claim it cannot even be measured is absurd.

Hi Dan and Robert: Good discussion and Robert, I have visited your site a couple of times in the past and I have liked it very much.

However I am still going to stand by my point. Robert, consider this response to your proposed scenario. Unless the sink you propose can differentiate between a CO2 molecule from anthropogenic sources and a CO2 molecule from a “natural” source, then we are no further ahead since the anthropogenic CO2 molecules are displacing sink capacity that could have been taken up with “natural” CO2. Thus without the anthropogenic contribution the sink would have taken up the source you propose and thus there would be no increase.

Regards,
John

@ John

I think the main issue you have is that your analogy shows a good correlation, but is weak on causation. Though I’ll grant you that causation is a perfectly reasonable assumption given what we know and what would be required for your analogy not to indicate causation. It reminds me of this:

@ Robert

Thanks. It always nice to be told my arguments are well made by people who I respect. It means that I am likely on the right track… or that we’ve both lost our marbles:) I look forward to your post on Tuesday.

I disagree. I think you are using correlation as the main thrust of your argument. You are basically saying we know we emit CO2, and the atmospheric concentrations are increasing by roughly half of the amount we emit, thus we are responsible for the increase. But that is only (an extremely rational) correlation, not causation. Robert’s isotope argument provides good evidence for causation. Think of it as looking at the bank statements in your analogy. They give us an idea as to where the extra money in our account came from, and thus provide evidence for causation. Add that your your analogy and I think it would be much stronger.

But after re-reading all your comments I think I know where my issue really lies. It stems from this:

Now, I can’t see how number 1 [that we are responsible for the increase in GHG concentrations] could be wrong.

I can see a few ways that it could be wrong (though they are all extremely unlikely), and Robert even provides an example of how you could be wrong. Which again is very remote. In science nothing is ever concrete, and we must always accept that we may be wrong, no matter how overwhelmingly sportive the evidence may be.

I suspect you are well aware of this and fully agree with it, but your original comment implies differently. Either way I don’t think we really have a disagreement here.

You need to elaborate some Geoff. There are plenty of counter-intuitive things out there, all of which involved falsifying what intuition said. Intuition said that: the earth is flat, the continents don’t move, the stars and planets move but the earth does not, light is infinitely fast, and so on. Reality says otherwise.

Anyone have any thoughts on this frothing rant from the chaps at the NIPCC?

That link Scruffy goes to a blog ran by two doctors and a lawyer and is not about the science of AGW.

Do you have anything that is? Say something which debunks one of the points made in

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

please.

Dan: It probably won;t go anywhere so please delete if you feel that it is cluttering up your site, but here goes.

Jerry: OK, I took a very quick read through your link and I have some comments on it.

The first section looks at temperature records.

In Figure, they use Keigwin’s Sargasso sea data. I did not read the correction they used for potential salinity changes, could you point it out to me. After all Keigwin is very careful in his paper to say that only 2/3 of the isotope signal is cause by temperature changes with the other 1/3 being caused by changes in salinity.

I note that the use both radiosonds as well as MSU for atmospheric temperatures. They did not show the error bars for the radiosond. In regards to the MSU work, I see they use UAH data, but I don’t see RSS mentioned. Even more important, I did not see any reference to Fu mentioned at all. You have to admit that is a pretty significant oversight – wouldn’t you say?

If you look closely at Figure 7 and Figure 8 in the report, they don’t look much like each other. Until you realize that what the authors did is to report Figure 7 as the total change over 40 years and to report Figure 8 as the change in C/decade.

In Figure 10, they show the runs of a number of GCM’s. The GCM are all showing a positive warming for the 100 to 50 mb range, yet non of the runs of the models that I have seen predict that.

And what about their reference to stomatal density on page 23 where they say “Higher levels of CO2 cause plants to produce fewer leaf stomatal pores per unit area of leaf
surface, and to open those pores less widely [Woodward 1987; Morison 1987].” Any reason why they did not reference Reid since he is 15 years more recent than the work they cite?

Anyway, those are just based on the papers I happen to have on my computers. If you make it worth my while by actually responding, we can take a close look at the whole paper.

What I find funny is that if you look at the whole publication, they admit that we are responsible for increases in CO2, they admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If this is the best that they can do, it makes you wonder what the argument is about!

Regards,
John

Now on to the meat of the matter: the NIPPC report itself.
I just have a few things to say.

