If it’s Not Evil, Fraser Institute should open its books

UPDATE: the Calgary screening of Not Evil Just Wrong was today and nobody showed up - seems even in the oil patch they’re not interested.

We sent this out to our Canadian media distribution list. Will be interesting to see if the journalists who cover this Not Evil Just Wrong film ask the tough questions.

Here’s the release we put out:

The Fraser Institute has announced its support of a new film called Not Evil Just Wrong, which denies the realities of human-caused climate change. The producers of the film and the Fraser Institute must come clean on their motivations.

This isn’t the first time the producers of the film Not Evil Just Wrong have pushed out a pro-industry propaganda film. Their last effort was a pro-coal mining film called Mine Your Own Business, billed as a portrayal of the dark side of environmentalism and its campaign to halt mining development in third world countries.

It was later revealed that Mine Your Own Business was sponsored by Gabriel Resources, a Canadian mining company that was attempting to set up a gold strip mine in the Romanian village that was the subject of the film.

The Fraser Institute, an industry-backed think tank based in Vancouver, BC, is promoting the debut of the film, apparently as part of an ongoing campaign to lobby against action on climate change. (The Institute had sponsored cross-Canada tours by U.K. contrarians Nigel Lawson and Christopher Monckton within the last two weeks.)

This also tracks with a longer record of climate change contrarianism on the Institute’s behalf. It has frequently promoted speakers who deny or minimize the likely effects of climate change, and it sponsored a major attack on the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Although not forthcoming about the source of its funding, the Institute is also known to be a frequent recipient of grants from the fossil fuel industry. For instance, they have received $120,000 from oil giant ExxonMobil for work on climate change. The Fraser Institute has often called on government to increase openness and transparency – whether of Labour Relations Boards, Hospitals, or Schools - so such transparency should also be followed by the Fraser Institute.

“We’ve been following these guys for years”, said Kevin Grandia, managing editor of the climate change website DeSmogBlog.com. “Whenever someone says climate change is nothing to worry about, we ask three questions: 1) Are they a scientist?

2) If so, are they conducting and publishing research in the field (or have they ever)?

3) Are they receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry? In four years of research, we’ve hardly found anyone who can pass that test, and certainly no one who is associated with the Fraser Institute.”

“The current campaign coincides with preparations for Copenhagen climate summit, at which world powers will attempt to negotiate a follow-on agreement for the Kyoto Protocol. Reporters should be questioning that timing,” said Jim Hoggan, co-founder of the DeSmogBlog and author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: the crusade to deny global warming.

The Fraser Institute and the producers of this film have shown in the past their willingness to produce a pro-industry message, trumped up as an independent analysis, Hoggan said. Reporters should be asking who is paying for the production and promotion of this film. We should have a right to know if fossil fuel companies are behind this ongoing campaign, this inflammatory attack on accepted science.


The cover (thought it was a book at first) makes me laugh a little. They have the phrase “Not Evil” and then they use a picture of Gore with a Joker type smile. The message becomes “he’s evil, but we’re too nice to say so”

also the Flag being ripped to shreds and the word Hysteria in bold caps pretty much makes a mockery of the “Just Wrong” line

funny stuff.

The image of Al Gore is clearly photoshopped to make him look fatter and unsympathetic. So it seems that the deceit doesn’t even wait for the first frame of the film.

Should be entertaining watching the Denialists work themselves into a lather of excitement over a blatantly subjective and compromised attack piece!

The big lie is that coal and oil are the big spenders.. nope.. it is the greedy crowd:


“It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

The Summary

* The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
* Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
* Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
* Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
* The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?”

How many climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming?
How many disagree?
How many are there in total?
How many are receiving research funding predicated on their finding that global warming is manmade?
Do you believe only those that disagree?
I like to see what the Emeritus professors have to say - they are no longer obliged to seek research funding, and are therefore able to speak their minds. I find their honesty refreshing and informative.
Its hard to advance credibility to people, even in white coats, that are dependent on external bodies who provide their funding and their living. Its also hard to believe “environmental” journalists and activists who depend on this issue for their daily bread. Their only other option seems to be sportscasting - and green issues are so much sexier.

