EnviroLink Forum

Fence sitters this is nothing we don't already know.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/hhs ... 5M.twitter







There's you tax dollars at work in the scientific community fence sitters. This really breeds trust doesn't it.

Fence sitters here's an email.



Assumption? What if storylines? They don't have high confidence in GHG projections? Don't have full confidence in climate system model? This email points out what I have been saying for years. GIGO. Climate model research is a complete joke. But, CO2 trajectories are a "political decision." Something else I've been saying for years.

Fence sitters here is the USHCN temperature station at Blyth, California. The green arrow is the location of the Stevenson Screen.



Way to close to a hot building. Way to close to a hot concrete walkway. Way to close to a street, and way to close to a parking lot.

Here is a ground level shot.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has resorted to fraud. Shame on the media outlets which refuse to see or say, but all praise to Professor Richard Tol:


Prof Tol, from Sussex University, is a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly ‘alarmist’.

In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.

He said he did not want his name associated with it because he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with the way the summary exaggerated the economic impact of global warming.

Fence sitters aren't you tired of all the scare mongering from desperate cultists on their last legs. I am.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... scare_you/



12,000 hits.

Here's my two cents on engaging the public:

The biggest obstacles you need to understand are that the public doesn't understand the nature of science, ...they aren't rational decision-makers, [...]

Be aware that the press is very defensive about being called "liberal" by the heartland. So they will always give a denier equal weight under the guise of "We just report and let the reader make their own decision." The hell they do. Ask "When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists?"

- Email from Greg Craven (2010)

"Speaking of Nazism: From my perspective, there are many parallels between the arch-conservative movement in the US that is being orchestrated by the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and their super rich cronies and the early rise of the Nazi party in Germany."

- John Hartz, Skeptical Science (2011)

"However, comparing things to the years before WWII might be useful. Don't tie it in just to the Holocaust but rather the entire denial of the threat from Nazism"

- Glenn Tamblyn, Skeptical Science (2011)

Skeptical Science has been used often on this site. Just to let you know its nothing of the sort. Here are some of the mainstream, reasonable, lucid, and logical content featured on that site.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/0 ... cs-as.html







Sounds like a real great group of guys over there. Do they sound like they have "consensus science" on their side? Do they sound like they're confident in the knowledge that they are right? Do they sound like they are ready to debate your future and how you will live? How about it fence sitters do they speak for you?

"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

"The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

"This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, it's up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

"Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming."

Fence sitters NASA scientists seem to be the gold standard with some cultists. Here you go.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... s-Nonsense

Fence sitters NASA scientists seem to be the gold standard with some cultists. Here you go.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... s-Nonsense

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.’

He declined to say which countries had demanded which changes, saying only that ‘all the main countries and regions were represented’.

Some deletions were made at the insistence of only one or two nations – because under IPCC rules, the reports must be unanimous.

He revealed the original draft of the summary contained a lot of detail on how international co-operation to curb emissions might work, and how it could be funded. The final version contains only meaningless headings, however, with all details removed.

"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."

In simplified terms, IPCC Lead Authors are nominated by their countries, and downselected by the IPCC bureaucracy with help from others (the process is still not transparent to me – who really performs this down-select?) The basic assumption is that the scientists so chosen as Lead Authors (L.A.s) represent the highest level of expertise in particular fields of climate science (or some derivative aspect such as agricultural impacts) and so may be relied on to produce the most up-to-date and accurate assessment of the science. In one sense, the authors of these reports are volunteers since they are not paid. However, they do not go without salaries. Government scientists make up a large portion of the author teams and can be assigned to do such work, and in effect are paid to work on the IPCC by their governments. University scientists aren’t so lucky but can consider their IPCC effort as being so close to their normal research activities that salary charges to the university or grants occur. Travel expenses were paid by the IPCC for trips, in my case, to Australia, Paris, Tanzania, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Victoria, Canada. Perhaps it goes without saying that such treatment might give one the impression he or she is an important authority on climate.

As these small groups of L.A.s travel the world, they tend to form close communities which often re-enforce a view of the climate system that can be very difficult to penetrate with alternative ideas (sometimes called “confirmation bias” or “myside bias”.) They become an “establishment” as I call them. With such prominent positions as IPCC L.A.s on this high profile topic, especially if they support the view that climate change is an unfolding serious disaster, they would be honored with wide exposure in the media (and other sympathetic venues) as well as rewarded with repeated appointments to the IPCC process. In my case, evidently, one stint as an L.A. was enough.

The second basic problem (the first was the murkiness of our science) with these assessments is the significant authority granted the L.A.s. This is key to understanding the IPCC process. In essence, the L.A.s have virtually total control over the material and, as demonstrated below, behave in ways that can prevent full disclosure of the information that contradicts their own pet findings and which has serious implications for policy in the sections they author. While the L.A.s must solicit input for several contributors and respond to reviewer comments, they truly have the final say.

My experience as Lead Author in the IPCC TAR, Chapter 2 “Observed Climate Variability and Change”, allowed me to observe how a key section of this chapter, which produced the famous Hockey Stick icon, was developed. My own topic was upper air temperature changes that eventually drew little attention, even though the data clearly indicated potentially serious inconsistencies for those who would advocate considerable confidence in climate model projections.