I hit post when I meant to hit preview, so my last post was somewhat incomplete ... (and I misspelled leery)

So here's what should be in my previous post:

I would add that, given the scientific community's opinion on a scientific issue, our society is still free to come up with whatever policy they want.  Science does not dictate or determine policy.

If policymakers and the general public have a "feeling" that hurricanes are a big issue, they can and should take action on that issue, even if the scientific community is undecided on the issue.  Uncertainty does not mean "don't take action."  

"Every serious person involved in the climate change discussion accepts the broad conclusions of the IPCC."

No, every serious person involved in climate change research knows that the most important part of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report--the "projections" of what will happen if governments of the world do nothing--are nothing more than pseudoscientific rubbish.

The IPCC's "projections" are completely without merit, as a very basic matter of science.  They are completely unfalsifiable.  Everyone who knows about science knows that falsifiability is an absolutely fundamental requirement for scientific predictions (or "projections").

But do you suppose anyone will ever read that in an Andrew Revkin piece in the New York Times (let alone from any of the Gristmill contributors)?

Mark Bahner

>> I believe global warming will increasingly make hurricanes measurably stronger and more destructive

The hurricane after Katrina, Wilma, had the fastest spin up time ever measured..... Katrina oiled the waters of the Gulf for Wilma.

Oil on the sea reduces wave height, and allows higher wind (spin) speeds. (note the Gulf has a natural oil seepage...maybe a reason why hurricanes like that area.

This year there was little hurricane activity.

Hurricanes rely on the high local humidity in the atmosphere above warm waters. They draw and condense the water vapour in the surrounding air, forming the characteristic cloud structure and delivering massive rainfalls.

Why weren't there any major hurricanes this year?

It could be that the humidity level in the atmosphere above the waters of the gulf and its surrounds, did not get strong enough last year to allow a hurricane to form. Oil ?

Asia had many destructive typhoons last year.

I think in the future, hurricanes will form in "unusual" places, they may move poleward.

IMO the main atmospheric problem as the air dries out will be massive tornadoes and high intensity lightning.

you HAVE to go beyond the IPCC reports:

First because they are a year out of date the moment they appear.

Second because most people on these blogs only read WGI, and ignore WGII and WGIII, where the consequences and possible ameliorations/adaptations are identified.

Third because they do not identify which policy options should be taken.  

Fourth, because not all science issues are settled.  See three for implications.

Andrew Dessler writes...blah, blah, blah.

Ah yes, if one doesn't wish to discuss science--because science does not support one's positions--there are always personal attacks (if one doesn't have scruples against resorting to them).

Mark Bahner

Most scientific findings have some degree of uncertainty. The larger the scope of research, the more uncertainty is inherent in the findings. Conclusions about global scale phenomena are necessarily going to be some of the most uncertain. And yet is it vital that we make some estimate of the dangers and harms presented by global climate change. That is the predicament for policymakers.

Science has excellent statistical methods for quantifying the degree of uncertainty of any finding. Scientists can tell us exactly how much uncertainty is inherent in any scenario or projection. And policymakers will set policy based on their judgment of the potential harms and the level of uncertainty in that potential.

It is in no way unprofessional to set policy according to that procedure. In fact, nearly all long-term policy is based on projections and scenarios that are uncertain. It's part of the job -- politicians are used to it -- and using uncertainty as an excuse for inaction is either cowardice or pandering to corporate interests.

If policymakers decide that economic interests of the present outweigh environmental interests of the future, let them argue their position forthrightly. Falling back on the uncertainty excuse is just whining.

Interesting discussion for a day off on the farm here.  First, the scientific method as I know it is to formulate a thesis, from which several hypotheses are generated.  One then challenges each of these hypotheses, a process called testing the "null hypothesis."  The null means it is "not true."  Therefore, if you reject the null hypothesis in each case, the main argument is (get ready here) Not-Not-True.

That doesn't make it Truth with a capital "T".  No way!  To call it uncertainty is a little misleading, since there are some guidelines for causation, plausibility, multiplicity, contamination of variables, and lots of other muck.  Yes, there are statistical measures for uncertainty, such as Monte Carlo, but I think most people are just plain uncertain when they say they are.

This brings us to the discussion of what I call Global Smarmy, since a lot of people want to profess they really DO understand what is a very complex mechanism, when they don't.  It turns out that while CO2 and methane are very important, ozone, aerosols, and other trace gases can have large impacts, too.  For example, the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was slow because of aerosol from Saharan sand, in addition to mechanical wind sheer, even though temperatures and CO2 levels were at all-time high levels.