The main author is Fred Singer. A man who used to lobby for the tobacco industry claiming that cigarettes really aren’t that bad for your health. He also denied that CFCs were responsible for ozone depletion and questioned the link between melanoma and UV radiation.

He also used to claim that the earth was not warming, but has recently changed his mind and now claims that it is warming and and such warming episodes are unstoppable, natural and happen every 1500 years. As Marcus Brigstocke puts it, thats like saying:

I can categorically say I am not having an affair, and anyway she seduced me.

Now while none of this means that Fred Singer isn’t being truthful here, it does mean that anything he claims is a hard pill to swallow. Especially if it goes against mainstream science.

But on to the actual report. It starts out by asking a simple question:

Before facing major surgery, wouldn’t you want a second opinion?

Now obviously the answer to such a question is yes, but the fact that NIPCC positions itself as that second opinion is absurd. We have plenty of second opinions of the IPCC. One only needs to look at what the National Academies of Science of 35 countries have to say. Or one can look at the 97 percent of climatologists who agree with the consensus.

Relying on the NIPCC for a second opinion is like asking your mailman whether or not you should get surgery.

As for the specific chapters, the claims are nothing more than regurgitated denier talking points. Real Climate provides a good debunking. As do the links contained in my comment policy.

I would just like to point out a few additional things.

On Sea level rise:
Contrary to what the NIPCC claims, two recent papers indicate that the IPCC underestimated the predicted sea level rise expected by 2100. They say that a 80 centimetre to 1 metre rise by 2100 is a low estimate that doesn’t include the collapse of major ice sheets. That wording wasn’t as accurate as it should have been, as William Connolley (and here) points out. The studies predict as much as 80cm to 2m sea level rise until 2100, which is still higher than the IPCC estimate.

On CO2 as a benefit:
It is also curious that they seem content with dismissing the effects of ocean acidification based solely on a paper that is more than 10 years old, while ignoring the recent research in that area that indicates that acidification is indeed a very serious problem.

But the real question is why I would accept the conclusions of the NIPCC over those of the IPCC and the worlds scientific institutions and those who devote their lives to understanding the climate system. I can’t think of a single reason.

I am willing to give Jerry a little more time to make his position clear. But his response, or lack thereof should be telling.

Your Jaworowski post instantly reminded me of George’s Monbiot Christopher Booker prize. Here is the current front runner.

Oh and speaking of cranks, I was digging around the International Journal of Modern Physics B (the journal that published Gerlich and Tscheuschner), I found this:

To ensure top quality, review articles are by invitation only and all research papers undergo stringent refereeing [peer-review]. We welcome you to submit your research papers to IJMPB for publication.

Now as you can see here, Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper is published under the review section. The statement above makes it seem as if review papers are not peer-reviewed, meaning that Gerlich and Tscheuschner likely hasn’t undergone any peer-review. Instead it seems as if it was selected by one or more editors who may or may not be able to ascertain the paper’s validity, much like the non-peer reviewed garbage written by Monckton in APS’s Physics & Society.

If that is the case, it sure would explain a lot.

Jerry, what ‘issue’ do you think they ‘raised’ in ch 6? What evidence persuaded you that the IPCC did not address the science on SST properly?

And no, I’m not going to grant them any leeway — any more than I’ll grant it to anybody else who claims to be issuing a scientific report. If they’re talking science, they have to put some substance on the table. As ch 6 is so short, it provides the best opportunity for serious discussion. It isn’t like someone forced them to write that chapter. They consider it as meaningful as any other chapter (else why include it at all).

So, again, what substance do you think they put forward in Ch 6? What evidence would persuade you that they’re wrong about it?

It’s odd, though, to see you reference income. The fossil fuel industry is one of the world’s major employers. Singer (and, likely, other of the authors), has been receiving funding from that industry for years. By your own standard, you should be pretty skeptical of what he and company have to say.

Rob

In chapter 6, for example they discuss the change in the mechanism by which sea surface temperature was measured. My understanding is that this is not anywhere in the IPCC report – if I’m wrong, then I’m wrong and please let me know. But I like I said, I kind of agree – the reasons why this chapter seems less focused than the others are not clear to me. But if we’re discounting entire documents on such issues, the IPCC reports are already burning in the trash pile considering their temperature predictions/projections for the last decade.

