Climate scientist Judith A. Curry’s belief that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming doesn’t exactly make her the darling of climate skeptics, but many warmists detest her for an entirely different reason: she believes that climate scientists should behave like scientists, with all that entails — rigorous peer review, open debate, and greater transparency about source data and methodology.
Such an approach is anathema to those who brook no criticism. After Curry made the observation that some warmist scientists “tolerate no dissent” – a statement that’s essentially inarguable, particularly in light of the CRU emails – atmospheric scientist Bart Verheggen (“I am particularly interested in science communication”) harrumphed:
Excuse me? Is this a respected scientist talking?
His confusion and unfamiliarity is understandable, but yes, that is a scientist talking, one who actually thinks like a scientist.
Via Kate, here’s Curry’s recent interview with OilPrice.com in which she suggests that, for a variety of reasons, The IPCC Might Have Outlived Its Usefulness.
Carbon dioxide does contribute to global warming. However, it’s effect is almost ‘all in’ at around 100 ppm. After that, increases in concentration add insignificant forcing. In other words, C02 long long ago stopped producing additional warming. So yes, C02 contributes to warming, but at the levels we are at now, even HUGE increases in C02 concentrations will yield only tiny increments in warming, imperceptible really.
“The IPCC Might Have Outlived Its Usefulness.”
And what usefulness was that?
Dear SDA;
Where does one give you a suggestion?
I realise this is off the current topic but I am hoping you may re-post something about what the good first minister, Her Oneness, is up to Bill 16 in Allberta that will change the education act.
The main cause for concern is Section 16 of the Bill. Along with other section of Bill 2, section 16 undermines the authority that parents have over the education of their children. Under the current legislation (the School Act, revised in 2000), the corresponding section (3-1) reads this way:
Diversity in shared values: All education programs offered and instructional materials used in schools must reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect for others and honour and respect the common values and beliefs of Albertans.
Under the new bill, the wording will change:
Diversity and respect: All courses or programs of study offered and instructional materials used in a school must reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect for others and honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.
It is clear that this section means to impose a specific curriculum on all parents and all schools since recent decisions by the Human Rights Tribunals based on the Alberta Human Rights Act have restricted religious thought and freedom of expression.
We are learning more almost every day that the so-called climate science of many of the contributors to the IPCC never had much science in their contributions to begin with, but rather were filled with pandering to a political agenda.
rabbit, exactly and that was an excellent observation.
Trying to put the science back in climate scientology.
Curry is right to suggest that IPCC findings may have been pre-determined. In the case of the Second Assessment Report, the main body of the report was rewritten in some sections after the Summary For Policymakers was finalized. The part that Curry has problems with is that the IPCC is actually the Inter GOVERMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Funny how the overt politics is always dropped out of so-called polite conversation, isn’t it?
“It seems to be about far more than science.
Posted by: Halfwise at February 28, 2012 4:48 PM”
Halfwise. It was NEVER about the science or the climate. Check out Prop 21 at the UN.Tells you all you need to know.
“The IPCC Might Have Outlived Its Usefulness.”….?
Ya think!!!???
[Quote]Excuse me? Is this a respected scientist talking? Someone who is trying to build bridges between scientists and their critics? By calling respected scientists “high priests of the IPCC”?[/quote]
This critic of Curry is a fool.. The IPCC has “Zero” respected scientists, the sleaze of Mann & Jones covers them All…When you have an extraordinary Scientific theory, you must have extraordinary PROOF..The fools have Zero Scientific Proof.. They all need to get in line for food stamps..
Judy nails it!
Why Target Heartland?, by Judith Curry
[ With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered. Okay, maybe the HI are actually the baddest guys in town from the perspective of the alarmists. The irony of Gleick committing professional seppuku over getting information about stuff that is either generally known or suspected or regarded as no big deal. When all he had to do was ask Joseph Bast some questions, and he would have told him all sorts of things (just not the names of the donors, which aren’t all that interesting anyways.)
Why the misguided criminal actions? – because most Sky Alarmists are as$holes?
Because they have no credible science and so resort to ad hominem attacks?
IOW, Gleick was looking for a big tobacco smoking Koch bro burning fossil fuels.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland/
The IPCC Might Have Outlived Its Usefulness.
In the eyes of the ruling class, the IPCC and other organs of control will always be necessary. Imagine if fascist institutions like the IPCC did not exist, then all the ” little ” people, the non-enlightened out there in flyover country would simply live their potty little lives.
