Global Warning/Climate Change

[PeterG]

Who will acknowledge that their own side in the climate debate has been highly politicized?

I'm only taking the side of science and rational economic policy that thoroughly analyzes the consequences of environmental regulations. Believe it or not a scientist can find a flaw in a hypothesis and not be motivated by politics.

I did not ask for acknowledgement that one's own views are politically motivated; I'm confident that they're not in your case. But do you acknowledge that many who share your views on climate change are politically motivated in doing so?

[Wayne in Maine]

Who will acknowledge that their own side in the climate debate has been highly politicized?

I'm only taking the side of science and rational economic policy that thoroughly analyzes the consequences of environmental regulations. Believe it or not a scientist can find a flaw in a hypothesis and not be motivated by politics.

I did not ask for acknowledgement that one's own views are politically motivated; I'm confident that they're not in your case. But do you acknowledge that many who share your views on climate change are politically motivated in doing so?

In all sincerity, I don't see this as an either or, left/right, progressive/conservative, Democrat/Republican issue which seems to be the implication of your question. The scientists and engineers I know personally who share my view are not politically motivated.

I think many people who are skeptical or even supportive of the perspective that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are causing increased hurricanes, the drowning of Polar Bears and the sinking of Tuvalu Island are reacting according to the information sources they trust and the education they have been subject to.

[Bootstrap]

In all sincerity, I don't see this as an either or, left/right, progressive/conservative, Democrat/Republican issue which seems to be the implication of your question. The scientists and engineers I know personally who share my view are not politically motivated.

And the scientists and engineers who do not share your views?

Seriously, the whole point of becoming a scientist or engineer is to be able to discuss this kind of thing in terms of the research model design, the data, statistical questions, the relationship to other findings, etc, getting beyond the politics. Best way to do that is to simply not discuss politics or use political vocabulary when we are trying to do that and have a scientific discussion. But that requires really getting into the weeds. And it is also a lot of work - after all, none of us can be expert in all of the different fields that are included in the IPPC report.

Here's one issue I keep hitting: a lot of people want to ditch the IPPC, which is the only literature review I know of that actually takes all of the published works into account, is clear about confidence levels and probabilities, paints multiple scenarios instead of confidently predicting only one possible outcome, has a transparent process with open data, etc. To me, the IPPC report is at least a wonderful index to basically all published work on the topic, with discussion of how various researchers differ in their findings, and discussion of possible reasons why. It feels like exactly the kind of starting point a scientist or engineer would appreciate, because it points you at the data in ways that let you evaluate it (if you have time).

Are there alternatives to the IPPC that give the same level of information? If so, which ones? This is really the issue that drives me: as someone with engineering background and data analysis background, I am always looking for reliable resources that can give an overview. I see this in scientific associations. I see this in the IPPC report. Beyond that, most of the resources I can find are very politically motivated.

So far, nobody has been offering me realistic alternatives to the sources I would normally consider reliable scientific sources.

[Robert]

IPCC peer review.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

[appleman2006]

IPCC peer review.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

In other words not a peer review at all.

[Bootstrap]

Obviously, you can find whatever you want on the Internet. Let's take a look and see if it's true.

1.The IPPC publishes its process here. They look at the entire published literature, and use a consensus process to come to agreement on what it says. Their process requires looking at the entire published literature, focusing on peer-reviewed articles, but also taking others into account if they are relevant.

2. As an alternative, petitionproject.org says we should trust a 12 page paper, written by three authors, which they claim is better than the IPPC review. They say it has 132 references (a tiny fraction of the literature) and "underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal". Obviously, that's nothing like the IPPC report, and they don't tell us who funded the work.

It doesn't say what "the publishing journal" is, but if you read the article, it identifies it as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Obviously, not a climate science journal, but it's not even a serious medical journal.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel, is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes "… a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research … Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method." The publication policy of the journal states that articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are not held by mainstream scientists and other medical groups. The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns. Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical. An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense." Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum." Writing in The Guardian, science columnist Ben Goldacre described the Journal as the "in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines."

So I'm back to this:

Are there alternatives to the IPPC that give the same level of information? If so, which ones? This is really the issue that drives me: as someone with engineering background and data analysis background, I am always looking for reliable resources that can give an overview. I see this in scientific associations. I see this in the IPPC report. Beyond that, most of the resources I can find are very politically motivated.

So far, nobody has been offering me realistic alternatives to the sources I would normally consider reliable scientific sources.

[MaxPC]

IPCC peer review.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

In other words not a peer review at all.

Precisely.
The UN has a long history of twisted word-craft to promote their agenda and distort science. This is no different. The UN is a highly political government body so this history is no surprise. We can only trust Jesus, not any government, big brother, artificial construct.

[Bootstrap]

In other words not a peer review at all.

In other words, a random claim on the Internet. Here's the process the IPCC follows. It's really quite rigorous.

And what alternative are you suggesting? That I should trust the Petition Project instead?

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “Star Wars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name.

[Bootstrap]

The UN has a long history of twisted word-craft to promote their agenda and distort science. This is no different. The UN is a highly political government body so this history is no surprise. We can only trust Jesus, not any government, big brother, artificial construct.

I agree with trusting Jesus.

But global warming isn't really something Jesus answered. For that kind of question, I trust scientific associations more than lobbyist groups, and I cannot find any relevant scientific association that rejects global warming. I'm not counting lobbyist groups or groups funded with dark money. And I trust transparent review processes that include all published papers with a clear and public record of their decisions.

Who do you trust more than the scientific associations and the IPCC, and why? If association with government invalidates science, should we ignore hurricane warnings that come from government science agencies?

[MaxPC]

In all sincerity, I don't see this as an either or, left/right, progressive/conservative, Democrat/Republican issue which seems to be the implication of your question. The scientists and engineers I know personally who share my view are not politically motivated.

I think many people who are skeptical or even supportive of the perspective that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are causing increased hurricanes, the drowning of Polar Bears and the sinking of Tuvalu Island are reacting according to the information sources they trust and the education they have been subject to.

Very true. And they will quote those sources until the cows come home to back up their favorite political agenda.

There are plenty of claims on the internet that push their science as authentic. The fact of the matter is this: there is no substitute for long term data collection, and the use of double - blind analysis of that data. You can see that politics has interfered with that analysis when you have two diametrically different outcomes of that analysis from different sectors of the science community. Who has actually pursued the double-blind? Personally I don't trust the analyses of scientists whose pet research projects are funded by political parties such as the UN and corporations. Quite frankly, those scientists are only interested in the money and the status. I was part of that community for decades and the ambition for money and status is disheartening.