A translation in Czech is available here.
Sorry, but you chaps still aren’t getting “it”. I am on your side and I see that you still aren’t getting “it”. The problem is the defensiveness and obfuscation of the Team (as they call you). I see it and I am on your side. Let the “deniers” have what they want – data; code; public debate. Surely you all will “win” in that process with the facts. Only then will they relent.
[Response: Maybe on a different planet. There is more data than you can poke a stick at, millions of lines of code in the public domain, and climate scientists tripping over themselves to do outreach at schools, churches, clubs, museums, TV, radio and music hall. I'm collecting 'we surrender' emails from the sceptics as we speak.... - gavin]
This is all very thorough and scholarly. However, you do not respond to Sen Inhofe’s recent comment that we aren’t changing the climate because “God’s still up there”. Is it or is it not that case that the author’s of the IPCC reports have systematically conspired to silence intelligent climate science and the divine negative feedback theory? The issue of divine negative feedback is simply not addressed anywhere in the reports. How do you respond to godwillfixitgate?
The cynicism and hypocrisy of these “-gate” beat-ups is stunning even by deniaworld standards. To take just the three main examples:
(1) Is there any doubt that the majority of glaciers around the world are retreating and that such retreats are having, and are going to increasingly have, detrimental effects on water supplies of communities, and even countries, relying on them? Like everything else, there can be reasonable debates about the speed at which different glaciers are retreating depending on local conditions. But even the Chinese, normally the last people to have any concerns about environmental issues, are concerned about the Himalayan glaciers that affect their water supplies. I don’t know when the Himalyan glaciers are going to be gone, but whether the year is 2035 or 2350 or somewhere in between, the issue is surely that if such a prospect is on the cards we need to do something about it, not argue about the precise time that the last cube of ice disappears from the last mountain top.
(2) Amazon rainforests susceptible to drying out under warmer drier conditions? D’Oh as ecologist Homer Simpson might say. The drying out and its effects on the carbon and water cycles of the forests are going to have serious local and global effects? Well, yes. So we are arguing about what? The precise time when a precise percentage is exhibiting a precise degree of stress? Really, this is the question?
(3) “Only” a quarter of the Netherlands and only a half susceptible to flooding? Well, that’s all right then. No need for the Dutch to panic, no need for little boys to put fingers in dykes just yet. And what about the figures for Bangladesh? The Pacific Islands? Major coastal cities around the world? Any problems anyone can see as sea levels rise? No, because we need to debate whether a half or “only” a quarter of a major industrial nation is going to be flooded in a timespan which will mean it will be seen by people now alive. Babies and bathwater anyone?
Great post. I’d like to see a per-page-howler ratio in climate
change reporting in major papers!
This is great information! I’ll be making a presentation on the most basic aspects of climate science and economics in two months and expect that there will be serious skeptics in the audience who have bought into the media misinformation.
Knowing more about the details of the IPCC structure and how it reports can help me to deal with this better.
A Feeling for Numbers
Very informative piece, thank you – a small comment on the Himalayan glaciers – in the IPCC AR4 WG2 report is a table of various glaciers with their rates of retreat (chapter 10.6.2, URL http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html ).
If you pick the Gangotri Glacier, which is one of the longest in the Himalayas, at about 30km length, then the reported retreat rate of just under 30m/year clearly indicates that unless things speed up dramatically, the glacier will need of order 1000 years to disappear. For the Pindari Glacier, which is much shorter, figures for its length I found are around 3km, the published retreat rate of over 100m/year leads to a lifetime of around 30 years – so there seems to be an enormous range just picking 2 glaciers from the table. The average retreat rate for the Pindari Glacier seems abnormally large, so where does the 135.2m/year come from ?
Whoever came up with the list mis-typed the interval 1845 to 1966 and did it from 1945 (or a similar “glitch” on a keyboard) – that gives you the abnormally large retreat rate – the correct value should have been 23.5m/year, and would have given the Pindari Glacier a much improved life expectancy.
Not sure who first came up with this table, but this simple maths-related typo combined with probably the doubly-incorrect conclusion that it wasn’t just one glacier to go (by 2035), but a journalistic inclusion of “all” seems to have been the beginning of this episode.
If someone at the time had looked at these figures critically, I am sure they would have quizzed the “gone by 2035” assertion and the unusually high retreat rate … but many people these days have lost their feeling for numbers, made easy by calculators and cut&paste (IMHO).
