The UN climate change numbers hoax

[wolram]

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC “assessment reports” before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups.Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future “projections”. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”.

The reports from working groups II and III are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

More-----------------------------------------------------,

 

[Andre]

Thanks, Wolram

If you would like to see what John McLean had to wade through you can go here http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html and hit the accept button. Also of course if you would like to check his numbers.

 

[wolram]

Do you want my award Andre? -)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since when is an opinions page considered a valid reference. This not only violates our ruels for references, it also violates the conspiracy theory ban.

 

[Evo]

This is not a conspiracy theory, it happens to be true.

Please link to the IPCC page here that was provided. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html if you do not understand the article.

Seriously you should read this. When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... The were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

Issue citing scientific issues and concerns:

This is a concise but highly informative overview of the meteorological and
oceanographic aspects of climate change. The major shortcoming is that it almost
completely ignores biospheric aspects of climate change - there is only one brief mention
(page 1-23 lines 37-38, as if this were a new and esoteric aspect of the issue. However,
there is a rich history of research in this field, much of it from the International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme but also from elsewhere. There is a section on the
cryosphere, but the biosphere is at least as important as the cryosphere, both as a source offeedbacks and drivers of climate change and also as an indicator of climate change.
While biogeochemical processes obviously have their own chapter for the first time, I
strongly feel that in Chapter 1 there should also be a section on a historical overview of
biospheric topics of equal prominance to the cryosphere section.
[Richard Betts]

IPCC response:

Noted. Space restrictions were severe and prevent such detailed treatments. We chose to present some areas in more depth rather than to cover more areas more shallowly.

Oh, as in Data cherry picking

Positive blurb with no science:

Good and self-contained overview of history of climate change science. Congratulations!
[Manola Brunet]

IPCC response:

Noted. Thanks

And again scientific concerns about the validity of data and accuracy of assumptions

I am glad that the historical overview clearly recognises the past en also very present problems with unphysical corrections necessary to obtain a realistic climate state in state of the art models i.e. section 1.5.9 page 22 line 42 to page 23 line 38 on flux adjustments and tuning of radiative parameters. The inclusion of a whole section (1.5.8 page 21 line 8 and further) on cloud modelling and climate sensitivity and the large uncertainties in that area is also a very much welcomed element.

Some worry remains however concerning the discrepant statements that climate is a large system that comprises of many nonlinear dynamical subsystems that are coupled by many feedbacks which makes it hard to test hypothesis in an “experiment like” fashion, while on the other hand it seems to implicitly be assumed that models provide correct results and prognoses of climate are indeed possible despite serious uncertainties about magnitude and sometimes sign of mechanisms.[Florens De Wit]

IPCC reject reason, with no science to back it up:

Noted. Compliments appreciated, but
we reject the assertion that “it seems to implicitly be assumed that models provide correct results.”

baseless compliment with no science:

I found this chapter to be a nice summary of the history and the present day understanding of global warming issues, and thus, I have just a few minor suggestions.
[Michael Alexander Alexander]

IPCC response:

Noted. Thanks

This goes on and on.

This is unconscionable! This places the whole IPCC assessment in doubt.

 

[Andre]

...The major shortcoming is that it almost
completely ignores biospheric aspects of climate change ...

It may have been noted that I have challenged that here in several threads in which I attempted do demonstrate that the ice core story about paleo temperatures is simply incompatable with the other geologic records.

 

[billiards]

I don't see the point in this debate. Climate research tends to be focused on the very narrow (I have friends studying little things in polar science like the modelling of sea ice formation, or the sub-ice topography of Antarctica) - the IPCC report is a guide for policy makers, it trys to bring together some of this knowledge in a scientifically consistent way, it isn't supposed to be a great unification of climate science. As a guide to policy makers it needs to have some kind recommendation, otherwise it could be freely interpreted and would be of no use to anybody.

Now, personally I feel that it is responsible for a guide to policy makers to emphasize the risks. Sure, there is uncertainty, but is that not the nature of risk?

I would rather have the risks clearly documented for policy makers and public alike to see so as to make them aware of the potentially very real dangers of global warming, than to have either nothing at all or some highly convoluted jumble of opposing theories in some well-intended yet utterly impotent attempt to be scientific.

