Climatologist prescribes the IPCC be "put down"

[RegGuheert]

It seems the IPCC has now gone too far in their denial of the obvious halt in temperature increases. As a result, respected climatologists are denouncing their latest release of the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen had this to say:

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

Dr. Lindzen is an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

Dr. Judith Curry goes much further when she states that the IPCC should be eliminated:

We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease.

Dr. Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN).

 

[cgaydos]

This is not news. What would be news is if these two agreed with the IPCC.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-take-on-Richard-Lindzen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Stoaty]

See also:

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://desmogblog.com/judith-curry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/11/207018/judith-curry-climate-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

 

[RegGuheert]

This is not news. What would be news is if these two agreed with the IPCC.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

So you don't think Dr. Judith Curry publicly calling for an end to the IPCC is news? That seems new to me!

 

[Stoaty]

So you don't think Dr. Judith Curry publicly calling for an end to the IPCC is news? That seems new to me!

No, I don't think it is news. Having a couple of fringe climate scientists saying anything doesn't mean much, compared to hundreds (or more, I don't know exactly how many climate scientists there are) saying the opposite (and their views being based on the peer reviewed literature). The main problem with the IPCC is that it is too conservative, since you have to get everyone to sign off on the official language. See:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2691471/ipcc-report-warming-extreme-weather/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

So you don't think Dr. Judith Curry publicly calling for an end to the IPCC is news? That seems new to me!

Not news. Third hit on a Bing search.

http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-IPCC-May-Have-Outlived-its-Usefulness-An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


“Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation.”

Strictly speaking, she is correct. Climate change will not hit levels that will threaten the existence of humanity until the 22nd century at the earliest.

So therefor we don't need to worry about climate change, right? :roll:

 

[DanCar]

Reminds me of copernicus and other heretics. The masses have been completely wrong plenty of times. Are you old enough to remember the global cooling scare caused by ozone? Let the paranoids be paranoid but don't buy into their paranoia.

 

[RegGuheert]

Having a couple of fringe climate scientists saying anything doesn't mean much, ...

That's an ad hominem attack. These two scientists are not so easily dismissed. Please have a closer look at their qualifications. Also, read their criticisms.

... compared to hundreds (or more, I don't know exactly how many climate scientists there are) saying the opposite (and their views being based on the peer reviewed literature).

That is statement is based on the consensus fallacy.

The main problem with the IPCC is that it is too conservative, since you have to get everyone to sign off on the official language.

Actually, the real problem with the IPCC is that it is an organization set up to try to find a scientific justification for an ideological agenda. In other words, there is a strong self-fulfilling-proficy here. When this is done by an international body with significant control of research funding, it amounts to Lysenkoism. Unfortunately, the distortion of the science by the IPCC becomes more-and-more clear with each report as they claim more confidence in their models as the reality strays farther and farther from the predictions of these models.

See:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2691471/ipcc-report-warming-extreme-weather/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sorry, but that is simply not a credible prognosis given what we currently know.

 

[RegGuheert]

Reminds me of copernicus and other heretics. The masses have been completely wrong plenty of times. Are you old enough to remember the global cooling scare caused by ozone? Let the paranoids be paranoid but don't buy into their paranoia.

I'd be fine to "live and let live" if it weren't for the fact that the IPCC is there for the express purpose of trying to justify someone's ideological agenda. This agenda apparently includes taxing the air that we breathe.

Certainly we can come out with more solid justifications for reducing the burning of fossil-fuels.

 

[Stoaty]

Having a couple of fringe climate scientists saying anything doesn't mean much, ...

That's an ad hominem attack. These two scientists are not so easily dismissed.

It is an accurate description that their views are far from the mainstream of scientific research about climate change. For the rest, I don't plan to try to debunk a paranoid view of climate scientists as having some kind of "agenda". That just isn't the way science works.

 

[sparky]

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

I think this was the best reply. Uh, Stoaty wanna stop bumping this silly thread?
Oh damn. Now I've done it too.

 

[RegGuheert]

The full report was released today, several days after the summary. What's funny is this note in the beginning of full report:

The Report has to be read in conjunction with the document entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report - Changes to the underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers (IPCC - XXVI/Doc. 4) and presented to the Panel at its 36th Session.

