Denialism in Review: the Associated Press

The main political influence in climate science is the IPCC.
They are purely a POLITICAL organization.
Sister organization to the IAEA "International Atomic Energy Agency".
Both under the umbrella of the UN.
Both PROMOTING nuclear energy.
So yeah lets get politics out of science.

 

none of the Rasmussen Reports was peer reviewed.

how about the reports you referred to? many of them had not been peer reviewed or had been reviewed and found to be outright wrong?

 

we can always count on you to come up with another loony conspiracy theory. :jaw:

 

"The IAEA works closely with all its member States on these programmes and interacts actively with several partners, such as UN DESA, IEA/OECD, IPCC, US-DOE, etc."
International Atomic Energy Agency | UN-Energy Knowledge
Network

[ame="http://www.google.com/search?q=iaea+ipcc&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a#q=iaea+ipcc&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ubw&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&prmd=imvnsb&ei=ZTaDTq_FH-jPiAKttoDOAQ&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=15d8226b480c5dc5&biw=924&bih=526"]iaea ipcc - Google Search[/ame]

 

Its a poll, the methodology is public. I don't think anyone has been concerned enough to review it, but it certainly can be. It is not as if this is an unexpected result.

journalism is not peer reviewed. A couple of the news stories mentioned that directly. The scientists were interviewed. I suppose it could be all made up, and interviews faked. Some people have thought that of the moon landing.

It is much more likely that some scientists did fake data to get the results that wanted, as some of these reports have said. That certainly does not mean most reports had faked or manipulated data. Since climate gate broke and there has been more coverage the poll says the number of people that think it is somewhat possible that some scientists have faked or manipulated data has gone up 10% to 69% percent. As I said, IMHO you are naive or dishonest if you you answer no all scientists have done everything absolutely correctly when it comes to publications in regard to climate change.

 

per Rasmussen poll 78% of 'merkans believe in UFO, but only 9% believe in social security.

you are as much loony as mojo if you believe scientific articles published w/o review. Albeit most of them don't go more then walking across hallway and asking fellow researcher to look at your pub for whooping 5 min. This is from personal experience working in academic environment, YMMV.


This Yankee dodge, gentlemen, beats mesmerism hollow - Professor Liston

 

I thought a merkan was a pubic wig. If you mean Americans, that does not sound like a poll, but you do know the difference between a poll and facts. One is asking opinions. If your criticism is that it is a poll, well that is kind of obvious.

Polls also show most Americans support regulation to reduce co2 emissions.

How Wrong Is the IPCC? | Mother Jones
And there seem to be a fair number of questionable claims, including:

Not exactly fox news reporting these things. The problem is non-peer reviewed and manipulated data being put out as scientific fact. This should give you pause and think that yes maybe the majority is right. It is somewhat likely that some climate scientists have manipulated data. You might even agree with Watson, the former chair of the IPCC that these problems should be addressed instead of whitewashed.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying the IPCC is perfect and all claims should not be challenged at all or you should be labeled a denyer. Well sir, I disagree.

 

Well the IPCC has not been popular here recently. I'd rather not step up as their defender. In fact my own largest personal beef concerns Amazon forest mortality. They cited some gray literature (WWF I think) instead of peer-reviewed stuff. I have no idea why, but the authors of the studies were (also) disappointed how it was handled. The result required some backpedaling and IPCC' credibility suffered as a result. Didn't mean that the science was wrong; rather that the IPCC botched it.

But anyway, it is there to serve a purpose that seems to me entirely useful and appropriate. Distill the science and projections to a level where governments and policy specialists can decide in an informed manner how to take action. If at all?

I gather that not all here think IPCC have done an A#1 job at it. They promise to do better, but, well there you go. Certainly worthy of discussion whether there may be a better way to fulfill that function.

But to delete the function entirely seems unwise, at least to me. It supposes that governments and policy specialists can understand the research and its implications all by themselves. Or, that there is no reason to seek to understand earth science and climate better, for the purpose of policy in decades ahead.

I don't like either of those latter two choices. Perhaps others here have higher confidence in governments to understand science? Or in their own personal scientific certainty that it would not benefit us (writ large) to understand these things better?

So, if you want an other-than-IPCC, by all means please describe it in some detail, including the financial basis.

Some interesting points of view on the subject here:

IPCC’s problems at the top | Climate Etc.

