I did a few internet searches, and it turns out that this U.N. group has been releasing similar “reports” for a number of years.
Here is a scathing review of an earlier report:
Here’s the prpblem: When you say “no idea” you make it sound like it could be 10% or 90% and no one knows. I don’t know what else to say other than that is simply false and not supported by this report.
Can you show me any place in that report where they come up with any estimate at all of *overall change *caused by Anthropogenic sources?
If they do have an idea and they do know, it’s not in that report.
Yes, this is the 4th assessment report that the IPCC has released (actually, at this point, it is the “summary for policymakers” of one third of the 4th assessment report … this part covering the climate science and the other 2 parts covering the effects of these climatic changes and the issue of mitigating and adapting to the changes and their effect).
Of course, Richard Lindzen is entitled to his opinion of the IPCC process, which is surely not 100% perfect, but organizations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union have endorsed its conclusions. Ironically, Lindzen was actually a member of the NAS panel that wrote the report in 2001 that basically endorsed the IPCC conclusions (while offering some constructive criticism in regards to the process…such as a concern that it could become so time-consuming for the lead authors that it will be difficult to find people to take on that role). He then wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he said that everyone should was misreading the report and proceeded to basically explain what the report really said (which most of us took to mean what Lindzen would have had it say if he were the only author). On the point of talking about the IPCC, he basically claimed that the panel was just showing “professional courtesy”.
Lindzen, by the way, is the probably the atmospheric scientist with the strongest credentials (e.g., he is a professor at MIT and is actually respected and well-published in his field) who has been a skeptic on AGW. However, unfortunately, it seems that he has been pretty much poisoning his scientific credibility recently by making bizarre claims in his (rather regular!) op-ed pieces in the Wall Street journal, appearances on Larry King Live and so forth. For example, he has several times repeated a claim that has become popular in the skeptic community of claiming that there has been no warming since 1998, e.g., in the WSJ piece I linked to above he says:
This claim relies on cherry-picking data, as you can see from this graph: I.e., it is technically true that the temperature in 1998 was warmer than it has been in any year since, except 2005 which is (within the uncertainty in the data) in a tie with it. However, as you can see (see here for another compiled data set) , all the other top 6 warmest years have occurred since 1998…and 1998 was a very anomalous year due to an extremely strong El Nino (often referred to as the El Nino of the Century). If one picks almost any other year than 1998 as the start point, one does see warming continuing, or, more appropriately, if one looks at any sort of running average…which is the appropriate way of dealing with noisy data. It is worth noting that the climate models themselves show this sort of noise in them and not simply a monotonic increase in temperature, a fact that Lindzen well-knows. Lindzen also knows enough about dealing with noisy data to know that it is inappropriate to treat the data in the way in which he has to come up with the no warming since 1998 conclusion. Which makes you wonder how much one should trust a scientist who has made the conscious decision to deceive the public. [Richard Lindzen was also a co-author of a recent paper in an economics (or perhaps interdisciplinary?) journal in which they approvingly cited and quoted from a paper by two petroleum engineers that is so laughably bad in ways that Lindzen would have to know that again one is left asking why this man has decided to basically deceive the public.]
In reference to my last point about Lindzen, you can read about it by going to this link and following the various links therein. As Lambert expresses well in his first link off of that page:
Based on Lindzen’s statements, it would appear that “surely not 100% perfect” is a big understatement. And you haven’t really rebutted Lindzen’s criticisms so much as attacked Lindzen himself.
Well, I don’t see all that much there of substance to discuss. Sure, it is true that the IPCC process does not really involve all 2000 of the people equally and they don’t all have the same stellar credentials that Lindzen has (although I imagine most of them know how to read and interpret a graph of data with some noise in it better than Lindzen seems to be able to). Each chapter has a core group of lead authors and then there are lots of other scientists who review it and make comments. And, the whole point of the report is not for these folks to produce new science but to summarize the science that has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature (which presumably represents the work of thousands of scientists itself).
I am sure there is somewhat of a political aspect in trying to involve scientists in a lot of different countries…because part of the whole thing is to have the various countries feel that the report is theirs and was produced by (or at least had participation from) some of their own…not just a bunch of scientists from other nations foisting these conclusions on them. However, there are also safeguards built into the process to insure that the science is accurately portrayed. More discussion of the process (specifically for finalizing the summary for policymakers) is included here.