Rex Murphy nailed it:

“This is, or may be, the church of global warming’s Galileo moment – when observation of what is happening trumps the gloomy choir of consensus on what may”

It’s rather daring that Michael Ignatieff is putting “green policy” at the centre of his party’s pitch during the next election, whenever that longed-for bliss occurs. Daring, for the obvious reason that it was Stéphane Dion’s “green shift” – purest idealism built on a mud field of impenetrable prose – that so wounded his predecessor in the last election.

It’s daring for another reason, too. I do not know if Mr. Ignatieff visits the BBC News website these days. He was once an ornament of that venerated service, so perhaps he does. He may read there an interesting article on the precious topic of global warming. The BBC has been very friendly and supportive of AGW – so-called man-made (anthropogenic) global warming – and it is therefore a little surprising for those of us who follow the fortunes of the crusade to see this headline on a BBC story: What Happened to Global Warming?

It is not a headline that will please the pious. “Rank heresy,” I hear some of them sniff. Nor will they be pleased with the body of the story, which proceeds to offer, in this the Advent period of the great Copenhagen global warming conventicle, a highly inconvenient truth: “For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?”

Carbon dioxide has increased, temperatures have not: The models did not predict that incongruity. This is, or may be, the church of global warming’s Galileo moment – when observation of what is happening trumps the gloomy choir of consensus on what may.

Galileo didn’t work from consensus. Those who opposed and persecuted him worked on the consensus of centuries – that the Earth was the centre of the universe. The consensus multitude who tormented him are now a byword for folly and ignorance.

The BBC story makes many more interesting points that Mr. Ignatieff should read before he chains himself to another Liberal platform built around a response to global warming. Not least is the observation “that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.” But let’s jump to the last paragraph.

That paragraph blisters with the heresy of heresies: “One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” Is this possible in 2009? The debate is not over! I picture Al Gore reaching for the holy Evian water and loosing a jeremiad: “Out, apostates! By my hemp underwear, and in the name of Kyoto and the IPCC, by the heel and toe of the carbon footprint, I declare thee excommunicate and anathema. In the name of bicycle paths, twisty bulbs, windmills and slow-flush toilets, carbon offsets and compost heaps, I declare the BBC heretical.” Or something like that.

The BBC is not the only voice showing sprigs and shoots of independent thinking on global warming. From Ian Plimer, the Australian scientist, to Canada’s Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, brave men who debunked the infamous “hockey stick” graph, there are minds outside the herd.

There are many warning that the great rush to fix the planet, and re-engineer its economy in the middle of a huge recession, on the basis of incomplete science and vastly overblown advocacy from the world’s swarm of environmental lobbyists, NGOs, foundations, action groups, Greenpeace acrobats and UN politicians, may be terribly ill-advised. For those with eyes to see, and ears to hear, there have been throughout this whole global warming enterprise serious and well-informed minds asking for a second look, proposing alternative explanations, or qualifications to the idea that man-made CO2 is the sole or main driver of an impending apocalypse.

There are intellectual bubbles as often as there are economic ones. Y2K was a computer hysteria that cost billions. We even had, 30 plus years ago, a mini-bubble of “global cooling” anxiety. These are not hospitable grounds for a national party, in opposition, with a new leader, on which to build a platform for a coming election. A little intellectual hardihood on Mr. Ignatieff’s part, a little resistance to the cries of doom coming from the overheated zealots of the global warming consensus, would signal a streak of courage in his leadership.

Throwing the word “green” around, or building a national policy on its vague and trendy seductiveness is an escape from thinking, rather than an exercise in it. It is a genuflection to politically correct conventional wisdom. A little intellectual and political boldness would do Mr. Ignatieff a world of good right now, and right now is when he needs it most.

References please.

“For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.”

Actually, that’s not true. It’s interesting that you use the last “11 year” trend. Last year they were all going on about “no warming over the last 10 years”, and next year it will be “no warming over then last 12 years”.

Why? Because AGW deniers like to cherry pick their data and use unscientific manipulation techniques. It all goes back to 1998, the warmest year on record, the result of a dramatic el nino which mixed up everything on the earth for a whole year. AGW deniers like to pick this year as the starting point for their trends. Unfortunately cherry picking your data is highly unscientific.

