Climate Change Brigade Smear Professor Who Doesn't Agree

[Danny Deflation]

The professor who refused to sign last week’s high-profile UN climate report because it was too ‘alarmist’, has told The Mail on Sunday he has become the victim of a smear campaign.

Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his reputation by a key figure from a leading institution that researches the impact of global warming.

Prof Tol said: ‘This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign. It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.’

Prof Tol, from Sussex University, is a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly ‘alarmist’.

In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.

Full article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html

[onlyme2]

The press are being gagged by the politicians.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/01/telegraph-and-mail-concede-on-climate-change

Telegraph and Mail concede on climate change

Newspapers critical of climate change science tell MPs global warming is happening and humans play a role in it

[oracle]

it's a cult, plain and simple.

..same techniques....burn the heretics.

Don't really rate aleister crowley , but he did come up with some concepts like this as becoming evident in the transition to the aeon of horus...just look around you, looks like it's in play already.

(he called fascism and communism infantile.......did quote a bit about so-called health-fads..we're seeing all of the above in some shape or form at the moment)

also said part of this aeon of horus thingy was to see britain bankrupt and colonised by another continental european power( looks like that bit's happening..I'd say germany's got the best shout on that)...so I assume it's part of their playbook.

winston churchill on the other hand said if we were starving we still wouldn't submit to that.(cue farage)..and we would be heading across the pond.

[libspero]

I would love to see a really well researched documentary into climate change taking views from prominent researchers from both sides and then breaking them down into:

What we know absolutely for certain and that all sides agree on.

What there is some debate about, presenting both sides and the arguments for and against from each side (without necessarily drawing a final conclusion)

Explaining what there is that we still don't know and what effect these unknowns could have on the models.

Concluding with a summary of the above points..

Or has this already been done?

[snowflux]

I would love to see a really well researched documentary into climate change taking views from prominent researchers from both sides and then breaking them down into:

What we know absolutely for certain and that all sides agree on.

What there is some debate about, presenting both sides and the arguments for and against from each side (without necessarily drawing a final conclusion)

Explaining what there is that we still don't know and what effect these unknowns could have on the models.

Concluding with a summary of the above points..

Or has this already been done?

I think that, amongst scientists at least, there aren't really any sides, but rather a spectrum of opinions. The overwhelming majority would, I think, agree that human emissions are having (and will continue to have) some degree of effect on the Earth's climate. There is, however, a lot of uncertainty about the extent and distribution of these effects. The extremes of opinion are represented by the small minorities who convinced that these effects will be either negligible or catastrophic.

Edit: One additional point is that the scientists' prediction are not based exclusively on models, but also to a large extent on palaeoclimatological data, in particular the close correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature indicated by ice core data.

[LiveinHope]

I would love to see a really well researched documentary into climate change taking views from prominent researchers from both sides and then breaking them down into:

What we know absolutely for certain and that all sides agree on.

What there is some debate about, presenting both sides and the arguments for and against from each side (without necessarily drawing a final conclusion)

Explaining what there is that we still don't know and what effect these unknowns could have on the models.

Concluding with a summary of the above points..

Or has this already been done?

I would too

For TV / Cinema ? What is your attention span ? Would you take a mult-ipart series ?

It could be done, but it would take money and that requires an audience to cover the costs, unless you are a philanthropist - in which case send me a pm.

Unfortunately, I suspect (have experience of) that any proposal for a programme / series would be perceived by a producer (remember producers are mainly from 'Arts' disciplines) as making dull television, and their attempts to 'sex' it up or 'dramatise' it would create all the problems that you wish to overcome.

In the absence of what you want, there are the IPCC reports.

[LiveinHope]

I think that, amongst scientists at least, there aren't really any sides, but rather a spectrum of opinions. The overwhelming majority would, I think, agree that human emissions are having (and will continue to have) some degree of effect on the Earth's climate. There is, however, a lot of uncertainty about the extent and distribution of these effects. The extremes of opinion are represented by the small minorities who convinced that these effects will be either negligible or catastrophic.

Edit: One additional point is that the scientists' prediction are not based exclusively on models, but also to a large extent on palaeoclimatological data, in particular the close correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature indicated by ice core data.

Ahh, scientists ' opinions' - I am currently one of a 32 author paper (and growing) on a mutli-system climate change study that has so far taken 18 months to not satisfy reviewers (which is why the author list is growing).

Personally, I think an understanding of the long-term and short-term carbon cycles (and how biology influences them) would see the pennies drop from many of the public's eyes.

[fluffy666]

I would love to see a really well researched documentary into climate change taking views from prominent researchers from both sides and then breaking them down into:

The problem is already one of false balance by the time you get here.

Basically, there are no prominent researchers on the 'skeptic' side. You might come up with a handful of names (Lindzen, Curry., etc) who are actually published scientists and generally regarded as skeptics, but even then you couldn't get them to outline 'their side' in a coherent manner.

