US think tank offers money for poking holes in IPCC AR4

[bascule]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change published their Fourth Assessment Report today. The report implicates anthropogenic CO₂ emissions in its strongest language ever as being primarily responsible for the majority of average temperature increases in the past half century.

 

The report largely provides refinements over previous assessment reports, narrowing the expected minimum and maximum ranges for various predictions with the most likely possibilities increasing across the board (with an expected sea level increase of a half meter over the next 50 years, compared to .2m in the IPCC TAR)

 

It was authored by thousands of scientists in more than a hundred countries with thousands more peer reviewing their work. It provides the definitive scientific resource on climate change.

 

Or so you would think! Apparently a US right-wing think tank, funded largely by ExxonMobil, is offering a $10,000 bounty to scientists willing to dispute the report:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/pl_afp/unclimateusdeny_070202142458

 

Does anyone else find this sort of thing sickening? No wonder so many are confused about how well understood the physical science behind climate change actually is.

[Tetrahedrite]

It is absolutely sickening!! I'm sure that at least some people who frequent this site will try and defend this tactic. I take consolation in the fact that the tide of public opinion seems to be turning, and the number of "deniers" or "doubters" ( ) seem to be deminishing by the day.

[Hades]

$10,000? I do have loans to pay..

[GutZ]

Would you accept it if it were found? Realistically GW can be ployed for economical gain too...You guys are pushing opinions.

[1veedo]

If you think that's bad, read Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science.

 

Note, this is not an anti-Republican book. Democrats are just as guilty in the past of doing things like this. It's something that happens all the time and lately the Republicans have been doing it.

[bascule]

Would you accept it if it were found?

 

If it survived the same degree of peer review that IPCC AR4 did, then yes.

 

IPCC AR4 was peer reviewed by over 2500 climate scientists worldwide.

 

Realistically GW can be ployed for economical gain too...

 

Something tells me this group isn't interested in a peer reviewed scientific report. I'm guessing they want soundbytes to feed to right wing pundits. But hey, if it survives the same peer review as IPCC AR4, I'm all for it.

 

You guys are pushing opinions.

 

No, actually I'm pushing peer-reviewed scientific knowledge over punditry.

[Pangloss]

Is there any ready information on how the report was peer reviewed? What process was used?

 

Thanks.

[GutZ]

]

No, actually I'm pushing peer-reviewed scientific knowledge over punditry.

 

hehe, sure you are, I know you love your enviroment It just constant attacking, ready to pounch on any idea regardless if good or bad, both sides.

 

Though it's alot better than what I do, nothing. I get to watch and pick at other people. I am a meanie.

[D H]

Starting from the end of the original post,

Does anyone else find this sort of thing sickening?

I don't. It might be wrongheaded and stupid, but not sickening. What I find is sickening is the blatant attempt to label as "climate change deniers" (with an obvious association to Holocaust deniers) those who have any disagreement with the climate change establishment. This label now appears to apply not only to the degree to which human activities result in climate change but also to public policy response to anthropogenic climate change.

 

Apparently a US right-wing think tank, funded largely by ExxonMobil

 

The source of this Yahoo! article is The Guardian (a rather biased source). FYI, here is the original article: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

 

The original article says "The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil," but does not say over what time those contributions occurred. The truth is, the AEI has received more $1.6m from ExxonMobil over a span of many years. The AEI budget is over $25 million per year, and only 0.66 percent of that comes from ExxonMobil. This hardly qualifies as "largely funded by".

 

Just to give a clue to the bias in the source, here is a quote from the original article:

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra.

[bascule]

Is there any ready information on how the report was peer reviewed? What process was used?

 

Not that I can find upon a cursory Googling.

 

I don't. It might be wrongheaded and stupid, but not sickening. What I find is sickening is the blatant attempt to label as "climate change deniers" (with an obvious association to Holocaust deniers) those who have any disagreement with the climate change establishment. This label now appears to apply not only to the degree to which human activities result in climate change but also to public policy response to anthropogenic climate change.

