But there are. Unless you don’t care, which is fine of course.


There are climate scientists on both sides of the debate. We are only hearing one side through the media.

The number of Climate Scientists that agree that global warming in part is human caused is in the high 90%. There will always be a few outliers. Should we discount known good science because some will believe in any conspiracy theory they hear?

In the scientific community this isn't a debate. They're way beyond that. They're now trying to better quantify how it will progress, not if it is happening.

Even so, it appears to me the core issue is not even being discussed. There are too many people consuming limited resources. Making everyone more resource conscious is laudable, but no matter how efficiently people use those resources more people = more resources used.

It used to be that one could go to someplace like New Guinea and experience virgin forests unsullied by mankind. Now those forests are turning into palm oil plantations. Plastics falling from the skies in the arctic. Floating garbage patches thousands of miles from any land in the middle of the ocean. Coral reefs dying. None of these alone equate to the end of life as we know it. Combined? If you have kids you should be very concerned. The world we're leaving for our grandchildren and great grandchildren will not be near as accommodating as the one we started with.

Yet we can't even get past something so simple as what is causing global warming.

You do realize there is a lot of pressure to conform. You know the ridicule that is experienced if somebody speaks against man-made climate change. In the scientific, and especially the academic community, it can cost you the career you have been working towards. It is easier to go with the flow then to examine contrary evidence.

It is way easier to say 90% of scientists agree, rather than maybe there are some valid points, maybe some seriously valid points to the contrary. And if all you do is follow mainstream media, you will clearly understand the debate is over and deniers are stupid.

The only trouble is, some of the deniers are also PhD’s and experts. They are not stupid people. But they get dumped on as though they are 10th grade drop outs.

"Note that the author of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' is an accountant, not someone that has a degree in global climate science."

Has one considered why the distinction needed to be made? Could it possibly be that the accountant’s analytical approach to the events highlighted practices not exactly conducive to the scientific method and that some would thus prefer people didn't read it? Furthermore, is it a requirement of MSM reporters to have a degree in global climate science before being allowed to comment? Did Michael Mann have the requisite statistical expertise to produce a paper so heavily reliant on 'new statistical techniques'?

Many years ago, my naive understanding of science was one of honourable professional people carrying out research and experimentation in the cause of furthering human knowledge. They would condense their thoughts, reasoning, methodologies and results in 'papers' and offer it to their peers for honest review and debate. Exemplifying this is a saying popularised by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Would one then not consider a claim overturning a swathe of previous peer-reviewed research extraordinary? Steve McIntyre certainly did.

As with Andrew Montford, Steve McIntyre is also not a global climate scientist. What he is, however, is something of a mathematics whizz, whose experience in the mining exploration business was extremely beneficial as it necessitated a comprehensive understanding of statistical analysis. He was thus well qualified to check the data and computer code underpinning Mann's graph.

Having casually discussed climate change with a geologist friend, McIntyre was told that climate conditions in the past were sometimes hotter than those of today. His friend also viewed the alarmism as something akin to creationism. His curiosity piqued he decided to research the issue and quickly came across Mann's graph; noting its slick presentation and promotional qualities, from the expertise he gained in reading mining industry reports. He also knew, from experience in dealing with speculators and some rather unscrupulous people, that such presentations were sometimes merely a veneer and not at all what they first appeared to be.

He contacted Mann requesting a copy of the data, who replied promptly, though in doing so claiming he had forgotten the web address for the ftp site hosting it. McIntyre thought this extraordinary: that a man whose report had thrust him into the limelight and provided him huge notoriety could just simply 'forget' where his paper’s supporting data was stored. He also considered the implication of the IPCC using material which had never been adequately audited: that they were, in essence, demanding political change on an unprecedented scale, on what was, effectively, a mere say so.

An associate of Mann's finally provided a version of the data, and upon review it immediately became apparent there were issues: McIntyre couldn't for example, determine how the shape of the hockey stick was derived. Suspicious of data cherry-picking he input some random 'red noise' data and out popped a hockey stick. He started posting his findings on blog sites, but his comments were different insofar as they were data-driven rather than emotional. This led to his being approached to write a paper on his findings and teaming up with Ross McKitrick to write it. Together they managed to get corrections made to Mann's paper though not the underlying claims.

Nonetheless the consensus team were stung by the criticism, and so together they started the Real Climate blog in an attempt to debunk their detractors. McIntyre was made aware of what was going on and that writing an academic paper was simply not enough to combat online comments where views and opinions could be easily manipulated. Thus he started Climate Audit which, like his previous postings, is a blog site driven by data, not emotion.