The facts are: even if you cherry pick 1998 as your starting point, the trend is still upwards, slightly. If you use a 5 year moving average to plot temperatures over time, in order to even out outliers like 1998, then the warming has continued right up until now.

And that’s only surface temperatures. Global ocean heat content, which is significantly more important than surface temperatures because the heat capacity of water is 1000 times that of air, has gone dramatically up, right until today.

Your argument is null and void.

Check out McIntyres two hockey stick debunkings for Alarmist cherry picking.

If alarmists are allowed to do that and get through “peer review”, why are you complaining about deniers doing the same thing?

Oh.. it goes upsets the cool aid you have been drinking..

I have analysed the temperature record statistically using a Chow Test for the determination of breakpoints in the time series. Since 1950 there are three breakpoints (1976, 1986 and 1997). If one is to choose a start point for the analysis of a time period then the period after one of these breakpoints is a statistically valid point to start an analysis. And in the case of determining the most recent trend in temperature then one must analyse data after the most recent breakpoint. Therefore, 1998 is a VALID start point as it follows the 1997 breakpoint which represents the super El-Nino of that year.

A breakpoint represents a discontinuation of a time series that is caused by a phenomenon that disrupts the continuity of that time series.

To call 1998 as a starting point a cherry pick just shows the ignorance of statistical knowledge of the person accusing such.

You further state:

“The facts are: even if you cherry pick 1998 as your starting point, the trend is still upwards, slightly.”

This is a very disingenuous statement because the slight upward “trend” is not statistically significant (p<=0.34. To be statistically significant p must be less than 0.05) and therefore is not a trend at all. It is no different in probability terms than a zero increase in temperature.

Finally. My preliminary analysis of average sea surface temperature (i.e. the top 100m of the water column) for the Indian Ocean from the Argo float data show clearly a decline in SST and therefore ocean heat for the Indian Ocean of about 3 degrees celcius during the period between 2003 and 2009. Whilst this time period is short, your statement about ocean heating up to the current day is open to debate.

I am preparing a paper for publication in a peer reviewed journal. I will also publish it on my blog site in due course.

Energy & Environment will be Steckis’ most likely target. They’ll publish even complete nonsense, as long as it contradicts AGW (see Ernst-Georg Beck’s mockery of science).

You are aware that people will actually check your analysis and expect more than just “look what I see”? You’ll have to provide a credible explanation, and one that’s better than “look, a correlation”.

Of course. And my research is not correlation. It is a structural change analysis of a temperature time series.

…so let me try again: if you do a structural change analysis, you’d have to find a causative agent for the observed changes. And if you then come with solely a “correlation”, without explaining the physics, you’ll have a hard time getting it into anything but E&E.


One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. He is certainly no great orator, but he makes up for it with chutzpah. His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina. Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming. Likewise his Old Testament style prophecies of further disasters, such as floods due to a rise in sea level, greatly exceed the more modest claims of the “professionals”. As in the overthrow of the cities of the plain and other biblical prophecies, Gore promises a rain of fire and brimstone on us, unless we change our ways.

Gore also displays all the characteristics of the classical religious hypocrite. He disregards his own proscriptions with abandonment and ostentation. By his own measure (carbon footprint) his sins are great; at least twenty times those of the average American. It is all right though, because he purchases absolution (carbon offsets) through his own company. As he is a private individual it is not known whether he profits directly, but at a minimum he does not pay out of his taxable income and, worst of all, he demonstrates that the rich are immune from any of the actual privations that attachment to the new religion visits upon its poorer adherents. This is also not unknown in traditional religions and has been a source of material for satirists throughout the centuries.

I just continue to be amazed at how the deniers out there utterly refuse to deal with the science and instead engage in ad hominem attacks on someone who isn’t even a scientist. Deniers, when you’re ready to read the IPCC report and analyze the science in it (including the references to hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies), then perhaps you’ll have something valuable to say.