So might we pretend we don’t know who wrote this report and then can someone tell me why I should not believe what is in sections 2, 3 and 4?

Or can someone tell me why me own analysis is wrong? ie.

“My personal view is that to answer this main question, it seems that one needs to know the natural variation in temperature due to the combined effect of
1) internal changes due to the climate system not being in equilibrium
2) external forcings
3) errors in our measurement of the global temperature (eg. sea temp in chap 6).

One cannot even begin say a signal has been detected until the magnitude of other signals and the noise in our measurement process are known.

I don’t see anyone can do anything even close to this. The massive errors in the projections of the gcms with observed temperatures suggest that there are unaccounted for deviations in temperature that are about as large as the effect we are trying to measure.

And given that a large change in atmospheric CO2 concentration has ALREADY occurred and its effect is not detectable in observations, I conclude that any future changes, if they are going to change the temperature in a measurable (and damaging) way, will do so only via discontinuities in the system, sudden jumps or “tipping points”. But the idea that these and their consequences can be predicted accurately in such a complex and poorly understood system is absurd.”

Rob – I’m sorry, but I don’t think your response to me is fair. Like I said twice already, I don’t think that chapter is very clear, and would be keen to ask someone why this is so. I’d be prepared to personally defend the sections 2,3 and 4 which contain the main points, but not this one really without more information.

But I wouldn’t take this too far. For starters, to suggest that the statement you quote is a “lie” that a non-expert can easily track down in a few seconds in simply not true. I mean, are you saying that the NIPCC report is saying that SST is not discussed at all in the IPCC report? – that is absurd. Everyone can see that SST is discussed there.

Or maybe you are saying that it is clear that the specific SST issues they raise were discussed in the IPCC reports and that they know perfectly well that these issues were in fact discussed but want to just lie outright to the reader.

If you aer saying wither of these, then that would not then be about science or even honesty – the primary characteristic required for them to write something so self-defeating would be stupidity. And they are not this. The response from you in normal circumstances might be a request for clarification – ascertain exactly what is they are trying to say. But in climate science, I suggest that normal procedure went out the window some time ago.

And you say “You find this persuasive. They assert that something can be readily computed, and then never show the computation. Nor provide any citation to where it did get computed. Nor do they tell you the magnitude of the effect.”

I tell you what, I’ll go into detail to answer that if you’ll defend every word of the FAQ 3.1 in IPCC chapter 3, which says numerous things like

“Confi rmation of global warming comes from warming of the oceans,rising sea levels, glaciers melting, sea ic e retreating in the Arctic and diminished snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.”

(without any calculations, references or anything) all of which I find every bit as vague – and some so simplified as to be simply ridiculous – as you find some of those in chapter 6 in NIPCC.

Jerry: It’s fair to talk about chapter 6 as long as you keep using it for one of your points — your later comment

“My personal view is that to answer this main question, it seems that one needs to know the natural variation in temperature due to the combined effect of
1) internal changes due to the climate system not being in equilibrium
2) external forcings
3) errors in our measurement of the global temperature (eg. sea temp in chap 6).

If you’re going to keep citing it, it’s still relevant.

Plus, your original invitation (see above) was for any point made in the document. Ch 6 is no less a part of the document than any other chapter.

Now, as to the lie they tell … I don’t believe in playing mind reader. Why they lied, I don’t know or care. But they did. That, I do care about. I gave you the quote of their lie, a paragraph that is at least partly what their ‘these problems’ is referring to, and the relevant sections of the IPCC report which, in fact, and contrary to NIPCC’s claim, shows that such problems were indeed considered.

You demonstrate yourself how it is that such lies can pass through their 23 authors:

– the primary characteristic required for them to write something so self-defeating would be stupidity. And they are not this.

You’re willing to discount the evidence I give you because the evidence conflicts with your presumption about the authors. Since you won’t think less of them for their lie, why would it be stupid of them to lie? You’re their audience, not me.

You continue:

The response from you in normal circumstances might be a request for clarification – ascertain exactly what is they are trying to say. But in climate science, I suggest that normal procedure went out the window some time ago.

What ‘normal circumstances’ do you have in mind? Offhand, if someone tells me lies, I’m hard pressed to think of a circumstance in which I keep talking to them. Car mechanic tells me that I need to buy 6 spark plugs for my 4 cylinder car, I go to a different mechanic, not ask questions. Someone tells me that some group says X, I go see what that group actually does say — doesn’t matter if it’s a running club, a political party, or what. If the group does not say X, the person telling me so lied and I’m probably done talking to them. Life’s too short, and there are too many honest people, to spend a lot of time with and on lies.

