MtnGoat

"So no, modern climate science is not biased to suit the purpose of environmentalists." I wouldn't claim it all is, as evidenced by the existence of opposing camps, such as we see here *and* in the mainstream. What I am claiming here is the IPCC admistrative conclusion does not match it's science conclusion, and in fact distorts both certainty and error while presenting this conclusion to the public as a done deal. And it is this conclusion that is siezed upon by enviro "mouthpieces" and "fronts"(as you like to say) who are associated with environmental "think tanks", and advocates to push their specific biases as well. "Now if you have peer reviewed papers that put serious doubts on the main conclusion of the IPCC process, let us know. " The science conclusion or the policy conclusion? And I need to ask, what do you consider acceptable "peer review"? Only peer review whose outcome jives with your view of what is acceptable? I want specifics so I can search.

What's especially hilarious is the NPR/Enviro organic farming bandwagon is in direct conflict with their goals for reducing animal waste and impact. Their solution to nitrogen loss due to farming is "organic" fertilizer, which in the bulk needed means one thing, animal poop and lots of it. Tons of it. Millions of tons of it in fact. If all farming was organic they'd need *more* animals to poop for them, not fewer, and the land taken up by the animals and to feed them as well.

"yeah, we know everything is relative and subjective when it suits your purpose." Since physical science is objective in the final analysis, or as close to it as we'll ever get, while politics is innately subjective, pointing out they are the not the same may not suit *your* purposes, but since mine is pointing out they are different I'll accept it. If that doesn't jive with what you wish to present by treating both as identical, that's your problem. "Although there are examples of dishonest science, the science going into the IPCC process is not one of them. All of it was peer reviewed." Fine! Why does the political summary not agree with the science section's conclusion that the variability and uncertainties make no outcome predicatable or certain? That is my point here. "The bottom line is still the same: human activities have resulted in a 30% increase in athmospheric CO2 over the last 100years and these greenhouse gases are responsible for accelerated warming." This is simply not proven no matter how much you say otherwise, "consensus" or no. "There is little serious questions about that despite what you might say. The rest is just obfuscation on your part and other apologists for the oil/car industry." Right. Obfuscation. Errors and measurement discrepancies downplayed or ignored in summaries. IPCC authors testifying about flawed conclusions and processes. Proponents who will not explain how they can claim individual IPCC heads are biased while claiming the IPCC outcome is not, while if it contains biased authors it necessarily *must*. It's all a trick.

"Ya know yesterday I was thinking Mtn Goat might have turned over a new leaf. Then he goes and makes 6 long, boring posts in a row." That's because you wankers aren't up when I was posting. If you were, they wouldn't have been in a row. It seems folks have taken to demanding evidence of me on complex issues, then griping when evidence is presented. If you aren't willing to actually read some deep detail on a complex issue, how can you begin to evaluate either side? Rely on people we all agree have one agenda or another to encapsule soundbites for you, or actually put in some time yourself reading up? The IPCC was not founded on a blank slate to assess warming, it assumed action was necessary from the start. The IPCC manipulated it's final statements, suppressing error considerations and other basic info to create the impression of certainty, created the impression of consensus when none was taken, and other such elementally flawed positions. There's the soundbite for you. If you demand more, it's already been presented on each point.

"I am not claiming they are free from scientific bias. I am claiming they are free from obvious political bias ...." So they're not free from scientific bias, while I and others are expected to take the very info you present from them as a gold standard of objectivity (after all, you wrote "what would we do without NOAA?"). And they're supposedly free from "obvious" political bias, but what about not so obvious political bias? "while people promoting their ideas through oil industry fronts obviously are not free from political bias. Are we clear on this?" Again with the "fronts", as if science is all subjective and who pays turns provable science into a political argument. It doesn't matter who pays in the end, because *proof* rests on repeatable *predictable* means that stand up to the tests applied to real science. No matter how much an industry pays someone, they couldn't pay them to prove PI has a value different from what it is. No observer is free from political bias, on any side, that is what the process weeds out.

