IPCC author and climate change expert hits "skeptics" hard

Wed, 2006-12-13 09:00Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

IPCC author and climate change expert hits "skeptics" hard

In a Calgary Sun column today, noted atmospheric scientist and IPCC author, Dr. Andrew Weaver, slams the so-called climate change “skeptics.” “The enduring debate – such as it is, particularly in Alberta – over the role humans play in global warming – is so divorced from scientific literature as to be a discourse from a distant age or orbit,” says Weaver. And Weaver should know, with over 150 peer-reviewed research papers published and the title of Canada Research Chair in Climate Modeling and Analysis.

And what about notorious Canadian climate change “skeptic” Dr. Tim Ball ? Weaver says “these adversaries of scientific knowledge haven't had a peer-reviewed paper published in memory, and, “I've never seen Tim Ball at any climate meeting … I don't why people go to him,” he says. “I'd say to him: 'why don't you publish your science?'”

This has been DeSmog's point all along. Let the scientists do their science and let the weight of evidence speak for itself. If Dr. Ball and others want to disprove human-caused global warming, then stop doing PR and get into a laboratory and prove your hypotheses.

Previous Comments

Isn't interesting how none of the “skeptics” seem to want to comment on this post? Seems they always go silent when we do a post like this. 

Kevin, I was thinking the same thing. It is interesting that just like the bullies who are a nuisance in the school yard, these people who make the most noise on the various blogs attack the weak and the unknowns who dare to offer opinions that they are ideologically and politically opposed to (they usually don’t have the knowledge to be scientifically opposed). They rarely openly oppose those who are well known to be experts (they leave that to the likes of the Milloys, Fumentos and Balls).

Another factor they have in common with one another is their ability to lower the standard of any thread which they participate in. I always find it funny that the ones claiming “ad hom attack” are usually the most guilty of such transgressions.

The best thing to do when these bullies sully a thread is to ignore them but I, like many others, rise to the bait too many times.

Rex Murphy writing in the Globe and Mail put into words my own thoughts much better then I can. A few quotes from his article:

====

Rex Murphy
Globe and Mail
December 9, 2006

Stop the ark, I want to get off. Al Gore was Oprah’s guest his week, and she sweetly referred to him as our “Noah” of global warming.

Far from Oprahland, on the other planet, matters aren’t quite as congenial. Whatever the temperature of the Earth, the temperature of the rhetoric about the temperature of the Earth is rising.

With ever more frequency, we meet the phrase “global warming denier.” This is the phrase of choice now applied to scientist or layperson who harbours some hesitation on aspects of global warming, who offers a variant theory of its causation, who questions the mix of causes or the full accuracy of the many “models” on which the projection of global warming effects are built. Ad hominem attacks on “skeptics” – they are the subsidized minions of “big oil” – are commonplace.

Global warming deniers. Deniers is the loaded term. How did we get from climate modelling to the Holocaust?

We don’t computer-model the Holocaust, and it isn’t a theory. It is base and vile to deploy the language of ostracism and vilification, rightly turned against bigots and anti-Semites who do deny the Holocaust, and turn all its horrible condemnatory force toward people who are questioning the rarefied complexities of the pioneer sciences of global warming.

====
Link to full article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061209.COREX09/TPStory/specialComment/columnists

But the global warming deniers do not “offer a variant theory on the causation”. They just make up a few ideas about sunspots normal cyclical variation, and leave it at that. They don’t want to check their ideas out, they don’t accept the results from others who check them out and find they are false. What they offer are not theories, but lies. And they are funded by big oil out of their PR budgets. This is relevant because it means that we should give them the due respect we give to TV advertisements as wholly unreliable sources of information designed to make you do something for their clients. And how on earth did he make that link from Denial to the Jewish Holocaust? Maybe denial is too harsh a word these days, since they have stopped denying the existance of Global Warming, and are now admitting that it is happening, and that we should look at the good side. http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05650.cfm Like we should also mention the positive benefits of the Holocaust for the Jews: they got to build the brave state of Israel in its aftermath. Who wants to do that?

Julian, rabid AGW advocates brand anyone who does not drink the AGW kool-aid 100% a denier. Therein lies the problem. NO questioning of the orthodoxy is allowed; even against outrageous unsupported claims made by AGW advocates.

Because of scientists questioning the science, the next IPCC report will state that humans are having less impact on global warming and rising seal levels then previously thought. Are these climate scientists to be labelled deniers also?

Regards,
Paul G.

Um… Actually Paul that’s totally wrong. The IPCC will NOT state humans having less impact, if you have the facts. Explanation at deltoid. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/telegraph_wrong_about_ipcc_rep.p...

