CA Braces for the Complex World of Carbon Markets

Russ Steele

CARB recently held a conference in San Francisco to help academics, policy-makers and business people navigate the changing landscape of carbon markets: “Navigating the American Carbon World.”

Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board is California and the states top air regulator has to make carbon trading a reality. In her remarks to the carbon conference, she signaled to the participants there are a lot complexities ahead. Details at KQED Climate Watch:

“There’s a lot of uncertainties out there,” she told the audience of several hundred. “I don’t want to say I feel sorry for the oil companies, because they’re doing pretty well, thank you,” she said. “But I would say that, you know, if I were in the utility business, I would be giving a lot of thought to what my business was going to look like.”

If I were a business that relies on power from utility companies I would start worrying about what my business was going to look like when the utility company passes AB-32 carbon fees on to my business.  I would be looking around for a more business friendly state – Texas maybe?

Nichols also acknowledged that while there are real economic benefits to California being a leader, there’s no guarantee that other governments will follow its example. Currently no other state (in the U.S.) is. And on Capitol Hill, cap-and-trade is a non-starter.

“If by 2020 we don’t have a government in the United States — and I would say a government in Canada as well — that have stepped up to the plate and adopted some form of national commitment to reduction of greenhouse gases, and joined in some sort of an international program to accomplish this goal, then I would say our claims of leadership are not all that they were cracked up to be,” Nichols said.

California’s first carbon permit auction is scheduled for November, with a practice run in August.

If I were Mary Nichols, I would start worrying about all those other states and Canada who are going to be reassess climate change, as there has been no AGW or any warming for the last 15 years, and noted NASA Astronauts, Engineers and Scientist are calling for NASA/GISS to abandon their climate models and return to the real world of science.

It is clear to anyone with an open mind that the climate models based on CO2 amplification are not valid.  CO2 is increasing while temperatures are falling.  The AGW myth has been overcome by reality!

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

69 Responses to CA Braces for the Complex World of Carbon Markets

  1. stevefrisch says:

    Funny, I was here for all of Ms. Nichols comments yesterday. Her point that the carbon market still has uncertainty was the lead in to a discussion about why it is so important that the regulated market, and the assumptions about how trades will be made and projects verified, be implemented gradually, with full testing of those assumptions, with complete transparency, and with an open mind about adapting the trading system to account for unforeseen circumstances. Ms. Nichols was also quite adamant that revenues from the sales of auctions coming to the state should not be “spent before they are earned and understood”. And although there is no guarantee that other states will follow along the same lines as California’s regulated market, Ms. Nichols cited several other states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont who are participating in a similar market through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and at least three Canadian provinces are moving along the same lines as well through the Western Climate Initiative. Since you are a strong critic of carbon markets, it might have been beneficial for you to attend the NACW conference, even if just as opposition research. It might have provided a more thorough and balanced report on Ms. Nichols comments. If anyone else here would care to learn more I am sure that all of the proceedings of the conference will be on line shortly, and you will be able to watch and think on your own, without the filter provided here.

    In short, you are proceeding on an article of faith; faith that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong; that your theory on the Daulton Minimum is
    accurate; faith that the evidence of our eyes and best research is flawed or biased; faith that economic losses due to extreme climate events will not continue and escalate as it has over the 50 years; faith that drought and flood related events will not continue escalating; faith that we will not see significantly more precipitation as rain rather than snow in California throwing our economy into chaos; faith that increases in atmospheric
    carbon dioxide and warming are not linked; faith that extreme heat events like the one that killed 800 people in Chicago a few years ago, will not happen. What you are hiding is the remarkable sensitivity of our climatic systems where even a few degrees of variability can have serious consequences.

    Readers here might want to take a look at what some of the leading businesses in the Bay area are thinking about–sea level rise and the costs of mitigating its impacts.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_20374749/1-billion-needed-south-bay-flood-protection-and?source=rss

    You are urging people to take a huge risk; the risk that the cost of adapting will be greater than the cost of continuing with business as usual. If you are wrong, there is no going back. The people who lose will lose forever. And they won’t just be the poor people who live in flood plains and heat sensitive areas, they will be the shareholders of some of the largest corporations in the world who generate a large share of the wealth, innovation and technological advancement in our country.

    There are ways we can plan in advance for these problems; through disaster planning and risk mitigation, reducing vulnerability of our most at risk communities, improving our infrastructure, etc. These can be highly positive changes and can improve our resilience in the face of change and improve peoples lives and health regardless of the cause.

    When push comes to shove I trust NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Rand Corporation, the Department of Defense, and most national and international scientific bodies more than I trust the musing of Russ Steele.

    • Russ says:

      Steven you wrote:
      In short, you are proceeding on an article of faith; faith that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong; that your theory on the Daulton Minimum is accurate; faith that the evidence of our eyes and best research is flawed or biased; faith that economic losses due to extreme climate events will not continue and escalate as it has over the 50 years; faith that drought and flood related events will not continue escalating; faith that we will not see significantly more precipitation as rain rather than snow in California throwing our economy into chaos; faith that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming are not linked; faith that extreme heat events like the one that killed 800 people in Chicago a few years ago, will not happen. What you are hiding is the remarkable sensitivity of our climatic systems where even a few degrees of variability can have serious consequences.
      Let’s look at what you wrote in detail:
      You wrote: In short, you are proceeding on an article of faith; faith that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong.
      Where is this majority? If you got that from the 97% of scientist agree that human caused global warming is real here is how this number came into being:

