Wafting strongly, the sweet stench of consensus: Realclimate

The geniuses at Realclimate have emerged from behind their bunker, yet again. This time we are truly blessed— another nugget of wisdom from ‘group’ has tumbled down, slipping free from their grasp. Shall we see what it is?

You must be aware that there is something known as The Consensus™ in climate science. The nugget in question explains what The Consensus™ is:

.. humans are strongly warming the planet in recent decades, primarily by greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere

Say what?

Imprecise yet clever use of language in scientific discourse is a hallmark sign that ideologies are sought to be advanced, or ignorance sought to be hidden. There are clear differences between what ‘group’ is telling you, and what the even the IPCC , that bastion of climate wisdom proclaims the consensus on anthropogenic warming to be

‘group’, of course wants to pretend, that what it is telling you is the same as the IPCC, but their words speak otherwise.

Are there any doubts yet, that these personages are an embarrassment to science?

Advertisements

14 comments

  1. omnologos

    Is there some text missing?

    Anyway: Singh speaks openly of the “broad consensus”. But as Ridley points out, the IPCC statement “most of observed etc etc” is so broad, one wonders what reasons the uberwarmists actually have to go around slashing&burning against anybody that doesn’t mindlessly link to Skeptical Science.

  2. Bruce

    I guess “mildly cooled the planet from 1999 to 2011” was too truthful so they left that part out.

  3. Shub Niggurath

    The IPCC says ‘most of the warming in 2nd half of 20th century is very likely due to humans’.

    Realclimate says: ‘humans have strongly warmed the earth in 2nd half of 20th century’

    In other words, the IPCC says there is strong evidence to suggest that humans caused warming, and Realclimate says there is evidence that humans caused strong warming.

    Is there anywhere in the IPCC consensus on AGW about why the human-caused warming is too much?

  4. Edward

    In my estimation, I guess it would be, maybe, er…..and if you look at the consensus – some of the scientists say that, probably, according to the models – in maybe the next whatever years the temperature will +/- be in the range of an indeterminate figure. In conclusion, thus, we can say in all probability, that ………….
    One thing is for sure; the science is settled?

    Apples and nuts and ifs and buts!

  5. omnologos

    I have just read the RC rant. Funny how Gavin did reply to second comment, but still seems blissfully unaware that by his keeping company with the anticapitalistic lot, all the “scientific” grandstanding loses every meaning.

  6. Shub Niggurath

    Check this out:

    When someone makes an ignorant statement – let’s take a real example, John Boehner’s claim that climate scientists think that CO2 is a problem because it is carcinogenic, it is not ‘ad hom’ to point out that this is wrong,…

    There is however profound ignorance among people who argue about this in the public sphere – confusing climate change via CO2 with the ozone hole, misunderstanding the nature of attribution, whether CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, what a greenhouse gas is, etc

    Think about it.

    According to medical scientist, Gavin Schmidt, if you question banning or controlling naturally occurring substances, or presume that scientists say CO2 is carcinogenic, you are ‘ignorant’.

    This must clearly be because CO2 produces asthma not cancer.

  7. Brad Keyes

    We all know the argumentum ad verecundiam is fallacious but I’m not even sure its premise is true…where did this meme break out?

    It seems to only have two possible roots:

    – the “thousands of scientists” who work on the IPCC, but we know only 52 ever endorsed jack, right?
    – and Oreskes’ essay in Nature 2004

    The second “paper” is a more brazen piece of climate logic than I expected even from these grown-up teratomas. Tell me I’m missing some nuance. Surely it’s not this overt:

    – Nature publishes her piece as an “Essay”, allowing it to bypass peer review, and exempting it from the standards of any known genre of scholarship, even the most pomo and innumerate of which would have sent it back
    – Oreskes stipulates the “consensus view” according to some kind of vague word-averaging of the various statements in an IPCC doc
    – she then looks for papers that *refute* this (is this her semiliterate dialect for “deny”?)
    – there’s only one that denies it, a few that assert it
    – by some bold new form of logic which would be fraud coming from any professional actuary, market researcher or child running a lemonade stand, she codes every paper that’s neutral on it as *endorsing it implicitly*
    – apologists at realclimate.com, skepticalscience.com etc. back up this postnormal logic by saying: evo bio papers hardly need to mention Darwin’s theory, because it’s pretty much solid science by now… silence equals consensus
    – this is all done, pretty obviously, so that Al Gore has some legal pretense to say in his carbon-trading infomercial An Inconvenient Truth, that “a study in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found that only one paper disagreed with …”, implying that the ad itself was peer-reviewed
    – Schulte and Peiser fall into (what appears to have been) a trap by treating this as a piece of *scholarship* and quibbling with one or two of the numbers instead of the fact that the thing is a pseudo-article
    – they try to publish their replies but are rejected on the (quite correct) grounds that there is insufficient scientific merit in any of this childishness
    – this licences the apoloblogs to write “hmm, looks like the rumored denier rebuttals didn’t turn out to meet the minimum scholarly standard of peer review”, thus legitimizing it
    – all this without the slightest trace in the scientific literature of any moment before 1994 at which everybody *decided* or even *gave a crap about* attribution of warming to carbon dioxide
    – so the “overwhelming majority of scientists” were magicked into history out of thin air
    – by someone regarded as a “historian of science” ?

  8. Bruce

    In 1991, Pinatubo erupted ejecting roughly 20 million tons of SO2 …. the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C

    The EPA says the USA: “Power plants have decreased emissions of SO2, a precursor to acid rain, to 5.7 million tons in 2009, … a 64 percent decrease from 1990 levels.”

    http://www.epa.gov/aging/press/epanews/2010/2010_1220_1.htm

    Cleaner air is the equivalent of a negative Pinatubo EVERY YEAR — just from the USA. Other countries have cleaned their air as well.

    The temperature increase from 1990 to 1998 is easily explained by cleaner air and more sunshine.

  9. BillyBob

    I like this one:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702145431.htm

    “Global warming will cause more deaths in summer because of higher temperatures but these will not be offset by fewer deaths in milder winters

    Making air conditioning universally available may reduce heat-related mortality but would, on the other hand, have a perverse effect by enhancing global warming through carbon dioxide emissions from electricity consumption.”

    Translation: A/C could save you life, but if you do, you will be killing other people!

    Thats some catch that Catch-22.

  10. omnologos

    We should be grateful to the AAAS. The entertainment value of their meetings is like a good wine, keeps getting better and better the older it gets.