You seem to be missing half of what I say. I completely agree that the SRES are rubbish, and that IPCC modeling efforts are useless for public policy development. I’ve written about that often.

Again, for the record:

1. I cautiously accept the findings of recent warming, though don’t accept historical reconstructions as being solid enough to tell us if the warming we’ve observed is normal variation or abnormal / anthropogenic warming.

2. I cautiously accept the theory that greenhouse gases can trap heat in the atmosphere (the caution is that feedbacks might cancel that out).

3. I cautiously accept the idea of extrapolating from recent warming over reasonable periods, like, a few decades. So, if we’ve seen 0.14 degC/decade, for the last three decades, we might see it continue at that rate for a few more.

4. I reject the utility of the SRES/modeling approach entirely, and particularly when it comes to making policy.

5. My research suggests that adaptation is the answer now, and, if we ever do firm up the idea that we must pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, sequestration is likely to be less expensive than mitigation.

Ken Green

Ken, I don’t know why you’d call the “projections” in the IPCC TAR a “climate-conspiracy-theory fantasy.”

As I’ve written many times, the IPCC TAR “projections” for atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science. Considering that I do environmental and technological analyses for a living, I think it’s pretty safe to say I know what I’m talking about. It’s not a “conspiracy-theory fantasy”…the IPCC TAR “projections” are pseudoscientific rubbish. They are no more valid than the “projections” in the Limits to Growth series of books.

Furthermore, it’s not like it’s a big secret that the IPCC TAR projections are pseudoscientific rubbish, intended mainly to scare the public.

Here’s what Jesse Ausubel’s (11-year member of the National Academy of Sciences, and 5-year Program Manager for the National Academy of Engineering) website says:

“The IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report uses 40 scenarios which show decarbonization and carbonization going in all different directions with no probabilities attached. Failing to provide probabilities is unscientific and reveals the political bias of the results, said Ausubel.”

In fact, even James Hansen has basically admitted the IPCC TAR scenarios are lies, designed to scare the public and politicians:

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate…scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”

There is no “climate-conspiracy-theory fantasy.” There’s only a climate conspiracy fact.

Just thought I’d straighten up a few things regarding my article on NRO.

First, to set the record straight on my views on GCC:

In the time that I’ve written about climate change, I’ve rarely disagreed with the IPCC WG1 summation of empirical findings regarding climate change, particularly when they’re presented with a faithful representation of the caveats from within the body of the document. (Which is rarely the case with the Summary for Policymakers, and rarely the case in the public pronouncements of the involved parties, IMHO). Thus, I accept the general validity of the surface temperature record (with appropriate caveats), and was never one to put much credence on the satellite record. There are valid arguments about how the surface temperature record has been patched and spliced and such, and the extent to which UHI has been properly handled, but, at least theres real data there to play with.

I also don’t have much problem with what I’d call the first-order deductive theory of climate change, namely, the relationship between GHG’s and global heat-retention. Hence, I haven’t quibbled much with the most commonly discussed sensitivity range for CO2 doubling, 1.5-4.5 degC. I do, however, agree with what I’ve read suggesting that the sensitivity is more likely to be at the low end of that range than the high. And of course, there could well be offsetting feedbacks that negate some or all of that
CO2 warming. And, as I mentioned in the article, theres good reason to suspect well never hit a doubling of CO2 anyway.

I am, however, highly dubious of models, and I put little stock in most long-term temperature reconstructions, and less stock in all forecast models other than the most conservative extrapolations from observed temperature trends. (hence, continuing the 0.1 degC/decade observed in TAR, you get an additional 1 degC warming by 2100).

Im even more dubious about the potential for international GHG control regimes to either work, or provide benefits anywhere near the costs theyd impose.

To sum it up, Im not a climate skeptic (more than anyone trained in science should inherently be), but Im very much a climate policy skeptic.

Now, to the article on NRO: My main point in that NRO article was simply to point out that I believe some of the “establishment” scientists who have previously allowed extremist climate speculation to run rampant without validation studies are now growing worried about losing credibility, and are beginning to check some of the high-end estimates out, and highlight their improbability. In addition, more of those scientists are emphasizing adaptation more than mitigation, which is a sharp reversal of focus compared to previous years. I think both of those trends are good for the debate and good for the institution of science in general.

And Mark, I wasnt invoking a climate-conspiracy-theory fantasy, the idea of spontaneous coalitions is quite well established. Check out “Baptists and Bootleggers” by Bruce Yandle if youre unfamiliar with the concept. As the saying goes, it doesn’t take a conspiracy to get all the lemmings off the cliff.

Best,

Ken Green

you wrote: “I have an issue about scientists doing it under a veil of “scientific objectivity” – something that is Roger’s bug-bear.”

Yes. Good comment.

You have identifided the theme of Roger’s blog: whether Platonic and Cartesian subject-object relationships are adequate for decision-making; he thinks they are and is working through the practical application of the delivery of scientific information to policy-makers. Generally the discussion on this comment board is, fundamentally, whether the proscriptions he gives are workable or adequate.

Your attribution of ambivalence to this attitude is dependent upon whether or not your implied premise [that the Platonic relationship is adequate for societal decision-making] is correct. As we don’t know (and perhaps can never know) if the Platonic relationship is adequate for society’s needs, all we can do is what we are doing now.

Several subdisciplines have arisen trying to work out this idea. I, personally, don’t pretend to have the answer, but thank you for your patience in reading my reply.

Best,

D

Sigh.

Lookit all the hand-waving and dissembling. And the misdirection and unattributed claims.

Silly me.

[ignore]

Best,

D

Define climate scientist. There is no such thing as a real climate scientist who ignores the effects of increased FOOD on flora. Someone who ignores the reaction of the biosphere to an altered environment, which further alters the biosphere, ad nauseam, is just playing. They are not addressing reality.

I meant any scientist. There are all kinds of scientists involved in the interdisciplinary study of climate. Some are just too focused on their own field to understand how other inputs and feedbacks affect the big picture. Some have very loud mouths and are overeducated for their intelligence. You know the type. Or do you?

Thanks,

That was the one. An advocate of over-representing a certain type of information – the selection being determined by a desired policy outcome.

A lot of people here seem to be ambivalent to this attitude. I feel very strongly about it.

I don’t want scientists filtering information to me or my legislative represantives who formulate policy on my behalf.

I am happy for advocacy groups or campaigners to do so (I am a strong believer in free speech), but take exception to them claiming that the are giving a fair rather than partisan representation of information. Gore falls into this camp.

My analogy was a stretch, but you seemed to have difficulty understanding what I believe is an easy to understand sentence.

“over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is”

Over-represent the dangers, opposed to delivery factual presentations as they fall. That doesn’t mean a balanced (50/50) representation, but a fair representation. To state the you believe in “over-representing” certain facts is a clear statement that you explicitly support the dissemination of some information over other information based on a subjective selection. That is a political/personal/policy not scientific decision.

I have no problem with advocacy group “over-representing” certain types of facts (e.g. about the dangers of something), because their role and objective is clear.

I have an issue about scientists doing it under a veil of “scientific objectivity” – something that is Roger’s bug-bear.

Gore can “over-represent factual presentations about the dangers of climate change” to his heart’s content. However, he leaves the field of honest brokers and enters the field of campaigners when he does so. But that is OK, because he is a politician.

A scientist who values their reputation for objectivity should think a bit more carefully before they do the same.

Your statement was that climate scientists forego the facts

["There are scientists...who "believe" in global warming. They know...they should be acting scientifically. However, they have memes deeply imbedded to forego the facts"]

Evidence, plz.

Best,

D