Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?

Posted on 22 July 2010 by John Cook

No, this isn't a joke (although you're welcome to post a punchline in the comments if you can come up with a funny answer). Instead, I was imagining what would happen if you filled a room with the world's leading experts on climate science - the scientists who are actively publishing climate science papers in the peer-reviewed literature. If you asked this group of climate experts if they thought humans were causing global warming, what would they say? Here's a visualisation of the response (obviously green are convinced that humans are causing climate change, red are skeptical):

Why does this matter? Does a consensus of climate experts prove that humans are causing global warming? No, science doesn't work that way. The evidence for man-made global warming lies in the multiple, independent observations that confirm man's influence on climate . It's not based just on theory or models or even just a single dataset but many different observations all pointing to a consistent result. In my quieter moments of introspection when I wonder if this could all be wrong, ultimately I can't avoid all the different lines of evidence.

But not everyone has the time or inclination to dig through the peer-reviewed literature to uncover all the empirical evidence. Or read the thousands of pages in the IPCC reports. When it comes to complex science, whether it be climate science or heart surgery or how a plane manages to stay up in the air, we defer to the experts who do this stuff for a living. Why? Because they know every nook and cranny of their area of expertise. Every day when they go to work, climate scientists are knee deep in the full body of evidence. They arrive at their opinion of man-made global warming by taking into account all this evidence. The reason why there's a consensus of scientists is because there's a consensus of evidence.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  Next

Comments 101 to 150 out of 161:

  1. Skywatcher:"skywatcher at 19:06 PM on 23 July, 2010 #74 - shawnhet, your last sentence does not make any sense. There's a huge difference between distribution of heat and addition of heat. One can cause a long-term change in a system, the other can't." I don't understand you here. You'd originally started by saying that "I agree that Milankovitch cycles redistribute heat - but they do this globally - such as shifting insolation preferences from the NH to the SH, namely to a place where it cannot easily redistribute back". Now, presumably, Milankovitch cycles cause long-term changes in a system, so your latest position seems to disagree with your original position. As to my point vis a vis PDO and the temp trend, it is pretty easy to understand IMO. If we assume that X affects temperatures, and there is no trend in X, then it follows that X will not affect the temperature *trend*, but it doesn't mean that X doesn't affect temperature. Cheers, :)
    0 0
  2. TruthSeeker - Watts put out some data, Menne analyzed it, and it's not normal peer review process to give the originator of the data refusal rights over your analysis. What Watt could do would be to (a) demonstrate that Menne's analysis was flawed (bad statistics, method, etc.), or (b) show that the more complete data, when analyzed a la Menne, results in different conclusions than the initial data set. He has yet to do either. Watt's current blog posting has not one bit of analysis of how his issues with the data collection affect the global temperature track as derived from the GISS data. That isn't to say that he might or might not have some points in his complaints about Menne's methods or personal interactions. But he has not yet analytically criticized Menne's results.
    0 0
  3. "ad hominid (sic) attacks on his credibility." Well, I would certainly stop short of calling Watts an hominid. However, an attack on credibility is not an ad hom. I have zero knowledge of quilting. Zilch. If I was trying to make a technical comment and criticize others on how they do it, an attack on my credibility would be perfectly justified. It would not call into question my worth as a person (hence disqualifying it as ad-hom) but certainly would do so as a commenter on quilting. That would be fine. Watts history of posts demonstrate that he is not competent to analyze data. If he his, why is he not doing so? He's been at this for over 3 years, that's enough to partially store the bigger part of a degree in applied maths. Saying that he is not competent to analyze data is not an ad-hom.
