Questions for the ‘Majority of Scientists Agree’ Climate Changers

[Crick]

Just out of curiosity, what did you think the IPCC's tasking was supposed to be?

 

[ding]

Since you're familiar with all these studies and you brought them up as showing evidence that there are dissenting opinions present among climate scientists that the IPCC's strategy has suppressed, YOU need to tell us what are the issues of this dissensus. It is not my responsibility to search through a half dozen studies YOU have brought out searching for evidence supporting YOUR argument. It is yours. Or yours to admit you have no idea because none of your sources ever identify such issues.

Or you could research them yourself and point out what you disagree with. Which is the usual way people do it when they don't agree with something.

The bottom line is that science does not work through consensus. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011).

 

[ding]

Did you think the IPCC had originated the idea of human-induced climate change?

Does it matter?

It was their task to examine the idea and see if it had merit. That is what they have done and, since better than 99% of the evidence supports the conjecture, they have concluded that it is almost certain to be the case.

By excluding dissenting opinions they have effectively become decision makers.

I haven't surrendered to anything.. Being tasked to investigate a topic is not evidence that the investigator holds a preexisting bias. The IPCC was created specifically to assess whether or not human action was causing climate change. That is what they have done. Denier objections to the methodology of the science being conducted and assessed has been an absolute paragon of desperation that your utter lack of supporting evidence has created.

No. They have assumed the authority of decision maker by not presenting the whole picture.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think the IPCC's tasking was supposed to be?

To provide a complete picture which includes presenting both sides of the issue. They are not decision makers but have become de facto decision makers.

 

[Crick]

Does it matter?

By excluding dissenting opinions they have effectively become decision makers.

No. They have assumed the authority of decision maker by not presenting the whole picture.

To provide a complete picture which includes presenting both sides of the issue. They are not decision makers but have become de facto decision makers.

You don't even understand your own references. Or you haven't actually read them. The IPCC has not excluded dissenting opinions. They have been excluded by failing peer review and not getting published. And that you think the IPCC has not presented "both sides of the issue" (just FYI, there are about a thousand sides to the issue) tells me that you've never read any significant portion of any of the six assessment reports.

 

[ding]

You don't even understand your own references. Or you haven't actually read them. The IPCC has not excluded dissenting opinions. They have been excluded by failing peer review and not getting published. And that you think the IPCC has not presented "both sides of the issue" (just FYI, there are about a thousand sides to the issue) tells me that you've never read any significant portion of any of the six assessment reports.

Did you even look at the link you asked me to provide? I'm guessing not because if you had you would see it was represented exactly as advertised. So why would you expect the other references to not be advertised as advertised?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262692757_Towards_a_Reflexive_Turn_in_the_Governance_of_Global_Environmental_Expertise_The_Cases_of_the_IPCC_and_the_IPBES

It really shouldn't be a surprise to you that the IPCC has squelched including dissenting opinions in the reports. Their stated position is to speak from one voice. It is not to provide information so that policy makers can make informed decisions. The IPCC has intentionally excluded dissenting opinions because they intend to make the de facto decision.

 

[ding]

You don't even understand your own references. Or you haven't actually read them. The IPCC has not excluded dissenting opinions. They have been excluded by failing peer review and not getting published. And that you think the IPCC has not presented "both sides of the issue" (just FYI, there are about a thousand sides to the issue) tells me that you've never read any significant portion of any of the six assessment reports.

Here's another one you probably won't read before dismissing. But it too is exactly as advertised. That the IPCC intentionally and routinely excludes dissenting opinions because it may affect their goal of speaking with one voice which is decidedly anti-science.

https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1803_2019_A04.pdf

 

[Crick]

Here's another one you probably won't read before dismissing. But it too is exactly as advertised. That the IPCC intentionally and routinely excludes dissenting opinions because it may affect their goal of speaking with one voice which is decidedly anti-science.

https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1803_2019_A04.pdf

I did read Hoppe and Rodder. I commented on it quite a bit. But, as with all of your refs I've looked at, none of them have identified the issues for which you believe a dissensus exists. And despite posting repeatedly, you have yet to name a single such issue. Do you know of one? Yes or no?