That’s lies. Mistakes, or at least things I think are mistakes, are a different matter. NIPCC also says, and it’s important to their argument, that buoys measure temperatures at 10 cm. It’s actually 1 meter (c.f. the IPCC section I’ve already referred you to). As such, the differences between buoy and ship are much reduced from what they describe.

Or, as I devoted some time to over at my blog, the front page of the co2sceptics (now ‘co2realists’) web site. As I titled it, their analysis was misleading, but could have been an honest mistake. I emailed them before the blog post. They failed to respond (except, perhaps, by renaming the site). So honest mistake is a lot less likely. Too bad.

Back to Dan’s original point — what evidence would change your mind? Well, you’re demonstrating that no evidence will change your mind about the source you chose. For me, well, I gave a positive example early on. The negative being, sources that lie will not change my mind.

OK, I hereby stop citing it. I only did it the first time because it had just been mentioned, and then copied and pasted it again the second time without thinking it. I’m pretty sure you agree that there is noise in temperature measuring process.

There are other sources of error in the temperature record could cite, but unfortunately they are from rather well-known people who I’m guessing you don’t have much time for. I don’t really want to disuss people, i want to discuss the points I raised earler, or sections 2,3 or 4.

I don’t really want to discuss chapter 6. It clearly is quite complex and not something I know much about. And it is not the reason I have strong doubts about AGW. I can’t really be much clearer than that – I’m not even really disagreeing with you. Like I said earlier and am now saying for the fourth time in this thread, I don’t think that it is very clear and so don’t understand why I have to defend it.

Yes, I said the whole report first, but that was an opening gambit while I was wondering if anyone would respond and what they would say – I’M NOT SAYING THAT NOW.

If you’re saying that you discount the rest of it because they “lied” in chapter 6, then if you think that then that does seem reasonable, ok.

But pretend that I wrote sections 2,3 and 4 and that I have no history of lying or being funded by the oil industry.

Jerry the point of questions 1 and 2 are to determine of your approach to climate science is consistent with your approach to science in general. Or if you have misconceptions about the state of scientific opinion in the subject, or other general misconceptions of how a consensus develops. That you refuse to answer the questions is telling.

A quick look at the temperature record confirms nothing to me. We all know that the temperature has risen in the last 100 years. That doesn’t prove anything.

I never claimed it did prove anything, I am fully aware that correlation doesn’t equal causation. But you clearly said that no effect is detectable in observations. The warming trend is clearly a detectable effect (as is stratospheric cooling). As for causation, I have already pointed you to the appropriate chapter in the most recent IPCC that deals with attribution of the observed warming trend. Read it if you want evidence (not proof, that is a mathematical concept), that we are responsible for the recent warming trend.

Jerry you plainly said you accept certain aspects of the NIPCC chapter 6, and where called on it. At least admit you were mistaken, rather than try to weasel your way out of the corner you backed yourself into.

As for the other chapters I have given you plenty of links that debunk them. But you just ignore them.

But what exactly do you want to discuss about the earlier chapters?

Why they are still attempting to discredit the hockey stick (published over 10 years ago), when real science has moved to newer and better proxy reconstructions, and the new reconstructions fall withing the error bounds of the original hockey stick.

Or Maybe you want to discuss the fact that in the paleoclimate record CO2 doesn’t lead it lags? Despite the fact that this is fully acknowledged in the scientific literature, and this is only evidence of the existence of positive feedbacks and in no way undermines AGW.

Or as you have already alluded to, that the models don’t match observations but only if you use inadequate tests. And don’t you dare hindcast the model!

Or maybe you wish to talk about the urban heat island effect and other massive errors in the instrumental record, that somehow scientist devoted to looking at the issue haven’t realize existed and thus corrected.

Or maybe you wish to talk about how its all a natural cycle despite us not finding any natural forcing that can explain the warming trend, or that it is all caused by the sun, despite all trends being opposite in order to for the sun to be responsible for the current change in climate.

Take your pick.

Oh and as for your criteria of “getting a handle of the magnitude of the noise sources in a signal and separating the signal from it and the other cycles contained within” If you bothered to read the IPCC you would see that this criteria has been met.