    0 0
  4. I think it's become obvious that TruthSeeker hasn't actually read Menne's paper and analysis, but rather is basing his comments on Watts claims. TruthSeeker, I hate to break this to you, but Watts highest degree is a high-school diploma, and while that doesn't mean that he might not be able to learn some basic algebraic and statistical techniques for data analysis, there is plenty of evidence that he hasn't. I read Menne and Watts' "rebuttal" and Watts is full of it. I'm not going to bother going back to re-evaluate Watts' "rebuttal", because I actually have some faith that you might be smart enough to figure out that he doesn't know squat on your own. Another thing for you to consider is that several people, including some in the skeptic camp, have spent the last six months or so coming up with their own surface station temperature reconstructions, using a variety of statistical techniques. And they all come up with numbers very close to GISSTemp. This was a surprise to some among the skeptic camp who apparently believed that their various "more valid" analyses would undermine GISSTemp. Watts has been promising us a paper for a couple of years now. Where is it? And BTW he admits his own incompetence in regard to analysis because he's stated that others will be doing his analysis for him.
    0 0
  5. scaddenp (#93), I have many reasons for believing that mankind's influence on the climate is small, but that is not the point. This thread claims that "Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists think humans are changing global temperature". The above claim may well be correct. My point is that the outcome would be reversed if the question was changed to include the phrase "Catastrophic Global Warming" and the participation were broadened to include all scientists. kdkd (#94), Like scaddenp you failed to address my point but since you have raised the subject of dishonesty, the MND piece opens up with an account of Al Gore's dishonesty in "An Inconvenient Truth" that was proven in a British court of law. Getting back to John Cook's straw poll, 30,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the Kyoto protocol. Most of the scientists I work with are highly sceptical about CAGW and several of them signed this petition, while I did not. Clearly it is not difficult to get many thousands of scientists to support statements that on the one hand reject the idea of catastrophic global warming and on the other hand point to the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
    0 0
  6. 30,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the Kyoto protocol Possibly, if you use an extraordinarily loose definition of the word "scientist".
    0 0
  7. gallopingcamel wrote : The above claim may well be correct. My point is that the outcome would be reversed if the question was changed to include the phrase "Catastrophic Global Warming" and the participation were broadened to include all scientists. What is "Catastrophic Global Warming" and why do you believe that all scientists should have a say as to whether Global Warming is happening, 'Catastrophic' or not ? Do you also believe that all scientists should have a say as to whether, say, Dark Energy exists ? gallopingcamel wrote : ...the MND piece opens up with an account of Al Gore's dishonesty in "An Inconvenient Truth" that was proven in a British court of law. What 'dishonesty' and which British court of law proved that 'dishonesty' ? gallopingcamel wrote : Getting back to John Cook's straw poll, 30,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the Kyoto protocol. So ? Does that mean that the tens of millions of other scientists out there supported the Kyoto protocol ?
    0 0
  8. KR #104 "What Watt could do would be to (a) demonstrate that Menne's analysis was flawed (bad statistics, method, etc.), or (b) show that the more complete data, when analyzed a la Menne, results in different conclusions than the initial data set." I agree with that. Again, I still go back to SB03 and the fact that it was rebuked and criticized by those that argued that the authors had misrepresented or misinterpreted their data. How is this different? dhogaza #106 "I think it's become obvious that TruthSeeker hasn't actually read Menne's paper and analysis, but rather is basing his comments on Watts claims" That's true. "I hate to break this to you, but Watts highest degree is a high-school diploma," Come on, Einstein didn't either. "because I actually have some faith that you might be smart enough to figure out that he doesn't know squat on your own." You give me to much credit, remember I think Watts is being attacked because he is a hominid. . :-) Thanks for your thoughtful responses. You have given me more to think about.
    0 0
  9. "Come on, Einstein didn't either." TruthSeeker needs to spend more time trying to live up to his high-falutin' handle. Einstein got his undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics in 1900, and finished his doctoral thesis in 1905, and as a result was rewarded his PhD by the University of Zürich. Later that year he published the four papers that established his fame for eternity. You can read this in WIkipedia yourself. Or elsewhere, if you think wikipedia's lying about Einstein's academic background. Comparing Watts and Einstein falls flat for many reasons, claiming Einstein only had a high school diploma is only the most obvious fail. Perhaps this will teach you to more closely research claims made by denialists? The einstein one's repeated about once a month on blogs I read regularly. Isn't it about the time that this lie was put to bed once and for all?
