Patterico's Pontifications

5/13/2014

John Oliver Cites Phony Scientific Consensus in Favor of Global Warming, or Human Caused Global Warming, or Something

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am

Our friend carlitos provided this John Oliver clip:

If you can’t watch the video, it shows John Oliver claiming . . . well, something. Like many people, he jumps all over the place, equating “climate change” with the idea that “humans are causing climate change” (not the same thing) and glossing over the extent to which scientists believe humans are to blame.

What I want to focus on is his citation of a survey of scientific papers “that took a position on climate change.” Of those, Oliver claims, “97% percent endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming.” Oliver then dramatizes that by imagining a debate with between 97 people who believe in, I don’t know, climate change, or climate change caused by humans, or something, and 3 who reject the premise entirely. Ha ha.

Here’s the problem: the survey is bunk. Here is the abstract. Here is more. And here is criticism:

[M]any sceptics have pointed out that the 97% figure encompasses the arguments of most climate sceptics. In evidence to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee last week, Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who is routinely vilified for his apparent climate scepticism, claimed that his arguments fell within the 97% definition. Here in the UK, climate sceptic blogger and author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, Andrew Montford tweeted in the wake of the survey, ‘isn’t everyone in the 97%? I am’. This prompted Met Office climate scientist, Richard Betts to poll the readers of the Bishop Hill blog, ‘Do you all consider yourselves in the 97%?’. It seems that almost all do.

Just as Donald and Painter’s evidence to the STC reflected either naivety or a strategy, Nuccitelli’s survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends. The survey manifestly fails to capture arguments in the climate debate sufficient to define a consensus, much less to make a distinction between arguments within and without the consensus position. Nuccitelli’s survey seems to canvas scientific opinion, but it begins from entirely subjective categories: a cartoonish polarisation of positions within the climate debate.

Forbes reported:

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

More at the link.

The real result of the survey is that most papers do not take a position or are uncertain (which is the position of most skeptics), as opposed to actively denying either global warming or any human contribution to it (as few skeptics do). Meaning that when you cite only papers that “take a position” you are throwing out most people, who might take a position, but whose position might be that of skepticism. Here is what the study actually says according to its abstract:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Here is the chart from the detailed study:

Screen Shot 2014-05-13 at 7.50.14 AM

OK. Let’s say I take a survey: where do you believe Elvis lives, Memphis or Seattle? If you say: “I take no position, because Elvis is dead” your opinion is thrown out. Of the people who select one, 97% pick Memphis.

Voila! There is an overwhelming consensus that Elvis is alive and he lives in Memphis.

These distortions are entering the marketplace of ideas and being spread by clowns like Oliver. We need to fight the distortions.

112 Responses to “John Oliver Cites Phony Scientific Consensus in Favor of Global Warming, or Human Caused Global Warming, or Something”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. For some — perhaps most — people, belief and conformity trump reality and uncertainty.

    htom (412a17)

  3. Key quote:

    ….IPCC AGW theory, … is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

    This is what seemed to me most likely to be the case in 1988. It couldn’t be more than half – what you had was maybe one trend on top of the other.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  4. The argument will continue until the glaciers begin to advance in about 5 to 10 years. We will be lucky to avoid an ice age. We haven’t had one in 10,000 years and are past due. Maybe AGW has helped avoid one and is now being reduced.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  5. I’d also say that the mockery that Global Warming advocates engage in, as portrayed by John Oliver, assists in creating a “consensus” simply because people generally do not like being mocked. Tie that to the outright hostility AGW advocates take towards skeptics and you effectively have a consensus because the people that doubt the theory largely stay silent on the subject. Especially scientists that might have research funding pulled or face hostility in academia over their views.

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  6. And if say, 50% was caused by the sun, that doesn’t mena that’s the maximum amount of climate variation that could be caused by the sun or other natural, non-man made factors. No, temperatures could go up or down by even more.

    Also, saying anthropomorphic begs the question of whether it is carbon dioxide or something else, including things that are not on the table right now.

    Not to mention also that other interventions besides trying to undo it, or reducing the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere every year could be done.

    Not to mention that if the CO2 theory was right, nothing that anyone is proposing would make much of a difference. So the level of CO2 reaches a certain level by the year 2106 instead of 2100. So what?

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  7. Clown nose ON.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  8. he’s using the climate change hoax as a social wedge issue like how Team R used to use gay marriage til it blew up in their stupid faces

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  9. 97% … 32.6% … Meh. Close enough!

    Icy (a2428b)

  10. R.I.P. to HR Giger, the Swiss artist whose work was the direct inspiration for the creature in the ‘Alien’ films

    Icy (a2428b)

  11. I’m pretty sure John Oliver’s show will be cancelled at the end of the season. His schtick doesn’t seem to stick very well as a host.

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  12. It is a religion.

