Human Induced Climate Change as Probability

I recently got involved with some debate with Climate Change denial folk in an on line comment stream, and made the following comment in response to a thoughtful and intelligent comment, that I thought would be good to re-post here with some additions: 

There has been plenty of natural rhythm climate change. The point now is that we are adding to that. And yes 200 years is a very small part of earth history, but quite compared to our and our children’s life time. i.e. It matters to us.

I follow the Austrian philosopher of science and conservative thinker Karl Popper (1902 to 1994) see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

in believing there is no such thing as conclusive proof in science; merely failure to disprove. Climate science is still emerging, but right now the climate science consensus is overwhelmingly that we face 3-5 degrees C rise causes by methane and Co2 emissions. And that this will cause chaos and major problems. But as you say it is not fully 100% certain.

But just as I insure my house against quite low probabilities of fire etc., so with climate change the results are so potentially awful (the Pentagon did a study on the military implications aka wars) we should take action on the precautionary basis. I am always surprised that conservatives, who value the precautionary principle in some many other political areas, and like Karl Popper wish to avoid radical change, because the effects are so unpredictable, are willing to play high stake poker with the planet when the results are unpredictable and potentially catastrophic. Moreover, the actions that I think we should take are far more nuclear power, more alternative energy, less coal, less oil, focus on insulation of buildings etc., and these are all things we need to do for other reasons, including because oil is sometime running out, is found in unstable areas (indeed finding oil causes instability) and that it makes economic sense. GE saved over a billion in costs by energy conservation measures.

I hope climate change is not happening, but am not prepared to take the risk. I read the case against human induced climate change.  Here are what I find the most interesting counter-arguments with some counter comment too:

  • I agree climate science is recent and not fully developed.
  • We don’t understand all the feedback loops that rising temperatures trigger, but so far they have all proved to accelerate rather than check rising temperatures.
  • We don’t fully understand cloud cover effects.
  • Our temperature measurements are difficult because the historical records are not as good as our current records and
  • there is different trend data by altitude from ground and remote sensing.
  • And there is of course the meta risk that climate scientists are guilty of some form of group think of being boxed in some paradigm.
  • But I know of no recent scientific issue, in which there was such consensus amongst the experts.
  • There is not a reputable single climate department in the world that I know of that does not think that human induced climate change is a major problem, though they differ on its pace.
  • Their differences by the way are one confirmation that we are not dealing with group think here.
  • And there is such a massive potential gain to someone overturning the theory because we could then divert our attention to other pressing global problems environmental (9 billion people on the planet) and other.
  • Given this complexity I hazard the guess that there is no more than a 20% risk that the climate scientists are wrong.

And so I hazard the guess that human induced climate change is about 80% certain, and to have serious implications and that is good enough for me to suggest we act. I do look at the arguments against this, as above, but so far none are very convincing and none meet the standards of peer reviewed science.

There is also an interesting overlap of beliefs. According to Pew polling data in theUSand elsewhere: 20% of the world’s population thinks the sun goes round the earth; 50% don’t accept evolution; and 50% don’t accept man made climate change. Almost all the 20% who think the sun goes round the earth also don’t accept evolution or human induced climate change; almost all the 50%, who don’t accept evolution, don’t accept climate change. This doesn’t prove anything, but is interesting alignment of beliefs about scientific evidence. Like all science, evolution is not ‘proved’, but is probably the most tested and supported scientific hypothesis in history. It explains how our immune system works right now, no need for fossils.

Though there are very many clever people contesting climate change, they use their smarts to prove their point not to doubt it. I like doubt. And I use probability to handle doubt about the uncertain future. And I do insure my house based on the probability, though it is low, of its potential loss. Why would not believers in the free market not do the same with climate change? The insurance industry is based on probability and gets climate change. And fundamentally why don’t conservatives want to conserve?

Advertisements

About creativeconflictwisdom

I spent 32 years in a Fortune Five company working on conflict: organizational, labor relations and senior management. I have consulted in a dozen different business sectors and the US Military. I work with a local environmental non profit. I have written a book on the neuroscience of conflict, and its implications for conflict handling called Creative Conflict Wisdom (forthcoming).
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Human Induced Climate Change as Probability

  1. rogerthesurf says:

    “I follow the Austrian philosopher of science and conservative thinker Karl Popper (1902 to 1994) ….in believing there is no such thing as conclusive proof in science; merely failure to disprove.”

    Oh no you don’t, because if you did, you would be observing and talking about all the factors that DISPROVE the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  2. @ rogerthesurf. Thanks for your comment, as this blog is all about conflict and argument so we welcome contrary posts with enthusiasm if they meet our posting standards of civility. You will find contradictory postings here pro and anti on some issues as I am not big on orthodoxy.

    I summarized what I believe to be the best counter arguments in my paragraph above and repeat it below. It is a summary and I think I have picked what I find most convincing in the anti-human induced climate change arguments, specifically the feedback loop complexity, the water vapour/cloud effects, the temperature measuring difficulties and the differences in temperature trends by altitude, the problems of comparability between current and historical records and the meta problem: are climate scientists suffering from ‘group think’: You may have other favourites, but these are mine. They do not amount to a convincing refutation (to use Karl Popper’s term) but are enough for me to assign 20% doubt.

    Here’s what I posted originally:
    ‘I read the case against human induced climate change. I agree climate science is recent and not fully developed. We don’t understand all the feedback loops that rising temperatures trigger but so far they have all proved to accelerate rather than check rising temperatures. We don’t fully understand cloud cover effects. Our temperature measurements are difficult because the historical records are not as good as our current records and there is different data by altitude from ground and remote sensing. And there is of course the risk that climate scientists are guilty of some form of group think of being boxed in some paradigm.’

    I would admit that perhaps ‘follower of Karl Popper’ is slightly exaggerated. Influenced by him would be better perhaps. Though Karl (whom I met once) did talk about the need for a better theory before we entirely letting go of the old one, and I see little in the way of good theory from the anti human induced climate change folk, just very selective contrarian-ism, which I do welcome if it is based on observed data.

    I never talk about global warming by the way, as what we are facing is complex climate change with complex results, feedback loops and major likely effects on rain fall, extreme weather events. New Zealand is I recall expecting relatively little effect, though the west is expected to get wetter and east drier. I will likely move there if things get bad elsewhere as I really like it. 🙂 Global warming is far too simple a term as used by both sides. And I don’t mix up weather which is noise in the system and hard to forecast in principle with long term trends in averages, though these may include more extreme weather on average. On balance I have not seen any more than 20% convincing disproof; hence my rough estimate that negative impact 3 degrees C or more rise in average temperature is 80% likely. I am not sure Karl would have approved of my probability approach.

    My biggest issue with the anti-human induced climate change tendency is that they now have 100% certainty human induced climate change is definitely not happening. That itself is a violation of Popper who would merely say that the theory that climate change is not happening is itself a theory that cannot be proved merely disproved. And I don’t think it has been fully disproved, just made unlikely. 🙂 Given the consequences of climate change as predicted, the precautionary principle says protect against it even if it is say only say 20% likely AND given my suggested remedies listed above are needed for other reasons, why not protect?

  3. PS I you want to succinctly and civilly summarize say the top ten reasons you think human induced climate change is not happening, avoiding conspiracy theories where possible, I would be happy to post it as a guest post on my blog. Or give me the URL of what you think the most convincing, measured but civil anti site is, I will take a look and post a summary of its arguments. I am also changing the format of my original post to make the anti arguments stand out a bit better.

  4. rogerthesurf says:

    Thanks for your reply.

    The notion that anthropogenic CO2 causes significant and malignant changes to our climate has not been scientifically proven.

    Here are some reasons why this is true.

    There are many academic, peer reviewed, published papers around that contradict what you read from the IPCC and other POLITICAL organisations. There are many hundreds of these, perhaps thousands that contradict every facet that the IPCC needs to support its notion of AGW.

    Here is a sample.

    An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
    – Richard S. Courtney

    An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
    – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNide

    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
    – Roy Clark

    A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
    – William Kininmonth

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
    – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
    – Robert C. Balling Jr.
    A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    – Craig Loehle

    An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    An upper limit to global surface air temperature
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    As I said, for no good reason, these papers and many others like them are ignored by the IPCC and its followers. You may also read criticisms on the net about some of these authors, but you should also note that the criticisms are aimed at the person, not the work, and only rarely are there academic papers, that have been peer reviewed etc., published to contradict these authors, which of course is the proper scientific way to disagree in a situation like this.

    Therefore as there is no “strong, credible body of evidence” as the above sample of papers show, one needs to examine more closely what the IPCC is claiming.

    On one hand we have data that shows, or purports to show, that the climate is indeed warming unusually rapidly over the last 50 years or so. I say purports, as there is some
    doubt about the accuracy of the data, however the climate may well be warming.

    On the other hand, we have measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere that show that this has increased concentration has increased, as a portion of the atmosphere is only about 0.0213% since 1960, (dosn’t sound too much when you put it like that does it?).

    Nevertheless it is true that anthropogenic CO2 has increased.

    Now in order to prove that there is a connection between these two events that is proof of a causation factor, we need peer reviewed scientific publications that show this.

    Alas there appears to be none. All of the IPCC conclusions are based on 1. That this rather weak correlation is actual proof, and or 2. On scientific model results, which being only hypothesis in themselves, are not proof either.

