UN climate panel chair calls for 'enlightenment'

Apr 07, 2014 by Frank Jordans
In this picture taken Thursday, April 3, 2014, giant machines dig for brown coal at the open-cast mining Garzweiler near the city of Grevenbroich, western Germany. After concluding that global warming is almost certainly man-made and poses a grave threat to humanity, the U.N.-sponsored expert panel on climate change is moving on to the next phase: what to do about it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, startet a meeting in Berlin Monday, April 7, 2014,to chart ways for the world to rein in the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are overheating the planet. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

The head of the United Nations scientific panel on climate change urged diplomats and scientists to show "enlightenment" Monday, as they began a weeklong meeting aimed at spelling out in plain terms what options the world has if it wants to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Delegates at the closed-doors meeting in Berlin need to tackle a number of sensitive issues, including how best to cut carbon emissions and how to share the cost of shifting away from the fossil fuels that are largely blamed for producing the gases that are heating the planet. Their conclusions will feed into a landmark assessment report that will form the basis of negotiations for future climate treaties.

"I would urge the distinguished delegates to exercise a high level of enlightenment," said Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The world needs a robust, policy-relevant and informative document."

Experts say that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) by the end of the century, will have to be cut by 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050. But there are sharp differences between nations over how to achieve this and who will pay for it.

Even the language used to describe the billions of dollars that need to be pumped into climate mitigation efforts has become political, with environmental campaigners favoring the term 'investment' to reflect the long-term return they say can be achieved by switching to clean energy sources.

In this Nov. 19, 2008 file photo Roberto Chudzinski checks solar modules on the roof of the Soemtron AG in Soemmerda, Germany. After concluding that global warming is almost certainly man-made and poses a grave threat to humanity, the U.N.-sponsored expert panel on climate change is moving on to the next phase: what to do about it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, will meet next week in Berlin to chart ways in which the world can curb the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are overheating the planet. (AP Photo/Jens Meyer, File)

"Talking about costs is toxic because you don't look at the benefits," said Jan Kowalzig, a expert at the campaign group, Oxfam.

A new report released Monday showed that renewable energy, excluding large hydropower plants, increased its share of overall power generation worldwide from 7.8 percent in 2012 to 8.5 percent last year. Since 2006, some $1.5 trillion has been invested in .

But uncertainty about future global energy policy—as well as declining cost of solar power systems—meant the total amount invested in renewables fell by $35.1 billion to $214.4 billion, according to the Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment report released by the U.N. Environment Program.

Explore further: Renewable energy market share climbs despite 2013 dip in investments

More information: IPCC website: www.ipcc.ch

3.8 /5 (13 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate meeting to discuss future of fossil fuels

Apr 05, 2014

After concluding that global warming almost certainly is man-made and poses a grave threat to humanity, the U.N.-sponsored expert panel on climate change is moving on to the next phase: what to do about it.

Renewable energy 'increasing' but 2030 target in doubt

Jan 16, 2013

The share of renewables in the global energy mix has increased over the past decade to more than 15 percent but doubts remain over whether a 2030 target of 30 percent is achievable, delegates to an international ...

Japan posts top growth in clean energy

Apr 03, 2014

Japan last year stepped up spending on clean energy at a faster rate than any other country, despite a drop in the world's overall investment, a study said Thursday.

Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

Jan 17, 2014

The next 15 years will be vital in determining whether global warming can be limited to 2C (3.6F) by 2100, with energy and transport presenting the heftiest challenges, according to a draft UN report.

Recommended for you

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

4 hours ago

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

Dec 19, 2014

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
I can't confirm 7.8% figure.
http://www.iea.or...2013.pdf
I see 10% for biofuel, and <1% for combined solar, wind and geothermal. Perhaps the key is "excluding large hydro"? Which doesn't make any sense: while small hydro might be "enviromentally correct" it is fundamentally the same as large hydro. (Otherwise, what magic number differentiates the two?)