John (#1): I respectfully disagree.
If this were purely a scientific debate, involving people on all sides who have the pursuit of truth as their primary goal, then you would be right.
What we really have is a group seeking truth through the scientific process being assailed by another group that’s turning this into a political debate (some would say a pro wrestling show), with more than a little help from the clueless or complicit media.
As I’ve said before, this scenario is akin to the TV character Frasier Crane trying to talk his way out of a fight in a biker bar. The two sides are playing radically different games with different goals.
Thank you for a clear and concise explanation of the facts. There’s just one thing that still gets me: when will they fianlly lay to rest this “-gate” thing? Total lack of imagination!!!!
Rather than chasing around on this old media nonsense, the climate scientists on here can provide a rapid commentary on this :
[Response: Somebody else who thinks that statistics triumphs over physics. Or in other words, someone who thinks that the planet has to respond in some neat statistical way to a forcing. It doesn't. Since this appears to be a working paper, I would advise that they do some more work - for instance with the AR4 archive to demonstrate that their methodology is able to distinguish causes in much simpler (though realistic) cases. - gavin]
What about the biassed and unsubstantiated ways in which biofuels were written up including in the WG3 volume, including the Summary for Policymakers, which 5 name scientists (unconnected to ‘climate scepticism’) complained about? See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/#comment-155614 – I responded subsequently to several responses to this.
This was covered briefly by BBC News in 2007, and also 12 UK MPs signed this Early Day Motion about it.
With all due respect, you the RC team are speaking above about the whole IPCC/AR4 report, and the problem to date has been that complaints have been regarded as nonexistent unless/until a certain critical mass of the media mentions them.
Although it’s true that there are few leaders behind the campaign to discredit IPCC (and climate science)
their writing cascades through various channels. Here in Australia for example we have vociferous
right-wing newspapers and media outlets that peddle the stuff. Then it gets on to talkback radio and into
For those with a sense of humour it will be interesting to keep a track of how long these memes continue to
echo in denosphere… will they still be being repeated in 2015, 2020?
Can we just evaluate Jones’s recent words since he is at the epicenter of the disagreement?
[Response: You have to get past the appalling spin put on them by the Mail first. The actual statements are online at the BBC. There is absolutely nothing new here unless you've actually fallen for the strawman caricature of what climate scientists are supposed to have been saying. - gavin]
[Response: Thanks for this link, Gavin. I think a big problem with this BBC interview is the implicit undercurrent - never stated explicitly - that the recent warming is anthropogenic if it is unprecedented. Scientifically, these two things have nothing to do with each other, as we have discussed in more detail here. We know recent warming is anthropogenic because we know what is causing the recent increase in radiative forcing - in other words, we know the source of the heat. It is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused by our emissions. Stefan]
Also worth noting as a serious media error: The IPCC is usually described, by even the best reporters, as a “United Nations” organization. In reality it is an intergovernmental panel (gee, that’s what the name says, who knew?) set up and administered jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). To be sure, UNEP reports to the UN General Assembly, but WMO is a fully independent intergovernmental body with a history long predating the UN. All this can be found with about three minutes’ searching on the internet.
The media error is meaningful because in some quarters the UN and all its works is regarded with great suspicion. Calling the IPCC a UN organization conceals, among other things, the fact that the IPCC’s reports have not only been officially accepted by the worlds’ governments, but in effect were written by them, including the Bush and preceding US administrations.
Thank you for this superb overview.
The IPCC was established in an age of less pressing urgency. To take 3 years to author a near perfect report is a luxury that we can no longer afford. We now enter an age where climate destabilization events may be much more sudden; Pine Island WAIS, increasing permafrost melting and methane release may be catastrophic within a 3 year timeline. Any speed up of information flow is warranted.
good on you! thanks for this.
Concerning the ‘double standards’ od sceptics on grey literature: Nobody seems to be bothered by the fact that WG III relied on nuclear power corporations’ publications to conclude that nuclear power was a mitigation option: http://felixinnorwich.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/corporate-interests-in-the-ipcc-report-nuclear-energy/
A few comments on the discussion of the disasters issue:
This statement in your post is in error:
“It cited a paper by Muir-Wood as its source although that paper doesn’t include the graph, only the analysis that it is based on.”
The cited paper does not include the analysis that the graph is based on. In fact, it includes no discussion of temperature trends and disasters. You can confirm this for yourself:
You should correct the error in this post.
