This conversation started at http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/
The conversation was lively to be sure but the crux of it is presented here, including my final comment which appears was unpublishable.
8/11/12 Barry and Amoeba finally do reply, but by the number of ad hominem remarks and their preparations for bailing out of the conversation, they are simply unable to answer MY questions at all.
They certainly spend some time making excuses for the shortcomings of the IPCC who I believe with their fabulous resources should not have any shortcomings at all. That is if they are based on reasonable facts!
But you as the reader be the judge. Tell us what you think!
The conversation escalated when I produced links to a number of peer reviewed, published scientific papers, all of which contradict AGW in one way or another.
Immediately the sources, publishers and authors were attacked, but the irony of it all is that these are the very sorts of papers that the also IPCC relies on. Just because they are published and peer reviewed, does not guarantee that they are going to 1. Support your point of view. 2 . Be absolute fact . 3. or be any use whatsoever.
Please read, and unlike the Climate Consensus blog, I do publish all comments except ones containing obscenities or obvious spam.
Feel free to visit my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
A copy of the full conversation is at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/anti-climate-change-extremism-in-utah-climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/
You would do well to refrain from attacking the authors of these papers just because they do not agree with your faith.
The truth is thay are perfectly good peer reviewed scientific papers with at least equal authority to those used by the IPCC. I would suggest more authority and independence.
Perhaps you should look to the content before you do any blanket criticism of the authors, papers and their work.
Most of those sources look perfectly respectable to me.
Did you actually read any of the papers that disagree with any of your pet theories?
Did you actually read any of the papers that agree with what you believe?
Of course the answer to both of the above is no.
Perhaps if the IPCC was honest, they would have a section on the economic costs of meeting their CO2 emission reductions, but I notice that is conspicuous by its absence.
I suggest you abandon your religion. Faith will not save the world incidently, and look to some real facts.
Amoeba said 3 days ago:
Well, I’ll look at one, this will provide a test of your ‘perfectly good peer reviewed scientific papers with at least equal authority to those used by the IPCC’, together with a test of the peer-review process of the journal that published it.
The paper is:
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Patrick J. Michaels had trumpeted this:
“After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record. McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: statistically speaking, the greater the GDP of a nation, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.”
Except, when I went to download it, there is an erratum notice, which I read:
‘The formula for computing cosine of
absolute latitude (COSABLAT) takes the angle in radians, but our data were entered in degrees.
FYI, a radian is 360/2π degrees or ~ 57.3°, so this isn’t a trivial error. It’s like thinking the cost of a house or a boat is £100,000, when in reality it costs £5,729,578!
Now a quick google shows that this paper has numerous problems that make it pretty worthless.
Benestad (2004) points out, Michaels & McKitrick failed to account for “spatial correlation” which renders their results to be statistically insignificant. Doesn’t say much for the peer-review process at CR either!
Do you really expect me to take this paper seriously? Especially when the authors claimed: ‘….the original discussions as worded in our paper need only minor modification, and our overall conclusion, re-stated here, is unaffected….’!
I remain sceptical.
The fact that the peer-review process of Climate Research was already considered deeply suspect, leads me to the conclusion that this paper isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, even when it’s virtual paper.
Michaels’ words: “After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever….”
What sweet irony!
My conclusion is that this is grade-A bull-shit science.
Say what you like, the point is that this is peer reviewed, published science. Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.
So like you, we look at the content and find things we dont agree with, omissions, eroneous conclusions and downright lies.
Some good examples are the papers we label as Himalaya gate, (Chapter 13 of the IPCC Working Group II report AR4)(Source WWF) and Amazon Gate (Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 2007) (source WWF Again! and a Green Activist) , sealevel gate where the IPCC claimed more than half of the Netherlands was currently below sea level.
And the IPCC I understand got a Nobel Prize for the report that contained these bloopers.
In my country we find the same disease. “Scientific” adjustments to our national temperatures which result in severe warming, except when challenged (in parliament) over the rational of the adjustments (the raw data shows no warming) they are unable to produce any papers explaining the methodology of the adjustments. http://www.youtube.com/user/inthehousenz#p/u/2/Roku_QeiE3s
An example, of which I have the expertise to objectively criticise, is Nicholas Stern’s report which frankly would get a resounding fail at freshman level.
In other words do you wonder why rational people are describing things as alarmist?
So looking at the content is good. Why dont you spend a bit of time looking at both sides and making up your own mind on whatever FACTS emerge.
However, in my mind, the most important issues are found in the omissions made by the IPCC and other commentators.
1) Where is the empirical study that proves the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW arguments rest? Instead we are bombarded with often questionable data and correlations of which the weak minded among us consider proof.
2) Where abouts in the IPCC reports are the economic and social costs of attaining the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands and wealth transfers? This is a very important issue so why is it ignored?
So Amoeba my friend. Try looking for facts and omissions and do not believe anyone and best of all use your own head.
Barry Bickmore says:
So, to summarize, this seems to be Roger’s position.
1. If he can find ANY papers that go against the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, then he is justified in saying that the consensus has been disproven. After all, the papers he listed are “Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.”