To summarize, your beloved solar and wind fails to make a dent in world energy production chart. It is time to stop wasting money on crippled ideas.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2014
Some interesting reading.
http://www.ucsusa...nce.html
Pejico
Apr 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2014
Anyone recall the scene in "Trading Places" then the Duke brothers discover the table have been turned on them. The skinny one was apoplectic.
Reminds of the AGWites who post here and the flood of doomsday reports being issued and posted by the completely unbiased phys.org.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
If we consider, that the global warming is mostly of geothermal origin and the most efficient way for the replacement of carbon emissions is the cold fusion, I don't think, that the enlightenment is what the mainstream science provides. The so-called "green-solution" just http://www.nature...993.html the fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis.


Whooeei, Zephyr, this is you this time, eh? Ol Ira would recognize that "the cold fusion" anywhere. How you been Neg? They keep telling me that you are here but I don't see you. You undercover again Cher? Is it because of the AWT business again?
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2014
Enlightenment. Sounds like a great name for a Pot Shop!
Spadia
Apr 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2014
They aren't calling for murder, yet:
"Dowd wrote in her Sunday column that she wished Washington resembled Westoros — and that she could witness the murders of entire families, gaze upon stakes bearing defeated foes' heads, and watch House Republicans get their throats slit a la the infamous Red Wedding.

Read more: http://dailycalle...yI5GU31E
no fate
5 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2014
Some interesting reading.
http://www.ucsusa...nce.html


Great link. Too bad certain people can't differentiate between climate science and politics.

For instance, nobody who read this article gives a crap about Dowd's feelings regarding her political competition and TV viewing habits...except one person who somehow felt there was a link between the two.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Apr 08, 2014
Too bad certain people can't differentiate between climate science and politics.

Too bad climate scientists, and the union of 'concerned' scientists can't differentiate between climate science and politics.

BTW, do you believe the UCS are politically agnostic or unbiased? If so, there is a bridge for sale in NYC.
no fate
4.6 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2014
Ryggesogn2,

For me it is about the science, period. The information provided by studying the variables that can be associated with any effect will eventually lead to a better understanding of the cause.

Anything stated beyond the variables provided by nature are someones point of view, someones interpretation of the info. Sometimes it's right, sometimes not...but this is the crap shoot that is the human perspective right?

Are Dowds remarks even close to warranted? No, she expressed a desire to see multiple decapitation of people who are nothing more than a pain in her ass. People who likely have children, parents, and are probably not evil people. It just has nothing to do science.

"Too bad climate scientists, and the union of 'concerned' scientists can't differentiate between climate science and politics."

I agree that political manipulation of scientific information happens too, on both sides...there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. The nature of the bias tells all.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
For me it is about the science, period.

Good for you.
That is NOT what it is about for AGWites.
If it is all about science for Mann, why is he suing a critic?
The only reason IPCC exists is because of politics, not science.
No real scientist can ever say any science is settled. But that is what we are told all climate scientists say.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
For me it is about the science, period.

Good for you.
That is NOT what it is about for AGWites.
If it is all about science for Mann, why is he suing a critic?
The only reason IPCC exists is because of politics, not science.
No real scientist can ever say any science is settled. But that is what we are told all climate scientists say.


FFS ryggy get off your bloody soap-box - it's beyond tiring now. Are you on piece rate?
Your rantings on here will/don't make a jot of difference to the science or those of us that know it.
Politics is all with you and a particularly obnoxious brand of politics to boot.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2014
This article is ALL about politics.
Rajendra Pachauri is no scientist. Not even a climate scientist.

TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
Enlightening image indeed. Those gigantic, earth scorching machines are photo shot ... in Germany. The leader in environmentally inclined thinking.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
Enlightening image indeed. Those gigantic, earth scorching machines are photo shot ... in Germany. The leader in environmentally inclined thinking.


Earth scorching !........I'm all ears to learn of this latest scientific revelation.

If you mean they reach a high temp in full sun ... then so?
They get no hotter than black tarmac - and I think you'll find that there's rather a lot of that covering the planet.
And then many are placed on roof tops, which would get hot if the panels weren't there anyway.
Be glass-half empty - it suits your ideological denialism - but solar may yet save the world with it's provision of unlimited "free" energy that is available now at increasing efficiencies and reducing costs.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2014
This article is ALL about politics.
Rajendra Pachauri is no scientist. Not even a climate scientist.