@ jerry

I want to pick up on something else you said earlier:

I wish I had just said “I don’t buy consensus arguments”, which I don’t. I regard it as circumstantial rather than direct evidence.

Since you wont answer the questions I asked you I can only guess at what is going on in your mind, and why you think you know better than those who spend their lives studding the issue.

And while technically what you say is true, it doesn’t then follow that it is rational to disagree with a consensus. Direct evidence is available for those who wish to examine the issue in more depth. For the rest of us, it is perfectly rational to accept the position of mainstream science.

Instead you seem content to accept statements (see my previous comment) that have been thoroughly debunked over and over again, from a source that has been shown to be dishonest. And that is most certainly not rational.

@ Jerry

Where did you go? We were just starting to have fun

@ John Mashey

I’d say that is a pretty convincing (but not unassailable) case for warming. The question now becomes what is the cause of such warming. Personally I find the IPCC does a good job of this (though I’ll admit I don’t understand all the details), and given that pretty much every single scientific institution says basically the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting the conclusions of the IPCC.

Looks like Peter Sinclair is using similar logic to you in his latest Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

Given all of that, plus the references you provided, it takes a special kind of person to continue to deny that warming is indeed taking place.

Interesting that you’re not satisfied with quoting liars, even after the fact is made obvious, but have to lie yourself.

In any case, it’s far from clear that Glassman has read the reports himself. But he does do what you like — tell you what the IPCC said or does, without ever bothering to tell you where they said what he claims; and, of course, to attribute bad things to the IPCC while doing so. Since you’re not honest enough to see read what they say, he’s quite safe, as are NIPCC and anybody else who tells you what you want to hear.

Hmm, thats the second time in the past few days that someone links to that article by Glassman, here is what I said the first time around:

I’ve read a few things written by Glassman and I can assure you that he hasn’t done his homework. For example he claims that the increase in CO2 is a result of warming and not due to our burring of fossil fuels, despite the massive evidence to the contrary.

Anyways on to the claims he makes at the link you provided. He spends a great deal of time indicating areas where the models make assumptions that do not match up exactly with reality, but virtually no time explaining what that means. We already know that models are simplified versions of reality, so this isn’t a particularly insightful revelation.

In fact the only real claims he makes is that earths climate is dominated by albedo not GHG forcings, despite not presenting any evidence, other than the fully debunked cosmic ray theory. [UPDATE: My wording here was perhaps too strong. The links are still valid, but it would be more accurate to say that the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, and that no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures exists over the last 30 years of global warming.]

You are, however, right that Glassman’s writings aren’t as laughably stupid as what I describe above, however they are still wrong.

But the real question, for non-experts is why would I trust an applied physicist and engineer’s internet writings over the published peer-reviewed research by climatologists.

As for your comments on the IPCC. what they show (even if you do not realize it), is that the IPCC is conducting itself in a responsible manner. The TAR, used the Mann 98 hockey stick, as it was the only proxy climate reconstruction available*. When the AR4 was written, there were many newer proxies available and thus hose were used. But this is really a minor point because the newer reconstructions all lie within the Mann 98 hockey stick error bounds.

And as for the IPCC saying things like ‘is likely to’ (which they define in the report) is exactly what you want a scientific publications to do. Science is never certain, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the IPCC to ignore that. Of course just because we aren’t 100% certain about something doesn’t mean we can’t act. Especially when the IPCC says ‘It is very likely (90%) that human activities are causing global warming’.

And even more curious is the fact that you openly admit to not knowing the science, yet you seem to have no problem opining that the IPCC and the rest of the scientific community are wrong, while a small band of contrarians(which have been shown to be anything but honest brokers) are worth listening to. That is curious indeed.

__________________________
*note that despite claims to the contrary the hockey stick was not central in the IPCC’s claims that human GHG emissions are causing warming. They arrived at that conclusion years before TAR and Mann 98

My opinion is, and remains, that you are hiding behind the IPCC report. That might be misplaced but you can only say it is a “lie” if you know that I know that you are not doing this. You know no such thing and so using such language says more about you than me.

The flashing-red phrase in your response was:

“Of course just because we aren’t 100% certain about something doesn’t mean we can’t act.”