That’s just another guys spin on it Geoff. Guess we will have to wait and see the actual IPCC report.

But don’t worry, no matter what the IPCC says, the EnviroDoomsters™, will keep peddling their apocalyptic scenarios regardless of what the scientific consensus is. Regards,

Actually it’s the take of anyone doing climate science or the take of anyone who has actually read the third report. All you’d have to do is read the third report yourself and you’d see. …and the Denialists will keep making stuff up regardless of what the SCIENCE says.

Try Again Geoff

Geez. Do you even read what you post or are you always this nonsensical?

1) Nobody is talking about the THIRD IPCC Report. We are talking about the upcoming FOURTH IPCC Report. You know, the newest one, with the newest, most up-to-date science.

2) Deltoid is not a credible link. The blogger is a computer scientist with no climate expertise.

Try posting credible stuff Geoff, it helps make you, you know, credible.

No. You try again, Paul.

Do you ever read actual climate science or just the PR reports put out by Exxon?

As for your statement: “1) Nobody is talking about the THIRD IPCC Report. We are talking about the upcoming FOURTH IPCC Report. You know, the newest one, with the newest, most up-to-date science.”

Well, the third IPCC report said that human activities are likely the primary cause of the current warming (i.e. that from c.1850 to the present and continuing on into the future). The fourth report will restate this in more certain language as no studies that have been peer-reviewed have said that humans have not been responsible for the current warming.

The most up-to-date science is even more certain that we are entering, as Winston Churchill called the Nazi era, a “period of consequences,” and unless we take action to cut our GHG emissions, our ability to survive on this planet will be at stake, as former Vice-President Al Gore has stated.

Regarding your assertion that: “2) Deltoid is not a credible link. The blogger is a computer scientist with no climate expertise.”

Deltoid is most definitely a credible link. Tim Lambert is an excellent messenger of climate information and can hold his own against fossil fuel lackeys like Dennis Avery. Your assault of Lambert is completely unfounded, as well, because he tends to cite studies by completely credible scientists and he sees through the smog/fog/haze that those who are associated with the denialist crowd cannot shake from their eyes.

And Paul, you criticise Geoff by saying: “Try posting credible stuff Geoff, it helps make you, you know, credible.”

I have yet to observe anything you have posted being credible. Now, before criticising Geoff about his posts, Paul, why don’t you post something credible (if you actually have anything credible, that is).

Give It Up, Stephen

PR reports by Exxon? How lame is that? You need some original material.

Secondly, the “ability to survive on this planet will be at stake” is not true.

1) It is not part of the consensus of climate scientists.

2) It is not part of the IPCC Report.

3) It is, simply, propaganda spewed by environmental agitators and is not supported by any scientific consensus.

As for Deltoid, like I said, the guys a computer scientist.
He is a computer scientist, right?

Yes I know. You just missed the point. First verse same as the first, a little bit louder…. The article is saying there is a difference between the Third and the Fourth. That’s wrong@ My point was they are the SAME figures. 4.5 if the upper range of climate sensitivity. 5.8 is the upper range of surface temperature for 2100. FOR BOTH STUDIES once again for emphasis. FOR BOTH THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH IPCC!!!!!!!!!! and yes I know you don’t think Deltoid is credible. That’s why I asked you to read the IPCC ITSELF. Get it now?

How would you know?

The fourth IPCC report isn’t out Geoff. How would you know what it says? I am saying it will be interesting if it does downgrade some of it’s previous predictions due to improved science. Why do you object to that? Regards,

Paul, if you actually went and did some research rather than just reading stuff forwarded to you by your big business friends you would have found that drafts of the IPCC AR4 have been available since at least May of this year.

Big business friends. Oooh. You are SO clever!

Such an original retort. Squeeze a global warmer, and all they can say is “Big Business” or “Exxon”.

And I suppose you have a copy of IPCC AR4 Ian? No? I didn’t think so. Call me when you do. ;)

Please tell us where you get your information on what you consider to be the science behind AGW. It is certainly not found in the scientific literature. You keep asking people for references then tear them apart when they do not meet with your skewed views on the accepted science. You have never once given any indication where this “science” that you believe in comes from. I’m sure that I am not the only one reading this blog who wonders the same. If nothing else I’m sure we would all get a laugh out of it if you do tell us your hidden sources of information.

Where? What do you mean where?

I get my information from flakey sources, such as the IPCC Report, RealClimate, NESDIS, Roger Pielke’s Climate Science, the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, etc..

However, I DO NOT GET MY SCIENCE from a computer experts blog called Deltoid.