Only in the mind of someone who filters everything, and I mean everything it seems, through a political lens .............which is why you have no place on here, a scientific website/forum.
no fate
5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
This article is ALL about politics.
Rajendra Pachauri is no scientist. Not even a climate scientist.



Only in the mind of someone who filters everything, and I mean everything it seems, through a political lens .............which is why you have no place on here, a scientific website/forum.


This is an accurate assessment Rygg. You seldom, if ever want to discuss the actual data and the techniques behind it's aquisition, instead targeting people and their view about "something". In this case a person not even related to the articles content who was expressing a personal vandetta against other people who also have nothing to do with science.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on any topic of discussion, but if your opinion can be, at best, tenuously connected to the topic of discussion, or as Runrig's evaluation, always stems from the same political bias, who are you trying to reach?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2014
You seldom, if ever want to discuss the actual data and the techniques behind it's aquisition

Because in the end it really becomes a 'he said/she said' and the papers are usually short 'letter' type papers that only someone working in the field can make use of the jargon.
I have asked many times for how deep sea temperatures are measured below 4km as half of the ocean is below 4km (at least that is the average value, I can't find any data on the median depth of the ocean), and what is the temporal and spatial distribution of that data.
One big assumption about CO2 is that it is 'well mixed'. That has been discovered not to be true.
There are two components to 'climate science', one is collecting data on what has happened in the recent past. The other part is using that data to anchor complex climate models with many, many assumptions that have recently been demonstrated to not be accurate in predicting the future.
The other part is 'call to action' predicting calamity.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2014
Another issue runny and the fellow AGWites won't discuss is how someone like Dyson,Lindzen and Christy don't know anything, but a meteorologist like runny knows all about climate.
AGWites are very quick to challenge the credentials, and motivations, of anyone who challenges their faith, but are very slow to defend the credentials and motivations of their fellow travelers.
The American Physical Society has invited Lindzen, Christy and Curry to be on a six member panel to draft its next climate statement. Maybe the word 'indisputable' will be dropped and the 'science' will no longer be 'settled'?
no fate
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2014
"AGWites are very quick to challenge the credentials, and motivations,"

I can't disagree, It is a debate tactic used by a participant in a discussion who has just been smacked in the face with hard data they don't know what to do with or just had a flaw in their logic exposed. (Or sometimes it is a response due to an attack on the integrity of someone whom they support)
But I see this more from the denialist crowd because the arsenal of data supports AGW. I don't believe raw data is a he said/she said thing, manipulated data is...but if the data manipulations are shown against the raw numbers with logical explanations for exclusions it is up to the personal judgment of the reader at which point any bias will be exposed. When they say the science is "settled", I take that to mean that:
A - humans produce GHG's, some of which linger a long time
B - Humans are releasing stored energy, most of which as heat

Therefore earth is warmer than it would be without our presence.

con't...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2014
"Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that "communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society" rather than "on the reality of climate change and averting its risks."

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?"
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2014
But I see this more from the denialist crowd because the arsenal of data supports AGW.

So why do the AGWites say 'the science is settled' and accuse Lindzen and other of being on the payroll of 'big oil'?
If the 'arsenal of data' supports AGW, why must the 'consensus' be pushed by AGWites and why have many scientists balked at the claim AGWism is 'indisputable'?
And as noted above in the NYT, why have the AGWites NOT embraced nuclear power?
And why has Lovelock called AGWism a religion?

Therefore earth is warmer than it would be without our presence.

And has been MUCH warmer LONG before humans existed.
no fate
5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
If A and B continue at the current rate, we will kill most of the life on this planet...the only question is how long can the earths systems "filter" our crap?

Regarding the Ocean, it's average depth is 4KM, this means half of the volume is below 2KM and although it isn't extensively sampled, it is sampled alot more than even 15 years ago because of the climate issue.