    JD (2bc676)

  13. “he’s using the climate change hoax as a social wedge issue like how Team R used to use gay marriage til it blew up in their stupid faces”

    Mr. Feets – Wait. Who used teh gay marriagings as a wedge?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. Oh, I don’t know. There are lots and lots of people (some of whom post here) who REALLY want to sit with the popular kids in the lunch room.

    As for consensus, I have long worried about dogma in science. If you don’t believe me, trying reading about the consensus regarding phlogiston. Really.

    But this is extremely relevant:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323936404578579753341239688

    Matt is just a stupid denier, of course. And he doesn’t get to sit with the cool kids.

    Because it is not, and never has been, about fact. It’s been about how you feel about yourself when you agree with what the media wants you to believe.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  15. Matt Ridley has some interesting information on his website. I thought this essay, about the history of consensus in science, was interesting:

    http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/testing-past-consensi.aspx

    He is a fine and fair writer. Worth your time.

    What I find interesting is how…vitriolic and personal…responses to his measured tones have been. It’s like his detractors, oh I don’t know, are just acting out.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  16. goddam it, the science is settled!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. Team Bigot Republican decided to define gay as “anti-christian,” thinking that most christians are like their socially-backwards inbred evangelical social con friends, but most christians aren’t hateful like them ones so it didn’t work.

    What the fascists are doing with the climate change hoax is very similar. They’re defining climate change hoax opposition as “anti-science.” They’re having more success cause of how Mr. Jester has explained – most of their voters are uneducated foodstamp whores who don’t really understand what science is.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. Not helping, Mr. Feet. But then, my opinion is in, ahem, the minority on this topic. By all means, go ahead and give these people the power they want.

    Because being cool and hip is SO much better.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  19. ahem

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  20. Mr. Jester I’m just calling it as I see it.

    In failmerica, a country which has neither the resources nor the competence to tackle an issue of any scale, “climate change” is just a social wedge issue anymore.

    It’s got nothing to do with saving the erf.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  21. “Team Bigot Republican decided to define gay as “anti-christian””

    Mr. Feets – My membering is a little different. Team D decided to pander to teh Gay Nazis one of their identity politics coalition groups and decided this was an issue they could gain some votes with, although it wasn’t in 2008 when Obama had not yet evolved. For Team D it is all about teh votes and not principles and giving Team R a wedgie when it wasn’t possible in 2008 not became doable, because evolution, even though it was Team D which signed DOMA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, etc., etc.

    Evolution can do anything, just like climate change.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. Newton, didn’t get a consensus, when determining gravity, Galileo didn’t ask the other astronomers before he concluded the earth rotates around the sun

    narciso (3fec35)

  23. You blaspheme the book of Mann, and scorpions, one with the head of Dwayne Johnson come after you, or something,

    narciso (3fec35)

  24. you misremember Mr. daley

    time was Team R wanted gay marriage on every ballot they could find, especially in midterm elections

    this is cause a lot of the Team R base is easily and cost effectively riled up against gay people

    but the numbers on this stopped working for them, so you don’t see these kinds of ballotings so much no mores

    but the takeaway is that Team R has done more than its share to legitimize the sort of social wedge issue approach the fascists are taking with the global warming hoax

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  25. moar insight into the 97%, from what should be your daily climate website

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/more-pear-shaped-trouble-for-john-cooks-97-consensus/

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  26. meanwhile, it looks like we won’t have to do anything draconian to cut CO2, since being in a depression will cut economic activity all on its own.

    Recovery Summer 2014!

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/05/13/u-s-economy-contracted-in-first-quarter-latest-figures-show/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  27. “this is cause a lot of the Team R base is easily and cost effectively riled up against gay people”

    Mr. Feets – I’m not mismembering. Team R wanted the issue on ballots so the people could decide what they wanted, instead of the gay mafia forcing their way on the people through the back door via judicial decisions and legislators they intimidated. Cause – Effect. Easy Peasy, lemon squeasy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. yeah Team R is all about letting the people decide

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  29. “yeah Team R is all about letting the people decide”

    Mr. Feets – Yuppers. Liberty. Team D is all about the government knows best. Proposition 8, the will of the people, can not be allowed to stand and we must punish anyone who contributed to the Pro-Proposition 8 cause for Thought Crimes. Wasn’t that recently in the news again?

    Not me who is mismembering.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  30. The first of many lies told by global warming alarmists is that “scientists are unanimous.” Any movement that seeks to muzzle and ignore the existence of its critics has something to hide. Politics and science simply do not mix.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  31. yeah Team R is all about letting the people decide

    Both parties have their control freaks. The difference is that Republicans have some people who aren’t. Perhaps a slim reed, but it is a reed.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  32. Mr. Feets – This is why we can’t have nice things.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  33. the Team R we have is all about sleazy backroom deals like how they want to do on the immigrants I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  34. the IPCC wurlitzer and glockenspiel, headed by bandleader Pachauri, the DATM, which was much more delusional then Reefer Madness, was conjured out of the Book of Mann’s Genesis chapter, notably the Flood, and the Ice Age,

    narciso (3fec35)

  35. I used to believe in global warming, until I got a call from the Koch brothers. I know this because Al Gore said so.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  36. Galileo’s obvervations actually disproved the Copernican theory, according to the knowledge of the time. Galileo did not report some inconvenient facts.

