Apolitical Staples

When one considers just how many cooks are in the kitchen on this one it will be a wonder if there is any truth left in it by the end.

The key bit of Gunther’s column though is this: “This is the forth IPCC report, and the third in a row in which the doom and- disaster predictions have been revised downward.”

It will be interesting to see in six years where the consensus position lies.

junkscience.com has posted the raw data that was supposed to be released later. It was to be edited to fit with the summary for policy makers.

Someone should devise the ‘upsidedown hockey stick’ graph.

Not the now debunked historical graph, but the real one, which tracks the drop in hysterical predictions.

That’s the thing about predicting the sky is falling. It expires when the sky doesn’t fall or at least starts to fall.

Wanna hear something funny? The Earth’s temp hasn’t risen in the last five years. The ACTUAL WEATHER isn’t complying with those pesky ‘computer models’ (which are based on such assumptions as N. Korea’s economy overtaking the U.S.).

Combine computer models in which the sky’s the limits in terms of variables, with huge political pressure to get the right answer, and you’ll be able to “predict” that the earth will be flat one day.

Great post. I heard some paraphrased quote from Einstein when he was told their was a book coming out saying 100 scientists prove Einstein wrong. Einstein’s repsonse, “It only takes one.” A scientific consensus is just made up language to try and squash any debate.

Revised down?

From what I read, the newer predictions are worse, because events like the breaking of the Larson B ice shelf and the accelerated melting and ice quakes in Greenland is something even the most doom and gloom predicted.

Its a great catch 22 you have created, isn’t it? Even though the vast majority of scientists are convinced global warming is real and caused by humans based on evidence (historical, not “climate models”), a few “scientists” funded by ExxonMobile (like junkscience) say they don’t believe it and you guys scream “there’s a controversy! there is no consensus”. So when the IPCC produces, yet again, a report based on peer-reviewed literature to show that, in fact, there is vast consensus in the scientific world on this, you guys yell “look they used the word consensus, its not scientific!”. So damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Besides, I’ll take the word of 2500 scientists who study in the field over Lorne Gunther any day. And Gunther is wrong.

“News producers, editors and reporters would see right through it. In the environmental world, the IPCC is hailed as the definitive word, and most media fall to their knees before its collective wisdom without raising so much as a suspicion”

He’s absolutely correct, I question whether anyone in the media has taken the time to actually read the report released by the IPCC.

I did myself and based on the information in the report, I can to the conclusion that scientists being ‘very likely’ sure of antropogenic global warming is way too premature.

Firstly, the graph, that I feel is the one that shows what’s causing warming, “Radiative Forcing Components” page 16, is incomplete and ignores most natural factors in favour of antropogenic factors.

Most factors that would effect the results have a low level of scientific understanding. Volcanic activity is omitted outright because it’s ‘episodic’, but should have been because it would have a huge influence.

The only thing this report demonstrates is that a lot of research still needs to be done.

My analysis

Mike, I, for one don’t doubt that climate change is occuring, but I have significant difficulties believing that it’s all the fault of humankind. If the majority of global warming is caused by humans what were our ancestors doing in 800-1200 to make Greenland warm enough for agriculture? I don’t doubt that science will eventually prevail on these questions, but I question how much we actually know right now and how much more we need to know to fully understand the earth’s climate.

science does not work on belief it works on what is provable

Can of worms, Greg. I toss out, just because I am nasty. Evolution, religion or science?

As an added bonus. Is dark matter religon or science?

“From what I read, the newer predictions are worse, because events like the breaking of the Larson B ice shelf and the accelerated melting and ice quakes in Greenland is something even the most doom and gloom predicted.”

Did you know that antartica is home to a number volcanoes, like Mount Erebus, which is very close to the Ross Ice Shelf.

Just food for thought

Antartic Volcanoes

I am not sure your point is all that controversial Sinister Greg. The Theory of Evolution is science. Whether that is random or part of God’s plan is religion. The Theory of Dark Matter is science - albeit theoretical until we have better means of measuring (I’ll admit I am not up on my Astrophysics, maybe there has already been observational evidence).

Anything can be used for either but you are purposely confusin things when you swap the language of one to the other. Take the example of The Secret. Quantum Mechanics has some pretty whacked out stuff and some physicists have taken to using the language of Eastern Mysticism to help explain and understand it. But it is a construct, QM is not mystical. But because the link was made New Agers jumped on board and attempt to use QM to explain any mumbo-jumbo they would like to peddle. Take, for instance, the “Law of Attraction”. Notice the language - LAW. This is a scientific term that has a specific meaning - that he has been proven, 100% locked it, stamped it, no erasies. The new agers in this case are using it to decribe their concept of an all powerful life force that gives you whatever you desire as long as you send out the correct thought waves. It is like the genie in the bottle, your wish is the universes command once you get your thoughts onto the right wave. Call that whatever you want, but it sure ain’t science. But you can get to a paraphrase of your question, is Quantun Mechanics Science or Religion?

is Quantun Mechanics Science or Religion?

Myself I have no doubt it is science. I think you are ascribing to science much more certainty than most scientists do. I think science deals more with probabilities rather than certainties, especially in areas that are new to research. Let me put it another way. Say your child is sick and the best doctors in world examine her and come to you and say “We are 90 percent sure it is X. We can do further testing, but your child may die if we hold off on treatment.” I know what I would say to the doctors. I am confident I know what you would say too.

I could say that is the difference between science and medicine but then I could accuse me of splitting hairs.

I just finished reading the 2007 Summary for Policymakers and the 2001 Summary for Policymakers. Both are available at www.ipcc.ch The temperature and sea level increase projections in the current report are slightly less than those in the 2001 report. The confidence levels of projections are generally higher. This is what you would expect if the science is generally correct. Both reports explicitly say that the catastrophe scenarios (eg 4-6 m sea level rise, Gulf Stream shutdown) are very unlikely within the next 1-3 centuries. In my opinion, it would be prudent to implement no-cost and low-cost means of greenhouse gas reductions. This does not include Canada trying to meet Kyoto, which would certainly be high-cost.

Careful in the use of the words “cause” as compared to “contribute”. A big, big, difference.

Also, I’d love to hear the conclusions of THE EXTENT TO WHICH humans have contributed to the warming, of a presumably already warming earth. It’s my understanding that they have not (and cannot) do so with any reasonable certainty. If I’m pouring a glass of water into the ocean I’m “contributing” to its volume, but only theorhetically.

Kind of an important point no?

Climate science is science, but is a science in its infancy. If today’s climatologists understand the subject about as well as the pioneers of psychoanalysis understood theirs, we have a vast potential for errors. While we’re all running around measuring the knowledge of the “experts” relative to the “laymen”, we’ve forgotton to judge the knowledge of the experts relative to the complexity and scope of the field, and assess their expert opinions accordingly. Today’s concensus could turn out to be a dead end like phlogiston or luminiferous ether. Given the historical track record for getting things right on the first try, the odds don’t favour today’s climatologists.

Reducing the scope of our open-ended experiment with C02 emissions can be, as MarkCh mentioned, done on its own merits without crippling human development. But the first step in that direction is to shake off the Kyoto zealots and everyone else who already thinks he has the One True Answer.