Also, you say that Muir-Wood says “it was appropriate to include [his research] them in the report”
This is only partially true. Muir-Wood was referring to the summary of the mis-cited paper, which he says was summarized fairly. You should also note that the summary that Muir-Wood thinks is fair, he wrote as a contributing author of that chapter.
With respect to the dubious graph Muir-Wood says that he created it informally and that it should not have been included.
You ignore IPCC issues in the review process on this issue, notably making stuff up about my views:
So questions for you:
1. Was the intentional misciting of Muir-Wood’s work to avoid the publication deadline appropriate?
2. Was the inclusion of the dubious graph appropriate, given that it appears in no literature before or since, peer-reviewed or gray, and was called by more than one reviewer “misleading” and recommended to be removed? Muir Wood now agrees that it should not have been included. Do you disagree?
3. Was it appropriate for the IPCC to make stuff up about my views?
[Response: Clearly there are different views on this, which is why we called this graph "debatable". But let's keep things in perspective: we're discussing Supplementary Material and a response to one of those 90,000 review comments now, not even the report itself. You've been working hard to scandalize your personal quibbles with IPCC here - how consistent is this with your self-proclaimed role as "honest broker"? Stefan]
“We will follow with great interest whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors.”
No, it doesn’t.
The ‘team’ needs to get this information out into the common media. It should also get aggressive and demand a congressional hearing to publicly clarify these issues, write op-eds for major papers and in other ways take the offensive. The ‘gates’ are not going to go away until the scientific community educated American’s and others about the issues.
But isn’t it the responsibility of the media to actually investigate whether allegations have any merit before they decide to repeat them?
I assume that’s sarcasm? Or perhaps just a rose-tinted view of the UK press? Granted, we don’t have quite the equivalent of Fox News over here, but our broadsheet newspapers often rival the tabloids in their lack of concern with facts.
Not that other countries are any better served by their press – look at what the Australian media fell for last year: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2698835.htm
Incidentally, there was an independent review of the UK Press Complaints Commission this January. Various media-watchers put together a set of proposals including like-for-like retractions (rather than printing corrections in 8-pt font on pg 26) and applying the same standards to headlines as well as article text. I signed the petition, but to be honest what’s really necessary is for the PCC to do a better job of enforcing the existing code.
If they have the time/energy, Stefan and David Nepstad should submit complaints to the PCC about the misrepresentation in Leake’s articles (the PCC will only consider complaints from people personally affected by an article or report, not the general public).
A couple of thoughts:
First, the IPCC by its very existence as a clearing house of information on climate change provides a single target on which denialists and spinmeisters can focus. Since it is the primary information source for most reality-based policy makers, it does not matter that the information it is providing is in fact not primary. As long as they can make the IPCC look bad, they can give the impression of making climate scienc look bad. Note the contrast here to the evolution debate where creationists have no single target on which they can focus.
Second, the important role of the IPCC is entirely out of proportion to its tiny resources and staff. In this sense it is a mirror of its parent orgatization–the UN, which is also a favorite whipping boy for rightwing bullies and conspiracy theorists. In the debate over smoking, the source of anti-smoking information was the government. And while the anti-smoking denialists could fight a delaying action, the Surgeon General and the government behind him had the resources to hit back if the attacks and lies became too egregious.
Third, WG2 and WG3 are particularly vulnerable to charges of using grey literature in part because there are relatively few scientific journals specifically devoted to their subject matter–consequences and mitigation, respectively. There is also the problem that the discipline of risk analysis is if possible even less well understood by the public than is science.
I have tried on several occasions to emphasize that the stage of risk analysis we are in now is bounding the consequences conservatively. A bound need not be perfect as long as it is finite and conservative. Later on, if the particular threat/risk calculus is seen to dominate the total risk, we can sharpen pencils and refine the bound or the probability of the threat being realized.
The final element of this perfect storm of denial is the woeful state of the press. Legitimate news organizations have decimated their press corps–in some cased doing away with science journalism entirely. Those few reporters left are overworked, under-informed and mindful that a report that displeases management (independent of support from the editor) could be fatal to their career.
In some ways, it is interesting to watch the resulting clustercluck. I am curious how people will react when the orgy of denial is spent and they realize that there is even more evidence telling them they are warming the planet to dangerous levels than there was before. We are probing the limits of human denial as well as the secrets of the planet’s climate.
