Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[Somewhatfoolish]

kiteless said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

The IPCC was setup to 'promote' climate change......debating it was never on the cards.

That's my take on it exactly.

My first exposure was about two or three years ago after reading some earlier threads on AGW on PH. I was sort of a fence sitter at the time, although the oft repeated phrase, "unprecedented warming" rang some alarm bells. '"Unprecedented" surely, I thought, means that such warming has never occurred in the history of this planet. Seems a bold assertion, that.'.

Anyway, after reading some of the opening gambits in the early PH climate change threads I thought I should read some IPCC text. One section title jumped out at me straight away: "Summary For Policymakers". So. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a summary in it's tome directed to policymakers Not a concluding synposis, not a summary of findings, but a section clearly written for the purposes of guidance to interested parties.

That - at the time - said to me that policymakers i.e. governments had requested the formation of the IPCC with the sole directive of proving global wombling to thus formulate governmental policies based on the science. The IPCC would clearly publish what they were pre-disposed to publish in line with their moniker and those who requested it. Notwithstanding this, one would expect such a dissertation on a subject that has global consequences to be concise and cogent in it's findings. Black and white. Yes or fking no. Wouldn't you? You know, 'Because of X, Y will occur, and when this does Z will happen". That sort of thing.

But every IPCC publication is littered with slack-jawed st such as "likely", or "very likely", or "quite possible". There are a number of e-mails in the climategate leak where the semantics of such phrases are discussed, to a point where the word "likely" was tortured and then agreed to mean "virtually certain"!!

I'm virtually certain the AGW is a curve-ball, and that the science behind it is extremely likely to be b0llocks.

This interpretation is utterly bizzare. Seriously.

Re: Summary for policy makers - the entire point of the IPCC is to provide advice for policy makers.

Re: Likely - sorry, you want certainty? All this is is expression of levels of confidence in either data or conclusions, nothing being 100% certain.

P.S. Still haven't seen anything in those emails!

[don4l]

ATG said:

don4l ...can you not see the "though certainly not all" in the very bit you quoted from me? So there were two people on the thread putting forward the case for MMGW and I said most of the rest "though certainly not all" were talking crap. If you read that as me saying "everyone who doesn't believe in MMGM is a fool", well, that's your problem.

And if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded. If a little bit of research was all that was required, why do you think the UK and US governments turn to bodies like the Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences to weigh the evidence? Why would they need to do that if a little bit of research was all that was necessary to know what was going on? Why do you think there are intelligent, honest scientists on both sides of the debate? Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?

If pointing out the blindingly obvious makes me a troll in your eyes, oh well.

Oh dear.. where to start?

In the early 1980's Maggie decided that the NUM needed to be defeated after the disastrous 70's, and the three day week. Being a qualified scientist, she was aware of the concept of greenhouse gasses. Anybody who watched "The Sky at Night" at the time will remember the explanations for the very high temperatures on our sister planet, Venus.

So Maggie hatched a cunning little plan. The idea was to prove that burning coal was bad for the planet, and the public would demand(the slightly more expensive) nuclear power. All that was needed was a below average University research department, with some below average academic staff ... and the scene was set. Unfortunately, things didn't work out as planned.

I would like to tackle your comment that I have highlighted in bold.

You say that you are a physicist, or have I, once again, fallen into one of your clever traps? As a physicist you will understand the nature of heat radiation. You will also understand that CO2 is transparent to radiation at 5700k, but is fairly opaque at about 293k. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then all you have to do is tell us what percentage of radiation is absorbed by the current concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere - and give us your reasoning.

I look forward to posting an apology for calling you a troll.


Don
--

[grumbledoak]

don4l said:

I look forward to posting an apology for calling you a troll.

Suspect your apology will be surplus to requirements.

Good summary of the history as far as I can tell.

[ATG]

Don, I have consistently said I don't know anything about global warming. Given that I haven't claimed any specific knowledge, how can my credibility be on the line unless I manage to pass your test? And what are these clever traps I've been setting? All I've done is said some people on this thread are talking sensibly, others are making fools of themselves, and I've pointed out where I've been misquoted. Where's the trap? Frankly, where have I said anything clever? I'd have thought everything I've said was blindlingly obvious.

[Pooh]

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

[mybrainhurts]

Pooh said:

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

Aaargh....HQ is sending them thick and fast now

[don4l]

Pooh said:

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

I thought that there was "scientific consensus" on the subject???

If the people who have studied it "for years" do not have any certainity, why do you think that we should saddle ourselves with expensive electricity for the next 20 years? Do you not understand what this is all about?


Don
--

Edited by don4l on Tuesday 20th April 22:27

[don4l]

ATG said:

Don, I have consistently said I don't know anything about global warming.

So why do you express an opinion on it in a public forum?


As I said, you are a troll.

Don
--

[kiteless]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Re: Likely - sorry, you want certainty?

If Mother Earth is going to hell in a fking handbasket due to climate change / AGW call it what you will, we all want certainty WRT to the science that allegedly supports it. Conclusions and summaries that contain ambiguous terms are, by their inclusion, uncertain.