 

[ding]

I did read Hoppe and Rodder. I commented on it quite a bit. But, as with all of your refs I've looked at, none of them have identified the issues for which you believe a dissensus exists. And despite posting repeatedly, you have yet to name a single such issue. Do you know of one? Yes or no?

Do they need to identify what should have been included in the reports to comment on the flaw of the IPCC's one voice, anti-science mandate? No.

It's sad that you really believe there are no dissenting opinions that have been systematically excluded from a report that has a goal of speaking from one voice. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

It must drive you crazy when anyone speaks the truth about the heavy handedness of the IPCC.

 

[ding]

Here is the actual Abstract to Hoppe and Rodder 2019

Abstract:​

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication. While ‘speaking with one voice’ has contributed to the Panel's success in putting climate change on the public and political agenda, the consensus policy is also contested, as our literature analysis (n=106) demonstrates. The arguments identified thereby inform a survey of climate scientists (n=138), who are the ones responsible for realising the policy. The data indicate moderate support for the consensus policy but significantly more in traditional climate sciences than in social sciences, life- and geosciences.

This study is, in essence, a survey of the opinions of 138 scientists regarding the IPCC and its assessment reports. All 138 scientists are from a research consortium in Northern Germany. A number of them are not climate scientists; some are social, life and geoscientists. The analysis repeatedly brings up a significant point: the purpose of the IPCC analysis and assessment reports is not to expand human knowledge, it is to guide public policy. The IPCC has never conducted or even funded original research. It's purpose has been to assess the published literature. Throughout their reports the IPCC consistently evaluates and identifies the reliability, the certitude, of the conclusions they report.

And, again, though this study suggests that consensus-seeking will suppress dissenting or extremist conclusions, it fails to identify any issues on which wide disagreement exists.

It's hilarious that you deny there are dissenting opinions or that scientists are ostracized if they speak out.


"...Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center, claims many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change—crystallized by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its view that greenhouse gases are chiefly responsible for what it predicts could be a catastrophic warming of the planet3—are reluctant to voice their opinions. “It’s gotten so polarized that scientists who go against the mainstream worry they’ll be treated poorly in the press,” she says. “People will just say, ‘Oh, they’ve been bought off by the oil industry,’ but that’s not always true.”

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ding]

The reality is that even when no orbital forcings are influencing the planet, the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates. And CO2 had absolutely nothing to do with it. This fact is reason enough for skepticism.

 

[Crick]

The Earth's temperatures have not fluctuated as they are presently in at least the last ten thousand years. Your comment about CO2 is grossly uninformed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Earth's temperatures have not fluctuated as they are presently in at least the last ten thousand years. Your comment about CO2 is grossly uninformed.

View attachment 600509

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Still hasn't learned that the chart was exposed as bogus and improper inclusion of low-resolution data onto high resolution data.

Marcott later admitted that Red line isn't viable.

It has fluctuated a lot more than this which have been established in many papers and in History research as well.

You need to stop pushing lies Crick!

 

[ding]

The Earth's temperatures have not fluctuated as they are presently in at least the last ten thousand years. Your comment about CO2 is grossly uninformed.

View attachment 600509

Look at all of the interglacial and glacial cycle data and you will see fluctuations that do not correspond to orbital forcing or CO2. You do realize that the planet can get warmer in an glacial cycle and then colder and then warmer and then colder again, right? And the same thing holds true for inetrglacial cycles. There can be periods of colder temperature and then warmer temperatures and then colder temperatures and warmer temperatures.

Just look at the saw tooth nature of the curves.

And learn to use the reply feature.

 

[ding]

How are these temperatures swings even possible? If you believe Crick they should all be flat lines.

 

[Crick]

Look at all of the interglacial and glacial cycle data and you will see fluctuations that do not correspond to orbital forcing or CO2. You do realize that the planet can get warmer in an glacial cycle and then colder and then warmer and then colder again, right? And the same thing holds true for inetrglacial cycles. There can be periods of colder temperature and then warmer temperatures and then colder temperatures and warmer temperatures.

