Jim D: The primary uncertainty factor is the long-term policy. For a given policy we can probably narrow the range below a degree,
If you were a purveyor of climate services, instead of a purveyor of opinions, I doubt that a reputable body of evaluators would call that an ethical statement of the uncertainty. It’s not justified by anything in the peer-reviewed literature. Just the “climate sensitivity” has more uncertainty than that.
+1
err no.
Mosomoso, do you have my contact information? I will be there when you mobilize the militia to overthrow the climatariat.
I’m old, but I still have a few rounds left in me.
Science or Fiction | November 12, 2015 at 3:48 pm | Reply
IPCC was politicized from the very beginning:
Not sure it was politicized from the very beginning but it is now.
Greenpeace and the WWF have a presence at the IPCC meetings, participate in the press conferences, have provided some of the “scientific literature”, and drafted some of the language.
The only way to save the IPCC and climate science is to simply ban the activists from participating in government funded science programs because they aren’t honest and they twist the science.
People from groups such as Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, Earth First!/People Last!, Friends of the Earth/Enemies of people, Union of Concerned Scientists, the AGU and other activist organizations should be placed on the government permanent debarment list for NASA/NOAA/NSF/EPA funding and banned from IPCC participation.
The only prediction you’ll get from forecasters concerning the amount of snow we can expect this winter in Massachusetts is not as much as last year and in line with historical averages. What’s happened to global warming — has it become acceptance of the fact that our best estimate of the future is nothing more than what happened in the past?
Some cannon fodder is always handy, Mark. Age no barrier. Just stagger forward when ordered, shouting ‘sic semper warmistis!’.
Well, Don, “shenanigans” implies that people are acting cooperatively with an intent to deceive. I am just curious about who is ultimately behind these deceptive practices. It is a serious question..
In 1988, through a United Nations General Assembly resolution entitled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind” WMO and UNEP
Oh so it’s baked into the charter to deceive and engage in “shenanigans” I must have missed that part.
err yes.
John Lyly’s (1579): All’s fair in love and war. People in love and soldiers in wartime are not bound by the rules of fair play.
The climate wars are no exception, only, the love seems to be the love of one’s self-righteousness, knowing “I have taken the correct path.” And war? well, the soldiers like Gavin, and Michael, James and .. well there seem to be so many soldiers fighting to preserve the holiness of CAGW a belief system that rivals the Holy Roman Empire.
Dr Curry. You seek Integrity in the machinations of Karl et al. It is not there. You seek transparency, but Michael surely has no such intentions. You seek humility and Gavin has none. You seek collaboration, and there is in reading and recommending each other’s papers passing for peer-review.
There is more at stake than science, it is after all, the survival of the human race and such an enormous burden falls to the few enlightened, those willing to do whatever it takes to cry the message, for it is right, it is pure, it is without exception, the only voice to be heard.
You are confused, yoey. Shenanigans are not necessarily a group project. Por ejemplo, you have been observed engaging in shenanigans right here all by your lonesome. You often look like you are teaming up with yimmy, but we assume that you are just two random anonymous kooks, who share a religion. The IPCC is a bunch of random apparatchiks, who share a religion.
+1 Mike.
Link?
unaligned intentions
+10
As long as CO2 remain a pollutant that you can sue for, the science will be of little concern. Here’s a top legal website …
The difference between a thief and a Climate Service Provider is you aren’t contractually obligated to the thief and don’t help him haul away your assets as a cooperative venture.
Climate Service Providers are a subspecies of beltway bandit.
Within an article entitled ‘Warming set to breach 1C threshold’, the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34763036 ) provides a link to the report ‘The SPM Summary for Policymakers ‘ put out by the IPCC Working Group 1 – Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
( http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf )
The SPM Summary for Policymakers states that:
“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
Interestingly the article seems to go out its way to address the problems raised in this thread re- ‘certainty’, and ‘ settled science’, and goes out of its way to underline in the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ that the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence:
limited, medium, or robust;
and the degree of agreement as: low, medium, or high;
whereas level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence.
“For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with
increasing confidence (see Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details).”
“In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability,
very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%.
Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details).”
____________________________
This seems to cover the idea of ‘Humility’, leaving Integrity (including Conflicts of Interest), Transparency and Collaboration still to be dealt with! Neverthless, could it be that at least a minimal degree of rapprochement is taking place between IPCC and its critics, and vice versa? Just saying! – notwithstanding that while I am a Natural Scientist and can very much relate to problems of integrity, prejudice, collaboration, funding, coteries, quarrels, the publication and criticism of published findings and conclusions, etc, I have no expertise in the particular area of climate change modelling other than a research interest in the concept of very ancient ‘snowball earths’. I am just curious as to who is closest to the truth, if anybody, in this lively argument.
There is also an interesting interview given by Gavin Schmidt at http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt/
(also reprinted by the somwhat scurillous blog http://skepticalscience.com/interview-gavin-schmidt.html ).
To people who argue that we “can’t predict” the future climate, understand this: people are doing it. They are providing climate services.
The reason they can do this is that skeptics lost the debate.
Put another way, nobody is asking skeptics for their climate services.
Doubt is a tool. In the end you have to build better climate services or you have nothing.
“ban the activists from participating in government funded science”
Nice thought. Big problem though. How many climate scientists do you know of that are not involved with some environmental activist group? Very few I believe. The way it seems to me, cli sci is like a religion, with a core set of beliefs and ideology. I suspect for over 90% of cli sci grad school applicants, their motivation to join that field of study comes from pre-existing beliefs or feelings that fossil fuels are messing up the earth. Getting the advanced cli sci degree is a form of activism, with the intent that they will use the degree to further their activist goals.
I do agree with banning activists from grants. That likely means federal funding drops by over 90% for cli sci. That actually sounds pretty good to me. Think of all the howls of protest from the career rent seekers.
Of course you can predict the future.
However to this point the global warmers have been pretty much incorrect across the board.
There is a difference between predicting the future and predicting the future correctly. This fine distinction is lost on global warmers.
Paying someone to misinform you about the future doesn’t seem like a wise investment to me but you seem to have a different viewpoint.