I might sound like I know everything but heck, I'm just Joe Six-Pack here, enjoying a Saturday!  Sam

Onward through the fog

jjwfmme -

We're talking about policy advocacy here, not journalism. The use of emerging science by policy advocates is very different than its description by journalists.

I said, Perhaps I got off track because the post itself is about journalism.

Well, at least the previous posts that mentioned Revkin's article were about journalism. Sorry, carry on...

if we were using science, uncertain and imperfect though it may be, to determine policy, we'd be doing a hell of a lot more with regard to climate change than debating the terms of the debate. What we seem to be doing in this country, anyway, is allowing the reality of uncertainty to undermine substantive changes as if we're ever going to have the whole, unvarnished picture. Each year that goes by brings more surprises, to ordinary people and to scientists alike. And the surprises, so far, have not been positive. That may not be a scientific statement, but it's true nonetheless.
   With regard to going beyond IPCC, it's essential. Not due to any fault with IPCC but because of the nature of their process. I've been following this issue for almost 20 years now (though not as a scientist and I don't claim otherwise, I simply try my best to understand and translate for others) and there were always scientists (and others) who went beyond IPCC in their analysis of the research and especially in their predictions/implications of it. Now IPCC is saying some of the same things those folks were back then. We can't afford to toe any party line here. There's way too much at stake.
    By the way, it's close to 60 degrees here in Maine today, the grass is green, my perennials are growing (and will probably die because eventually it will get cold again), we just got over a half inch of rain with more predicted in the next three days. Last night on the news they finally mentioned climate change in the context of this unseasonably warm weather in New England. But just barely and no none dared to go out on a limb and say, "yes, climate change is impacting the weather". Instead they noted the trend. I know, I know, what's happening today in any one place on Earth isn't proof of anything. But still . . . if this trend continues with no backsliding to anything nearer normal, people in this region are going to be royally screwed, and really, really soon.
   So we can debate and we can argue about what the real science says, but in the real world something's going on.

I am a consumer of journalism, science, and policy.  From my exposure, I feel that global warming is not an environmental nor scientific controversy, and not on the policy debate level of Spotted Owls.

Relevant to me are frontline reports on methane melting in permafrost, dying plankton, mass extinction from the Permian era.  The IPCC is dated the day it comes out and is not broad enough to include many positive feedback loops, which could become more significant than anthropogenic CO2e.  

Global warming threatens the end of civilization and mass extinction, a threat of unknown probability.  If the risk were 1% then the FDA would not allow fossil CO2.  The IPCC is not cause for marginalizing policy advocates.

I'm in Massachusetts and we're seeing the same thing. It's 68 degrees on January 6. Usually 25 is a warm temperature this time of year.

A Boston Globe story mentioned climate change in its front page weather story, but it was several paragraphs down and the quoted scientist spoke very carefully, doing a so-so job framing the science, I thought. It was technically correct, but could have been less ambiguous...  

when it come to helping the general public...yes, there usually is no communication.  Too many big words.... story of my life

But a scientist can help himself!!... and that is where a scientist has a massive advantage.  They can leave the pack behind.

This is a fascinating discussion.  Three science questions:

How truly predictive are statements made by scientists, by individuals (outliers?) on the one hand, and by a consensus (and strictly speaking, "consensus" = 100%) on the other?

How prescriptive (i.e., dipping into ethics: "This is what we ought to be doing") are such statements?

How are non-scientists supposed to receive the statements of scientists, anyhow?

The latter has been for a long time a big sociological problem generally (think "evolution").  In the context of the present discussion, it would be useful to have a bit of exegesis of David's interesting sentence, "Our informed gut feelings about how things will turn out are legitimate."  One might begin by asking, Why is "informed gut feelings" not an oxymoron?  And, What does "legitimate" mean?  Who gets to decide what is and is not "legitimate"?

And then, David quotes a very interesting sentence by the elected POTUS of 11/2000: "Based on some new and emerging research, and based on my sense of the direction of the science over the last 20 years, and based on my holistic understanding of the phenomenon, I believe global warming will increasingly make hurricanes measurably stronger and more destructive."  "Sense of the direction of the science" is, I guess, clear enough.  But "holistic understanding" is rather more opaque.