Now, if the "skeptics" could prove that there were no risk then that would be all right and I would welcome this debate and I would damn the IPCC report. But the simple fact is they can't, they cannot reassure me, they seem determined to ridicule the IPCC report with any angle they can muster, but they cannot suppress the nagging doubt that perhaps we really are causing serious long term damage to the environment. I am not a gambler, and I am not prepared to gamble the planet for "science" - the IPCC report may not be perfect science/reporting all the way through, it might even be sensationalist, but does that make its warning wrong? I think not, afterall, independent of what the IPCC report says, many lines of evidence point to similar conclusions...

 

[Evo]

I don't see the point in this debate.

When you supress scientific evidence to skew results to further your agenda, that's wrong, no matter which way you look at it. When you make "predictions" based on faulty models that's bad science.

Have you even bothered to look into what any of these scientists were saying that the IPCC chose to omit because it would ruin the alarmism they wished to push? Did you even read all of the disclosure that the IPCC was made to publish due to the Freedom of Information Act?

 

[billiards]

When you supress scientific evidence to skew results to further your agenda, that's wrong, no matter which way you look at it. When you make "predictions" based on faulty models that's bad science.

Have you even bothered to look into what any of these scientists were saying that the IPCC chose to omit because it would ruin the alarmism they wished to push? Did you even read all of the disclosure that the IPCC was made to publish due to the Freedom of Information Act?

Yeah, I read it in 2007, so what? The bit that was suppressed was just from some kind of section on the background to the subject -- what exactly was suppressed that would have changed the entire scientific outlook of the report? What piece of key evidence was left out that would have "un-skewed" the report? And how exactly would the inclusion of that evidence have turned things around? (This is important, please, enlighten us!)

As for models, this comes back to the narrow focus thing again, there are lots of models and they all tell us different things about very specific areas of study, some of them are better than others but they are all just models and I think all good scientists are perfectly aware of their limitations. People don't just blindly follow them, the conclusions/recommendations of the IPCC report incorporate a careful analysis of a plethora of numerical models, and significantly, they also look at other things too, based on empirical evidence believe it or not.

As for this "alarmism", personally I have tried to argue that it is not necessarily a bad thing for alarm bells to be ringing - would you rather wait for the acid test or take precautions? Weigh up the costs Vs the benefits of each, considering the science will never be sure unless it's too late I know what I would rather choose.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, I read it in 2007, so what?

You did NOT read it in 2007, the have just been forced to release it. I can't believe that you are commenting on something you haven't read.

I don't believe that you know what this thread is about. This thread is about what the IPCC did with the feedback they were given and how they misrepresented a supposed "consensus".

Read http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

and then ask yourself the questions posed "is it legitimate for the IPCC editors to reject suggestions from leading climate scientists when these scientists suggest that the level of confidence should be reduced in the final document’s phrasing.

Ask yourself if it is possible that the IPCC ‘editors’ might be biased and might be selectively rejecting suggestions for improvements in wording that they receive from the qualified climate scientists — scientists who were ASKED to review certain chapters in the IPCC document.

Ask yourself if it is possible that ‘vested interests’ are possibly controlling a hidden agenda and possibly skewing the final document’s wording in a predetermined direction.

Please read the section that says “only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report”. Also please read the section that BEGINS “An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely ‘Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years’.”

Then ask yourself whether it is ultimately FAIR to describe the final IPCC document as something that really represents a ‘consensus’ of 2500 leading climate scientists “of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [who] agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

 

[billiards]

You did NOT read it in 2007, the have just been forced to release it. I can't believe that you are commenting on something you haven't read.

I hate to break it to you but I did see this in 2007, in fact, it was Andre who alerted my attention to it here: http://earth.myfastforum.org/about16.html

Note the date on the post - 24 July 2007.

So, perhaps I do actually know what I'm talking about. So the ball's back in your court and I still haven't had a decent response to this:

What exactly was suppressed that would have changed the entire scientific outlook of the report? What piece of key evidence was left out that would have "un-skewed" the report? And how exactly would the inclusion of that evidence have turned things around?

