Mud is pollution

[paulj]

I saw on an Oregon Field Guide (PBS) program than an older logging practice created a different problem in rivers. Using rivers to transport logs, tended to scour the river banks and bed, both by the passage of logs and by actions meant enhance the carrying capacity. In places obstructions were removed. In others they built splash dams to create pools, followed by bursts of high flow. A stream bed scoured down to bed rock isn't any better as a spawning ground than a gravel bed clogged with silt.
http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lwm/aem/documents/kelly_burnett/splash_dam_mapping_rmiller.pdf
http://blogs.opb.org/fieldjournal/tag/splash-dam/
Fallen trees are beneficial to stream ecology. Large ones serve as a anchors that promote the development of pools, and a stair step stream flow.

There was another OFG segment on the reintroduction of beavers to the mountains of NC Oregon, aiming to slow down stream flow and erosion, and improving fish habitat.

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1758

another OFG segment on sediment in South coast Oregon steams. Here the sediment is gravel, but it's moving too fast through the system to be good salmon spawning ground. The researchers think it is coming from clearcuts and logging roads via class 2 streams (non-fish bearing). There are some good shots of road erosion. It also touches on the reluctance of loggers, and their regulators, to take any steps beyond those currently required by law to protect class 1 streams.

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1014

 

[JPK]

I plead guilty to two counts of PUI (Posting Under the Influence) last night.

As for manipulated data, or reward for manipulation of data, take a look at Hanson's million dollar rewards for flattening data over time and so analysis, as alleged by those who do not ascribe to the theory that mankind is the cause of warming temps. http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

For a discussion of the lack of evidence - as even acknowledged by suporters of anthropogenic CO2 caused warming - see: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Summary.htm

For more gennerally about the topic or the politics and money incentives see: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/

This is only one source on the non-anthrogenic side of the debate...

Back to mud... Want to determine if siltation is a primary cuase of declining salmon runs and recruitment? Close all "kill" fishing - at least at the mouth of and within the river - for 2x the life cycle of the salmon from that river... You will have your answer.

Cheaper and easier, and maybe quicker in the long run, to find the answer in this manner than to spend the $'s to rectify a problem that may or may not be a serious contributor to declining salmon runs. Given the tremendous successes of targeted closures in reviving stocks of other fish, crustaceans and game where the eco-nut crowd was alleging that anthropogenic enviromental factors were the primary cause of declining stocks, I'll bet that overfishing, particularly the use of advancing technology, whether better hooks or new net material or configuration, new sounder/finder/scanning sonar technology, etc, is the leading cause of stock declines.

JPK

 

[77blazerchalet]

..comparing the NIPCC report to the real IPCC report is a little disingenuous..

I'm at a loss to understand how. The NIPCC has 35 contributing authors, and the 'thousands' of contributors to the IPCC are essentially the study papers cited in their reports, much like the 4000 or so peer-reviewed science journal published papers cited within the NIPCC. The Heartland Institute published the NIPCC, they did not 'produce' it. If anyone can establish that Heartland dictated the outcome of the papers and assessments cited in the NIPCC, it would be a hugely damaging story. The statement that 'none of the contributors are actively involved in climate science' is not only unsupportable, this often-repeated line of defense is also something of a red herring. Consider this comparison: I no longer own a Chevy Blazer Chalet, and thus can't tinker on one, but does that make me any less qualified to offer assessments on them, when I'm able to read the latest news items about them? Of course not.

Public confidence in the certainty of human activity causing global warming continually erodes when we consider how so many attempts are being made to dissuade us from listening to skeptic scientists, or at least from learning how their science assessments and papers contradict the IPCC's. When we see a currently active skeptic like MIT's Richard Lindzen go head-to-head with the IPCC's Ralph Cicerone, as in the 11/17/10 US House hearing (link here, see the video link there), and we hear about Lindzen's paper on 20-year satellite studies saying CO2 doesn't have the impact the IPCC says it should, at one of several blogs that cite maddening amounts of research data to support their claims, we soon realize that an accusation saying such immensely complicated details are conceived in the conference rooms of Exxon is............ utterly ridiculous. No offense to Exxon execs, I doubt they could come up with that stuff.

Glad we agree on the point of ad hominem, and I'm all in favor of comparing both sides. But if your assertion that 'skeptics only live in the realm of blogs not supported by research and data' falls apart, then what do we do? How do we explain away all the efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists if it turns out there is literally no reason to ignore them?

And now, back to the mud.

 

[paulj]

..., I'll bet that overfishing, particularly the use of advancing technology, whether better hooks or new net material or configuration, new sounder/finder/scanning sonar technology, etc, is the leading cause of stock declines.

JPK

Are you making that bet based on a gamblers hunch, or actual data? How do you know that the problem is insufficient stock moving beyond the river mouth, as opposed to poor conditions in the spawning grounds? You appear to have chosen to blame one group of humans - fishermen, and exonerate others (loggers, off-road enthusiasts, farmers, homeowners). Is that choice based on science or on personal interests?

In general, habitat destruction is as much of a problem for wildlife as over hunting - greater in fact. If affects species that aren't normally hunted. Spawning/nesting grounds need as much protection as feeding grounds.

 

[john101477]

Are you making that bet based on a gamblers hunch, or actual data? How do you know that the problem is insufficient stock moving beyond the river mouth, as opposed to poor conditions in the spawning grounds? You appear to have chosen to blame one group of humans - fishermen, and exonerate others (loggers, off-road enthusiasts, farmers, homeowners). Is that choice based on science or on personal interests?