    So one would expect something along the lines of the following:-

    Published academic papers using at least one of the following methods to show that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is more than just a possibility.

    1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.
    2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.
    3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

    Now I’m sure you do not need it, but just in case, here is a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

    I think number three is the most important, because it means, that in order to consider the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a better hypothesis over a null hypothesis (such as “The climate naturally changes anyway”) one has to explain how and why all the previous warmings occurred (At least three in historical times).

    Now check out my blog and then see if you can find any academic papers that explain why the planet has heated up before, even though there was zero anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Well do you want to believe that statement in the absence of any actual proof? Well in fact who would care anyway? EXCEPT that the cost of the IPCC CO2 emission reductions and proposed wealth transfers will reduce western economies to the point where the population (including ourselves) is likely to starve. This fact is becoming increasingly obvious and this is why we must insist on actual proof before we decide whether to support the IPCC.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/co2-emission-cuts-the-economic-costs-of-the-epas-anpr-regulations
    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

    What it really boils down to is that the only “evidence” for AGW is a very tenuous correlation.
    When I studied statistics, almost the first lessen was that a correlation while being a neccesary condition for a proof, in itself without other evidence, has no significance at all.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  5. rogerthesurf says:

    I apologise for the spelling errors in my last comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • No sweat Roger. I will fix them when I have a moment. Didn’t notice them but want you to look your best. Cheers. CCB. PS Did you see the Klem comment? He thinks I have crossed to the dark side in my probability approach, though I guess he is on your side in this argument. 🙂

  6. louploup2 says:

    I have been working on climate impact adaptation for years, and have followed the debate closely. rogerthesurf’s statement “As I said, for no good reason, these papers and many others like them are ignored by the IPCC and its followers. ” is simply not true; the IPCC “and its followers (meaning 97% of the world’s climate scientists) have plenty of good reasons to ignore the people he cites. The numerous papers listed by roger are by authors who have not been able to get much published in the peer reviewed science journals because their methodologies are often flawed and their conclusions are agenda driven. For the most part, the named individuals are identified with ideologically based climate change denial, not honest scientific inquiry.

    I think your initial post is accurate; deniers abuse Popper in their often very personal and nasty attacks on climate scientists. Read Watt’s Up With That, or ClimateAudit. After wading through the vile posts and incompetent science there, I can see why you would want to avoid the subject.

    I do note that your statement “New Zealand is I recall expecting relatively little effect, though the west is expected to get wetter and east drier” ignores oceanic impacts which will directly impact NZ: acidification and sea level rise. But we’ll likely be dead by the time those impacts get major, so I guess it’s as a good a place as any outside of the interior of continents and the tropics, that are both likely to become hugely unpleasant. Already happening…

    Excuse me if my post doesn’t meet your standards for civility. The deniers are a sorry lot driven by the agenda of fossil fuel energy corporations, not the betterment of humankind. They need to be confronted with reality where ever they post their non-science.

    • @louploup. Your post perfectly meets our standards of civility. As I recently posted in another context, climate change deniers do something that in the auto industry is called reverse engineering. There manufacturers see a strong rival product and work back from it to how it was made so they can copy it. In climate change, deniers see the policy implications of climate change: more government regulation etc and instead of coming up with creative alternatives they simply deny it is happening. So they ‘reverse engineer’ reality from their dislike of policy implications. I agree with you on the poor standard of climate change deniers work. And of course Popper (like the Reverend Bayes) might ask the deniers my favorite question: ‘What would it take, what evidence would it take to change your mind?’ In my case it would be a large number of reputable climate scientists changing their minds and giving me the data to support their change. I would actually prefer climate change were not happening…. 🙂

      • rogerthesurf says:

        If you want to attempt to make a valid point, for a start why dont you guys take the time to disprove the references I provided above.
        The very fact that you refer to “deniers” shows that you have a prejudicial standpoint for a start.
        If you want to look at the facts try dropping the emotion and approach the facts with an open logical mind.

        Cheers

        Roger
        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • @rogerthesurf. Well I guess I have been following the climate debate since Margaret Thatcher drew attention to the problem in the late 1980s. As with most conservatives that I know of and indeed those I know personally, because it was pointed out to her that the implication of adverse climate change was more government interference she dropped her position on it, which was unfortunate. Ever since, I have relied on peer reviewed scientific journals and their summaries in New Scientist, Scientific American etc. all of which delight in undermining established theories if peer review refutation is found. I am not a climate scientist but I did study climatology in the days before we thought it was being changed by humans. I absolutely wish human induced climate change were not happening. But just as on quantum theory, string theory, medicine/immunology, DNA etc and other science that interests me, in the main science is too specialist for me to form my own views; I rely on the experts though always keeping an open mind. In the case of climate change, I have also my own personal experience seeing glaciers in North America, and Chile and I also look at the sea ice on trans Atlantic flights and on satellite photos, which is the closest I can get to personal experience on this.

        I also note the human tendency towards both confirmation bias and projecting our own sins onto others. The folk who deny climate change seem guilty of both those things. But hey part of science is to listen to rogue heresies and just once in a while they have some value. To date the predictions of the climate change folk have mostly been wrong in the direction of under stating the changes. But in the main, as I have said before, my Bayesian moment, my answer to the question ‘what will it take to change your mind’ on climate change, is a major article in New Scientist or wherever showing how at least three major high reputation climate science departments and perhaps 15 reputable climate change scientists have changed their minds and decided that human induced climate change is not happening. So far all the mind changing seems to be former deniers, or denialistas as I more light heartedly call them, becoming convinced it is happening. And yes I am deeply prejudiced against ‘bad science’ and deeply prejudiced in favor of peer reviewed science which is foundational to our civilization and our economy. Do I wish Quantum theory were less paradoxical; sure but I don’t let that get in the way of using electronics which depend on it being ‘true’….

        Thanks as ever for your comments. Not my job or capability to disprove climate is not changing folk. I don’t have 800,000 years of ice cores, the global data over the last 200 years or whatever and I certainly don’t know how to model the climate system on this laptop. And yes science is about models and without models you are in Borges land or Alice in Wonderland where they had larger and larger scale maps until they got to 1:1 scale and decided just to use the landscape itself as it became hard to fold the 1:1 map. ‘The map is not the territory’ but is either useful or not.

  7. rogerthesurf says:

    You did a great job of disproving the papers I mentioned, I see you have brilliantly based your beliefs of your perusal of the available facts. Your comment shows a certain train of thought which is intellectually beyond any normal reader.
    You should read this report about that infallible and authorative organisation called the IPCC.
    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/climatechangeassessmentsreviewoftheprocessesproceduresoftheipcc1.pdf

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • @rogerthesurf. I am a professional negotiator by background and while I sometimes use sarcasm, it is largely ineffective in arguments.I was fortunate to share a house with a later Professor of the Philosophy of Science and even once met Karl Popper. So I have a lot of interest in this aspect of the issue. I am also interested in the psychology of this issue too. We are all guilty of confirmation bias: only noticing those facts that suit our view of the world. But in the case of climate change, despite past study of climatology, I no longer feel equipped to personally prove or disprove the theories, models, data testing, criticism and counter hypotheses that represent good science. At least not in the field of climate science. I trained as an economist so I feel more able to do it there.

      I doubt that amateurs like yourself or those who populate the non science commentariat on climate science are equipped to either. And there are no ‘facts’ in science so much as data whose significance needs to be interpreted and fitted into a view of the reality being studied, the theory of the case. I tend to follow Philip Kitchen’s modest realism on this if you are interested in reading about him via Google.

      As for the IPCC, I have never had much time for committees and if you think any committee infallible you are on a different planet to me. I certainly don’t base my perspective on the IPCC but on the reported academic consensus behind it and my ‘what would it take to change my mind’ criteria. I note you haven’t said what data would make you accept climate change is happening, so really you are staking nothing scientifically; just confirmation biasing away.

      That said I think the strongest claims of the denial camp are that climate science is not fully developed (sure), that C02 and temperature correlation does not mean causation (though that C02 is a greenhouse gas seems incontrovertible), that sun activity is causing the warming (no obvious correlation), that cloud feedback loops are underestimated (possibly), that climate scientists have embraced self interested group think (doesn’t feel like it as they have many different views while agreeing that climate change is happening and a huge pay off for anyone who really made a dent in the consensus and the really bribing/biasing in the field is done by oil companies deep pockets), and that temperature measurements were biased by urban warm spots (which has been addressed in the latest meta study and found not to be change the picture). A number of leading deniers have recently changed their views with the integrity that seeing their ‘what would it take to change my mind’ criteria being met, they changed their minds remarkably.

      What seems to me to be the case is that the climate science models of CO2 have been good at producing predictions in the right direction: the earth is getting hotter and weirder in its climate, but to date they have underestimated the speed and probably the power of positive feedback loops like sea ice melt, methane released as perma frost ends, and effects on ocean flora which seem to be speeding things up. Now of course I haven’t heard the deniers explanation of the Arctic sea ice halving this summer. But with confirmation bias you can explain anything I suppose.

      Thanks for your comment, sarcasm and all, which is wasted on my thick hide and does your case no service. Respectfully.

      • louploup2 says:

        Excellent response; you are indeed a diplomat.