 

[Evo]

I hate to break it to you but I did see this in 2007, in fact, it was Andre who alerted my attention to it here: http://earth.myfastforum.org/about16.html

Note the date on the post - 24 July 2007.

My apologies, you are correct it was released in 2007. But that doesn't change the fact that the IPCC report was misrepresented.

So, perhaps I do actually know what I'm talking about. So the ball's back in your court and I still haven't had a decent response to this:

What exactly was suppressed that would have changed the entire scientific outlook of the report? What piece of key evidence was left out that would have "un-skewed" the report? And how exactly would the inclusion of that evidence have turned things around?

The fact that they misrepresented that there was an overwhelming consensus by 2,500 scientists. I was dating one of the climate scientists that reports to congress and he said back then the whole thing was a farce. The fact that they did not include the "problems" with the data and therefor the published report does not reflect accurate facts is a biggy. What was suppressed is in the document, if you've really read it, then you already know what the concerns were.

What a lot of the scientists are referring to is the inacurate historical climate data.

How familiar are you with Earth's historical climate fluctuation?

I suggest that you read this to get an idea of the abrupt natural climate swings.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What exactly was suppressed that would have changed the entire scientific outlook of the report? What piece of key evidence was left out that would have "un-skewed" the report? And how exactly would the inclusion of that evidence have turned things around?

Perhaps as Evo pointed out...

Then ask yourself whether it is ultimately FAIR to describe the final IPCC document as something that really represents a ‘consensus’ of 2500 leading climate scientists “of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [who] agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

It has something to do with just how much of a consensus there really is in regards to the findings of the report.


As far as alarmism goes I have been hearing the bells and they are asking for more money and taxes and calling for lawsuits against large corporations (to get more money).
Can you show me where those alarm bells have gone to work on making an improvement in our lot? Can you show me any significant increase in spending on alternative energy sources with in the last couple years?
I'm sincerely interested and not just trying to make a point. All I hear about are taxes, carbon credits, penalties, and lawsuits.

 

[Andre]

Too bad you all choose to discus these matters while I need to rearrange some piles of moving boxes before finding a computer.

Back later

 

[billiards]

My apologies, you are correct it was released in 2007. But that doesn't change the fact that the IPCC report was misrepresented.

The fact that they misrepresented that there was an overwhelming consensus by 2,500 scientists. I was dating one of the climate scientists that reports to congress and he said back then the whole thing was a farce. The fact that they did not include the "problems" with the data and therefor the published report does not reflect accurate facts is a biggy. What was suppressed is in the document, if you've really read it, then you already know what the concerns were.

What a lot of the scientists are referring to is the inacurate historical climate data.

How familiar are you with Earth's historical climate fluctuation?

I suggest that you read this to get an idea of the abrupt natural climate swings.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

What is this? First off I'm making comments on things I haven't even read, now I need to do some palaeoclimatology homework... Perhaps you're the one that needs to go back to school? [After all, the "historical" climate data you refer to are not really historical - that would imply that they were observed and recorded by our human ancestors - they are more correctly "geological". ] I am pretty damn confident I know a helluvalot more than most on this subject (possibly even you ), and I have the academic credentials to back it up (1st class MSci degree: geophysics, from five star Earth Sciences department in a top ten univeristy (in the world) + Excellence in Geophysics Award + >85% in physical oceanography module >85% in atmospheric physics + attended many seminars and read loads of papers around the issues (including palaeoclimatology!) - I don't normally resort to whipping out my CV but in this case I hope it will earn me at least an ounce of respect).

Anyway, enough of that; I take your point about the misrepresentation, the over egging of a consensus, and how a few scientists might be a bit peeved about it. What I would say is that this is basic presentation skills taken too far, this is talking the language of politicians: the people this report is aimed at. I'm sure we're all guilty of embellishing the facts and neglecting to mention things to get our point across, people do it at conferences all the time, this is why having a strong personality often helps in the sciences (and in most (all?) other disciplines too).

The way I see it we have maybe three or four scenarios:

1) Scientists are in consensus that global warming is real but they disagree about some of the finer points.