    He measured the apparent diameter of the stars, and that put stars at a distance where there should have been parallax visible, and there was not.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612086.pdf

    …Today we know that the apparent size of a star as viewed through a small but optically fine telescope is largely a function of wave optics and does not reflect the physical size of the star… Galileo believed that a good telescope did not produce illusions –
    that it accurately showed the true sizes of stars.

    So by his lights, he proved himself wrong, but ignored it.

    For example, undated notes of Galileo’s show that he observed
    Sirius and measured its diameter to be 5 and 18/60 arc-seconds. This is consistent with
    the sizes implied in the Dialogue….At distances of 450 A.U. and 300 A.U., Mizar’s two components should have had parallax angles of 7.6 arc-minutes and 11.5 arc-minutes respectively. Over the course of a year, this would mean that the separation of the two would vary by several arc minutes.

    Since they were separated by only 15 arc-seconds and since Galileo could observe with arc-second accuracy, the Earth’s motion should have revealed itself easily after a short time….

    …Despite all this, Galileo apparently chose to stand by the view that heliocentrism was
    correct, with the stars in fact suns at varying distances from Earth….

    ….We can also imagine the history of science had Galileo not been particularly swayed by his lack of success in detecting stellar parallax, but still decided to publish his results anyway as interesting data regarding an important scientific question. Galileo may not have been swayed from his views by his data, but it seems safe to say that others might have been swayed had they been given the chance to see the data.

    The way to make Galileo’s data fit the Copernican theory would be to assume that the sun was much smaller than all the stars, so the stars could be further away than calculated by their apparent diameter. The actual explanation has to do with optics.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  37. Everybody except white, cisheterosexual, Christian, pro-life, tradition marriage supporting, climate denying Americans has a constitutional right to be protected from being offended in this country. Check it out. Barack Obama put it in the living constitution by executive decree.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  38. no one cares for you a smidge when you’re in an orphanage

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  39. Baby Jesus always cares for you Mr. Feets.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  40. i am weak but he is strong

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  41. I don’t think we have a national identity anymore which unites us and supersedes all the politics and groupings and petty divisions. Discuss.

    elissa (203189)

  42. elissa, you are right and its all happyfeet’s fault.

    SPQR (c4618a)

  43. i blame bed bugs

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  44. national identity

    national identities are hard when you have a neo-fascist ascendancy what loses wars on purpose like how failmerica did in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Bush was very naive thinking he could entrust that kind of stewardship to a p.o.s. soroswhore like obama

    The only thing what really unites you americans anymore is your love of mmmmmmmmmmmmmlicious food stamps. But even there not everyone is on board.

    Yet.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  45. “I don’t think we have a national identity anymore which unites us and supersedes all the politics and groupings and petty divisions. Discuss.”

    - elissa

    I think we retain a national identity, but I think it’s been lost in the shuffle. It’s forgotten, not gone – and it’s forgotten because no one ever got elected to Congress by shouting about how he and his opponent shared a mutual respect for due process and separation of powers.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  46. Forbes reported:

    It’s an opinion column, not “reporting.”

    As an aside, that Forbes page blew up my browser 3 times, so I can’t read it beyond what appears on the first screen.

    The real result of the survey is that most papers do not take a position or are uncertain (which is the position of most skeptics), as opposed to actively denying either global warming or any human contribution to it (as few skeptics do). Meaning that when you cite only papers that “take a position” you are throwing out most people, who might take a position, but whose position might be that of skepticism. Here is what the study actually says according to its abstract:

    When trying to quantify consensus on a subject, why would you include papers that don’t take a position on the subject?

    Also, I note that this blog doesn’t note the “reject AGW” numbers are what – 0.7%? So 34% to 0.7% is meaningless? That’s 50 times more.

    How’s this for a headline - 50 times as many scientists accept man-made global warming vs. those who reject it. More accurate?

    Here’s another study on the subject. Not surprisingly, it’s like 96%.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  47. Graphs look like a popularity contest to me. I’m tired of living in an America filled with stupid people who refuse to do even the most basic research on any news item. They just jump on whatever bandwagon is screaming the longest and loudest.

    Any 4 year old with access to a computer would find that the Earths climate hits a temperature and CO2 peak about every 125,000 years give or take. Then it bottoms out alternatingly.

    So the graphs which cover 25 years are useless. But after 15 years of hearing this non-stop stupidity, I’m feeling hopeless about the future of this country.

    dc (685527)

  48. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica

    Notice the weasel wording. It’s not saying that the only warming over the past 50 years comes from anthropogenic (another bit of weasel wording – you don’t have to specify what) causes.