The sentence itself presumably counts as a fully satisfactory disavowal of the suggestion that Al Gore was using US-striking hurricanes, especially Katrina, as a way of "over-representing" the climate crisis by getting shocking images for his slide show.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I think most people discount the statements of politicians steeply, even one with the eco bona fides of Gore. I think also that by entering the fray under the auspices of an international political organization, the IPCC, despite being science-based, is de facto a political body. In any case, the more voices, and interchange, the more likely people will converge on a basic understanding of the consensus.

Extrapolation and examination of absolute worst-case scenarios is useful. Al Gore may go off the deep end here and there (not necessarily in his movie...) but his voice puts the ball in play.  If Al exaggerates, someone will point it out, and the idea he needs the UN IPCC imprimatur before talking is repugnant. No scientific body, however august and careful, is free from the need to bow to the truth, and must not develop the conceit that they already have it in final form. Unless someone makes him emperor, I don't fear any roughness around Gore's edges, nor do I fear him or anyone else deviating from the climatological catechism of the IPCC. By the same token, by being so out in the open, the IPCC won't get away with anything fishy, so I don't fear them having an axe to grind, either.

500,000 years ago, when I was in grad school, I studied cognitive science (more properly, the big, vague area where neuroscience, artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, and the kitchen sink overlap). Much of my focus -- what would have been the subject of my dissertation -- was on the kinds of cognition that are unconscious (or subconscious, or non-conscious, what have you). Our Enlightenment model of cognition has it as a purely conscious and deliberate logical manipulation of atomic sensations and ideas. But common sense, and a growing body of research, reveals how much of what we "know" bubbles up as a result of cognitive processes of which we are dimly aware, or completely unaware. Our consciousness, our self-awareness, turns out to be a fairly thin membrane over an enormous sea of distributed cognitive processes about which it has very little knowledge and over which it has only minimal control. Our Enlightenment instinct is to be suspicious, even hostile, toward the kind of knowledge we cannot trace back to clear premises and logically derived conclusions. But that's unfortunate, since that stuff constitutes the vast majority of what we know, if by "know" we mean act on, as a good Pragmatist would have it.

All of which is to say that "gut instincts" do not deserve the derision they often receive. They certainly cannot substitute for scientific conclusions -- the scientific process is built around strict requirements that all conclusions be public, explicit, and subject to replication or refutation -- but they play a huge role in science as actually practiced, and a larger role yet in cultural and political decision-making. If we disavowed them entirely society would grind to a halt. We can't live together and organize a society based on the strictures of the scientific method, however much certain scientists and wonks would (selectively) encourage such a thing. We are not, and never will be, and shouldn't want to be, entirely rational creatures. We evolved to have strong affective responses for a reason. They guide rationality in ways that cannot be explained by the methods of rationality itself, and thank god. We'd be in a hellish situation otherwise.

I apologize to all my professors for the gross simplifications above, and to the 98% of readers who nodded off midway through the first paragraph.

www.grist.org

I too, thought the "informed gut feelings" interesting because, well, it seemed David was writing about me. I have "informed gut feelings" and was like, "Yes. Right on with that one!". That it might be an oxymoron never occured to me, but I understand where you're coming from, canis. To explain myself, my feelings are "informed" because, well, I know so much about climate change. But I suppose someone could know as much and have a gut feeling exactly the opposite of mine. If so, I hope they're right and I'm wrong. But I've been having gut feelings on climate change for many years and they have most always, unfortunately, been right. One learns to trust gut feelings over time. I had a lot of experience after my sister's accident caused severe brain injury and put her in a coma for 8 weeks. At the same time my mother died of cancer and I was pregnant with my youngest son. So a lot was going on. And I learned to absolutely trust my intuition (gut feelings) about my sister's prognosis and recovery. Even when every doctor told me there was virtually no hope. But I knew and I have never forgotten that feeling. So when I feel that way, about anything, I trust it. I must say, however, that it can be tricky when there's fear involved.
 

jjwfmme writes, "...Mark Bahner wants us to engage in lawyerly wordplay with the scientific language, which would be a tedious way to spend your Saturday morning..."

Perhaps you should spend your Saturday morning(s) learning about science.

Science is all about what is true and what is false.

Andrew Dessler wrote that the IPCC Third Assessment Report wrote that it was "likely" that the warming from 1990 to 2100 would be 1.4 to 5.8 deg C.  That was false.