      The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

      That is not a majority. If you have a better source for you major number lets see them.
      You wrote: your theory on the Daulton (sic) Minimum is accurate; faith that the evidence of our eyes and best research is flawed or biased . . .
      I suggest that your read the following papers on the disappearing sunspots. History has shown then the spots vanish, the earth cools. Are you saying that this history is based on my faith?
      You wrote: faith that economic losses due to extreme climate events will not continue and escalate as it has over the 50 years No I agree economic losses will increase as we increase out population and continues to build in flood plains. These events happened long before the claims of AGW came on the scene. The worst tornadoes were in 1974. Check out the details here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/2011-us-tornado-year-analyzed-no-trend-indication-still-below-1974/
      You wrote faith that drought and flood related events will not continue escalating. No I agree that they will continue to escalate, but not from the emission of CO2, but from climate change caused by natural events. California over the last 100 years has been living in the garden of eden. In the past California has experienced 200 year and 500 year droughts. During the Dalton Minimum it was a 13 year drought, during the Mander Minimum the drought was almost 30 years and between AD 900 and 1300 California was in a deep drought. These droughts were not caused by human CO2 emissions, they were caused by Mother Nature.
      What proof do you have that “800 people in Chicago a few years ago” were killed by human caused CO2 climate changes. They were killed when the humidity would not longer let the body cool it self by evaporation. How did human CO2 cause the humidity? Waiting for your answer.
      You wrote: faith that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming are not linked Well they are linked up to about 1º C for a doubling of CO2, but they are not linked to increases in water moisture, that is an unproven assumptions by the computer modelers. There is not scientific evidence to support this CO2 generated in crease in atmospheric water moisture. If you have other evidence lets see it. We are waiting.

      • stevefrisch says:

        SF: In short, you are proceeding on an article of faith; faith that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong.

        RS: Where is this majority?
        Response: In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject “global climate change” published between 1993 and 2003.

        Referenced here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

        She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg – focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
        _________________________

        SF: …your theory on the Daulton (sic) Minimum is accurate; faith that the evidence of our eyes and best research is flawed or biased . . .

        RS: I suggest that your read the following papers on the disappearing sunspots. History has shown then the spots vanish, the earth cools. Are you saying that this history is based on my faith?

        Response: Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. But still sun spot activity and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. See I.G. Usoskin, et all 2005

        http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

        I could cite a few more if need be.

        Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.

        Referenced here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sun-spots-and-climate-change

        Finally, the issue it self is kind of irrelevant to the conversation. The question at hand is how much of climate change forcing is human caused, regardless of the amount that may be attributed to changes in solar activity. Recent studies by Gerald Mehl (2004) find:

        “Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn’t increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.”

        Referenced here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
        ____________________________________________________________

        We seem to be in agreement that flood, drought and fire are risks regardless of cause so I will not address them in the interest of brevity:)
        ___________________________________________________
        SF: faith that extreme heat events like the one that killed 800 people in Chicago a few years ago, will not happen

        RS: What proof do you have that “800 people in Chicago a few years ago” were killed by human caused CO2 climate changes.

        Response: You will note that I did not say that the heat events of 1995 in Chicago were related to climate change. You do yourself a disservice when you misquote the original post. I said the you have “faith that extreme events like the one that killed 800 people in Chicago ….will not happen”. Numerous studies have shown the direct link between raising temperatures and extreme heat event. Several of them are referenced in this study of risk and mortality in Chicago by Katherine Hayor, et. al:

        “The city of Chicago has already experienced a number of severe heat waves, with a 1995 event estimated to be responsible for nearly 800 deaths. Here, future projections under SRES higher (A1FI) and lower (B1) emission scenarios are used to estimate the frequency of 1995-like heat wave events in terms of both meteorological characteristics and impacts on heat-related mortality. Before end of century, 1995-like heat waves could occur every other year on average under lower emissions and as frequently as three times per year under higher.”

        Referenced here: http://www.as.miami.edu/geography/research/climatology/JGR_manuscript.pdf
        __________________________________________________

  2. sean2829 says:

    Steve,
    here in MD, one of the states in the RGGI, the cost of carbon has been sitting at the minimum of $1.87 a ton for a couple of years now. The money was meant for green initiatives but during the recession at least half just ended up in the general fund. States like NJ have considered dropping out because the revenue stream is so small ($10 of millions). CARB seems like Linus sitting in the pumpkin patch thinking that their sincere efforts will bring it some great reward. In the end he just misses out on collecting treats. It does the state of CA no good to make itself less competative in an effort to solve a perceived global problem. You’ll end up importing what you no longer can afford to make (Oakland Bay BrIdge) even the desirable green stuff.

  3. D. King says:

    Well Russ, I guess Frisch told you!
    Let’s look at Mary Nichols, shall we?

    CORRUPTOCRAT

    Here she is apologizing for lying by omission to the other CARB board members about the FAKE PhD. / scientific credentials of Hien Tran.

    Another CORRUPTOCRAT

    Dr. Telles on the fraud and LACK of transparency.

    So Frisch, nice try but no cigar! Peddle your falsehoods elsewhere.
    It might be better to quit while all the other lies remain veiled…Yes?

    or

    Shall we get into the faked and manipulated sea level rise data?