Firstly, the fundamentaln question is, as I said earlier, very simple: whether and over what timescale human generated CO2 is going to cause a measurable increase in the temperature. The actions to take in response to establishing this one way or the other,a nd many of your other points, are strictly off the point.

Secondly, why is that sentance there at all? You seem to be saying even if you’re wrong we should do something. So, you’re not certain that you are right? How does this fit in with posts with titles like

“Global warming deniers getting stupider”

“How to assassinate the truth. The Gravityloss blog has an excellent post on how deniers can, and do, effectively assassinate the truth.”

“Deniers aren’t skeptical, they are gullible”

As Dr Glassman has said, there would be no climate crisis without the IPCC. So demonstrating that their report and models are fundamentally flawed would end the climate crisis. He has attempted this in language as clear as can be. If you know where and why he is wrong, why not do the climate community a service and point this out on his site. I’m sure he’ll be glad to find any flaws in his reasoning.

BTW, did you ever read the links I provided that debunked the claims made by the NIPCC as you promised?

Surely someone interested in ‘moving closer to the truth’, would at least read the material the other side cites.

Jerry: Your whines about others mentioning the IPCC would be much more credible if you didn’t cite sources that spend most of their time attacking the IPCC. And, in the case of your choosing the NIPCC, and Glassman, lying about what the IPCC actually does say and do. If your sources lies about IPCC, the proper refutation is the IPCC report in its own words. For me, it’s actually more work to go to the IPCC reports.

My knowledge of the science comes from reading the scientific literature and talking to the people doing it. So, for SST, it’s from personal discussion with Dick Reynolds and Nick Rayner and .. quite a long list really, plus the scientific papers of theirs and many others. An interesting contrast being that NIPCC cites almost none of these people (perhaps absolutely none, their citation list was quite short), while IPCC cites all of them, including some relatively obscure (even for science) papers.

Dan: In some senses, it’s reassuring to see the lies and the liars propagating them. If there were anything substantially wrong with the science, they’d be attacking that. Instead, they’re lying, and in particularly lazy, stupid ways — ways that anyone who takes the least bit of effort can see are lies. They’re banking on nobody ever looking up the truth. And there are distressingly many who, like Jerry, won’t. But the more I see them lying, the more confident I am the science is solid.

@ Jerry

You might want to read this.

Dan

I did indeed say that your only argument was really “IPCC said it so it must be true”. And I stand by this statement, as I will explain.

You argue that there is no real debate going on and that everyone should agree with the “consensus” in this post, as well as in numerous other places on the site, for example.

https://mind.ofdan.ca/where-is-the-debate-on-climate-change-taking-place/

You say here for example “…why I so readily accept the consensus. The most basic reason is that I accept mainstream scientific opinions. I trust the scientific method, and the conclusions it arrives at.”

First of all, I already said that I don’t buy consensus arguments, and I’m not alone. But, ignoring that, what is this consensus of which you speak? You say all this without ever defining what the consensus is. On this post you try:
https://mind.ofdan.ca/where-is-the-debate-on-climate-change-taking-place/
The questions that were put to determine the 97% figure you quote and link to were, shall we say, somewhat less scientific than one might hope. These were
1. When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Less politely, I would say these are almost completely useless. The first talks of a number of global mean temperatures, talks of temperatures during a time in which no’one of those questioned were alive, and asks if these unspecified but numerous values of the global mean temperature have “generally” changed. I don’t know what that means.
The second asks what people “think”. I also “trust the scientific method”. Agree with you 100%. But this is not that – it is not worthless but vastly short of a validation one would require in normal circumstances. For starters, if what people thought was enough to go on, double-blind experiments in medicine would not exist.
(Incidentally, the 97% refers to a very specific band of researchers which is not a random sample of the population – those publishing on “climate change” (one of the 2 criteria for the 97% requires this) are, I’m almost sure, more likely to agree that “climate change” exists and worth actually publishing on, as publishing a paper that suggests climate change does not exist is a reactionary publication only).
Was the 97% quote just a highlight in the hope no’one would read the link, and really if pushed you’ll change your argument say that the peer-reviewed literature is what is important.
If so, then this cannot be falsified. No’one can write anything that falsifies all the peer-reviewed literature on climate change – you have AT LEAST specify which ones and collate their information and check that despite maybe having the same or similar conclusions that they don’t contradict each other, for example. Or had this kind of thing not crossed your mind?