2) Scientists disagree about global warming but feel that (on the whole) it is at least a risk and as such they should communicate a clear and concise message about this to policy makers.

3) Scientists have absolutely no idea about global warming, they made it up in the 70s to try and boost their research grants, it worked, they liked it, it snowballed, and now it is perhaps the greatest conspiracy of the modern era.


It seems to me that scenario 3 is the most extreme here, with somewhere between scenario 1 & 2 being realistic. We have seen that the IPCC have been somewhat misrepresentative, yet the report is still peer reviewed, is it not? While I appreciate that the peer review process is not a flawless process, and that the misrepresentation is unfortunate and has offended some people, it still seems to me that attacking this is not really an attack on the content of the report, is it? My concern is that there are people out there that will attack what is a kind of sideline issue to try to advocate their personal feelings that are matched to scenario 3. Misrepresentation of concencus or not, global warming is still a threat, policy makers need to know about it, they need a clear message that they can understand.

 

[Andre]

Billiards, there is a scenario 2.5: http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html .

We still need to discuss a lot of misconceptions in geologic climate history.

 

[seycyrus]

The whole "consensus" term is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

The fact that the editors of the IPCC chose what they wanted to include in their report and disregarded what they did not like is a travesty of science.

These people KNEW that their report would be shaping policy, and made the conscious choice to continue with their agenda.

 

[Evo]

What is this? First off I'm making comments on things I haven't even read, now I need to do some palaeoclimatology homework... Perhaps you're the one that needs to go back to school? [After all, the "historical" climate data you refer to are not really historical - that would imply that they were observed and recorded by our human ancestors - they are more correctly "geological".

Are you joking or just uninformed?

Just about every major University has a course on Climate History and Geologic History.

http://www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/paleoguide/history.html

Earth's Climate History

Tour the climates of the past, Earth's greenhouse-icehouse modes, orbitally forced climates and climate extremes.

These resources refer to the Earth's past climate in terms of the geological time scale. Currently, there are only a few web presentations available on the Internet.

Geological Time Scale - International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS)

Climates by Period - Paleomap Project, Chris Scotese, University of Texas, Arlington

Climates Beyond - Climates TimeLine Tool, NOAA

Paleographic Atlas Project - University of Chicago

Snowball Earth - Explanation of the Snowball Earth, Scientific American

Cosmic Evolution - History of Big Bang to the Present

http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Geology/courses.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibit/histgeoscale.html

I think you can figure it out without me continuing to post links.

I am pretty damn confident I know a helluvalot more than most on this subject (possibly even you ), and I have the academic credentials to back it up (1st class MSci degree: geophysics, from five star Earth Sciences department in a top ten univeristy (in the world) + Excellence in Geophysics Award + >85% in physical oceanography module >85% in atmospheric physics + attended many seminars and read loads of papers around the issues (including palaeoclimatology!) - I don't normally resort to whipping out my CV but in this case I hope it will earn me at least an ounce of respect).

Considering that you didn't even know about climate or geological history as accepted terms, I guess not. An undergraduate degree (which is what MSci is in the UK) doesn't actually make you an expert.

How do you feel about the term "Natural History" I guess Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History will have to change it's name. Hmmm, since I know someone quite well that holds two chairs at the Smithsonian, I will let him know that you disapprove. He only has an undergraduate degree from Yale and his Masters and PhD from Harvard.

But, back to the thread topic.

 

[billiards]

Evo, I would've liked to have an intelligent debate with you but clearly it is not possible. It's a shame, I had always regarded you as an intelligent woman, but if you can't show me any respect then that's it there's nothing left to say.

It's funny though, I can't help detecting a hint of irony about it really: I try to challenge that attacking the IPCC for it's overstated consensus was somewhat a sideline issue, i.e. missing the bigger picture, and you retaliate by attacking me with (guess what!) a disconnected sideline issue.

Not that I really feel too concerned to continue this but where I come from we distinguish between the historical record and the geological record; "climate history" is a term widely used to describe the subject as a whole, sarcasm aside, it actually doesn't mean the same thing as "historical climate data".