I made the true statement that the IPCC TAR does NOT say it's likely that the warming will be 1.4 to 5.8 deg C.  (And if anyone, including Andrew Dessler, thinks that his statement was true and mine is false, I will give $40 to the first person to show my statement was false...i.e. to show where the IPCC TAR says that the warming of 1.4 to 5.8 deg C is "likely.")

Then I made a second statement that was also true:

Even if Andrew Dessler's statement WAS true (which it isn't) it wouldn't be relevant from a policy standpoint because it makes a huge difference whether the warming will be close to 1.4 deg C or close to 5.8 deg C.  (The truth is that the warming will be much, much closer to 1.4 deg C.)

Mark Bahner

I don't hold David to NYT reporting standards.   I expect gut feelings from blogs and editorials.    I especially like the Grist clipping service and interviews.  

Journalists seem to be catching up to the gut feelings of millions of people already very concerned about global warming.  Australian droughts, closed ski resorts, winter blossoms, bark beetles, longer growing seasons, plant and animal migrations, Arctic ice, polar bears,... people think global warming.  It comes from the gut.

Can you please explain this:

The IPCC's "projections" are completely without merit, as a very basic matter of science.  They are completely unfalsifiable.  Everyone who knows about science knows that falsifiability is an absolutely fundamental requirement for scientific predictions (or "projections").

Huh? I don't understand how in eight years of my college education with two scientific degrees and a third one forthcoming, I have not heard one person (out of dozens) suggest that a scientific prediction has to be falsifiable. You either read the wrong thing somewhere or got something messed up along the way.

Next, can you explain to me how you create your predictions, or how you can possibly use Michael Crichton's predictions to suggest one scenario or another? Can you model? Do you know a computer language (HTML does not count here, FORTRAN or C++ would work) and have you built a model, which would include climatic parameters and forcing functions acting upon the global climate to actually base your predictions on? I know Cr(ap)ton has not, because he is a writer, not a programmer. And even if you have built a model, can it compare in complexity to the current climatical models, such as HadCM3 (Gordon, C., C. Cooper, C.A. Senior, H. Banks, J.M. Gregory, T.C. Johns, J.F.B. Mitchell and R.A. Wood, 2000: The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Climate Dynamics 16: 147-168)???

In the minute chance that you are a crack programmer and climate scientist (self taught?) and you have, please outline your assumptions and present your flow diagram.

Untill you present both of those as evidence of your predictions' legitimacy, please STFU on matters regarding science.

>> Science is all about what is true and what is false.

Science really is conjecture based upon a foundation of accumulated facts.  The scientific theories are really best explanations,.. they don't claim to be true, or even remotely true.  They are models that serve as a matrix to lay in all the factual observations. These are then used to make predictions. Truth is never known, only falsity is accepted.

Technology is true or false, it works as planned or it does not.

One step up the spiral!

Thanks, David, for so generously explaining your line of thought.  What you write about knowledge, decision-making and rationality makes perfect sense.

Do not worry about the Ph.D. right now.  You have young ones, who want you to read stories to them; and there can be no higher calling than that.

SMLowry, I am always glad to read your messages.  You understood David's expression exactly as I did.  My instinct was to analyse it a bit, but only in order to defend it, ultimately.

Our president, for example, at least before the election last November, made a boast of how he was guided by his "gut feelings" on the one hand, and on the other totally ignored such sources of information as TV news and newspapers.  So in the context of W.'s administration, the expression "informed gut feeling" looks mighty questionable.

Sunflower, please be assured, it was not at all my intention to attack our friend David.  On the contrary, I only wanted to point out where there might be a weakness in David's articulation.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

And GMB.  Related?  Or the same (computer), check the IP address.  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I would say that Mark is less of a troll than GMB (we're all trolls somewhat).

Mark,
From IPCC TAR Section 9.3.1.3 Marker scenario experiments (SRES), paragraph two:

The average temperature response from nine AOGCMs using the SRES A2 forcing (Figures 9.6a and 9.7b, top) for the 30-year average 2071 to 2100 relative to 1961 to 1990 is +3.0°C with a range of +1.3 to +4.5°C, while using the SRES B2 scenarios it amounts to +2.2°C with a range of +0.9 to +3.4°C. The B2 scenario produces a smaller warming which is consistent with its lower positive radiative forcing at the end of the 21st century. For the 30-year average 2021 to 2050 using the A2 scenario, the globally averaged surface air temperature increase compared with 1961 to 1990 is +1.1°C with a range of +0.5 to +1.4°C, while using the SRES B2 scenarios it amounts to +1.2°C with a range of +0.5 to +1.7°C. The values for the SRES scenarios for the mid-21st century are lower than for the IS92a scenarios for the corresponding period due to differences in the forcing.