The calamity predictions almost always result from the potential for triggering a feedback...2C over 100 years could lead to 6C over 200 years. Calamity as far as the human race is concerned is one feedback away from you and I living it. We simply do not know how the earth's systems will react to what we are doing, hence the models. Which of course are laiden with assumptions, all of our models are, and yes alot will be proven to be wrong, but models are revised when an assumed variable becomes a measured one and the models keep getting a little bit better. Such is the scientific process.
no fate
5 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2014
So why do the AGWites say 'the science is settled' and accuse Lindzen and other of being on the payroll of 'big oil'?
If the 'arsenal of data' supports AGW, why must the 'consensus' be pushed by AGWites and why have many scientists balked at the claim AGWism is 'indisputable'?
And as noted above in the NYT, why have the AGWites NOT embraced nuclear power?
And why has Lovelock called AGWism a religion?

Therefore earth is warmer than it would be without our presence.

And has been MUCH warmer LONG before humans existed.


The answer to your first four questions is that he said/she said stuff, not really anything I worry about because you could drive yourself crazy trying to find the real truth behind any of them.

The much warmer thing brings us back to that impending calamity. Any of the drivers behind a warmer climate in the past occurring now would be catastrophic for the human race.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
What impending calamity?
Maybe the MWP caused the calamity of the invading Vikings.
From historical climate data, climates in the past have been less friendly than today.
AGWites 12,000 years ago would think the melting glaciers were a calamity.
catastrophic for the human race.

Humans have survived, and thrived in climates ranging from Arctic to desert for tens of thousands of years.
What is worse than has occurred int the past 200,000 years?
no fate
5 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
"What is worse than has occurred int the past 200,000 years?"

Having to feed 71/2 billion immobile people who are all bound to a monetary based global society.

The impending calamity are the people who suffer or die while the earth changes to it's new warmer self, and all of the things that connect with this that we know will result, and all of the possible things that could result, and maybe even a "whoa, we never saw this coming...WTF do we do???"

It is illogical to compare any situation the earth may have been in in the past with today. 71/2 billion people is simply too large of a variable to just "blend" in. The lifestyles of this population as compared to those of the MWP do not afford the same "outs" when things go wrong.

Simply stated, compared to any peoples of the past...we are pussies, and there are way more of us.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
he people who suffer or die

More have suffered and died due to communism and murder by state than because of climate.
Why no protests against socialism?
It is illogical to compare any situation the earth may have been in in the past

So you admit humanity WON"T be wiped out by any climate change. Only the weak ones will die. Why lie?
Socialism has done more to destroy agriculture than climate, yet no protests against socialism. Why?
Because the AGWites need a totalitarian state to impose their grand plan to save humanity.
If such a calamity ever happens, it will be the AGWites and their fellow travelers, the weak ones, who will be the first to go as they are too dependent upon the state for sustenance.

runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
So why do the AGWites say 'the science is settled' and accuse Lindzen and other of being on the payroll of 'big oil'?
If the 'arsenal of data' supports AGW, why must the 'consensus' be pushed by AGWites and why have many scientists balked at the claim AGWism is 'indisputable'?
And as noted above in the NYT, why have the AGWites NOT embraced nuclear power?
And why has Lovelock called AGWism a religion?


ryggy:
You would have to ask them.
Why do you not realise that mankind comes in many guises. Please name me anything that humans are 100% in agreement of (apart from the obvious).
There will ALWAYS be people with contrary opinion. Why is this a surprise to you?
And why would you want 100% agreement?
The answer to that is obvious - you are a biased.
Why do you not understand the validity of probability?
Google quantum theory and realise that everything flows from probability.

Therefore it matters not a jot who disagrees with the consensus - only that there is a consensus.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2014
And why would you want 100% agreement?

You keep claiming 97% consensus is close enough to 100%.

it matters not a jot who disagrees with the consensus

That's the beauty of science. All that is required is ONE individual to prove the emperor has no clothes and the 'consensus' evaporates.
Recall the consensus of eugenics?

There WAS a 40 year consensus that all fat was bad for you.
"And for 40 years now, saturated fat — found in high amounts in meat, cheese and other full-fat dairy products — has been one of our top nutritional demons."
'the authors of a new meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that there's insufficient evidence to support the long-standing recommendation to consume saturated fat in very low amounts."
http://www.npr.or...idelines
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2014
What about the consensus regarding the cause of ulcers?

