The main statement this documentary came out is that the entire board of 2500+ IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations) were and are in pursuit of research grant by coming to the conclusion that our current global warming is man-made.
The programme accomplished this by firstly distorting what the scientists' findings are. For example, Prof. Wunsch complained to the Independent that he was 'completely misrepresented' .
Then, political big guns were brought in to discredit the entire IPCC panel suggesting that that the scientists are merely coming to conclusions favourable to getting research grant.
This looks like American politics at its worse.
This is very very sinister, because once the notion that virtually all scientists are bribable, then politicians can dismiss any scientist's findings, even if the scientist has achieved the highest accolade.
Originally posted by EdwinaTS: The main statement this documentary came out is that the entire board of 2500+ IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations) were and are in pursuit of research grant by coming to the conclusion that our current global warming is man-made.
Then, political big guns were brought in to discredit the entire IPCC panel suggesting that that the scientists are merely coming to conclusions favourable to getting research grant.
This looks like American politics at its worse.
This is very very sinister, because once the notion that virtually all scientists are bribable, then politicians can dismiss any scientist's findings, even if the scientist has achieved the highest accolade.
There are no longer 2500+ scientists in the IPCC funny that there are now only about 300. The views of the IPCC towards human activity have become more extreme as the amount of scientists decreases, coincidence?
Note that the IPCC did actually change the documents AFTER all the scientists had finished their analysis due to questions from individual scientists politicians and non-governmental groups. Hmmmmm this is sounding slightly more sinister.
American politics, which party do you think would support this program which happened to be made by Brits primarily in the UK?!? Both American parties have now adopted this view so where the hell did you get this idea from, it certainly wasn't reality.
1 Peer also does not account to the political big guns.
Try to understand the basics about your argument before you tell everyone else that this is sinister. my2cents
Anyway coming to your only argument Wunsch said those two words as part of it yes, thats still not an good argument though. Could it not also be true that he was put under pressure after the program and said that as a response or that the independant and a huge number of internet users also misrepresented what he said. The independant after all are only looking to sell their newspapers, not give credible information. In fact everywhere else this argument seems to have been dropped possibly because there was something wrong with the circumstances in which he said it.
While I am not claiming that every part of the GSGW programme was 100% accurate as i am still checking the facts for myself, however if one were to call the methods it used "sinister" I dread to think what you should call the antics of the IPCC. It is quite worrying what has been going on, even more worrying who is backing the IPCC.
Originally posted by skeptical brit: There are no longer 2500+ scientists in the IPCC funny that there are now only about 300.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for this assertion?
I suspect skeptical that brit might be confusing the number of contributors to the working group 1 report (the summary for policy makers) with the number of contributors to the full Assessment Report.
The working group 2 report contributors include: 600 authors from 40 countries 620 expert reviewers Representatives from 113 governments
I guess to a skeptic, 600 authors sounds close enough to "about 300"... and the reviewers etc. obviously don't count at all.
Or maybe skeptic brit is just counting the *lead* authors (who write intros to each section in the Assessment report... and ignoring the reviewers and contributing Authors:
2500+ scientific expert reviewers 850+ Contributing authors 450+ lead authors
450+ might be take to be "about 300", by a skeptic. However, the total number of participants, however, is over 3,800.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Can you explain to me how you do not accept the science given by the IPCC, which you presume is political. However, the most established scientific institutions have united and backed the IPCC. So presumably you must think that akk these national scientific institutes such as The Royal Academy, must be political too? Crikey all these political scientists.
Strangely though, you point to a report by a handful of people led by an economist. Why do you chose to believe these people? The Fraser Institute are so so clearly a right-wing think-tank. Look at the rest of the website.
So The Fraser Institute is hardly free from politics, on the contrary it has a direct vested interest in debunking established scientists.
The highlighted section has nothing to do with the findings of the IPCC report per se, but shows the highly non scientific way in which the IPCC report is compiled especially the summary for the policymakers section.
Now if you know better (about the process of compilation of the IPCC report) let us know. Also do you have any idea about how the 90-99% level confidence is achieved? Now we all know that this is really not a confidence level but a confidence trick to hoodwink us, but what I am interested in finding out which percentage this level represents-
1. Percentage of lead authors agreeing to the findings 2. Percentage of lead and contributory authors 3. Percentage of lead, contributory and reviewers
Your argument is still based on the IPCC having political motives.
The fact remains that the IPCC claims in the 2001 third assessment 2000+ scientists contributed and the upcoming 2007 forth assessment has 2500+ "scientific expert reviewers" - see their website.
So OK, that is an IPCC claim. But there haven't been 1000s of scientists distancing themselves from the IPCC findings.
On the contrary , all the major institutes support the IPCC findings in their joint statements, signed by their respective heads:
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Académie des Sciences Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Indian National Science Academy Académie des Sciences (France) Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Royal Society National Academy of Sciences, USA
So if anyone needs to answer a question it is the sceptics:
1) Do you believe all these well-established scientific institutions have been hood-winked or do you believe they are part of the political conspiracy to fool us?