2. But Roger doesn’t seem to realize what “peer reviewed” literature is. A commentary on global warming in an electrical engineering trade publication, and many of the other publications he listed, isn’t typically going to be “peer reviewed” by anyone with expertise in climate. It’s just an opinion piece by someone with a broad scientific background, but no specific expertise in climate. Furthermore, if a paper on climate science is published in a journal like “The Journal of Scientific Exploration,” it probably isn’t going to be peer reviewed in the normal sense, either, because real climate scientists wouldn’t bother peer reviewing for some weird journal that publishes on everything from climate to dog astrology. Dog. Astrology.
3. And of course, if it’s going to be expensive to deal with climate change, that means we should be more skeptical about whether there’s even a problem to deal with. In other words, Roger thinks that if we really, really don’t want for humans to be significantly affecting climate, they won’t! Or at least, if enough people don’t want to have to deal with a hard problem, it will go away by itself.
4. So since he doesn’t WANT there to be a problem, he goes shopping for mistakes by people who maintain the consensus. The Himalayas one is an actual mistake, of course, which is why the IPCC people checked into and admitted the error. (Since the IPCC is composed of people who have biases and make mistakes, that can happen. Thank goodness some people have the integrity to admit their mistakes, unlike certain others who cite literature they haven’t even read, that turns out to be from a dog astrology journal. Dog. Astrology.) The others are more complicated. I heard a piece on NPR about the sea level business, and it turns out that it depends on how you define sea level. Is it the average? Or is it the high water mark? They said the IPCC statement was correct if you use the high water mark, and I think there’s a good argument to be made for using that instead of the average. Most people wouldn’t be satisfied with having their house above water most of the time. As for “Amazon-gate,” there was a problem with that in the IPCC report, but it was much more minor than how the critics and media painted it. Check out this piece from one of the scientists often quoted at websites like Roger’s about “Amazon-gate”.
5. And finally, after demonstrating that he doesn’t know what peer reviewed literature is, and that he opposes mainstream climate science because he doesn’t want to have to pay for a remedy to climate change, and that he doesn’t keep up with what the opposing side says when there is a “scandal,” Roger goes on to adjure his readers to be more objective! Yes! After all, ” Where is the empirical study that proves the ‘anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming’ hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW arguments rest? Instead we are bombarded with often questionable data and correlations of which the weak minded among us consider proof.” Hmmmm. I dunno–maybe he could look in Ch. 9 of the working group 1 report, titled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.” Here’s the link:
Amazingly, it’s quite a bit more sophisticated than a few weak correlations. Imagine that.
But of course, Roger might come back and say that none of the studies cited in that chapter ABSOLUTELY PROVES humans affect climate. And remember, if we don’t want there to be a problem, we can make it go away by insisting on ABSOLUTE PROOF, which is impossible to obtain in science! Presto!
Hey, wait! What about Roger’s other question? “Where abouts in the IPCC reports are the economic and social costs of attaining the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands and wealth transfers? This is a very important issue so why is it ignored?” Gee, that’s a good question. Maybe you should look in THE ENTIRE WORKING GROUP 3 VOLUME of the IPCC report. Here’s the URL;
Now, Roger, since I’m getting bored with this conversation, I’ll allow you one more post to reply, and then I’m not going to post any more of your comments. I’m sure you will be gratified to be banned from yet another climate blog. If you want, I’ll even design a special award logo for you!
I can answer just one part of your comment so far.
I have read that very carefully, and it supports exactly as I said, the IPCC does not tackle the issue of the economic cost of their CO2 emission reduction demands at all. All that is in the above link which you have not aparrently read is a lot of waffle and scenarios with some references to rediculously small GDP percentages. The issue like I said is not tackled at all reasonably and is as about as informative as the book of Ezekiel.
Try reading it yourself and see if it deals with any expected price rise in energy-specifically oil based products which we all depend on so much.
“Say what you like, the point is that this is peer reviewed, published science. Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.”
Most of the papers you cite aren’t ‘science’. First of all, how many are Web of Science Journals?
I think you’ll find that if it isn’t listed in the Web of Science, the chances are that it isn’t worth a bucket of cold spit, at least in respect of science.
Secondly, if a subject falls outside the normal purview of a journal, what is the likelihood that the journal could summon-up a suitably qualified panel of referees?
The answer is not much.
Regarding the IPCC, they are permitted to use grey literature.
This is AFAICT the definitive account of what went wrong.
You will note that the glaciers are still melting and that fact alone threatens the millions who rely upon Himalayan meltwater.
Your wilful failure to understand is quite tiresome. Even If you haven’t got better things to do, I have.
A copy of the full conversation is at including some of mine which were spammed can be read at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/anti-climate-change-extremism-in-utah-climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/
Tags: AGW, alarmist, Anthropogenic, Anthropogenic Climate Change, bombarded by porkies, Climate Change, contrarian, Denialist, denier, Emissions Trading Scheme, ethics, ETS, Global cooling, Global Warming, Global Warming or is it global cooling, Hasn't Anybody Heard of the Medieval Warm Period?, Medieval Warm Period, Ocean Levels Rising, porkies, Unbeliever, unscientific