        I looked at the document cited by Roger, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the IPCC process. Unfortunately for Roger, the report does not support his (apparent) conclusion that it undermines the IPCC’s synthesis of the work by thousands of scientists. Below is the first paragraph of the conclusion, which is followed by ten pages of specific recommendations to strengthen the IPCC’s process, including better management, greater transparency and accountability in report drafting, and improvements in “Characterizing and communicating uncertainties.”

        “5. Conclusions
        IPCC’S processes and procedures
        The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below.”

      • @louploup. Thanks. I try to be the diplomat..

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Needless to say that you are studiously avoiding reading and trying to explain these published peer reviewed papers that disagree with your biased opinion. Plenty more on my site as well.

        Your rather rambling comment shows that you have little understanding of the issues, you have no idea about modeling, in spite of your education in economics and your conclusions are based on your emotion as your use of name calling shows.

        Just take the time to look at some facts is my advice.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • @rogerthesurf. I don’t actually think you have read a word I have written in my posts or maybe you just don’t understand anything about scientific method as evidenced by the idea that the facts are out there. I don’t feel remotely emotional about this issue as actually I think we are doomed already because of folk like you. Take your statement ‘you have no idea about modeling’ Where does that actually come from? What have I said that makes you think that? What do you know about my modeling ability. You will note that I tend to avoid attributing anything to you. I don’t know you, I don’t know how intelligent, educated, analytical etc you are. I just assume you are reasonably intelligent but subject to confirmation bias and not really open to being wrong. You still haven’t answered my fundamental question: ‘what data would make you change your mind’ Without that risk, that showing how you could be proved wrong, you are engaging in belief not science. Oh and I guess if you found my piece rambling, maybe you have limited attention span. Who knows. What name calling? Oh I suppose deniers. Well I can’t think of a good short hand alternative as you deny that human induced climate change is happening what else do I call you? Doubters doesn’t do it as I am a doubter. Deniers have beliefs that are impervious to data or why else would you not tell us what data would make you change your mind? I don’t. I have clearly stated the basis on which I stop thinking human induced climate change is happening and yes I have read much of the material you reference and it doesn’t make the peer reviewed criteria in the main. You and one of your mates reviewing each others’ blogs doesn’t make it peer reviewed. But heck you know that…

      • PS Roger the surf. I had a look at your web site and it does come across as rather one sided. No real analysis of the weak spots in the case against human induced climate change and no real wrestling with the latest data set showing the warming and factoring out urban hot spots. As I try to show on my blog, I like those who disagree with me to join the fun.

  8. rogerthesurf says:

    louploup2,

    How about reading the report before you comment?

    All the criticsms aimed at the IPCC are confirmed. Here are some examples.

    “The absence of a transparent author-selection process or
    well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and
    undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the
    assessment (e.g., Pielke, 2010a). The IPCC has no formal process or
    criteria for selecting authors,”
    P15

    “information that is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in
    IPCC assessments often appears in the so-called ‘gray literature,’ which
    includes technical reports, working papers, presentations and conference
    proceedings, fact sheets, bulletins, statistics, observational data sets, and
    model output produced by government agencies, international organizations,
    universities, research centers, nongovernmental organizations,
    corporations, professional societies, and other groups. The extent to which
    such information has been peer-reviewed varies a great deal, as does its
    quality.”
    P16

    “alternative views are not always
    cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”
    P 18

    “Although most respondents agreed that government
    buy-in is important, many were concerned that reinterpretations of the
    assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically
    motivated. However, participating governments may have diverse political
    agendas that might cancel each other out. Moreover, the Working Group
    Co-chairs and Lead Authors exercise the authority to reject proposed revisions
    they believe are not consistent with their underlying Working Group
    report. Thus, the continued involvement of scientists in the drafting and
    approval process of the Summaries for Policymakers is critical to the scientific
    credibility of the report.”
    P23

    “However, many of the conclusions in the
    ‘Current Knowledge About Future Impacts’ section of the Working Group
    II Summary for Policymakers are based on unpublished or non-peerreviewed
    literature.”
    P34

    And there are many more damning statements. The only thing you got right was your statement:-

    “some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential”

    You bet they need some fundamental changes! Sticking to the facts might be the best change of all.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • louploup2 says:

      “All the criticsms aimed at the IPCC are confirmed.” Whose criticisms were confirmed? Please be specific, because if you mean criticism by the denialosphere that the IPCC conclusions about AGW are wrong, it is clearly an inaccurate statement. That’s why I selected the quote I pulled (after reading through the entire document); the review found no fundamental errors in the core work of the IPCC.

      “Sticking to the facts” appears to be a problem for you (and deniers in general), not for the IPCC. So, following up on your earlier comment above regarding “published peer reviewed papers that disagree with your biased opinion,” please cite to peer reviewed papers (or agree with the statement) that:

      • Disprove the greenhouse effect and that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases (GHG).

      • Disprove that global temperature is rising, and extreme weather events are increasing.

      • Disprove that human GHG emissions are the most likely forcing agent causing global temperatures to rise (i.e., prove that some other forcing agent is responsible for the last half-century of temperature increases).

      • Disprove that the Arctic Ocean is likely to be ice free (or very close to it) in late summer in this decade.

      Proving a negative (“disprove”) is rather difficult, so let’s make the exercise easier: substitute “”tend to disprove” for “disprove.” And when you find papers that do tend to disprove one of the principles, be sure to include later citing papers that add to or subtract from the disproof, because the failure to do so sets you up to rely on theories that have been shown to be dead ends. Like “the sun did it.”

      • @louploup. Thanks, a nice courteous reply that didn’t have to say negative things about roger the surf. Though I think he doesn’t like the term ‘denier’ but I am not sure what alternative he would request. I tend to call myself an affirmer…affirmer of scientific method, of peer reviewed scientific expertise in fields I am not expert in, and affirmer that we all do suffer from confirmation bias. The only difference on the latter is that I know I suffer from it so go to some lengths to counter it and roger the surf doesn’t realize he is suffering from it so takes no precautions against it. Oh but I ramble…in danger of exceeding attention spans. 🙂 Or becoming sarcastic…I do wait for his answer to the key question: what would it take to change your mind as I love that question…But in the spirit of diplomacy I offer the term climate change sceptic or skeptic depending on nationality…Though the problem with that is I am a sceptic/skeptic too…I am as skeptical/sceptical of climate change skepticism/scepticism as of climate change itself and I certainly wish climate change were not happening….

      • rogerthesurf says:

        “All the criticsms aimed at the IPCC are confirmed.” Whose criticisms were confirmed? Please be specific, because if you mean criticism by the denialosphere that the IPCC conclusions about AGW are wrong, it is clearly an inaccurate statement.”

        Well as you no doubt throw all critics of the IPCC into your “denialosphere”, I don’t have much room to maneuver.

        However, you ask “whose criticisms were confirmed”, so just to show there are critics consistent with the quotes I listed, here is a list of a few of the many thousands of them.

        I would also point out that the quotes I listed are only a few out of the 100 plus page document.. There is something similar on almost every page!

        I agree that such horrendous admissions/confirmations conflict with the conclusion you mention, but every single one of these very serious admissions alone brings the IPCC into disrepute. I think it is reasonable to let the content enable ones own conclusions.

        Past and criticism has been and is vindicated.

        IPCC uses non peer reviewed literature.
        http://www.science20.com/science_20/ipcc_gives_science_makes_grey_literature_official-91262
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
        http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
        http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/ipcc-non-peer-reviewed-sources-task-group-says-lets-disappear-the-rule/

        ipcc summaries are politically motivated
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
        http://climatephysics.com/?p=43
        http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

        IPCC does not acknowledge opposing views/literature
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills
        http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2010/05/richard-tols-draft-submission-to-iac.html
        http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/06/von-storch-on-the-iac-and-ipcc-and-lead-author-edenhofer-is-lying-says-richard-tol/
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

        IPCC literature is not always peer reviewed.
        http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
        http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php
        Donna Laframboise’s book http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/donna-laframboises-new-book-causing-reviews-in-absentia-amongst-some-agw-advocates/
        http://alexjc38.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/donna-laframboise-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert/

        The IPCC has no formal process or
        criteria for selecting authors,”
        Donna Laframboise’s book http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/donna-laframboises-new-book-causing-reviews-in-absentia-amongst-some-agw-advocates/
        http://alexjc38.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/donna-laframboise-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert/

        Suggest you purchase a copy of Laframboise’s book.

        2.All these “disprove” things you list are entirely irrelevant. They may or may not be happening. However as I have mentioned a number of times above, what is unknown is the causation of these things.
        The truth is, in the history of the world, all these things have happened before, so if you can come up with some empirical evidence of causation that shows that CO2 should be blamed, you will be the first in the world to have it.

        creativeconflictwisdom seems to think that modelling supplies proof. If he is so very highly qualified as he claims, he would know that models only illustrate hypothesis’ and simply provide no proof at all.

        I make no apologies for my website being one sided. As well as that, it is well documented and every thing mentioned and linked is factual.

        Don’t see any of you guys actually dealing with any of this evidence.

        It is hard I know because facts are difficult to disprove without resorting to name calling and other abuse.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • @rogerthesurf. I will let @louploup respond to your IPCC comments and his items for disproof. Though I don’t think your comments support your overall conclusion. You are a climate sceptic (to try to find a polite name) and you have strong confirmation bias as you web site suggests.