Just look at the saw tooth nature of the curves.

And learn to use the reply feature.

View attachment 600531

The sharpest of the rises depicted in your data took ~5,000 years to rise less than 7C, a rate of 0.14C/century. In the last 50 years, global temperatures have risen approximately 15 times as fast. So the current situation is unprecedented. These rate comparison extend to CO2 and sea level increases as well. And that temperature excursions have taken place in the past which were not initiated by rising GHG levels says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of AGW in the present.

 

[ding]

The sharpest of the rises depicted in your data took ~5,000 years to rise less than 7C, a rate of 0.14C/century. In the last 50 years, global temperatures have risen approximately 15 times as fast. So the current situation is unprecedented. These rate comparison extend to CO2 and sea level increases as well. And that temperature excursions have taken place in the past which were not initiated by rising GHG levels says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of AGW in the present.

Clearly you have never heard of Dansgaard–Oeschger events. Air temperatures in Greenland changed on the order of 10 degrees Celsius within a few decades.

But the point I was raising - that you so casuially dismissed - is that the record is littered with temperatiure fluctuations so you can't make the assumption that the recent warming trend is due to CO2.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Earth's temperatures have not fluctuated as they are presently in at least the last ten thousand years. Your comment about CO2 is grossly uninformed.

View attachment 600509

Here are a couple of LINKED charts showing that CO2 isn't driving temperature changes.

and,

LINK

Your obsession over a trace gas with a trace IR absorption range needs to stop as it making you look foolish.

 

[Crick]

Clearly you have never heard of Dansgaard–Oeschger events. Air temperatures in Greenland changed on the order of 10 degrees Celsius within a few decades.

But the point I was raising - that you so casuially dismissed - is that the record is littered with temperatiure fluctuations so you can't make the assumption that the recent warming trend is due to CO2.

In GREENLAND, not globally. And YOU missed the point I was making. That temperature fluctuations have taken place that were not initiated by rising CO2 DOES NOT argue that CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming. It is precisely the same as Mamooth's example that because forest fires took place for hundreds of millions of years before any humans were around to start them, humans cannot be starting any forest fires today.

 

[ding]

In GREENLAND, not globally. And YOU missed the point I was making. That temperature fluctuations have taken place that were not initiated by rising CO2 DOES NOT argue that CO2 cannot be the cause of the current warming. It is precisely the same as Mamooth's example that because forest fires took place for hundreds of millions of years before any humans were around to start them, humans cannot be starting any forest fires today.

Too fucking funny. You do realize the earth's climate is dominated by what happens in the northern hemisphere, right?

And climate scientists reach opposite conclusions on the cause of the recent warming trend depending upon which datasets they use. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world where the temperature of the planet is at the threshold for extensive continental northern hemisphere glaciation.

So you have wrongly concluded that CO2 is responsible. We are 2C below past interglacial temperatures with 120 ppm more CO2.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warmist/alarmists morons must worship at the altar of IPCC since they think it is a scientific organization when it is actually a GOVERNMENTAL organization InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

It is a rotten organization full of second-rate claims that only wild-eyed believer will fall for the dumbest bullshit because they can't help being leftist ignorant dumbfuck!

No Frakking Consensus

Should UN Employees Be IPCC Lead Authors?​

Donna Laframboise

Excerpt:

Koko Warner is an American citizen who was selected to be a lead author of the next edition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. For these purposes, it has been decided that she officially represents the country of Germany. [see p. 8 of this 27-page PDF]

Warner is one of at least four people assigned to work on the new IPCC report who is employed by an entity called the United Nations University. First and foremost, this institution exists to further “the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

LINK

===

Retracted Ocean Warming Paper & the IPCC​

and,

Does the IPCC Prefer Grey Literature to Peer-Reviewed?​

and,

IPCC Reliance on Grey Literature 30 Times Greater than UK Threshold​

and,

Clueless New IPCC Policy Ignores Advocacy Literature​

and,

Why Taking WWF Money Matters​