"I am not going to reply the rest in details for reasons that are obvious to most of us (I am curious: are you paid for this?)." Now the dodging begins. Not wanting to reply to the details, when specifics are what you have been demanding. What should be "obvious" to most is your unwillingness to attend to details which I have presented. You ought to be refuting points made, not playing ad hominim games. What is "obvious" to people who won't deal with specifics merely means they don't want to deal with specifics. "these are the same unfounded attempts at discredeting the IPCC process. The IPCC process is the most comprehensive summary of knowledge in a particular branch of science ever performed. Your witness(es) quibbles and claims discrepancy where there is none. " Then how can they show the discrepancies you won't admit? The claimant Lindzen was responsible for a section of the science report you claim was a groundbreaking effort and yet you seem to claim he's biased, so how can we possibly conclude the report isn't if even you tell us members are biased? You haven't even discussed the fact that the scientists were *not* asked for a consensus, that the "consensus" was written by others in conflict with the scientific summary, and other such basic problems. Let alone that the IPCC was based on the founding premise that action was necessary, not exactly a blank slate free of slant. "I could not have said it better myself. it is funny how all of this quibbling and smear about procedure and such, finally ends where we started: greenhouse gases accumulated since the beginning of the industrial revolution are responsable for accelerated warming .... thank you" It's very revealing that the quote you choose to make your stand on is the very example used to show the manipulation of the outcome of this report. They did their work well.

"I was only pointing out that you fully endorse conceptual world models without validation, and are criticized by a majority of world political scientists and casual observers." Yet you miss that while political viewpoints are never provable in a scientific sense, due to their innate subjectivity, scientific viewpoints can be proven to a much higher standard. Further my "endorsement" of conceptual political models is never expressed as absolute nor provable in an empirical sense, while that is precisely what is required to prove the harmful effects of human forced warming. "Yet, you fully reject physically based models (i.e. with constraints and validations) that are assessed as valuable tools in our assessment of climate change by the majority of the climate science community. " No, I reject claims that their results equal proof given current standards for these models which don't even function in the simplest repeatable predictive capacity when tested agaisnt the real world. Not that the models may not be useful in some capacity. "There are probably more variables and feedback in a political model of waging war for peace than in a climate model. So be consistent, that's all." Since I do not express political systems as absolutes nor actions related to same as absolutes either, I am consistent. You're the one comparing value based political theory and action to physical sciences, not I. "You should not use scientific caution to promote unwarranted distrust, but it has not stopped you before." Bringing the amount of "scientific caution" warranted to light *should* promote distrust in this instance, because warming proponents such as the IPCC are intentionally leaving out error determinations in order to generate false perceptions of mimimum error in their work.

And I'm still waiting to see some jusitification for the Kyoto protocol, which doesn't even include developing nations. Seems to me if you're so sure the climate is in such dire trouble, you'd not only be beating up on the US, all those mean nasty SUV's, and industrial civilization, but *demanding* ALL nations be forced to reduce CO2 emissions because that is what it will take to do anything meaningful in terms of climate. Even the Kyoto advocates here are dead silent on Kyoto's predicted impact given it's *own* science assesment, that it will at best result in a tiny change and what is really needed is total and drastic controls immediately. What's more important, what's convenient and politically feasible, or saving the earth? Is it better to go around around feeling caring and superior, while not really supporting what actually needs to be done, or bite the bullet and actually demand huge, unpleasant, drastic changes NOW? Nope, that would muddy the agenda now, wouldn't it? Instead support the minor cosmetic agreement that provides for lots of nice speeches and wonderful feelings, while costing hundreds of billions and having minor impact.

