Same with the Inuit – I can see it in my mind … their ancestors saying “You want it *colder*??? You idiots!!!”

Sorry, Steve, I’m not even go that far to agree with you. (I’m feeling contentious today. )

It is only one specific thing that the IPCC has said–although I consider it to be probably the most important thing the IPCC has said–that I’m calling “rubbish.” It’s their projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases that I call rubbish. They are rubbish because they are not falsifiable, and therefore not science. But the IPCC still attempts to pass them off to the public (with great success, since the public doesn’t know much science) as legitimate.

If Coby says, “GW is here and now and a problem”…we first need to parse through what he’s saying. As you yourself point out, without the “anthropogenic” in front of it, virtually EVERYONE agrees that “global warming” is happening…at least in the sense that the globally averaged temperature in 2006 is warmer than the globally-averaged temperatures of the late 1800s.

And as far as the “problem”…the questions are, “problem for whom?” and “how large of a problem?”

If Coby Beck is speaking of the problem for hotels and resturants around Glacier National Park–or polar bears–well, I certainly don’t think that’s “rubbish,” in the sense that it’s definitely NOT a problem. But if he’s talking about a problem of farmers getting reduced yields now and in the future…well, I don’t agree with that. (I think global warming caused by CO2 enrichment will tend to cause increased yields.)

And what is the magnitude of the problem? If he thinks that AGW will result in “the end of world” (as Pat Neuman has written):

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/the_honest_broker/000888national_journal_wh.html

Well, I think that’s way, way wrong. But if Coby thinks GW is a problem like I think the cracks in the vinyl on my car’s dashboard are a problem, well…ummmm, that’s probably a little *too* trivial. But not by much.

Clarifying that further, GW is here, as climate is not static and either GW or GC is always here. However, it’s not been proven to be a problem, and I’m fairly comfortable in saying that when Coby refers to “GW” he means “AGW” and by his omission apparently does not see a difference.

Therefore my interpretation is that in which Coby believes here is rubbish. It’s dishonest as well – but maybe not his dishonesty – probably just his gullibility.

So, I was saying that what Coby believes in, in this case, is that which Mark described as rubbish. Clear? Not succinct certainly…

Whoa! I assume I’m the “Mark?”

If so, I have certainly never said, “what Coby Beck believes is rubbish!” In fact, I don’t even know what Coby Beck believes.

What I *did* say was rubbish was the IPCC’s “projection” of globally-averaged warming of “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100.” It’s particularly rubbish since they *also* state, regarding the “scenarios” used to create the “projections”:

“Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.”

It’s rubbish to state a “projection” that is unfalsifiable, and to pass that “projection” off as legitimate science.

In fact, it’s not merely “rubbish.” It’s dishonest. No legitimate scientist would ever do it. (And the fact that large numbers of scientists have done it, and continue to do it, merely shows how few legitimate scientists there are.)

I understand completely that you do not consider it a lie. You consider it “people holding the correct opinion for the wrong reasons” and you “accept it with gratitude.”

Of course, as Mark said what you believe is “correct” is rubbish.

It all fits quite nicely – erhh sickeningly – together. It’s actually quite tragic so many people are under the impression that it’s “correct.”

You should of course be skeptical of everything. However, “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) is not a particularly bold claim:

1) The evidence is overwhelming (through direct and indirect measurements) that the earth has warmed from the late 1800s to the present.

2) The evidence is also overwhelming that human emissions of CO2 have caused the atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise since the 1880s.

3) It is not particularly controversial that CO2 can cause *some* temperature rise. So it’s not particularly controversial to claim that *some* of the temperature rise since the late 1800s probably is due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

However, what *is* a bold claim (and blatant pseudoscientific nonsense) is to claim:

“The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius over the period 1990 to 2100.”

Especially when those “projections” are based on “scenarios” about which ***the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself*** says:

“Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.”

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/025.htm

An absolutely fundamental requirement of science is that projections of future events must be falsifiable:

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

The IPCC “projections” are not falsifiable (since they specifically state that they are not forecasts or predictions of the future. Therefore, they are pseudoscientific rubbish.

The fact that the IPCC and the “climate change community” has not told the public that simple fact for more than 5 years means they are fundamentally dishonest. You should keep one hand on your wallet at all times.

I’m not a climate scientist, or a scientist of any kind. I’m an engineer, and so I think I probably understand the issues of science, climate change, computer models, greenhouse effect, and so forth better than the average lay person.

Let me say that statements such as Schneider’s really bother me — first of all, it’s a license for jumping to conclusions without any quantification of the threshold beyond which the jumping occurs. All the conclusion-jumping basically turns into noise.

Most importantly, it provides a clean mechanism for corrupting scientific claims with other agendas, some hidden and others not. In the case of AGW, there are a number of plausible alternatives to the theory of human causation. So what am I supposed to infer when a scientist provides the obligatory “humans are causing global warming” sound bite? Is that his best scientific guess, or the most convenient one? Has he considered alternatives, and if so, how do they rank? Is he biasing his statements due to politics or funding issues? How much exaggeration has he employed in order to be more effective at whatever his position is? How can the person on the street make any sense of it all?

I’m personally reduced to examining all the evidence I can find and drawing my own conclusions. I’ll have to say I’m pretty skeptical of AGW, particularly when the likes of histrionic Al Gore get on the bandwagon. And I’m certainly not willing to support drastic measures when the best answer I can get is, “There’s a consensus — the debate is over.” Am I being unreasonable?

I don’t usually consider it to be a lie when your typical journalist says that GW caused this summer’s heat wave or Katrina. I consider it to be an unwarranted and mis-leading over-simplification, usually unintentional. Such distinctions are much too subtle for the talking heads that influence public opinion, so when the next cold snap comes they will claim “aha! This proves that GW is not here and so-and-so is a liar.” Which is another unwarranted and misleading over-simplification.

This is also probably too subtle a distinction for you, so have fun quoting only the first sentence of what I just wrote. For better effect, remove the “usually” and the “when your typical journalist says” qualifications.

I understand Coby said that too. However, his intent may be illustrated by a third statement in that post, which is consistent with his gratitude statement:

“It is a dangerous thing to purposely use such things in a misleading way, though, as the next cold snap makes you look like a liar!”

indicating he is more concerned with *looking like* a liar than actually being one!

Yes, I remember from your various talks, and I agree about the stealth policy advocacy trap. I suppose in the end what I’m arguing is that there is at least one very important reason to keep doing “science communication.” That reason, however, has little to do with directly benefiting the public or informing policy debates, but instead relates to the benefits the scientist and the scientific community get by reconnecting with society.

Public communication of science is good for the scientist’s soul!

Like all panaceas, besides curing cancer, increasing attractiveness, and leading to unimaginable wealth, I submit as a hypothesis that public communication of science positively impacts research through increased creativity and an increased sense of relevance to society at large.

Now, if only I had one of those social sciences grad students to aim at this hypothesis …