  4. Frisch is a true believer, a true believer in grant money for phony science. What a hoot!

  5. stevefrisch says:

    Carbon on the California voluntary market is between $6-7 per ton right now. I think the $1.87 figure is for largely unregulated and unverfied tonnage, and that is what the construction of the California carbon market is designed to correct. It is also true thst the economy took a nose dive after the construction of the RGGI initiative, and emissions declined because economic activity, and thus demand for offsets declined. That is what markets do, particularly new and untested markets. As RGGI standards are implemented and the demand increses prices will increase. The Cal market is being designed to create the highest possible standards for transparency and verification, by third parties, and open to public scrutiny. The market is also being designed to meet California legal standards, which under the Sinclair Paint ruling by the California Supreme court require that there be a nexus between the source of the funding (sales of offsets) an the use of the funding. There are several bills moving in the California leisature rigt now confirming that approac Isn’t that what we would want?

    I was here to hear Ms. Nichols talk about precisely that issue. When video is available I will post it here.

    The videos posted by Mr. King are indeed important. The very nature of the process is that data should be questioned, and we should be skeptical. That is what scientific method is all about. But at the same time we should not be captured by uncertainty. There will always be some level of uncertainty about science, and new data should drive adaptation in the approaches we select.

    Finally, Todd’s response- which is to question the motives of participants in this forum and in the development of a market-is emblematic of the broader problem in this forum, and to some extent our region. Using market based solutions to restore and manage our forests can create thousands of jobs, revive communities and address the threat of wildfire in the Sierra Nevada. Contrary to past critique here, I am a strong supporter of thinning our forests, maintaining a forestry industry, and re-starting commercial timber harvesting. Much of the pragmatic environmental community could be allies of those that support the timber industry. But rigid adherence to ideologically “pure” positions is a barrier to implementation of the approaches we coud agree on, and makes people who would be willing to invest in our community forestry objectives shy about investing here. The “my way or the highway” attitude is the biggest barrier to economic development in our region.

    • Frisch insists on putting lipstick on the pig (AGW) but it is still a pig. All the science he depends on to fund his grants has been debunked yet he is unable to admit he is wrong. That is called insanity.

    • Russ says:

      Transparency! If CARB wanted to be transparent why did they incorporate the WCI in Delaware? Delaware does not have a open meeting law. These “third parties” can meet in Delaware and decide how to screw the consumer in private away from the prying eyes of the California press and bloggers. Transparency? You are just kidding yourself and spreading BS for the rest of us.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Russ, the Western Climate Initiative is not a government agency, they are a non governmental organization designed to provide technical assistance to the design and management of carbon offset markets. As an NGO they will actually have more reporting requirements and greater transparency than a privately held company. But no NGO is subject to the open meeting law.

        http://www.wci-inc.org/index.php

        You can take a look t their 990’s as they file them.

        I think the NASDAQ and the NYSE are privately held companies correct?

        I think a simple perusal of the CARB web site will show they are one of the most transparent agencies one could ever hope to find, not to mention the point that all of their proceedings are also subject to the California Public Records Act, which means almost any document, e-mails, or communications they produce could be had for the asking. Which also means that government employees who participate in the WCL, for example on their board, would be required to make their communications public upon request, and would be required to file conflict of interest statements.

        The level of transparency here is significantly higher than any private business.

        I do think that one could make a case that government officials should not be able to serve on the boards of NGO’s while serving in office, but if that were the case it would apply to all NGO’s, like fire safe councils’s, churches and organizations like the ERC. No such law currently exists, but I would certainly support it. Until then, this is the legal structure we have.

      • stevefrisch says:

        A primer on the California Public Records Act can be found here:

        http://ag.ca.gov/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf

      • stevefrisch says:

        Hey Russ, why haven’t you addressed the fact that you are wrong about the WCI and falsely left the impression here that it is a government agency created by CARB?

  6. D. King says:

    “we should not be captured by uncertainty. There will always be some level of uncertainty about science, and new data should drive adaptation in the approaches we select.”

    See here the certainty of data manipulation:

    Temperature data

    http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

    Here is sea level rise before manipulation.

    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/image_thumb52.png?w=508&h=302

    Here is sea level rise after manipulation.

    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/image_thumb51.png?w=506&h=315

    Charging people for carbon, based on data manipulation, is a fraud. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the carbon market was designed by lawyers to enrich lawyers. There will most certainly be law suits filed as the fees are implemented. The science will be debunked and the tax payers will be held liable. Of course, if the government is sympathetic to the “cause”…

    Beware the city of Bell!

    Here is the booking photo for your enjoyment.

    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyStcY0ggW-o_2A5Gn6o9B53aO29vZmLllzaKu0ouCfvID73yQMw

    • stevefrisch says:

      I don’t know what you hope to achieve by posting unsourced data. Could you please provide the sources for the graphs you posted so we can all see the actual research behind them?

    • stevefrisch says:

      Here is a recent report on peer reviewed papers on sea level rise from the journal Environmental Review Letters:

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/021001/pdf/1748-9326_7_2_021001.pdf

      I would contend that sea level rise is a danger regardless of cause. We may disagree on cause, if so, so be it. But the evidence of rise, regardless of cause, is clear. We have hundreds of years of record, most of it in the last 100 years pretty accurate.

      Should we ignore this evidence and allow billions of dollars of private property to be destroyed? Should we try to mitigate the impacts while we can? Do we really think government can sit back and allow this to happen? Because you and I both know what will happen. The owners of this property will demand some form of protection or relief and then taxpayers will be on the hook.

      The wise course is to try to mitigate the impacts in advance to avoid the cost.