If the IPCC process was seriously broken, you would have many scientists revolting and denouncing it (scientists are generally not an acquiescent bunch), you would have major organizations like the NAS and the American Geophysical Union refusing to endorse its conclusions, etc., etc. Instead these major organizations and the vast majority of scientists in the field have stood behind it with only a few scientists, like Lindzen, who clearly have strong agendas, criticizing it (or certain aspects of it, since Lindzen admits the full IPCC report itself [which for this new assessment will be available to everyone in May] is “informative”).
And, just to note in terms of agendas, in case the agenda of what you linked to did not come through loud-and-clear: That was a link to an article on the Heartland Institute website written by a guy who is at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also editor of the Cooler Heads newsletter. That is so many interlocking connections to the conservative think-tank industry and Exxon that it can make one’s head spin! That doesn’t, of course, mean everything they say is wrong…but it does let you know where they are coming from.
It looks as though his charge – that the IPCC is trying to create the appearance of consensus – is correct. This is a serious charge that taints the entire report.
I’m struck by the realization that an actual concensus has, as one of its distinguishing characteristics, this ‘appearance of consensus’ which you find so suspicious.
If you looked at the climate journals, you would see there actually IS a consensus. A large majority of climate scientists HAVE come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, based on their own data and research. So creating the appearence of a consensus when a consensus actually exists is not terribly difficult.
What the IPCC is trying to do is create a consensus document…i.e., a document that represents the views of most of the scientists in their respective fields of expertise…and presents a summary and review of the peer-reviewed literature in these fields.
However, at least in the summary for policymakers, it is also trying to present a final document that all (or at least most) of the nations of the world will feel like they had some role in producing so that they feel it is their report and not someone else’s. This is why there is a process by which the lead authors (scientists) meet with the representatives of various nations and these representatives can ask questions and even suggest changes in wording and such to make clearer the points that the scientists say they are trying to make, although the scientists have the final say in deciding whether these proposed wording changes are acceptable and remain true to the science.
As Colibri has noted, there is a strong consensus in the field with broad (although not always unanimous) agreement on many points. On some points, there is not a consensus or there is a consensus that the point remains a source of significant uncertainty. (This is true, for example, in the current report in regards to the dynamical processes governing the breakup and flow of land ice, which is why the IPCC doesn’t even try to make an estimate of the sea level rise that could occur by 2100 if there are large dynamical changes in ice flow, as some recent evidence suggests could occur in the future and could even be starting to occur already.)
He is correct. It’s now "very likely) (90%) that anthropogenic global warming is a fact.
Now, they are debating how much humans have caused and how bad it will be. That’s where there is no consensus.
No there is not a consensus. But even if there was, the faux-consensus of the IPCC would be meaningless, like a car salesman who claims to be honest.
You asked how a CET (Carbon Emissions Trading) scam works
a) Someone is handing out the ration coupons - suborn them
b) Convincingly over estimate your proposed carbon emissions
c) Simply lie about what you emitted - it is virtually impossible to measure anyway
d) Set up a spot, future and options market - manipulate it by PR or ‘concert party’
The EC is notoriously corrupt when it comes to handing out subsidies and grants, Carbon Trading is just like printing money and dishing it out to those that ask for it.
With markets the ‘means’ can become the ‘end’, especially if one is dealing with something totally intangible.
I’ve no aversion to providing free smoke scrubbers to Chinese and Indian power plants, and in the West I reckon that the Clean Air controls are a good idea and could be more rigidly applied.
However unleashing the markets and giving civil servants and politicians a means of printing money … strikes me as insane.
This is a serious question, not an attack: is there any level of evidence or concurrence that would persuade you of the validity of anthropogenic climate change, or are you so wedded to your position that you’d defend it regardless? If yes, what amount, type, or extent of evidence would convince you?
Stranger
I don’t get it… Why are you more willing to believe Lindzen (who receives money, albeit indirectly, from Exxon) than a panel composed of 2000 scientists? I will for the sake of argument agree that there is not consensus: a minority of climate scientists do not believe that the current climate change is caused by human action (note: I believe that there is consensus that climate change is occurring, just not on its cause). My question is why are you more willing to believe the 1% or less of scientists that don’t agree than the 99% that do?
I already did. >50%. That’s what “most” means. You can continue to ignore that, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is in the report.
A car salesman is trying to make money. What would be the IPCC’s agenda?
Furthermore, if you’re going to discount a message based on the perceived motives of the messenger, don’t forget that Lindzen is paid by the coal and oil companies to do what he does.