This is what I mean by cherry-picking. One person pulls out some unsubstantiated claims by an "institute" that points to failings within the IPCC. Despite all the sceptics unsubstantiated claims the IPCC is political, there is no acknowledgement by these same people that the "institute" in this case the Fraser Institute is political itself, despite the obvious fact it is a right-wing think tank.
2) Can you substantiate the claims made by the right-wing think tank Fraser Institute? Or do you believe their words as if it is gospel?
The IPCC claim of very high confidence level about anthropogenic global warming is a trick which clearly does its job as demonstrated in the this forum itself. Some fms seriously believed it to be an objective criteria rather than subjective opinion of the authors (I have a creeping suspicion it is only lead authors who gets a vote and not contributory authors and reviewers but if you know better I am sure you will let me know)
In the popular media, the confidence level is again splashed as a proof that with 99% certainty the scientists have concluded that AGW is a reality- Does not say anywhere that it is 90-99% of the authors of the report who felt in this particular way.
Problems with the process of drafting the IPCC report has also been documented separately with scientists resigning due to the politicised nature of the process so this is not really news.
Rather than talking about a political conspiracy which no one is alleging except you (in a indirect fashion, if you know what I mean), why don't we talk about how can an impartial scientific report come out through a process of which we are getting glimpses of, that looks heavy in negotiation of scientific facts
The IPCC claim of very high confidence level about anthropogenic global warming is a trick
The IPCC claim of very high confidence is on the basis of all the thousands of peer-reviewed papers that they have read.
Your use of the word "trick" shows that you believe people at the IPCC have manipulated the science. The use of the word "trick" implies active dis-imformation, where there is no evidence.
Further you do not acknowledge all the main scientific institutes which are not funded by the UN, and independent of the IPCC, that confer that the IPCC is the most reliable body reporting on climate-change and agree with its findings.
How do you account for these national institutes backing the IPCC? Are you suggesting:
1) they haven't read or understood the IPCC assessments with proper scrutiny? 2) they have read the IPCC assessments and have been "tricked" as well. 3) the signatories of the Joint Academy statement supporting the IPCC are complicit in the "trick".
It can only be one of those three above. Which do you believe?
Instead, you and other sceptics "believe" the unsubstantiated words, as if gospel, of right-wing institutions, who do not have transparent processes or transparent funding, such as Fraser Institute.
If you are so interested in the inner workings and motives of organisations, tell me, who funds the Fraser Institute? In 2003 they had $6 million in donations, undisclosed.
How about this article: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Originally posted by Robbie Writer:If you are so interested in the inner workings and motives of organisations, tell me, who funds the Fraser Institute? In 2003 they had $6 million in donations, undisclosed.
How about this article: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Look at the bottom of the article and you will find the same Tad Murty as in the Fraser Institute.
Vested interests?
Well, the the Guardian piece does quote the payments as being offered for written articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," [Kenneth Green] said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
Sounds pretty level-headed to me.
BTW - From the Independent Summary for Policymakers website:
There was NO funding for this project from Exxon or any other fossil fuel company, or from any other industry. No funding was sought by the Fraser Institute for this project. The Fraser Institute does not do contract research, nor does it accept money from governments. It has not received funding from Exxon for any purpose since 2004, when it received a small grant which was not directed to any specific project. The attempt to smear the ISPM project by a false insinuation that the writers and/or reviewers were in the pay of the fossil fuel sector is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the project in the mind of the public, in order to prevent people from reading it. The ISPM is not an attack on the IPCC or a critique of the Fourth Assessment Report. In fact several people involved in the ISPM were themselves contributors or reviewers of the IPCC Report as well. The purpose of the ISPM is to encourage readers to look closely at the IPCC text itself, not simply the Summary released in Paris on February 2, 2007. The Fraser Institute exerted no editorial control over the writing at any stage. The writing team had full discretion and control over the final product. By contrast, the IPCC takes a Summary draft produced by scientists and allows sponsoring governments to re-draft it before its release.
2) Can you substantiate the claims made by the right-wing think tank Fraser Institute? Or do you believe their words as if it is gospel?
That is pure "ad hominem". You're attacking the person not the message. I don't know whether the Fraser Institute is a right wing think-tank. I do know that the ISPM appears to be a neutral and balanced appraisal of the state of the science. I have not seen ant meaningful criticism of the ISPM. Can you provide any?
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Also do you have any idea about how the 90-99% level confidence is achieved? Now we all know that this is really not a confidence level but a confidence trick to hoodwink us, but what I am interested in finding out which percentage this level represents-
1. Percentage of lead authors agreeing to the findings 2. Percentage of lead and contributory authors 3. Percentage of lead, contributory and reviewers
Any ideas?
Obviously, not being a member of the IPCC, I don't know the details of how a particular confidence level is determined - but I think we can be pretty sure that it is NOT based on the number of authors who believe a particular outcome is "likely".