Let’s assume for a moment that the 3000 pages of the IR4 reported one idea or fact per page. If there were only two errors that would be an error level of about 0.0666%. And if, as some media outlets have reported, there were six errors than the error level would be 0.2%.
However, each page has multiple pieces of information, so in reality the error level is far far lower. A very small fraction of a percent of the information contained in the report.
So, how does any of this put the IPCC or climate science in jeopardy? Add to that the fact that none of the errors are central to the major ideas of climate science.
The answer – spin of gyroscopic intensity.
Isn’t that interesting. You choose to read the spin on Jones comments by the Mail rather than the comments themselves, even though both are available on-line.
Do you have someone else pre-chew your food, too?
Ray #17 “Note the contrast here to the evolution debate where creationists have no single target on which they can focus”. Not really a contrast. The single target for creationists is Charles Darwin. They refer to evolution as “Darwinism”. they constantly talk about the supposed mistakes “Darwin” made. About how they would rather trust “god’s word” in the bible than Darwin’s. The cases are comparable in this (as in many other ) ways. You can say, until you look like an Avatar character, that evolution/speciation/adaptation has been the work of tens of thousands of biologists over the last 150 years, none of whom have ever found an inconsistency in the basic theses (as distinct from the details of particular evolutionary pathways), and of the scientists in supporting disciplines like geology, chemistry, physics, genetics, and so on. But no, it was only one man, Darwin, who outrageously challenged “god”.
Perhaps you’ll comment on the fact that the BBC is highly invested in climate change, via their pension, and therefore, with billions riding on their investments, are equally as likely to spin climate science in their favor?
All of your snide statements aside, your comments on this matter Ray would be very helpful for me.
[Response: Listen to yourself. The next thing will be that the police over-report crime because their pensions are invested in riot-control gear manufacturers, or that people only care about Haiti because they have shares in a T-shirt factory there. This kind of uber-conspiratorial thinking is poisonous to any dialog - take it somewhere else. - gavin]
I would like commenters’ views on this:
“The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.
In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.”
Source: The Times (UK)
I can’t overemphasize how important postings like this and websites like this are in the climate change debate. The news media does a terrible job in interpreting scientific information and it is easily manipulated into producing very inaccurate reporting. And without a personal background in the scientific specialties under study, it’s hard for any individual to know what importance to give some of these hyped-up stories. So thanks to Real Climate and its contributors for providing the proper context.
You say, “It is not up to us as climate scientists to clear up this mess – it is up to the media world itself to put this right again.” But if one thing’s clear from all this it’s that if you leave it to the media this just won’t happen. I understand your reluctance – but I’m afraid if anything’s to be done about it, climate scientists are going to have to take the initiative. As a matter of urgency, funding needs to be found for a rebuttal agency which can pounce on these errors as soon as they come up. It needs to involve both people with professional experience of getting stories into the media and scientists who have the time to give the issues their full and immediate attention (perhaps scientists who have retired from full-time research). Absurd that such a thing is needed, of course, but without it the denialists will continue to run rings around you.
The charges of FOI violations against CRU are also starting to look ephemeral. Remarkably (or not depending on one’s POV), nobody in the media seems to have thought it worth their time to follow up on the details even though so many of them, including “responsible” reporters, were happy to repeat the charges. In particular, it shouldn’t be forgotten that it was Andy Revkin, a leading climate reporter working for the U.S. “newspaper of record,” who legitimated “CRU-gate” by writing a story that appeared on the front page of the New York Times. To all appearances *nothing* has been learned from the execrable example set by the NYT in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Unfortunately for Richard Pauli (#14)’s good intention, processes of scientific research and careful review cannot be accelerated so much. It is ironic because acceleration of many contemporary affairs are caused by rapid developments of science-based technology.
Official correction of mistakes of IPCC reports after publication should certainly be accelerated. But correction to reflect new scientific findings is a different thing, and to demand accelerating it will make scientists too busy and will deteoriate the quality of the official products of IPCC.
Quicker responses should be made by relatively small groups of scientists. There should be portal sites of such information constantly updated. Maybe IPCC can act as one of the portals, but then it should be made very clear that these remarks are “unofficial” from IPCC’s viewpoint.
