Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus - Page 4

**Parihaka** · 12-05-2007, 05:09 AM

Here's a 2007 review of IPCC procedure and editing of the papers submitted.

Quote:

The IPCC states clearly that it undertakes no research of its own but merely relies on published papers for its information. A team of editors assesses those papers and writes the drafts of the various report chapters. While minor corrections are welcomed the overall assessment is strongly defended against challenges.
On the surface this looks not unreasonable but scratch a little deeper and the self-sustaining nature of the claim of a human influence on warming becomes visible.
Unlike other high-profile scientific fields, these reports by the IPCC are almost entirely responsible for determining the direction of climatology and how the research funding will be spent.
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 showed that 9 of 11 climate factors were poorly understood but despite this it claimed that humans were responsible for rising temperatures.
As a consequence of the TAR the majority of funding for climatology research went to projects that assumed a human influence on climate.
Not surprisingly this caused the papers taking this position to significantly out-number the papers that rejected this hypothesis. But as the responses to reviewers' comments show, the number of papers supporting a certain argument is a critical factor in determining the content of the IPCC reports.
It is not merely the weight of numbers that tilts the balance but also the leanings of the editors.
The content of the reports rests with the teams of editors but if those editors are actively engaged in research then it is likely to be on projects which assume a human influence on climate and this will make those editors susceptible to being predisposed to view climate in that light.
There is not the evidence to claim deliberate bias but logically the "anthropogenic warming" argument will be very familiar to many editors and the tendency will be that papers following that line will receive less intense scrutiny than papers that don't only challenge that argument but also challenge the editors' own beliefs. If an editor took the position that the human influence on climate is negligible or non-existent on anything but a small and localised scale then that person's research opportunities are likely to be few.
The same potential conflict of interest arises with the reviewers, many of whom are authors of papers related to climatology and are quite possibly still involved in research projects. The reviewers have the added problem that the IPCC practice is to make all reviewers' comments available to other reviewers. Reviewers cannot hide behind some kind of editorial team "group
think" but are exposed to individual scrutiny and that can put reputations and research opportunities at even greater risk.
The problems continue into the authorship of these reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists who were already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.
The bigger picture is that research funding indirectly determines the content of the IPCC assessment reports, and those assessment reports play a very significant role in determining the direction and funding of the research.
Who would be a reviewer when many chapter authors will be likely to defend the beliefs and reputations they have established via research projects funded by government money on the supposition that anthropogenic global warming is a fact? Few researchers who are funded by the anthropogenic warming gravy-train are likely to review IPCC chapters with the intent of
identifying flaws only those sceptical of the claims, and have little to lose in the way of reputation or funding, will make the effort. Several recognised sceptics of man-made warming failed to take part in the review but who can blame them when the exercise is so evidently futile.
In the long term this perpetual and increasing marginalising of contrary viewpoints is extremely detrimental to the science because it will produce a supposed scientific "truth" based on little more than the emphasis of the funding and the domination of certain opinions.

Link to published paper that this excerpt was taken from (sorry, it's pdf)

**Parihaka** · 12-05-2007, 05:11 AM

I could go on all day really. Not quacks, deniers, fringe dwellers etc but people from right at the heart of the IPCC itself, actual scientists not political hacks, calling for the abolition of the fraudulent IPCC.

gunnut · 12-05-2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Remember, GN, that a rise in average global temperature certainly doesn't mean that locally everyone gets hotter ... the earth isn't uniform ... models may show that weather patterns shift locations, or greater extremes (hot and cold) may be experienced according to region ...

So it's not global is it? It should be called regional warming or non-uniform warming. Maybe even conditional warming with some chilling to be expected. Of course that doesn't sound as horrible as "global" warming.

It's all in the label. A good merchandise always has a good catchy name.

dalem · 12-05-2007, 14:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Well, belief that smoking causes, not just correlates, with cancer is something that you can quantify in the cost of treating people at the end of their lives ... belief in an economy without rules can lead to an S&L or sub-prime disaster, and so on ...

But you're quite right in that if these models are proven correct, Dale, they will involve remedies that will impact on the economies of nations and the standard of living of all of us as individuals ...

The anti smoking crusade gets about as much respect from me as the anthro GW silliness.

And I'm not arguing for a society without rules, I'm arguing for a society without bad science. And anthro GW, along with "2nd hand smoke", is bad science.

-dale

dalem · 12-05-2007, 14:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Remember, GN, that a rise in average global temperature certainly doesn't mean that locally everyone gets hotter ... the earth isn't uniform ... models may show that weather patterns shift locations, or greater extremes (hot and cold) may be experienced according to region ...

An example is that the rainfall in my part of the woods (southern continental edge of Australia) may decline, but it's counterbalanced by an increase in the rainfall into the sea even further south. Same amount of water, just of little use to the farmers ...

Wow. You mean to imply that climate is complicated?

Who'd'a thunk it?