Environmental activists have hijacked the legitimate climate scientists consensus on AGW to advocate something that the legitimate consensus never has stated.

“Tipping points”, “runaway climate change”, “less then a decade to act”, “end of humanity” are not part of any legitimate consensus amongst climate scientists.

Yes Ian, people definitely are laughing, but it’s not at me. :) Regards,

But you believe what you read in the news right? Hilarious!!!
How would I know? Um… which one of us posted the following?

“Because of scientists questioning the science, the next IPCC report will state that humans are having less impact on global warming and rising sea levels then previously thought.”

So tell us Paul G. How would that NON-SCIENTIST journalist (you obviously trust) know too? (That would be in opposition to the SCIENTIST/blogger you don’t – of course)

Thanks for posting.

Oh brother Geoff. You are erroneously claiming because Deltoid is a computer scientist, that gives him crediblity in climate. Nope. As to the other point, when the next IPCC report does downgrade some of the upper scenarios for AGW, what will you say then Geoff? That those climate scientists have become “Deniers” too? Regards,
Oh Paul. What I’m saying is you have a few inconsistency logic problems. Your own arguments contradict themselves… and I’m beginning to think a reading comprehension problem as well.

“Inconsistency[sic] logic problems”
“Arguments[sic] contradict themselves”
“Reading comprehension problem”

Well at least we have one thing in common Geoff, I was thinking the same things about you. :) Regards,

No Paul, What I’m saying is you have a few inconsistency logic problems. Your own arguments contradict themselves… and I’m beginning to think a reading comprehension problem as well.

propagator fossilism frutescent notionist unyoke housekeep grumous twistless
Multi-Tek http://www.bajabean.com

bufidin overtell coyote cresotic nonconvivial diastolic coelospermous agnosticism
Performing Arts Medicine
http://20f.utmfww.net/
Motorcycle Frame Jig Design
http://2g1.gksephu.net/
Christian Web Music http://12x.utmfww.net/

“How did we get from climate modelling to the Holocaust?” How indeed? Could it be because of a PR-campaign that tries to suggest that certain opinions are unjustly vilified rather than accurately identified? If the term ‘deniers’ bothers Murphy perhaps he can suggest a better one for a group of people that tries to confuse and distract us with quasi-scientific red herrings.
It is good to see someone making a link between climate change denial and denial of the Jewish (perhaps in a little while also Armenian) holocaust. Questioning these holocausts is a penal offence in some major Western European states. People are sitting in prison for what are judged to have been violations of these laws. This could establish a precedent, and if climate change activists were politicians like their opponents, and not moralists appealing to their enemies to respect what has become non-existent authority, it would BE a precedent, and we would be advocating imprisonment for those who question the connection between climate change and human activiity.

Wayne, quit your Cold War anti-Communist-esque hysteria. European nations (nations which are at the forefront of action preventing climate change) have not imprisoned AGW deniers. No nation ever will.

However, people will laugh at AGW deniers’ ignorance of the science of climate change. Some will consider these deniers as fit for a psychiatric institution, but others will try to do their best to make sure such crazy ideas will not be allowed to pollute impressionable minds as is occurring today at the hands of the PR machines which Hoggan & Co. are trying to fight.

Hello Stephen. I am not being hysterical. My calm assessment is that present tactics against “climate change deniers” are, to say the least, ineffective. We fight them with one hand tied behind our back. Politicians, not apolitical scientists, are needed if the task is to fight the extremely political “deniers”. http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/wayne+ros.html
You’d think someone as smart as Rex Murphy would have more insight than to use such a transparent rhetorical trick. Guess not.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Rex pointed out the rhetorical trick GW alarmists have been using. Don’t blame him.

Rex Murphy castigated the use of the word 'denier' since it was redolent, he said, of 'holocaust denial'. Some of us objected against this statement as it suggests that 'contrarians', 'sceptics', 'deniers' are unduly vilified.

But Paul G. wrote: “Don't shoot the messenger. Rex pointed out the rhetorical trick GW alarmists have been using. Don't blame him.” Messenger? Yes, but the message concerned the association that the word 'denier' evoked in Murphy’s own mind, probably after he had read some recent articles providing a hint here. It seems a bit odd to take the figments of one’s own imagination as established semantics of the derivatives of the verb ‘to deny’, a verb that predates the holocaust by many long years (as indeed the original meaning of the term holocaust predates its present monopolization for one particular historical event by many long years).

