Scientific consensus on climate change

Upton · #1 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007, 09:19 PM

140 countries involved. Could we be seeing science triumphing over greed?

Quote:

Climate change document completed

Associated Press
VALENCIA, Spain — Delegates from more than 140 countries agreed Friday on a scientific "instant guide" for policymakers, stating more forcefully than ever that climate change has begun and threatens to irreversibly alter the planet.

The document, summarizing the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change, will be distributed to delegates at a crucial meeting in Indonesia next month that is intended to launch a political process on international cooperation to control global warming.

Five days of sometimes tense negotiations ended before dawn with the approval of a 20-page summary of thousands of pages of data and computer projections compiled over the last six years by the Nobel Peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report does not commit participating governments to any course of action but it is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning those countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions. It provides a common scientific base line for the political talks.

"This is a groundbreaking document that will pave the way for deep emissions cuts by developing countries," said Stephan Singer, a climate specialist for the World Wide Fund for Nature.

The report describes how climate systems are changing and why, the effects it is having on mankind and ecosystems, and various scenarios of future impacts, depending on how quickly action is taken to slow the trend.

The summary and a longer "synthesis report" were expected to be formally adopted after proofreading. They will be released Saturday at a news conference attended by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the summary begins, in a statement meant to dispel any skepticism about the reality of climate change, said participants in the meeting.

In a startling and much-debated conclusion, the document warns that human activity risks causing "abrupt or irreversible changes" on Earth, including the widespread extinction of species and a dramatic rise in sea levels before the end of this century, they said on condition of anonymity because the details are supposed to remain confidential until Saturday.

"I think overall it is a good and balanced document," said Bert Metz, an eminent Dutch scientist and one of the 40 authors of the draft. "In the end, a lot of people had to compromise," he said.

Though it contains no previously unpublished material, the summary pulls together the central elements of three lengthy reports the IPCC released earlier this year. Boiling down the 3,000 pages into about 20 was "quite a challenge," said Metz.

The agreement was seen as a personal triumph for the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri of India, who presided with no-nonsense efficiency and bulldozed through compromise language. Pachauri, who will accept the IPCC's Nobel Peace prize in Oslo on Dec. 10 along with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, is expected to stand for re-election as head of the IPCC next year, delegates said.

Delegates said the talks this week were difficult, and sometimes bogged down for hours over a brief phrase.

The meeting in the Indonesian resort of Bali starting Dec. 3 will discuss the next step in combating climate change after the measures adopted in the Kyoto Protocol expire in five years. Kyoto obliges 36 industrial countries to radically reduce their carbon emissions by 2012, but has no clear plan for what happens after that date.

Organizers say the new "road map" emerging from Bali should draw in the USA, which rejected the Kyoto accord and has tried to enlist other countries in voluntary schemes to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and invest in technology research.

website has chart on predicted temperature rise. Climate change document completed - USATODAY.com

Badmutha · #2 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007, 09:35 PM

Whatever happened to that consensus on Global Cooling?

What about the consensus on ocean pollution ending the world?

Wasnt the consensus that we were supposed to be dead--like 10 times already

I bet more people would believe the consensus--that is if the consensus was ever right

OkhamsRazor · #3 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badmutha

Whatever happened to that consensus on Global Cooling?

What about the consensus on ocean pollution ending the world?

Wasnt the consensus that we were supposed to be dead--like 10 times already

I bet more people would believe the consensus--that is if the consensus was ever right

If the consensus had ever been right, there wouldn't be many around to form a consensus... now would there?

I have to say though, that using the logic of "it hasn't happened yet, so..." is so flawed in so many ways.

Look, each thing has to be looked at carefully on it's own merits. Keeping in mind that past incidences may have been overblown and dead wrong. Then using that as a reason to do better data colloction and analysis to get it right. Not a good reason to ignore something or presume it benign.

coyote · #4 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

140 countries involved. Could we be seeing science triumphing over greed?
website has chart on predicted temperature rise. Climate change document completed - USATODAY.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Though it contains no previously unpublished material, the summary pulls together the central elements of three lengthy reports the IPCC released earlier this year. Boiling down the 3,000 pages into about 20 was "quite a challenge," said Metz.

So what they’ve done is regurgitated stuff we already know. Of course the IPCC has to release stuff like this to stay relevant, here is a critic on the so-called “consensus”:

Quote:

4. The IPCC's misuse of the concept of consensus

The IPCC misuses the concept of a consensus to provide misleading and false impressions.

The document defining the IPCC's principles also says:

Quote:

10. In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus.... Differing views on matters of a scientific, technical or socio-economic nature shall, as appropriate in the context, be represented in the scientific, technical or socio-economic document concerned....

In other words the IPCC's formal acceptance of a document or report will be determined by consensus among its members. This is entirely reasonable because a consensus is a decision-making tool for groups of people working in administrative or advisory roles (e.g. committees, juries in court cases, politicians, and assemblies in general).

It is a fundamental principle of science that support for a hypothesis means nothing because everything depends on whether the hypothesis can be proved wrong. Settling an unresolved scientific matter is normally done by trying to break various hypotheses and continuing until one is found that cannot be broken, at which point the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.

These matters are not settled by consensus but by dogged testing. Science and its near neighbour medicine are replete with examples of maverick individuals rejecting the consensus of the day and proposing new theories that subsequently proved to be correct. This is not to say that the mavericks are always right but it does illustrate that consensus does not confer "truth" on a scientific theory.

The IPCC's assessment reports are basically a literature survey of the current state of climate science. In the creation of these reports it is desirable that the length of the report be reasonable and therefore that a consensus be reached about the material to be included but if no consensus is possible then the range of differing opinions should be presented.

But whose opinions are we talking about? Is it the authors and review editors who seek to establish a consensus among themselves or is it a wider consensus among climate scientists?

If it is the latter then the review editors of the IPPC WG I report are in contravention of the defined procedures when they reject a reviewer's comments with statements like "More papers reject your claim than support it". If it is the former then seems that the IPCC is interpreting a consensus about the text of a report as somehow determining the truth of a certain statement.

In a similar fashion the IPCC often defends the content of its reports by claiming that it is the consensus of expert reviewers or other scientists. Such a consensus is merely a collection of opinions, not a statement of a truth or unassailable scientific fact

The IPCC seems unable or unwilling to accept the limitations of the use of a consensus as a decision-making tool. It's either that or the IPCC is really geared towards consensus-based political decisions and the science is a minor issue.

For an expended critic of the IPCC: Science and Public Policy Institute - Why the IPCC should be disbanded

Upton · #5 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

So what they’ve done is regurgitated stuff we already know. Of course the IPCC has to release stuff like this to stay relevant, here is a critic on the so-called “consensus”:

For an expended critic of the IPCC: Science and Public Policy Institute - Why the IPCC should be disbanded

Are you joking? I'm sure you're aware of Exxon Mobil's funding of the Science and Public Policy Institute. I have a question, are there any organizations, disputing man's connection to global warming, that Exxon doesn't have their money into?

coyote · #6 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Are you joking? I'm sure you're aware of Exxon Mobil's funding of the Science and Public Policy Institute. I have a question, are there any organizations, disputing man's connection to global warming, that Exxon doesn't have their money into?

Good for Exxon