Somewhatfoolish said:

All this is is expression of levels of confidence in either data or conclusions, nothing being 100% certain.

Then why publish what is not certain.

Somewhatfoolish said:

Still haven't seen anything in those emails!

I've posted the following before. Recently. I'll link it again.

http://johncostella.webs.com/

No excuse for you missing it, now.

[Pooh]

don4l said:

Pooh said:

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

I thought that there was "scientific consensus" on the subject???

If the people who have studied it "for years" do not have any certainity, why do you think that we should saddle ourselves with expensive electricity for the next 20 years? Do you not understand what this is all about?


Don
--

Edited by don4l on Tuesday 20th April 22:27

I should have phrased it slightly better, I was not saying that many people who have studied the subject had no certainty, I was saying that they do not have the absolute level of certainty displayed by so many sceptics on here.
I am not a true believer on either side of the argument.

[Lost_BMW]

Pooh said:

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

And some of those of us on here who do have enough scientific training/qualification and enough interest/knowledge of the subject to have at least a fair grasp of the field do have - and have a right to express - opinions on an area of life, politics and economics that will impact on US, directly, as well as humankind in general, now or in the future; opinions that exactly through being informed may include doubts.

Doubts about exact causations claimed for climate change - and described as, if not settled, almost so by many.

Doubts about the methodology, consistency and accuracy of the data collection - doubts even about the honesty and/or 'bais' of the sourcing of 'raw' data.

Doubts about the analysis of this, including doubts about the qualifications and competence (and interests) of some of the scientists whose work is used and about those who push it (Pachauri and Goreful spring immediately to mind)

Doubts about the various interpretations, extrapolations and modelling - data led or simulated - pushed, some of which has not been hidden from us and that we can examine.

Doubts about the levels of change likely and the timescales claimed by some proponents of AGW.

Doubts about the likely impact of these, set against overblown comments and known exaggerations and mis-interpretations that are acknowledged even from within the AGW camp.

Doubts about the solutions proposed and the level and timing of these (how swingeing? how fast?) in terms of whether these solutions (a) will work, (b) are sensibly/ correctly judged, (c) are in proportion to likely risks and potential benefits and (d) will cause in themselves significant harm economically/ to humans.

Doubts about just how well informed the government and business leaders who will drive the agenda(s) are; how much do they really understand themselves? Who has 'informed' them? How fairly? How much of this briefing is being based on genuinely held scientific viewpoints and how much from interest positions?

Doubts about how the levels of financial interest and potential gain, for governments and business in their own ways, may corrupt the process and skew judgement.

Et cetera . . .


That does not necessarily make us fools, just because we choose to express our doubts and opinions here or elsewhere.

You quote that "there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads." missing the point that a number of significant (the 'shakers and thinkers'?) and influential scientists, observers (how else to describe the likes of Gore? and policy makers do express exactly the level of certainty you deny in them.

People who claim to have the picture sussed and the solutions worked out and are both lobbying for us/ the world to follow their lines of action and actually implementing significant changes to energy policy, economic activity, taxation etc. If there is room for doubt is it any wonder some of us have doubts/misgivings when these people claim to act from positions of certainty; strong (enough) likelihood even?

[ATG]

don4l said:

ATG said:

Don, I have consistently said I don't know anything about global warming.

So why do you express an opinion on it in a public forum?


As I said, you are a troll.

Don
--

I didn't express an opinion about global warming. I expressed an opinion about the way people were discussing it. Can you really not see the difference?

[ATG]

Lost_BMW said:

That does not necessarily make us fools, just because we choose to express our doubts and opinions here or elsewhere.

Lost_BMW, not a single person on this thread, me included, suggested there was anything wrong with expressing doubt, so what are you complaining about?

[Tangent Police]

don4l said:

ATG said:

don4l ...can you not see the "though certainly not all" in the very bit you quoted from me? So there were two people on the thread putting forward the case for MMGW and I said most of the rest "though certainly not all" were talking crap. If you read that as me saying "everyone who doesn't believe in MMGM is a fool", well, that's your problem.

And if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded. If a little bit of research was all that was required, why do you think the UK and US governments turn to bodies like the Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences to weigh the evidence? Why would they need to do that if a little bit of research was all that was necessary to know what was going on? Why do you think there are intelligent, honest scientists on both sides of the debate? Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?

If pointing out the blindingly obvious makes me a troll in your eyes, oh well.

Oh dear.. where to start?

In the early 1980's Maggie decided that the NUM needed to be defeated after the disastrous 70's, and the three day week. Being a qualified scientist, she was aware of the concept of greenhouse gasses. Anybody who watched "The Sky at Night" at the time will remember the explanations for the very high temperatures on our sister planet, Venus.

So Maggie hatched a cunning little plan. The idea was to prove that burning coal was bad for the planet, and the public would demand(the slightly more expensive) nuclear power. All that was needed was a below average University research department, with some below average academic staff ... and the scene was set. Unfortunately, things didn't work out as planned.

I would like to tackle your comment that I have highlighted in bold.