 

This ties in with the IPCC is sloppy science thread.
It has become an issue that the EPA took the IPCC report as fact rather than science fiction,and based it's "CO2 is a pollutant" stance illegally.
Good riddance.
James Inhofe: EPA IG Finds Serious Flaws in Centerpiece of Obama Global Warming Agenda | Climate Realists

BTW I despise Republicans .

 

That statement seems quite political and distorting of the science, so I looked it up. It appears that the bush epa originally issued the ruling and the obama epa followed up on it after the supreme court case. The epa under both administrations used solid peer reviewed science. The only thing the IG found was a couple of procedural issues.



Conservative Media Join Inhofe's Anti-EPA Fishing Expedition | Media Matters for America

So we have some problems with government, the EPA should not had any employees on the review and there was 1, and should have publicly reported it. There was not any question on the science though. I don't think the truth makes a very impressive headline, nor the fact that $300K was wasted on the investigation.

 

“I am calling for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee of jurisdiction over the EPA, to hold immediate hearings to address EPA’s failure to provide the required documentation and have the science impartially reviewed. EPA needs to explain to the American people why it blatantly circumvented its own procedures to make what appears to be a predetermined endangerment finding.â€

 

The EPA "endengerment" web page offers a lot of information

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

One might want to go through that before deciding that the documentation is inadequate or incomplete.

The science is embodied in the 10 1/2 pages of references (see it yourselves via above link). A mixture of journal publications. government reports, and books. I'd certainly have no objections to reviewing (in some cases, re-reviewing) that material. But who is being proposed to do it and with what funding mechanisms?

For me, a matter of interest would be to update the science since the Finding was prepared in 2009. There are many publications from 2010 and 2011 that would seem very relevant.

 

A couple of reasons I can think of.

First: Al Gore, a politician, should not have assumed the Global Warming cloak--that automatically politicized an issue which is not political.

Second: there are big money interests in this country (the oil baron Koch brothers, for one, who have poured 100s of millions of dollars into the media pushing reactionary views) who stand to lose their shirts if the country goes green. They are the real enemies of Global Warming.

What Obama should have done when he got elected on a huge mandate was to declare Global Warming a national security issue, and directed the National Academy of Sciences to put together a Global Warming panel to issue a report and recommendations on the subject.Unfortunately, Obama has not been the strong leader the voters expected, and he has missed the boat. He has made that Nobel committee look pretty ridiculous giving him a Nobel prize for doing nothing.

 

Mojo,
That is a quote from Inhofe, and really distorts what the report says. He leaked the report, so that he could get out infront of the news cycle. EPA didn't follow some rules, but it has nothing to do with the science. Inhofe cost us $300K, and maybe the EPA will need to pay more for some documentation, but the ruling will stand.

EPA needed more data before ruling on greenhouse gas emissions, report says - The Washington Post

We should note this evidence was peer reviewed and included references from many US government agencies and universities as well as the IPCC. It did not rely on the IPCC summary as Inhofe has incorrectly tried to portray it.

The issue that the IG found would be resolved if the EPA replaced the 1 member of the 12 member review panel that had a conflict of interest. The new panel would need to meet and properly publicly provide documentation of its meeting.

It should be noted that the supreme court 5-4 ruling did not say the EPA would need to show evidence, it said they would have to show evidence that CO2 was not a pollutant under the clean air act to not regulate it. The biggest problem EPA had was a rush to give california's ARB a waiver to regulate CO2 under the clean air act. This seemed like a political move that ruffled many feathers. It would be better if congress acted, or moved ghg outside the clean air act. After all unlike those local pollutants regulations that say would move refineries to Canada or mexico would not reduce the impact of CO2, only move the source. EPA has not yet said what refinery and manufacturing rules are going to be, only that they will not impact current facilities until 2015.

 

Fossil fuels permeate our culture. We substitute oil for knowledge. We do not readily see convenient, cost effective alternatives. The first reaction is denial. Fossil-based corporations reinforce this denial.

 

PriusSport, the "national security" angle has been seen as important by many in the national security community. As to what Obama should have done, I'm sure it is a matter of discussion in FHO Politics. Historians will probably have that worked out, about the same time as climatologists come up with global models that are convincing to all

But we probably shouldn't dwell on how things might have been, absent ongoing wars and financial turmoil at the time of his inauguration. It is what it is.