"Summary of Findings: The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be. Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles. Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the theory of human interference with climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false. Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" -- including the press and the public -- who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. This deliberate distortion can only be explained by the fact that the UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program and supporting the Kyoto Protocol. What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment." read it all here: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm find out how error and uncertainty has been removed and hidden systematically in detailed examples using the actual text of the reports. deal with the data, instead of sidetracking us with personalities and boogymen.

http://www.senate.gov/%7Eepw/lin_0502.htm so much for agreement of the worlds scientists, from an expert who actually headed up one section of the ipcc report. " The vast majority of participants played no role in preparing the summary, and were not asked for agreement. The draft of the Policymakers Summary was significantly modified at Shanghai. The IPCC, in response to the fact that the Policymakers Summary was not prepared by participating scientists, claimed that the draft of the Summary was prepared by a (selected) subset of the 14 coordinating lead authors. However, the final version of the summary differed significantly from the draft. For example the draft concluded the following concerning attribution: "From the body of evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years. However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing." The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes instead: "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." In point of fact, there may not have been any significant warming in the last 60 years. Moreover, such warming as may have occurred was associated with jumps that are inconsistent with greenhouse warming. The preparation of the report, itself, was subject to pressure. There were usually several people working on every few pages. Naturally there were disagreements, but these were usually hammered out in a civilized manner. However, throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements. None of the above should be surprising. The IPCC was created to support the negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions. Although the press frequently refers to the hundreds and even thousands of participants as the world's leading climate scientists, such a claim is misleading on several grounds. First, climate science, itself, has traditionally been a scientific backwater. There is little question that the best science students traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science. Thus, speaking of "thousands" of the world's leading climate scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive. Somewhat ashamedly I must admit to being the only active participant in my department. None of this matters a great deal to the IPCC. As a UN activity, it is far more important to have participants from a hundred countries many of which have almost no active efforts in climate research. For most of these participants, involvement with the IPCC gains them prestige beyond what would normally be available, and these, not surprisingly, are likely to be particularly supportive of the IPCC. Finally, judging from the Citation Index, the leaders of the IPCC process like Sir John Houghton, Dr. Robert Watson, and Prof. Bert Bolin have never been major contributors to basic climate research. They are, however, enthusiasts for the negotiating process without which there would be no IPCC, which is to say that the IPCC represents an interest in its own right. Of course, this hardly distinguishes the IPCC from other organizations." read the whole thing, it blows holes in the IPCC process of summary writing, which have been released to the press and marketed as representing scientific consensus. It also points out some non certainties presented *here* in this thread as proven points instead of still unresolved issues. Further, since the IPCC *itself* was formed to justify the foregone conclusion that carbon control was a necessity, it shows there is every bit as much reason for *them* to reach conclusions they like, just as other interests are being accused of. Don't bother attacking the source, deal with the data.

"it has nothing to do with values: if you mess up *our* environment, you should pay, because it is costing everyone of us money, lifespan, etc .." If it's costing us lifespan, it's not showing in the US or other industrialized nations where lifespan continues to increase.

"While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale." So now proof consists of the conjecture that it's "unlikely" it has an impact? Talk about subjective. Does this indicate the influence is not in the models this fellow references? "however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases" And he knows this because? How will they decide what is forced and what is not, if they do not *quantify* solar forcing? "yeah right, a top-notch physical process model of climate would be further from reality than a certain political model which claims to "recreates an entire planet with millions of variable" and concludes we should be waging war for peace?" Since the conclusions of war for peace are not expected to be empirical and provable, as climate models are claimed to be, there is no comparison possible. If you are referencing any claim you think I have made that political actions or models are provable or empirical, you'd better rethink your position because I have never ever made such a claim. However, you do claim climate models are both provable and empirical, and your own statement seems to imply "top notch physical process models" are not very good either. An interesting statement.

"The site linked to is a front for the conservative think tank "national center for policy research".....the usual culprits in the climate science conservative media blitzkrieg." You mean folks who disagree with the climate assesments link up with other folks who also disagree? How shocking! That proves they must be slanted... or they actually agree they disagree with others who interpret all this in an entirely different way. Calling people even you admit have the necessary credentials "mouthpieces" and so on, doesn't begin to touch on their data or their arguments, instead showing a preference for worrying more about their associations and your view of same than the arguments they present. I could likewise view the list of sources provided at NOAA and other agencies as "mouthpieces" and so on, since govt affiliation has never exactly been the gold standard for objectivity as far as I know.

you make a great point catbird, I'd drive one car to work and another to play if I could afford it, but I can't. So I pick the one that can do both and make do with the cost incurred by extra gas to go to work.

Dr. Tim Patterson Professor - Dept of Earth Sciences (Paleoclimatology) - Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Tim Ball- Environmental Consultant - 25 years climatology Professor - University of Winnipeg Dr. Fred Singer- President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at University of Virginia Dr. Pat Michaels Research Professor - Dept of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia Dr. Madhav Khandekar Environmental Consultant - 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology Dr. Fred Michel Professor - Dept of Earth Sciences (Permafrost specialty) Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Howard C. Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics - University of Connecticut; Dr. J. Terry Rogers Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering - Carleton U. Dr. Roger Pocklington Researcher - Bedford Institute of Oceanography q Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - specialist in understanding the Sun/climate connection. Dr. Willie Soon Astrophysicist - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - specialist in understanding the Sun/climate connection. w Dr. John Christy Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Dr. Chris Essex Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario - focuses on underlying physics/math to complex climate systems. e Dr. Roger Peilke Professor and Colorado State Climatologist; Current President of the American Association of State Climatologists Dr. William M. Gray Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University Dr. Fred Seitz Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, N Dr. George Taylor Oregon State Meteorologist, Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University and the Past President of the Association of State Meteorologists. Dr. Sherwood Idso President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Dr. David Wojick, P.E. an independent journalist and policy analyst, specializing in Kyoto issues - science, technology, politics and policy Art Robinson of OISM Founder - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - focus on climate change and CO2 Dr. Herb I. H. Saravanamuttoo Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering - Carleton U. Dr. Robert Balling Director - Office of Climatology, Arizona State University Dr. Chris de Freitas Professor, School of Geography and Environmental Science, U Dr. Petr Chylek Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science - Dalhousie University Dr. Ross McKitrick Professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph - Dr. Philip Stott Emeritus Professor of Biogeography - University of London (England) Dr. Richard P. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology l 3 Dr. Jan Veizer NSERC/Noranda/CIAR Industrial Chair in Earth System Isotope and Environmental Geochemistry and Professor - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. Paal Brekke Paal is a solar physicist at the European Space Agency, Norway Source: http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm

"Well Mtn Goat your in a smaller and smaller group. Even General Motors in some recent news reports has admitted they believe car's are contributing to a rise in the earths temps." This is exactly why I made the point about majorities having no lock on the reality of what happens in the physicial world. Wether or not a majority believes something is not proof they are correct, it depends on the verifiablity of their proof, not the number of hands in the air. Otherwise, the continents would not be drifting and the earth would now be flat. Wether or not GM has been taken in by this hokum doesn't mean anything. If they believe it, fine, they are free to redesign their vehicles with this in mind and make a case to their intended customers. I'd never presume to stand in the way of their right to believe what they wish and sell what they want to willing customers.

"This said, I would only provide environmental education to the public and adequate guidelines to manufacturers. It should be enough." So how do you know "education" will result in the choices you approve of? Isn't it possible you can educate people and they still will not make choices you like? Or is the "education" not evaluated by teaching them what you want, but by wether or not they make conclusions and take actions you've already decided you want?

