The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Loose Relationship with Peer-Reviewed Science

|

Full of holes

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a report summarizing climate science every five years or so. Those reports represent "the consensus science position on climate change, directly engaging more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations."

Is that so? What percentage of literature citations in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report are derived from the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Peer-review is not all that high a standard, so one would hope that most, if not all, would be. After all, as the editor-in-chief emeritus of the American Physical Society's nine journals, Martin Blume once said, "Peer review doesn't necessarily say that a paper is right. It says it's worth publishing." It turns out that a good bit of the literature cited by the IPCC in its latest report doesn't meet even that standard.

In an op/ed in The Australian, journalist Matt Ridley points out that a provocative new book,The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert, by Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise finds that a lot of the "scientific" references in the IPCC report are from the "grey" literature. Ridley explains

The impression the UN gave was that they were composed by thousands of senior scientists.

In the words of Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC: "These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of publications, on the research that they have done . . . They are people who are at the top of their profession."

In fact, as Laframboise meticulously documents, world experts on malaria, hurricanes and other topics are excluded because of their sceptical views; while a relatively small clique does the actual writing, many of whom are young and have such a short "track record" that they barely have higher degrees….

Laframboise set out to test Pachauri's claim that "we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry (the) credibility of peer-reviewed publications—we don't settle for anything less than that."

In March last year, Laframboise recruited 43 private citizens in 12 countries online to audit the entire IPCC 2007 report and count the number of non-peer-reviewed references. Each section was audited by three people and the lowest (most conservative) estimate used.

Even so, the audit showed that 5587 of 18,531—fully one-third—were non-peer-reviewed sources: including newspaper articles, activist reports, even press releases. The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticised for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule.

So about one-third of the IPCC references are not from peer-reviewed sources. In fact, many are from activist studies and pamphlets as well as the popular press, e.g., the infamous IPCC assertion that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Earlier this year, environmentalist Mark Lynas called out the IPCC for its conflict of interest in appointing a Greepeace-affiliated scientist as the lead author of its report on renewable fuels. Not too surprisingly, that report highlighted Greenpeace's no-doubt-objective "research" on renewables. 

However, instead of tightening its procedures, the relevant IPCC technical committee has decided that it would be "impractical" to flag or highlight the fact that information from the "grey" literature cited in future reports actually comes from non-peer-reviewed sources. 

NEXT: Still Dodging Our Harsh Budget Reality

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. as the editor-in-chief emeritus of the American Physical Society’s nine journals, once said, “Peer review doesn’t necessarily say that a paper is right. It says it’s worth publishing.”

    What did they do to make him admit this? I think it must have been the water board.

    1. We’re looking for a few good climate deniers.

      1. Then why do you fund NOVA, a TV show that is most certainly and firmly not in the “climate denier” camp?

        1. so we can (in)sincerely say we’re dispassionate und scientifical

          1. You’re the lamest troll ever Rather. Doesn’t it embarass you that when you die, nobody will miss you? Your life’s work will be nothing but a bunch of greyed out links in reasonable and people teasing Epi for not having sex with you despite your clumsy&creepy; attempts to seduce him.

          2. maybe not de rather-trollz.

            it triez moar harders…

    2. “Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data”

      The enviros went nuts over this.

  2. Fixed. Thanks.

  3. after muller’s treason, libtoidz just sound like bitter deniers. not the best subject anymoar…

  4. Saw that yesterday. Ridley’s speech was very moving. Everyone should read it.

    1. Ooops. Thought Bailey had linked to the speech. Apparenly not. Here it is:

      http://goo.gl/bg4hf

  5. How in God’s name did Reason decide to associate itself with the Know-Nothings fighting climate science? It seems the only glue holding what was once a principled movement together is the grim determination to maintain an alliance with those most unlikely allies of true liberty, the GOP.
    It’s bizarre to read Reason these days, with indulgent profiles of Rick f’in’ Perry and Michelle Bachmann, the direct descendants of W. J. Bryan. What do these populist demagogues have to do with liberty? We were an elitist movement once, and proud of it. What cause (other than generous donations) is there to march in step with the most ignorant, bigoted rightwing populists of the Mississippi Valley?

    1. Uhhhh….

      skepticism =/= “fighting science”

      Nowhere in Bailey’s piece does he comment about the validity of the climate science in general. What he does do is point out some discrepancies in the methodology. I suppose you think they should not be pointed out?

      It’s a highly politicized topic. Both sides absolutely need to be scrutinized.

    2. …with pay and benefits.