The IPCC reports are such a document. They do exactly this. And you relied upon them at least seven times JUST TO ME ON THIS THREAD ALONE – as my list in the previous post shows. You also this in a quote to someone else:-

“The question now becomes what is the cause of such warming. Personally I find the IPCC does a good job of this (though I’ll admit I don’t understand all the details), and given that pretty much every single scientific institution says basically the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting the conclusions of the IPCC.”

From this, I concluded that the IPCC represent the consensus of which you so often speak.
Hence, I stand by my comment “IPCC said it so it must be true” as I was treating the IPCC and the “consensus” interchangeably. If this is not to your liking, then please point out the document that does define the consensus, as one must exist – you can’t just assert that almost everyone agrees to something unless you actually say what it is.

Or, if those two questions suitably define the consensus in your view, please point this out.

In your last post, in an attempt to pretend that you don’t just rely on the consensus argument, you simply restate the AGW conjecture as from the Hadley centre. But how is this “the consensus” – show me where the societites you mentioned in the post all agree to this? How do you suppose to speak for the consensus by just pulling this out of thin air?

The one thing of substance (ie. evidence, not restating the problem) that you do you mention attribution studies. Oddly, you don’t reference which ones you mean – what could they be? In this post you point someone to attribution studies.

https://mind.ofdan.ca/deniers-arent-skeptical-they-are-gullible/#comment-642

And say this

“The answer is complex and not easily simplified so that a layperson can understand it. But if you insist on the one line answer it would be attribution studies. In fact the first two IPCC reports were completed before comprehensive attributions studies were completed, and thus while anthropogenic causes were seen as more likely explanation for the warming trend (due to several less concrete lines of evidence) they clearly state that the observed warming could be explained by natural variability.
If you truly wanted to know what the attribution studies say, and why there results have such a high degree of confidence, you would have read the IPCC chapter dealing with attribution. That is where your answer lies.”
So I presume the attribution studies you refer to are the ones in the IPCC report as you say above. Of course, you don’t mean that you have your own list of attribution studies different to those in the IPCC report as then one might legitimately ask (as you’ve asked me several times) why you disagree with the IPCC and ask on what basis you think you can choose a better list of attribution studies than them?
So, why did you not mention that these attribution studies of which you speak are in the IPCC report? Is it because this would directly contradict your statement that the case for AGW has “precious little” to do with the IPCC?

@ Jerry

What exactly is you point about the fact that I mentioned the IPCC in response to your comments? As Robert points out ‘Your whines about others mentioning the IPCC would be much more credible if you didn’t cite sources that spend most of their time attacking the IPCC. If your sources lies about IPCC, the proper refutation is the IPCC report in its own words.‘

That being said the main thrust of this post doesn’t in any way depend on the IPCC, as I explain above. If you want to continue this line of reasoning you need to at least respond to what I say, rather than repeat yourself over and over again.

what is this consensus of which you speak?

This is one of only two points you bring up in your latest comment that has any merit. The rest are just repetition.

I suppose, I should have defined the consensus better, though I thought it was pretty obvious. Apparently not. The consensus does not equal the IPCC or any other single document as you imply (more on this bellow). But i’ll define it as best I can in order to be as clear as possible:

• The earth’s climate is in an overall warming trend.
• The root cause of the increase in global surface temperature is the increase of the level of GHG in the atmosphere.
• The dominant source of the excess greenhouse gases is human activity.
• If the global surface temperature continues to increase, the consequences will be catastrophic
• Said catastrophic consequences can be avoided if we sufficiently reduce our GHG emissions, and stabilize atmospheric concentrations

The survey asks a different question, but is very informative as to what the differing segments of the scientific community and the public at large accept. As for your comment that the 97% isn’t a random sample that really isn’t an issue. First if all it may be a random sample of climatologists that are actively publishing (though there are some indications that they chose to specifically include some known contrarians, thus possibly biasing the result making that 97% a low estimate). The reason I highlight this is specifically because it is these people who are most qualified to comment on climate change. The fact that 97% agree is telling. A random sample of the population (or even of scientists in general) would hardly be an indication of expert opinion on the matter.

