If you are citing the IPCC as if it represented real science, you probably think that the real purpose of the recent “Stimulus” package out of Washington was to stimulate the economy.

Newsflash for you — climate scientists (at least the ones producing the IPCC mess) don’t follow the scientific method. Their “science” is garbage. They don’t replicate studies and they make it as difficult as possible for others to check their work. They abuse statistics and torture common sense. Quality control doesn’t exist and their data is hopelessly contaminated.

For just one example from the many — fewer than 15% of the temperature monitoring stations in the US meet basic scientific standards. While that is a scandal in itself, the real outrage is that Hansen and his cohorts never even bothered to check. Even children in a junior high science class understand the need to insure that measurements are accurate. The incompetence, while stunning, is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of the recklessness and indifference to the suffering of others.

What kind of scientist would demand that billions of people suffer because of his scientific “studies” without bothering to even check his instruments? Without bothering to replicate studies to provide confirmation? Without insuring transparency so that others were able to check the work? Without adopting even token quality control measures?

Descriptions like scandal and outrage are inadequate for the task.

One thing I failed to provide was cites to climatologists who expect warming in the 2010’s. Over time, I can go back and find that.

In the mean time, you will find a lot of what you’re looking for here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

And no, you are additionally wrong when you say, “Asking a blog participant to do all your work is the oldest trick in the game.” Throwing out YANS (Yet Another Naked Strawman) is the oldest game in the book. Why is it my work to find the data that supports your arguments?

dean, you lost.

It is hard to disagree with your article. But if the situation is that clear why do people still want the impossible?

But the lack of perfect information doesn’t mean that we are just doing something for the sake of doing something. Climate change is one of the most intensely studied global phenomenon of this age. You may not agree with the results or think it adequate, but our information and knowledge is constantly improving. That is why there is such broad support for the IPCC process and conclusions from scientific academies.

No, I’m not going to point you to lists of studies. The IPCC report is a good place to start if you want to do the work, as it does address many of the issues you ask about. I’m not going to do it for you, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a vast amount of information available if you want to go find it. Asking a blog participant to do all your work is the oldest trick in the game. I’ve seen references to a lot of it, but I’m neither a librarian nor a scientist myself.

The suggestion that the demonization of alternate views is something that all are equally guilty of is unmitigated balderdash. The campaign on the part of the legions AGW activists designed to suppress all dissent against the ‘consesus’ is relentless and supported by virtually every media outlet. Hansen himself has called for sceptics to charged with high crimes against humanity.

When some lower level functionaries tried to enforce long standing NASA policies regarding public statements, Hansen complained to the media and it was front page news. End of story. Of course he loves to play the victim card because it plays well with his fans.

Lomborg, on the other hand, was treated like a heretic and was hauled up in front of a committee on ‘unscientific activities’ in Denmark for daring to suggest mitigation may not be the best approach to the problem. The ghost of McCarthy lives on.

If the only argument you have is the consensus must be correct because there is a consensus then you have no argument.

Let me emphasize that I’m looking for quantitative analyses of all aspects. Let me assume that the problems include one or both of (a) rates of emissions of CO2 and (b) target concentrations of CO2 in the earth’s systems at, say, 100 years into the future. Estimates of the impacts of the natural evolution of all technologies that might be important relative to both the problem(s) and the candidate solutions over a few hundred years, while somewhat subjective / qualitative, are also of interest.

I predict that you can’t point me to such reports. It’s a work-in-progress all over the planet. And that’s precisely the overarching problem. These critically necessary studies and reports don’t exist. The resulting ‘just do something’ so-called solution is doomed to failure with 100 % probability.

At the present time the just do something seems to be focused on carbon taxes and carbon cap-n-trade. Can you point me to any other product or service for which these approaches have been successful. Have such approaches ever before been applied to products and services that are absolutely essential to a happy, healthy, and safe life for all inhabitants of the planet. In the meantime, those who can afford the costs the least, and actually not at all, will be hurt the most.

As a simple and focused zeroth-order cut, can you show me the requested information for let’s say solar / wind / biomass, or any other green-grade renewable energy source of your choice, for displacing the base-load electricity now generated by use of coal in only the US. Then maybe we can take a look at China and India and Africa. I’m especially interested in the metrics of (6) above.

Thanks in advance.

Pinatubo initially, an extended la nina more recently, a solar maunder minimum to a slight degree. Otoh, specific impacts have been ahead of schedule in some places and forms, the recent National Geographic report of Australia shows, also Greenland melting, etc.

. . . What specific numbers do the “many climatologists” predict, and do you have any identification of who exactly the “many climatologists” are (e.g., is there some paper or report you have in mind)?

No I don’t have them handy. I’ve seen such references but did not note them to refer back to.

As to demonization of skeptics, there is demonization on both sides over time. The owner of this blog has suffered some, but so has Jim Hansen. And his was at the hands of his employer in the last administration. Scientists certainly are not immune to peer pressure, but I think that cross-disciplinary peer pressure is not so strong.

Find me one – one – major academy, or even a significant discipline-specific scientific organization of the scores out there, that criticizes the IPCC. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change which includes this:

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”

Yes, the capacity factor for a wind plant is much, much lower than for a coal-fired or nuclear plant. So while the nameplate megawatts added by wind seem very impressive, one needs to recognize the much lower capacity factor for wind versus coal or nuclear. It’s total energy (megawatt-hours) that counts. So a 1000 MW coal or nuclear plant ends up being like 3000 MW of wind power.

“The answer is not blowing in the wind.”

I agree. Nuclear power currently supplies about 20 percent of the total megawatt-hours of electricity produced in the U.S. I’d be very surprised if wind ever gets up to that percentage. The public would never stand for the large amount of high-voltage transmission that would be required to get the wind electricity from where it’s generated (the middle of the country) to where it’s needed (the East Coast and West Coast), if the transmission were above-ground. And it would be incredibly expensive the transmission was below-ground.

What are they?

“…and many climatologists are saying that the decade of the 2010’s will see serious acceleration.”

What specific numbers do the “many climatologists” predict, and do you have any identification of who exactly the “many climatologists” are (e.g., is there some paper or report you have in mind)?