Also, I would urge you to stay out of scientific discussions until you present at the very least your assumptions and your flow diagram for your (snicker) climate model.

... even though I've explained it to him several times is that scientific assessments are not science in a traditional sense.  For example, on Oct. 5, 2005 I wrote (on another blog):

>>>>

Mark-

The mistake you continue to make is that you conflate scientific assessments with science. Scientific assessments are sometimes referred to in the literature as "transcientific documents" --- they summarize science, but are not themselves experiments, nor do they attempt to produce new knowledge. Your insistence that they be "falsifiable" therefore makes no sense. I note, however, that assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications. You might try to "falsify" the IPCC by showing that it misrepresents the underlying peer-reviewed literature. Of course, multiple multiple reviews have repeatedly shown that the report adequately reflects the scientific consensus (see, for example, the NAS review).

Assessments summarize what we know and how confidently we know it. The lack of probabilities in the temperature increase does not invalidate the report, as you alone seem to think --- but I agree that policymakers should take that into account when they consider policy alternatives.

regards.

>>>>

It's amazing that you're still hung up on the same trivially incorrect argument.  

re: my last comment.  I was using "likely" in a colloquial sense, not quoting the IPCC.  Did I have any quotation marks in my statement?  No?  That's right.

To all lurkers: Note that Mark completely ignores the substance of my last comment.  He does not say whether the IPCC is misrepresenting the underlying peer-reviewed literature.

Is it, Mark?  Or does the IPCC accurately summarize the published literature?

Save your energy Andrew; this argument is not worth it. I'd much rather you devote your time to other writings, which I eagerly await.

Andrew,

A week ago you wrote, regarding the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR):

"Its last report detailed what the scientific community has concluded about climate change:

3.  Warming over the next 100 years is likely to lie between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C"

When I pointed out your statement was false, you first engaged in childish name-calling.  (Not very impressive for a professor at a major university.  Especially a professor of atmospheric sciences, who one would expect to be very interested in a scientifically accurate and precise characterizations matters of atmospheric science.)

Now you write, "I was using 'likely' in a colloquial sense,..."

But you were supposedly reporting on what the IPCC TAR said.  So why would you use likely in the "colloquial" (i.e., meaningless) sense, when the IPCC TAR has a very explicit and precise definition for likely (i.e., 66 to 90 percent probability of occurrence)?  Were you ignorant of the IPCC TAR's very different and very precise definition for "likely"?  Or were you just careless?  Or were you intentionally trying to confuse or deceive?

Then you state, "Note that Mark completely ignores the substance of my last comment."

It's very tough to address your comments when they contain so many mischaracterizations and flat-out falsehoods.  I spend all my time addressing those mischaracterizations and flat-out falsehoods.  And it definitely doesn't help that you virtually NEVER admit your mischaracterizations and falsehoods (correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single case). Instead, when I point them out, you simply change to new mischaracterizations and falsehoods. Not to mention engaging in childish name-calling.  

Finally, you conclude:  "He does not say whether the IPCC is misrepresenting the underlying peer-reviewed literature. Is it, Mark?  Or does the IPCC accurately summarize the published literature?"

Unbelievable.  You seem very confused about how to conduct a scientific debate.  I wrote:

"The IPCC's `projections' are completely without merit, as a very basic matter of science.  They are completely unfalsifiable.  Everyone who knows about science knows that falsifiability is an absolutely fundamental requirement for scientific predictions (or `projections')."

When atreyger questioned whether predictions  needed to be falsifiable to be considered scientific, I provided overwhelming evidence to back up my assertion (I pointed out that even high school students learn this is so).

Now, you are asserting, regarding the IPCC TAR, "assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications."  But there's just one tiny little problem.  You have never provided EVIDENCE to support your assertion that the IPCC TAR scenarios and temperature projections are based on "falsifiable and peer-reviewed literature."

In fact, way back in November 2005, I told you to point me to the peer-reviewed and falsifiable paper that supports the A1F1 and A2 scenarios.  You (of course) never responded to my request.