        I will take up your comment on my approach. According to many in the field of philosophy of science, starting with Karl Popper, there is no such thing as ultimate proof in science. There are just models and hypotheses that are yet to be be disproved. Now of course, if an hypothesis has been subject to extensive testing and indeed if there is no better explanation available, the hypothesis stands, but in good science is never accepted as a belief not subject to further testing and refinement. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution would be in this category: extensively tested, nothing in biology makes much sense if it is not true, but at the margins it is still being tested and refined so that for instance the immune system may have some non Darwinian characteristics but does not overthrow the central theory.

        ‘Models only illustrate hypotheses and simply provide no proof at all.’ This suggests you have never done any science. Models are the structure and context for individual hypotheses. They help generate predictions and explain why the predictions are what they are. The proof or more formally failure to disprove is in the comparison of the prediction with the data, with the outcome of an experiment or data collection,and the comparison with alternative models and hypotheses to see how well it fares comparatively. Newtonian physics did pretty well until scale changed and we were dealing with sub-atomic or cosmic scales. Then anomalies arose that led to Einstein’s theories and Quantum physics, neither of which fully explain the nature of matter. Hence the continuing quest for a grand theory of everything as it is called. I don’t run an amateur blog on string theory any more than I would run one on climate change. I am simply not qualified to assess models, hypotheses, testing, and the quality of results.

        I don’t claim to be ‘highly qualified‘ in climate science. (I was an economist and economic historian and have since worked for decades in the auto industry.) That is my point. Neither are you in a position to make sound judgements of the science or conduct the testing of hypotheses good science involves. The one sided nature of your web site is what makes it non-scientific and hard to take seriously. (And politely it also rambles as you suggest I do.) If you read the original article I posted I set out what I think to be the evidence and if you want a point by point refutation of your views, I suggest Grist which I think did just that.

        Finally, I note that you still haven’t provided a hostage to reality: a statement of what it would take to change your mind and accept that climate change is happening and is human induced. Without that even with your amateur level of knowledge in this field, which might like amateur astronomers still throw some interesting light, your statements are not really to be taken seriously. Climate science is continually testing its predictions and models and as in good science may one day need a new theory as per Einstein or whoever that better explains observations and predictions. Until that day I, as originally posted, I am about 80% comfortable climate change is happening. And given the downside risks, am perfectly happy to support remedial efforts and adaptative efforts, especially as most of them like nuclear power, energy economy, switch from coal and oil, search for new energy sources, are sensible for other reasons like national security,health and sound economics. Respectfully.

        PS My layman’s level summary of the state of CO2 science: C02 is a greenhouse gas that retains heat from sunlight in easily measured ways. If you had a lab you could do it for yourself. It is not as potent a greenhouse gas a methane which as I recall is about 20 times more heat retaining. The well measured rise in C02 parts per million produces clear testable predictions about the rise in temperature that will result and the temperature rises we are experiencing correlate well with these predictions. But correlation is not causation. It is the known green house quality of CO2 that supports the hypothesis that humanity is causing climate change via well measured increases in CO2 emissions. The process is complicated, however, because there are feed back loops such as methane release from melting perma-frost, the fact that as sea ice melts it no longer reflects sunlight but absorbs it into the ocean water and other positive feedback loops that seem to be accelerating climate change more than CO2 on its own would do and which may explain the much faster than predicted loss of Arctic sea ice. There may be some negative feedback loops such as increased cloud cover reflecting more sunlight and thus reducing heat absorption but I am not aware of any estimates of how significant this is, this not being my field.

        None of the alternative theories to explain climate change such as sun activity, rebound from past ice ages or whatever correlate well with the observed temperature change detail and thus to date are not good tested theories. The strongest criticism of climate change science in my view came from the suggestion that weather station measuring in urban areas failed to take account of the heat effect of urbanization. This has been taken into account in this year’s complete re-calibration of the historical temperature change and does not effect the conclusion. This has convinced a number of leading climate scientists who were sceptical on this issue to change their minds. Good for them: an example you should consider following Roger

        Finally, I had first hand experience of the auto industry which in the last ten years has moved from scepticism and alliance with the oil industry to fund anti climate change PR pseudo science to acceptance of the reality of climate change.The interesting thing about the oil companies is that have put no money into real research on climate change; only ex post funding of folk who agree with them. And the oil companies learned their strategy from the tobacco companies approach to the smoking/cancer link.

  9. rogerthesurf says:

    Well you have a lot to say for yourself but frankly you do not make a lot of sense.

    Also you are just being somewhat arrogant in assuming that you know everything on this subject although ” (You are) simply not qualified to assess models, hypotheses, testing, and the quality of results. “.
    Maybe there is just a chance that I know a thing or two.

    “Finally, I note that you still haven’t provided a hostage to reality: a statement of what it would take to change your mind and accept that climate change is happening and is human induced.”

    I have an open mind, which is more than I can say for you. Why not try re reading some of my early comments on your site? If you can come up with some empirical evidence, I am ready to hear it. A good start would be to come up with a good hypothesis that explains the difference in causation between previous historical warmings and the recent increase in temperatures.

    Why not take a good look at my site. These things are all covered there.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • @rogerthesurf. I don’t find any value in criticizing the personality characteristics of people I don’t know. And in an argument stream like this, it is known as ad hominem argument: not addressing the arguments but saying: you think like that because of some personality flaw. ‘Somewhat arrogant’ might be projection of your own approach. I don’t know. There is absolutely nothing in my original posting or in the comments I have made since that would suggest that I think I know everything about the subject. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would say that. I have repeated again and again that I am not an expert, not qualified to judge climate change as if I were an expert.

      Of course, I think you know a thing or two or I would have bothered to read your comments, post them on my site, read your website, or take time responding. You know a lot and I do try to look at it all with an open mind. But with said open mind I find what you say unconvincing. If you want the empirical evidence go to Grist or one of the other sites. My summary in my last posting is my best take on the conclusions of the empirical evidence but yes I don’t actually give you 800,000 years of ice core summary, the latest meta study of temperatures adjusted for urban hots spots or whatever, because I respect you enough to think you can look at them yourself. I have. Have you? I don’t see the references to that material which is counter to your view on your site. While my site includes all you have said because it is about conflict, argument etc. And I love contrarianism and countering it too. 🙂

      My real interest in this whole subject is as a conflict professional which is what the blog is about. I am particularly interested in the neuroscience and psychology of conflict and right now in something called ‘confirmation bias’ which is the human tendency to focus on data that confirms what we believe and disregard anything that contradicts it or find ways to discredit it. I know I suffer from it, which is why I start the day reading a newspaper on line that has the opposite politics to me. And why I debate this issue of climate with folk like you. But I don’t think you realize just how much you are subject to confirmation bias. Your whole website is testament to that as it does not really consider the strengths of the opposite case.

      And of course you have still not given a testable information on what it would take to change your mind. In my forthcoming book on conflict I define fundamentalism as the inability to answer the question, ‘what would it take to change you mind’by any other than the answer: nothing. Nothing would change my mind. Climate change is simply not happening so there can be no data to show that it is. That is not a scientific stance. Science is all about having all your hypotheses open to question. Yours aren’t.

      And in the case of mine, without sufficient depth in this field, all I can do is non arrogantly point you at the counter arguments and the data that backs them up. And I will have a look as you suggest at the difference between the current and historical changes in climate. I do know from my pre-history studies that large scale vegetation clearance in North America and Australia is thought to have caused some previous human induced climate change but I don’t have the references to hand. I doubt this was the cause for the medieval changes. But I think it naive to think that climate scientists who have studied the last 800,000 years of ice core data have not thought of this argument. But you have. That might count as arrogant. You Roger for all your confirmation bias reading are like me an amateur. Amateurs can and have sometimes thrown new light but they are rarely qualified to assess the reliability of the new light. Respectfully and with due humility. And I suggest that just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they are stupid, arrogant or suffer from some personality flaw. I may be all three but as you don’t know me, I respectfully suggest you focus on the arguments.

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Really, frankly you do write a lot of garbage.

        “Climate change is simply not happening so there can be no data to show that it is.”

        First of all I have never claimed that the climate is changing or not changing.
        To any open minded intelligent person, climate changes are irrelevant, what matters istha CAUSATION of these changes. Seeing as how the climate isalways changing naturally, for “AGW” to be meaningful at all, you need some proper evidence on the causation.
        This is what I have being saying all along and I can’t believe you have not yet grasped this point.

        Cheers

        Roger
        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • @rogerthesurf. I am disappointed, given that I gave you a platform for a guest blog last October and now all you do is insult me. @Louploup was right that my diplomacy is wasted on you. When it all comes down to it, all you can say is ‘Really, frankly you do write a lot of garbage’. I wasted my time trying to have a sensible dialogue with you.’Human induced climate change is simply not happening so there can be no data to show that it is.’ That is what I think you are saying and you offer no data that would change your mind. Ergo you are a fundamentalist on this issue. Pity as you have studied a lot but as George Kelly says, hostility is the reaction to imminent threat that your paradigm of the world is going to be overturned.