Ive read them, Dennis. A number of times. They are very unclear on just how CO2 is able to heat the atmosphere to the extent that they consider likely. They rely on simple science and project from there. Very dodgy. All in all, their science is generally a little dodgy, as are their practices of peer-review. Its like they rely on being convincing because they are “scientists”, and their issue is too urgent to actually debate (debate being the basic mechanism of scientific enquiry).
The fact is, IPCC is a political body (InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) and their reports are filtered through political representatives before being released. The Panel are NOT scientists! Oddly enough, the head of the IPCC is an energy economist. They are also the vanguard of hundreds of billions of dollars of (largely incionclusive) research funding into (gasp) climate change and its effects (ie. no climate change = no future funds). Big oil has apparently tipped in a few million, by comparison.
I would have thought that only the gullible and uninformed would buy the pseudo-science in this context, but it seem not. It’s the old propoganda line - repeat something often enough and everybody will believe it.
If people aren’t prepared to think critically and investigate both sides of important issues, we will get the policies, people and problems we deserve. Bad stuff happens when good people stand by and do nothing! Just think before you believe anything you read.

And I’m referring to you, Jock Shockley.

Just a few of those wrongs:
1. The IPCC reports are NOT filtered through political representatives, only the Summary for Policymakers is. Interestingly, if you talk to the scientists(!) involved in the negotiations on the SPM, those governmental representatives generally wish to TONE DOWN the conclusions.

2. The IPCC makes a summary of the scientific literature, the vast majority of which would have been funded REGARDLESS of its conclusions. To understand climate is of utmost importance, regardless of the cause of the climate changes. And climate changes WILL happen, even if humans would not add additional CO2 to the atmosphere.

3. Big oil, and coal, and various other energy companies, have chipped in many millions to simply create doubt. And that isn’t too difficult. There are still millions of people all over the world that are convinced HIV does not cause AIDS. And those HIV/AIDS ‘sceptics’ don’t even have to spend more than a few hundred thousand dollar a year

I sincerely doubt you investigate both sides of the issue. You simply can’t handle the idea that humans are responsible for climate change, and likely catastrophic climate change within one century. And thus you proclaim the IPCC to be political, the scientists to be money-hungry, the science to be dodgy, and the peer-review, too. In short, “la,la,la, I don’t want to hear it, it’s all one big conspiracy”.

1. I’m sure we will all be fascinated by your experiences in the high realms of international science and politics. Please tell us more of the nature and content of you experience.
You are quite right, however, the point is made that the material for politicians is filtered, by your own admission.
2. You are right about the IPCC’s role, but your statement about the inevitability of the funding reflects your own bias rather than the facts of academic life.
We agree that climate changes are inevitable - we diverge on the role of CO2 and the imminence of catastrophic climate change. My opinion is that far too much investigative capacity has been wasted on the junk science around CO2, and too little has been devoted to the genuine causes.
3. The big oil bogeyman? How old. Yes, they disagree with you, but that is part of the politics and the fight over who will profit from the next energy production technology. I am at a loss to see how their millions can even compete with the alarmist billions in research
I was not aware of your point regarding AIDS. I am also not clear on its relevance to your position, other than as a comment on ignorance.
I am impressed by the sincerity of your doubt, but I remain unconvinced by the “usual” and largely uninformed objections to my statements. Your theory on what I can and can’t handle is as uninformed as your views on AGW. Despite your desperate assertion, my research into both sides indicates no credible scientific support for any catastrophic climate change in the next century.
Read the charter for the IPCC.
Scientists have to feed their families and compete for funding - don’t be naive.
I am not impressed with the integrity of as much as the science quoted in support of AGW, as I have found in other areas of science and other topics. Hence “dodgy” seems appropriate. I often wonder how much has been written with press coverage in mind rather than accuracy.
I doubt its a conscious conspiracy, bit the pattern of events and people and politics seems to align with the agendas of groups as diverse as the greens, the carbon traders, the nuclear industry (haven’t they just come back from the brink?), the disenfranchised social activists, the panic living media, and lots of others.
This whole issue has little to do with the science, but it seems to have a lot to do with getting people like you to change your spending pattern or lock in your voting pattern.
Read up on political sleight of hand.

You are quite apt at not listening very well, aren’t you?
1. The SPM is filtered, DOWNPLAYING the actual science. Get that? It DOWNPLAYS the science. That’s why you have to read the actual scientific report.

