Comments on: So what happened at AGU last week?

By: hunter

hunter — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:24:06 +0000

My contention for quite sometime is that the ‘climsci’ community is a secular faith based movement. Your post, as well as many of the responses I read, do nothing but deepen my conviction that I am right.
You guys have left the world of science long ago. You know this, and your attacks on skeptics and your need to massage historical data only confirm it.
Chrichton busted you completely in his speech on the religious nature of ‘climsci’. The backlash you are sensing is only the beginning. Every eyar that goes by with the over hyped apocalypse’s non arrival will rightfully strengthen this backlash.
Fortunately, the ‘mitigation’ policies you all promtoe are mostly harmless, and may well actually help clean the air and water. I think many of you knew that going in, but felt that lying about the climate was justified to clean the environment. I leave that to history to judge.
The ‘climsci’ community is demonstrating perfectly why people should not trust philospher kings. Thank you for having the integrity to at least point out the unvarnished arrogance of this tainted community.

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:52:08 +0000

coby, the complete study, along with the previous study in 1996, is at http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/questions.html. The questions were asked of different scientists, so the results are not a time series.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:50:57 +0000

As a layperson, I found this post and the comments to it highly interesting. I completely understand the challenges faced in trying to overcome inertia. If you don’t swing the pendulum hard to an exteme, it can be difficult for anyone to take notice.

I think what has concerned me as I have tried to do my own reading on this topic and arrive at my own conclusions is that I am likewise sensing an environment of scorn for anyone that falls short of total acquiescence to AGW and all it’s dire predictions. When the scientists studying this phenomenon have been cowered into silence from engaging in healthy and vigorous debate for fear that they’ll be labeled skeptics, puppets of big oil, traitors, or whatever, then there is more at stake than just the climate.

I have long contended that Michael Crichton’s book was not as much about climate change as about the politicization of science. While you can argue about his views on AGW and the evidence he has assembled in support of his view, it is hard to dismiss his contention that this has become the most highly politicized scientific issue of our time.

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:23:55 +0000

I do not have an original copy of the survey itself. I believe it was the same as the study at http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/THYSSEN/HTML/survey/questions.htm, also by Bray.

You are right, it was the UNFCCC who changed the definition … my point was not who changed it, but that obviously the scientists weren’t using the UNFCCC definition.

By: coby

coby — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:48:46 +0000

Willis, the survey is not there, only a discussion of the result for that question. What was the context?

The defintion you ascribe to the IPCC is incorrect, that was the FCCC’s definition. The IPCC includes natural variation when using the phrase “climate change”.

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:29:08 +0000

Coby, call me crazy, but I hardly think the climate scientists the the question referred to climate change 100,000 years ago. The only way to reasonably interpret the question is whether humans are having an effect on the current climate.

Now the IPCC, as Roger points out, has redefined “climate change” to mean “anthropogenic climate change”. But the climate scientists couldn’t have considered that definition, because the question “are humans having an effect on anthropogenic climate change” makes no sense.

The survey is at http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm

And Roger, you’re quite right, the phrase “climate change” is redundant, never realized that.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:59:06 +0000

Coby- The ambiguity of the phrase “climate change” is a problem for a lot of reasons. not just surveys and the IPCC. I’ve always thought it redundant;-)

By: coby

coby — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:41:44 +0000

Thanks for the definitions, Roger. What do you suppose the odds are that everyone responding to the survey Willis brought up had the FCCC definition in mind?

Willis, re being “disingenuous”, I can only ask you to take my word for it, I sincerly believe the phrasing of the question to be ambiguous. As for convincing you, I can’t offer much accept advice to never assume that what is obvious to you will be obvious to anyone else.

IIRC, the context of this question lends considerable support to an interpretation that “climate change” was meant in the abstract (not saying I would have taken it that way myself). Do you have a link to the survey? I know I have read it but do not recall where.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:11:45 +0000

Willis, Coby-

The definition thing on “climate change” again? See:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf

The “consensus” thing again, also? See:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000765on_the_value_of_con.html

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:56:53 +0000

Coby, your objection is a bit disingenuous. Obviously, the climate change of a million years ago, or ten thousand years ago, was not anthopogenic. The scientists would have understood it to mean current climate change, it is the only way the question makes sense.