    There’s one thing superimposed on the other, and the anthropogenic percentage is probably somewhere between 30% and 60% of it.

    It has not been established that the net effect is bad.

    Oh – and another thing. They say 50 years. Because over the last 15 years it has stopped, and maybe reversed itself.

    Now the cold winter and spring this year could be due to:

    1) Increased burning of coal in China.

    2) Sunspot changes.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  49. It’s not that we conservatives are “anti-science,” rather, we are “anti-bad science.”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  50. When you can’t make a coherent, consistent, argument some people do become a bit suspicious of the validity of your position.
    Of course, that you can’t reliably reproduce the results that you say you’ve attained is a bit of a give-away.
    Now, back to Cold-Fusion.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  51. Comment by Leviticus (f9a067) — 5/13/2014 @ 12:08 pm

    Well, not since the started allowing Progressives on the ballot.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  52. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/13/2014 @ 11:06 am

    DING….DING….DING!
    Winner, winner, pay the line.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  53. Using “wedge” and “gay” in the same sentence makes me even more confused about what being a “bottom” is all about.

    highpockets (bdd0eb)

  54. I don’t think we have a national identity anymore which unites us and supersedes all the politics and groupings and petty divisions.

    Oh, it’s there alright, but submerged. One scould see it for a moment after 9/11 when Americans of all races and [non-Muslim?] beliefs came together. I do not count non-Americans among Americans, however. Perhaps that’s a fault.

    Kevin M (131754)

  55. As for global warming climate change abnormal weather caused by man’s actions — note today’s report on the Western Antarctic glaciers melting. The AGW folks will have it as proof they were right all along, but any halfway intelligent look at it (this excludes reporters) will show that it’s no proof at all.

    According to the reports, it has been decided that the Western antarctic glaciers are in an irreversible decline and will completely met sometime in the next 1000 years. All we can possibly do is slow or speed the melt.

    Further, they say that some were saying this as far back as the 1970′s, but only now do they have the data to prove it.

    What this says: The decline is slow, taking centuries. It was noticed as a wide-spread event 40 years ago. Clearly it had already been going on for some time, perhaps several centuries. What caused it to start? Coal fires in Europe? Seems unlikely.

    It does coincide well with the end of the Little Ice Age. But that would say that it isn’t man doing it, and would also seem to indicate that the glacier build up might have occurred in the 500 years of the LIA, ending int 1850.

    Kevin M (131754)

  56. OT: Has anyone noted the Russian plan to annex the International Space Station. Not only deny us launch ability (and also Atlas V engines which they supply) but to actually take over the entire station?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html

    Kevin M (131754)

  57. Mention glaciers to an AGW advocate and they picture a permanent structure…not a river of ice.

    Dejectedhead (06f486)

  58. Me thinks that those on the settled science side checked out of the library all the books on “Soviet Science” and used them as primers. Uncle Joe had his own way to gain consensus.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  59. How is there a ‘west’ or ‘east’ in Antarctica?
    Isn’t everything there either ‘north’ or ‘south’?

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  60. I talked to a colleague today who lives in Strongsville, Ohio and he was telling me about the 4″ of rain they had in less than 2 hours last night and how he had to ford numerous rivers that had formed in his area, a couple of ‘me about a third of the way up his door, to where his engine was chugging… A real horror show and when I expressed sympathy, tsk-tsking about global warmening, he said global STFU… heh.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. ‘em

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  62. Our friend carlitos provided this John Oliver clip:

    That’s ironic. In Carlitos’s mind, that video validates his position, while you watched it and thought just the opposite.

    What really irks me the most about the blind faith of the congregation attending the Church of Al Gore — and, yep, it’s a form of religious fervor — is when any of its disciples also live the high life, tooling around town in big cars, occupying fancy houses, partaking in carbon-spewing activity in general, along with all the other luxuries of modern living, which aren’t all that green-Earth friendly and hunky-dory.

    If a person is going to be a fool about AGW (or “climate change”), then at least be a sap whose existence reflects a life of quiet desperation in some shanty in the slums of America, or Brazil or Venezuela, or some godfersaken place like that. IOW, if a person is going to pray at the holy altar of environmentalism, and if he or she also doesn’t have much to lose to begin with, he therefore won’t look particularly dumb and two-faced.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  63. the Book of Mann, Manbearpig’s just a minor epistle, Oliver hails from Perfidious Albion,,
    where the blanc mange Tory Cameron, still continues to remove all doubt,

    narciso (3fec35)

  64. Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/13/2014 @ 2:52 pm

    Rather than wade through an article about other articles about what some scientists said in response to surveys, I prefer to look at the data, and the data shows that all of the various projections of the various pro-AGW groups overestimated the temperatures for the last 15 years or so.
    15 years of data against the AGW proponents. That is roughly the same number of years of data they used to make the theory in the first place, since the data to the mid 70′s suggested to some we were getting colder.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  65. cariltos,

    Go here and read from about page 156 to 167.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  66. Temperatures rise logarithmically as CO2 increases.