      • D. King says:

        Here is an interesting story about the skyrocketing energy rates coming.

        http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_20362089/windfall-cash-from-global-warming

      • stevefrisch says:

        By the way, the other event that needs to be considered here is the cumulative impact of more than one extreme climate event at the same time. A good example of this would be a 1 meter sea rise, with a 250 year rain event which historic record shows can rise the level of the water in the Sacramento Valley as much as 20 feet, and a storm surge. The real danger comes from these cascading events, like the combination of earthquake, tsunami and meltdown at Fukishima, only from climate related sources.

      • D. King says:

        Stop it, you’re scaring me! 🙂

      • stevefrisch says:

        This is an interesting article D. KIng. I postd it on my Facebook page earlier this week. As I stated above, the proceeds are subject to the Sinclair Paint decision, and proceeds can likely only be spent on actions with a nexus to the source of funds. This is what Ms. Nichols was referring to when she counseled that we should go slow and not spend money before it is earned, and bank funds for careful use. But if we do raise $3-4 billion per year, which is still speculation, it would be nice to use that to fund programs related to reducing ghg emissions that would have been funded through the general fund budget, like transportation, infrastructure and forest management, and use the displaced funds to fund local government operations that are increasing due to realignment and education.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Or maybe we could just cut taxes by that much!

      • D. King says:

        I think they had better come up with “Energy Stamps”, like food stamps, so the 20 somethings, poor, and elderly will be able to afford their new AB-32 global warming tax.

      • D. King says:

        But not the stamp books, because that could be embarrassing.
        Maybe a card, so they don’t have to show they’ve voted themselves into indigence.
        You know what I mean?

      • stevefrisch says:

        D.KIng–I am hearing that a lot of the revenue will go back to utility customers in the form of rebates…..although I have to agree that I will believe it when I see it.

        And yes, I do know what indulgences are. But comparing carbon trading with indulgences is pretty inaccurate, if that is what you meant.

        Indulgences were forgiven punishment for sins already forgiven.

        To continue with the analogy, the Cap part of Cap and Trade actually requires that emitters reduce emissions from a baseline measurement. So really no sin is being forgiven, actual reductions are required. The Trade part creates a market mechanism to reward them for reducing MORE than the Cap, or punish those who do not reduce below the Cap. In short the payments are not being forgiven for the sin, and the sin is not forgiven.

      • D. King says:

        Come on Steve, it’ll go the same way this did.
        http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2012/02/24/california-hooked-on-tobacco-taxes/

        How do I know?

        From the story linked above:

        “Our goal for the new revenue is to speed and encourage California’s transition to cleaner sources of energy,” said Alex Jackson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s a lot of things that could fit that mold.”

        **************** “There’s a lot of things that could fit that mold.” ******************

        http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_20362089/windfall-cash-from-global-warming

  7. MikeL says:

    AGW is a hoax. Causing the cost of everything used and or produced in California to go up artifically will never never never affect the temperature of the planet. I suggest that the lefty lunitics look at the actual temperature data instead of playing with broken hockey sticks.
    PG and E had a program where one could purchase high cost power produced from renewables and had to discontinue the program because not enough AWG true believers participated. I think that all of the AWG believers should be forced by the gubnint to purchase high cost power.

  8. Steven in a partial answer to your 04/13/2012 at 06:21

    Dr.Benny Peiser’s debunked Naomi Oreskes’ claim in a letter to the journal Science:

    On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.

    Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change” for the years 1993 – 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2).

    What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

    These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004,
    she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate
    change” (3).

    Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by
    one order of magnitude (on the UK’s ISI databank the keyword search “global climate
    change” comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to
    replicate the Oreskes study.

    METHOD

    I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords (“global climate change”) as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)’ details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

    1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
    2. evaluation of impacts
    3. mitigation proposals
    4. methods
    5. paleoclimate analysis
    6. rejection of the consensus position.
    7. natural factors of global climate change
    8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

    RESULTS

    The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes’ findings and essentially falsify her study:

    Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.

    322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the ‘consensus view’ but mainly focus on impact
    assessments of envisaged global climate change.

    Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on “mitigation”.

    67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

    87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent
    climate change.

    34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the
    “the observed warming over the last 50 years”.

    44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

    470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not include any
    direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions,
    let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

    DISCUSSION:

    According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, “either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view”. This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

    It also shows that many abstracts on “evaluation of impact” and “mitigation” do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation.

    Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the ‘consensus view’ but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies. Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7). In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the ‘consensus view’ is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists: “The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes.

    Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time” (8)

    This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a “scientific consensus on climate change”. The truth is, that there is no such thing!

    In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oresekes’ study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.

    References
    1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue
    5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/con
    2. ISI Web of Science (http://www.webofscience.com/)
    3. http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm
    4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for “close ties
    between solar variations and surface climate”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-
    Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: “The importance of
    solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been
    underestimated in recent studies.” Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-
    17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
    5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and
    the Environment, 21:31-67.
    6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise “the undoubtfully
    overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”. K.
    Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
    7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change
    uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
    8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
    From: science_editors@aaas.org [mailto:science_editors@aaas.org]

    Would you like to try again?

    • stevefrisch says:

      Why Russ you must mean the same Dr. Benny Peiser, the sports lecturer and commentator on Desmog Blog, an industry funded ant-AGW web site, who said in 2005, “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”

      Even when corrected to account for Mr. Peiser’s preferred method of searching the ISI database, Ms. Oreskes research shows almost the the same results.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf

      And even Mr. Peiser’s own results showed an overwhelming majority of climate scientists attributed climate change to anthropogenic causes by a ratio of 3:1

      As a matter of fact Dr. Pesier has since rescinded his statements on Ms. Oreskes article saying, “Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.”