Please point me to all of the literature--or at least a handful of papers--that YOU THINK are falsifiable and peer-reviewed, that support the scenarios and temperature projections that are in the IPCC TAR, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios.  If you can't point me specifically to that literature, I will with proper scientific skepticism assume that it exists only in your imagination.

Mark Bahner

The evidence that the IPCC accurately represents the peer-reviewed literature is:
it was written by scientists
it was peer reviewed by scientists
it was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and endorsed
endorsed by the AGU, AMS, AAAS

I think that shows pretty clearly that it accurately portrays the peer-reviewed literature.

Now, it might be that none of the thousands of scientists involved understand how science works, while you do (even though you're not a scientist).  Or it may be that you don't know what you're talking about.  

Hmmm.  I wonder which one it is.

PS: in the unlikely case you actually have a legitimate argument that the IPCC misrepresents the peer-reviewed literature, now would be a good time to roll it out.

"60 to 90% chance"="likely" in this case.

Ever seen a weather report Mark?  Or do you ignore them since they only provide a likely prediction.  Probability is the best science can do.  Science cannot appeal to the word of gaawd (or Bill Kristol)or some other mystical faithbased "certainty".

You are the one touting the falsifiable nature of scientific theory.  Do you know what that actually means?  

It means that any theory that could not be proven false, were data established that challenge it, says nothing new about the real world.  It is tautological, true by the definition of the terms involved.  

The theory of anthropogenic GHG caused global climate change could be proven false if evidence countering it were established.  It meets the test.

Our side has established overwhelming peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting the theory.  You side has established no peer reviewed evidence opposing it.  Period.

Provide evidence, it's just that simple.  You can't?  Why not?

With 10s of millions in cash from industry sources they couldn't find even one scientist that would publish peer reviewed research based on scientific evidence countering the theory?  

Scientific theory is always open to countervailing evidence so any time you are ready please provide evidence.  Meanwhile the rest of us will focus on solutions.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I wrote, "Please point me to all of the literature--or at least a handful of papers--that YOU THINK are falsifiable and peer-reviewed, that support the scenarios and temperature projections that are in the IPCC TAR, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios."

So, does Andrew Dessler provide me with a list of papers he thinks are falsifiable and peer-reviewed, that he thinks support the scenarios in the IPCC TAR, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios?  Of course not.  

Can't point to something that doesn't exist, can you, Andrew?

As I've already written, "If you can't point me specifically to that literature, I will with proper scientific skepticism assume that it exists only in your imagination."

You finish with the hilarious:

"P.S. in the unlikely case you actually have a legitimate argument that the IPCC misrepresents the peer-reviewed literature, now would be a good time to roll it out."

There IS NO peer-reviewed **FALSIFIABLE** literature that supports the IPCC TAR scenarios and "projections," Andrew.  The IPCC TAR scenarios and "projections" are nothing more than  pseudoscientific nonsense.  Exactly like the 30-year scam of the Limits to Growth series of books. Which were also done by some of your "scientists."
 

Mark Bahner

Trolls will eat up all your time and energy. Beware!

"I asked you for evidence the IPCC misrepresented the peer-reviewed literature.  Since you can't, you cleverly try to put the burden of proof on me.  Clever, but that's not going to fool anyone."

Heh, heh, heh!  Good one.

YOU asserted that, "assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications."

I responded, "Please point me to all of the literature--or at least a handful of papers--that YOU THINK are falsifiable and peer-reviewed, that support the scenarios and temperature projections that are in the IPCC TAR, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios."

You haven't pointed me to any of the literature, because it doesn't exist.  Now you want me to provide evidence the IPCC TAR misrepresents literature that doesn't even exist.

You made the assertion.  You provide the evidence.

Just like I provided the evidence when atreyger demanded to see evidence that predictions must be falsifiable in order to be scientific.

The only problem is you can't provide evidence to back YOUR assertion, because the literature you claim exists doesn't.

Mark Bahner

"You also do not explain why the entire scientific community has somehow missed the fact that the IPCC is rubbish."

Everyone who knows about the subject knows that the IPCC TAR projections are rubbish.

Mark Bahner

Everyone who knows about the subject knows that the IPCC TAR projections are rubbish.

I hesitate to comment, because it just speaks for itself, doesn't it?

The scientists from the 150 countries participating in the IPCC are obviously victims of orbital mind control lasers operated by the Bavarian Illuminati...