There's a simple test if you think I'm lying.. just go to any of the skeptic blogs /sites, and strip out all the abuse, and complaints of persecution, attacks on climate scientists and/or their work. Basically, try to get through the noise to the signal.

[LiveinHope]

There's a simple test if you think I'm lying.. just go to any of the skeptic blogs /sites, and strip out all the abuse, and complaints of persecution, attacks on climate scientists and/or their work. Basically, try to get through the noise to the signal.

Many of my papers are covered by the press - the online comment sections always degenerate into vitriolic abuse from a vocal minority, which extinguishes discussion.

[corevalue]

The problem is already one of false balance by the time you get here.

Basically, there are no prominent researchers on the 'skeptic' side. You might come up with a handful of names (Lindzen, Curry., etc) who are actually published scientists and generally regarded as skeptics, but even then you couldn't get them to outline 'their side' in a coherent manner.

There's a simple test if you think I'm lying.. just go to any of the skeptic blogs /sites, and strip out all the abuse, and complaints of persecution, attacks on climate scientists and/or their work. Basically, try to get through the noise to the signal.

You don't need to be a prominent researcher to notice the divergence of the "expert" models against what actually has been measured over the last fifteen or more years.

[fluffy666]

You don't need to be a prominent researcher to notice the divergence of the "expert" models against what actually has been measured over the last fifteen or more years.

This is a classic example of why any debate is impossible.

Don't address the point, don't who the alternative model or research, just repeat along-debunked talking point.

[libspero]

I would too

For TV / Cinema ? What is your attention span ? Would you take a mult-ipart series ?

It could be done, but it would take money and that requires an audience to cover the costs, unless you are a philanthropist - in which case send me a pm.

Unfortunately, I suspect (have experience of) that any proposal for a programme / series would be perceived by a producer (remember producers are mainly from 'Arts' disciplines) as making dull television, and their attempts to 'sex' it up or 'dramatise' it would create all the problems that you wish to overcome.

In the absence of what you want, there are the IPCC reports.

Maybe something about an hour long, probably just a one off.

In terms of funding, the idea is that it would be educational as opposed to simply entertainment but at a level that even idiots like me can digest. On that basis it would be nice to see a collaboration between RCUK (NERC), the Met office and the BBC. RCUK has a budget of £5.8bn planned for 2015=>2016.. I'm sure they could find some loose change somewhere down the back of the sofa.

There is a lot of money available for research into climate change, but seemingly not a lot available to show the public what we have learned/gained from our investment.

It would be good to involve the public in the debate, or at least educate them as to what the debate is about.

[libspero]

Basically, there are no prominent researchers on the 'skeptic' side. You might come up with a handful of names (Lindzen, Curry., etc) who are actually published scientists and generally regarded as skeptics, but even then you couldn't get them to outline 'their side' in a coherent manner.

Then when presented with the opposing views it should be very easy for prominent advocates to explain why these views are wrong and how the differences are proven to be explained by other means.

But even between the advocates of MMGW there is debate about degrees of effect, different models etc.. how about open discussion between different "pro" theories as well as people who are entirely skeptical altogether?

[snowflux]

Then when presented with the opposing views it should be very easy for prominent advocates to explain why these views are wrong and how the differences are proven to be explained by other means.

But even between the advocates of MMGW there is debate about degrees of effect, different models etc.. how about open discussion between different "pro" theories as well as people who are entirely skeptical altogether?

That's a bit naive. In public debates rhetoric trumps reason every time (edit: that's exactly the point I was making on the thread I started about BBC coverage of the issue).

To me, the debate about climate change has close parallels with the debate (in the US, at least) about evolution. A large fraction of Americans reject outright the theory of evolution through natural selection, while you'd be hard pressed to find any biologists that do, though they may well disagree about the precise mechanisms involved. Now imagine trying to hold a sensible public debate about the nuances of evolution while insisting on the presence of a creationist on the panel.

[Tankus]

Um ...which ones are the Climate 'deniers' the creationists or the evolutionists .?

[Bloo Loo]

That's a bit naive. In public debates rhetoric trumps reason every time (edit: that's exactly the point I was making on the thread I started about BBC coverage of the issue).

To me, the debate about climate change has close parallels with the debate (in the US, at least) about evolution. A large fraction of Americans reject outright the theory of evolution through natural selection, while you'd be hard pressed to find any biologists that do, though they may well disagree about the precise mechanisms involved. Now imagine trying to hold a sensible public debate about the nuances of evolution while insisting on the presence of a creationist on the panel.

evolution and creationism are not what the argument is about,

Even creationists agree that things change...they evolve.

The question is what caused the spark of life...

Evolution has no answer.