2. Apparently, you know little of the facts of academic life. Lindzen gets funding. Spencer and Christy get funding. Heck, even Willie Soong gets funding. Finding novel and exciting things is what gets you funding, not rehashing old news. In Europe, hardly any scientist would ever have to worry about not being able to feed their family, since they rapidly get into permanent positions. And doing poor science isn’t a valid reason to be fired! In Australia, one after the other government has found AGW to be a problematic topic to deal with, since Australia is dependent on coal. Why would Australian politicians prefer to give money to AGW research, rather than the deniers? So many issues that contradict your beliefs, but I doubt you will ever see it.

3. Old? Probably as old as the tobacco companies spending a few millions to let people believe smoking was no problem (guess who comes back in that one: Fred Singer, AGW denier extraordinair). Creating doubt is so much cheaper, and that’s what my HIV/AIDS example also shows. Endangering myself to create another ‘believer’, you can read through this website, and maybe, just maybe, you will notice the same pattern of the AGW deniers:
(refer to ‘notable’ sceptics, claim a large conspiracy by governments/big industries, refer to supposed contrarian literature, claim censorship and no funding, etc.)

If it’s all about changing my spending pattern, I wonder what benefit the US government has to try and get people to buy cars with better mpg (sells less oil=less tax income; sells fewer American cars). I also wonder what benefit my government has in having me use less energy. After all, that means less tax income. They’d have to increase taxes to counteract that, which is bad for being re-elected. I also wonder what benefit a government has in promoting energy sources that they do not have themselves. In other wonders, it ain’t me having to read up on the political sleigh of hand…

1. How does one downplay science? Do you meant the the scary bits are made less scary, or that only certain parts of the findings are used?
2. Seems you just confirmed my point. Thank you. Even bad scientists can get research funding, and “doing poor science isn’t a valid reason to be fired!” Is there an international agency that determines which science is good and which is not? Can I assume that even bad scientists get to be involved in the peer-review process? So its a bit like journmalism, eh? Novel and exciting gets you ahead in academia rather than good science. So much for the credibility of the IPCC and the scientists they rely on. Game Set Match!
3. Singer will be Singer, in just the same way theat the alamists have their darlings that keep coming back for more - Hansen and Mann spring to mind. Some are just campaigners. To be honest, I discount much that is said by Singer et al, in the same way that I discount Hansen and Mann. I prefer real scientists.

Good lies always mix in a little truth. Moving our civilisation from oil to renewables makes good sense, reducing pollution makes sense, becoming sustainable (whatever it means) makes good sense. I just dislike getting pushed down a path based on dodgy science and stupid ideas like carbon trading.
You may like a litle more time to think about the influencers of your spending pattern and the sophistication behind them. Ads have come a long way since Goebbels.

I will look through your virusmyth.com website.

1. Downplaying *conclusions* of science isn’t that difficult. For example, when science says that temperatures will rise by 1.5-4.5 degrees, with at least 3 degrees most likely, remove the latter part. That leaves one to choose 1.5…

2. Poor science doesn’t get you publications. Bad scientists are rapidly weeded out from the review process, especially at the higher impact journals. And your last comment is just plain laughable.

3. You are actually very much like Singer: a professional contrarian. For someone who supposedly discounts Singer, you sure know how to repeat his statements about the IPCC

Carbon trading IS stupidity, but a typical ‘political’ (ruled by economy and economists) solution to a problem. The science behind the necessity of CO2 reduction is, however, solid.

Oh, and I am fully aware of how ads may try to change my spending patterns. Note that *I am aware* of it. I think you aren’t, since you’re following the “AGW is a hoax” ads as if they are religion…

I imagine even Singer gets something right every so often.

I make no money from my understanding of climate change - I just hate seeing ignorance, bad science, and gullibility getting headlines. Foe example: “The science behind the necessity of CO2 reduction is, however, solid.” This is false. It all goes back to section 7.3.5 of the last IPCC report, which is far from solid - yet, nobofy from within the IPCC has debated, or even challenged, the conclusion.

Since you’re such an expert, you probably can indicate what parts of 7.3.5 are NOT solid, and how that would impact the conclusions. Right?

Jock Shockley, give us a copy of your comprehensive analysis of the IPCC report. You can start with:

“They are very unclear on just how CO2 is able to heat the atmosphere …” Where is it unclear? What page, what reference?

“They rely on simple science …” Where is it simple? Why is that “simple?” What page, what reference?

