You don’t appear to have understood what I wrote. We’re not talking about people who have published articles on GW, we’re talking about people who have published articles in the area of climate science. Are you contending that somehow doubters were excluded before the subject even came up? Are you contending that someone who is a doubter is being excluded from publishing in other areas?
Your quote sounds just like some made by creationists, pissed at supposedly being excluded from biology journals. It turns out they never actually submitted much.
I’ve written hundreds of reviews and have read thousands. Being human, we sometimes laugh at particularly bad papers. I’ve been given papers to review apologetically, with the editor knowing full well the thing is a piece of crap. I’ve mostly resisted being snarky in reviews but sometimes not in the confidential notes to the editor/program chair. If you are going up against what 97% of qualified experts believe, you have to do a better job.
I’ve actually published a paper going up against what was then a very popular technique. I was careful to do a good job - and I discovered that more people were doubters than expected. I am sure that a well evidenced-well reasoned doubting paper would get published, but unsupported badly reasoned papers won’t be - and might get laughed at. And that’s okay with me.
But the supposed bar to publication has nothing to do with the validity of the poll.
“There is no reason to belieive…” isn’t science.
The paper is science and it is clear. 97% is only from 80 out of 1300.
For the rest it is low-90s%.
Still you resist the MOST IMPORTANT POINT I’m making, agaon, is that even if the consensus is 100% it’s about:
a) Temperatures have increased from 1800
b) Humans have played a significant role
(I wholeheartedly agree with both)
But ir isn’t about:
a) ammount of temperature rise past, present, and future
b) possible damages/benefits for temperature increase
c) accepting the levels of forcings or its sign
d) how to prevent damage/ increase benefit
e) cost-benefit analyses of what, if any, to do.
And that is why it was checked and confirmed, there is no need to believe, the fact of the super majority is based on the science of polls and statistics.
BTW the “MOST IMPORTANT” point you are making is not important for the question at hand, that was answered and confirmed, so stop relying on ad nauseam points.
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The name alone should be a clue. It is not itself science. It is a series of policy recommendations. One hopes that policy recommendations would be based on the best available scientific consensus, but policy is policy, not science. Confusing the two is what is called a category error.
And that’s why this statement is wrong, because as Askance noted in post #4, the claim is that the leading experts in the field affirm the underlying tenets of the science on which future change would be based, not that they agree with every policy recommendation.
The difference is absolutely fundamental to this argument.
They report on what they find and the overwhelming evidence is that humans are the main contributor to the recent warming, as pointed out before we should be concentrating on what to do as the experts have basically stopped to discuss about the basics, but that is anathema to many, so deniers double down on attempting to claim that there is a huge controversy among the scientists or that we have to wait.
We should then concentrate on what to do and for viability one should then consult policy makers and economists, like William D. Nordhaus that was smeared by a recent opinion at the WSJ from 16 skeptical “experts” that decided to mislead people not only on the basics of the issue, but also by misrepresenting what he had actually said.
Of course it is fundamental. However, you can never be too careful.
“Agreeing with temperature increase since 1800” is normally tranformed, by policy makers and other interested people, into “science is behind all our reccomendation”.
(my bolding)
It is incorrect. Your very own cite says “significant”, not “the main”.
And that was not the point there, the point was that even on policy one should not rely on the blind leading the blind, deniers (the blind in this case) of the basics should be ignored now.
And regardless of your useless nitpick, the economist is still recommending that we should do something, history and evidence shows us already that the interested people are the ones spending a lot of money and resources to fund the creation of misleading information so then nothing will be done.
The Straight Dope, fighting ignorance since 1973. No. That’s wrong. Ignorance should never be fought. If you try, you’re the problem. Besides, what the difference? No harm could ever come from allowing ignorance to flourish. Nope. Impossible. Couldn’t happen.
Net benefits assumes unlimited cash pretty much. Fact is the scientists are responsible for coming up with viable solutions, because the ones screaming about it tend to be using the excuse of gw to push their preexisting ideological agendas in the first place which undermines their credibility.