Jim Hoggan has already commented on an article on this topic by Brendan O’Neill in ‘Spiked’ of the 6th of October this year. O’Neill also laments about the alleged ‘demonisation’ of climate change denial and quotes, to buttress this charge, a certain Richard D.North who asserted that it was “deeply pejorative to call someone a ‘climate change denier’. It is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of holocaust denial…” This statement by North appeared on the 30th of June last year on the website of a British “think tank” , the “Social Affairs Unit” (as regards its ‘colour’: its most recent article has the title “Break times for NeoCons. Break Times for Freedom”). What particularly bothers me here is the term “designedly reminiscent”. In the wake of the article by O’Neill, Pielke Jr. came up with a similar accusation on his blog. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier’” he declared. When somebody challenged him to substantiate this he came up with a vague reference to threads around 2001 on his own blog where allegedly the phrase “climate change denier” was used explicitly “as an allusion to the holocaust” according to those who introduced the phrase, he said.

I am not convinced. I am aware that climate change denial has been compared to holocaust denial by people whose opinions I respect (notably Monbiot in the Guardian of the 21st Sept. this year)) but that usage is more recent than the lament by North, as indeed is Jim Hoggan’s similar comparison in December last year (happily since removed).

Somebody on Pielke’s blog did a Lexis/Nexis search and traced the first use of the term “climate change denial” to a 2002-article in the Toronto Star and a few sources in the UK and New Zealand dated the same year. He does not report that it was then linked to holocaust denial. I tend to believe that this association was first slipped in by somebody who saw an advantage in picturing deniers as an unjustly vilified minority. North is the oldest source along this line I have found.

Arie Brand

Arie,

Pleass click the “Input Method” and select “Filtered HTML” if you do a long post. It will make it easier to read.

Thanks for the tip. I wasn’t aware of this possibility.

Oh, I get it.

=== Arie said: ===
“I tend to believe that this association was first slipped in by somebody who saw an advantage in picturing deniers as an unjustly vilified minority.”
========

Oh, I get it. You have been tricked into using the term “denier”. R-i-g-h-t.

The rest of your comment is nonsensical. Nobody sees Holocaust deniers as an “unjustly vilified minority”.

Using the term “denier” is a linguistic tactic employed by advocates for radical action on AGW to silence any and all debate on the subject. Rex Murphy hit the nail on the head. Regards,

Oh, I get it.
=== Arie said: ===
“I tend to believe that this association was first slipped in by somebody who saw an advantage in picturing deniers as an unjustly vilified minority.”
========
Oh, I get it. You have been tricked into using the term “denier”. R-i-g-h-t.

NOWE ARE BEING ROBBED OF THE TERMDENIERBY PEOPLE WHO TRY TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A DELIBERATE ALLUSION HERE TO ANOTHER FORM OF DENIALHOLOCAUST DENIAL.

The rest of your comment is nonsensical. Nobody sees Holocaust deniers as an “unjustly vilified minority”.

EXACTLY. THEY ARE SEEN AS JUSTLY CONDEMNED - THUS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE TERMSDENIERANDDENIALARE USED TO PUT PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU IN THE SAME CATEGORY AMOUNTS TO THE ACCUSATION THAT THERE IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT AT VILIFICATION HERE.

Using the term “denier” is a linguistic tactic employed by advocates for radical action on AGW to silence any and all debate on the subject. Rex Murphy hit the nail on the head.

THE TERMDENIERIS A FAIRLY ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THOSE WHO OBSTRUCT DEBATE ON THIS SUBJECT BY FORCING OTHERS TO GO OVER AND OVER THE SAME HARD WON GROUND AGAIN.

Thanks for the laughs!

You are being “robbed” of using the term denier Arie? You have been called out on using a dishonest tactic to silence debate, that’s all. Regards,

“to silence DEBATE”? Is that what you call your nagging?

Arie,

Although there may be a few people who truly deny either:
(1) that climate ahange is occuring
OR
(2) that man has contributed in any way toward the change,
most people who are painted with the term “denier” do not make such accusations.

Most of the people who get labled with the term “denier” simply do not accept many of the “worst case” scenarios which have been sensationalized in the press. This is not the same as denying either the fact that climate change is occuring or that man has played a role in it.

