=================================================================
From: http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
- citizenschallenge | November 3, 2012 at 11:13 am | Reply
Judith Curry I found your above digest quite revealing.
So much so that I’ve done a paragraph by paragraph review.
I invite you to take a look. I think it’s a shameful game you are playing
and I try to explain why.
~ Dr. Curry’s “Climate change: no consensus on consensus” – challenged ~
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/10/dr-currys-climate-change-no-consensus.html
A review of Dr. Judith Curry’s reader’s digest to “Climate change: no consensus on consensus”
- T. O. | November 3, 2012 at 11:56 am | Reply
citizenschallenge:
It is easy to show that the methodology of the investigation by which the IPCC reached the major conclusions of AR4 was not scientific. Thus the “actual science” that you reference in criticizing Dr. Curry’s paper is fictitious. - curryja | November 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
I’ve spotted this, frankly I find it to be incoherent.
{I notice she's stayed miles away since. Better caution than revealing. You keep hiding girl.} - T. O. | November 3, 2012 at 11:56 am | Reply
citizenschallenge:
It is easy to show that the methodology of the investigation by which the IPCC reached the major conclusions of AR4 was not scientific. Thus the “actual science” that you reference in criticizing Dr. Curry’s paper is fictitious.
- curryja | November 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
I’ve spotted this, frankly I find it to be incoherent.
{I notice she's stayed miles away since. Better caution than revealing. You keep hiding girl.}
Lots of arm waving from lots of different people. I mean like three thousand words worth of arm waving about the theory of "consensus" . . . but, not a shrewd of objective evidence offered. And for sure not one peek at Earth Observation data.
==================================================
An awful lot of talk there… with “Consensus” being contorted into a straw man. It is Earth Observations driving the current state of climatological understanding, “the collective considered opinion” – Climatologists dang well appreciate that “consensus” is spelled with a small “c” and that it is subject to change as the evidence justifies.
You folks present a false image of what a working “consensus” is and a false impression of how the climatological community operates.
Furthermore your intimations of malfeasance never rise above Urban Legend blahblah.
And yes, my “challenge” probably isn’t perfectly coherent, but than I’m not a scholar, just and interested working man – who’s had it with the crazy-making of the proud contrarian on a matter as important as our Grand Atmospheric Experiment.
A consensus is a political animal, not a scientific one.
You conflate observations (which are involved with science) and a “collective considered opinion” (which doesn’t really matter) while giving the impression that a working consensus is important in science.
Then you go on to accuse malfeasance, excellent word by the way, and while speaking of false impressions you mentioned a “Grand Atmospheric Experiment”… an experiment usually involves some sort of hypothesis, a control, some way to collect important data, and so forth, doesn’t it?
gahhhh need to ban all the climate research
Max,
I believe you have an unfortunately limited appreciation for our planet’s physical being.
Studying our planet and learning from it, is not like a classroom chemistry experiment.
Stop expecting those standards or even that mindset when trying to understand Earth Processes.
You would benefit from a little history lesson regarding society’s “grand geophysical experiment.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide-and-climate
Carbon Dioxide and Climate
An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?”
By Gilbert N. Plasspage 4 “During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. Grain fields and pastures store much smaller quantities of carbon dioxide than the forests they replace, and the cultivation of the soil permits the vast quantities of carbon dioxide produced by bacteria to escape into the air…”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm Roger Revelle’s Discovery “… By way of conclusion, Revelle remarked that “Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”
When he wrote this sentence, which has since been quoted more than any other statement in the history of global warming, he was not warning against future perils. He did feel some concern about potential harm over the long run, and had begun to point to the problem in public.
But the word “experiment” sounded benign and progressive to Revelle as to most scientists, and in this paper he only meant to point out a fascinating opportunity for the study of geophysical processes…”
Terry Oldberg | November 3, 2012 at 11:56 am | wrote:
“citizenschallenge:
It is easy to show that the methodology of the investigation by which the IPCC reached the major conclusions of AR4 was not scientific. Thus the “actual science” that you reference in criticizing Dr. Curry’s paper is fictitious.” <<<
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stop telling us how obvious you think it is.
Show us some actual objective evidence!
Where are your particulars?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=================================================
=================================================
Curry writes: "manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science…" <<<
Where is Curry's evidence!?
Specifically what topics have the IPCC distorted?
Why no list?
~ ~ ~
{Just because the news is bad for big business? I thought this was science we were discussing?}
Curry doesn't seriously examine who the IPCC are; what they have been legally tasked with doing; and how they have gone about their task.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What's it supposed to mean?
What point is Curry trying to weave into her story here?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You won't find anything here about Seitz and Singer and the tactics of manufacturing doubt?
Why not examine the various dirty tricks and PR tactics that have targeted the IPCC and climatologists in general?
The American Denial of Global Warming –
Perspectives on Ocean Science
by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Merchant-of-Doubt-attacks-Merchants-of-Doubt.html
I want to share this comment from over at SkepticForum.com where I haunt their Climate Change board.
X writes: I would say most people here, including CC, understand the difference between weather and climate. It's just that CC says stoopid things now and then, and this is one of them. Either that or he really doesn't understand the relationship between the two.CC: Yea, guess the thing is I understand our climate as an entity !