During the almost daily sparing between the websites, the issue of divergence appeared. This was the concept of proxy (tree) data not reflecting actual thermometer data; i.e. that from 1961 the former was indicating a temperature drop while the latter was indicating a temperature rise. It was then discovered that some climate scientists had actually removed the modern-day portion of their graphs and spliced in the thermometer data; the rationale being the trees were not capturing the modern higher temperatures. However, if that were the case is it then not reasonable to assume that similar could have happened in the past: that temperatures could have been higher and not been ‘recorded’ as such?

McIntyre was deeply suspicious, particularly when the like of Rosanne D’Arrigo was happy to quip about picking cherries in order to make cherry pie. He requested more data and code from Mann, but by this time Mann had completely cut him off. He thus turned his attention towards Phil Jones and the work of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Although McIntyre was by this time a published author and an IPCC reviewer, the CRU rejected his request citing confidentiality agreements with the countries supplying the data. However, he then discovered that they had already shared the data (nullifying such agreements) so tried again. This time the response was that the confidentiality agreements only allowed them to share the data with academics. He tried a different tack and summited an FOI request to see the confidentiality agreements (and asked his audience at Climate Audit to do likewise), but again the request was rejected. Does this sound like the actions of an agency working in the best interest of the public?

The stonewalling spurred some of McIntyre’s readers to start trawling the web and it quickly became apparent that the CRU had an ftp storage site which they could rummage through and was vulnerable to attack. In November 2009 Climategate erupted. The CRU files showed the massaging of data, pressure being applied to some to change their results, collusion to delete emails and withhold data and shocking admissions of doubt and uncertainty with their methods.

For a brief moment, there was some hope that the demands for transparency would be enacted, but after the various inquiries, which were so skewed that the term whitewash doesn’t do them justice, it was clear the establishment wanted no such thing. And to this day, Michael Mann has refused to release the data and code, underpinning his graph, for review. Meanwhile McIntyre continues to criticise the use of cherry-picked and unsuitable data, such as the upside-down Tiljander sediments used by Mann and the one tree to rule them all by Keith Briffa – though that has subsequently been corrected.

This is a (very) brief overview of the Hockey Stick controversy, Mike’s Nature trick, Hide the decline and Climategate – and not a global climate science degree in sight. It doesn’t need one.

Note:
By profession, Andrew Montford is, indeed an accountant. He runs the Bishop Hill blog, though having taken up a position at the GWPF, his postings on it have become somewhat sparse of late.

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

I have no doubt, but those contaminated by data and the methodologies of Mann, it would be a surprise they didn’t. Have they provided their data and code for independent review?

List of organizations that have made formal statements that Global Warming is real and that humans are at least partially the cause. That URL also contains a link to international organisations that too have made the same formal statements.

As I’ve previously said, you’ll get no argument from me over whether or not the Earth is warming or that there’s an anthropogenic component to today’s atmospheric CO₂ content. The issue, however, is that no one truly knows its extent, its effect on the climate or indeed that of CO₂ as a whole when exposed to dynamic weather systems. What we do know, however, is that the increased CO₂ level has encouraged a planetary re-greening and aided the considerable increases in crop production. Perhaps one should listen to the views of Dr Richard Keen, who just happens to have a PhD in Climate Change.



"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

Oh dear.
* The Oreskes study, though appearing in a peer-review publication, was not peer-reviewed.
* The Doran and Zimmerman study was based on a questionnaire sent to circa 10,500 Earth scientists; the respondents to which being whittled down to the opinion of just 76 out of 78. Methinks the opinion of 90 leading Italian scientists trumps that (no pun intended).
* The Anderegg was based on a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements. It is thus assumed one offering no view agrees with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans which, of course, is no proof at all.
* The Cook report is such a joke I believe one should read the full critique by José L. Duarte to get the whole picture. Here, however, is a taster…

"The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Let's walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al. 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. This study was multiply fraudulent and multiply invalid already – e.g. their false claim that the raters were blind to the identities of the authors of the papers they were rating, absolutely crucial for a subjective rating study."

The fundamental problem with all these studies is that they are entirely subjective and based on the preconceived opinion of members from just one side of the argument. In essence, therefore, they are not worth the paper they’re written on.

The reality should be 100% because no climate scientist worth his salt would ever say there isn't an anthropogenic component to the present warming. The disagreement arises in its size and that of the overall effect of CO₂ when compared to natural variability.

No one is claiming there aren't environmental issues to be resolved, but replacing one with another is hardly progress.

