Slashdot Mirror

No actual science went into the creation of the NIPCC.
No actual peer review by actual scientists went into the NIPCC.

What did go into it was substantial sums of money from fossil fuel companies.
The NIPCC is not a scientific document, but a peice of political ideologically driven garbage meant to defend the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.climatesciencewatch...

Using the NIPCC as your "proof" that scientists are wrong is like trying to convince a scientist to believe in God using the Bible.
Its so dumb it's not even ignorant.

With Stephen Harper in charge the Canadian government doesn't look much different than the US's these days.

He is as bad as any leader we've ever had when it comes to science in general.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12...

http://www.academicmatters.ca/...

http://www.climatesciencewatch...

While a increase in the error of the estimated ECS is possible, the denialist industry is really pumping their papers in order to swamp the impact of the IPCC reports.

These claims of what is in them are reasonably speculative. I'm going to wait for the report before deciding the consequences of what's in it.

Here's a refutation of this particular one.

• $ __2.6 billion -- US climate research proposal 2013 (source)
• $ 856.5 billion -- US defense spending 2013 (source)

So, you could make the enormous climate research spending budget-neutral, by reducing the military spending by 0.3 %. Or, if you slash the military budget by a staggering 0.6%, you could spend that money on climate research *AND* on subsidizing better house insulation for poor people, because what you say is actually a really good plan, like they do in the UK. (Woops.. they planned to do in the UK; Cameron shot his coalition partner's plan down apparently

Any comment?

Actually the money will land in climate science. Climatologists have first claim because they produce results (right or wrong, doesn't matter) that rationalize statism.

Sorry, here's a better citation. But it was not "on the level of a typographical error, not a scientific error" as you say. It was at least incompetence and at most intentionally misleading, even if well meaning.

Have a look at this summary of their activity and tell me their position is anything but skeptical.

OK. Their position is anything but skeptical. I don't believe that they give a rat's ass about the science or it's findings. On the other hand, they care a whole lot about the impact of those things. So they spend a great deal of money promoting "skepticism" (frightening the drooling, knuckle-dragging, dullards who vote) in order to minimize that impact. Granted, that's a rather fine distinction, but all the more worthy of our consideration. All the sound science in the world is worth little in the machine of policy formation if the Koch's and their peers can buy enough public opinion to keep their stocks from getting crushed by environmental regulation.

Have a look at this summary of their activity and tell me their position is anything but skeptical.

That's like saying "Go to harleymotodata.org" and then proclaiming you found hard proof that Harleys are the best.

We can't do that! Everyone keeps doing it, however!

If there's going to be a set of data that is reliable and provides useful, measurable results, we need to quit bickering and come up with a standard. Centralized data set that nothing enters into without being reviewed and reverse-logic checked more than once.

Instead of making grandiose statements that the Koch brothers fund global warming skeptics "whenever possible", why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?

Have a look at this summary of their activity and tell me their position is anything but skeptical. Not that there is anything wrong with that, they are self-proclaimed libertarians and as such are expected to be of the opinion that government has no place influencing the environment (or much of anything else) so it is natural that they will do whatever it takes to prevent public opinion from boiling over on this issue.

I am wondering, at this point, if Richard Muller isn't simply a very talented troll who agreed to take the Koch's money after presenting himself as a deep skeptic of climate change, only to turn around and use it to point out that the data was right all along.

And the Oregon Petition strikes again! It hasn't passed peer review--and skimming the thing suggests why. It's like multivariate analysis never even entered the picture. For the more obvious factual errors, I suggest:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

Speaking at a development summit, India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh came out in full support of the beleaguered IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, the first time Singh had addressed the issue after IPCC offered its "regret" on the blunder it committed in predicting that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt away by 2035. The Indian prime minister, who is an economist, said: "Some aspects of the science that is reflected in the work of the IPCC have faced criticism. But this debate does not challenge the core projections of the IPCC about the impact of greenhouse gas accumulations on temperature, rainfall, and sea-level rise. Let me here assert that India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way that it can."

Singh added: "I share the disappointment of many with the limited achievements of the discussions that took place at Copenhagen. We have established an Indian Network for Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment, a network of over 120 research institutes, which will bring out regular reports on the impacts of climate change on different sectors and different regions of the country. The first such assessment will be released in November this year. We seek international collaboration to make this network effective. It is becoming clear that the roots of the problem we face today are in the current patterns of global production and consumption, which are not sustainable. We are living on an overdraft on nature’s resources, and this is already threatening the ecological balance, which is the basis of our survival. We are also establishing a National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology in Dehra Dun, and we look forward to international cooperation in this vital area."

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/indian-prime-mi.html

And of course, contrary to Slashdot's quote from the International Business Times, the Himalayan glacier statement was not "a primary claim of the report," but rather "several sentences and one reference" from a 3000 page report.

I am down with everything you wrote (yes including the 2nd amendment defense) expect lumping in global warming as a non problem. Engaging in global warming denial does nothing to help your case. This is what the peer reviewed journal Science has to say about models predicting anthropogenic climate change:

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The deniers meanwhile all end being dunded by fossil fuel industry sources:

A study published in the journal Environmental Politics finds that 92 per cent of 141 English-language environmentally âoeskepticalâ books, most published since 1992, are linked to conservative âoethink tanks.â The authors conclude that the environmental skepticism of such organizations âoeis a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.â

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/C25/

See also:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics

In fact, some have resigned in protest.
Susan Wood is one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html
Rick Piltz http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/d etails/ccsp-resignation/ is another.

On the other side of the conflict, the resignations have been forced as a result of the publicity surrounding their nefarious activities. Of course, the revolving door takes the sting out.
--
Good morning sunshine: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Anyone who is an "alarmist" is denying the science, by definition. There do seem to be far more deniers (of the human contribution) than alarmists, however. Probably because either it is more lucrative to be a denier and/or it is easier to pretend like we have no impact on the environment than to take responsibility for our actions. (I.e., one doesn't have to be a shill to be a denier, but it pays better.) Luckily, a major funding source of the deniers has recently been curtailed.

As a member of the "Man has [little] effect" crowd, I'd rather see everyone focus on issues that we actually have, rather than fabricating new ones.

So, why do you think that Bill O'Reilly, GW Bush, and (gasp, finally!) ExxonMobil disagree with you? Is it just because they're a bunch of envirowackos trying to destroy the economy?

I post a rather diplomatic response and you come back all snotty and condescending.

When writing my MS thesis, I was precise and correct and detailed. When posting on ./, and having a proposal and some other work due the same day, sometimes I devote less time and energy.

Besides, in my post I was precise and correct; I stand by my characterization of the exec. branch having "some control" over funding, for reasons already mentioned. But I concede I didn't even need to single out the exec. branch; you win the ./ debate club prize on that point.

I mentioned distortion and suppression by "the government."
Distortion: Whoo boy. I'll start with this masterpiece about mercury (pdf) by Pombo et al. Then you have Mr. Deutsch- there's distortion and suppression all wrapped up in one nice package. And incompetence. I'll leave you with this resignation letter.

I like how you narrowly interpreted my comments to refer to strictly to publishing. Narrow interpretation is your favorite tool, isn't it. But I am more broadly concerned with the suppression/distortion of science in the government's decision making process. Refer to the situation regarding the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change described in the last link. See also this book.

I concur that we have it better than in China. There should be a corollary to Godwin's law- if you have to compare your country to China to argue that your government isn't so bad, you lose.