biernini said:
As I said, either rationalism and objectivity are paramount concerns of scientists or they are not. If they are not, it would be expected that most or all scientists and scientific bodies would readily prostitute themselves out to the highest bidder. The highest bidder in this debate are those with connections to the fossil fuel industries.
Scientists are neither more nor less human, neither more nor less rational, neither more nor less noble, neither more nor less corruptible, and neither more nor less susceptible to putting their own interests ahead of everything else, than the rest of us.
They require sufficient income to provide for a decent standard of living, just like anybody else, and their employment depends on satisfying their employers' demands and expectations.
Who is paying the salaries and expenses of the warmista scientists? Are they funding their own research through bake sales and the like? Doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts while begging for alms like monks of old? Hardly. People are benefitting from this Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated on the Human Race, and they are willing to fund those scientists that back them up.
China is free to pollute as much as it wants, while Western countries with much cleaner economies restrict themselves and toss "carbon taxes" and "cap-and-trade" regimes around. China is laughing. Western companies ship production and jobs to China where it's cheaper to do business. It is in China's best interest to quietly fund scare programmes. Our Oil Sands are a threat to middle-eastern oil-exporting dictatorships. They still have a ton of money to slip to those who will trash our production. Western governments direct where research money goes. Spooking populations into accepting greater and greater tax burdens is a very old ploy. Traditionally, war or the threat thereof has been the excuse. This is just a variation. If you truly believe that nobody is benefitting from warm-mongering, then you are incredibly naive.
biernini said:
Much more often (i.e. 97% or so) we see research that contradicts the claims of those connected to the moneyed interests.
This claim of consensus between 97% of scientists is a complete fabrication, and I have previously posted articles that prove it. See also the articles that I have posted below (the second is an older one, but I do not believe that it has been previously posted here). Now, you have applied that mythical percentage to not only the portion of the scientific community to which it has "normally" and dishonestly been applied, but to the amount of research that has been generated. It must be a wondrously universal figure indeed. That number does have some validity, but not in ways that you erroneously think. It appears in the two articles.
Regardless, that "consensus" has no basis in fact.
And no greater proportion of anti-warmist scientists are motivated by money than warmist scientists. They all have bills to pay. No lesser proportion of anti-warmist scientists are motivated rationalism and objectivity than warmist scientists.
biernini said:
Therefore since rationalism and objectivity are the motivating principles of the scientific world claims that counter those must be treated with greater skepticism.
This whole global warming/climate change has taken on the characteristics of a bad religion. Anyone who speaks against it is denounced as a heretic, and therefore those who know better fear to do so. People have lost jobs, lost research grants, been harassed, and had law suits launched against them for speaking the truth. If warm-mongers were so rational and objective, that would not be happening. Their arguments in favour of their position would suffice. They do not, however. To believe in man-made climate change requires one to disbelieve that big, bright thing in the sky that is the source of our warmth, and its cyclical activity. We will be able to prevent climate change when we can put a thermostat on the sun, and not before.
biernini said:
I've been summarily dismissed on this site by others for having the alleged "minority opinion", but in this case the evidence simply does not support the minority opinion here. Furthermore unlike government research where the supposed motivation for a contradicting claim is murky and ill-defined the AGW-skeptics have clear financial motivations for opining as they do. I'm genuinely surprised so many give them so much good faith.
The over-riding motivation for disproving the outlandish claims of warmism is simply the truth, and nothing less.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/u-of-ts-decision-not-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels-is-still-all-wrong-about-climate-science
FP Comment
U of T’s decision not to divest from fossil fuels is still all wrong about climate science
Special to Financial Post | March 31, 2016 3:28 PM ET
With pressure mounting from the University of Toronto’s climate-alarmist community and off-campus environmental activists, university president Meric Gertler announced Wednesday that the school would not, despite their demands, be divesting itself from its investments in companies that produce fossil fuels. The U of T warmists are in a state of despair, just as they are at McGill, UBC, Dalhousie, and other schools where divestiture demands from student activists have ultimately been rejected.
