New study raises issues with IPCC "consensus"

Discussion of weather and climate outside of NZ's waters. Australian weather, tropical cyclones and USA storm chasing feature here.
southernthrash
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun 12/08/2007 15:48
Location: Invercargill / Dunedin / Queenstown

New study raises issues with IPCC "consensus"

Unread post by southernthrash »

Came across this one on the net, makes for interesting reading. It does bother me that the majority of the info available to the public re climate change arrives via political/economic/planning channels, rather than directly from the scientific community, especially in the case of the IPCC and Stern reports. All sort of helps promote the hysteria I suppose. The publication of this paper could have some interesting ramifcations for the IPCC.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, August 30, 2007

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears, not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.


http://infowars.net/articles/august2007 ... arming.htm <--- source

Your thoughts?
RWood
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sat 24/01/2004 16:56
Location: Wellington

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "science"

Unread post by RWood »

People who post stuff like this have been eaten for breakfast on other forums. I don't intend to waste energy joining in here and lending credibility to it, except I'll excerpt one comment from a meteorologist on an Australian forum:


posted 01-09-2007 08:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "review" is accepted to be published in the "junk science journal" of Energy & Environment.

Lets looks at the editor of this "journal". From Stanford University...

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of "Energy
and Environment", has co-authored numerous pieces with fossil fuel industry financed
and/or industry-affiliated climate skeptics. By her own assertion, Ms. Boehmer-Christiansen follows a political agenda, rather than scientific
standards of peer review.1 Says boehmer-Christiansen, who condemns the
climate treaty as “unnecessary, unfair and self-interested,” "I'm following my
political agenda -- a bit, anyway…isn't that the right of the editor?"

This is the same journal which published the botched M&M hatchet job on Mann. Initally they claimed this was an alternative reconstruction of near global temperatures, but when it was made clear they had simply botched the truncation of EOFs it changed track (apparently now you can't do paleo reconstructions because of "dodgie" pine data in the US etc...).

Now... if this is a serious science debate why is this material being published online ahead of publication and why is it being published in such a "journal".

PS RE lead lag of CO2 - it does both. There is a positive correlation at both lead and lag for temperature-CO2 because the process is a feedback.


If you are really interested in following this stuff through you could visit the UKWW forum, where junk science is patiently refuted by considered replies, or the Australian weatherzone forum.
southernthrash
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun 12/08/2007 15:48
Location: Invercargill / Dunedin / Queenstown

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "science"

Unread post by southernthrash »

RWood wrote:People who post stuff like this have been eaten for breakfast on other forums. I don't intend to waste energy joining in here and lending credibility to it, except I'll excerpt one comment from a meteorologist on an Australian forum:


posted 01-09-2007 08:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "review" is accepted to be published in the "junk science journal" of Energy & Environment.

Lets looks at the editor of this "journal". From Stanford University...

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of "Energy
and Environment", has co-authored numerous pieces with fossil fuel industry financed
and/or industry-affiliated climate skeptics. By her own assertion, Ms. Boehmer-Christiansen follows a political agenda, rather than scientific
standards of peer review.1 Says boehmer-Christiansen, who condemns the
climate treaty as “unnecessary, unfair and self-interested,” "I'm following my
political agenda -- a bit, anyway…isn't that the right of the editor?"

This is the same journal which published the botched M&M hatchet job on Mann. Initally they claimed this was an alternative reconstruction of near global temperatures, but when it was made clear they had simply botched the truncation of EOFs it changed track (apparently now you can't do paleo reconstructions because of "dodgie" pine data in the US etc...).

Now... if this is a serious science debate why is this material being published online ahead of publication and why is it being published in such a "journal".

PS RE lead lag of CO2 - it does both. There is a positive correlation at both lead and lag for temperature-CO2 because the process is a feedback.


If you are really interested in following this stuff through you could visit the UKWW forum, where junk science is patiently refuted by considered replies, or the Australian weatherzone forum.
Abstracts and sideline articles for new papers are often published and discussed online prior to the paper-proper's publication.

I would be more interested in hearing about a similar current or recent study which disproves these findings. It's pretty hard to argue with a survey of the literature.
RWood
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sat 24/01/2004 16:56
Location: Wellington

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "science"

Unread post by RWood »

It's not very hard at all - if you read the comments from met. scientists on (eg) the forums I mentioned you'll find plenty of rebuttals of the anti-warming brigade's propaganda. But to repeat myself - I don't want to get tangled up in this. I have found that it only incites endless repetition of half-baked theories.
User avatar
David
Posts: 7651
Joined: Sat 18/08/2007 21:02
Location: Howick, Auckland

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "science"

Unread post by David »

At least if it does eventuate and is bad as predicted New Zealand will be minimally affected
Niwa recently stated that over the last 50 or 100 years (can't remember which) New Zealand has experienced insignificant temperature change.
Doesn't quite agree with the fact that most parts of NZ experience less cold nights and frosts than several decades ago though :?
Image
RWood
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sat 24/01/2004 16:56
Location: Wellington

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "science"

Unread post by RWood »

I don't believe NIWA ever said anything of the sort - on the contrary, Salinger and others have pointed out that the 0.9C rise last century had already had significant effects on (eg) horticulture (there's a lot more than that but I can't find the quote I had in mind at present).
User avatar
David
Posts: 7651
Joined: Sat 18/08/2007 21:02
Location: Howick, Auckland

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "science"

Unread post by David »

I am probably incorrect, I am certain I read it somewhere and it wasn't on Niwa's site, it could have been an inaccurate source.
I do realise though NZ has experienced temperature changes and that the effects are already being felt.
Image
User avatar
NZstorm
Posts: 11333
Joined: Mon 10/03/2003 19:38
Location: Grey Lynn, Auckland

Re: New study raises issues with IPCC "consensus"

Unread post by NZstorm »

Maybe changing the topic slightly here but I see the Kyoto agreement might be short circuited by a new initiative by APEC.
As far as NZ is concerned, was Kyoto anything other than posturing and clocking up a bill payable in 2012.