In attacking the survey I get the feeling that you are now (after how many comments?) deciding to challenge the notion of the consensus. But you aren’t doing a very good job of it. Obviously the survey alone is not indicative of any consensus, and I never claimed it was. Your suggestion that this is the case is nothing more than a straw man. The argument for consensus is supported by A) the fact pretty much every single relevant scientific society agrees either explicitly or implicitly with the consensus (I’ll get you the issue you raised on this in a bit), and none of them flat out disagree. B) The literature reviews done on the subject, which show an almost unanimous agreement with the basic consensus.

Again you state that you don’t buy consensus arguments, but it doesn’t then follow that it is rational to disagree with a consensus. Direct evidence is available for those who wish to examine the issue in more depth, which you have refused to do. For the rest of us, it is perfectly rational to accept the position of mainstream science.

No’one can write anything that falsifies all the peer-reviewed literature on climate change

Jerry I addressed this fact in my post stating that ‘any legitimate criticism of the science must withstand basic scientific scrutiny, and in that regard must pass the minimum standard of peer-review. But as “one swallow does not a spring make“, one peer-review paper doesn’t signify a significant debate. Their are literally mountains of papers providing supporting evidence (from many different angles) for anthropogenic global warming; one paper cannot stand against all of that. At best a single paper will at best provide the beginnings of debate‘. But that is the challenge facing anyone who wishes to disprove AGW.

Please don’t bring up issues that I have already addressed, especially if you aren’t adding anything I missed.

I was treating the IPCC and the “consensus” interchangeably

If that is true then you need to refine your language. The two are most certainly not the same thing. Surely you can see why that is.

If this is not to your liking, then please point out the document that does define the consensus, as one must exist

Why must one exist? The consensus doesn’t exist because of a single document, it exists because thousands of scientists studying the issue have arrived at similar conclusions. I provided many links in order to make this as clear as possible.

Consensuses exist in many areas of science. I am not aware of an IPCC style document for evolution, yet that doesn’t mean there isn’t a consensus on this issue.

In regards to the issue you raised with the AAPG positions statement (your second valid point), you are correct. It isn’t a supportive statement rather it is noncommittal. This error arose because the list of position statements was created by me for a different purpose and simply copied it into this post. I should have removed the link to the AAPG position statement. The original post has now been corrected.

As for the rest of the scientific organizations I cite (There are more than eight. You ignored the position statement of the 21 National Academies of Science, howver even my list isn’t complete, currently there are 32 Academies of Science that are signatories), the fact that they mention the IPCC as an authoritative source, doesn’t exclude independence. Do you have any idea how such position statements are arrived at? If the IPCC’s main conclusions weren’t supported by the science these scientific organizations wouldn’t a) cite the IPCC as an authoritative and accurate source, b) agree with the IPCC’s conclusions. You seem to imply that they just accept whatever the IPCC concludes when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In your last post, in an attempt to pretend that you don’t just rely on the consensus argument, you simply restate the AGW conjecture as from the Hadley centre. But how is this “the consensus”

Alright Jerry, you need to pay closer attention to what I wrote, I am getting tired of you taking my responses wildly out of context. The Hadley center graphic I posted was specifically another response to your ‘fundamental question’ of the range of changes we can expect from GHG emissions. It has NOTHING to do with proving the consensus exists.

The one thing of substance (ie. evidence, not restating the problem) that you do you mention attribution studies. Oddly, you don’t reference which ones you mean – what could they be?… So I presume the attribution studies you refer to are the ones in the IPCC report

Well the IPCC report is probably the best summary of the scientific literature on the subject, so that is why I mention it (and link to it in my comment policy).

why did you not mention that these attribution studies of which you speak are in the IPCC report? Is it because this would directly contradict your statement that the case for AGW has “precious little” to do with the IPCC?

Please read what I wrote in the comments above, it directly addresses the problem with your argument. But for the sake of my readers I will repeat myself again. Everything the IPCC says on the subject comes from elsewhere; there isn’t really any new information in the IPCC. It is just a summary of the existing publications. I use the IPCC chapter on the issue, because it is the best starting place. Those that want more information can look at the literature cited, and keep up to date with the latest science.

The fact that the IPCC is an authoritative and concise review of the scientific literature on the subject, and thus gets cited frequently, does not in any way mean that the argument of those who cite it can be said to solely depend on the IPCC.

The bottom line is that all the attribution data would still exist and point to our GHG emissions even if the IPCC did not exist. Your ‘revelation’ doesn’t in any way contradict what I said.

@ Jerry

Were you unable to meet my demands?

Glad something productive came from the comment sections:)