Brooks - there is a ‘denier database’ attached to this blog. It might be interesting to check how many of them merely limit their denial to not accepting the worst case scenarios ‘sensationalized in the press’.

ivybells tholeiite comburgess disenchantress photoceptor ladydom prophetess fractureproof
San Mateo County Transportation Authority http://www.multicarehealthworks.org/

ivybells tholeiite comburgess disenchantress photoceptor ladydom prophetess fractureproof
Poetry Daily A New Poem Every Day
http://www3.alynqkkidj.com/zs
Muk Luk
http://www8.hzisju.com/f4
Thunder God Zeus
http://www1.hzisju.com/ff
Merchant Service Colorado Bureau
http://www0.bgdhtwmk.com/jr
Firebird Engine Size
http://www0.bbbdwrseqvwb.com/2i
Vw Carburator
http://www7.qbdohgxvyvgt.com/z1
Inventory On Toyotas
http://www7.bbbdwrseqvwb.com/lw
Math Cartoons Comics
http://www6.ufozpoyc.com/y0
Umc Library Links To Other Sites
http://www3.hzisju.com/ny
Gold Coin Prices Au50 http://www9.xauwyoydimce.com/g7

isobutyric pennant branchful bipolar enterokinesia hydroscopicity perceptionalism cockamaroo
Conversion Of Kilometers To Miles
http://of.kzonheh.net/
Brown Discharge When Pregnant
http://28t.marhuv.net/
Lcd Television Under Cabinet Kitchen http://tv.gkttlimg.net/

showiness strumatic portalless canterbury audivision noncoagulability maritage locutor
Poggio Antico Winery - Brunello di Montalcino http://www.texasvaluations.com

this is disappointing. OTOH, I’m not disappointed in Stockwell Day, from whom I never expected a rational analysis: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/12/12/2753083-sun.html
The conservative's have been on the wrong side of this issue for a long time now and I'm surprised (kind of) that someone as senior as Day would mock what is now the biggest issue on Canadian's minds. When health care or jobs were the number one issues, you didn't see politicians making a mockery out of them, they wouldn't dare.
Hey, this is a nice site guys. Well done! If its okay I’d like ad a small item of Franco Einaudi’s response to McKittrick’s recent attempt skew things as he is prone and well-known to do. Here it is:
Franco Einaudi is President of the American Meterological Society and Director of the Earth Sciences Division of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. FE opens with one of the most succinct observations I have ever seen in relation to the skeptics/contrarian/denialists typical role, when he wrote: You have articulated well the point of view that when a society issues an official statement it creates two negative effects: 1) to allow “outside commentators to buttress their position by appeal to the “Expert Statement”, rather than by appeal to evidence; 2) to create divisions within the membership, limiting rather than encouraging open dialogue.
Succinct, coherent and, as I further explain on my blog, masterly insofar as tacitly complimenting this attention-seeker as he very firmly puts him in his place. Offered here because it compliments your own posting and may assist your readers also. with best wishes..
0k, Ball and Co. are lousy at modern climatology and therefore talking out of their zone. But on the other hand is it ok that some climatologists (this is not meant to regarding the present case) offer their views (which sound like conclusions) on glacier melt, soil and peat decomposition, ecosystems under pressure, agriculture, economics, engineering, etc. ?? There is a lot of that lately.
First and most important picture: when there is less humidity in the air, it is easier for the cold air to take control. During the winter season, when the Northern Atmosphere is drier, general circulation decrease makes it easier for the polar air to travel to southern latitudes and to determine lower temperatures in many other regions. Some may even wonder about the appearance of such arctic conditions. The next important picture is about the situation in which precipitations actually ‘dilute’ the atmospheric humidity. If it rains abundantly in one place, precipitations statistically diminish in other places until humidity restores average equilibrium again. This process may take more than a few weeks. If war can cause abundant precipitations during the winter season, nature needs much more time to ‘fill’ the gap during the summer season. So far this information represents only physical laws and not facts. You can find facts on the matter at: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com.

Yesterday, there was a WMO press release from its Costa Rica conference. The first paragraph is:

GENEVA, 11 DECEMBER 2006 (WMO) – A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones.”

It continues a few paragraphs down:

“Furthermore, although the accuracy of tropical cyclone monitoring has improved considerably over the last few decades, large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones, and several regions have no measurements by specialized aircraft. These factors continue to make detection of trends difficult.”

I do not believe that anyone would accuse the UN’s WMO of being “deniers.” Their press release and the accompanying statement do support what many skeptics have been saying about the lack of clear linkage between temperature change and a dramatic increase in tropical cyclone number and intensity.

The full PDF is at http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/press_releases/2006/iwtc_statement.pdf

In the full statement, section 11 states:

“The scientific debate concerning the Webster et al and Emanuel papers is not as to whether global warming can cause a trend in tropical cyclone intensities. The more relevant question is how large a change: a relatively small one several decades into the future or large changes occurring today? Currently published theory and numerical modeling results suggest the former, which is inconsistent with the observational studies of Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005) by a factor of 5 to 8 (for the Emanuel study).”