"I was unsuccessfully attempting to infect an animal model. There was interest and support from a few but most of my work was rejected for publication and even accepted papers were significantly delayed. I was met with constant criticism that my conclusions were premature and not well supported. When the work was presented, my results were disputed and disbelieved, not on the basis of science but because they simply could not be true. It was often said that no one was able to replicate my results. This was untrue but became part of the folklore of the period. I was told that the bacteria were either contaminants or harmless commensals.

At the same time I was successfully experimentally treating patients who had suffered with life threatening ulcer disease for years. Some of my patients had postponed surgery which became unnecessary after a simple 2 week course of antibiotics and bismuth. "
http://www.nobelp...l_prizes
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2014
And why would you want 100% agreement?

You keep claiming 97% consensus is close enough to 100%.


It is !

As close as statistically makes no difference.
Again do some study on probability.

Now, look at this logically (difficult, if not impossible for you I know).
NOTHING would bloody well get done if 100% unanimity were required.
FFS !!!!!!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
As close as statistically makes no difference.

But science is not statistics.
If the null hypothesis is "All climate scientists believe AGW", and the test statistic is 97%, you can only reject or fail to reject the hypothesis.
"This year's Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine made the remarkable and unexpected discovery that inflammation in the stomach (gastritis) as well as ulceration of the stomach or duodenum (peptic ulcer disease) is the result of an infection of the stomach caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori."
http://www.nobelp...ess.html
In this case, the probability function that h pylori caused ulcers collapsed to 1.
Marshall, too was in the .001%, but he was CORRECT.
A 97% consensus, or any consensus in science is meaningless.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014

A 97% consensus, or any consensus in science is meaningless.


Are you really obtuse or is this just for show?
No, I'm really interested to know.
You're talking in bloody circles and tying the issue in knots my friend.

It's quite simple - try looking at the tails of a normal curve and then perhaps get a gun that has a 100 shot magazine with 3 bullets taken out at random.
Now point the thing at your temple and pull the trigger.
Care to take a bet/do it my friend ?

And you're prepared to do that with the planet.
My and everyone elses planet. The only one we've got.
Selfish/stupid F****

As I said, and with more feeling than you can imagine my friend - FFS !
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
But I see this more from the denialist crowd because the arsenal of data supports AGW.

So why do the AGWites say 'the science is settled' and accuse Lindzen and other of being on the payroll of 'big oil'?
If the 'arsenal of data' supports AGW, why must the 'consensus' be pushed by AGWites and why have many scientists balked at the claim AGWism is 'indisputable'?
And as noted above in the NYT, why have the AGWites NOT embraced nuclear power?
And why has Lovelock called AGWism a religion?

Therefore earth is warmer than it would be without our presence.

And has been MUCH warmer LONG before humans existed.


Well bugger me ! ryggy gets something right.

Err - for well known reasons my friend.
And reasons which do NOT apply now.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
And reasons which do NOT apply now.


Well, unfortunately those reasons DO apply now and always apply because they're a part of the "natural system". They are there no matter what we do or don't do. Which is bad news for us all potentially.

I think the point is that we know, as a fact, that the Earth can get 12 degrees F hotter than it is now and not hit a "catastrophic" tipping point. The other point is that just a few degrees hotter could be pretty damned rough on human civilization. Moreover since the mechanism is different now that it was then it's less predictable.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
The other point is that just a few degrees hotter could be pretty damned rough on human civilization.


Even worse when it's a few degrees colder.

Runny has faith that the science is correct because he and the AGWites assert that 97% of the climate scientists say it is so.
Nearly 100% of the scientists said that the planets were contained in shells orbiting the sun meaning that no one could ever observe the dark side of Venus. Galileo did and destroyed the consensus.
Asserting consensus means you can't really support your assertions with hard data and the GCMs are bearing this out as does the hysteria of the AGWites.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
"What the deniers are peddling, Miller argues, is not science but politics, and the public should be informed that their views are rejected by 97% of scientists. Just where the figure of 97% came from Miller does not say; but he is adamant that all government ministers should acquaint themselves with the science of climate change, and be prepared to speak with one voice, accepting collective responsibility for the official opinion, which will be his opinion and the opinion of his committee.