        But as I never say never. Here goes on the ‘proof’ of human induced climate change though I see it as merely something to be subject to continued testing that could be overturned. To the best of our current knowledge:
        1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It tests in the lab that the proportion of C02 in a gas sample mirroring our atmosphere subject to sunlight heats in predictable ways that mirror what we know of sunlight energy and its effect on CO2 molecules
        2) We have 800,000 years of temperature/CO2 levels from ice cores and there is a good correlation for much of the time between CO2 levels and temperature. Of course correlation is not causation but no one has so far come with a plausible mechanism that temperature drives CO2 levels. Some third force could cause both like sun activity but there is so far no correlation that would support that
        3) The measured correlation between CO2 levels and temperature fits reasonably the measured green house effect from the lab so absent disproof CO2 is the cause of the recent rise in temperature
        4) We know roughly how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere in the last 200 years and how much deforestation we have done that reduces C02 absorption. So the CO2 rise is human induced and so by implication is the temperature rise
        5) However, the temperature rise is somewhat greater than the CO2 levels would predict and this probablyn reflects other position feedback loops from the rising temperatures such as methane release (another proven green house gas) from permafrost melting and also the reduced reflection of sunlight from water rather than ice as sea ice melts. These feedback loops are the most worrying aspect of climate change. Potentially there might be negative feedback loops like cloud cover but so far no sign they are large enough to make much difference
        6) All of this needs complex modeling and our understanding is still developing

        All of this is why I am 80% certain but not 100% certain that climate change is human induced and that the predicted rises currently forecast will happen. And that as a result tens of millions of people will become refugees and as the US military fear large scale wars will break out over water and other scarce resources and some of those wars may be between nuclear powers. I would like to avoid that level of human suffering even if it takes place after I am dead.

        So if you would perhaps let me know which of these steps you disagree with, we might continue some dialogue. You can find evidence for each of these steps on line and I am happy to look at any data that undermines them.

  10. rogerthesurf says:

    First of all, I do not comment on unsupported statements. You may have noticed that every statement in my blog and comments are referenced. In fact I would not dream of making assertions without some authorative reference so I would be some sort of hypocrite if I commented on your last comment don’t you think?
    Try finding some support for all your unsupported statements and maybe I will comment.

    The other thing – this phrase ““Climate change is simply not happening so there can be no data to show that it is.” :- You said that not me, so will you please refrain from putting words in my mouth It is a meaningless phrase anyway. It simply shows that you are not even reading what I write properly.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • @rogerthesurf. No actually I think if you commented on my so called unsupported statements with counter references and actual argument rather than just references you would not be any sort of hypocrite at all. One can have a perfectly reasonable argument about principles and logic in science and then handle the references separately. And I corrected my short hand to ‘Human induced climate change….’ or if you prefer, ‘the climate change that is happening is not human induced in the view of rogerthesurf.’ I may indeed not be reading what you write properly as to use your words it does ramble a bit on your blog. But again you are projecting because most of your replies to my comments suggest you haven’t read or maybe not understood what I am saying. Again you are subject to confirmation bias, and also can’t answer the simple hypothetical question, ‘what sort of data would change your mind and lead you to accept that climate change is largely human induced?’ Without taking that risk of refutation you are not being scientific. References galore don’t make your approach scientific, especially as many of yours do not appear to be peer reviewed in the strict sense: appearing in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals not the confirmation bias blogsphere. That said, you should be capable of saying which of my statements on the human induced climate change and the role of CO2 is wrong and citing whatever references you wish. Just because I haven’t time to link them to references, doesn’t mean you who love references cannot. But actually I don’t think you can. You prefer to surf your references and not think for yourself perhaps. And of course no reference to the platform I have provided for you and your views, or any common courtesy. I suspect you have problems relating to other people? Respectfully. Oh and unless you are actually prepared to post an answer to the what would it take to change your mind question or post references that refute the case I made for human induced climate change, probably not much point in wasting your time and mine continuing the discussion. I don’t think anyone else is listening.

      How many hits do you get on your blog by the way? I just passed the 90,000 and get about 200 a day, but I can’t see your tally on your site. Oh and one more thing, if you want a point by point references and all approach to your skepticism, try: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ There is even a bit on your beloved Medieval Warm Period and the fact that we do grow grapes in the UK today. 🙂

      I did look at your blog in more detail by the way including the link to peer reviewed scholarly journals which was interesting though many of them aren’t peer review climate science journals but other fields not all related. Interesting not a single climate science department and very few high reputation climate scientists think that this data is sufficient to overturn the probabilities. And of course personally I would love it if human induced climate change isn’t happening. As you point out there are plenty of other things we need to fix.

    • PS For someone who prides themselves on not making unsubstantiated statements without full references, what is all this on your blog then? Looks pretty unsubstantiated to me. Where are the references to back up these pretty sweeping statements. And yes in fact you do need to be a scientist to figure this out because it is quite hard science. This sort of stuff actually discredits your blog which does have a lot of citation backed stuff in it. This rhetoric is why I don’t take your blog seriously.

      I paste directly from your blog:

      <strong>The truth about Climate Change Simplified
      One can argue about ice pack melting, weather being measurably warmer recently, hurricanes more common and more dangerous, the effect of ocean levels changing etc until the cows come home but the real question is :-
      “Can something be done about it?”
      Actually the answer to that question is:-
      “NO”
      and you don’t need to be a scientist or highly qualified person to figure that out.
      Neither should you be dismayed to realise that humans cannot yet control the climate any more than good ole King Canute could control the tide.
      I’m with the church on this one, only GOD whoever or whatever he/she may be can control the climate! So Far!
      So lets get out and save the planet from the real dangers it faces, like heavy metal contamination, pollution of water, noxious gases (of which CO2 is not a member), garbage filling our oceans and landfills and the like and at least enjoy the warmer weather while it lasts.
      By the way, the notion that warmer weather causes deserts, icecap degradation and worldwide starvation etc is another porky. We should be more afraid of global cooling which history shows is the real danger to mankind and other living things.

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Well you might continue reading the rest of the blog and other references which are devoted to substantiating your statements in your excerpt.

        As for commenting on your unsupported statements, the fact that you are reluctant to attempt some sort of substantiation implies that you have none.

        “what sort of data would change your mind and lead you to accept that climate change is largely human induced?’ ” (This is quote from your comment so do not attribute it to me)
        Here is my answer.

        “Thanks for your reply.

        The notion that anthropogenic CO2 causes significant and malignant changes to our climate has not been scientifically proven.

        Here are some reasons why this is true.

        There are many academic, peer reviewed, published papers around that contradict what you read from the IPCC and other POLITICAL organisations. There are many hundreds of these, perhaps thousands that contradict every facet that the IPCC needs to support its notion of AGW.

        Here is a sample.

        An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
        (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
        – Richard S. Courtney

        An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
        (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
        – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNide

        Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
        (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
        – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

        A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
        (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
        – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

        – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
        (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
        – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

        A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
        (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
        – Roy Clark

        A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
        (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
        – William Kininmonth

        A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
        (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
        – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

        A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
        (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
        – Robert C. Balling Jr.
        A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
        (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
        – Craig Loehle

        An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
        (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
        – Sherwood B. Idso

        An upper limit to global surface air temperature
        (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
        – Sherwood B. Idso

        As I said, for no good reason, these papers and many others like them are ignored by the IPCC and its followers. You may also read criticisms on the net about some of these authors, but you should also note that the criticisms are aimed at the person, not the work, and only rarely are there academic papers, that have been peer reviewed etc., published to contradict these authors, which of course is the proper scientific way to disagree in a situation like this.

        Therefore as there is no “strong, credible body of evidence” as the above sample of papers show, one needs to examine more closely what the IPCC is claiming.

        On one hand we have data that shows, or purports to show, that the climate is indeed warming unusually rapidly over the last 50 years or so. I say purports, as there is some
        doubt about the accuracy of the data, however the climate may well be warming.

        On the other hand, we have measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere that show that this has increased concentration has increased, as a portion of the atmosphere is only about 0.0213% since 1960, (dosn’t sound too much when you put it like that does it?).

        Nevertheless it is true that anthropogenic CO2 has increased.

        Now in order to prove that there is a connection between these two events that is proof of a causation factor, we need peer reviewed scientific publications that show this.

        Alas there appears to be none. All of the IPCC conclusions are based on 1. That this rather weak correlation is actual proof, and or 2. On scientific model results, which being only hypothesis in themselves, are not proof either.

        So one would expect something along the lines of the following:-

        Published academic papers using at least one of the following methods to show that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is more than just a possibility.

        1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.
        2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.
        3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

        Now I’m sure you do not need it, but just in case, here is a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

        I think number three is the most important, because it means, that in order to consider the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a better hypothesis over a null hypothesis (such as “The climate naturally changes anyway”) one has to explain how and why all the previous warmings occurred (At least three in historical times).

        Now check out my blog and then see if you can find any academic papers that explain why the planet has heated up before, even though there was zero anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

        “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

        Well do you want to believe that statement in the absence of any actual proof? Well in fact who would care anyway? EXCEPT that the cost of the IPCC CO2 emission reductions and proposed wealth transfers will reduce western economies to the point where the population (including ourselves) is likely to starve. This fact is becoming increasingly obvious and this is why we must insist on actual proof before we decide whether to support the IPCC.
        http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/co2-emission-cuts-the-economic-costs-of-the-epas-anpr-regulations
        http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

        What it really boils down to is that the only “evidence” for AGW is a very tenuous correlation.
        When I studied statistics, almost the first lesson was that a correlation, while being a neccesary condition for a proof, in itself without other evidence, has no significance at all.”