“There also is a sizeable contingent of me-too journalism that is simply repeating the stories but not taking the time to form a well-founded view on the topics. Typically they report on various “allegations”, such as these against the IPCC, similar to reporting that the CRU email hack lead to “allegations of data manipulation”. Technically it isn’t even wrong that there were such allegations. But isn’t it the responsibility of the media to actually investigate whether allegations have any merit before they decide to repeat them?”
“What is seriously amiss is something else: the public perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm. All of these various “gates” – Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam. It is not up to us as climate scientists to clear up this mess – it is up to the media world itself to put this right again”
I know this may be a little off-topic, but the media’s reporting on Climate Change, especially the ‘many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam’, highlights a certain pattern in the behaviour of the mainstream media which is the subject of an excellent book by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, ‘Manufacturing Consent’. I urge you guys at Realclimate, if you have the time (which I know you’re short on), to read it.
Jimbo: It’s the Times. Why would you trust them?
Read it very, very carefully. “all the errors [...] resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem”. Is this true? Yes. But wait…. “all the errors”? There is one error, and it overstates the severity of the problem. One error!
If I had a Times subscription, I would cancel it. They get more errors per page than is in the entire IPCC report.
@ Global Sceptic
>”Perhaps you’ll comment on the fact that the BBC is highly invested in climate change, via their pension, and therefore, with billions riding on their investments, are equally as likely to spin climate science in their favor?”.<
It look's like you are from the UK. So am I. Go back and post on the Daily Telegraph or Mail website. Then, globally, people won't have to read your drivel.
If the BBC pension was in armaments manufacture, by your logic, the BBC editors would be making non ending calls for war.
Please – keep taking the pills. You are an embarrassment to the UK.
Mr. Henderson (#28): You’re right about the press not correcting itself in these matters. As far as I’m concerned, the reason is painfully simple: Brute force economics.
As long as there’s a big, heated debate over climate change, the traditional media benefits. They’re under such incredible economic pressure that they’re grasping for anything to capture more eyeballs, so at least some of them are happy to assume the position of arms merchant in this war of words.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis carries beautiful WG-II-like pictures. Maybe to support and embellish its WG-I-related conclusions.
Re your “… uber-conspiratorial thinking…” response:
The very examples you mention in your response, can, and do take place in the real world. No conspiracy needed. Just pettiness and human greed is enough.
“…climate scientists are going to have to take the initiative.”
Please look where we are today, with climate scientists taking the ‘initiative’. When the situation calls for a cool-headed detached approach, you are asking for more initiative?
Funding for a rebuttal agency? :)
Recently, I have been trying to determine the “physical climate science basis” for the effect of clouds on radiation balance. In particular, is their feedback/forcing positive or negative?
The clearest reference I have found so far is Ramanathan’s 1987 Physics Today article. There he identified quantification of cloud effects on climate as a key technical problem. Did you ever “solve” it?
Of course the climate will change, we all know that. It’s your focus on CO2 that’s at issue. To make your case against carbon you need accessible answers to questions like mine about cloud effects.
It seems to me that “cap-and-trade” is what is bothering the deniers most. Supposedly based on your science, the politics of “cap-and-trade” are even more arcane than the quantitative details of radiation balance.
The above is just my opinion, based on some political life experiences during a scientific career. FWIW, I offer it as a fair exchange for ref(s) to cloud effect quantification.
Roger Pielke Jr. says:
14 February 2010 at 5:38 PM
I think an answer is needed to Dr. Peilke’s assertions.
I second Roger Pielke Jr (#17). I was at the Royal Institution debate a few days ago in London and Muir-Wood didn’t sound very pleased with what the IPCC had done with his work.
@Gavin and Theo Hopkins
Your logic is scant, and your personal attacks are not necessary.
It is duly noted that you have no relevant response to my questions regarding the BBC’s pension.
Perhaps then we need to discuss Pachauri’s ties to numerous for profit endeavors that directly rely on the success of AGW?
Again, I’m curious as to your responses about these matters.
[Response: The 'success' of AGW? This chasing down the rabbit hole in search of imaginary reasons why anyone would actually want AGW to be true is simple delusion. There are of course huge vested interests in the status quo - anyone who relies on anything from any infrastructure within a meter of mean sea level (this is almost everyone if you work it out), and yet you think that someone investing in solar energy, maybe just because they'd like to see it succeed means that nothing they say can be trusted? You are through the looking glass here. Please focus on the substance of any actual arguments rather than scraping the bottom of the barrel to find excuses not to. All further discussion on imaginary financial conflicts of interest are OT. - gavin]
Outstanding post, very useful and important. I expect to be linking to it a lot.