 

My problem would be with those who don't accept the scientific basis. In terms of vulnerabilities, impacts, and policy, those are all debatable issues. I don't think the scientific case for vulnerabilities and impacts is nearly as strong as the case for anthropogenic radiative forcings.

 

The AEI budget is over $25 million per year, and only 0.66 percent of that comes from ExxonMobil. This hardly qualifies as "largely funded by"

 

My mistake

 

Just to give a clue to the bias in the source, here is a quote from the original article:

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra.

 

Let's not let this descend into genetic fallacy territory

[D H]

How bias in media affects the type of and manner in which information is presented is not genetic fallacy. It is quite relevant. The article at hand is the one guilty of genetic fallacy. The article is the one that links the AEI to the Bush administration and to ExxonMobil in an attempt to belittle the work by the AEI. You, Bascule, promulgated the fallacy by exaggerating the already exaggerated claims in the original article.

 

BTW, here is a link to one of the letters sent out by the AEI: http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/AEIscan.pdf.

 

Aside: It appears some climate change Nazis want to burn climate change deniers at the stake. (For example, see http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html.) Doing so would be a mistake, as it would contribute to global warming.

[swansont]

Sponsoring a paper that has a particular conclusion in mind (in this case, limitations of the modeling) is basically intellectual prostitution. $10k is a lot of money for a paper. Proper funding is based on the quality of the research, not on the conclusions it reaches.

 

It's reminiscent of the "expert witness" approach in trials, where you hire people to proclaim that the other side is wrong. That may be how some legal questions are decided (and political policy ones), but it's bad science. The process by which conclusions are reached are decidedly different in the two arenas. Good science will already have addressed the shortcomings. In the legal/political posturing approach, the shortcomings are ignored by one side, and are pretty much the sole focus of the other. The illusion that it's a more or less 50-50 proposition is the goal of the side that doesn't have science to back it up.

 

Having said that, though, the "consensus by committee" method is not without its flaws, some of which are pointed out in the letter. Again, it's a matter of politics getting in the way.

[swansont]

I don't. It might be wrongheaded and stupid, but not sickening. What I find is sickening is the blatant attempt to label as "climate change deniers" (with an obvious association to Holocaust deniers) those who have any disagreement with the climate change establishment. This label now appears to apply not only to the degree to which human activities result in climate change but also to public policy response to anthropogenic climate change.

 

The nature of the disagreement matters; it can be scientific or it can be political/ideological. When you get political disagreement you will get the labeling and mudslinging. What is happening in the public discussions is almost all political.

 

Is the use of "deniers" more or less sickening than the unscientific attempt to discredit the conclusions, by misrepresenting them (i.e. strawmanning) or attacking the scientists (ad hominem) or any of the other tactics being used to sway public opinion?

[GutZ]

Look at the contexts thought, "GW denier" ties in with I don't give a crap about other people, which may not be what people truely feel.

[JohnB]

I'm still reading it, but could someone please explain this passage to me?

Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m-2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons8 is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m-2.

Ozone forming chemicals are contributing to GW? I must admit to some confusion. If we release Ozone destroying chemicals we die and if we release Ozone forming chemicals we die. It really sounds like someone is having an each way bet here.

 

I'm assuming my confusion is due to lack of understanding, so could someone clear it up please?

[swansont]

I'm still reading it, but could someone please explain this passage to me?

 

Ozone forming chemicals are contributing to GW? I must admit to some confusion. If we release Ozone destroying chemicals we die and if we release Ozone forming chemicals we die. It really sounds like someone is having an each way bet here.

 

I'm assuming my confusion is due to lack of understanding, so could someone clear it up please?

 

 

Location, location, location. The key is that it's tropospheric ozone, which is close to the earth. Ozone in the stratosphere is desireable. Ozone in the troposphere is not.

 

http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/basics.htm

[JohnB]

Ah. Thank You Sir. I knew it had to be something simple, like me.

 

That report is one hell of a read.