    Every doubling of CO2 increases temps by 1.5 degrees.

    To put this another way, the marginal increase of temperatures decreases with the increase in CO2.

    From 50 to 100, the increase is 1.5 degrees.

    Add another 50, and the increase is 1.5*(log(1.5)/log(2), or 0.8774 degrees.

    Add another 50, and the increase is 0.6226.

    Add another 50 (to reach 250) and the increase is 0.4829.

    How can there be a tipping point?

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  67. it’s like the erf has a fever Mr. Ejercito

    I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  68. In this piece we read how John Christy, Climate Scientist, University professor, and a Lead Author of the 3rd IPCC Report talks about scientific fraud in the making of the IPCC reports
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/michael-mann-is-a-liar-and-a-cheat-heres-why.php

    This is a report linked to in the PL article, his testimony before Congress in 2011
    https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/ChristyJR_written_110331_all.pdf

    It would be worthwhile for someone to compile a list of prominent one-time AGW’ers who now think it is wrong, after “looking more closely at the data themselves”, but I don’t have the time to.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  69. 59 askeptic — How is there a ‘west’ or ‘east’ in Antarctica? Isn’t everything there either ‘north’ or ‘south’?

    Assuming you’re serious: East and West Antarctica are divided by the Transantarctica Mountains, which run from the Wenddell Sea (across the Southern Ocean from the southern tip of South America) to the Ross Sea (across the Southern Ocean from Australia), approaching the South Pole in the center of the range. East (Greater) Antarctica is across the Southern Ocean from Africa, West (Lesser) Antarctica is across the Southern Ocean from the Pacific Ocean.

    The directions East and West are like they are on the rest of the planet: facing South, West is to your right, East to your left.

    htom (412a17)

  70. 59. 70. Antarctica is bisected by a line that on one end is the 0 degree meridian and on the other the 180 degree meridian.

    Everything on the right side on the map is eastern Artarctica and everything on the left side, which is smaller, is western Antarctica.

    http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/antarctica_map.htm

    http://www.mapsofworld.com/antarctica/

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  71. 69. What’s hard to undrstand is how anybody, who read anything onthe subject, would not have known about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, or similar things, that’s in virtually everything written about climate before 1990, and also about the cooling between about 1940 and 1970.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  72. Comment by htom (412a17) — 5/13/2014 @ 8:38 pm

    But, how far are you allowed to travel east or west before where you are becomes either west or east?
    The bloody thing is an island somewhat centered on the ultimate south, the South Pole.
    My point is, Yes, you can travel east or west, but there really, logically, cannot be an East Antarctica, or West Antarctica, as the shore is always North unless you traverse the mini-continent going first south, then north, all the while not changing direction.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  73. Comment by Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/13/2014 @ 8:53 pm

    Except, West (geographically) is always located counter-clockwise 90° from North, and East is always clock-wise 90°.
    Now, you’re telling me that if I’m standing on that meridian while facing North, I would find West Antarctica to my right (clockwise).
    But, is that when I’m facing North on the Greenwich Meridian (0°) or the International Date Line (180°)? And, when viewing a Polar Projection of the Antarctic mass, which half of that prime meridian goes up – since traditionally maps are displayed with North at the top, but a PP of Antarctica would have North in every direction?
    It is truly 1984:
    Right is Left, Up is Down, Lies are Truth.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  74. So, what? Spinward and anti-spinward?

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  75. cariltos,

    Go here and read from about page 156 to 167.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 5/13/2014 @ 8:07 pm

    Hey, Mr. P, thanks for the link. I’m going to download on my e-reader and read on my flight today, if I have time. Just one quick thought in the meantime –

    In the other comment thread, other commenters have suggested reading material for me to get straight on this topic. I’ve been asked to read about climate change by authors that included physicists, radio weathermen, zoologists, and political science majors. Now you link me to a book written by an attorney.

    Why not cite the writings of climatologists instead? Any specific reason? Doesn’t that pattern make you think even a little bit?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  76. Just for comparison, Simon Jester pointed out how spectacularly wrong Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday predictions were in The Population Bomb. As a butterfly etymologist, maybe he wasn’t a good person to speak as an authority on resource scarcity and human population. Make sense?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  77. East Antarctica is where they have kosher delis and rude cabdrivers and West Antarctica is where they have barbecue and cowboys.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. :)

    carlitos (e7c734)

  79. Um, carlitos? You keep missing my point—which is fine. I have many papers to grade, and don’t hang out around here much.

    People tend to accept authority…and that includes people like you who quite rudely label people who have read quite a bit of material as deniers. You really need to think about that labeling business.

    Climatology is an interesting field. I recommend you read up on it. Because there is a difference between a climatologist and a computer modeler.

    Again, the Nuclear Winter issue is instructive.

