Well darn. Maybe that Global Warming thing isn't true...Follow

Incorrect. And something I didn't even realize until I read through the peer review comments in the latest released IPCC report and stumbled upon one of the reviewers stating this fact, with the response being that the IPCC defines it differently. I then did some research and found this. Actually, that's not the page I originally found, but I forgot to bookmark it and found this one which says the same thing. Specifically:





Want to reprise your "no" position on this? The ramifications of a political interpretation of a scientific body of work which uses a changed definition of the main body itself is pretty staggering.




I'm specifically talking about when he quoted this page, specifically quoting this section:



So. They tested whether the IPCC was being selective in their choice of scientific papers upon which to base their recommendations by looking through the ISI database by searching using the keywords "Climate change", and they find it "remarkable" that none disagreed with the consensus position (that humans cause climate change).

Um... Duh. Cause all the scientific papers are submitted using the UNFCCC definition, which means that in order for your paper to fall under the heading of "climate change" you must be looking at human impacts to climate to some degree.

The last paragraph I quoted is particularly amusing once you realize this. Um... of course none of those papers argued that point. Because by the definition those papers are using, that's not "climate change".


Get it yet? The whole issue is smoke and mirrors. The IPCC is playing word games with science. There's presumably a whole body of work out there about changing climate states. But none of those papers will be filed with the ISI as "climate change".


Can you be more provably wrong on this?

Edited, Jul 21st 2008 3:50pm by gbaji

They had to do with "methods and paleoclimate". I'd assume that's going to primarily include papers establishing baseline parameters for climate by which change would be measured and methods for measuring climate change (counter respectively).




That you manage to find the most irrelevant aspects of an issue in an attempt to distract from the main point? Yeah. That just never gets old...


Why would a political organization like the IPCC, with a mandate to assess the science of climate change and make recommendations to the UN, use a definition of climate change that is different then that used by the UN scientific body charged with the research of that exact issue? Doesn't it bother you in the least? Doesn't it make you suspect the motives of this organization? Shouldn't you question their results?

Yeah. You should. The argument that all the peer reviewed science supports them is flawed for the very reason that the only "peer reviewed" science on climate change by definition will support the idea that climate change is caused by human activity. It's meaningless Joph. But it appears that the entire purpose of the IPCC is to take that body of work and re-state it in a broader context in order to make exactly that pronouncement.


It's bogus. Through and through. You've got to realize that by now...

Edited, Jul 21st 2008 5:26pm by gbaji

I'm sorry. When did I say that?

I said that this is another example of the scientists within an organization disagreeing with the "Global warming Consensus" that the organization's leaders have adopted. I never placed a requirement on "peer reviewed" science Joph. That's your pet argument. Not mine. I'm simply pointing to the ever increasing number of scientists in the field who are coming forward and disagreeing with the "consensus" on Global Warming.

Kinda like all the contributors to the IPCC who've said the same thing. But they don't count since they don't agree with the consensus, right?

Nice little circular definition you've got going here Joph.



It's not a tangent. It's exactly relevant to your own argument that only peer reviewed papers on "climate change" can be considered as valid sources when determining if the consensus on Global Warming is valid or not.

You set that criteria Joph. Not me. I'm just responding to it by showing that you've set an impossible standard. All peer reviewed papers on "climate change" will appear to support the IPCC consensus. But not because the consensus is correct, but because of the definition of "climate change" used when the papers were written.


Are you getting it yet? I thought it was obvious the first time I posted this information. So obvious that I shouldn't even have to explain it. I'd kinda assumed you'd drop the whole "but all the peer reviewed work on climate change says..." arguments, but here you are, still making them long after I've proven that this is a totally invalid argument.


If you want to show that all peer reviewed papers on climatology in general show that there are no non-human caused variation of climate state over time, by all means go ahead. I think you'll have a really hard time making that argument, given the pretty obvious evidence of things like ice ages that occurred long before humans started doing things like using fire...

Edited, Jul 21st 2008 6:09pm by gbaji

I'm going to regret this, but gbaji: why exactly would an intergovernmental organisation want to make up a threat to this planet and the need for reductions in CO2 emissions?

It's interesting, it's almost like when 9/11 happened and a lot of "liberals" or "people who can play chess and other games of strategy" thought: huh. So there go my civil liberties.

It's like they just needed an excuse to get more power for themselves and create a culture of conformity. And it makes sense, to me at least. They get a free reign to do what they like and swing their massive balls around on the world stage.

I picture climate change as your 9/11, but to what end?

They never stopped discussing it.

...and had they not his released his paper, then you'd be accusing them of suppressing ideas that ran counter to popular opinion. Still, that they had a clear disclaimer about the info speaks plenty.

edit - I must say I got a laugh out of reading the responses in the tech journal linked in the OP. "regulating CO2 emissions is going to ***** up the economy"...hah! Seems someone has already done a pretty good job of that, sans CO2 regulations.



Edited, Jul 22nd 2008 5:21am by Elinda

You don't see why an international body would want to create a threat for which they controlled the requirements and could force any nation in the world to comply with their recommendations via the UN? Seriously?

I could write an entire multi-page essay on how this ties into a broader ideological struggle between the ideas of classical versus social liberalism, but honestly it would probably make your brain explode...



Really? So you believe people thought their civil liberties were somehow harmed by 9/11? Funny thing is that my thought was that we should do something about terrorism and figure out how to prevent future attacks of that sort from happening.

What exact civil liberties have you lost?