      Referenced here:

      http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

      So lets see: your source has withdrawn his critique more than 6 years ago and now says the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that warming is human caused, yet you continue to tout it as “truth”.

      Would you like to try again?

      Russ Replies: When I get some time I will look into it but consensus is not science it is politics. Why is climate science different from other the sciences that support debate and open minded inquire and climate science is close to debate and open minded inquiry?

      • stevefrisch says:

        Is this whole argument about whether the word ‘consensus’, which you will note I did not use above, is a social science term or a physical science term? If so, your just being silly.

        It is simple, climate science is not closed to open debate and inquiry. Your premise that this is some sort of rigged game is fundamentally flawed. That open debate and inquiry has been going on from more than 40 years. 40 years ago most scientists were not convinced. But 40 years of research has led to the position changing. Scientists have been arguing about it, and that is what has led to an overwhelming majority of scientists saying the rapid increase in climate change we are seeing is largely human caused. The problem is that what you are advancing is not open debate and inquiry. You want to do that, fine cite the papers, test the results, go through the peer review process, defend your thesis in front of the scientific community. Skepticism should be honest, should not twist the truth to make its point, and we should not fail to act in the face of overwhelming evidence.

        How certain do we need to be to act? Well we act on all kinds of things we are not 100% certain about every day. The nature of public policy is that we should act when we are pretty damn certain, but we should be able to adapt if new information changes our minds.

        By the way, real class act on not just looking at the evidence of the quotes of above and saying, “Hey, I was wrong”.

  9. stevefrisch says:

    By the way, you selected only one of several points of yours that I responded to above to rebut, and never responded to my observation that you misrepresented my statement on heat wave related deaths in Chicago.

    You also never responded to the message correcting your comments about the Western Climate Initiative. I find it odd that as a critic of WCI you did not actually look into either their legal structure nor their constraints.

    I think the selectivity of your information and the bias that you deliver it with is becoming increasing obvious to a rational readers who may chose not to join in the comments here.

    • Russ says:

      Sorry that I did not get to all of your points, I had more important things to do. I will try to get to them some time this weekend. Stay Tuned.

      • stevefrisch says:

        No problem, I anticipate a busy day today getting ready for a trip to the eastern Sierra. By the way, If you get a second can you take my Peiser post off moderation?

      • Russ he already lives in Truckee, the Eastern Sierra. What a hoot!

      • stevefrisch says:

        Todd there is geography, and there is culture. In geography Truckee is the eastern Sierra. In culture Truckee identifies itself as part of the Tahoe/Truckee region. In culture the people who self identify as residents of the “eastern Sierra” are people who live in part of Alpine, all of Mono, and part of Inyo Counties.

  10. SteveF says to Russ Steele,

    ‘I think the selectivity of your information and the bias that you deliver it with is becoming increasing obvious to a rational readers who may chose not to join in the comments here.”

    If anyone had a doubt about the hubris of a liberal, it can now be put to rest. Traveling to the SBC blog, one can read absolute zero comments. What a hoot!

    • stevefrisch says:

      Nice job trying to divert attention Todd. I just deconstructed Russ’s point with his own source’s words and all you can do is point to irrelevant side issues.

      What say you to the withdrawal of Dr. Peiser’s critique? Nothing, eh?

      • Russ has bested you. Get over it already.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Let’s see Todd: Russ uses Dr. Peiser’s case, I prove it is false and provide sources, including quotes from the good doctor himself, and you say I am bested. I think you should stop huffing paint thinner left over from your past glories, old man. You truly are out of your league, even in single A.

  11. It is my view that when a liberal is bested they go on a personal attack. You simply fall into the familar liberal strategy. Russ and George are so far ahead of you in the intelligence department you use a faux form of wiki to try and compete. Too bad you cannot understand.

  12. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    Sea level rise of 3′ – 250 yr rain at the same time – earthquakes – volcano’s – tsunami’s OH MY

    puleeaasse

    I don’t think you missed anything – Steve its over and everybody else knows it, except you and Mary apparently. All the warmest blogs are shutting down because nobody comes anymore – they all look like Peelines and they can’t even get a traffic count anymore

    puleeaasse

    I can’t help this but in that screen shot of the video – Mary looks alot like a TV broadcaster from N Korea – just say’in

    • stevefrisch says:

      Dixon, planning for cascading events is kind of standard operating procedure. I bet you appreciate that in Florida.

  13. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    No not all, we have no cascading events, actually we don’t have many events

    pssst – you guys don’t either in reality – you people act like this is some college hypothetical “what if” class project – but with real money and people – you are very dangerous to the general population

  14. stevefrisch says:

    Great Dixon, then you won’t mind if the taxpayers of the United States stop paying for the cumulative impacts of ocean rise and storm surge related to tropical storms on Florida real estate and water supplies. I am sure that will mean that your insurance rates will go through the roof, since taxpayers will no longer be providing disaster assistance after hurricanes. And of course your water rates will skyrocket since most Florida aquifers are only separated from exposure to ocean waters by about 5-20 feet, easy to overcome in a strong storm, thus contaminating water supplies due to saltwater intrusion. This is what disaster planning is all about. You may not know it, but Florida is more at risk from cascading events than most of the country, and is already planning for and investing in infrastructure funding to address, this issue. But that’s all right, you can just personally opt out of the entire society around you, right? You won;t be asking for ANY government assistance in an emergency.