When the last pieces of the North Pole break up and float away, Mr. Bahner will be arguing the the forecasts are rubbish.

"The scientists from the 150 countries participating in the IPCC are obviously victims of orbital mind control lasers operated by the Bavarian Illuminati..."

No, the IPCC and the rest of the "climate change community" simply don't feel the need, nor have the integrity to provide honest predictions. Like I've written, this isn't some big secret.

It would dramatically cut the funding that fuels the climate change gravy train, if honest predictions were made.

Mark Bahner

Sorry guys, Mark is absolutely correct

>> There IS NO peer-reviewed *FALSIFIABLE* literature that supports the IPCC TAR scenarios and "projections," Andrew.  The IPCC TAR scenarios and "projections" are nothing more than  pseudoscientific nonsense.  >>

Indeed the CO2 scenario is a load of twaddle, all based upon NATURAL cycles from the past

Today the changes are completely man made.

No data from the past can be used to support the assertions of the experts about the future.  

In fact as this unwinds you will find they are totally out of their depth... (global cooling will be/is the outcome) or they are in leagues with ExxonMobil and just confusing this very serious issue... for money?????

Madness IMO..

Mark-

You know (or should know) that the IPCC scnearios come from the IPCC's peer-reviewed "Special Report on Emissions Scenarios".  You're probably not familiar with it, so you can find it on the IPCC's web site.

So, again I ask you to show me where the IPCC misrepresents the peer-reviewed literature.  I suppose your inability to do that is a tacit admission that you're wrong.  As is your repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof to everyone else.

I think it's also telling that you're unable to ever convince anyone else that your ideas are worth taking seriously.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps because your ideas are simplistic and obviously without merit.  

"You know (or should know) that the IPCC scnearios come from the IPCC's peer-reviewed 'Special Report on Emissions Scenarios'."

I asked you to provide me what (you think) are the FALSIFIABLE peer-reviewed publications that support the IPCC TAR scenarios and projections, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios.

Do you think the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios is falsifiable?  How is it falsifiable?

Mark Bahner

The IPCC SRES provides references to the falsifiable peer-reviewed publications that are used to construct the scenarios.  

Of course, if you disagree with that, then please point out where you think the SRES is not supported by the peer-reviewed literature.

You really should read the SRES.  Of course, if you do, you'd find out you were wrong.  So maybe you shouldn't.

Oh, IC
a game being played maybe with Nero.

LOL... love is wonderful

<gone>

Stop being a player-hater and present your own game: Where's your damn climate model???

All you can do is give predictions on future warming out of thin air. The numbers that you provide are one hundred percent meaningless. Get out of the game until you learn the rules of modeling. You should stop your asinine attacks, and if not then you are a troll. Period.

Overcomplication is a great way to push propaganda. But it makes most people suspicious that sophistry is at work somewhere in the agenda behind the overcomplication.

Given a 50% chance of rain people might not take their umbrella to work.  But if there is a 50% chance that the icecaps will melt and the ocean will flood coastal cities, people will tend to want to sell their property and move inland long before that is widely predicted.

Why?  Because only by selling now before the market incorporates that risk and home prices drop precipitously can they preserve their savings.

I have a friend who sold her home in New Orleans a short 2 years before Katrina.  She got full price because she sold before the market perceived the risk.  What would have been the probability of a hurricane breaching the levies at the time she sold?  Less than 50%?  I think so.

What would she have gotten if she waited until Katrina hit to sell?

The time to act to halt human created GHG global climate change is now, before Manhattan is flooded by a huge hurricane traveling up the east coast.  Waiting will take all our savings.

We are already so far in debt from these oil wars and paying through the nose for monopolized energy, federal bankruptcy  (the Reagan revolutionary plan) is right around the corner.

Invasion of Iran and Syria would complete the plan.  Then we the people will be permanently relegated to corporate feudal serfdome.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

If he weren't so fundamentally dishonest and/or ignorant about how science worked, he'd understand why it is he can't convince anyone that is view has any merit whatsoever.  

I wonder if he ever thinks that he's been arguing this for over a year and can't convince anyone.

I was giving a briefing on Capitol Hill yesterday and was talking about how the IPCC was the gold standard of what we know and how confidently we know it, and the audience's reaction was "Yeah, of course it is."  

Mark, you should quit this ridiculous argument while you still have a shred of dignity left.  Ooops, just re-read your comments ... the shred is gone.