Some say the earth is flat. Are there 2 sides to this as well?

Yes, and we should listen to them. ;)

So you last two commenters read a very in-depth, thoughtful response… Do your quips mean that there is no interest in even examining contrary evidence?

Heads I win: tails you lose?

There is no contrary evidence to this topic, just like there is no contrary evidence that we live on a globe. Get over it. This ship has sailed. The "contrary evidence" has been argued to death and ripped apart at the seams to the point that there is NO MORE POINT in examining it.

1) if everyone agrees it is not 100% geogenic then does it matter really matter if it is 5% man made or 95% man made (don't get me wrong if it is 5% it means we have a harder job to do but isn't it still better to minimise that 5% or what ever % you feel is right?)

2) also the issue of anthropogenic and geogenic is that the two are not necessarily distinguishable for example the permafrost has a lot of global warming gases trapped in it but because it is frozen they are trapped. Now because of global warming more of more of the permafrost is not permafrost any more and the thaw means those gases are released to exacerbate the problem. Would it be fair to categorize it as natural if it was not an issue for the centuries it remained frozen?

3) it is not just CO₂ it takes center stage because in essence it is the easiest to work with and it affects health and literally kills people.

So in a typical household we make financial decisions like, can I afford this new car with my wife’s job maybe phased out next year, and so on.

In climate issues, we think that CO2 may change things but how much has not been determined. Maybe it’s only 5% effect?

Nevertheless, we want to get rid of coal, get rid of nuclear, don’t let people fly, the list goes on and on, with a cost that is so astronomical that all you can say is, well the government has to pay for it. Except that the government is you and me.

Is that logical, or does it require an emotional, or partisan, or just illogical stamp of approval?

These are questions I keep asking, not trying to fan any flames, but all these “reasons” eventually meet reality with a thud.

The planet is warming, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric CO₂ content has increased, ergo CO₂ must be the cause. The problem with such a simplistic argument, however, is that it completely ignores historical understanding (global temperatures have been warmer and CO₂ levels higher) and natural variability; i.e. with atmospheric CO₂ content being too low to have any effect, what caused the early 20th century warming and with it increasing what caused the mid 20th century cooling?

That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas is undeniable, but without it and/or the greenhouse effect, life on Earth would not exist. How one can then claim it is killing people (particularly as it's aiding in planetary re-greening and record crop production) is beyond me. CH₄ is also a greenhouse gas, and one, apparently, more potent than CO₂. However, is one aware that its effect in atmosphere is all but negated because the IR wavelengths at which it's active is already swamped by water vapour? Indeed, its effect is so minuscule it's rarely considered in calculations. And CO₂ has a similar problem insofar as its 'effectiveness' when exposed to planetary weather system dynamics is unknown, hence the variety of calculations for climate sensitivity.

The IPCC, of course, would like us to believe the future to be gloomy, but their imperative is one of political change and as we've seen, they are willing to use any evidence, however sketchy, to support this aim. (CO₂ takes centre stage, not because it's the easiest component of the climate system to work with, but the only one to work with.) The more pragmatic of us take the view that what warming there has been is predominately natural and beneficial and now supported by an increasing accumulation of knowledge. Thus, one has to ask oneself, in the vast, chaotic complexity of the Earth's climate system, can a minor atmospheric trace gas really be a control knob? Try as I may, I just cannot see it.

You are conflating two issues. I'd be happy to discuss, or argue, different ways of mitigating the problem. I'm just not going to waste my time arguing whether the problem exists.

We may have to rely on nuclear power in the near term. If so, it might be prudent to find one design with a proven track record ("Get France on line one").

Get rid of coal? Yes, right now! Use natural gas? Yes, but not if you get it by fracking. Stop flying? No! Just build better planes.

The astronomical cost of all this? You do realize that the renewable energy field is nothing but win, win, win. This sector has the most new, well-paying jobs (and those folks pay income tax).

Instead the Amazon rain forest is being burned down so more methane-farting cows can be raised for Burger King and McDonalds, and so more soy beans can be grown to sell to China ever since "Hurricane Alabama's" trade war.

We actually were on a good track - starting with R. Nixon - with cleaning the environment and making things more energy efficient. Then along comes "Speak Cofeve and Carry a Big Sharpie" to reverse everything from energy savings light bulbs to fuel standard for cars.

I'm surprised he hasn't gotten rid of the standards for water usage in toilets yet. It's hard to imagine all of those buckets of KFC going down with a single 1.6 Gallon flush.

You haven’t refuted djy, who speaks science rather than politics.

It’s not a waste of time unless...