 

[Evo]

It's funny though, I can't help detecting a hint of irony about it really: I try to challenge that attacking the IPCC for it's overstated consensus was somewhat a sideline issue, i.e. missing the bigger picture, and you retaliate by attacking me with (guess what!) a disconnected sideline issue.

No, the topic is about the IPCC's lack of credibility. The fact that the report has been compromised "is" the bigger picture. You apparently are all for policy based on misinformation. It's not a "sideline" issue.

Is your ability to form a rational defense of what the IPCC did so frail that you want to nitpick over how I chose to phrase something?

 

[wolram]

From Wiki.

Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships.

 

[Andre]

Unfortunately consensus and science are not compatible, since reality is neither listening nor adapting to our wishes.

And Billiards, please don't judge too fast. The whole thing will unfold soon enough. In a few more years it will be clear who was right and who was wrong, or neither of course.

From a major moving chaos,

André

 

[Andre]

Anyway, I think that the opinion of David Evans is very close to the actual mechanisms that let the global warming concern to be growing out of proportion.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, ...

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"...cont'd

 

[GENIERE]

Although the American Physical Society has not changed its stance re: climate change, this article as well as a conformist’s article appeared in the Physics and Society’s newsletter.


Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm


Steve


...

 

[billiards]

So, it looks as though we're really struggling to find any absolute truth here, and Andre, do you really believe 2 years will give us the truth?

W're effectively not sure, which is an uncomfortablr position to say the least, so where do you sit as a "default position"?

Well, I've made it pretty clear, I hope, that I am all for the "alarmist" camp, whic h I would rather not use such e motive language to describe as the "sensible" camp (although I appreciate that perspective will dictate ewhat is "emotive" in this case). I.e. the burden of proof belongs to the poluters as opposed to the people that would rather see a dutr down in global emissions.

Okay, so I avccet that elsewhere Dyson has been used to make the extremely excellent point about skeptices not being in any way anti-environmentalist, but I still feel nervous that such a blase view is ,while ideallisutically superior (perhaps), is potentially extremely dangerous... "baqfd policy" based on "misguidefd science" is one thing, but but I have to be at least a bit aware if the basic first principles science (Navcier-Stokes and thermo-dynamics + chemistry) tell us that we're in for a bit of a hot time ------ especially given that no matter how much we loook back in time, we don't have a fair comparison to th present day situation (i.e. no industrial civlizations)!

Anyway, I wrote such a load of bolloni there that i have to submit it, even though i have just returned from my hioliday somewhar worse for wear... apologies for the temporaty dyslexia.

 

[Evo]

Billiards, can I ask you why you think being an alarmist and going off without valid facts is better than finding out what is really happening?

Aren't you afraid that without the facts that decisions will be made that could be catastrophic? If you know as much as you say you do, then you realize that the slightest tilt could throw us into another ice age. This would be something to truly fear as it would be far more devastating than warming, which we can adjust to.

 

[Andre]

Jack, in a big hurry,

As you are well aware science progresses by eliminating that what is falsified, what is sure to be wrong.

We would only need about two years with reduced solar activity, resulting in stubborn notglobalwarming, for John Doe to wonder what's keeping the climate warming catastrophe.

Then we can demonstrate that both the radiative theory of global warming is wrong which has already been demonstrated in practice years ago. There is no uncertainty about the falsification of the IPCC projected climate sensitive for doubling CO2 of 1.5-5.8 degrees C. But it takes harsh reality to face it and break the alarmist groupthink.

A lot more later.

 

[billiards]

Billiards, can I ask you why you think being an alarmist and going off without valid facts is better than finding out what is really happening?

Aren't you afraid that without the facts that decisions will be made that could be catastrophic? If you know as much as you say you do, then you realize that the slightest tilt could throw us into another ice age. This would be something to truly fear as it would be far more devastating than warming, which we can adjust to.