>> Then we the people will be permanently relegated to corporate feudal serfdome. >>

You guys don't get it do you!

The game is  

If I have enough money, I think I will survive, LOL, I can buy a lifeboat... who cares about the death of billions of plebs....
But don't tell anyone the truth because then there may be no lifeboats for sale.

If the people rise up and scream and smash all the lifeboats then even the rich are in trouble.  

This, at the very least would bind us all together and a solution may be found.... but only if the correct global warming cooling scenario is accepted.

I say RISE UP and scream, get them ALL to tell the truth.  Tomorrow really is/was too late.

The so called experts really are presenting total BS to the public.

However, many physical and social systems are poorly understood, and information on the relevant variables is so incomplete that they can be appreciated only through intuition and are best communicated by images and stories.

"Let's tell some stories and show some pictures, of things we don't know well and data we don't have, so we can use our intuition."

The SRES seems mainly about a paragraph of information turned into a paper.  So what are scenarios?  

"Models are blended with Stories to create Scenarios."  (Paraphrased paragraph)

Given that, it doesn't seem they are in and of themselves "scientific", and factually they are not based totally upon science and therefore one could (and I believe should) argue they are not science.  Especially given what the IPCC itself says in the SRES:

Future levels of global GHG emissions are the products of a very complex, ill-understood dynamic system, driven by forces such as population growth, socio-economic development, and technological progress; thus to predict emissions accurately is virtually impossible.

"We can't predict emissions accurately in the future because there are so many uncertain variables."    

They themselves list the uncertainties contained in the scenarios and the source materials, themselves:

Choice of Storylines.
Authors Interpretation of Storylines.
Translation of the Understanding of Linkages between Driving Forces into Quantitative Inputs for Scenario Analysis.
Methodological Differences.
Different Sources of Data.
Inherent Uncertainties.

"We could have gotten everything wrong, please excuse our guesses if they're not correct --  there are a lot of factors here."

This both supports that the scenarios are not scientific, per se, and that we could agree that not all are equally weighted as to possibility:

Sometimes GHG emissions scenarios are less quantitative and more descriptive, and in a few cases they do not involve any formal analysis and are expressed in qualitative terms.

"Some of these are more guesses than others."

And some of it all is so vague as to be meaningless:

Their plausibility is based on an extensive review of the emissions scenarios available in the literature, and has been tested by alternative modeling approaches, by peer review (including the "open process" through the IPCC web site), and by the IPCC review and approval processes.

One could ask:

 How plausible?
 How extensive and by whom?
 Which emissions scenarios?
 What exact literature?
 Which alternative modeling approaches?
 Peer review of what?
 Peer review how, like the SRES or like a science paper?
 How much of the web site "open process"?
 How much of the IPCC review and approval process produces results that are the biases of the people running them and are mainly political and social in nature, and how much does not?  

Especially telling is that one line that tells me what the scenarios are for; clarify feelings (the intuition spoken of) so as to create and direct a dialog about the issue:  

Good scenarios are challenging and court controversy... {and} used intelligently they allow policies and strategies to be designed in a more robust way.

My point of all this is that the authors tell you what the SRES is for, and what it is, in the SRES itself.

Given all that, I don't see what this argument  is about. Although it has been interesting to read.

Or more like a preemptive follow up.  I meant that page 1.2 "What are Scenarios?" is more like a paragraph of information turned into a page (or an essay that's far too long and rambling that repeats itself and is filled with obfuscating detail) than anything else.  This is what you get, I suppose, from something written by committee.  In fact, I'd say a lot of what the IPCC puts out is confusing and cross-linked all over the place, a by-product of the process, I'm sure....

I didn't mean the entire SRES was a paragraph of info (obviously it's far more complex than that), although once you know what the scenarios are and what they're meant to do, you can take that into account if and when you read them.

Let me see, page 1.2....  Something like this:

Scenarios are attempts to summarize what might happen under various circumstances, and are mostly variously overlapping combinations of models and stories.  In a way, they could be called "scientific fiction."  Some contain no models, while others are based mainly upon models and should be more reliable.  However, the stories chosen, the interpretation of the story by the authors, and other factors greatly affect the scenarios and their degree of certainty.  The primary purpose of scenarios is to illustrate alternative futures on an intuitive level.  This is done to create controversy and therefore dialog, the intelligent use of which can hopefully assist in a robust design of policies and strategies.