Ok. I see the comparison. And while this will certainly come off as partisan tin-foilhatism, I believe that if we'd had a Dem president in office instead of a Republican, you'd be right. The two parties do have a significant difference in terms of their "side" on that ideological struggle I talked about. While there's obvious bleedover (and a whole lot of actions that can be interpreted either way), the two parties are essentially diametrically opposed on this issue.

A Democrat in office would have used 9/11 as a reason to crack down domestically. How many times have you heard someone on the left attack Bush's "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" statements with something like: "If we weren't wasting our time in Iraq, we could be spending those resources making us safer at home"? Quick question? Which resources? How would they be spent?

And how exactly does one "make us safer at home"?

For all the gloom and doom about Bush and the "evil Republicans" with regard to 9/11 and civil liberties, you have to admit that the vast amount of focus on terrorism has been outward. They're looking at an external enemy and finding ways to fight them outside the country. Agree or disagree, that's not the same as focusing inward. I believe that a Dem president would have taken that later direction, and while we might not be in Iraq, we'd have passed much much more domestic legislation as a result.


Ideologically, the Dems tend to be on the side of the "good of the whole outweighs the rights of the individual". We can see this in their approach to things like gun ownership, religion, wellfare, etc. How do you think they would have responded to something like 9/11? Certainly, if you're going to assume either party would use it as an excuse to infringe your rights, it's not the GOP that you should be worried about.

I could write an entire multi-page essay on how this ties into a broader ideological struggle between the ideas of classical versus social liberalism

No, you couldn't.


but honestly it would probably make your brain explode...

From what, laughter?



Can you be more provably wrong on this?

Yes. I could be provable wrong at all. That would be more.

What I really wonder is if these things actually make sense to you, or if they're just the best you can come up with admitting being wrong. I'd assume the latter, but it's possible I overestimate your intelligence. It wouldn't be the first time.

An interntional body that can't force any country to do anything? Was the US forced to accept Kyoto? Are China and India forced to accept reductions in carbon emissions? Do you even know how the UN works??

The IPCC don't "control" anything. They could spend the next 200 years producing reports, and if the US wanted to ignore them, they would.

Oh wait, actually, they already do! Along with China, and India, and Brazil, and any country that feels like not giving a fUck.

So yes, i can also see why an interntional body, with no enforcement mechanism, and who is 100% dependent on financial contributions from its member states, would want to create a gigantic conspiracy involving all the respectable scientists on this subject in order to pressure said member states into restricintg their economic output. It makes perfect sense! Genuis...

Not really, no. The APS has a peer-reviewed journal for "formal" examinations of things. This is a newsletter/magazine designed for laypeople. Hence the editorial comments telling Monckton he had to better explain things for the probable readers. Hell, hence Physics & Society printing a letter from a journalist to open the debate instead of running a study from a climate scientist who disagreed. Even the counter-article is written by physicists in the fields of material engineering and nuclear science.

Does that sound like a formal debate on climate change? Playing point/counter-point between a journalist/businessman and a materials engineer? It's a jazzed up version of this forum where IT tech support guys argue with commercial estimators and business consultants over foreign policy. Fun for us but ultimately useless if you're looking for real answers.It was all about the paper. Why do you think your linked article tries to play up the significance of the paper? "OMG printing this article shows that 50,000 physicists reverse position!!" Why do you think Monckton's press release out and out lied about the paper? Because "newsletter decides to print stuff about climate change" isn't really news unless you try to turn it into a giant reversal.That's still their position, though.It might be any of these were true:

(A) This was their formal scientific publication.
(B) This constituted a policy change
(C) The APS was an organization comprised primarily of people in the field of climate science.

None of those are true. You're taking an informal magazine from a wide open organization and using a non-reviewed article published to stir up debate to mean that there's "cracks" among the consensus of scientific organizations in the field of climate science. You did the same exact thing with that retarded "petition". "Hey, Joe Blow is a computer circuit engineer and he thinks ACC is a crock! Growing numbers of scientists disagree with anthropogenic climate change!!!"

Well, except you wouldn't say "anthropogenic".Ones involved in the field of climate change? Sure. Ones involved in testing the effects of flouride on daffodils? Who knows? Who cares?

Edited, Jul 22nd 2008 8:26am by Jophiel

Yeah those physicists and phd climatologists don't have a clue about what they're talking about.

31,000 scientists including 9,000 phd's.

You're like a character in a Satre play. Le Corniaud éternel, I think he'd title it.

Stop putting the word "peer reviewed" in there Joph. Please. I never said that was a requirement. I never mentioned it. I never used it. You keep inserting that phrase as though it's a holy talismen that must be present for anything to be true.

A formal discussion does not need to be "peer reviewed". Can you please let that go?


Answer me this. When did their newletter decide to request submissions from scientists who disagree with the IPCC consensus?

Was it recently?

Does that represent a change in position on the issue towards those "skeptics"?


For those of us who've been watching in disgust for the last decade as scientists have bowed to politics on this issue, the fact that some legitimate discussion is finally happening is pretty significant. What's funny is that you must intuitively get this. You're the one who places so much weight on where a discussion is taking place. Sure. It'd be nice if this discussion where occurring in a peer reviewed scientific setting. But it's not, because the politics have taken over that arena. Why can't you see that? You want me to link to the pages of the dozens of previously well known and respected climatologists who lost their funding and their jobs over this issue?


How about you come off your peer review loving high horse and actually do some research of your own on this issue. It might just open your eyes...