-dale

dalem · 12-05-2007, 14:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

This is just incidental, but science never has nor ever will prove anything. Science can only disprove. This is an interesting topic, and I'd like to contribute more than just the above soundbite, but I've got a hell of a lot of work on

. When I'm done, I'll go and look for some papers that are representative of current research.

N.B. that last sentence is not to devalue what has already been posted, but to indicate that I will attempt to gather papers in an objective, non-partisan manner.

That's not technically true. Science, i.e. the scientific method, proves things all the time. Science also disproves. The key is that science technically always allows for such disproof. For instance, science has satisfactorily proven that in a positive gravity field pointing down, a rock I drop will ALWAYS fall down. Of course, someone could come along tomorrow and show that a rock I drop falls up under the same conditions instead.

-dale

**Parihaka** · 12-05-2007, 15:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

This is just incidental, but science never has nor ever will prove anything. Science can only disprove. This is an interesting topic, and I'd like to contribute more than just the above soundbite, but I've got a hell of a lot of work on

. When I'm done, I'll go and look for some papers that are representative of current research.

N.B. that last sentence is not to devalue what has already been posted, but to indicate that I will attempt to gather papers in an objective, non-partisan manner.

By all means Patch, I look forward to it

Patch · 12-05-2007, 18:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

That's not technically true. Science, i.e. the scientific method, proves things all the time. Science also disproves. The key is that science technically always allows for such disproof. For instance, science has satisfactorily proven that in a positive gravity field pointing down, a rock I drop will ALWAYS fall down. Of course, someone could come along tomorrow and show that a rock I drop falls up under the same conditions instead.

-dale

I've been taught that, for example, a rock always falling down is not 'proof' per se, but rather evidence supporting the current hypothesis. The concept we are given is that proof, in the scientific sense, does not exist. There are only data, which either support or disprove the hypothesis under consideration.

gunnut · 12-05-2007, 18:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

I've been taught that, for example, a rock always falling down is not 'proof' per se, but rather evidence supporting the current hypothesis. The concept we are given is that proof, in the scientific sense, does not exist. There are only data, which either support or disprove the hypothesis under consideration.

If it supports, why does it not prove?

If it disproves, is it always correct?

Patch · 12-05-2007, 18:36 PM

I suppose because 'proof' is considered to be immutable, whilst 'supporting a hypothesis' allows for the possibility of future alteration. Of course, it depends on how you define proof.

If the data do not support the hypothesis, and the data are independently repeatable, then the current hypothesis must be rejected or amended. Thus, the original hypothesis has been disproved.

gunnut · 12-05-2007, 18:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

I suppose because 'proof' is considered to be immutable, whilst 'supporting a hypothesis' allows for the possibility of future alteration. Of course, it depends on how you define proof.

If the data do not support the hypothesis, and the data are independently repeatable, then the current hypothesis must be rejected or amended. Thus, the original hypothesis has been disproved.

Is the hypothesis credible if it cannot be proved or disproved? For example, is there afterlife? We cannot prove it nor can we disprove it.

Patch · 12-05-2007, 18:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is the hypothesis credible if it cannot be proved or disproved? For example, is there afterlife? We cannot prove it nor can we disprove it.

If there is no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis, it is not credible. If it is not falsifiable, i.e. there is no empirical mechanism that could ever disprove it, then it is not scientific.

Patch · 12-05-2007, 18:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

By all means Patch, I look forward to it

Pari, the WoS servers are throwing a hissy fit at the moment, but I should be able to grab some papers tomorrow.

**Parihaka** · 12-05-2007, 19:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

Pari, the WoS servers are throwing a hissy fit at the moment, but I should be able to grab some papers tomorrow.

No worries matey.

dalem · 12-05-2007, 21:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

I've been taught that, for example, a rock always falling down is not 'proof' per se, but rather evidence supporting the current hypothesis. The concept we are given is that proof, in the scientific sense, does not exist. There are only data, which either support or disprove the hypothesis under consideration.

In the context of your paragraph, the word "support" can easily be changed to the word "prove". What you are diligently (and correctly) trying to avoid is being locked into the concept of "final proof". And in that sense, and in my opinion, you are correct - nothing is beyond refutation.

-dale

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!	gunnut	Science & Tech	612	01-22-2008 17:17 PM
Debate about China, india and US economies, by Businessweek	oneman28	Political Discussions	7	11-28-2007 08:43 AM

12-05-2007, 05:11 AM	#47 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,729 Country:	I could go on all day really. Not quacks, deniers, fringe dwellers etc but people from right at the heart of the IPCC itself, actual scientists not political hacks, calling for the abolition of the fraudulent IPCC.

12-05-2007, 18:36 PM	#55 (permalink)
Patch Regular Join Date: 11-20-07 Location: Gloucestershire Posts: 54 Country:	I suppose because 'proof' is considered to be immutable, whilst 'supporting a hypothesis' allows for the possibility of future alteration. Of course, it depends on how you define proof. If the data do not support the hypothesis, and the data are independently repeatable, then the current hypothesis must be rejected or amended. Thus, the original hypothesis has been disproved.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)