Obama's Undoing

[j_b]

450 peer-reviewed papers critical of anthropogenic causes as the sole source and/or most significant contributor to climate change, aka global warming:

 

Well, it is what that site claims anyway but I assume you haven't read these papers and deniers have a poor track record of representing truthfully what a study may and may not say. Moreover, a good number of these papers are not about science but rather about policy and I fail to see how policy affects the scientific theory.

 

Most importantly though, not all peer-reviews are equal, which explains that some journals are more prestigious than others by a long shot. For example, many trade publications do not have very serious peer-review. Many of the publications listed at your link have appeared in E&E (mostly a social science publication), whose peer-review status is very dubious and has met much criticism among climate researchers. The main editor of the journal has acknowledged a political agenda, most of these papers are of poor quality and wouldn't have been published in a journal with a legitimate peer-review process (i.e. actually reviewed by active researchers in the field).

 

I won't comment about the peer-review status of the CATO journal because I don't need to. In other word, I suggest to you that said list should be vetted by climate scientists (and not the habitual crew of deniers) before drawing any sweeping conclusion about the status of skeptical climate science publications.

 

Also, let's not forget that peer-review is a necessary step of the scientific process but it is by no means sufficient: errors are made that eventually and hopefully get corrected as further studies come along. Finally, let's also not forget that Oreske did publish in Nature a survey of the literature in 2003(?) concluding that a large consensus existed among researchers on the anthropogenic nature of modern climate warming; as a matter of fact she could hardly locate any publications that challenged anthropogenic global warming.

 

Perhaps the time is ripe for a synthesis of interpretations to best fit the data?

 

what do you think the IPCC reports are if not a synthesis of the scientific literature on climate?

[Pete_H]

450 peer-reviewed papers critical of anthropogenic causes as the sole source and/or most significant contributor to climate change, aka global warming:

 

That probably just means the authors of those papers are nitpicking about minutiae contained in other studies on globaql warming, as scientists do, it doesn't mean that there are 450 papers concluding that global warming is not occuring, and from anthropogenic causes.

[Stonehead]

Most importantly though, not all peer-reviews are equal, which explains that some journals are more prestigious than others by a long shot. For example, many trade publications do not have very serious peer-review. Many of the publications listed at your link have appeared in E&E (mostly a social science publication), whose peer-review status is very dubious and has met much criticism among climate researchers. The main editor of the journal has acknowledged a political agenda, most of these papers are of poor quality and wouldn't have been published in a journal with a legitimate peer-review process (i.e. actually reviewed by active researchers in the field).

Look, you seem like a reasonable fellow and by your previous posts you don't seem to be mean spirited though I gotta say that you're quick to label someone negatively if their views don't jibe with yours. That said, I do agree with your assessment of the relative quality of the various works. However, I do know that, in particular, a tenured research professor will usually have a career invested in pursuing a line of work that forms a consistent body. For instance, he may see stratigraphic/sedimentological evidence that supports a glacial mechanism on the order of periodicity following the Milankovitch Orbital Parameters. His pursuit of grant monies will build on this basis. He will give talks at professional meetings and he will counter criticisms during the Q&A session following the talk. His work, if not too controversial, will be accepted in peer-reviewed journals and he will rebut written criticisms through clarification or modifications of his working hypothesis. Will he abandon his main line of research due to criticism? Rarely. You see, if he were a good scientist he would have a rational basis for pursuing his line of research. He would have a working hypothesis and he would test it and modify it as fits, but his work has to remain good enough to ensure a steady supply of grant money. (It also doesn't hurt to have friends in high places.)

 

I could go on but you should get the picture. If you are a student of any of the sciences you know this to be true. I do believe in the value of peer-reviewed publications but understand also that, that is not the final word. It is a game and sometimes it takes the heretics to bring the larger truth to light.

 

Perhaps the time is ripe for a synthesis of interpretations to best fit the data?

 

what do you think the IPCC reports are if not a synthesis of the scientific literature on climate?

 

No, I am thinking more along the lines of incorporating primary and secondary exogenic influences ranging from the variation of solar output and to the formation of clouds due to cosmic rays, for instance. I am thinking about changes in the heat distribution across the earth through oceanic currents such as El Nino (La Nina), the Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation influenced perhaps by geophysical changes in the molten portion of the earth interior. I am thinking about temporal (cyclical and secular) changes in the earth's rotation upon its spin axis as influenced by the tidal friction of the earth-moon system. Etc.etc.