That would never do. They must be made to live “better”, and the ruling class must be paid handsome salaries to dictate to them.
And what usefulness was that?
Posted by: rabbit
Making more money to distribute mostly to themselves while pretending it was for the World. Giving politicians an excuse to flay the public alive in tax money for themselves, over hot air.
Making icons of cheap snake oil salesmen with Billionaires making more Billions, producing noting.
Orwellian Allison Watch:
That is a valid “Reader’s Tip”…a daily post usually in the evening hours. Please re-post it there. Try to provide a link also.
The government intrusion in private homes needs to be stopped!!
OK,
who actually funds the IPCC ??
If Canada does partially , by how much ??
The evidence is in….CO2 warming/change/disruption/IPCC is just a manifestation of the UN’s Agenda 21…..no more no less. Ditto…..the UN “Firearms Treaty”!
David Goldman said a few sensible words, to the effect that climate is complex and reasonable men may differ about it. Which is IMHO about all that sensibly can be said, in broad terms.
It may even be that GW is real and that it is mainly AGW. I somewhat doubt the former and strongly doubt the latter, but I might be wrong.
A solid, objective summary by Judith Curry–
The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine. The most recent IPCC assessment report states: “Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.
As I stated in my testimony last year: “ 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 .”
I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding), and there is a lively debate underway on interpreting the recent satellite data record, reconstructing past solar variability, and predicting the solar variability over the 21st century. Nearly all of the solar scientists are predicting some solar cooling in the next century, but the magnitude of the possible or likely cooling is hotly debated and highly uncertain.
…and from Dr. J Pournelle–
In historical times the Earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now. It was warmer in Viking times until about 1300 after which the Earth began to cool. Since 1800 the Earth’s temperature has risen about a degree a century. Since 1900 the Earth’s temperature seems to have risen at about the rate that it had previously been rising: that is, there is warming, but there has been warming from 1800 when the Hudson and Thames froze solid enough to walk across, and the rate of warming doesn’t seem to have greatly increased so far as we can measure given the accuracy of the data. Some of the warming may well be due to CO2 but there doesn’t seem to be cause for alarm. We do need to continue to study this and develop better measurement tools.
Lindzen asks questions about the models and their predictions, and concludes that there is not enough evidence to justify panic: that the best evidence is that the increasing CO2 is not a justification for alarm, and particularly not enough quality evidence to justify spending $Trillions on revising the entire industrial economy.
A Bayesian analysis would conclude that it is better to invest in ways to reduce uncertainty than to spend resources on the predictions of the models ; there is just too much uncertainty.
I also concluded long ago that cooling was still a possible threat: that the return of the glaciers requires energy to transport the water vapor to the cold areas where it can fall as snow, and this can have a runaway effect. That needs to be watched.
Small correction: It’s not because Curry supposedly wants scientists to act as scientists (who doesn’t?) that she receives a lot of flack.
But rather, as I wrote in the linked post:
“This kind of accusatory framing, based on mere innuendo and speculation, is the main reason that she gets a lot of flack from other scientists.”
Nanook, the IPCC receives operating funds from two UN organizations, the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). In addition, it is supported by specific grants from UNFCCC members (194 nations are signatory) of both cash and services in kind (research grants mostly).
The IPCC is largely dependent upon the research programs of member nations to fund the various studies and research papers that go into the Assessment Reports. Most of this research is done in or funded by the US government. The move by the House to terminate the $13 million in UNFCCC funding is the merest tip of the iceberg. Many more millions are poured in through contributions in research, and these are buried away in all of the member nations’ research programs.
Yes, Canada is a contributor. The direct contribution is relatively small, a few million or so. Most of the contribution can only be found by a detailed examination of the research funded by various federal agencies, particularly Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and possibly NSERC and NRC.
Bart, you seem confused. There’s no need for “accusatory framing based on innuendo and speculation”. Hard evidence of lying, bad faith and scientific malpractice was provided by some of the principal authors and researchers for the IPCC ARs, in their own words, in their own emails. That you ignore this fact highlights that you your claim on your blogsite for balanced discussion is as big a sham as that of RealClimate.
I just listened to an interview with Hockey Team Captain Mike Mann explaining that sceptism of his religion is partly due to America’s vast scientific illiteracy. Great way to win friends.The rest is due of course to the enormous amounts of money heaped on a few scientific whores bending over for big oil.
He seemed to defend his side several times by only repeating his mainstream science consensus. He sounded like he was hiding behind this, as if he was not responsible for his propaganda being spewed. What a Gleick Hole!