    0 0
  10. TruthSeeker - Soon and Baliunas 2003 were criticized analytically, looking at their numbers and methods, misattributions of information, their selective sub-sets of data, and finding considerable fault with them. That's how you criticize a paper! If Watts feels that his data was misinterpreted, he should post a comment describing that, to the same journal that Menne published in. If he feels Menne analyzed it incorrectly, he should point out the math errors. If he feels that the full set of data would lead to a different conclusion than Menne reached, he should analyze it in the same fashion and show it. He has done none of the above. If you haven't read the Menne paper, well, that's end of discussion for me. I read Menne's paper and Watt's blog prior to even commenting on the issue. I would respectfully suggest you do the same before continuing.
    0 0
  11. Wow: at #80 we learned that there could be 3 Galileos in the same room and at #110 we learned that my high school students needn't bother working any longer, as they are all potential Einsteins, whether they graduate or not. Things are looking up? Unfortunately, in the US, they are not. Despite what the majority of scientists believe, the people who repeat those two nonsensical arguments are winning: "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997". See this article for the full dose of bad news.
    0 0
  12. JMurphy (#109) Q1. "Catastrophic Global Warming" is what the IPCC predicts in AR4, without presenting convincing evidence. Q2. Owing to the willful misconduct by most of the "Main Stream Media" in the USA, you may not have heard that Al Gore's book is considered a work of fiction in the UK. See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1 Q3. As I have said several times before on this blog, science is not about counting heads. However, it is sometimes amusing to pretend that counting heads matters.
    0 0
  13. Readers should take Galloping Camel's implication that Mr. Justice Burton of the England and Wales High Court is endowed with or claims mind-reading powers with a grain of salt. Justice Burton made no remarks about Al Gore's honesty and did not attempt any assessment of such. While generally expressing admiration of many of the film's qualities and concurring with expert witness assessment that in "An Inconvenient Truth" "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" Justice Burton did take issue with 9 points made in the film. He refers to them as "errors", most (or some will argue all) of which were not in fact erroneous. The complete court opinion may be read here. RealClimate elaborates on the "errors" here, where it becomes a little more clear what the case was actually deciding, a question not primarily about "An Inconvenient Truth" but rather interpretation of guidelines for material to be presented to students in the UK. New Scientist also looked more closely at the "errors" and that writeup may be found here.
    0 0
  14. Galoopingcamel, your counting head remark goes to the heart of the Oregon petition. Thanks to Doug for clarifying the UK's court decision on the movie.
    0 0
  15. Anything Osama bin Laden references incidental to his raving incitements should be considered off-limits as a legitimate topic of inquiry?
    So much for aerodynamics and aircraft engineering, I guess. No more air travel ...
    0 0
  16. 1077 - In regards to 'Mavericks', I try to keep in mind a quote from Carl Sagan: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Good science is what counts. In regards to politics/money, I suggest you read Merchants of Doubt, or as an easier read Thank You For Smoking. Every day that industry delays legislative and political action means millions of dollars for them - while receiving grants to write papers means that your salary is adjusted to compensate, and you make nothing more. Hmmm... motivation...
    0 0
  17. gallopingcamel, I can see how you have misunderstood the facts. Thanks to doug_bostrom for linking to the original Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] judgement which, if you actually look at it, will show you that the NEWSBUSTERS site you linked to (Motto : 'Exposing Liberal Media Bias') couldn't even get the number of 'errors' right, let alone anything else about the judgement. Do you really believe everything you read there ? As for the IPCC's use of the word 'catastrophic', perhaps you could point out where they predict (or project) such an eventuality. I have only found such a use of the word, in very hedging terms, in Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change, Ch2.2, especially 2.2.4 (Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change). Can you show where they predict "Catastrophic Global Warming", 'without presenting convincing evidence' ?
