The Chronicle Herald: More inconvenient news for the ‘settled’ science

[Johnny Punani]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1164234.html


More inconvenient news for the ‘settled’ science

WHOOPS.

Remember that sensational claim made in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its influential report on climate change, that the Himalayas’ glaciers would all melt by 2035?

This would be the same IPCC, I should note, that maintains it uses a rigorous process of scientific peer review to ensure all its published conclusions are as sound as possible.

Turns out that Himalayas prediction wasn’t based on solid science at all. Instead — I know this is convoluted, but bear with me — it came from a comment by an Indian scientist, published in a non-peer-reviewed magazine in 1999, that was largely conjecture. That conjecture was later picked up and repeated in a 2005 WWF report. The WWF document was then subsequently cited by the IPCC as the source for the Himalayas claim in its 2007 report.

I know, you need a rigorous process just to figure out where this stuff came from.
Anyway, the bottom line is the glaciers in the Himalayas are going to be with us for quite some time past 2035, according to the actual data. A study done for the Indian government last year found the rate of glacial decline — yes, they are receding — was not at all abnormal.

That was the study, by the way, that Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the IPCC, dismissed at the time as "voodoo science," compared, clearly, to the "rigorous" methods used at the IPCC to arrive at its conclusions.
Pachauri last week admitted, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the IPCC was flat out wrong about the 2035 claim.

But hey, he also suggested, it’s just one error. Well, no. more...

This just keeps on getting better and better. It's like watching a train crash...

[Burgold]

Isn't the term settled science a misnomer. I don't know any scientist who would use it or believe in it. Even scientific "Laws" are under scrutiny pretty often.

[GibbsFactor]

For the record, I don't like that the World Wildlife Fund took the WWF acronym. I read this and think of Macho Man.

[alexey]

This kind of stuff ends up putting the whole process in question. IPCC has a responsibility to avoid these sorts of things.

[Johnny Punani]

Isn't the term settled science a misnomer. I don't know any scientist who would use it or believe in it. Even scientific "Laws" are under scrutiny pretty often.

Exactly!

That is why it was so disturbing when those in the AGW camp started to say it on a regular basis.

[Burgold]

Exactly!

That is why it was so disturbing when those in the AGW camp started to say it on a regular basis.

I suspect it was more likely that the environmentalists and politicos really said this than the scientists, but I agree. The evidence does seem to strongly suggest a pattern of impact. Common sense argues that polluting is bad and detrimental, but as far as absolute proof. Heck, we don't even know that we exist.

I think the rhetoric from both sides is sometimes ridiculous. The anti-side that says... "Man can not possibly harm the Earth. To think so is the height of hubris." is also preposterous and defies logic and all the evidence of our lives.

[KAOSkins]

What's the motivation behind each point of view?

1. Climate Change proponents want to destroy the country's economy and what else?

2. Naysayers want to keep things just the way they are. That working for you?

Seriously, the motivation behind the naysayers is clear to me. Outside of incontrovertible proof that burning fossil fuels will outright destroy the earth, we shouldn't make the smallest concession.

The proponents have what as there motivation? Stock in windmill companies? What else?

[alexey]

What's the motivation behind each point of view?

1. Climate Change proponents want to destroy the country's economy and what else?

2. Naysayers want to keep things just the way they are. That working for you?

Seriously, the motivation behind the naysayers is clear to me. Outside of incontrovertible proof that burning fossil fuels will outright destroy the earth, we shouldn't make the smallest concession.

The proponents have what as there motivation? Stock in windmill companies? What else?

Motivations that you failed to list include the pursuit of knowledge and understanding (science side), as well as a desire to address environmental problems in a timely manner (policy side).

[alexey]

Fossil Fuels will destroy the Earth??? How??

By setting off a positive feedback loop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

Positive feedback, sometimes referred to as "cumulative causation", refers to a situation where some effect causes more of itself. A system undergoing positive feedback is unstable, that is, it will tend to spiral out of control as the effect amplifies itself.

[Kilmer17]

An important date to remember is Feb 17, 2000. It was the last time any human being changed their mind about this issue.

[alexey]

An important date to remember is Feb 17, 2000. It was the last time any human being changed their mind about this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

Here is some mind changing that happened in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...vised_position

Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

[Kilmer17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

Yes. And all of those people had that belief before they started meeting. Nobody is changin. Everyone on each side is entrenched and now argues about the minutia rather than the overall issue.

[Burgold]

An important date to remember is Feb 17, 2000. It was the last time any human being changed their mind about this issue.

That's not true. Somewhere around 2007 or 2008, the Bush administration changed its stance and admited that global warming was having an impact. The question really isn't "if" it's "how much"

or

"What should we do about it?"

It's the what should we do about it that really gets people riled up because that affects their lifestyle and probably their pocketbooks. If you could find a free or profitable way to have the same ammount of energy and clean up the air and water, I bet 75% of those who refute the idea of suddenly believe in it.

[alexey]

Yes. And all of those people had that belief before they started meeting. Nobody is changin. Everyone on each side is entrenched and now argues about the minutia rather than the overall issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...fic_literature

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[78]

n 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change.[82] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made.

[Kilmer17]

Taking my own cue and now arguing the minutia, Id rephrase- Has anyone changed from the Liberal view on global warming to the Conservative view?

How does ANYONE think they can convince the other side?

As more evidence comes up refuting claims, and supporting claims, each side just keeps stockpiling the ammo.