You say that you are a physicist, or have I, once again, fallen into one of your clever traps? As a physicist you will understand the nature of heat radiation. You will also understand that CO2 is transparent to radiation at 5700k, but is fairly opaque at about 293k. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then all you have to do is tell us what percentage of radiation is absorbed by the current concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere - and give us your reasoning.

I look forward to posting an apology for calling you a troll.


Don
--

Any A' Level student knows about the insignificant area, yet locally strong absorption of the C=O bond in IR.

It equates to fk all in the grand scheme of things. That's without quantitative absorption.

What other chemical bonds overlap the C=O region, I wonder?

[Somewhatfoolish]

kiteless said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Re: Likely - sorry, you want certainty?

If Mother Earth is going to hell in a fking handbasket due to climate change / AGW call it what you will, we all want certainty WRT to the science that allegedly supports it. Conclusions and summaries that contain ambiguous terms are, by their inclusion, uncertain.

Somewhatfoolish said:

All this is is expression of levels of confidence in either data or conclusions, nothing being 100% certain.

Then why publish what is not certain.

Somewhatfoolish said:

Still haven't seen anything in those emails!

I've posted the following before. Recently. I'll link it again.

http://johncostella.webs.com/

No excuse for you missing it, now.

I saw your link. I just don't see anything incriminating about it.

All science is uncertain, and science with this complex a dataset doubly so. All you can do is state your conclusion has x uncertainty.

[Diderot]

Pooh said:

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

The only ppl that look like fools are the IPCC and other assorted advocacy groups.

Oh and, there is NEVER ANY certainty in science and as such science is never settled.

[Diderot]

Somewhatfoolish said:

kiteless said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Re: Likely - sorry, you want certainty?

If Mother Earth is going to hell in a fking handbasket due to climate change / AGW call it what you will, we all want certainty WRT to the science that allegedly supports it. Conclusions and summaries that contain ambiguous terms are, by their inclusion, uncertain.

Somewhatfoolish said:

All this is is expression of levels of confidence in either data or conclusions, nothing being 100% certain.

Then why publish what is not certain.

Somewhatfoolish said:

Still haven't seen anything in those emails!

I've posted the following before. Recently. I'll link it again.

http://johncostella.webs.com/

No excuse for you missing it, now.

I saw your link. I just don't see anything incriminating about it.

So the clear evidence of manipulated data, rigged 'peer review' processes, knobbling journalists etc slipped under your dazzlingly sensitive radar then?

[Somewhatfoolish]

Clearly.

I can't see anything in that that isn't reasonably explained by just standard human behaviour.

[Pooh]

Lost_BMW said:

Pooh said:

ATG said:

if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded.

ATG is absolutely correct, it is an extremely complex subject, there are plenty of people who have studied it for years, yet they still do not have the level of certainty about the truth or otherwise of AGW that is displayed by most on these threads.
An awful lot of the people who contribute to these threads have strongly held opinions on a subject they clearly know little or nothing about and look like fools as a result.

And some of those of us on here who do have enough scientific training/qualification and enough interest/knowledge of the subject to have at least a fair grasp of the field do have - and have a right to express - opinions on an area of life, politics and economics that will impact on US, directly, as well as humankind in general, now or in the future; opinions that exactly through being informed may include doubts.

Doubts about exact causations claimed for climate change - and described as, if not settled, almost so by many.

Doubts about the methodology, consistency and accuracy of the data collection - doubts even about the honesty and/or 'bais' of the sourcing of 'raw' data.

Doubts about the analysis of this, including doubts about the qualifications and competence (and interests) of some of the scientists whose work is used and about those who push it (Pachauri and Goreful spring immediately to mind)

Doubts about the various interpretations, extrapolations and modelling - data led or simulated - pushed, some of which has not been hidden from us and that we can examine.

Doubts about the levels of change likely and the timescales claimed by some proponents of AGW.

Doubts about the likely impact of these, set against overblown comments and known exaggerations and mis-interpretations that are acknowledged even from within the AGW camp.

Doubts about the solutions proposed and the level and timing of these (how swingeing? how fast?) in terms of whether these solutions (a) will work, (b) are sensibly/ correctly judged, (c) are in proportion to likely risks and potential benefits and (d) will cause in themselves significant harm economically/ to humans.

Doubts about just how well informed the government and business leaders who will drive the agenda(s) are; how much do they really understand themselves? Who has 'informed' them? How fairly? How much of this briefing is being based on genuinely held scientific viewpoints and how much from interest positions?

Doubts about how the levels of financial interest and potential gain, for governments and business in their own ways, may corrupt the process and skew judgement.

Et cetera . . .


That does not necessarily make us fools, just because we choose to express our doubts and opinions here or elsewhere.

I share many of the same doubts, expressing them is not the same as saying with absolute certainty that AGW is or is not happening, there are ignorant fools on both sides of the argument.

[Lost_BMW]

ATG said:

Lost_BMW said:

That does not necessarily make us fools, just because we choose to express our doubts and opinions here or elsewhere.

Lost_BMW, not a single person on this thread, me included, suggested there was anything wrong with expressing doubt, so what are you complaining about?

Mmmn . . 'might be about that earlier blanket attribution of foolishness?!