Look at the example of germany, they spent 130+ billion on solar, to forestall global warming by a whole 23 hours. This is unaffordable by most countries and thus it is not a viable solution, but “net benefits” means they did 23 hours and thats better than nothing, thus its justified even if they bankrupt themselves for almost nothing. Failing to look at the net result is the problem of net benefit, if the world can’t afford it doesn’t matter, a rich person can buy as many solar panels for his house as he wants, its gw, not local warming. Buying roof jewelry is something you can pat yourself on the back for, but it does nothing at all for the problem.
Anyways net benefit calculations can lead to perverse conclusions, I’m sure it would be better for you to spend your childs college fun on feeding 3rd world children for instance.
Scientists report on the facts, the facts say that we can not use the atmosphere as a sewer and expect that nothing will happen.
Now what to do about it? That is then the terrain of policy makers, economists and technologists that apply those reports to propose and deploy solutions, but you would remain an ignorant if you suggest that the same scientist that studies the atmosphere would be the same policy maker, economist and technologist.
And as the quoted economist would tell you, your items here are nonsense.
Very few report just the facts, the do anything absolutely anything at all hysteria is part of the narrative of most climate reports. Very few scientists atleast those that appear on the media admit they have no viable solution, most claim you should do something regardless of whether it makes sense.
As the quoted economist tells me? Sorry no, my items make perfect sense, and that is the problem with the discussion, the willful blindness when it comes to the inconvenient facts involved. Germany scrapped its solar program for the reasons stated. But even they took an even further step back when their own greens forced them to close their nuclear plants, thus increasing the carbon output they already aren’t dealing with. That is the level of inconsistent and irrational behavior that undermines credibility behind gw. You cry emergency, then increase your net carbon output by closing your nuke plants.. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/20/solardammerung-the-twilight-of-germanys-green-energy-subsidies/
Have a look at how Peer Review is regarded by these leading scientists (from the Climategate emails):
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
That, my friend, is an activist talking - not a scientist.
Richard Feynman must be spinning in his grave
As for end-points of graphs - I agree; that’s why it was so important to disappear the Medieval Warm period from previous IPCC charts. They were growing grapes in York in Chaucer’s time. Who are you going to believe, Chaucer or an activist analysing tree Arctic region rings from 700 years ago. There are many examples of the Medieval Warm period being World-wide.
For example Greenland - the graves there are beneath the permafrost; it was warmer then than now.
So, plotted from then, we’re on a downward slope.
And if that’s the case - well the warming can’t be CO2 can it?
Lastly, I recommend you investigate the Roman Warm Period - chronicled no doubt by evil deniers who pretended it was warmer then than now.
And those solutions are not the ones recommended by scientists but by hysteria against nuclear power (guess who are in favor of nuclear power, more often than not it is the scientists), and stopping subsidies for industry like solar does not mean that solar is not becoming cheaper and more viable.
And incidentally items like that are a reason why Lomborg is not being taken seriously. Except by the ones pushing Hot Air.
Hence the overall point that most of the basics and misleading points were already dealt with, it is time to find ways to deal with the issue and ignore the ones pushing FUD as they did in California, Australia and most of Europe and many other nations.
You have to go back to 2008 to find an article on lomborg? The fact is when they try to poke holes they fail, and generally they tend to resort to attacking his character instead of the inconvenient points he brings up. Yes germany is cutting subsidies because its too expensive and because demand is high, but that tells you all you need to know, the guardian piece is about as slanted as it gets. You can rig any market to have perverse incentives as the germans have done, but the real test is whether it makes sense at all without the subsidies…and it doesn’t. Even with the subsidies where folks in germany were “solar farming” their way into profits the net result of that massive tax investment was 23 hours forstalling of global warming…that is just the fact that undermines an entire article worth of trying to dodge the issue. You can pay people to do really stupid things, and create incredible demand for things that don’t make sense, for instance the subsidies and mandates funding ethanol from corn farming in the united states. So yes, you can take a piss at hot airs website name, but the fact is its argument has more validity than the silly one pushed by yours which is essentially claiming that popularity justifies itself.
You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe germans are investing in renewables out of the goodness of their hearts. If you had actually looked at whats driving the demand, its nothing but perverse incentive after perverse incentive.
