Climate Catastrophe

[WordIsBond]

The IPCC is an Intergovernmental Panel, that is, it is a committee. Every few years it produces an Assessment Report, basically an extended literature review, designed to give an up to date picture of the science. Nothing gets included unless it has consensus support. So the reports are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be, however they arguably tend towards conservatism, even timidity.

LOL. A consensus has never been wrong, of course. Scientists are infallible, especially when they engage in group-think.

A trustworthy scientific document is one that describes a process which has been tested and measured in a controlled environment, protecting against other factors. It describes what has actually happened and been observed.

These reports are full of projections, speculations, and extrapolations which haven't been observed, and are based on observable data which could have been (and undoubtedly were) influenced by a large range of factors. The data is "from the wild" and not from a controlled environment at all.

The projections, speculations, and extrapolations could, of course, be correct, but to call this a trustworthy scientific document is absurd. All you did is show that you don't even know what science is. You're probably just spouting something that someone else told you, in which case that person also doesn't really know what science is, or he is a liar.

Climate change is the new great religion. The high priests can point to some evidence that points in their way, and they tell us to take the rest on faith, because they have looked at it, and we should follow and trust them and do what they tell us to do. They don't live by the same restrictions they want to bring in, they'll still take their jet flights and buy produce imported from thousands of miles away and burn through fossil fuels.

And if you have "sinned" you can buy indulgences, er, carbon credits, and feel good about yourself.

And if you can indoctrinate the children early in the teaching of the priests, well, you'll probably have them for life.

This religion is even more grandiose than most -- instead of saving your soul, you can save the whole planet!

[MicrosoftBob]

So this is all leading up to "Utopia", scientists sooner or later will want a cull of the worlds population to stop global warming/climate change/global cooling/insert next faddy name here

[DimPrawn]

So this is all leading up to "Utopia", scientists sooner or later will want a cull of the worlds population to stop global warming/climate change/global cooling/insert next faddy name here

Yes, in order to save us from a "burning hell", the "denier" heretics must be "dealt with"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

[pjclarke]

A trustworthy scientific document is one that describes a process which has been tested and measured in a controlled environment, protecting against other factors. It describes what has actually happened and been observed.

You might want to re-read my actual words. Sadly, we only have one planet, so a control is not possible. Hence the models.

These reports are full of projections, speculations, and extrapolations which haven't been observed, and are based on observable data which could have been (and undoubtedly were) influenced by a large range of factors. The data is "from the wild" and not from a controlled environment at all.

See above. You underestimate the discipline if you believe that these factors have not been discussed and adjusted for ad infinitum, and uncertainties clearly stated. The review process is multi-stepped and every step is completely open. If you know of a better way of assessing and communicating the state of our understanding, and informing policymakers, I'd love to hear it. If anything the Assessment Reports are too conservative.

The projections, speculations, and extrapolations could, of course, be correct, but to call this a trustworthy scientific document is absurd. All you did is show that you don't even know what science is. You're probably just spouting something that someone else told you, in which case that person also doesn't really know what science is, or he is a liar.

Using your narrow definition, any data that was not generated under laboratory conditions is not 'trustworthy'. Using that principle, astronomy, for example, does not qualify as science. Now that is absurd.

[pjclarke]

Which scientific bodies are on my 'side' ?

Obviously the same ones that fought the concensus of where stomache ulcers came from. continental drift, phlostigen, eugenics. The scientific bodies that recognise that science is based upon evidence and not concensus. The scientific bodies that do not rely statistical manipulation or rigging the data and the scientific bodies that do not drive any opposing voice out of the seats of learning.

You could have added the flat earth, or the geocentric universe. So what? These are all examples of a hypothesis being replaced by another that better fits observations and experimental results. It is flawed and sometimes messy, but that's how science progresses.

The point is that there are multiple lines of evidence that paint a consistent picture of GW being anthropogenic and virtually none that support any competing hypothesis. Every scientific association of any standing has examined the evidence and put out position statements saying broadly the same thing. Yes, that's an argument from authority, and yes, the consensus could be wrong (the highest level of certainty the IPCC uses in most of its conclusions is 'highly likely' which they quantify as 95% certain, there's a one in twenty chance they're wrong), but it does put the onus on those declaring themselves 'sceptical' to come up with a valid critique or alternative hypothesis (Sagan's 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - where is the 'rigged data' for example? I ask with no great hope of a valid answer.). There's a difference between having an open mind and letting your brain fall out.

[MicrosoftBob]

where is the 'rigged data' for example? I ask with no great hope of a valid answer.)

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia got that off to a fine start

Not a good start for Utopia really

[pjclarke]

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia got that off to a fine start

Not a good start for Utopia really

That's your hypothesis, I await the supporting evidence.

[MicrosoftBob]

That's your hypothesis, I await the supporting evidence.

As Climate Change is a religion I don't need evidence to disprove it

[pjclarke]

Take Five

One. The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.

Two. The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."

Three. Pennsylvania State University*announced in December 2009 it would review the work of*Michael E. Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in the earlier*review by the National Research Council*of the*National Academy of Sciences*which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results.[99][100][101]*In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.[101]*The inquiry committee determined on 3 February 2010 that there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the*IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.

Four First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[106]*The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[107]*The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[108]

Five. The*United States Environmental Protection Agency*(EPA) had issued an "endangerment finding" in 2009 in preparation for climate regulations on excessive greenhouse gases. Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of*Virginia*and*Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the*United States Chamber of Commerce, the*Competitive Enterprise Institute*and the coal company*Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.[112] The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."[113]*In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator*Lisa P. Jackson*said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...es_and_reports


So I await (a) examples of rigged data and (b) evidence that the House of Commons Select Committee, Penn State University, The US EPA and the two enquiry panels conspired to cover up the malfeasance.

Extraordinary claims require ...

[MicrosoftBob]

Wow wikipedia I'm sold the argument is settled, what next quoting Putin or Mugabe to back you up

The cult of climate change continues, a worse threat to the world than ISIS

And now on to Climate Gate 2.0