I can not relate to the general headgames regarding the difference between weather and climate.
It's the difference between a child and a family, but we all inhabit the same world, only operating on different time scales.
I understand climate as the billions of years in the making product of time, earth, wind, water and fire... quite literally... an entity with pretty near unfathomable mass and momentum, and all life follows her moods, not the other way around!
Society has radically altered a key controlling element* of that climate, namely our atmosphere's insulating ability. Plain and simple, we are, and will continue for centuries to come, be warming our planet and acidifying our oceans. *{actually we've altered nearly all components of our planet's biosphere}
You can dink around with the rate all you want. But any serious examination makes plain that things are changing and changing faster than anyone anticipated. I have the feeling your type will easily shrug off Hurricane Sandy. You want to see that crap every year before you've gotten your belly full of your statistical gamesmanship.
... and you wonder why I call you a 99%er
You think this is all some intellectualized debate.
I believe you have no conception of the power of raw mother nature, because you certainly don't take cycles, and interacting circulations patterns, and the flow of time seriously ~ nor the massiveness of Earth's processes ~ otherwise your posts would sound quite different.
============================================================
============================================================
moth1ne wrote: I believe titling climate change as a wicked problem is overly-dramatic. There is much uncertainty in climate change and the problems that could arise in solving the climate change issue are unknown. I believe, given the detrimental consequences of inaction to climate change, the best step forward is to apply the precautionary principle. It is best to err on the side of caution when the risks of inaction are too high.
{see the comments section}
============================================================
I've copied these from the Curry's blog site. I believe they reveal the hollowness of that articular persuasion:
Got any objective lists and facts to share?
And more importantly can you explain how you would improve the processing of Earth Observations, considering how different they are from lab bench experimentation?
More specifically, what is your complaint with how Earth Observations are conducted?
Look at the intro of her book . . .
====================
++++++++++++++++++++
Donna writes: "This book is about a spoiled child. Year after year, this child has been admired, flattered, and praised..."
This is the stock trade passion story Laframboise has written here.
There is not hint of serious science about it.
Shame on you.
================================================
============================================================
Commented 11/10/12 AM
T. O. | November 8, 2012 at 11:32 pm | "citizenschallenge: In your response, you’ve evaded the issue of the morality of your equivocation. You’ve made a deceptive argument and are evidently unwilling to repent."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
How about defining what you find deceptive about my argument?
===================
P. | November 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm | "CC, Do you seriously deny that organizations labor in their own interest? And that since the UN/IPCC is in the business of world governance, it is always going to find “reasons” for world government, regardless of the facts ? How can anyone with more than a few braincells actually such utter tripe such as that that the IPCC – the force behind the science frauds exposed in Climategate – is trying to be objective ? Seriously, how honest are you being with yourself?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Care to define what you mean by "world governance"?
Incidentally, why you have a problem with nations cooperating with each other?
As for the IPCC being the force behind science frauds.
Where is that objective list of those "IPCC frauds"?
~ ~ ~
Oh and how can I possibly image the IPCC is objective?... well it comes from {among other places} reading some of their stuff - give it a try: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-5-4.html
~ ~ ~
...and speaking of objectivity - please don't refer me to that hysteric Laframboise with her obviously passionate hatred for the IPCC and its scientists.
As for McIntyre master of making a mole sound like a mountain - besides endlessly beating the horse named Mann - What IPCC "frauds" has he uncovered?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for the stolen emails, I've read a bunch of them and when taken in context, they actually don't reveal "fraud" - dislikes and emotions sure, but scientific fraud ain't seen any - neither have any of the many investigations.
Where's that objective list of those perceived frauds?
============================================================
"Global climate depends of three factors"* How much energy we get from the sun* How much of that energy is reflected back to space (aerosols, ice, etc)... albedo*Amount of greenhouse gases"
"Greenhouse gases are a large part of the Earth's energy budget* Earth's temperature without greenhouse gases = -18°C* Too cold for advanced life?* Earth's temperature with greenhouse gases = +15°C* Cozy* Greenhouse gases raise the temperature of the Earth by about 33°C (±60°F)... and make the planet habitable
So if we add greenhouse gases...
"Is it surprising that humans are changing the planet?- Simply put... we're impressive, the biggest cause of change on the planet.- We have altered the Earth's energy balance and changed climate- we cause 10 times more erosion than all natural processes- We make more fertilizer than all bacteria in the world- We make more sulfate than all ocean phytoplankton- Our current energy needs equal all harvestable wind energy in the atmosphere
How is this possible? ... the power of the exponential !
============================================================
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/11/dear-judith-curry-fans-and-other.html
… still no objective list of particulars.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
BB: “conscious fraud by Mann certainly led the charge” – wow, you really believe this guy to be incarnate evil or what? What has he done to deserve that… specifically, that is? Thing is, it sure seems like other work supports Mann’s general finding.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
… and I just don’t see where this obsession with Mann is justified considering his work is a tiny piece of the puzzle and it remains consistent with subsequent findings.
… can you offer a list of particulars?
What is it?
How has it been carried out?
Where is the evidence?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~