“their science is generally a little dodgy” Where is it dodgy? How do you define (in scientific terms” “dodgy?” What page, what reference?

“The Panel are NOT scientists! ” If I look at the references, authors, and reviews of chapter 2 of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, are you asserting that none of the names listed are scientists?

I’m calling your bluff, Jock Shockley. Provide the FACTS beshind your assertions. Go line by line, reference by reference. Give us YOUR science.

Go for it! If that isn’t face saving in the absense of any proof of their previous positions, I would like to know what you think it is.
Note that the whole basis of anthropogenic global warming (now called “climate change” because of the absense of warming) rests on this section.
If you find these models and their conclusions compelling, then I gave some waterfront land you are going to love!

Who runs the IPCC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Operations
“”The Chair of the IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; previously Robert Watson headed the IPCC. The chair is assisted by an elected Bureau including vice-chairs, Working Group co-chairs and a Secretariat (see below).
The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.[52] Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, closed plenary sessions were held.[53] The meeting report [54] states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations.[54]
The IPCC has published four comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as a number of special reports on particular topics. These reports are prepared by teams of relevant researchers selected by the Bureau from government nominations. Drafts of these reports are made available for comment in open review processes to which anyone may contribute.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data. The responsibility of the lead authors of IPCC reports is to assess available information about climate change drawn mainly from the peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[55]”
Any more questions, Dennis?
Please try to be a little critical in your thinking, and do try to cut to the chase - if the IPCC’s assertions about CO2 are wrong (as is very very likely) then you have been, and are being, conned.

1. You write: “It all rests on one dodgy section” (7.3.5)

Rather then present us with scientific research, you instead just assert that section 7.3.5 is wrong. If you were a science student, what grade do you think that would merit? There are twenty (20) references identified in section 7.3.5 that you are obligated to disprove. You have not done that. I challenge you to do that.

2. You write: “the whole basis of anthropogenic global warming … rests on this section.”

No it does not. For starters, I only need to look at the recorded history of atmospheric CO2 and how much CO2 is emitted by burning fossil fuels to know that there’s a lot more that matters than you personally assert.

3. Regarding your wikipedia cut and paste on the IPCC, you failed to mention that there are 70 authors and 19 pages of references to scientific research that you ignore. Do they or do they not exist? Do they or do they not matter? Why or why not?

4. Finally, as for suggesting that I be “a little critical in [my] thinking,” I read that as if you think I should just dismiss science, even if I have know no details about the underlying research. If that’s the case, then tell us all why you would never drink a cup of mercury (Hg) and why not. After all, the scientists who tell us it’s unsafe may be just – as you put it – conning us.

1. Read the summary of the research. It is clearly saying that their initial conclusions are not backed up by recent data and they posit that the warming is being hidden yada yada. It is not a credible scientific summary of research. I suggest that you study those research papers for yourself and see how much of what you think now is retained.
2. Actually, AGW does rest on this section. If CO2 is not driving increasing atmospheric temperatures, then AGW is a dead theory, and carbon trading is a waste of time.
3. Read the above. If the facts are wrong, it doesn’t matter how much has been written, how relevant it is, or who wrote it. The nub of the entire AGW (and climate change) argument comes down to 7.3.5 and I am far from convionced by its prevaricating.
4. Science is about debate leading to truth. Scientists usually disagree with each other up until a case is proven to the maximum extent possible at that time. I merely suggest that you should think critically about everything you read, rather than swallowing something whole just because the person who wrote it claims the status of “scientist”, or “economist”, or “expert”. Every fact and assertion should be be challenged, checked and thought through - if you just accept what is told to you because the person doing the telling wears a white coat, why should I even consider what you say?

I remind you that YOU are the person challenging the accuracy of the IPCC report, not me. You have hundreds of pages of the IPCC report itself, the names of hundreds of scientists who have contributed to it, and hundreds of scientific references behind the report, and this is all you can say? It’s amusing because YOU are the one who writes “every fact and assertion should be challenged.” Unfortunately, rather than do that, you try to turn this into a conversation about my need to “think critically.” So, no, I don’t need to go out and read the underlying research: you do, because you are the person challenging it. I’ve been calling your bluff to provide evidence since this thread began.