        You may notice the similarity of this to the second comment I made on this site which you either did not read or are unable to understand it.
        Cheers

        Roger
        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

        PS I don’t care how many hits your blog gets, I concentrate on saying how it is rather than supplying entertainment. If you wish me to see things your way, all you need is some reasonable evidence and as I say above, correlations and models do not come under that category

      • @rogerthesurf. @louploup has just answered more or less all your arguments. And as for my providing data, I pointed you at the website Grist which takes every point you make and provides peer reviewed articles to refute them. @louploup does the same.

        I studied statistics and as you will note whenever I use the word correlation, I say correlation does not mean causation but then go on to explain the mechanism that suggests it is causation not correlation. I think you are used to arguing with people who aren’t very intelligent. Loup loup and I may well be wrong but we are not the dummies you treat as. I don’t think you are dummy either; simply someone who uses their smarts to one-sidedly advocate a position they have taken and now use all their energy to find citations that support it. Isn’t rather suspicious that you haven’t found a single citation that refutes your position. I will be interested to see what you do re @louploups citations. You have not responded I note to his refutation of your IPCC piece any more than you have provided an answer to my question what would it take to change your mind.

        I don’t have a way to see things my way. I don’t have a way except the way of science, good argument, strong dialogue and being open to what is happening and changing my mind when new data presents itself. I have been interested in the data you provide and will continue to consider it but it is hard when you are so one sided to take your conclusions seriously. There is no ‘on the one hand and on the other’ with you which immediately makes me suspicious. And the world is more complex than it all being one way. Hence my thought that human induced climate change is 80% probable not certain. Maybe with your data it is 75% probable but you have ignored the thousands of peer review articles, not cited a single one, that say the opposite of your rhetoric. That say that we are indeed changing the climate. But you don’t talk about a single one of these.Why is that? My theory of the case is you suffer from a major case of confirmation bias.

        My question on your blog was purely personal interest. I really like Word Press and wondered what your experience of them was in terms of traffic building? Nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

        Anyway, why don’t you expend your energy responding to @louploup’s post not mine.

  11. louploup2 says:

    I’ve been watching the last few posts float into my in box, but I’ve been rather busy, and my “free” time has been rather preoccupied with a local political campaign.

    Roger, here’s my perspective on this dialogue in as succinct a statement as I can manage: One of your basic premises appears to be (quoting from your blog), “humans cannot yet control the climate any more than good ole King Canute could control the tide.” I think you mean “affect” rather than “control” but I’ll let you clarify. Either way, I think your premise is demonstrably false.
    You accuse me and CCW (“you guys”) of ignoring the facts you present. I say the same about you. I have sent you a number of very detailed summary statements and questions that you fail to answer. Making the exchange more frustrating, you never answer CCW’s one repeated question about the level of proof you need to “change ones mind.”

    Here’s the text (again) of the main conclusions in the IPCC audit report you keep mentioning.
    “5. Conclusions
    IPCC’S processes and procedures
    The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below.”

    You take the last twenty words after “however” as the sole conclusion, ignoring the 125 words that came before; what do you say to the rest of it?

    Like CCW, I am not a scientist. But I am a well studied lawyer and analyst in the policy, law, history, economics, and science of AGW and related resource issues in enough geographical and chronological depth and breadth to feel 99% certain (unlike CCW’s 80%) that AGW is happening, and is not going to stop any time soon. “Climate change” is fine too, but the science says it’s the heat added to the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that causes the system to lose its equilibrium. I suspect you’ll argue that’s just a projection, a model, but you haven’t produced much evidence to support the claim.

    You keep saying “If you can come up with some empirical evidence, I am ready to hear it.” This dialogue has brought a wealth of data on past facts and reconstructions, and current trends and monitoring data to your attention that contradicts almost every one of your factual assertions. When are you going to respond to direct simple questions? Who’s suffering from “belief” syndrome here? Why bother arguing with you?

    But I can’t resist trying again: Here are the three most recent Jim Hansen papers:
    • “Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1365
    • “Perception of Climate Change,” http://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415.short
    • “ Increasing Climate Extremes and the New Climate Dice” http://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/14720.short
    The last one is an exquisitely transparent statistical analysis of weather patterns. Can you find any competent reviews that say his conclusions are wrong?

    This is a quote from another: “Burning all fossil fuels would create a very different planet than the one that humanity knows. The paleoclimate record and ongoing climate change make it clear that the climate system would be pushed beyond tipping points, setting in motion irreversible changes, including ice sheet disintegration with a continually adjusting shoreline, extermination of a substantial fraction of species on the planet, and increasingly devastating regional climate extremes.”

    That’s a more future oriented projection, so my own uncertainty analysis kicks in and I guess it’s “only 80%” likely. Still, would you be willing to take even a 20% gamble on this kind of world for future humans (and everybody else!)?

    And here’s the latest paper I found searching tonight:
    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/10-ans-dextremes-climatiques.pdf (“A Decade of Weather Extremes”)
    The last sentence:
    “ We conclude that now, more than 20 years later, the evidence is strong that anthropo¬genic, unprecedented heat and rainfall extremes are here — and are causing intense human suffering.”

    The content in these references, like the IPCC reports, reflect the best available science compiled by thousands (literally!) of the world’s most competent academic and agency scientists. It is simply not helpful to post ill informed blog posts. It is time to work on solutions.

    Do I need to be sarcastic to get you to respond directly? I am not a fool; are you?

    • louploup2 says:

      Ooops: bad link on third Hansen article. It’s here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120811_DiceDataDiscussion.pdf

      The link I posted is to another article following Hansen’s. I haven’t reviewed it carefully.

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Louploup2 or am I actually addressing mr CreativeConflictwisdom?
        I looked at Hansens papers although on one I could only read the extract.

        Call me ignorant if you like, but I am afraid I could not see any reference (except to say that he wasn’t considering actual causation) to causation of global warming.
        All these papers do is review global temperatures.
        Also, in all cases, I noticed Hansen’s and his co authors name appearing prominently in the references. However I suspect you did not read that far.

        CreativeConflictwisdom If you wish to discuss causation with me you should find your own authorities, do not refer me to another third rate blog.

        However I would like to tell you a little story.

        In my country we have a native duck who operate in pairs. They are very territorial and take possession of a grazing area and fight off any intruders who dare venture thereon.
        One pair that I am familliar with have a territory of grass between a river and a city street.
        On this street there is a bus stop where a large red bus stops about every 20 minutes.
        Immediately the bus stops, the male duck runs rapidly towards the bus to drive it off his territory. And sure enough the bus soon drives off and no doubt the duck and his wife feel proud in scaring away such a large intruder.

        Think about it especially when you read http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • @rogerthesurf. I will let @louploup respond to your Hansen comments.

        I guess I am also not really interested in discussing causation with you as you suffer from confirmation bias and don’t even acknowledge it. But you are right, I do not have the time to go look at all the references at present: yours or anyone else’s. And as I have said many times before, as I am not a climate scientist I am no more in a position to very effectively assess references in this field than you are, or than I would be in a position to assess references supporting or resisting the Copenhagen Theory of Quantum Mechanics, String theory or whatever.

        What I find interesting about your story, which I like by the way, is that you would never think of applying it to yourself. You never look in the mirror I guess because you value winning more than learning. You call Grist a third rate blog while not thinking that maybe your blog isn’t so hot: high on rhetoric and lots of references but not much logic and commentary on the references. I have by the way put you on my blog roll as a fine example of confirmation bias as well as a good source of sceptical references, which I find to be your two main features. That way your views get a bit more visibility. Can’t be fairer than that.

        What did you make of the definition of confirmation bias I posted. Fits you to a tee? The total absence of contrary data and its complete absence from your blog. Or do you deny that too…hardly Roger on the one hand and on the other are you? Duck driving off the bus…we’ll now you come to mention it.

        Anyway should I find time for CO2 causation references I will send them to you, though I doubt they will make the slightest difference to your fixed mind set.

  12. rogerthesurf says:

    creativeconflictwisdom
    “Isn’t rather suspicious that you haven’t found a single citation that refutes your position.”

    Well said, And please note that I have effectively invited you many times to find such a citation and so far you have failed miserably.

    However I will consider the ones that Louploup2 has mentioned.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • @rogerthesurf. I see your confirmation bias extends to this dialogue. I have repeatedly cited the URL of Grist which takes each sceptic argument and provides references to refute it. I do this as a time saver for me. It’s all there, peer reviewed and all. I assume you can’t bring yourself to look at it, so no point in my providing any more, especially as @louploup has done so. So no miserable failure: here once again is the URL http://grist.org/skeptics/ And if you can’t find a single study that counters your view (thanks to your listing I know of many that counter my view) you are indeed suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias in which you expect people to read your counter studies but refuse to search for or read the studies that actually are the basis for all the world’s climatology departments and almost all reputable leading climate scientists to think you are wrong. Your blog reads as if you think there is not a single study that counters your views…which makes it sound a little (excuse the phrase) delusional. Of course some of your opponents sites are a bit biased too but that does not excuse you.

    • @rogerthesurf. This may come in handy for thinking about your reply.

      Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or ‘my side bias’)

      This is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. (Needless to say, as anyone who reads this blog knows, I too suffer from it too. The only difference is that I know I do and I try to compensate for it by reading as much contrarian material as I can, contrarian to my views that is, but it does get a bit tedious sometimes.)

      The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

      A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

      Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

      • PS No time to read them but here are some references to be going on with as you seem to like them. Have you read any books on the subject? Or is it just references you work on? In my field, the problem with references is that it is hard to see how they integrate and that is the role books play.

        Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

        [1] NRC (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change . National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

        [2] Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.-C. Duplessy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba and D. Zhang (2007). Paleoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

        [3] Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt (2007). Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

        [4] Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland (2007). Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

        [5] USGCRP (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson (eds.). United States Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.

        [6] NRC (2002). Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises . National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

        [7] Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott (2007). Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

        [8] UNEP/WMO (2011) Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers . United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Society.

    • @rogerthesurf. Here are some 120 references and some institutional statements, not all peer reviewed that apparently mostly support human induced climate change. I am not qualified to judge them nor have time to read them, but you love references and you clearly think you are qualified to judge them. I also understand that statistically Papers which reject the scientific consensus that human impact on the environment is a major contributor to climate change may account for less than 0.1% of all peer-reviewed papers on the issue as referenced by^ Namoi Oreskes, 3 Dec 2004, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, in Science magazine.

      Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term “consensus” in their statements:
      American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: “The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies’ statement.”[40]
      US National Academy of Sciences: “In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. … On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science…”[115]
      Joint Science Academies’ statement, 2005: “We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”[116]
      Joint Science Academies’ statement, 2001: “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.”[21]
      American Meteorological Society, 2003: “The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus…. IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research…. They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions.”[117]
      Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[24]
      International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: “INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”[118]
      Australian Coral Reef Society,[119] 2006: “There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases…. There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming….”[120]
      [
      ^ a b “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
      ^ “Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. * * * Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%……” IPCC, Synthesis Report, Treatment of Uncertainty, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
      ^ IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
      ^ [Notes-SciPanel] America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. “(p1) … there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
      ^ [page needed] Ipcc tar wg1 (2001). Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; and Johnson, C.A.. ed. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80767-0 (pb: 0-521-01495-6).
      ^ “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis”. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis”. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis”. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p.958 – IPCC
      ^ a b c Julie Brigham-Grette (September 2006). “Petroleum Geologists’ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate” (PDF). Eos 87 (36). Retrieved 2007-01-23. “The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.”
      ^ a b Oreskes 2007, p. 68
      ^ Ogden, Aynslie and Cohen, Stewart (2002) (PDF). Integration and Synthesis: Assessing Climate Change Impacts in Northern Canada. Retrieved 2009-04-12.
      ^ “Warming ‘very likely’ human-made”. BBC News (BBC). 2007-02-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
      ^ Rosenthal, Elisabeth; Revkin, Andrew C. (2007-02-03). “Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’”. New York Times. Retrieved 2010-08-28. “the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and that human activity is the main driver, ‘very likely’ causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950”
      ^ Stevens, William K. (2007-02-06). “On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty”. New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-06. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel’s parlance, this level of certainty is labeled “very likely.” Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression.”
      ^ “U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable”. Fox News. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ Downloads.globalchange.gov
      ^ “Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly”. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2004-11-08. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
      ^ “ACIA Display”. Amap.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ “Editorial: The Science of Climate Change”. Science 292 (5520): 1261. May 18, 2001. doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261.
      ^ a b The Science of Climate Change, The Royal Society
      ^ Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change, 2005
      ^ 2007 Joint Science Academies’ Statement
      ^ a b “Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change” (PDF). Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
      ^ 2008 Joint Science Academies’ Statement
      ^ 2009 Joint Science Academies’ Statement
      ^ “Stanowisko Zgromadzenia Ogólnego PAN z dnia 13 grudnia 2007 r” (in Polish). Polish Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2009-06-16. Note: As of 16 June 2009, PAS has not issued this statement in English, all citations have been translated from Polish.
      ^ Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy
      ^ “InterAcademy Council”. InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ “InterAcademy Council”. InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ “InterAcademy Council”. InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ European Academy of Sciences and Arts Let’s Be Honest
      ^ [1]
      ^ a b Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council (2001). Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-07574-2.
      ^ Wratt, David; Renwick, James (2008-07-10). “Climate change statement from the Royal Society of New Zealand”. The Royal Society of New Zealand. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
      ^ Gray, Louise (May 29, 2010). “Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of ‘exaggeration'”. The Daily Telegraph (London).
      ^ a b “New guide to science of climate change”. The Royal Society. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
      ^ Harrabin, Roger (27 May 2010). “Society to review climate message”. BBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
      ^ Gardner, Dan (8 June 2010). “Some excitable climate-change deniers just don’t understand what science is”. Montreal Gazette. Retrieved 9 June 2010.[dead link]
      ^ a b AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change http://www.aaas.org December 2006
      ^ American Chemical Society Global Climte Change “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).”
      ^ American Institute of Physics Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, 2003 “The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.”
      ^ American Physical Society Climate Change Policy Statement, November 2007 “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
      ^ AIP science policy document., 2005 “Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal. Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth.”
      ^ EPS Position Paper Energy for the future: The Nuclear Option, 2007 “The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.”
      ^ European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment — Ecosystems Approach, 2007, pp. 7–10 “There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.”
      ^ FASTS Statement on Climate Change, 2008 “Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years. Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”
      ^ “AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate”. Agu.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Position Statement on Climate Change
      ^ “EFG Website | Home”. Eurogeologists.de. 2011-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ EFG Carbon Capture and geological Storage
      ^ [2]
      ^ http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html
      ^ “The Geological Society of America – Position Statement on Global Climate Change”. Geosociety.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ “Geological Society – Climate change: evidence from the geological record”. Geolsoc.org.uk. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ IUGG Resolution 6
      ^ http://www.nagt.org/index.html
      ^ http://nagt.org/nagt/organization/ps-climate.html
      ^ “AMS Information Statement on Climate Change”. Ametsoc.org. 2012-08-20. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
      ^ “Statement”. AMOS. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005
      ^ [3] — Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Letter to Stephen Harper (Updated, 2007)
      ^ http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332
      ^ WMO’s Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
      ^ AMQUA “Petroleum Geologists’ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate”
      ^ INQUA Statement On Climate Change.
      ^ AAWV Position Statement on Climate Change, Wildlife Diseases, and Wildlife Health “There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin.”
      ^ AIBS Position Statements “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”
      ^ Scientific societies warn Senate: climate change is real, Ars Technica, October 22, 2009.
      ^ Letter to US Senators, October, 2009
      ^ (PDF) Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions, American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.”
      ^ Australian Coral Reef Society official letter, 2006 Official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the “world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution”, etc.: There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s atmosphere. There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming….It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming.”
      ^ Institute of Biology policy page ‘Climate Change’ “there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”
      ^ SAF Forest Management and Climate Change, 2008 “Forests are shaped by climate….Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere.”
      ^ SAF Forest Offset Projects in a Carbon Trading System, 2008 “Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG.”
      ^ Wildlife Society Global Climate Change and Wildlife “Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the Earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.” The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.” The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants).”
      ^ AAP Global Climate Change and Children’s Health, 2007 “There is broad scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children. Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups.”
      ^ ACPM Policy Statement Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications, 2006 “The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe.”
      ^ American Medical Association Policy Statement, 2008 “Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.”
      ^ American Public Health Association Policy Statement ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’, 2007 “The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.”
      ^ AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004, 2004 They recommend policies “to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps.”
      ^ AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004. Revised 2008., 20078 “The world’s climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases. Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts. Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health. Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority.”
      ^ World Federation of Public Health Associations resolution “Global Climate Change”, 2001 “Noting the conclusions of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts….”
      ^ WHO Protecting health from climate change, 2008, p. 2, retrieved 2009-04-18
      ^ Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, American Astronomical Society, 2004 “In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.”
      ^ ASA Statement on Climate Change, November 30, 2007 “The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions…. Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.”
      ^ , February 2007, http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/representation/policy-positions/climate-change.cfm title=Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy “Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk… We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”
      ^ IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate “While the Earth’s climate has changed many times during the planet’s history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth’s orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere….Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. As the Earth’s climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves.”
      ^ IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect, October 2001 “Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world’s most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase… This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. … Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth’s climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk.”
      ^ AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
      ^ “Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER”. Aapg.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
      ^ http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/default.php?content=policies
      ^ Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
      ^ “AGI Statement on Global Climate Change”. Agiweb.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ [4][dead link]
      ^ AIPG Climate Change Letters sent to U.S. Government Officials
      ^ “AIPG Climate Change and Domestic Energy Statement”, The Professional Geologist, January/February 2010, p. 42
      ^ “Ohio Section Members Vote to Oppose Markey-Waxman Cap & Trade Bill”, The Professional Geologist, November/December 2009, p. 14-15
      ^ [5][dead link]
      ^ “Climate Change and Society Governance”, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 33
      ^ billobrien.coml. “Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences (CFES)”. Geoscience.ca. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ AAPG Climate Change June 2007
      ^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). “Expert credibility in climate change”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode 2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
      ^ a b Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. EOS 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode 2009EOSTr..90…22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
      ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
      ^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). “Survey Tracks Scientists’ Growing Climate Concern”. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
      ^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). “Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change”. Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
      ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). “A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change”.
      ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). “Prediction’ or ‘Projection; The nomenclature of climate science”. Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
      ^ William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). “Expert credibility in climate change”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
      ^ “”Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change” at Journalist’s Resource.org”.
      ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change”. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
      ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”. In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M.. Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
      ^ http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml
      ^ Joint Science Academies’ Statement
      ^ “Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003”. Ametsoc.org. 2003-02-09. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ INQUA statement on climate change
      ^ “Australian Coral Reef Society”. Australian Coral Reef Society. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
      ^ Australian Coral Reef Society official letter, June 16, 2006

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Well done so now all you need to do is point out which papers satisfy what I have been requesting all along. Remember the criteria?
        At least one of these.