I have a discussion of uncertainty taken from an April 2006 draft of the IPCC Group I Technical Summary which I think you might find helpful. It's long so I'll post it in a new thread.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: The claim that the IPCC is a 'scientific report' is slowly but surely crumbling
The sheer rightness of their reports and conclusions over the decades shines through all the BS. Conspiracy theorists - please stick to Princess Di, 9-11, Kennedy assassination etc. That stuff is harmless but remember the scorched grass in Hyde park? Now imagine that on a continental scale.
Access RealClimate.org - the best site I know for climate stuff.
Can you explain to me how you do not accept the science given by the IPCC, which you presume is political. However, the most established scientific institutions have united and backed the IPCC. So presumably you must think that akk these national scientific institutes such as The Royal Academy, must be political too? Crikey all these political scientists.
Strangely though, you point to a report by a handful of people led by an economist. Why do you chose to believe these people? The Fraser Institute are so so clearly a right-wing think-tank. Look at the rest of the website.
So The Fraser Institute is hardly free from politics, on the contrary it has a direct vested interest in debunking established scientists.
Typical anti-AGW cherry-picking tactics.
I don't 'presume' anything of the science.
I am repeatedly exposed to the fact that the science is 'contaminated'.
This contamination has distorted the science and therefore rendered it invalid - as science.
This invalidity is regardless of the accuracy and/or inaccuracy of particulars within the science.
The contamination has several sources which act upon the science and corrupt it - as science. 1) political - from internal and external sources 2) emotional - from internal and external sources 3) financial - from internal and external sources
'Institutions' are nothing other than a group of people and - as people - I recognise they are fallible (both individually and collectively).
The structure of a group of people, and its formation around a primary object of interest, leave its collective view of (and ideas about) that object exposed to being contaminated by the above sources. If the group is recognised as 'experts', this contamination results in a distortion of its recognised expertise and a betrayal of the trust wider groups place in that expertise.
This is abundantly clear from material posted in this forum (including yours). This contamination appears absent from the material (as science) posted in the 'Independent Summary for Policymakers'. In fact, it is its consistent LACK of contamination - as scientific material - which appears to cause the most outrage on this scientific forum.
2) Can you substantiate the claims made by the right-wing think tank Fraser Institute? Or do you believe their words as if it is gospel?
That is pure "ad hominem". You're attacking the person not the message.
Check my original message. It was in reference to Fraser Institutes "ad hominem" of the IPCC.
Many on the anti-AGW side, have accused the IPCC of being political - "ad hominem".
Many then accuse the national academies endorsing the work of the IPCC as political - "ad hominem".
And whereas there is no real evidence of these established scientific institutes having political motivations, the likes of Fraser Institute and Cato Institute are well-documented right-wing lobby groups with links to the Oil industry.
As long as people on this forum attempt to discredit the IPCC, not on the science but on the "politics", I don't see why I shouldn't expose the background of these sinister right-wing lobby groups paid for large corporations and rich individuals to present lies to people.
2) Can you substantiate the claims made by the right-wing think tank Fraser Institute? Or do you believe their words as if it is gospel?
That is pure "ad hominem". You're attacking the person not the message. I don't know whether the Fraser Institute is a right wing think-tank. I do know that the ISPM appears to be a neutral and balanced appraisal of the state of the science. I have not seen ant meaningful criticism of the ISPM. Can you provide any?
Do you have any idea about how the 90-99% level confidence is achieved?
The confidence levels(probability of occurrence) are: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%.
This is the IPCC page outlining its methodology and procedures. There are some further PDF downloads further down the page. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm
This is one of the PDF downloads: IPCC PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
--------------------------------------------
Below are two articles exploring uncertainty in climate science and a general one on the subject of uncertainty that also touches on climate change.
Uncertainty is part of a wider ranging debate across many fields; scientists, insurance and economists all handle uncertainty in their work. Economists, insurers, and doctors have to deal with uncertainty on a day-to-day basis. This is an article on the subject. Decision-making under scientific, political and economic uncertainty http://economix.u-paris10.fr/pdf/sem_economix/2006-10-12_Henry.pdf
You may believe the concept of uncertainty is a ‘confidence trick’, please bear in mind the stock market, insurance industry and many other areas of industry, commerce, medicine etc all use the same terms and methodologies. Insurers, in particular, understand it well.
I have not seen ant meaningful criticism of the ISPM. Can you provide any?
Sorry to come to this late I've been away, but I provided quite a bit to you last week stating that their coverage of radiative forcing was in error, their hockey stick comments are completely against the scientific findings, and their tone was deliberately negative throughout particularly in highlighting uncertainties and ignoring successes of modelling. I also pointed out that they used inappropriate highlight boxes to highlight non-scientific items. You might have disagreed with me, but it seems that the realclimate criticism linked by Robbie Writer has also picked up some of the same things that I did.