I’ve done that, Dennis. That is why I am so concerned about the junk science getting paraded as fact.

You can assume that hundreds of scientists “must” get it right. The hisory of science is against you though.

I hate to labor a point - only a few scientists wrote 7.3.5 (and seem rather unsure of their work in the latest report) - nonetheless, this work was taken as basic in writing the rest of the IPCC report. That lack of internal debate and rigour prompts me to use the word “dodgy”.
I have no doubt that you can justify it somehow.

It’s the 4 out of 5 syndrome. 4 out of 5 doctors recommend bloodletting as a cure all, and if your really sick they’ll just remove more blood … and eventually your illness will be cured of you.

Well that’s how it used to work. Learned men can be really wrong sometimes.

This is your fourth post here, so let’s re-iterate.

1. In Post #1, you claim to have read the IPCC report several times. You made several assertions about the report (“dodgy,” “simple science,” and “unclear”) that you did not back up with scientific evidence. I challenged you to provide scientific evidence – with reference to the IPCC report – for your assertions.

2. In Post #2 you tell me it’s all in Section 7.3.5. (Hurrah! A reference!) However, you provide no evidence beyond that – no cited studies, no excerpts, no corrections to the data, etc. You just call it “absense [sic] of any proof.” I challenge you again to point out what you assert are errors, noting that section 7.3.5 contains references to 20 specific studies (remember, you said you read the report).

3. In Post #3, you tell me to go back and read the “research” (which section? which references?) because (as you claim) “it clearly says” and then, again, provide no citations or quotations, no excerpts, no corrections to the data (just your thinking). You then turn the conversation into an attack on me, telling me to “think critically.” I respond that that YOU are the person challenging the IPCC report, not me, and I’m still waiting for your analysis.

4. Now, in your latest post, you tell me you have “Done that” and characterize the report as “junk science” without any elaboration on what that means. For the fourth time, you fail to provide any scientific evidence beyond your blanket assertion that section 7.3.5 is wrong.

When you referenced a particular section of the IPCC report, I had hopes that your MIGHT actually be able to point to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that contradicts the IPCC report (and, importantly, perhaps expand your information to other parts of the report). Instead all I got was your opinions, which is all I ever get when trying to discuss the report, even when I read what trained scientists who disagree with the report have to say. So, I am arguing with a brick wall here.

I would really like to believe that the IPCC report is wrong, but you just parrot what I read and hear elsewhere from deniers: the report is wrong, but I’m not going to give you any scientific data to back up that assertion.

I accept the IPCC conclusions, not yours, because the IPCC can actually back up their statements.

Just do some resarch Dennis.

Show us all just how CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change! The world is waiting for a clear statement of how, how much, and what next. Nobody has been able to provide firm, or even consistent, details of the actions and effects of CO2 induced atmospheric warming.

Perhaps you should read section 7.3.5 without your gullible goggles on. That is scientific prevarication! Nothing is clear - it relies on “likely”, possible, may, could, etc.

Stop trying to pick holes and look at the whole picture.

From you panicky, demanding and “how could you” reaction, anybody would thing I was trying to challenge your religion!

“Just do some resarch Dennis….read section 7.3.5 without your gullible goggles on. That is scientific prevarication!…From you panicky, demanding and ‘how could you’ reaction, anybody would thing I was trying to challenge your religion!”

I’m not going to wait around for Godwin’s Law. If you have some published scientific research you think I should read, cite it here. Otherwise, this thread is over.

the last word.

If you’re not open to contrasting ideas, not much I can do.

I am rather fascinated with your reliance on papers and peer-review, when its pretty clear that the authors and their “peers” are all buddies in agreement with each other. Your choice, I guess.

I assume you realize that peer-review is only good for perpetuating consensus science, and never embraces leading edge or innovative or unfashionable science.

I’ve long been intrigued by the history of science - the fashions, mistakes and rare innovations make good reading. Anyway I digress (at least I am in good company for that here).

“I assume you realize that peer-review is only good for perpetuating consensus science, and never embraces leading edge or innovative or unfashionable science.”

That’s what Jock Shockley claims. And what’s his proof for that? Well, no need for proof, mate! It’s our resident authority on all things related to science, so no evidence needed. Too bad there is more than just anecdotal evidence that he is dead wrong…

Jock, you are making a mockery of yourself!