    3. Seems to me that Bailey is fighting for good science, not against it. He is hardly a “denier”. You don’t have to disbelieve facts about global warming to see that the IPCC is fucked and that there is a lot of corruption in the world of climate science. AGW proponents should be the most angry about this shit.

    4. Good. Our first catch of the day.

      1. Pfft. Like you’ve ever been fishing.

    5. Dude, the CAGW movement are the know-nothings.

      In truth the cult’s predictions keep failing to come true, and their resorting to increasingly risible and hysterical attempts to maintain their primacy are less and less convincing. The fact that Reason is writing this up is not because there is some plot to ally libertarianism with the GOP. It’s where the cold hard facts lead. The IPCC was designed to manufacture consensus rather than being a go-to place to earn about the controversies and agreements in planetary science. It’s policy pronouncements are based on laughable assumptions that are only tenuously based on reality. Every audit of the organization, it’s processes and work-product turns up fundamental, systemic flaws that fatally undermine its ability to act as a clearinghouse.

      The fact that the Democratic party is dominated by people who are allied with the cult because it advances the party’s policy goals, and the republicans are on the fence does not in any way make people who question the organization to be GOP sympathizers, anymore that being a citizen of Sweden made one a pro-Nazi during WW-II.

      1. And the fact I consistently wrote it’s where I should have written its in no way undermines my argument…. So there!

        1. Another WINGNUTZ who cant write

      2. Bravo, Tarran! A textbook piledriver.

    6. Mr. Grady, you funny man! Science IS fighting, you chucklebunny you! Ridley is most reasonable most of the time. And the “denier” epithet is already a goner since it is becoming clear that, like Ridley, many of us do not deny some human contribution to GW. We question the computer models, the assumptions, the catch-all terms like “natural variability” that remain undefined, the methodology, the confirmation bias, the politics, the money arrayed on all sides, the power mongers looking for their angle whatever happens… and some of us are not afraid to call out some of the major malefactors and frauds, too. For now, I will mention just one towering figure who proves that being a liberal means never having to admit you’re wrong: Mr. Population Bomb himself, Paul Ehrlich. He was wrong in the 1970s (100 million Americans dead of starvation in the 1980s and 1990s, no way to stop it, sayeth the professor) and he is wrong now, about everything. I accept no gloom-and-doom scenarios based on AGW. That the left is so committed to the climate wars does mean something, I’m afraid, and it probably won’t be good for you, me, or liberty.

  6. I think it’s illuminating to compare the IPCC process of manufacturing consent and supressing/dismissing the existence of disagreements to a true document trying to highlight disagreements and consensus, Walter Block & Four Arrows, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education.

    One seeks to conceal, the other seeks to illuminate.

  7. Hahaha Al Gore sure is fat! also, hacked emails or something, and it’s just a religion!

    1. Also it was cold yesterday which totally disproves the hard data that global temperature has been rising. ITS COLD WHERES UR GLOBAL WARMINGZ NOW? HAHAH!

      1. The funny thing is skeptics only say that as a satire, since the media is constantly claiming that this-or-that weather event was caused by global warming.

      2. Also it was cold yesterday which totally disproves the hard data that global temperature has been rising. ITS COLD WHERES UR GLOBAL WARMINGZ NOW? HAHAH!

        Al Gore agrees! Heat wavez = global warming! It’s in the paper!

        It’s blazing hot, with temperatures busting records all over the country. Newark reached 108 degrees Friday, Brick City’s hottest day on record. So where are those climate change deniers now?

        Sorry, dude. I became a warming skeptic because that’s precisely the treatment the we got from the pro-warming political wing.

    2. Be sure to change the subject. Whatever you do don’t deal with the fact that the entire ICW report that you worship like a holy book has been shown to be crap. Just pretend it doesn’t exist and the problem will go away.

      How can you really be this stupid?

      1. Dude, he/she/it is a member of a millenial cult. People who don’t buy into the doomsday prophecies are obviously minions of Satan bent on tricking people who would otherwise be saved into heresy.

        1. Because relying on the empirical data gathered through the scientific method is the same as believing in Satan. Uh-huh.

          1. But it not being gathered through the scientific method. That is the point of the post. Respond to that or admit to being a cultist.

          2. Because relying on the empirical data gathered through the scientific method is the same as believing in Satan

            Wow, talk about reading comprehension fail!

          3. Uh, there is no “scientific” method of data gathering. The scientific method is a way of testing hypotheses. And the IPCC conclusions are inference not an actual experiment (scientific method) because they can’t create control conditions (like, in drug studies when one group gets a placebo).

        2. It really is a cult. You can’t talk to them or get them to respond to the position. They just scream something else. There is no point in responding to them.