    As to your point, you could always start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

    You will notice some people who you might accept as authorities on that list. Though, again, the folks on the Bandwagon will poke fun at them for being Denialist.

    Can I be present at a meeting of ecologists and policy experts when you suggest that Paul Ehrlich’s word is not ecological gospel? Because the current Presidential Science Advisor worked quite closely with Dr. Ehrlich at the time and agrees with him totally.

    Me, I think Ehrlich is talking politics, not science.

    But I’m no expert by your reasoning.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  80. “Why not cite the writings of climatologists instead?”

    carlitos – The point is not sinking in. Michael Mann’s background is physics and mathematics. Phillip Jones, one of his hockey stick cronies, has a background in engineering. Anybody can call themselves a climatologist.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  81. Why not cite the writings of climatologists instead?

    what is a “climatologist”?

    what are the standards for earning such a title, who promulgates them, and, among other things, what qualifications/skills does such a designation imply that an otherwise scientifically trained person would not possess?

    and, most importantly, please point to the climatoloigist/s who have a proven track record of successful predictions of subsequent events that were made using the qualifications you prize.

    absent any successful forward looking predictions as above, please name those climatologists that have generated a falsifiable theory to explain past planetary climate changes, based on available scientific data, that has been proven accurate by others.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  82. cariltos,

    Go here and read from about page 156 to 167.

    google sez:

    Pages 145 to 408 are not shown in this preview.

    Again, I will try to download; I hope it’s cheap. I have lots of good fiction to read, so not sure I’ll blow more than a few bucks on this.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  83. . Michael Mann’s background is physics and mathematics

    …and he has a PhD in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. Spin much?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  84. Phillip Jones, one of his hockey stick cronies, has a background in engineering

    wikipedia sez:

    Jones obtained a B.A. in Environmental Sciences (1973) from the University of Lancaster, an M.Sc. in Engineering Hydrology (1974) and a Ph.D. in Hydrology (1977) from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.[1][6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne.[1][7]

    Jones has spent his entire career with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

    Come on, daley. You should do better than this. “Background in engineering.” Seriously.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  85. Good allah, his great claim to fame, ‘the hockey stick’ is a fraud,

    narciso (3fec35)

  86. Carlitos, one thing entomologists do is study populations of insects as a measure of the health of a local environment, so it is not unreasonable for an entomologist to make statements about the health of the environment in a region being studied.
    Besides, as cited above, people in the field consider him qualified to make such predictions as he did. People took him seriously, including scholars, even if he may have only been a “bug collector” in your view.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  87. “Come on, daley. You should do better than this. “Background in engineering.” Seriously.”

    carlitos – Nope. His academic training is engineering. When exactly did he cross over from being an engineer to being a climate scientist? How many years did it require? When you scoff at others, how does that qualify him to be a “climatologist.” That is exactly the point. It is a new field. There are no required credentials. It is Team Alarmist who is attempting to set the guild rules.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. carlitos – Any idea why some of these folks can study climate full time and the “deniers” often cannot?

    Can you say government gravy train for alarmism. No support for and ostracism for deniers. Sure you can.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  89. by your criteria, carlitos, Mann studied rocks and tectonic plates it would appear, not climate.
    But its kind of an insignificant point, compared to looking at the data, the predicted results, and the actual results.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  90. MD in Philly – Attacking the messenger is an old dodge to avoid looking at the message. The same bogus attack can be levied at the alarmists on the same basis is all I’m saying.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. What are the specific degrees and credentials which in your opinion grant people the right to be heard and respected with regard to how weather and climate may affect and has affected the conditions and makeup of our planet and its flora and fauna, Carlitos? Certainly it seems that forward computer modeling and analysis is only one small part of it. And “climatology” is actually a relatively new field is it not?

    I found this:

    Climatologist Job Description
    Climatologists interpret how changes in climate affect the earth and its inhabitants by studying climate changes over time. They do so by studying weather patterns and the processes that cause them. This profession is similar to meteorology, however it differs in that climatologists are concerned with long-term weather patterns and environmental effects, whereas meteorologists are concerned with weather patterns in the short term.

    Climatologist Job Duties
    • Make presentations and speak at seminars, conferences, academic settings and other gatherings
    • Apply knowledge of meteorology to solve various problems in areas such as pollution control, agriculture, water management and global warming
    • Conduct basic or applied meteorological research into the processes and determinants of atmospheric phenomena, weather, and climate
    • Study atmospheric composition by collecting samples from planes and ships
    • Use weather balloons to measure wind, temperature and humidity in the upper atmosphere
    • Design and develop new methods of measuring meteorological data
    • Gain understanding of global or regional weather patterns by conducting numerical simulations of climate conditions
    • Develop and use various weather forecasting tools, such as mathematical and computer models

    To become a climatologist that works in research or consulting, you need a graduate level education, either a Master of Science (M.Sc.) or a Doctoral degree (PhD) in climatology, environmental science, earth science, meteorology or a closely related field.