The invocation of collective responsibility is revealing. For this implies that the orthodoxy Miller adheres to is, after all, not simply a matter of science, but a 'party line' that must be supported for the sake of policy."
"I concluded that 'climate change science' is not one thing, but the amalgamation of many disciplines and that its predictions, such as they are, depend at every point on disputed 'models' rather than established theories. "
http://www.forbes...14/04/08
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
And reasons which do NOT apply now.


Well, unfortunately those reasons DO apply now and always apply because they're a part of the "natural system". They are there no matter what we do or don't do. Which is bad news for us all potentially.

I think the point is that we know, as a fact, that the Earth can get 12 degrees F hotter than it is now and not hit a "catastrophic" tipping point. The other point is that just a few degrees hotter could be pretty damned rough on human civilization. Moreover since the mechanism is different now that it was then it's less predictable.


Wasn't my implication obvious?
Err - orbital characteristics!!!!!!!
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
"What the deniers are peddling, Miller argues, is not science but politics, and the public should be informed that their views are rejected by 97% of scientists. Just where the figure of 97% came from Miller does not say; but he is adamant that all government ministers should acquaint themselves with the science of climate change, and be prepared to speak with one voice, accepting collective responsibility for the official opinion, which will be his opinion and the opinion of his committee.

The invocation of collective responsibility is revealing. For this implies that the orthodoxy Miller adheres to is, after all, not simply a matter of science, but a 'party line' that must be supported for the sake of policy."
"I concluded that 'climate change science' is not one thing, but the amalgamation of many disciplines and that its predictions, such as they are, depend at every point on disputed 'models' rather than established theories. "

Is Nik_from_NYC back?
Quotes are not science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
Quotes are not science.

Consensus is not science.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
Quotes are not science.

Consensus is not science.


Cripes ryggy - that's two correct statements in as many days.

The science is the individual conclusion that 97% of climate scientists come to.
Consensus is what give us a (overwhelming) probabilistic reason to act.
Get the difference?
It's not even subtle my friend.

Oh, BTW - tried that experiment with the gun yet?
obviously not as you're still here.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
Rgg2 said: "Nearly 100% of the scientists said that the planets were contained in shells orbiting the sun meaning that no one could ever observe the dark side of Venus. Galileo did and destroyed the consensus."

Actually, the 100% you are talking about were not scientists in the way we know the word now. Instead, they were Philosophers or Alchemists. At that time science, as we know it, based on mathematics and experimentation was still in the future. Those who did dabble in some experimentation were, generally, trying to turn lead to gold (not too successfully). There was very little theory and mathematics was a discipline of its own, not something applied to the world we live in. Even today we might get a range of answers to scientific questions about the orbits of planets from philosophers (which is why they don't find ready employment these days). It seems to be a very weak argument to me that the philosophers of the day were wrong (they were but it doesn't count).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
"All of science is advanced by the toil of experimenters who cleverly design methods and apparatus (such as Galileo's novel telescope) to measure natural phenomena. It is solely by convincing and reproducible empirical results that science advances; there is no other method. Consensus has nothing to do with it. "
"It is incumbent on climate scientists to make predictions derived from their theories about phenomena that can be observed over the next few years. Indeed, it is their scientific duty as proponents of the theory to provide the experimental evidence, and not the responsibility of the skeptics to disprove it. Those are the established rules of science. "
"Consensus-building falls in the realm of politics not science. "
http://www.americ...sus.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
"It is incumbent on geologists, meteorologists and climatologists to reclaim their science for the exaggerations of Al Gore et al. Whether one is a proponent of man-made global warming or not, one should denounce as nonsense such alarmist claims as 20-foot increases in sea level. Climate-change scientists should publish testable predictions that can be measured within a reasonable amount of time in order to provide empirical proof for their science. "
"Finally, those who denounce their scientific brethren as "deniers", calling for them to be stripped of their titles and positions, should themselves be branded by all scientists as unscientific Inquisitors who are equivalent to the persecutors of Galileo. "