      2. Why don’t you deal with the fact that even a Koch-funded denier came to the conclusion that….the earth is warming after all:

        http://tinyurl.com/3me9zaj

        1. Make a relevent point and someone will respond to you.

          1. Uh, read the link moron.

            1. It doesn’t matter what he or anyone else says. That doesn’t make the IPC report any more valid, which is the subject of the thread.

              I shouldn’t be so hard on you people. It is clear you have never had your views questioned or actually had to argue a point in your life. You really don’t know any better do you?

          2. KOCH-FUNDED SCIENTIST: ‘GLOBAL WARMING IS PRETTY MUCH BEYOND DISPUTE NOW’ | A forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change compiles scientists’ findings that global warming pollution is making weather more extreme and dangerous, at a huge cost. Last night, NBC’s Anne Thompson reported on the growing threat on NBC Nightly News. “This is the future,” scientist Gerry Meehl said, “and we’re already experiencing climate change,” comparing the effect of global warming to steroids. “This is really the first time the impact of climate change has manifested itself in a tangible way in the state of Texas,” state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon said of its killer drought. “The existence of global warming is pretty much beyond dispute now,” physicist Richard Muller told Thompson. She noted that Muller’s climate study was funded by the “climate-change denier” Koch brothers.

            1. First, they have had fires in Texas before. To link to those or any individual event directly to global warming is rediculous. It is no different than saying that the theory is disproven because Hartford got a foot of snow in October for the first time.

              Second, if you read the rest of what they guy said, he says the effects of it in no way justify the remedies being suggested. So even if you believe it, so what? It doesn’t justify your socialist dreams.

              1. The drought in Texas is absolutely unprecedented and consistent with the climate science models. But hey Al Gore sure is fat, and Rick Perry will fix it by praying to Jesus!

                1. Invisible salvation is invisible.

                2. It wasn’t as bad as the ones in the 50s you dimwit. And even if it were unprecidented, so what? That doesn’t prove it is the product of climate. Outlier events have to happen sometime. And the climate models didn’t predict it. They just say “there will be droughts somewhere”. Well no shit. There will be floods too.

                  1. Pleaese choose one John:

                    a) There is no warming at all.

                    b) There is warming, but it is all part of a standard longterm weather cycle.

                    c) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle, but man is not the cause.

                    d) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is (at least partially) the cause, but the man-made component is not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

                    e) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is almost entirely the cause, but the predicted continuations and consequences are exaggerated and not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

                    1. I’ll pick d).

                      I’ll also add that there’s abundant evidence that temperatures in the past were much warmer, there’s no evidence that the current warming trend will accelerate in the future upon reacing some magical “tipping point” (which was somehow never reached in the past when temperatures were warmer), and the preponderance of evidence shows that the effects of warming will be beneficial rather than catastrophic.

                3. DrDick: “unprecedented”? Not at all. As the Austin American-Statesman points out:
                  … the drought of the 1950s, the benchmark to which all other droughts in Texas are compared. It ran from 1947 to 1957, and at its end, a state water official called it “the most costly and one of the most devastating droughts in 600 years.”

                  The current drought is bad, but water experts and historians say the 1950s drought blows this one out of the water.

                  Please try to be somewhat accurate when making apocalyptic climate change claims.

                4. “The drought in Texas is absolutely unprecedented”

                  This is false. I know a guy who grew up in Van Horn in the 50s. As he tells the story, “and the the drouth came and my dad had to sell the half of the ranch that had the house with indoor plumbing on it.”

                  That didn’t happen after two bad years.

            2. Just because the earth is indeed warming doesn’t mean that the cause is even partially anthropogenic, or that the warming will lead to catastrophe.

              True believer much, DD?

          3. More:

            http://tinyurl.com/3cpesdx

            SNOCTOBER PART OF TERRIFYING TREND OF UNPRECEDENTED STORMS IN NORTHEAST | The devastating snowstorm which swept through the Northeast over Halloween weekend is part of a disturbing change in climate. Greenhouse pollution is warming the North Atlantic and the Great Lakes, even as it alters weather patterns from the Arctic as sea ice disappears. The changing jet stream and increased water vapor in the atmosphere are some of the global warming-influenced factors that underlie the northeastern United States’ unprecedented increase in extreme precipitation events in the last 20 years, data from the National Climatic Data Center reveal. The chart below does not include this season’s storms.

            Click to link to see the graph.

            1. It says it on the internet so it must be true. If it snows and gets cold, global warming is proven. If it stays hot, global warming is proven. Wow. just wow.

              You have marinated in a stew of ignorance for so long, there is no hope for you. I fear for the future of the world.

              1. the other thing about snow storms in North America, you will nto find any global warming paper older than 2 or 3 years predicting such. The standard prediction was for North America to get drier and hotter. All the warnign articles of over 5 years ago was “will we ever see snow again?”

                Now that it has been snowing a ton, they have to back step their way into saying we realyl eman it was going to snow more.

                I can see a situation inw hich higher warming changes weather patterns so that there is more snow in some places. But if you want your predictions to be taken seriously you need to make specific predictiosnt hat are falsafiable. They just can’t say all weather events are global warming ergo when weather events happen this proves global warming.

            2. Hahahaha… Stop, stop! You’re killin’ me!

        2. You mean we don’t live in some kind of fantastical ice age? Color me shocked.

          Of course the earth is warming. What you fail to read or acknowledge is that he says there is insufficient evidence that it is man made and that the remedies being thrown around are not justified.

          1. I’ll ask the same question:

            a) There is no warming at all.

            b) There is warming, but it is all part of a standard longterm weather cycle.

            c) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle, but man is not the cause.

            d) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is (at least partially) the cause, but the man-made component is not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

            e) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is almost entirely the cause, but the predicted continuations and consequences are exaggerated and not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

            Choose one please, since part of the Denier SOP is to confuse the issue by not clearly adopting one and muddying the waters with confusion.

            1. It could be any of those. The fact is we don’t know. But since this has long ceased to be science and has become just a respectable way to argue for central control and authoritarianism, we don’t know can’t be the answer. So the answer is made up.

              1. But since this has long ceased to be science and has become just a respectable way to argue for central control and authoritarianism,

                Thanks for your very, very strong personal opinion that’s completely fact-free and based on your gut.

                But you still need to choose one. otherwise you’re not arguing for anything but confusion.

                1. “We don’t know” is the answer. It could be any of them. That is the whole point you half wit.

                  1. Are you this agnostic about say, evolution? Or Quantum Theory? W

                    1. I think what John’s saying is that he doesn’t have enough information to make any judgement on this issue with confidence. That seems like a fine answer. What’s your problem?

            2. No actual question was asked. Fail.

            3. How about this one–

              1) Climate is changing all the time. We have little or no concrete knowlege of how most of this change occurs.

              Let’s go with that one, k?

        3. First, Muller is not a”denier” so called, and you might find what a real climate scientist had to say on his papers and publicity campaign:

          The issue for which Muller has taken the most heat is his public statements regarding his analysis as being the end to climate change skepticism. To Muller’s credit, he has taken the initiative to engage with and listen to skeptics, albeit on the narrow topic of the surface land temperature data record. Relative to the broader issue of attribution, which are at the heart of skeptical concern, details of the surface temperature record don’t play a terribly large role in most people’s skepticism about climate change.

          1. Which is your position, Tarran:

            a) There is no warming at all.

            b) There is warming, but it is all part of a standard longterm weather cycle.

            c) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle, but man is not the cause.

            d) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is (at least partially) the cause, but the man-made component is not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

            e) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is almost entirely the cause, but the predicted continuations and consequences are exaggerated and not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

            Choose one.

            1. God you are a lame troll. Why should anyone pick one of those? We don’t know. We don’t really even know if there is any such thing as a “standard weather cycle”

            2. Actually, it’s none of the above:

              1) The Earth’s climate varies naturally.
              2) Human activity alters climate to some extent locally and globally.
              3) Humans are able to a certain degree to affect local climate.
              4) Global climate is very poorly understood.
              5) Thus far there is no hypothesis that meets Feynman’s criteria for providing useful explanation of how the Earth’s climate works.
              6) Thus the global climate is not controllable by human activity, since nobody has figured out whether or not a steering wheel exists, let alone how turning it will alter climate.
              7) The geological record implies, however, that the Earth’s climate is remarkably stable despite wide variations in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, the amount of radiation being put out by the sun, the inclination of the Earth’s axis relative the Sun, the strength of the magnetic field, the arrangement of the continents, etc.
              8) The computer models used to justify much CAGW panic-mongering are lousy (I graduated w/ honors at U of MD for my work in computer modeling chemical reactions in the vicinity of plasmas) and show numerous flaws in how the matrices are designed and the handling of boundry conditions and unsurprisingly, their predictions don’t match reality very well.
              9) The policies being pushed by the CAGW crowd, (curtailing energy production and consumption, diverting investments from profitable, beneficial ends towards less beneficial ends, many of which are unprofitable without huge subsidies) are of dubious, if any, benefit and come with huge costs in millions left in poverty, in hunger, or with shortened lives and are, in my mind, therefore terrible ones that should never be adopted.
              10) Much of the claims being advanced to buttress CAGW are so contradictory that it becomes like that Bill Murray sketch on SNL where he interpreted women’s dreams, and invariably came to the conclusion that they wanted to sleep with him. This detracts from the CAGW movement’s credibility.

              That’s the short, sweet answer.

        4. So what have we learned:

          Koch-funded study = unbiased, authors of study split on the conclusions.

          IPCC = biased misrepresentation of data unequivocably supports catastrophic AGW

        5. Oh you must mean the papers lead authored by this guy:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMGw0_9nbE

          I don’t think he has any good things to say about the Hockey Stick or the non-peer reviewed material in the IPCC either.

          also the second part:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu4hwTo_hRE

          You might also note that for the past 13 to 15 years the earth has not been warming…and those same papers say as much.

          Lastly in that second part he makes it pretty clear he does not think there is anything the US can do that will stop any human contribution to global warming. He believes it is up to China and India, and that any attempts by the US to go it alone will only hurt us.

          DrDick, in case you did not notice I just stuck your head up your own ass and made you smell it.

        6. Why don’t you deal with the fact that even a Koch-funded denier came to the conclusion that….the earth is warming after all

          1. Richard Muller the lead author is not a “denier” and hasn’t been since the early 80’s.

          I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming

          2. While who funds a study MAY indicate a potential bias it is not a replacement for evaluting the claims on the merits of the argument.

          3. Had you the first clue as to the arguments put forth by the “deniers” you would know that there is no dispute that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age.

          4. The fact that the earth has warmed is not proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary reason. The fact that the warming started well before the large scale burning of fossil fuels should call into question the assumption that the warming is due to CO2 by anybody with half a brain.

  8. Ron, are those bullet holes in that picture? You really didn’t feel the urge to add a disclosure to the effect of “no incendiary rhetoric implied”?

  9. ManBearPig!!

    1. HAHA AL GORE IZ FAT!

  10. The rapidly worsening climate system, destabilized by billions of tons of fossil fuel pollution, is ripping apart the security of the American people, one “freak” storm, drought, flood, fire at a time. In a piece inspired by the October snow storm, the New York Times describes how a broad swath of middle-class America ? the millions of suburban and rural residents who rely on the above-ground electricity grid ? is suffering from the new era of regular power outages from intense storms and floods that physically damage utility poles and lines:
    Along with the now-familiar candles, downed trees across the driveway and the thawing hamburger meat taken from the freezer and tossed in the trash, the region’s latest freak storm, which left three million people without electricity, has left something else in its wake: increasing unease about just what is going on and what it means for the vast majority outside the relative stability of an underground urban power grid.
    No one can know for sure if this is just the eternally unpredictable chaos of weather on earth or it is something more ominous; call it the new abnormal. But in recent years, suburban and rural residents have found themselves facing multiple disruptions like Mr. Frohne’s. Experts say the violent weather of the past few years in the Northeast is stressing the 20th century above-ground utility grid as never before, along with the people who depend on it.
    Although the New York Times writer Peter Applebome pleaded ignorance about the “eternally unpredictable chaos of weather,” he at least quoted one suffering American who offered a cogent rebuke to his avoidance of climate reality.
    “It’s global warming,” Sue Gress of New Canaan, Connecticut, told the Times. “No one wants to believe it, but things are changing. There’s much more violent weather, and we’re not prepared to deal with it.”
    Gress has the science right. The existing increase in extreme precipitation events in the United States is unequivocal, and strongly linked to greenhouse pollution. The future ? driven by the hyperexponential increase in greenhouse concentrations in recent decades ? is guaranteed to bring even more devastating weather. The only uncertainty is in how quickly weather will become more extreme, and wherethe storms, floods, droughts, and heat waves of unprecedented ferocity will strike.
    At the GreenGov conference in Washington on Wednesday, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) official David Kaufman agreed with that sentiment. He explained climate change is a significant driver of disaster vulnerability, but the real threat comes from the combination of climate change with other risk factors: migration into vulnerable areas, an aging population, and a overtaxed and declining infrastructure. Kaufman cautioned that too much disaster planning relies on a retrospective look at patterns of weather in the past, instead of recognizing the reality of changing climate risks.
    Much of the suffering of the American families described in the New York Times story was avoidable. The fundamental responsibility lies at the feet of the fossil fuel industry that for decades has blocked the scientific urgency of reducing carbon pollution from becoming policy. The failure to address the consequences is similarly grave. “A report by the Edison Electric Institute updated at the end of 2010 said that over the past 10 years, at least 11 states studied putting utility lines underground ? usually after devastating storms ? only to find it too expensive,” Applebome writes. Of course, the report cautions that “underground is not completely immune to storm damage (e.g., flooding and damage to cables from uprooted trees).”
    Economists who have attempted to assess the exposure of the American economy to climate change have generally delivered insane underestimates based on a naive presupposition that wealth insulates the nation against significant damage, ignoring the systemic risks from the rapidly growing, unprecedented global threat. Most climate scientists haven’t bothered to translate the data from their circulation models into information useful for policy makers. However, some scientists and economists are beginning to work together to provide a more realistic assessment of our nation’s unavoidable exposure to severe climate damages.
    The next challenge is for the essential disciplines and industries involved in climate resilience, such as civil engineering, urban planning, journalism, and insurance, to throw out risk management tools based on the now-false assumption of a stable climate, and to work collectively to protect our society from the coming onslaught of the “angry beast” of a superheated climate.

    We’re going to go from Global Warming to Global Boiling soon.

    1. Really! When? I’m getting tired of shoveling snow.

      1. In the short term there will be more moisture in the atmosphere so more snow especially in N. America and Europe. That is, until the ice caps are completely melted. Then, extreme drought.

        1. Did your crystal ball tell you when this was going to happen? Cause as far as I can tell from every single Bailey post on the rising temperature, it’s not been that much over the last 30 years.

          1. You hear it here first, folks. Climate science=crystal ball. Also, Al Gore is fat and has a big house.

            I’d like you to choose one:

            a) There is no warming at all.

            b) There is warming, but it is all part of a standard longterm weather cycle.

            c) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle, but man is not the cause.

            d) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is (at least partially) the cause, but the man-made component is not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

            e) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is almost entirely the cause, but the predicted continuations and consequences are exaggerated and not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

            1. Re: Dr.Prick,

              Or:

              f) Dr.Prick is an imbecile not worth a human’s time.

              I choooooose….. f)!

              1. I HAVE FORESEEN THE END OF THE WORLD!!

                REPENT, LIBERTARIANS, AND THE GLOBAL WARMING GODS WILL FORGIVE YOU AND YOU WILL BE SAVED!

  11. Maybe when Cato puts out it’s Policy Papers to congress next time, it can report that it is the “consensus” policy positions of all Americans. It’s settled. There is nothing to debate. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid.

  12. And remember, this chart is totally made up and isn’t real because Al Gore is fat MANBEARPIG hey it sure was cold yesterday wasn’t it?

    http://tinyurl.com/6dyb2ka

    1. Yes becuase I am 100% confident in the ability of “scientist” to calculate the average global temperature 1000 years ago within 1 degree celsius. Would you like to buy some real estate on the moon Dick? I have some real cheap.

      1. You’re like a creationist who asks “WELL IF EVOLUTION IZ TROOO WHY DUNT CHIMPZ BECOME HUMANNNZZ? LOL GOO TO YOU BY WAY OF THE ZOO?? HAHAH ITZ ABSURD!

        1. Yes, no one should ever question anything. We should all be mindless zombies like you.

          1. No, no, no.
            It’s OK to question. It’s who you question that matters.
            First of all, ignore what the person says. That doesn’t matter, because that’s not what is being questioned.
            First you look at their political affiliation. If they’re not liberal then they can be questioned.
            You look at where they went to school. If it has a fancy name then they can’t be questioned because they’re smarter than you. Unless they’re conservatives. Then they’re dumb.
            You look at where they get their money. If it comes from politicians they’re OK. If it comes from industry then they’re suspect.

            It’s all about who says it, not what is said.

          2. No, no, no.
            It’s OK to question. It’s who you question that matters.
            First of all, ignore what the person says. That doesn’t matter, because that’s not what is being questioned.
            First you look at their political affiliation. If they’re not liberal then they can be questioned.
            You look at where they went to school. If it has a fancy name then they can’t be questioned because they’re smarter than you. Unless they’re conservatives. Then they’re dumb.
            You look at where they get their money. If it comes from politicians they’re OK. If it comes from industry then they’re suspect.

            It’s all about who says it, not what is said.

          3. No, no, no.
            It’s OK to question. It’s who you question that matters.
            First of all, ignore what the person says. That doesn’t matter, because that’s not what is being questioned.
            First you look at their political affiliation. If they’re not liberal then they can be questioned.
            You look at where they went to school. If it has a fancy name then they can’t be questioned because they’re smarter than you. Unless they’re conservatives. Then they’re dumb.
            You look at where they get their money. If it comes from politicians they’re OK. If it comes from industry then they’re suspect.

            It’s all about who says it, not what is said.

          4. damn squirrels

        2. Chimps are evolving.

      2. Only 1000 years?
        I bet that some scientist can calculate average yearly global temperatures within like a tenth of a degree Celsius going back a million years!
        I mean, they’re experts and stuff, and if somebody in government says they’re an expert, well by golly who am I to question an expert and stuff.
        You know?

        1. And as you know, that is what the Luddites like Dick are counting on.

    2. thats also based off of the “hide the decline” bs chart that had to be removed from the 2007 UN paper because it was caught.

      There was a statistics phd who used their process and figure dout you could use a random noise generator and create the same pattern.

      If you do a search for charts you will find all kidns of ones that say different things.

      1. “Yet it has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross
        McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montford’s careful and highly readable
        book The Hockey Stick Illusion. Here is not the place to go into detail, but
        briefly the problem is both mathematical and empirical. The graph relies heavily
        on some flawed data ? strip-bark tree rings from bristlecone pines ? and on a
        particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that
        heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other
        sample. When I say heavily ? I mean 390 times.”
        http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..heresy.pdf

    3. And remember, this chart is totally made up …

      It is Mann’s hockey stick and as Steve McIntyre has shown the results are an artifact of the math.

      http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit…..ystick.pdf

      In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.

      DrDick continues to prove he has zero knowledge of the “deniers” arguments.

  13. Scientific consensus is an infallible tool for justifying political action.
    I mean, a century or so ago there was a scientific consensus that certain undesirables were pissing in the gene pool and stuff, and it would be best to have them removed.
    The Supreme Court in this country approved the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of people in mental institutions, to be sure they could not reproduce and stuff.
    Then some dude in Germany like took the concept a little too far.
    But there was a consensus, so how could they have been wrong?
    You know?

  14. DrKoch shares certain, erm, characteristics with a certain Pale Aborigine, no?

    1. I thought he was double asshole.

      1. I disagree, the style and argumentation on this subject reeks of Tony.

        1. Sorry Doc, this one is a brandy new troll just for us. Tonybot rarely uses HTML or links and I don’t see any of the pathology of the pale aborigine/rectum.

  15. John, please state your position:

    a) There is no warming at all.

    b) There is warming, but it is all part of a standard longterm weather cycle.

    c) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle, but man is not the cause.

    d) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is (at least partially) the cause, but the man-made component is not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

    e) There is warming, and it is not part of a standard weather cycle and man is almost entirely the cause, but the predicted continuations and consequences are exaggerated and not significant enough to warrant any intervention that will interfere with the economy.

    Thanks.

    1. HI RECTAL ITS COOTER AGAIN I JUST WANTED TO LET U KNOW THAT UR NEW HAIRCUT IS REAL PRETTY AND IF YOUD LIKE ME TO BRUSH IT AGAIN THATD BE OK. ALL RIGHT YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY NOW MISS RECTAL.

      1. I’m not “rectal” nor “white indian”.

        1. HEY MISS RECTAL DO U WANT THIS POSSUM I FOUND? IT AINT EVEN STIFF YET, SO I CAN FRY IT UP REAL TASTY FOR U.

        2. You might as well be talking to a brick wall, DrDick. These people will never see the light. They’ll be wading in knee high boots in their beachhouse living rooms before they get it; so you should not even bother with them.

          I’m on the ground floor of a brand new Green initiative called Occupy Earth, and we are going to really, finally get that ball rolling. The days of government just ignoring the earth are over. We are going to see to that. If you are interested, I can give you more information where you can make a generous donation.*

          *disclaimer, not a real charity pitch, nor investment opportunity. Disclaimer necessary because leftist are so goddamn gullible real non profits could really make buck an approach this stupid.

    2. how about:
      f) no one has any fucking idea, although option a is looking less and less likely. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to this question is either crazy hubristic or using scare tactics to advance their political position.

      1. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to this question is either crazy hubristic or using scare tactics to advance their political position.

        Or they feel that human activity and stuff must be harming the planet because it must. I mean, how could it not?
        All these gasses being pumped into the atmosphere must have an effect. How couldn’t they?
        In fact, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no harm being done because harm must be being done.
        You know?

        1. The science was settled years ago.

          When will you idiots realize that SKEPTICISM ISN’T SCIENCE!!

          1. Ok, now you’ve gone off the deep end of the retard pool.

            Skepticism is the basis of science. You can’t have science without skepticism. All good scientists are skeptics.

    3. f) none of the above.

      1. So you just want to argue for confusion to muddy the waters, right out of the Koch Playbook.

        1. You’re saying that saying ‘I don’t know’ is arguing for confusion? Yeah, fuck you Socrates.

      2. No, I refuse to assert an unknown as fact. You know, scientific method and all.

        SilentV nailed it.

    4. DrKoch, you left out an option:

      (f) Its a warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age, but not as warm as during the Medieval Optimum. No one has yet explained the climate variations that have occurred for millions of years, and so we have no real scientific basis for evaluating what, if any, effect marginal increases in CO2 might have.

      Because that’s the one I’d probably go with.

      1. , but not as warm as during the Medieval Optimum.

        Not, it’s warmer now than it was then and getting hotter all the time.

        http://tinyurl.com/6dyb2ka

        Try to get some knowledge of even the most basic data on this issue before mouthing off, please.

        1. Unsourced graphs don’t do much for me, DrKoch.

          And neither, BTW, will anything that relies on the corrupted data from East Anglia.

          Just sayin’.

      2. Here you go, it even has the MO clearly marked, and we were alerady hotter by 2004.

        http://tinyurl.com/ytbd9h

        1. Sorry Chum, the actual documented history of viticulture in Northern Europe during the MO trumps your anonymous graphics from Image Shack and wiki.

          1. Greenland was greener back then. Hopefully it will be green again.

            1. Considering that the earth will be destroyed within 50 years if we don’t stop using CO2, yeah a green Greenland would be wonderful.

              Jackass.

              1. Whenever I ask an alarmist for a scenario of how there will be mass extinctions and the end of human civilization within 100 years because of global warming, the answer I always get is, “No one said there would be mass extinctions or the end of human civilization!”

                Oh no?

                Ok, if not, then what’s the really bad terrible thing that’s going to happen if the world gets 2 C warmer? IOW, what necessitates the massive expense of prematurely shutting down power plants and pulling ICE cars off the road?

              2. Launching a hyperbole missile like “the earth will be destroyed within 50 years if…” really does not present you as a rational or honest proponent for your position.

        2. Here you go, it even has the MO clearly marked …

          DrDick is oblivious to “Hide the Decline” by deleting inconvenient data.

          http://climateaudit.org/2011/0…..-deletion/

  16. If it wasn’t for the socialism and global warming bullshit, Democrats wouldn’t be so bad.

    Contrarywise, if it wasn’t for the fascism and warmongering, Republicans wouldn’t be so bad either.

    1. Yeah I mean it is not like the Democrats are mobilizing mobs all over America to occupy cities or the Democrats havent’ started two wars now neither with any congressional debate and haven’t whacked an American citizen in Yemen. Nope. Good thing the Democrats are not fascist warmongers or anything.

      Look at OWS in Oakland. That is what fascism looks like.

      1. Yeah, it’s not the police the fractured the skull of an Iraq War veteran. THAT’S not fascism at all. The protesters are the fascists.

        How does cop cock taste, John? Good? You sure seem to like it in your mouth.

        1. Because fascists in power would never take a nightstick to fascist wannabes.

        2. Interesting that you would play up his being a vet.

      2. Republicans are GOOD! Only DEMOCRATS are bad! Vote GOP for freedom!

  17. the consensus science position on climate change, directly engaging more than 2,500 scientists who are already in the tank for AGW from more than 130 nations.

    ftfy

    1. …because actual scientists wouldnt knowz !

  18. Hey Ronald, are you forgetting to update, or did I miss your comments?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/20…..-11-deg-c/

  19. I don’t know why y’all are even bothering with the trolls. They had twenty years to make their case to the American people. And they have failed. It’s over. There is not going to be any government action to deal with the climate, zero, zip nada. The debate is over, they lost, let’s move on.

    1. Then you will all burn in Global Warming Hell.

      The Holy Climate prophets have foreseen it.

  20. In fact, as Laframboise meticulously documents, world experts on malaria, hurricanes and other topics are excluded because of their sceptical views; while a relatively small clique does the actual writing, many of whom are young and have such a short “track record” that they barely have higher degrees….

    You. Don’t. Say.

    the audit showed that 5587 of 18,531 — fully one-third — were non-peer-reviewed sources: including newspaper articles, activist reports, even press releases.

    Reminds me of how Kleenex was used many times to pad up another reality, as well…

    (o)(o)

    1. Mmmm . . Nice Pair.

  21. However, instead of tightening its procedures, the relevant IPCC technical committee has decided that it would be “impractical” to flag or highlight the fact that information from the “grey” literature cited in future reports actually comes from non-peer-reviewed sources.

    Telling the truth was always impractical for these guys, especially for the shaggy Hindu.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.