    Having a Bachelor’s of Science degree (B.Sc.) in any of the aforementioned fields, or fields such as statistics and mathematics, typically enables you to work in climatology research assistant or technician positions.

    In a complex system would not a much broader range of scientific knowledge and specialty areas (biologists, oceanographers, geologists, anthropologists, engineers, just to name a few) all also have relevant (perhaps even critical) observations, knowledge and scientific data to put into play along with the few years of data and the math models being served by Mann &Co?

    http://www.academicinvest.com/science-careers/environmental-science-careers/how-to-become-a-climatologist

    elissa (43c1fb)

  92. I’m sorry that my long entry overlaps and repeats some of what has already been said here this morning by others. It took me a while to write it because I got interrupted by the garage door repairman’s arrival.

    elissa (43c1fb)

  93. And “climatology” is actually a relatively new field is it not?

    It follows phrenology and astrology. And like those “sciences”, people will not pay money for it if they do not consider important to them.

    nk (dbc370)

  94. consider *it* important

    nk (dbc370)

  95. “I got interrupted by the garage door repairman’s arrival.”

    elissa – Your regular weekly appointment?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  96. No, daley. That’s the tree guy.

    elissa (43c1fb)

  97. Of course.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  98. Better cover than a 20 something stud muffin personal trainer visiting.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  99. One of my smuggest liberal friends bandies this IRREFUTABLE 97% figure about like a club with nails in it. (“How can any rational person, who might not know much about climate science, disagree with the 97% that do”). All I can do is shake my head at his throwing away of all reason because experts have spoken and after he has no desire to do anything but get that delimiter on his neighbor’s heat pumps.

    SarahW (267b14)

  100. Comment by askeptic (8ecc78) — 5/13/2014 @ 11:21 pm

    …West (geographically) is always located counter-clockwise 90° from North, and East is always clock-wise 90°.

    Now, you’re telling me that if I’m standing on that meridian while facing North, I would find West Antarctica to my right (clockwise).

    But, is that when I’m facing North on the Greenwich Meridian (0°) or the International Date Line (180°)?

    When you’re facing North on the International Date Line (180° , except that the boundary is maybe moved a bit west to the Transantarctic Mountains (which are roughly along maybe the 155th east Meridian) until you reach the South Pole.

    After that, continue North along the Greenwich Meridian (0°)

    Of course, you’d have to turn around to do that (go South to the South Pole, and then North) so going that way, West Antarctica would be to your left and not your right.

    Starting from the Greenwich Meridian and going clockwise, although maybe, this being the southern hemisphere, we should go counter-clockwise, Queen Maud Land is bisected by the Greenwich Meridian. An installation run by South Africa is just to the west of Greenwich Meridian.

    The eastern portion of Antarctica is south of Africa, the Indian Ocean, Australia and New Zealand. The western portion is south of the Pacific, South America, and the Atlantic Oceans.
    Sometimes the ocean south and southeast of Australia is called the Southern Ocean.

    The eastern portion of Antarctica contains year round research stations by India, Russia, Japan, Australia, and maybe France – also inland one operated jointly by France and Italy, and one operated by China.

    The U.S. has one just by the South Pole.

    The western portion (considering the Transantarctic Mountains as the boundary) has installations by the U.S. New Zealand, Argentina, the U.K. and Germany – and South Africa as I already mentioned.

    In the eastern portion are Enderby Land, Mac. Robertson Land, the Amery Ice Shelf, the Shackleton Ice Shelf (Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was heading in that general direction, but was some 1,500 miles away) Wilkes Land, the Magnetic South Pole (actually off the coast, just a bit north of the Antarctic Circle at about 135° East latitude) and Victoria Land.

    Western Antarctica has the Ross Sea – just west of Victoria Land – and the Ross Ice Shelf, and Marie Byrd Land, the Amundsen Sea, Ellsworth Land, the Bellinghausen Sea, Palmer Land, and the Palmer Peninsula, which gets close to – what – 62 degrees south and was claimed by Argentina – the British held South Shetland Islands and South Orkney Islands are north of it

    We interrupt this message to bring you a bulletin:

    The South Orkney Islands are apparently now administered by Argentina and called the Orcades.

    The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are adminstered by the U.K. but claimed by Argentina, as, I think, are the Falkland Islands, which are at about 52° or 53° south.

    and it’s around 500 miles from Tierre del Fuego, which is at 55° south, and Weddell Sea on the other side of the Palmer Peninsula.

    There is also a West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    And, when viewing a Polar Projection of the Antarctic mass, which half of that prime meridian goes up – since traditionally maps are displayed with North at the top, but a PP of Antarctica would have North in every direction?

    Here’s a polar projection:

    http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/antarctica_map.htm

    North is everywhere away from the center, East is clockwise, and West is counterclockwise, but the eastern portion of Antartica is on the right side of the map and the western portion is on the left.