http://www.americ...sus.html
What quantifiable predictions made 7 years ago, when this article was written, have quantifiable observations today?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
"Last month the Australian science agency CSIRO announced that astronomers using the Parkes radio telescope had once again confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity. "
"But why test general relativity at all? Conventional wisdom is that relativity was proven decades ago, and has long been a part of the fabric of modern physics. "
"While that conventionally is the end of the story in the quest to prove general relativity, Einstein's Jury demonstrates that the effort to confirm the theory was just beginning. Even after the Eddington expedition many astronomers sought additional evidence, and some physicists remained unconvinced that relativity was correct. Only by the late 1920s and early 1930s, after several other efforts turned up evidence that supported general relativity did the theory have the consensus of the physics community."
http://www.thespa...le/714/1
Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
"It is incumbent on geologists, meteorologists and climatologists to reclaim their science for the exaggerations of Al Gore et al. Whether one is a proponent of man-made global warming or not, one should denounce as nonsense such alarmist claims as 20-foot increases in sea level. Climate-change scientists should publish testable predictions that can be measured within a reasonable amount of time in order to provide empirical proof for their science. "
"Finally, those who denounce their scientific brethren as "deniers", calling for them to be stripped of their titles and positions, should themselves be branded by all scientists as unscientific Inquisitors who are equivalent to the persecutors of Galileo. "

http://www.americ...sus.html
What quantifiable predictions made 7 years ago, when this article was written, have quantifiable observations today?

Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2014
@ryggy
Show us ONE instance of scientist calling for a denier "to be stripped of their titles and positions".
Vietvet
3 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2014
@ryggy
"the favorite prescriptions of climate alarmists for remedying "global fever" directly imply the need for world taxes, world government and a planned global economy, all standing socialist dreams."

Why did you leave that part out?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2014
@ryggy
Show us ONE instance of scientist calling for a denier "to be stripped of their titles and positions".

Only one?
"We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding of scientific consensus."
https://theconver...nt-23111
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2014
@ryggy
Since when has a philospher become a scientist?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Hmmm... enlightenment...really!!
Well, if their deceit...errr..excuse me, religion...errr...sorry, "science" has failed them, then what is a CULT to do??
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
@ryggy
Since when has a philospher become a scientist?

He is a professor and has PhD.
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
@ryggy
Since when has a philospher become a scientist?

He is a professor and has PhD.

But he is NOT a scientist.

Still waiting for ONE SCIENTIST calling for a denier "to be stripped of their titles and postions".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2014
"We learned over the weekend that chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD has been summarily fired from his position as a "Senior Instructor" in the Department of Chemistry."
" Dr. Drapela is an outspoken critic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the official religion of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Democratic Party, and Governor John Kitzhaber.

Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer. Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired. ("
http://wattsupwit...versity/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2014
"Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges."
"Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.""
http://www.telegr...ial.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2014
"Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson accused the White House of running an unprecedented pressure campaign against journalists, claiming they are pursuing a "particularly aggressive, well-organized" strategy "designed to have some kind of a chilling effect" on the American press.

Read more: http://dailycalle...ynenEcrC

As the press are intimidated by the state, why won't the scientists, are are funded by the state, be intimidated to provide the state with what it demands?
Vietvet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2014
"We learned over the weekend that chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD has been summarily fired from his position as a "Senior Instructor" in the Department of Chemistry."
" Dr. Drapela is an outspoken critic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the official religion of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Democratic Party, and Governor John Kitzhaber.

Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer. Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired. ("
http://wattsupwit...versity/

There is more to the story about Nickolas Drapela. He was one of a hundred teachers whose contracts were nor renewed. He had been highly vocal and public about his paranoid views that AGW was a New World Order conspiracy since at least 2007. His only scientific arguments against AGW Con
Vietvet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2014
Con't

consist of simplistic denialist talking points.

He wasn't totally truthful about his meeting with his department dean. He was asked for his MASTER key to the building but received a key to his office. And he was payed through September to work at home.

The privacy policy at OSU wont allow them to publicly comment on anyone being released and IMHO Drapela knows more than he admits.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.