    • Dixon Cruickshank says:

      Our insurance rates already did that in 2004, they don’t miss anything, and most of our flood damage is paid for by the personal insurance industry, not all but most.

      Our water is fine as long as we keep getting hurricanes and tropical storms, the water comes from areas in the interior of the State like the Green Swamp and the Big Lake. None are in any danger at all of saltwater intrusion, St Petersburg/Pinellas County as it is, does not have any potable water at all – they get it from Tampa/Hillsborough through pipelines. As far as Federal Emergency needs, we use less of it than most areas of the country and in most cases the locals end up getting more done quicker.

      Fail again

  15. stevefrisch says:

    You can’t just say it can you Russ? I absolutely smoked you on the Oreskes v. Peiser issue, yet you can’t stomach saying, “you were right and I was wrong.”

  16. Steven,

    If it makes you feel better, you are correct, Benny Peiser retracted his study after it was shown that the 34 abstracts that supposedly “rejected the consensus view” did nothing of the kind. He admited he made a mistake, but that does not make Oreskes correct. On 15 December 2004, she admitted to David Appell a science writer that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate change” (http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm)

    Lets take another look at the issue. Here is a link to 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    That said, I find that people who think that the consensus determines the truth in science are shallow thinkers who suffer from way too much groupthink. Science is based on questions and analysis, not consensus which is a political term, not a scientific term. Why is it that climate science depends on consensus, when all the other sciences depend on questioning, evidence and analysis. The evidences that Oreskes is wrong is included in the 900 papers above.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Russ, I will note that I actually posted to the controversy over the Orsekes study above,

      “Even when corrected to account for Mr. Peiser’s preferred method of searching the ISI database, Ms. Oreskes research shows almost the the same results.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf

      and even when re-calculated, according to skeptical review, it still holds.

      And YES, I think it would be a good show of intellectual honesty for you to just admit it when you are proved wrong…..

  17. ggoodknight says:

    Naomi Oreskes isn’t as nice as she looks. Not long ago she dismissed Freeman Dyson, perhaps one of a handful of the brightest men of the last century, as making his skeptic remarks only because he’s an old man craving attention. It’s on the CSPAN server, an LA Times Book Fair. This is an ageist slander that wouldn’t be acceptable, except that “deniers” are fair game to the “progressives”.

    Dyson could lose half his brain and still be able to think Oreskes under the table.

    Her old discredited meta-study shows that 98% of the papers on climate in journals that only accept AGW-friendly papers are accepting of AGW; this would be akin to 98% of the Vatican cyclicals being accepting of the divinity of Christ… makes you wonder how that skeptical 2% got in. Oreskes’ undergraduate studies were in Mining Geology, meaning how do you get valuable stuff out of the ground. Not science. She isn’t a scientist, she’s just another polemicist out to slash and burn opposing views.

    Funding for climate studies has risen 15 fold in the past couple decades. In short, if
    the AGW story folds and the funding levels recede to historic levels, 93% of the current staff would have to find something else to do. A powerful motivation to believe.

  18. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    good post Gregg

  19. stevefrisch says:

    yeah, nice post Greg, too bad the facts don’t back up your conclusions. The truth is the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, and scientific organizations agree that the climate is changing, that it is at least substantively human caused, and that it is a serious threat. You guys can crwo all you want about whether or not the word ‘consensus’ is a scientific term, but that does not change the facts. Oreskes research, Harris research, von Storch…Peter Doran, NAS research, George Mason University research…..all agree. The vast majority–anywhere from 85%-97% of scientists AGREE.

    Now, one could call that a ‘consensus’ or an ‘overwhelming majority’, or ‘almostmost every scintist’ or whatever…it is a game to be objecting to the term.

    And you want to object to the conclusion?…fine, provide your research, tested by peer review and publication, and the skeptical eyes of fellow scientists that back up your points.

    There is no lack of debate here…there has been vigorous debate for 40 years…..no one is saying climate science should be any different than any other science, and it HAS NOT BEEN, ……your opinions have just been overwhelming deemed wrong by the scientists, who claim to revere, but are running from your views and decry them as anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

    • ggoodknight says:

      There’s been little to no debate over the last 20 years, with the alarmists making appeals to authority and often little else, besides character assassination.

      Then there’s the CERN CLOUD experiment that alarmist politics killed off circa ’98. There was no debate; and it took another 8 years before another experiment proved the concept and cleared the logjam.

      Show me the polling; less than half of the meteorologists appear convinced, and the classic pecking order was that the ones that couldn’t forecast the weather studied climate. That may still be the case.

      The climategate emails showed how “the team” both demanded peer review, worked behind the scenes to get journal editors fired if they allowed skeptical papers to be published, and reviewers even shopped around for others to help kill papers that appeared to be solid and called into question weak alarmist papers, like the infamous Briffa “treemometer” that relied on one Siberian Larch.

      Climate science is different than any other science. “Hide the decline” was a travesty, and the recent FakeGate debacle with Dr. Peter Gleick impersonating a Heartland director to get internal documents and then embellishing them with a faked Heartland position paper (a tip off was that it claimed Gleich, a minor character, was a target of Heartland) really is unprecedented.