    You could do it the other way, with east on the left, but you’d probably need a tablet computer to do it.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  101. Because if you don’t want to be counted among the 97%, they’ll make you pay:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-climate-mafia-strikes.php

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  102. Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/15/2014 @ 9:06 am on the Mandatory Power And Privilege Training thread:

    I’m sure Harvard will still be above water when her time comes

    They are not predicting some of the Antarctic ice melting until after a couple of centuries.

    And besides which, they’re blaming the hole in the ozone layer, not carbon dioxide, if you read the article carefully.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html

    A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries….

    Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica.

    And while the cause of the stronger winds is somewhat unclear, many researchers consider human-induced global warming to be a significant factor. The winds help to isolate Antarctica and keep it cold at the surface, but as global warming proceeds, that means a sharper temperature difference between the Antarctic and the rest of the globe. That temperature difference provides further energy for the winds, which in turn stir up the ocean waters.

    Some scientists believe the ozone hole over Antarctica — caused not by global warming but by an entirely different environmental problem, the human-caused release of ozone-destroying gases — may also be adding energy to the winds. And natural variability may be contributing as well, though scientists do not believe it is the primary factor.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  103. “And while the cause of the stronger winds is somewhat unclear, many researchers consider human-induced global warming to be a significant factor.”

    Or the warmer water could be coming from the volcano underneath Antarctica which scientists have know about for decades and is totally unrelated to global warming.

    What are the odds?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  104. There are just so many other possibilities to consider besides cow farts and Air Force One, daleyrocks.

    JD–that Brit article kind of helps explain why the “consensus” is so consensusey, huh?

    elissa (b0eb09)

  105. It’s funny how the lefties are now whining that “consensus !!!!!!!1!!” is the standard, whereas their normal operating procedure is to defend the one dissenting athiest crank who objects to a cross at a national cemetary, or the three malcontent college students who object to Condi Rice giving the commencement address.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  106. elissa – Ima stick wif cow farts and mebbe a few pig farts in honor of Mad Max and Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  107. One of my smuggest liberal friends bandies this IRREFUTABLE 97% figure about like a club with nails in it. (“How can any rational person, who might not know much about climate science, disagree with the 97% that do”). All I can do is shake my head at his throwing away of all reason because experts have spoken and after he has no desire to do anything but get that delimiter on his neighbor’s heat pumps.

    Comment by SarahW (267b14) — 5/14/2014 @ 9:14 am

    My oldest step-son does the same thing. If I show him proof, like this post, he says it can’t be trusted because it’s from a conservative source. He thinks I should expand my mind and only read left wing sources because reading any conservative sources shows a “closed” mind. Reminds me of the three monkeys, hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil.

    Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e)

  108. lest we forget … the AGW CO2 “theory” can only be applied after about 1940 … any rise in global temps prior to that had to be “natural” … so anyone who talks about the “last 100+ years” has already started fudging the numbers …

    so in the 74 years since 1940 we have seen 2 extended periods of global cooling or flat temperatures … a total of about 47 years …

    so for well over 60% of the time that AGW could have had an effect the temperature has remained flat of fallen …

    you must have correlation to even try to prove causation and we don’t even have correlation between CO2 and temperatures …

    JeffC (8ad636)

  109. 110. Comment by JeffC (8ad636) — 5/16/2014 @ 10:52 am

    lest we forget … the AGW CO2 “theory” can only be applied after about 1940 … any rise in global temps prior to that had to be “natural”

    Why 1940? Why not 1840?

    No, the first oil well was drilled about 1859, and coal was being burned for about a century before that, and forests also cut down (although it turns out that the forests in North America mostly dated from after Columbus, because the Indians used to burn a lot but many Indians were were killed by smallpox or other diseases in the 1500s and 1600s.)

    Of course the scale was much smaller before 1900.

    Also from about 1940 to 1970 there was a cooling, possibly caused first by World War II (all those fires) and then nuclear bomb tests.

    so anyone who talks about the “last 100+ years” has already started fudging the numbers …

    The real fudge here is to ignore non-changes in the the 21st century.

    so in the 74 years since 1940 we have seen 2 extended periods of global cooling or flat temperatures … a total of about 47 years …

    so for well over 60% of the time that AGW could have had an effect the temperature has remained flat of fallen …

    What this means is carbon dioxide or industrialization cannot possibly be the only thing that affects global temperatures.

    you must have correlation to even try to prove causation and we don’t even have correlation between CO2 and temperatures …

    That’s why they go back 100 years. To get that correlation. Look at this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_warming._Short-term_variations_versus_a_long-term_trend_(NCADAC).png

    If you graphed the first ten years of the 21st century, you’d see no trend, up or down. Note the blue lines, showing shorter term trends.

    The warmest years on record (since 1880) are 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007 and 2012, in that order. The coolest year was 1911. But it has not been a steady line. It should be much closer to a simple function of carbon dioxide concentration if that wa sthe onkly factor.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  110. You need to add the png manually to see the link. It’s not blue.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3157 secs.