Reply to: That Pause ...

[pjclarke]

'within a few years' were not Viner's words, we don't know what his timeframe was. I bet if he'd known this one phrase was to become the cornerstone of a denial campaign a decade later he'd have issued a clarification

[DodgyAgent]

Exactly that! Written by a correspondent more used to covering business stories, the headline does not reflect the content and the money quote 'within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event"' is a conflation of a real scientist's words and those of the journalist. No IPCC report or published study then or now is or was predicting any such thing. Still, 14 years after it was published, here it is again.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

Ah so we are smearing the journalist now . So those were not the words of David Viner then? Or is it perfectly acceptable for scientists to make false conclusions as long as they are promoting "your" consensus?

[pjclarke]

Such as this?

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Exactly that! Written by a correspondent more used to covering business stories, the headline does not reflect the content and the money quote 'within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event"' is a conflation of a real scientist's words and those of the journalist. No IPCC report or published study then or now is or was predicting any such thing. Still, 14 years after it was published, here it is again.

[DodgyAgent]

The science is not based on the consensus, the consensus is strong because of the science. Not difficult.

By 'of standing', I meant for example, the National Academies (e.g. US NAS, our Royal Society, professional associations such as the American Geophysical Union). One can find so called astroturf groups (fake grassroots) such as the 'Friends of Science' which do not endorse the consensus, these inevitably turn out to be front groups for vested interests.



Position statement of the AGU. Title 'Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action' revised last year.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2...ugust-2013.pdf

So what then is a denier? Is it about facts or is it about a consensus of organisations and people who do not have a vested interest?

[pjclarke]

So science is no longer based on fact? it is now a matter of probability and consensus?

And what exactly is meant by "of standing"? Is it related to george orwells pigs announcing that all animals are equal later to be changed to "some are more equal than others"?

The science is not based on the consensus, the consensus is strong because of the science. Not difficult.

By 'of standing', I meant for example, the National Academies (e.g. US NAS, our Royal Society, professional associations such as the American Geophysical Union). One can find so called astroturf groups (fake grassroots) such as the 'Friends of Science' which do not endorse the consensus, these inevitably turn out to be front groups for vested interests.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.

Position statement of the AGU. Title 'Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action' revised last year.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2...ugust-2013.pdf

[DodgyAgent]

If we define the consensus loosely, as

. What we actually get is cherry-picks, obfuscation, straw men and an endlessly-repeated quote from a bad newspaper article written more than a decade ago.

Such as this?

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

And where do all the organisations and individuals who contributed to this article fit within the spectrum of this statement:

100% of professional scientific bodies of standing.

[DodgyAgent]

If we define the consensus loosely, as

1 Global temperatures have risen (about .13C/decade over the last few decades)

2 Human activity, mainly fossil fuel burning but also land use change, chiefly deforestation, has increased the greenhouse effect.

3 The majority of (1) is due to (2)

4 Continuing to emit GHGs at the rate we are will result in further temperature rises, with overwhelmingingly negative, in the worst case, perhaps catastrophic consequences.


Then this consensus is based upon, and endorsed by:

c97% of the peer reviewed literature.

c97% of surveyed climate science professionals.

100% of professional scientific bodies of standing.



This does not mean that the consensus is right, even though we routinely base for example, medical, milatary and policy decisions on far weaker agreement, but it does mean that the onus is on who disagree with, or deny the science to come up with convincing evidence that it is wrong. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we actually get is cherry-picks, obfuscation, straw men and an endlessly-repeated quote from a bad newspaper article written more than a decade ago.

So science is no longer based on fact? it is now a matter of probability and consensus?

And what exactly is meant by "of standing"? Is it related to george orwells pigs announcing that all animals are equal later to be changed to "some are more equal than others"?

[original PM]

2 Human activity, mainly fossil fuel burning but also land use change, chiefly deforestation, has increased the greenhouse effect.

By how much? Has that been the only factor increasing greenhouse gases? What other factors have contributed to the increase in greenhouse gases?

3 The majority of (1) is due to (2)

Majority = > 50% so could be 50.1% what has caused the rest? Do we know why?

[pjclarke]

If we define the consensus loosely, as

1 Global temperatures have risen (about .13C/decade over the last few decades)

2 Human activity, mainly fossil fuel burning but also land use change, chiefly deforestation, has increased the greenhouse effect.

3 The majority of (1) is due to (2)

4 Continuing to emit GHGs at the rate we are will result in further temperature rises, with overwhelmingingly negative, in the worst case, perhaps catastrophic consequences.


Then this consensus is based upon, and endorsed by:

c97% of the peer reviewed literature.

c97% of surveyed climate science professionals.

100% of professional scientific bodies of standing.



This does not mean that the consensus is right, even though we routinely base for example, medical, milatary and policy decisions on far weaker agreement, but it does mean that the onus is on who disagree with, or deny the science to come up with convincing evidence that it is wrong. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we actually get is cherry-picks, obfuscation, straw men and an endlessly-repeated quote from a bad newspaper article written more than a decade ago.

[DodgyAgent]

What do you think the experts base their judgments on?

Can you smell what you had for breakfast up there?

Is a denier someone who denies the facts or someone who questions the judgements of those facts?

[NickyBoy]

So it has nothing to do with factual evidence then?

What do you think the experts base their judgments on?

Can you smell what you had for breakfast up there?

[DodgyAgent]

In this instance it's probably someone who sides with the less than 1% of experts that say nothing man is doing is ******* up our climate.

They look very much like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, except this peculiar breed chooses to hide its head up its own anus.

So it has nothing to do with factual evidence then?

[pjclarke]

Pretty much.

[NickyBoy]

Just out of interest what exactly is a "denialist"?

In this instance it's probably someone who sides with the less than 1% of experts that say nothing man is doing is ******* up our climate.

They look very much like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, except this peculiar breed chooses to hide its head up its own anus.

[DodgyAgent]

Its called cherry-picking. Here is all the data from 1900, with the amount the denialists want to draw your attention to highlighted...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/ha...end/offset:0.3

Just out of interest what exactly is a "denialist"?