 

 

[olyclimber]

[Stonehead]

Heh, that's directed at Geithner. You can identify him by his pointy little elfen ears.

 

 

"You little sonavabitch, you got me into a bigger mess.... I hope that photographer gets this shot."

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

what do you think the IPCC reports are if not a synthesis of the scientific literature on climate?

 

No, I am thinking more along the lines of incorporating primary and secondary exogenic influences ranging from the variation of solar output and to the formation of clouds due to cosmic rays, for instance. I am thinking about changes in the heat distribution across the earth through oceanic currents such as El Nino (La Nina), the Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation influenced perhaps by geophysical changes in the molten portion of the earth interior. I am thinking about temporal (cyclical and secular) changes in the earth's rotation upon its spin axis as influenced by the tidal friction of the earth-moon system. Etc.etc.

 

Climate science already accounts for most of the phenomena you listed even if there is still a lot more to learn. Despite the deafening noise emanating from the denial industry, the case for anthropogenic global warming is stronger than ever.

[Stonehead]

You sound so authoritative. So, your definitive expression of these blanket statements means you're now an expert in climate science?

[j_b]

I am not saying anything different than what most experts say so my particular expertise isn't the issue here. Otherwise, I am not a climatologist but I work with naturel systems that are an essential part of climate change studies.

[Stonehead]

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda." - MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

 

Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

 

[tvashtarkatena]

You sound so authoritative. So, your definitive expression of these blanket statements means you're now an expert in climate science?

 

j_b's not a climatologist, nor is he a moron: the more illuminating question with regards to your understanding of the subject.

[ivan]

the "we're not making the world hotter" folk remind me distinctly of amity's mayor in "jaws"

[Stonehead]

What? j_b doesn't have a rebuttal to the issue that the IPCC is primarily a political body yet he wails about incorporating non-anthropogenic influences into the picture of climate change since he believes the science might be tainted by oil money? So do you have an answer or are you just going to hurl ad hominem attacks because you don't have anything of substance to add?

[Fairweather]

Don't waste you time, Stone. The parishioners that sit in the pews at the Church of Global Warming are no different than the folks who believe Satan buried dinosaur bones in the Earth to "test their faith". And the fact that their proposed solutions just happen to fit nicely with their collective world view renders any hope of deprogramming them futile.

[tvashtarkatena]

Landru! Landru!

[j_b]

What? j_b doesn't have a rebuttal to the issue that the IPCC is primarily a political body

 

? perhaps you should consider there might there be several possibilities why I haven't posted a response yet. The cascadeclimbers server has been really slow over the last 24 hours and it makes posting somewhat difficult.

 

The scientific part of the IPCC reports is fully under the control of climate scientists despite the affirmations of the same handful of critics. Even a staunch opponent like Lindzen described the reports as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science".

 

yet he wails about incorporating non-anthropogenic influences into the picture of climate change

 

huh? I already told you these non-anthropogenic factors were accounted for in the synthesis of the research compiled by the IPCC. You are confusing a) taking everything that is known into account and finding that GHG emissions are the main factor and b) not accounting for non-anthropogenic forcing.

[ivan]

FW, spare me the agony of reading all this - which of the options below are you going w/?

A) the earth is not getting warmer

B) the earth is warming, it's just not the fault of mankind

[j_b]

Like most deniers, he is going with whatever is most convenient to defuse any attempt at remediation.

[prole]

FW, spare me the agony of reading all this - which of the options below are you going w/?

A) the earth is not getting warmer

B) the earth is warming, it's just not the fault of mankind

 

As always with FW, the answer is:

 

C)

 

[ivan]

 

is that lincoln as the suicide bomber?

 

[Choada_Boy]

I only observe the facts that support my opinion.

[prole]

The Yankee Doodle Martyr Brigades

[Off_White]

Stonehead, I'm thinking you need an avatar pic

 

[el jefe]

Stonehead, I'm thinking you need an avatar pic

 

 

zardoz!

[Peter_Puget]

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

 

See end of section 8.6 page 640.

 

“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

 

The obvious solution is to give away your freedoms ASAP to Herr J_B so he can, along with the other technologists, save us from ourselves.

[prole]

CO-2 Reduction = Stalinist Gulag Nightmare

 

Please elaborate...