freeman3 wrote:I think it is the guy from that blog who is being misleading, DF. first thing he does is ask whether the scientists actually read the 11,000 papers. Well, no. They did read the abstracts which is basically a short synopsis of the paper. If he does not get that difference then he should not be posting on this topic. If he does, then he is trying to mislead readers with that question.
Secondly, he mentions that over 2/3 of the papers did not state any position at all on climate change. Ok, but you still have 3,000 or so that do. That is still plenty of data.

I'm not denying that. He's not denying that. He's saying the 97.1% is misleading.

Me, personally: I would love to do a survey of the authors of the 11,000 papers. I would grant full anonymity and ask a number of questions to find out what the real "consensus" is. I doubt it's quite as dogmatic as some politicians make it out to be.

This is where this critic of the 97.1 goes off the deep end. He says that the among the one-third of papers that endorse the consensus, nearly all of them endorse the consensus. Then he compares it to a totalitarian election asking why isn't it 100 percent (yeah why would it not be 100 percent)
Well, he's either an utter idiot or a liar or both. He quoted the results of the study (which was nice so we could point out his idiocy). It is not the case that the study found that among the papers that endorsed the consensus 97 percent endorsed the consensus. He is trying to imply that 2/3 of papers don't endorse the consensus.

I didn't read it as they don't believe it. I read it as them not taking a position, which in many cases is fine. I think you've simply over-read what he said. He's not saying 2/3 deny AGW.

I know you posted this in good faith,DF but this guy makes me mad with his utter disregard for the truth.

I think if you emailed the guy (and he responded), you'd find out he's not doing what you think he's doing.

This is worth checking out

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

It confirms the 97% number.

Not true. I point to Lennart Bengtsson (not Soon) and what happened to him?

It wasn't his research or its conclusions that were the subject of derision from his peers but his public membership in an organization who's purpose was denial of AGW.
That is in direct contradiction with his own research which admits AGW is a reality.

And the problem is that his name will be co-opted by the denialists, but the basic conclusion he made about AGW will not be part of the message.

Sass

By all means feel free to point out the specific aspects of Bengtsson's work which equate to flat-earthery.

First Lennart agrees that AGW is occurring.
Its either a cynical or a naive move on his part to then allow his name and reputation, through memebrship, to be used in association with a group which denies AGW.
I use the Flat Earth society because it once had serious members. People held tight to the belief in a flat earth for hundreds of years after it finally became common settled knowledge.
AGW is accepted by so much of the science community, including Lennart Bengtsson, that they treat anyone in the denialist organizations with the same derision that ordinary folk treat flat earthers today. Bengtsonn didn't like that. Tough

rickyp wrote:

Not true. I point to Lennart Bengtsson (not Soon) and what happened to him?

It wasn't his research or its conclusions that were the subject of derision from his peers but his public membership in an organization who's purpose was denial of AGW.
That is in direct contradiction with his own research which admits AGW is a reality.

Again:

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”

So, questioning models, questioning projections about the speed of increase, these are areas of inquiry that are unacceptable? Why?

Is the "settled" scientific "consensus" so weak that questioning it is unacceptable?

And, again, how could one make a living long enough to do research that undermines AGW? You say any startling breakthrough would attract funding, but how? From whom? Governments across Europe and in the US have bought the AGW line 100%, so who would fund research like that?

Oh, and why can't you just admit the Soon bit was off-target?

Ray Jay wrote:This is worth checking out

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

It confirms the 97% number.

Thanks. That indicated a high threshold of publishing to even make the calculation. So, I'm still left to wonder how one would survive long enough to write 20-60 papers, get them peer-reviewed, etc. if one does not hew to the politically-accepted line?

The GWPF doesn't deny AGW. Nigel Lawson is certainly a sceptic, but mostly what he's sceptical about is the public policy prescriptions that are being advocated to tackle global warming. His foundation exists in order to try and offer a more balanced debate and there's no reason at all why reputable scientists shouldn't offer their input. Bengtsson is being treated as an apostate, which is not rational behaviour.

You still haven't highlighted any examples of him 'denying reality' btw. Care to do that or will you now admit that was a smear ?

Sassenach wrote:I'm not sure if that really supports your argument tbh. The most startling reductions have come in countries which have seen the steepest drop in living standards.

That's a slightly disingenuous point of course, since in no way could you accuse Russia and Ukraine of following a green agenda. Their falling standard of living hasn't been caused by trying to control carbon emissions. However, it does neatly show the correlation between carbon emissions and economic output.

Correlation does not mean causation. There were two issues in the former USSR - one was old and inefficient plant that was overhauled and updated, which was not about a green agenda, but was an economic one. The other was that they had a steep recession which cut demand for energy greatly.

Now, what about the rest of the post? (oh, ricky has wandered back in with his size 15s...)

fate

And, again, how could one make a living long enough to do research that undermines AGW? You say any startling breakthrough would attract funding, but how? From whom? Governments across Europe and in the US have bought the AGW line 100%, so who would fund research like that?

The Koch Bros.
Exxon
etc.

Sass, the science behind AGW is as settled as the science behind the effectiveness of vaccinations.
Its as settled as the science that dubbed smoking a major cause of cancer and heart disease in the 60's.
And its battling the same types of disinformation and subtle opposition. Some of it funded by major stakeholders, some of it genuine but ill informed and some of it just loopy.

Lawson's group is designed to undermine the science. Sure they proclaim an independent and inquiring view point. But, this is from their own web site:

The key to the success of the GWPF is the trust and credibility that we have earned in the eyes of a growing number of policy makers, journalists and the interested public. In our relationship with our members, with MPs, the media and our wider readership, it is the most important quality that we have.
This is of great relevance today in light of scientific scandals and the public’s loss of trust in climate activists and politicians. For us, public trust is our most important asset. It has been accumulated as a result of the reasoned and moderate positions we have taken, the integrity of our foundation and the credibility of our actions.

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

Theirs is a uniquely malicious contribution. You complain about the reaction by credible Scientists to Bengtesens' membership in a group that portrays their work as incredible.... as a starting point for their supposed contribution. They are complaining that Bengtesen is being used.... even though he doesn't get it.
Lawson has paraded as an expert in a field he has no understanding of ... perhaps because he actually believes he knows something? But all he contributes is disinformation and a fundamental smear of the scientific method..

Currently Lawson contributes guest columns to world newspapers. He is the founder of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank skeptical of the science behind anthropogenic (man-made) global warming as well as the policies that are being implemented to curb climate change.
Even though Lawson has no professional credentials in the area of climate change, and is relatively new to the conversation, he has managed to emerge as an “expert” voice on the subject in the media.

http://www.desmogblog.com/nigel-lawson

rickyp wrote:fate

And, again, how could one make a living long enough to do research that undermines AGW? You say any startling breakthrough would attract funding, but how? From whom? Governments across Europe and in the US have bought the AGW line 100%, so who would fund research like that?

The Koch Bros.
Exxon
etc.

And, you would discount it because of the source of funding, so again, your argument is worthless.

Okay, I was going to pass, but this is a gold mine of comedy.

rickyp wrote:Sass, the science behind AGW is as settled as the science behind the effectiveness of vaccinations.
Its as settled as the science that dubbed smoking a major cause of cancer and heart disease in the 60's.
And its battling the same types of disinformation and subtle opposition. Some of it funded by major stakeholders, some of it genuine but ill informed and some of it just loopy.

Lawson's group is designed to undermine the science. Sure they proclaim an independent and inquiring view point. But, this is from their own web site:

The key to the success of the GWPF is the trust and credibility that we have earned in the eyes of a growing number of policy makers, journalists and the interested public. In our relationship with our members, with MPs, the media and our wider readership, it is the most important quality that we have.
This is of great relevance today in light of scientific scandals and the public’s loss of trust in climate activists and politicians. For us, public trust is our most important asset. It has been accumulated as a result of the reasoned and moderate positions we have taken, the integrity of our foundation and the credibility of our actions.

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

Theirs is a uniquely malicious contribution.

Oh, indeed! Nothing says "malicious" quite as effectively as "reasoned and moderate positions."

You are killing it!

You complain about the reaction by credible Scientists to Bengtesens' membership in a group that portrays their work as incredible.... as a starting point for their supposed contribution.

Eh, no, I don't think you've got that right. Keep reading:

We have developed a distinct set of principles that set us apart from most other stakeholders in the climate debates:

*The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.
*On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.
*Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
*We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future.

Ooh, how "unscientific!" They want to examine evidence and NOT just rely on models and predictions. It's like the Koch Brothers put on lab coats!

They don't demand everyone hold the same view??? Why, that's some kind of ideological fanaticism! Those people are SO unfair! They're stifling uniformity! How dare they!

Ahh, Nigel Lawson, the economic genius...

Last seen as the Tory Chancellor for the Exchequer who slashed taxes and created a boom in the UK economy in the late 1980s. This was similar to his Conservative predecessors Barber in the early 70s and Maudling in the mid 1960s. And like those, it led to serious economic crashes.

Shortly after Lawson left in 1989, the inevitable happened - inflation continued to rise, and interest rates went up to 15%.