When you read the Changes to the Underlying Scientific - Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers it becomes completely clear that those writing the summary did not like the numbers in the technical assessment and made a massive number of changes to the numbers before presenting them to policy makers.

Is that how science works? Apparently it is at the IPCC!

 

[Alric]

Also, they are not basing their conclusion on published research. If they want to be taken seriously they need to confirm their ideas with peer reviewed journal articles; not an interview in oilprice.com or climatedepot.com.

 

[RegGuheert]

Also, they are not basing their conclusion on published research. If they want to be taken seriously they need to confirm their ideas with peer reviewed journal articles; not an interview in oilprice.com or climatedepot.com.

Ask yourself this: Under Lysenkoism, how does one publish a dissenting opinion on some topic? How do they even get funding? The answer is that they cannot do either.

The point is that your argument assumes Lysenkoism is NOT taking place, so it cannot be used as an argument to show that there is no Lysenkoism taking place in the climate change arena.

In the Soviet era, it was possible to detect Lysenkoism by looking outside of the Soviet Union to see what was being published elsewhere. But how do you know if science is on the right track in a situation where the control is at a global level as it is with climate change?

Simply put, healthy science encourages dissension, but only consensus opinions are currently permitted in the realm of climate change.

 

[Alric]

Also, they are not basing their conclusion on published research. If they want to be taken seriously they need to confirm their ideas with peer reviewed journal articles; not an interview in oilprice.com or climatedepot.com.

Ask yourself this: Under Lysenkoism, how does one publish a dissenting opinion on put, healthy science encourages dissension, but only consensus opinions are currently permitted in the realm of climate change.

Has anyone complained about their research not being published?

 

[RegGuheert]

Has anyone complained about their research not being published?

It's a fair question. Here is just one recent example. A search turns up lots of discussion of this issue.

 

[Smidge204]

Lysenkoism

Using that term the way you did pretty much voids any argument you may have wanted to make. Linking to Forbes/WattsUpWithThat certainly doesn't help your credibility either. Both of these sites have been caught lying in the most obvious ways in the past.

If you really think that "only consensus opinions are currently permitted in the realm of climate change" then you don't actually understand what's going on. There is plenty of dissent and controversy among climate scientists - but it's all at the level more technical and detailed than the general public is ever exposed to.

I mean seriously... you could swap "climate change" with "evolution" in your posts here and you'd fit right in at the Discovery Institute.
=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

Using that term the way you did pretty much voids any argument you may have wanted to make. Linking to Forbes/WattsUpWithThat certainly doesn't help your credibility either. Both of these sites have been caught lying in the most obvious ways in the past.

If you really think that "only consensus opinions are currently permitted in the realm of climate change" then you don't actually understand what's going on. There is plenty of dissent and controversy among climate scientists - but it's all at the level more technical and detailed than the general public is ever exposed to.

I mean seriously... you could swap "climate change" with "evolution" in your posts here and you'd fit right in at the Discovery Institute.
=Smidge=

So you don't have any evidence that science is "pure" in this realm. Just your opinions backed by ad hominem attacks?

I find it funny that the term Lysenkoism is sometimes used TO suppress dissension in science when one of the hallmarks of Lysenkoism is that dissension is not allowed.

I'm sorry, but science is not "pure" as many would like to believe. Politics can and does affect funding and publication of dissenting views. Assuming that it is without ensuring that it is leads to false faith.

 

[RegGuheert]

Has anyone complained about their research not being published?

It's a fair question. Here is just one recent example. A search turns up lots of discussion of this issue.

Here is a more extensive discussion of this issue from 2011.

Edit: Note that the response from the NAS includes the following quote:

If the analysis done by the authors prove to be correct, major scientific and even political implications can be foreseen.

It's a shame that political implications are even a topic of discussion in the review of a technical paper submission.

 

[Smidge204]

So you don't have any evidence that science is "pure" in this realm. Just your opinions backed by ad hominem attacks?

1) It was never my claim that science was "pure" or otherwise flawless.

2) Do you even know what "Ad Hominem" means, or do you just like throwing it out there because it's Latin and makes you feel smarter to use it? I ask because you're awfully quick to toss that accusation into the discussion but you've not actually used it correctly.
=Smidge=