    0 0
  18. #114 and others: If you are looking for people legitimately concerned about 'Catastrophic Global Warming,' look here. How you define catastrophe depends on where you live: "climate change poses the most serious threat to our survival and viability, and, that it undermines our efforts to achieve sustainable development goals and threatens our very existence" "... there is an urgent need to consider and address the security implications and the human dimensions of climate change, including where necessary, initiatives for preparing communities for relocation." Seems like there was ample totally non-political evidence that where you live determines what you are concerned about -- back in 2005. Something about a 25 foot storm surge and a 17 foot levee = 8 feet of water overtop.
    0 0
  19. JMurphy (#122), Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" has whoppers in great store but the few listed in the UK high court were more than sufficient to prove the plaintiff's case. It was the media that could not decide whether there were 9 howlers or 11. doug_bostrom argues that Al Gore was not dishonest. OK, so what words should we use to describe his errors? Would you prefer, careless, ill informed or scientifically illiterate? Even if Al Gore made honest mistakes when writing his book, his failure to 'fess up after being proven wrong in court was dishonest. Just like his old boss, he was incapable of admitting error even in the face of irrefutable evidence. How dare a mere truck driver challenge a member of the American "Ruling Class"?
    0 0
  20. Gallopingcamel I'll stick with the opinion of the judge handling the case, that Gore's movie was "broadly accurate." Looking at the matter from a slightly different perspective, when you mistakenly cited a finding of dishonesty by the justice presiding over the case were you merely careless, or just ill-informed? I'm sure you did not intend dishonesty so we can eliminate that possibility straight off.
    0 0
  21. gallopingcamel, it is obvious that you still haven't read the original transcript of the judgement and still prefer to rely on the version you have read that has been filtered by a secondary website. Why ? Anyway, to anyone else who may be interested, if you DO read the judgement, you will find that there are no mention of 'whoppers', because there were none; the 'plaintiff's case was not proven, because the film is still shown in schools and he only received about two thirds of his costs back; there were 9 minor 'errors' pointed out (written as 'errors', not errors, by the judge, for obvious reasons, i.e. they weren't errors as such but claims that couldn't be determined to the fullest degree, etc.), so no-one should be confused as to whether there were 9 or 11; Al Gore wasn't 'proven wrong in court' about his film, because it is still being shown, albeit with some guidelines attached, albeit those guidelines were already produced as part of the whole process of showing the film in schools; there was no 'irrefutable evidence' against Al Gore, whatever evidence that is supposed to be about; and the 'truck driver' was also a local election candidate for the right-wing New Party, whose manifesto was written by our favourite peer Monckton, who also persuaded a rich friend of his to put the money up for the court case. Some 'mere truck driver', eh ? Now, before you go any further gallopingcamel, please read the original transcript of the judgement.
    0 0
  22. JMurphy (#121), Your suggesting that Stewart Dimmock (the truck driver) won his case challenging Al Gore's book because he was well funded makes no sense. The book sales alone were reported as $23 million; if British justice could be bought, Al would surely have prevailed! The real problem with Al Gore's book is its unrelenting alarmism that is not justified by the evidence. The UK judge did not have to be an expert in climate science to weigh the conflicting evidence and draw the correct conclusion.
    0 0
  23. gallopingcamel, to show that you have actually read the judgement, please state what you mean by "Stewart Dimmock (the truck driver) won his case challenging Al Gore's book". And what was the "correct conclusion" drawn by the UK judge - as you see it in the written judgement ?
    0 0
  24. I keep on hearing an AGW proponent referred to as "George Moonbat". Can anyone confirm that such a person exists? I must say it is an unusual name, and I wonder if it is a nickname rather than a real name. Thanks in advance.
    0 0
  25. To answer your question, agwscam, we'd have to know what an "organization with a pro-AGW theory position" is. Can you give some examples?
    It's a slur ... the write is George Monbiot. In our modern up-is-down world, if you accept the conclusions of science, you are a "moonbat", unless you're "fat" (that's for gallopingcamel, I don't understand why he hasn't brought up the most important fact that proves climate science wrong).
    0 0
  26. JMurphy (#123), Al Gore was shown to be "in error" by a British high court on 11 issues mentioned in his book. My personal favourite stems from Al's claim that Ice Age temperature cycles were driven by CO2 when the data shows the exact opposite. In your post (#121) you mentioned Monckton. My first impression of the viscount was "another upper class British nincompoop with a plum in his mouth" but even so, he makes more sense than Al Gore does. While I doubt that you will take the time to read the link below, I am hoping that others will: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
    0 0
  27. GC, you don't appear to even be aware of what was being decided in the court case you yourself brought up. You've not even yet acknowledged that your original assertion that the judge found "dishonesty" on Al Gore's part was completely unfounded. Why on earth would anybody then take your advice to fill their heads with Monckton's silly twaddle?
    0 0
  28. gallopingcamel, if you want to go around in circles, ignoring the truth, fair enough. I, however, will just repeat what I have already asked (and which you don't seem able to answer : To show that you have actually read the judgement, please state what you mean by "Stewart Dimmock (the truck driver) won his case challenging Al Gore's book". And what was the "correct conclusion" drawn by the UK judge - as you see it in the written judgement ? I will add one more to the questions that you cannot answer : Please list the "11 issues mentioned in his book" that you found in the text of the judgement.
    0 0
  29. "(although you're welcome to post a punchline in the comments if you can come up with a funny answer)" Knock knock. Who's there? 90s Evan. 90s Evan who? 90s Evan Purscent of all climate scientists. :P I also asked Cleverbot: "What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?" but the answer was: "I don't know." (Apparently, that part of science isn't settled yet.)
    0 0
  30. DarkSkywise "What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?" You dont know? Definitely a warmer room, and a slighter cooler planet until you open the door.
    0 0
  31. JMurphy (#128), Judge Burton ruled with admirable clarity so you should be able to understand him without my help. Your continued defence of the indefensible convinces me that your opinions are matters of faith rather than science. While you can point to weaknesses in my arguments you fail to see the much larger problems with Al Gore's. "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:3
    0 0
  32. Galloping Camel is exerting a concerted effort to rewrite history, assuming he's actually read the transcript of the court's report. Here's what Justice Burton ruled on, as the Justice wrote it: The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. Here's Justice Burton's ruling: 42: There are two fundamental questions for me to answer: i) Whether, by dispatching the film, with the cross-reference in the pack to the Guidance Note, as it then stood on the website, the Defendant was not taking steps to forbid but rather itself promoting partisan political views. ii) Whether, by distributing/not withdrawing the film but accompanying it by a hard copy of the Guidance Note, amended in accordance with what has been fully discussed during the hearing and referred to in my judgment, the Defendant is now complying with ss406 and 407. 43: The Defendant does not intend now to continue with the old position, but has already amended the Guidance Note on the website, and stands ready to distribute it in hard copy if my judgment permits. There is no longer therefore any need for relief in respect of the film otherwise than as accompanied by the present Guidance Note. Mr Chamberlain submits that, even without the changes, the Defendant was not in breach of ss406 or 407. Mr Downes submits, as set out in paragraph 12 above, that the breach of s406 is irremediable, by virtue of the simple sending to schools of the film, irrespective of any accompanying Guidance Note, and in any event does not accept that the amendments to the Guidance Note are sufficient to comply with any palliative under s406 or duty under s407. 44: I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government's adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of "sceptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context. Transcript of Justice Burton's ruling Nothing about Al Gore's honesty; the case was not concerned with that matter and in fact nobody will find any remarks about Gore's honesty in Justice Burton's ruling. Unlike Galloping Camel, Justice Burton does not presume to read Gore's mind and is also apparently not infected with ideology to the point he's lost contact with reality. It's for the reader to decide what purpose is driving Galloping Camel's assertion that he knows better than Justice Burton what the case was about and what Burton's judgment was.
    0 0
  33. Anyway, Al Gore? What does he have to do with climate scientists? Another canister of chaff to drop out the old bomb bay when the going gets tough, nothing about science at all, just a rhetorical stunt and a stale one at that.
    0 0
  34. Recently, Marc Morano, senior editor of CFACT's Climate Depot, sat down with Dr. Denis Rancourt to discuss his views on global warming. Dr. Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa and a noted liberal environmentalist. However, when it comes to global warming, Dr. Rancourt disagrees with his fellow leftists. "They look to comfortable lies," said Rancourt of global warming believers. Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWVXarkPOAo to hear more of what Dr. Rancourt has to say. I wonder what you‘d get if you put this scientist in amongst those 100 climate scientists. Best regards, Pete Ridley
    0 0
    Response: "I wonder what you‘d get if you put this scientist in amongst those 100 climate scientists"

    He wouldn't get in the room, he's not a climate scientist. He's a physicist, specialising primarily in spectroscopy and hasn't published any peer-reviewed research on climate science.
  35. Thinga at 22 opines that climate scientists who don't believe in AGW would not bother to become climate scientists in the first place. (Perhaps they would favour phrenology?) Thinga seems unaware that climate science has been around as long as modern science: oceanography, cloud physics, long term weather; CSIRO Atmospheric Research has been studying climate for decades, mainly for the benefit of Australian farmers, and became interested in the possible effect of atmospheric CO2 in the 1970s, when John Garratt and Graeme Pearman started thinking about CO2 and crop growth. They asked QANTAS pilots to collect samples at different heights. This was so successful that it led to the global baseline monitoring station at Cape Grim, testing (supposedly) the cleanest air on the planet.
    0 0
  36. That’s a very interesting response (from John?) to #134 which perhaps warrants a thread dedicated to defining what a “climate scientist” is. Professor Rancourt had this (and much more) to say (Note 1) about climate science “I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows .. I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized”. There is another side to this interesting fellow (Note 2) – enjoy. If a physicist specialising in spectroscopy is considered not to have a place among “climate scientists” (whatever they may be) I wonder if biologist Professor Barry Brook (Note 3) would be allowed into the room. As far as I can ascertain Professor Brook has not published any more peer reviewed research on climate science than Professor Rancourt yet he not only has been accepted into the “climate scientist” ranks but even advises the Australian government on the subject. Of course, when talking about climate science I’m referring to the numerous scientific disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of those horrendously complicated processes and driver of global climates. Just over a year ago Professor Brook acknowledged that “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. .. ” (Note 4). Professor Brook went on to say “But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem”. This appears to me to be implying that we are uncertain of only 5% of what needs to be known, but he provides no evidence to support such a figure. I tried to pursue this matter of uncertainty about those processes and drivers with him on his blog but he declined to engage in the debate. BTW, I understand that Professor Brook gets irritated when only parts of his statements are quoted so please read the article for a full picture of the context of that quote which some may argue was just cherry-picked by me. NOTES: 1) see http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html 2) see http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2009/03/dr-denis-rancourt.html 3) see http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook 4) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ Best regards, Pete Ridley
    0 0
  37. More on Rancourt here. Long story short it's all about Marc Morano earning his keep as a public relations specialist, a job made easier by recycling material from when he worked for U.S. Senator Inhofe. Just for taxonomy purposes Pete, where did you get the Rancourt item? Straight from ClimateDepot or was it passed along somewhere else first?
    0 0
  38. doug_bostrom, isn't it amazing how the so-called skeptics have to bring out the lone, off-field scientists (usually physicists, who reckon they are more cleverer (!) than everyone else), in response to scientists who actually work in the field of Climate studies. It may satisfy their need for examples they can cling to, but, to me, it just smacks of desperation. Did you see the latest similar attempt over at WUWT ? It is best filtered via Denial Depot but, basically, it's a list of 7 physicists who disagree with AGW (the usual suspects, including the founders of George C Marshall Institute). But...four of them (i.e. the majority) are dead ! Satire is dead...again.
    0 0
    Response: Hey, don't diss physicists!
  39. Doug (Bostrom), that link to Rancourt’s A/V came via E-mail from another sceptic. I Google’d “Professor Rancourt” Ottawa and had to wade through 3 pages of articles covering that report before finding something not related to it. I doubt if all of those other authors “ .. worked for U.S. Senator Inhofe .. ”. More on Rancourt, this one from Scripps News, Jan 2009 “Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming” (Note 1) - QUOTE: .. Some Leftists believe the collective hallucination of warmism distracts from what they consider urgent progressive priorities: -- "The most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might," University of Ottawa physics professor Dr. Denis Rancourt has written UNQUOTE. Enjoy the rest. NOTES: 1) see http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/40464 Best regards, Pete Ridley
    0 0
  40. I read the rest and wasn't thrilled. What on earth is the significance claimed in the half dozen places this has turned up of Rancourt being "on the left"? My view, from the left, is that there are anti-science cranks to be found wherever we look. Rancourt happens to have some credibility because of his stated concerns for the environment. Everybody has some concerns for the environment outside of the loonies who think mining for coal is best done by removing mountaintops (such people have no concern for the larger issues associated with burning coal from any source). Just because Rancourt gets some traction with the knit-your-own-sandals brigade, does not mean that his views on climate change have any credibility. For Morano to claim, yet again!, that he's a defector from the realist scientific group is clearly dishonest. He never subscribed in the first place.
    0 0
  41. Per the Comments Policy of this site, it's best to steer clear of discussions of politics. It helps keep things from getting overheated.
    0 0
  42. What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room? Anthropogenic room warming.
    0 0
  43. What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room? Forced-air heating.
    0 0
  44. Ned@141 Sorry Ned. Morano brings out the worst in me.
    0 0
  45. Thanks, Peter. I spend maybe too much time on climate blogs and noticed Rancourt suddenly popping up of late. Morano gave Rancourt's opinions a push just recently and so apparently his name has been reverberating quite a bit. DenialDepot tickles me pink, JMurphy. The actual subject is not so funny but laughter is good for us and in any case the articles there are yet another method of explanation, more enjoyable for some than unadorned recounting of facts and finger-wagging. Friends of Gin and Tonic and its specialist auditing efforts is also good for a laugh as well as being indirectly informative.
    0 0
  46. Pete Ridley, (#136) Barry Brook strikes me as someone who Flanders and Swann would have called a "general all round egg-head". I mean that in the nicest possible way even though he is a committed CAGW alarmist. His blog (Brave New Climate) is far and away the best I have seen when it comes to energy policy. Those of you who want to do move beyond a futile debate about global warming should consider spending some time at BNC discussing "solutions".
    0 0
    Response: Barry is great. I met him at the Brook/Readfern vs Plimer/Monckton debate. The other three turned up for a sleeves rolled up, bare knuckles brawl. Barry's talk had the calm, dispassionate air that had me going back to my university lecture days. The main theme of his blog is that both sides of the debate have many points of agreement on how we should produce energy.
  47. John Cook, Thanks for your comment. Barry Brook may have what it takes to lead a broad alliance that will promote a future where cheap electricity from NPPs powers our civilisation. As an admitted "Sceptic" I have no problem marching under Barry's banner.
    0 0
  48. John, I forgot to thank you for telling me about Barry Brook's blog!
    0 0
  49. What do you get when you put 1 climate scientist in a room with 99 not-climate-scientists? This. Roy Spencer attempts to explain back radiation. He's a -really- patient guy.
    0 0
  50. gallopingcamel, when I was involved with Barry Brook on Bravenewclimate a year ago I was surprised about how keen he is on nuclear power. I agree about nuclear being relatively cheap (compared with renewables like wind and solar) but it will be a long time before it is as cheat as fossil fuel and I can’t see it being viable for private transport, can you? One other thing that Brook seems to have strong feelings about is those emissions from livestock. Did you see his interview with Supreme MasterTV? The A/V of Brook’s interview used to be at http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos&wr_id=511 but it now says “connect failed”. I wonder if Brook had second thoughts about the association.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us