But I hope you do not suppose that the NAS have just been sitting on their hands. Check their website for several recent reports that can be read freely online.

AG, it is an excellent point that while almost all the 'classical' air pollutants are subject to prompt rainout or photochemical degradation, CO2 is well mixed, global and long lived. In that sense it is fundamentally different. Is it therefore outside EPA purview, even if large global CO2 increases become universally acknowledged as harmful? I'll just leave that question hanging in the air...

If the EPA cannot proceed against CO2 emissions, I see no mechanism for the US to slow its emissions. Different people will see that as a good or bad thing I suppose.

skruse, in the most general terms, this is the world's most profitable industry vs. earth system scientists trying to describe the most complex natural systems with evolving, and yet still clearly inadequate tools. Perhaps we should have anticipated an impasse...

 

I definitely was not saying it should be outside of EPA purview. Let's face it the supreme court ruled that it was covered under a law made in the 70s, that did not think about CO2 or mercury. CO2 is something quite different, and needs to be regulated differently, with the knowledge that simply moving point sources outside.

Giving California's ARB control of things like cafe standards was part of the reason for the lawsuit. There was quite a few ruffled feathers at the idea of different CAFE standards in CARB states than the rest of the country. CARB did fall in line on national standards, but congress needs to act to get these things done right. The federal government always had the ability to regulate CAFE standards and set gas taxes. I do not have much confidence in congress or the EPA.


There are two major sources of CO2 whose regulation will not simply move CO2 to other countries. The first is transportation, and the federal government always had the ability to regulate that. The second is power plants. The epa could easily reduce CO2 from power plants by tightening smog, SO2, NOX, and getting mercury regulation finally being implemented. So they could probably be more effective than current CO2 proposals simply by killing ineffienct old coal, but politically that will not happen. Make no mistake if EPA regulates CO2 instead of congress passing a law, there will be much less of a reduction in CO2. Will this reduction do any good compared to the increases in China and India? I think that is doubtful. If you actually care about effective reductions it needs to be through a new law passed by the congress over the objections of coal states.

 

AG, the technology for CO2 sequestration is easily available, and old coal factories could be retrofitted, the question is cost. EPA had used taxpayer money to develop cheaper cost-effective solutions:

NETL: Carbon Sequestration

And if you disagree with Supreme Court ruling on CO2, stop b!tching file lawsuit

 

This is simply untrue. Though many newer plants can add sequestration, the bulk of the US coal plants that are over 30 years old can more cheaply get rebuilt from scratch then add the technology. There is a grandfathering of the worst plants under clean air act, and this needs to be removed, adding things like sequestration would force these plants to lose grandfathered status and again, be shut down as too costly to comply with todays other regulations. These loopholes need to be closed.

New plants can be built with sequestration, but at todays coal and gas prices it is cheaper to built a natural gas plant with sequestration than a coal plant including projected fuel costs. A new combined cycle natural gas plants even without sequestration produces less than 25% of the co2 as one of the grandfathered plants and less than 5% of the SO2, NOx, and mercury.

I'm bitching about the congress. Instrad of fixing the law, they tried to just strip the CO2 from it. This passed the house not the senate. If they had written it properly to give co2 regulation in a different way it would have been passed. 40 year old laws need to be fixed and not left to the court to decide. MMS not EPA regulates polution from offshore drilling, anouther epic congressional fail.

 

I know essentially nothing about the economics of coal-plant carbon capture in storage beyond what I can read at

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage]Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

and google for china, because its efforts are not listed in the wiki.

I don't expect much CCS to happen, unless a real consensus is reached on the economic cost (externality) of CO2 in terms of climate sensitivity. Similarly expecting no congressional legislation w/o such consensus.

Meanwhile the EPA finding, if it leads to emission reductions, looks like the only game in (USA) town. With the wisdom of years later, we may hail it as a great success, wish we had done more, or regret it as a waste of time and money.

Effective measures to limit CO2 increases, that I often blather on about, relate to energy-use efficiency and increasing biological C sequestration on land (not at sea, it now appears that toxic algae are far too fond of iron supplements). The former are things that we know how to do. Some of them have negative costs and others are less costly than CCS currently promises to be. I think we should be moving more quickly in those directions, and that's all.

end, pau, -30-