[libspero]

That's a bit naive. In public debates rhetoric trumps reason every time (edit: that's exactly the point I was making on the thread I started about BBC coverage of the issue).

To me, the debate about climate change has close parallels with the debate (in the US, at least) about evolution. A large fraction of Americans reject outright the theory of evolution through natural selection, while you'd be hard pressed to find any biologists that do, though they may well disagree about the precise mechanisms involved. Now imagine trying to hold a sensible public debate about the nuances of evolution while insisting on the presence of a creationist on the panel.

Ok, I agree but I think it could work in the following way:

Firstly no verbal debate.. I'm not suggesting a Farage Vs Clegg style Jeremy Kyle show with climatologists.

The presenter would need to be a scientist themselves but not necessarily directly involved in the field (the BBC like Brian Cox.. he'd be a good candidate to appeal to the public but also respected by most academics)

The presenter would get to the heart of the debate and simply present the evidence from both sides, then allow responses from anyone who has a reasonable argument against.. possibly allowing the provider of the original evidence to counter that or just agree/admit that there is an outlying chance or unknown variable but on balance.. etc.

To use your parallel analogy, this would give creationists a chance to say "you can't prove absolutely that there wasn't/isn't intelligent design" but it would also give evolutionists the chance to respond by pointing out that whether god exists or not, there is still all of this demonstrable evidence that evolution occurs. It is then up to the viewer to decide which is more plausible.

I might well be naive, but I don't see there is anything to lose by throwing all of the best information out there in an easily comprehensible format and letting the public make of it what they will.

[LiveinHope]

Brian Cox.. he'd be a good candidate to appeal to the public but also respected by most academics

Oh dear, I can see concensus will collapse before any footage is even shot.

[Kurt Barlow]

evolution and creationism are not what the argument is about,

Even creationists agree that things change...they evolve.

The question is what caused the spark of life...

Evolution has no answer.

What about creationists who start with - And God created Adam.......

[Kurt Barlow]

Oh dear, I can see concensus will collapse before any footage is even shot.

Whatever you think of him at least he generates some interest in Science. A vast improvement on the XFactor and Reality SLEB nonentities that grace the screens these days.

[swissy_fit]

Whatever you think of him at least he generates some interest in Science. A vast improvement on the XFactor and Reality SLEB nonentities that grace the screens these days.

+1

[LiveinHope]

Maybe something about an hour long, probably just a one off.

In terms of funding, the idea is that it would be educational as opposed to simply entertainment but at a level that even idiots like me can digest. On that basis it would be nice to see a collaboration between RCUK (NERC), the Met office and the BBC. RCUK has a budget of £5.8bn planned for 2015=>2016.. I'm sure they could find some loose change somewhere down the back of the sofa.

There is a lot of money available for research into climate change, but seemingly not a lot available to show the public what we have learned/gained from our investment.

It would be good to involve the public in the debate, or at least educate them as to what the debate is about.

NERC or the Royal Society would be the likely funders, or Industry. The former two have only a small piece of the pie and it has to go a long way. For example, the UK has just launched RRS Discovery

I do a lot of science outreach. It is both as expensive to do well as day to day research and it is as costly in terms of time, which is away from 'the bench'.

Nevertheless, I do science outreach because I think it is very important, and not least because the tax payer funds my research. (My outreach is mainly funded by corporate sponsorship.)

But, is the outreach worth it ? While incorrect in context, perhaps, the saying "That none are so blind as those who do not want to see", is apt. The 'converted', the open-minded and the interested will engage and make it all worth while. However, the 'science skeptics', who really are in the passionate minority and some of whom come across as no more than frustrated show-offs, seem to treat it as an opportunity to be argumentative or dismissive, and shout loudly, rather than engage constructively.

[Bloo Loo]

What about creationists who start with - And God created Adam.......

is that not the spark of life?

Of course, some creationist just reject anything that isnt written in their version of the bible.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

is that not the spark of life?

Of course, some creationist just reject anything that isnt written in their version of the bible.

As you mentioned earlier, variation within 'kind' (microevolution (sic.)) is allowed. Speciation, apparently, isn't....

wiki: microevolution

In young Earth creationism and baraminology a central tenet is that evolution can explain diversity in a limited number of created kinds which can interbreed (which they call "microevolution") while the formation of new "kinds" (which they call "macroevolution") is impossible.[3][49] This acceptance of "microevolution" only within a "kind" is also typical of old Earth creationism.

[Riedquat]

evolution and creationism are not what the argument is about,

Even creationists agree that things change...they evolve.

The question is what caused the spark of life...

Evolution has no answer.

At the risk of sounding elitist that illustrates the problem with any sort of public debate - the public swallow that sort of answer, but the creationists don't have an answer to that question. They've hypothesised something is all but being able to invent a hypothesis is irrelevent. From my point of view it just says that they are more likely to work on the basis of implausible hypotheses.