Being an alarmist is not better than finding out the truth, that was never my intended point. If we could find the truth then that would be great, but simply put, we can't.
[Incidentally, "the truth" here I am taking to be somewhat loosely defined as the real response of climate and ecosystems to human pollution (specifically greenhouse gases).] At least, we can't find the truth unless we do the experiment - pollute the Earth (with greenhouse gases) - by which time it would be too late to dictate a pollution policy. Furthermore, it's not as though we are making a seemingly random decision to cut pollution: "let's cut our emission of greenhouse gases just in case they turn out to be harmful - even though we have absolutely no scientific basis for this whatsoever!". Basic science predicts that greenhouse gases will cause warming effects and we've seen some of the consequences: rising sea levels, shrinking ice caps, warmer summers, reduction in winter sea ice formation etc.. Furthermore still, we have seen that rising CO2 levels have increased the acidity of the oceans which has affected the ability of certain marine organisms to form their shells. So the decision to cut global emmissions seems at least reasonable from the point of view preventing warming.

Which leads me to your second point about the potential harmful effects of cutting emissions - could cutting emmissions flip us into another ice age? I would suspect this would be unlikely unless it could be shown that the current level of greenhouse emissions was somehow just preventing this from happening - for which I have seen no researched evidence. The assertion that "this would be something to truly fear as it would be far more devastating than warming" is not necessarily true. It's easy to destroy the ice sheets but no so easy to build them back up again. If we lose ice sheets we lose some of the important ocean interactions such as deep water formation, a layer of warm water will settle at the top of the ocean which will in turn warm the air above it. The effects of warming would not be so easily reversible. If it came to it and got really cold, we could probably nuke the ice sheets if we were confident it would help prevent the recession to a glacial maximum (although I would hope scientist could think of cleverer ways to deal with it!) - the point being, if we cooled it would probably be less disastrous because it would be easier to reverse.

 

[Andre]

You talk about 'pollution' and climate. There is also CO2 and environment. Those are easily mixed up. The real questions should be: what is pollution doing to the environment; quite a lot, I guess. Also, what is CO2 doing to climate? Nothing measurable yet. This should lead to the logical conclusion that we need to fight pollution but we should not care too much about CO2 (which is fertilisation, not pollution, it's just as necesary in nature as water)

Then there is also the energy availablity, sustainability and security problem, which requires separate evaluation. What is required to reach the ideal end state? That's another separate issue, to be addressed separately. And for sure, there is no simple answer like cutting back emissions and all is well. Definitely not. Cutting back emissions is not solving anything, it's only likely to cripple economies.

Then there is that ice age thinghy. Read my threads, there is something seriously wrong with our perception of the 'ice age', symbolized by the occurance of a wealthy productive mega fauna steppe in the far north of Siberia just preceding the last glacial maximum when America and North West Europe were supposed to be covered by large ice sheets. Nothing in the current paleo climatology is beginning to explain that discrepancy, which basically means that something in paleo climatology is seriously flawed. Hence our conclusions must be wrong. That's where my research comes in.

 

[Evo]

Billiards, you seem unaware of all of the crazy ideas to pump the upper atmosphere full of sulphur particles to block sunlight or arrays of mirrors mounted on satellites to shield the earth. The results of the alarmism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7365793.stm

Thank goodness sanity is slowly creeping back.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is not a conspiracy theory, it happens to be true.

Please link to the IPCC page here that was provided. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html if you do not understand the article.

Seriously you should read this. When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... The were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

So you are now officially promoting conspiracy theories. Got it.

 

[Evo]

So you are now officially promoting conspiracy theories. Got it.

That page IS the IPCC website. What conspiracy theory? Are you accusing the IPCC of a conspiracy?

On a serious note, look at how they ommited any comment that questioned the data and gave supporting proof and only approved "Oh that's great" comments.

 

[gdp]

Thanks, Wolram

If you would like to see what John McLean had to wade through you can go here http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html and hit the accept button. Also of course if you would like to check his numbers.

This link appears to already be defunct, only a week after the posting I'm replying to.

However, Ross McKitrick's http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/McKitrick.final.pdf" rather than some "official" site...).

 

[Evo]

This link appears to already be defunct, only a week after the posting I'm replying to.

That's ok, I found where they hid it. You now have to arrow through to each comment under "related Links". More cumbersome, but it's there.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25

 

[Andre]

In case anybody is interested, I have downloaded the majority of the documents, just let me know.