The 43-page report reads almost as if it could be a blueprint for making the university a centre for climate activism
But Gertler’s position is not exactly a victory for those skeptics who perceive climate science as more complicated and debatable than environmental activists insist. As an apparent compromise, Gertler decreed that when choosing its investments going forward, the university would consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, including climate risk. This new approach, he wrote, "is consistent with the Committee's recommendation in favour of 'targeted' and dynamic divestment" - in the sense that he expects that the same fossil fuel companies targeted by the divestment activists would likely be ruled out for future investments under the new strategy.
Gertler’s 43-page report reads almost as if it could be a blueprint for making the university a centre for climate activism. It declares the existence of a "consensus that we must take action to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial average, if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts on the planet and humanity." The "reality of anthropogenic climate change, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in response," Gertler claimed, "is now well established and widely accepted."
But, as anyone familiar with the actual state of scientific acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is aware, no such consensus on projected catastrophic man-made climate change really exists. Most recently, in January, researchers from George Mason University surveyed the members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and found significant disagreement on the issue.
Surveys show there is no scientific consensus on catastrophic climate theories
The AMS survey might have been expected to show the opposite. One of the study's authors, after all, was among the six George Mason University professors who last year signed a letter, addressed to President Obama, calling on the administration to restrain climate skepticism and investigate organizations "that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change."
It is easy to see how this likely discouraged some climate skeptics from answering the survey. In fact, American climate blogger Anthony Watts (a skeptic) wrote that two of his colleagues received the survey but did not respond "because they didn’t believe their opinion or identity would actually be protected."
And yet, despite the fact that some skeptics were unwilling to participate, the survey’s results were far from unanimous. Of the 4,092 AMS members who responded (a 53.3 per cent participation rate), just two-thirds (67 per cent) believed that climate had changed in the past 50 years, and that the change was mostly or entirely caused by human activities. That’s a fair majority, but it is nothing close to a consensus. Furthermore, only half predicted that local climate change would be more harmful than beneficial in the next 50 years.
Other surveys suggest that many scientists are skeptical about the quality of climate science. A survey of climate scientists published in 2010 and authored by researchers with the Institute of Coastal Research found a significant lack of confidence in the ability of atmospheric models to deal with clouds and precipitation, and in the ability of global climate models to predict precipitation values and extreme weather for the next 50 years.
The survey also showed that climate scientists were more likely to view climate change as a political issue than a scientific one, and that many believed research over the past decade had been tainted by external politics. There was also disagreement on solutions to climate change: 42 per cent were more inclined towards mitigation while 28 per cent favoured adaptation.
These surveys show there is no scientific consensus on catastrophic climate theories. However, one wonders how much a scientific consensus is worth, anyways. Climate alarmists often claim that 97 per cent of scientists support their position, but as Ross McKitrick noted in the Financial Post last May, "the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998." As a percentage of inaccuracy, that happens to work out to 97 per cent, too.
Matthew Lau is a finance and economics student at the University of Toronto.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much
FP Comment
The con in consensus: Climate change consensus among the misinformed is not worth much
Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | May 11, 2015 7:22 PM ET
Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists; many misunderstand core issues
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada's, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world's scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada's economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.
Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013 President Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is "real, man-made and dangerous." As it turns out the survey he was referring to didn't ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are "a grave danger." But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.
One commonly-cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.
More than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue
The most highly-cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.
Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.
In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52 per cent said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade (the IPCC position). The remaining 48 per cent either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53 per cent agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
So no sign of a 97 per cent consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.
The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66 per cent agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don't know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97 per cent consensus behind the IPCC.
But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as "climate experts," a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.
But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented
Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.
Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted." Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the so-called experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called "climate experts" and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
Second, it is obvious that the "97 per cent" mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phony claim of 97 per cent consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.
The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama's website (barackobama.com) says "97 per cent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made…Find the deniers near you - and call them out today." How nice. But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagoguery to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.
Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