Yes, like using the hockey sticks!!!! What a joke!!

peerrrrrevuueedlterraaatchurrrr hahahaha!!!

what a joke!!

Excerpt from one of Lord Moncton’s recent speeches.

It is a good read, factual and to the point. I posted it on LiarClimate and, surprise, surprise got snipped.

Kudos to this site for allowing a semblance of a debate.

The single question whose answer gives us the truth about the climate question is this: By how much will any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration warm the world? We now know the answer. The oceans, which must store 80-90% of all heat-energy accumulated in the atmosphere as a result of the radiative imbalance caused by greater greenhouse-gas concentration, have shown no net accumulation of heat for almost 70 years, implying a very small influence of CO2 on temperature (Douglass & Knox, 2009). The devastating analysis of cloud-albedo effects shortly to be published by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville will show that the UN has wrongly decided that cloud changes reinforce greenhouse warming, when in fact they substantially offset it. Repeated studies of the tropical upper troposphere (e.g. Douglass et al., 2008) show that it is failing to warm at thrice the surface rate as required by all of the UN’s models, again implying very low climate sensitivity. The clincher is Professor Richard Lindzen’s meticulous recent paper demonstrating - by direct measurement - that the amount of radiation escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere to space is many times greater than the UN’s models are all told to believe. From this, the world’s most formidable atmospheric physicist has calculated that a doubling of CO2 concentration, expected over the next 150 years, would cause 0.75 C (1.5 F) of warming, at most: not the 3.4 C (6 F) that the UN takes as its central estimate.

Now my bit.
Given the above any objective and rational person would say.
AGW- it’s a scam”.

Could you please provide some references for those bold statements? Links to actual papers in peer reviewed scientific publications, not just names, so I don’t have to spend too much time on google searching for them?

As soon as you said, “By how much will any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration warm the world? We now know the answer.”, I knew you had no objectivity. No one knows the answer to this, and no one could. It’s about a range of probabilities, not absolute truth. Science does not provide hard answers to these kinds of questions, even before the results have come in..

“The oceans, … have shown no net accumulation of heat for almost 70 years, implying a very small influence of CO2 on temperature”

Actually, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disagrees with you.

… as does the National Snow and Ice Data Center

The only scam going on is the one keeping 10 year old technology away from the average consumer which would enable them to stop buying oil products if they so choose.

Lord Monckton = Fail. Not a “Lord” but a clown, not a scientist, not honest.

Roy Spencer = Fail. Not objective, not honest, a creationist(!).

Richard Lindzen, “world’s most formidable atmospheric physicist” = Fail. Offered a 20-year climate cooling bet but backed out of it, says smoking doesn’t cause cancer(!).

From Absolute Astronomy:

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. (physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001). He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. (end quote)

So if he is some kind of fool, it must tell us something about the limits of higher education and perhaps that we shouldn’t automatically lean on it quite so much.

Because his scientific viewpoint is different to your non-scientific, but political, position does not mean that his viewpoint is either political or wrong.
Lindzen is probably remarkably frustrated by the academic posturing of colleagues who are dependent on research funding that depends on them “finding” the “right” results.
Scientists are professionally bound to debate, especially when their results are not consistent with a perceived (but never quantified) concensus.

Ever thought about the little fact that Lindzen gets his research funded? Despite him not “finding” the “right” result? He gets a few comments thrown his way when he e.g. uses an article to which an update has been made, but throws out the update, because he can’t accept that that update involved an upward correction. That’s not a scientific viewpoint, but a political viewpoint.

Regarding “never quantified consensus”, perhaps you should do a bit of research into that. It HAS been quantified, and those studies have been published in the literature.

Really? List the people that have funded his work, then point to those one or two who worry you.
You have references for those studies? I thought you’d have included them if you were sure.

I informed you of the little fact that Lindzen gets funding, DESPITE not coming with “the right facts”, something that you claimed was a necessity to get funding.

And I AM sure, I just won’t do the homework for others. The studies really aren’t too difficult to find. If you can’t find them, let me know, then I will point you to those studies. In doing so, however, you will essentially admit to not being able in finding scientific literature. Which should tell us something about your ability to go around in the scientific world…