"Mtn Goat, are you denying the economy took off in the 40's when the US started spending money on fighting WW2?" Yes, I will. The economy did not exist in that state long enough for any of the very real problems with huge taxation and directed spending to actually show up. Add in that the economy really only accelerated after the war, that there is more to any economy than the just the state spending money (as the Soviets and numerous socialist states amply show) and this argument gets pretty messy. "J B. Mtn Goat is the smartest (read arrogant) person ever." I read more arrogance into the stances of folks sure how *other* people should be forced to pay for what they value and forced to live their lives in accordance with the social goals of the viewer. I've never ever claimed to be smarter than anyone else, with one exception, I know what I think, what I value, and what I want to do with my life better than you do! "Remember how he was going to give definative proof that would debunk global warming back a few months ago. I don't remember him doing that." I never said I would give proof, I said I'd read up on it, which I am currently in the process of, this is not a simple issue.

"so how can you pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this topic to declare that the climate science community is wrong?" I can't. I can claim however, others are just as knowledgeable as proponents, and are skeptical, and for my money their arguments made to laymen like me are better than those of the proponents in my estimation. I don't claim to be an astrophysicist, and yet still listen to various interpretations of cosmology while not claiming the expertise to prove one true or another false. When these people are trying to make a case for the power to spend lots and lots of *other* people's hard earned money, as well as enforcing widespread, drastic changes in how we live our everyday lives, they've earned the scrutiny I subject them to. Especially when even the most ardent supporters of Kyoto downplay the actual effectiveness of their *own* projections after the huge costs have been incurred over decades... a fraction of a degree change less warming, which delays the original rise by 7 or so years, after a century.

"Come on Mtn Goat. Spending money is good for the economy. Even when we were forced to in WW2 the economy took off." Then why didn't it work for the soviets (who directed *all* spending and all production) or the Germans, who spend lots and lots and are having severe problems? This is all besides the point really, because the people who should have a say in what money is spent where, are the people who *earn* it and own it, not third parties however caring they may feel they are.

"It is clear automakers don't give a rat's ass about fuel efficiency and smog reduction unless they are prodded with laws." Hardly. What's clear is those who *claim* consumers want better mileage, is not jiving with what they choose to buy. There are plenty of small cars on the market, plenty of high mileage vehicles, etc. Blaming anyone but the people who swear the earth is the most important thing to them until they are at the dealership signing the papers on a truck while the commuter car sits on the same lot is a dog that won't hunt. Besides, what someone "needs" is up to them, not you. If their "need" occurs once a year (or never) is their right to decide.

"Doesn't everybody who has even casually commented on the state of our industrial infrastructure agree that high energy-use industries like aluminum and steel are in drastic need up updating in the United States?" Then what you do is you remove subidies on *all* energy sources, and production, let use and price float to resolve supply and demand, and the industries will streamline themselves as costs demand. The experts on what infrastructure "needs" are those in the industry, and how they intend to make their products at a profit. Remove subisidies on on oil *and* solar *and* nuclear *and* mining and allow the market to balance itself.

"Let's see first Mtn Goat said the majority of scientists despute global warming; then he said it doesn't matter what the majority of scientists think. Hmmm I'm not following the logic." The first point is a political one, the "fact" that a majority of scientists (or even climatologists) agree is a popular idea but one I believe is mistated. The second is a view of a "majority" view vs what actually happens in nature, to point out reality is not bound to a show of hands, from *either* proponents or skeptics. No matter what any "majority" believes about natural processes they happen as they happen, period. That a majority believes warming is occurring, or another that it is not, doesn't make a darned bit of difference. What's happening is happening and what relates to that is actual, physical, concrete *proof*, not a show of hands, and certainly not models which cannot possibly recreate an entire planet nor the millions of variables active on it.

"I mean, what do we have to lose by cleaning up our act?" We lose the right for the owners of the cash used to "clean up our act" to determine where else the resources would have been used instead, and we also lose the use of those same resources on other issues that may well have represented a better cost/benefit tradeoff.

"how about a majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH RELEVANT PHDs??? " Is this what you are claiming is the case? And in what way does this address a majority belief, vs reality?