        “1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.
        2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.
        3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

        When you have done that then we can have an intelligent conversation.
        Good luck:)

        Cheers

        Roger
        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • @rogerthesurf. No deal. Until you are prepared to take the risk of saying what sort of theory/data would cause you to change your mind and accept that climate change is at least significantly caused by human activity/increased CO2/feedback loops triggered by CO2 then I am not prepared to take the time on the references. You see you have taken a more cunning stand than those who say climate change is not happening when clearly it is. You simply say: ah but it is natural so we can’t do anything about it. But to take that stand you have to create your own theory or someone else’s to explain the observed data. What are the natural drivers, how are they measured and how is their effect proved.

        Remember current climate science came into existence out of the data of rising temperatures and the search for a cause. Simply asserting it is natural is not enough. Now if among your peer reviewed references in bona fide climate science media, there are some that indeed provide a comprehensive natural forces theory and supporting data, by all means point me at them. This exercise is for me about learning not winning. Oh and studying your confirmation bias.

        I note once again, no response to the idea that you and your blog suffer from massive confirmation bias. You can’t even consider it? Interesting. It isn’t useful in this case to call it a null hypothesis by the way so much as hypothesis that what is happening has alternative mechanisms, which is null for human induced climate change but not null for the alternative theory. And you still don’t get the essence of science which is that there is never ‘proof’ but merely the failure to disprove which when attempted over and over again, gets close to proof but no theory is then ever immune to future attempts at disproof.

        So I would reword your challenge as
        1. A theory or hypothesis that attempts to show the causation factor of CO2 with respect of climate change. (I don’t use Global Warming because local effects including cooling)
        2. Empirical evidence to support this theory of human induced CO2 triggered climate change. (I’m sure you know that correlations are never proof as indeed applies to any theory you suggest. Actually correlations can form part of the evidence of correlation when there is a time lag and one change precedes another. You still need a theory of the case, so correlations are never proof is not quite true; they can form part of it)
        3. This evidence for the human induced Co2 Drive climate change hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?”

        Once you have put your stand up for potential disproof, I will work on failing to disprove mine

  13. PS I found this little piece that I thought did the CO2 causation quite well but then I realized when I came to the comments column that your confirmation bias was already there one jump ahead of me: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    Rogerthesurf: This is not empirical evidence of global warming. All you have done is air some empirically unproven theories that may account for the current warming and refused to consider that the same effects may be completely independent of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Actually the piece provides references to the lab studies that show what happens when CO2 is subject to sunlight and uses wavelength analysis to connect the actual sunlight radiation effects to CO2 and the resulting warming. But that clearly isn’t enough for you. So frankly I don’t know what constitutes empirical proof for you, if correlation plus lab tests plus wavelength data plus theory that connects them all doesn’t do it, what does? I suspect nothing as per my confirmation bias of Rogerthesurf hypothesis.

    . And if you Roger want to disprove this, you need to not just say, oh there may be natural causes not this. You have failed to consider them so you are wrong. But actually list them, measure them, correlate them, lab test them to show how the mechanism works and that I suspect you are not qualified to do. But maybe you have a peer reviewed climate science journal reference that does this and provides a better fit to the data, the lab tests, the wave length data etc than the CO2 hypothesis. That would be interesting. In the meantime the CO2 hypothesis is the best gig in town by a country mile.

    • rogerthesurf says:

      Really, I do not think you are who you claim to be. I have thought this all along and I will say it now. You come across like a teen ager. If you had an education in economics, you would have something to say about what will happen to society if the IPCC has its way.

      I will not bother to comment here again but please bear this in mind.

      I am not trying to prove anything. It is the IPCC and their somewhat dubious scientists who are trying to prove a theory. As it is them and the others who have jumped on the band wagon who are making these claims, it is up to them to find sufficient scientific proof. All I am doing is searching for that proof which I have done for some years now without success. Until that proof is shown the status quo must prevale.

      Cheers

      • @rogerthesurf. What a disappointing end to the dialogue. I just turned 64 so some teenager and actually saying that makes you sound more immature than I had judged you to be. And basically you can’t answer the question: ‘what would it take to change your mind’ and as the comment I cited in my last posting showed, nothing constitutes proof for you. But I must admit I didn’t have you pegged as a quitter. I am glad you are searching for proof (though with confirmation bias I suspect no evidence will satisfy you, so it is a faux search), but that is not how your blog comes off.

        As for the economic side of climate change, as you may recall, the things I would do to try to reverse it are much more nuclear power, seek alternative sources of energy like fusion power, insulate better, drive more fuel efficient cars, and probably realize we need to change a bit how we live to re-cycle and enjoy life without quite so many cheap baubles from China as many minerals are running low though we are not quite at Peak Oil yet. As it happens I think all these things economically sensible whether climate change is happening or not. And sensible companies like GE have been economizing on energy for the last decade, as has the US military now it knows the cost of convoying fuel in lives in a war zone. So yes I was an economist. Yes I worked in the corporate sector for 35 years. And yes I haven’t any sense of whether you have any life experience, whether you know any other country but good old New Zealand, and whether you are in fact a teenager: a smart but not very wise one. Thanks for helping me in my study of confirmation bias which you don’t seem to understand at all.

      • louploup2 says:

        Roger, you fit my aphorism of the week perfectly: Ignorance is not an excuse for stupidity.

        “what will happen to society if the IPCC has its way”!? The real question you should be asking is, what will happen to society if the IPCC synthesis of climate science is anywhere close to accurate and we don’t stop business as usual? This conflict is at the core of the denialist meme; fear of change, fear of no longer being able to drive the 10 MPG tank to the drive-in to eat garbage meat produced at horrendous cost (water, soil, etc), or to Walmart to buy more crap from China.

        The 97+% of the world’s climate scientists who accept that we’re in trouble due to AGW are not “trying to prove a theory.” They are simply documenting what is actually happening, and projecting the range of likely outcomes. It is up to policy makers and the people as a whole to determine what to do with the information. Due to the willful ignorance of the deniers (stupidity?) and the venality and selfishness of the carbon owners and elites, neither will be ready to respond in any meaningful way until the impacts are horrendous. At which time the cost will be more than you can imagine.

        CCW host is correct: your refusal to establish what level of proof you need to get reality into your thick skull pegs you as the “teenager” here. Good bye.

        CCW: “more nuclear power, seek alternative sources of energy like fusion power, insulate better, drive more fuel efficient cars, and probably realize we need to change a bit…” Well, I’m going to have to disagree. These “solutions” will not really solve anything. We are going to change more than “a bit.” And notice I didn’t say “need to change” because the change will happen regardless of our desires. The planet simply cannot sustain anywhere near the current population at the levels of consumption we in the developed world have become used to. Including Europeans who consume energy at half the rate of glutinous Americans, Canadians. and Australians.

        “many minerals are running low though we are not quite at Peak Oil yet” — We’ve build up a global civilization with a population of over 7 billion using energy from cheap fossil fuel, and it’s not just Peak Oil that spells the end of that run over the next few decades. Please look up (e.g.) peak phosphorus and planetary boundaries. And learn EROI (e.g., aside from being a horribly polluting industry, nuclear power has a marginal EROI). Industrial agriculture is not sustainable (although we have a short reprieve due to new sources of natural gas–the source of most nitrogen fertilizer). Our children and theirs (I also am in my early 60s) are the ones who will experience the brunt of the change (or collapse, depending on how things plays out).

        [p.s. I believe you missed my last post in response to Roger?]

      • @louploup. Well I think Roger is either sulking in his tent or has taken his bat home. So I don’t think you will get a reply from him.

        And as for your comments on the seriousness of our situation, I agree. But my point specifically about climate change was that what needs doing, needs doing anyway. And nuclear power is to me a holding action until there are better solutions. But yes much less energy intensive civilization is inevitable regardless of climate change. I have posted everything I have found from you. I just checked, so repost if you have the wording by all means and I will approve.

        PS Is someone arranging boxing lessons for Obama?

      • louploup2 says:

        CCW–no worries about lost post. I didn’t keep a copy and it was more rambling than most.

        Thanks for managing a decent blog.

        Obama? Yes, he needs to do more than just smell the coffee.

      • @louploup2. Thanks. I just like to get real discussion going and study the process as well as join in. I sent Obama a message via someone who was visiting the White House that he needed boxing lessons back in April this year. I don’t think the message got through. 😦

      • @louploup. Excellent piece. Thanks.

        Personally I would like him to come out and say that he is going to be the supportive force behind rebuilding manufacturing in the US, including around small scale hi tech, digital open source new businesses making things sustainably to address the issues of healthcare costs, elder care, transport, new energy and ending our addiction to cheap crap from China. His approach would start with a drive to better align our pure science research and look for ways that move its ideas into production faster, uninhibited by legacy corporations which might block them. Re-align education towards hard science and technology and ensuring those not studying it are at least scientifically literate. The GOP is fundamentally anti science and so science based renaissance is something they would find hard to copy or echo. That would be my vision for him and it ties to the environment, to small businesses, to creating jobs, to getting far more people involved in making things and would indirectly improve the equality of our society by more widely distributing wealth creation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s