      Frisch, you don’t (and probably can’t) read the papers yourself, but there is a peer reviewed path going back to 1991 (a paper by Denmark’s Friis-Christensen) that shows a strong correlation between solar cycle length and world temps. Read everything by Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, and especially the landmark “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” by Shaviv & Veizer in 2003. Most all are listed in the 900+ link Russ gave you. Have at it.

      There’s even a fresh paper by a CERN physicist showing negative temperature feedbacks in areas with large amounts of water vapor in their microclimate, and not the large unstable positive feedbacks assumed in the global circulation models accepted by the IPCC. Let me know if you can’t find it.

      You might try reading Judith Curry’s blog. There really is debate going on there.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Greg, I am wondering if when you cite sources you could be so kind as to provide links to them. It is a courtesy I try to extend to you when I can.

  20. stevefrisch says:

    I must note that there are a number of issues I raised above that Russ did not respond to. For example: his contention that the WCI is a governmental agency; his contention that solar activity is the boogyman; my contention that the insurance industry, approaching this issue from a risk management and potential exposure perspective, has reviewed the science and is on board with adaptation and mitigation policy; my contention that skeptical science is getting the hearing and scrutiny it deserves through the normal scientific process; the serial underestimation of the pricing in the regulated carbon market; the peer reviewed science on sea level rise; the overwhelming weight of American and global scientific organizations and scientists who agree with my position; and the rise of global weather anomalies such as heat waves, drought, flood and fire, to name just a few.

    Frankly, the contributions here of Todd, Greg, Dixon, Mike and D. King have been worthless. They have not brought one new piece of actual evidence to the table–merely personal observations and opinions.

    Both Russ and other commentators are providing blind links to charts and graphs created on web sites by commentators and pundits–and when challenges can not cite sources in the academic literature.

    Finally, the great unsung problem with your faith–that in order to be right one would have to assume that there is some sort of global conspiracy amongst hundreds of scientific organization, thousands of scientists, and dozens of governments, to perpetrate a hoax that they have no vested economic interest in perpetrating. The scientific community is not exactly forgiving of peers and research that does not stand scrutiny. They are actually quite brutal in that they sniff out BS pretty aggressively.

    If the last two decades have taught us anything it is that governments do not want to tackle this problem. It is expensive, inconvenient and difficult to tackle because it requires long term solutions, not something government is particularly good at.

    No, my friends, what you are spinning here is a conspiracy theory on a globals scale–and the advancement of conspiracy theories is the surest mark of ideology there is. You spin this theory because it fits your belief systems, it conforms to your view of what the world should be rather than what it is. You use it as a crutch to avoid taking responsibility for our collective global impact.

    If you want to make the case show us the vetted, peer reviewed science. The problem is the vetted science that supports your position is almost non-existent.

    So, I call on you Russ, stop the enabling, dissembling, shifting, avoiding and personalization of the case and show us the science.

  21. ggoodknight says:

    Frankly, Frisch, your words here have been less than worthless.

    It doesn’t take a conspiracy to drive a debacle like the IPCC… it’s classic groupthink science driven by politicians holding the research pursestrings.

    The long term survival of the human race will depend on how we face the next glacial period, which will arrive eventually. In a century, or another millenium or two. CO2 driven catastrophe isn’t in the cards.

    If you want something easy for a non-scientist to read, “The Chilling Stars” by Calder with Svensmark lays out the science pretty well.

  22. ggoodknight says:

    Had Frisch bothered to google the title of the Shaviv & Veizer paper, he’d have found the following at the top:
    http://cfa.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/CelestialDriver.pdf

    Frisch, I sincerely doubt you’d be able to understand the scale used for the CO2 concentration in Figure 1. Quiz: from Figure 1 and using a current value of CO2 concentration of 400ppm, what was the GEOCARB best estimate for atmospheric CO2 500 million years ago?

    Another quiz… What is the chance that CO2 is driving the incoming GCR flux, and not the other way around?

  23. stevefrisch says:

    Great, more babble. Show me the science rude man.

  24. ggoodknight says:

    Here’s a fresh paper, still steaming:
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/787/2012/cp-8-787-2012.html

    From the abstract: “Results suggest that in the tropical Pacific, sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system. While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is stillhardly detectable.”

    That means “we tried to find evidence of AGW driven sea level change, but if it exists it’s buried in the measurement uncertainties. All we found appeared to be from natural causes”.

  25. stevefrisch says:

    Thank you for posting the link, Greg. Posting sources is not an unreasonable request. Previous posters have posted broken links, self generated comments and unsourced graphs.

    When I have a chance to read this, I will respond. However, I won’t be playing your silly dick measuring game. I will respond to the academic papers you post, not your insulting attempts to prove your scientific or intellectual superiority. I understand that your need to feel superior is strong, perhaps to make up for some perceived slight, or shortcoming, but I feel no such need, so ayou will have to swing out there on your own.

    Show me the science. That’s all I care about.

  26. ggoodknight says:

    “Great, more babble. Show me the science rude man.”

    The “babble” included a link to the (yes, peer reviewed) Shaviv & Veizer paper which I still suspect you can’t read and understand. Shaviv is an astrophysicist, Veizer a geochemist. I can read it with effort. Can you?

    Frisch, you’ve been a model of rudeness in this blog, tossing ad hominems left and right. You’re just reacting badly to similar treatment.

  27. ggoodknight says:

    “Show me the science. That’s all I care about.”

    Absolutely no one believes you. Had you cared about science, you’d have spent some time studying it. Here’s a hint from Richard Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”. Not, you might note, the wisdom of the leadership of the national academies, who will be among the last to recognize the AGW funding stream was a waste, since they help divvy out the cash.