I re-read the article, DF. Let's look at one of his contentions that " Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming" and that The “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change” cliché is an appalling abuse of science." Well, he is right to a certain extent; of the 11,000 articles on climate science reviewed only about a third took a position on climate change. But like I said before there are still over 3,000 articles that did address climate change and it is completely fair to look at the 3,000 articles that did address it and see what the position of those papers was with regard to climate change. The other 8,000 or so articles are essentially not relevant. It's not like there are 8,000 papers where scientists did not want to take a position on climate change--they were doing research into other issues. Those scientists who prepared the 8,000 or so papers could be for or against or have no position on climate change--we simply have no evidence on that. i fail to see how looking at the 3,000 papers that do address climate change and finding 97.1 of the papers find human activity has caused climate change is misleading. Properly interpreted, the conclusion should be that 97.1 of the papers that took a position on climate change supported the position that human acitivity caused climate change. It may be a fair point to say that we don't know what 97.1 of scientists think about climate change (this study just addresses the position of papers on climate change have been, and is not of all scientists), but if that were his intention the point is way too muddled by referencing all of the papers that do not discuss climate change. That is a red herring, really.

A quote from the article. "Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say" He clearly expresses incredulity that the scientists would actually read through the papers. The next line he quotes the abstract from Professor Cook saying that they reviewed abstracts! Why would this blogger cast doubt as to whether Professor Cook read through the articles when the abstract clearly states that they did not such a thing, they only reviewed the abstracts? It is hard to believe that he is not trying to deceive the reader. He clearly knows what an abstract is, he then suggests that there is no way that Professor Cook and his read through the papers when he knows that was not done in the study. If he wanted to he could have expressed doubt that Professor Cook read through the abstracts but, no, he clearly implied that Professor Cook and his team claim they read through the papers. I can't see any other interpretation other than that he was trying to mislead the reader by suggesting that Professor Cook and his team did not really do a thorough job (does anyone really believe they read through the papers...)

(by the way, with regard to your comment that there would not be as much of a consensus among the scientists if they were polled, they did ask the authors of the paper to self-rate their paper and while the response rate is unclear they assessed their papers as twice as likely to stake a position on climate change and the support for climate change was 97.2, a tad higher)

The last one is the worst. "Let’s translate: Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus. Again—the only mystery here is that the number isn’t 100 percent. Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election. For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called named Kim Jong Il."
Ok his statement that "among the one-third of papers that 'endorse' the 'consensus', there is near unanimity" is false. The one-third number is of the TOTAL NUMBER OF PAPERS. He makes it seems as if it were a redundancy, as if they asked people who were already in support of climate change whether they were in support of climate change. Not true! Yes, you could argue that only one-third of the papers were about climate change but you cannot argue that the study started with a pool of papers that already supported climate change. It started with a pool of 11,000, reduced that to 3,000 something that talked about climate change, and then found the 97.1 figure.

I just cannot find a benign interpretation here. We will have just to respecfullyy disagree as to this blogger's intentions, DF.

freeman3 wrote: I just cannot find a benign interpretation here. We will have just to respecfullyy disagree as to this blogger's intentions, DF.

Okay. I would note the author is married to a lawyer, which probably explains a lot. From wiki:

Hayward generally believes that the Earth's environment is far more resilient than public opinion would think. He has said, "we talk as though the earth is so fragile that, you know, we're endlessly insulting it in its doom". He has also said, "environmental concern rightly understood as now a settled middle class value in wealthy countries and will become more so in other countries around the world as they prosper and that's a key point." He supports the idea of an environmental Kuznets curve, in which increased economic development constitutes the best way to help the environment. He believes that modern developing nations such as China could speed through the curve with technological progress.[5]

He thinks that recent global warming is partially due to human activities, but not entirely. He has demurred from giving exact percentages. He has advocated that the world engage in geoengineering projects to mitigate global warming, such as spraying @#$! in the air to increase cloud cover over the oceans and thus reflect back sunlight. He supports a long-term transition to a low-carbon economy, but he argues that a more rapid, short-term transition done in the next forty or so years would not be worth it. He advocates that the U.S. build a few hundred more nuclear power plants as another necessary solution.

I favor nukes too. It's liberals who keep blocking them.

Now, what about the rest of the post? (oh, ricky has wandered back in with his size 15s...)

The rest of the post focussed on DRAX power station. In truth I wasn't really clear on the point you were trying to make so I overlooked it. In my opinion we should be going with gas and nuclear as a stopgap measure while we research better clean technologies that can replace them, so we're not necessarily at odds here anyway. I just don't have faith in current renewables to provide for our energy needs at a price we can afford.