#36 John Peter
Regarding cloud feedbacks, see the discussion in Chapter 8 of the IPCC Report:
In a comparison of models, the cloud feedback was positive in all, but the magnitude varied greatly. Thus, cloud feedback is still considered the greatest uncertainty in climate-change projections for a given emissions scenario. In other words, models that predict the most warming are those that have the most positive cloud feedback. Note, however, that substantial warming is projected even in models with a small cloud feedback.
John Peter (36) — During the Eemian interglacial, the temperatures were 2–3 K warmer than now. That is enough to see that cloud effects don’t preclude ever increasing temperatures.
I do recommend reading “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, first link under the science section of the sidebar.
Dr. Pielke Jr. has checked in here and seems very concerned with matters of exaggeration, of creating narratives from flimsy evidence or no evidence at all. I wonder if Dr. Pielke Jr. would care to further amplify here with solid evidence this remark he made on his blog:
“IPCC Chairman Pachauri was making public comments on a dispute involving factual claims by the IPCC at the same time that he was negotiating for funding to his home institution justified by those very same claims.”
Dr. Pielke Jr. termed this a “classic and unambiguous case of financial conflict of interest”. That’s quite a serious charge. Yet when I tried to follow Dr. Pielke’s hypothesis via the supporting materials he included, I could find nothing to support such a drastic accusation, or that is to say nothing that would stand up to serious scrutiny in a court of law.
I’m left wondering why I should lend weight to Dr. Pielke’s opinions. I’m open to being swayed on that account.
While I would hesitate to recommend a permanent organization to answer the spin, I do think it is clear that a climate-education branch of the IPCC might be a useful addition to the effort. It is clear that the task of the IPCC has grown well beyond its capabilities. The organization probably needs to grow as well.
Any comments on Phil Jones Q&A – perhaps it’s something you should cover.
44, Doug B.
Here is the US NAS COI policy:
Ask yourself if Dr. Pachauri would meet these standards. I think not. the standards for many science advisory bodies are even more strict.
The question is, why should the IPCC not follow standard COI policies? (Currently it has none.)
I think that the IPCC is strengthened with COI policies. I’d like to hear an argument to the contrary. A strengthened IPCC is a good idea.
Your reference to Peilke’s
Its pretty clear. Pachauri refuted the Indian government glacier data, while he was negotiating with the EU and the Carnegie Foundation, for funds to study Himilayan glaciers.
Granted, Pachauri did not violate IPCC COI standards; but only because the IPCC does not have any COI standards.
Although our representative from the tinfoil hat contingent, Global Skeptic, clearly has some “creative” ideas about what motivates scientists, he does illustrate a common tactic by anti-science activists. As long as they can establish in the public mind that scientific experts might not be 100% disinterested, they can get the public to consider the anti-science argument, even if that argument is formulated by spinmeisters doing what they do best–that is, lying like a rug.
One effective (and under utilized) argument against this line of attack is to point out that no professional organization that has adopted a position statement on climate change has dissented from the consensus view of climate scientist. Even the frigging American Association of Petroleum Geologists is neutral on the consensus–and if ever there was a group with an axe to grind, that would be it!
As a scientist who does not work in climate science, my life and research are likely to be directly and negatively impacted by the fact that we are warming the planet. In all likelihood, it means the latter half of my career will be spent working on satellites directed at understanding climate rather than the diverse range of space telescopes and satellites I’ve worked on to date. Likewise, physicists, chemists, meteorologists, geophysicists, geologists, and on and on will likely be negatively impacted in terms of funding, research opportunities, etc. And yet, the professional societies representing these fields have all taken positions that say climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. That level of consensus is truly unprecedented. I have to wonder why we don’t hear about it more often.
Hmmm supposed errors there are scientists who confirm these are errors and maybe this nonsense of gloom and doom is finally going to come to an end. Professor Jones just said today there has been no warming since 1995. Interesting to say the least. 
[Response: Go read what he actual said. It isn't what you think. Perhaps you could also reasssess the credibility of your sources? - gavin]
A climate-education branch of the IPCC would simply be dubbed ‘the propaganda arm’. It might do more harm than good.
Powered by WordPress
Switch to our mobile site