  28. ggoodknight says:

    “I understand that your need to feel superior is strong, perhaps to make up for some perceived slight”

    I realize your need to feel equal is strong, perhaps to make up for your lack of any study of science in the past. However, after years of reading your words, I have yet to see any evidence of critical thinking or anything past repetition of the usual politically based appeals to authority.

    As environmental icon James Lovelock stated a couple of years ago, “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”

    That’s exactly the conclusion I came to 5 years ago last March when I became aware of the Danish SKY experiment and the halting of the CERN CLOUD experiment in ’98 that was to be the first high powered experiment into the role of high energy cosmic rays into the formation of aerosols. We have SKY to thank for proving the basics and forcing the resumption of the CLOUD collaboration, and the first papers have already been published.

    Frisch, everything you hold to be established truths regarding AGW is wrong.

  29. stevefrisch says:

    Greg, my rudeness here is in response to the overall tone and rudeness of the hosts and participants. I have asked, on numerous occasions, for the host to set higher standards, to no availe. As long as you are a rude, insulting, self-important, angry, snob I will respond to you in kind.

    I read quite a bit of science my friend, from a wide range of disciplines. I also have a pretty wide network. Usually if i dont fully understand something (which i am not too arrogant to freely admit) I can call or e-mail a friend to explain it tome.

    Your attitude from the beginning on these blogs has been that anyone who does not agree with you is ignorant. You take that tone with Ben, Keachie, Paul and me. I am wondering why you never take that tone with anyone else?

    Here’s the deal little man, you may think you are smart, but smart without the social skills to be heard, is pretty damn worthless in this world.

  30. ggoodknight says:

    There you go again, refusing to deal with the science that you’ve begged for, and going right to the ad hominem insults. If you want higher standards, set an example. I’ve had to stoop to your level to get you to this point.

    You, Ben and Keachie are science ignorami driven by politics that won’t actually discuss the science past your limited attention spans so yes, you are birds of a feather.

  31. ggoodknight says:

    “When I have a chance to read this, I will respond. However, I won’t be playing your silly dick measuring game. I will respond to the academic papers you post, not your insulting attempts to prove your scientific or intellectual superiority.”

    Wrong on both counts, so far. When you actually get around the the latest paper showing no detected AGW caused tropical sea level rise, you might want to comment on the 80’s James Hansen predictions of much of the island of Manhatten being underwater by now.

    Feeling shriveled?

  32. ggoodknight says:

    Don’t forget, Steve. You’re going to read a real paper or two and discuss the science.

    Hint… if models forecase rising oceans, and the oceans don’t rise, the models are wrong.

  33. stevefrisch says:

    Thought you all might benefit from this video from Michael Shermer.

    Reading the Shaviv & Veizer paper this weekend…well as much as I can get to cause I do have a job, besides challenging you folks

  34. ggoodknight says:

    How funny, Frisch. Tell you what, choose your favorite question from Shermer’s 10, tell us why you think that points in favor of believing the IPCC vision, and I’ll show how it points even more strongly towards Alarmism being the Baloney you have not detected.

    As Barbie might say, Science is Hard! Professor Shaviv has a website oriented towards a general collegiate audience. A page that might be a good start for you is:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

    Think it as an easy reading version of the 2003 paper. It is particularly instructive to note that the top half of figure 5 from that ice-ages page was done by Shaviv before he found the results from Veizer represented in the bottom half of the figure. They then collaborated on the 2003 paper.

    A brand new, as of today, post by Shaviv is here:
    http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

    Russ, this might deserve attention in nextgrandminimum

  35. Steven, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has some insight into the consensus issue in this post a WUWT: The illogic of climate hysteria

    “But there’s a CONSENSUS!” shrieked the bossy environmentalist with the messy blonde hair.
    “That, Madame, is intellectual baby-talk,” I replied.

    I was about to give a talk questioning “global warming” hysteria at Union College, Schenectady. College climate extremists, led by my interlocutor, had set up a table at the door of the lecture theatre to deter students from hearing the sceptical side of the case.

    The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the mediaeval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy.

    A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst.

    One should not make the mistake of thinking that Aristotle’s fallacies are irrelevant archaisms. They are as crucial today as when he first wrote them down. Arguments founded upon any of his fallacies are unsound and unreliable, and that is that.

    Startlingly, nearly all of the usual arguments for alarm about the climate are instances of Aristotle’s dozen fallacies of relevance or of presumption, not the least of which is the consensus fallacy.

    Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so. The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

    Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.

    The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that manmade global warming is potentially catastrophic.

    Some climate extremists say there is a “consensus of evidence”. However, evidence cannot hold or express an opinion. There has been no global warming for a decade and a half; sea level has been rising for eight years at a rate equivalent to just 3 cm per century; hurricane activity is at its lowest in the 30-year satellite record; global sea-ice extent has hardly changed in that time; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice overall; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; and the 50 million “climate refugees” that the UN had said would be displaced by 2010 simply do not exist. To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support catastrophism.

    Read the Rest of the Post HERE.

  36. ggoodknight says:

    I really have no problem believing as a rough estimate that 97% of the scientists dependent upon the current funding stream believe catastrophic AGW needs more study. But that is not 97% of scientists.

    Once it becomes safe for working scientists to come out of the closet as a skeptic or scoffer, without repercussions over tenure or grant fundings, the AGW scare will be over.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: