Originally posted by addabox
[B]Yes, but they did cherry pick who they cited, which is my point.
Nothing wrong with selecting one sides scientists (as AP did) to support or chastise Gore, as long as it is not presented as a consensus on Gores movie.
It is important to make a distinction, by the way. Gore's entire presentation of the fact, degree, impact, and costs of global warming is NOT the consensus as represented by the IPCC.
Yes, Gore's hockey stick was the reconstruction consensus (that's now being updated) BUT his other statements were way over the top. Most ecologists don't ascribe invasive species to global warming, most medical researchers don't blame global warming for new viruses, most climate researchers don't think there will be 20 ft rises in sea level, and many are divided on the kind of weather impact from warming, moreover most don't see the impact anywhere as dire as Gore does.
Repeatedly I see partisanship distill the debate down to either you buy a disaster OR you are a denier. This is not the honest range of the opinion on the total issue (e.g. many of us who think there is warming don't believe in Kyoto).
I'm not sure what you're saying-- you agree that most climatologists accept anthropomorphic forcing [as a major factor] but that there are more skeptics amongst non-specialists and "non-researchers"
Yes, perhaps I can clarify. There are 10s of thousands of "experts": meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, climatologists, planetary physicists. In that group you will find many skeptics (especially among meteorologists) - they are clearly smallish minority but there numbers are significant. Call them Tier I if you like.
HOWEVER, the core group of climatological researchers (perhaps a few hundred specialists who research narrow areas of concern)have a strong consensus, the only dissenters being (perhaps) a few dozen. None the less, this group is NOT familiar with the details of computer models - they are specialists who feed into the model builders work. Call them Tier II.
All the core group of computer model builders (Tier III), of course, do believe in warming. I doubt they are more than two or three dozen people and they convey the overall findings to the few hundred specialized researchers. In that way, they have built a consensus. And I hasten to add, this is fine.
And I agree that the critics of global warming computer model builders (we are NOT speaking of Paleo Climate Reconstructionists, this is a different subject area), as far as I know, have not immersed themselves far enough into models to effectively prove their predicted effects wrong.
That is why I did not dismiss global warming as human caused. In fact, I would readily "accept it" again IF it were not for the politics that I discovered. At this point, after reading a lot of the Paleoclimate controversy, I don't have much faith in the honesty of the folks involved. And as the burden of proof is on these fellows to show their models robust, until I know that they are allowing testing and replication - well, I cannot accept untested claims.
But by focusing on the the Hockey Puck back and forth you fall prey to the artificially created "controversy" that is clearly being fueled by industry backed dissemination (if you doubt it take some time to see who, exactly, is promulgating the notion that this episode represents a refutation of the whole idea of global warming).
I'm sorry, I don't buy the "man behind the curtain" blame game. There is no doubt that some industry has a direct interest in down playing global warming. Any science study that suggests that global warming is overblown will get their support, and any scientists (they trust) that approaches them for a grant will get it.
None of this bothers me. Of course the Wall Street Journal represents one ideological viewpoint regarding business and capitalism; and green non-profits, Soros types, and academic cultures represent other interests - including group culture bias and the need for acceptance.
I did not approach this particular issue because of the Wall Street Journal, I came in the back door - I enjoy history and climate change and was annoyed by Gore's crude propaganda. I took the hockey stick as a given though, but stumbled on McIntyre's site. I did not use WSJ, or Junkscience, etc. I just started reading links to RealClimate, journal articles, and reviewing correspondence between the parties. A lot of things stood out: real climate guys were insulting, arrogant, dismissive, and political - quite the opposite of Climate Audit. By the time I was through, it was clear to me that paleoclimate scientists are a-holes that are driven by personal politics.
there is nothing particularly unusual or spurious or underhanded about how this is being played out, save for the fact that his detractors are being given a rather large bullhorn.
I would suggest that there is not a single extant scientific theory or practitioner that could not be made to appear exactly as defensive or "controversial", should some entity elect to fund and disseminate the the caveats of nay-sayers-- and there are always nay-sayers.
That paleo climate reconstructions have become political is, in part, due to the IPCC marketing "to policymakers". In 2001 they made claims bound to draw fire (1998 being warmest ever, etc.). Ironically, even as McIntyre said, this has nothing to do with global warming (and he has NO stance on this issue, BTW). The history of climate is NOT really relevant to current models; i.e., if computers say X amount of CO2 will raise temperature Y THEN what does in matter if there was a Medieval Warming Period? What does it matter it 1998 was the warmest ever? Whatever caused cycles of heating and cooling 500 years ago is irrelevant to what is happening today (or so it would seem).
Your ascribing nefarious motivations to the NAS without any evidence whatsoever. That's foolish.
There are two perspectives from critics of the NAS: one is that they did what they could in light of the political fallout (i.e. "bad methods but good studies") and the other is that they chickened out. Naturally, I think they chickened out, and did not answer the committees questions. They refused to address issues of dissembling, they appointed statisticians that had already advised the hockey team, they issued a skitzo document. Still, it did face up to the dubious methods and data.
And this bit is ridiculous. Using terms like "Piltdown", "hoax" and "discredited" to characterize Mann's research is pure ignorant name calling that has no bearing on the state of climate theory. You do your argument no favors by resorting this kind of cheap theatrics.
First, I am not a climate researcher, I have no reason to hold back my considered moral judgment. Second, I believe a fair reading of the record (in detail) shows that Mann is dishonest. He erased public files, made contradictory statements never resolved, hid a crucial aspect of the PC methods, refused to provide source code (although some slipped out in a directory labeled "censored" on his website), and participated in vicious ridicule of McIntyre - falsely accusing him of many things...all disproved in correspondence.
McIntyre has kept his cool (most times) and, one by one, knocked over Mann's pins (and Mann even wrote a journal telling them NOT to publish anything submitted by M&M).
I realize you are not in a position to judge, but I do not call Mann a hoaxer lightly. While it was not the level of Piltdown (I confess), nor as bad as the stem cell fakery in Korea, its as close as you can get without disgrace.
Again, you're simply mischaracterizing how the science gets done to suggest that there is a "conspiracy" where there is none
I am not suggesting conspiracy as much as habitual collusion and group-think.
...This, too, is highly reminiscent of how the evolution "debate" is conducted, wherein technical disagreements and off-the-wall accusations are conflated into "crippling blows to the evolution orthodoxy". Such tempests in a tea pot are generally a source of amusement for people working in the field, who are often bemused to find that some tangential cat-fight is being paraded around as "proof" of a "crisis".
As a long time defender of science against the creationist yahoos, I understand your viewpoint. And if I were unfamiliar with the details, I might also write this off as "mining" for quotes to show a science in crisis.
So to recap: I do not believe climate science is in crisis. I believe that as far as global warming is concerned, the overwhelming majority of specialist climate researchers and all computer climate modelers are convinced of human caused forcing.
I also believe that almost all paleo climate 'reconstructionist' multi-proxy researchers also believe in global warming (although not necessarily all paleo climatologists or data specialists).
That being said, I also believe that paleoclimate reconstruction is saturated with the concerns of contemporary politics, and with practices so destructive to the science that it can no longer be trusted. Unlike evolution, it is (or has become) a stalking horse for ideological and political viewpoints.
Perhaps this is an exception - perhaps not. But my exposure has sobered my view (and also is very disappointing to someone who once idealized scientists).
Can we trust the entire model building discipline?
Well, not until I can find out if the practices of computer modelers are different than paleo modelers. If they share data, if they are not overwhelmed by axe-grinders, and replicate each other's work...
I will trust them.
BTW Science is not based on the "vast majority" of those taking their lead from the informed few(er). It is by open and public testing of proposed models...
Till then, appeals to the numbers of the orthodox many does not sway.