In general, habitat destruction is as much of a problem for wildlife as over hunting - greater in fact. If affects species that aren't normally hunted. Spawning/nesting grounds need as much protection as feeding grounds.

IDk about further north but I do know that the salmon in the Sac River had a major increase this year and it is looking good.
http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/category/habitat-conservation/

 

[Rando]

Honestly, it would take an awful lot of work to go through and refute the points in this guys website one by one. But let us just discuss the first point the first point of "Hansen Flattening data". Are you trying to imply that Hansen falsified data with this? If anything the evolution of the GISS temperature record demonstrates one of the strengths of science - methods are improved and data is constantly scrutinized and re-analyzed using the best available methods. It seems that the author of that page seems to be assuming that the 1987 data is closest to the truth, and that the current analysis (which mind you has been scrutinized and refined with input from the mainstream and skeptics alike) is somehow wrong.

Secondly I think this a great example on selecting sources. I personally would suspect that any page that starts out with:

"NASA’s James Hansen is the United States’ leading scientific alarmist about global warming. "

Is not exactly an unbiased source about climate science

I plead guilty to two counts of PUI (Posting Under the Influence) last night.

As for manipulated data, or reward for manipulation of data, take a look at Hanson's million dollar rewards for flattening data over time and so analysis, as alleged by those who do not ascribe to the theory that mankind is the cause of warming temps. http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

For a discussion of the lack of evidence - as even acknowledged by suporters of anthropogenic CO2 caused warming - see: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Summary.htm

For more gennerally about the topic or the politics and money incentives see: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/

This is only one source on the non-anthrogenic side of the debate...

Back to mud... Want to determine if siltation is a primary cuase of declining salmon runs and recruitment? Close all "kill" fishing - at least at the mouth of and within the river - for 2x the life cycle of the salmon from that river... You will have your answer.

Cheaper and easier, and maybe quicker in the long run, to find the answer in this manner than to spend the $'s to rectify a problem that may or may not be a serious contributor to declining salmon runs. Given the tremendous successes of targeted closures in reviving stocks of other fish, crustaceans and game where the eco-nut crowd was alleging that anthropogenic enviromental factors were the primary cause of declining stocks, I'll bet that overfishing, particularly the use of advancing technology, whether better hooks or new net material or configuration, new sounder/finder/scanning sonar technology, etc, is the leading cause of stock declines.

JPK

 

[Rando]

You raise a good point about the references in the NIPCC - there are a lot of them. The part that is not mentioned by the NIPCC authors is that almost all of the scientific papers supplied as references directly contradict the findings of the NIPCC. Obviously I am not familiar with every reference in the report, but of the references I am familiar with, none of them in anyway endorse either the concept that the earth is not warming or that humans are not playing a significant role in the warming. I woud challenge anyone to find 400 peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with this view, let alone 4000. So, no I would not agree that there are 4000 contributors to the NIPCC.

The statement about non of the authors being active in climate science is very supportable, none of the authors have published any recent scientific findings in the field of climate science. Furthermore most of the authors are not climate scientists.

On the other hand the IPCC specifically names their contributors (and it is not the authors they cite, with or without their permission). The contributors to just the first section of the most recent IPCC report are listed here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessannex-ii.html

I can't say specifically say that the NIPCC is definitely biased by its funding and publication by a political think tank. However I do know that I was not offered the chance to contribute to the NIPCC, and neither were any of my colleagues (many of whom are contributors to the IPCC). Clearly the NIPCC was not looking for input from those that don't agree with its conclusions (which would be the VAST majority of climate scientists) which is hardly a fiar review of climate science. This is in contrast to the IPCC that seeks input from all active scientists, including skeptics such as Lindzen who was a lead author of the IPCC AR3 report.

Edited to address:

But if your assertion that 'skeptics only live in the realm of blogs not supported by research and data' falls apart, then what do we do? How do we explain away all the efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists if it turns out there is literally no reason to ignore them?

The answer is that you present the research that has been done by the skeptical scientists that counters the massive body of research done by mainstream scientist. The reason that skeptical scientists have become marginalized by other scientists is that they aren't doing science - they are writing blogs, op-eds, documents like the NIPCC etc. Mainstream scientists do a bad job of countering this sort of thing (which is part of the reason I am making an effort here).

I'm at a loss to understand how. The NIPCC has 35 contributing authors, and the 'thousands' of contributors to the IPCC are essentially the study papers cited in their reports, much like the 4000 or so peer-reviewed science journal published papers cited within the NIPCC. The Heartland Institute published the NIPCC, they did not 'produce' it. If anyone can establish that Heartland dictated the outcome of the papers and assessments cited in the NIPCC, it would be a hugely damaging story. The statement that 'none of the contributors are actively involved in climate science' is not only unsupportable, this often-repeated line of defense is also something of a red herring. Consider this comparison: I no longer own a Chevy Blazer Chalet, and thus can't tinker on one, but does that make me any less qualified to offer assessments on them, when I'm able to read the latest news items about them? Of course not.

Public confidence in the certainty of human activity causing global warming continually erodes when we consider how so many attempts are being made to dissuade us from listening to skeptic scientists, or at least from learning how their science assessments and papers contradict the IPCC's. When we see a currently active skeptic like MIT's Richard Lindzen go head-to-head with the IPCC's Ralph Cicerone, as in the 11/17/10 US House hearing (link here, see the video link there), and we hear about Lindzen's paper on 20-year satellite studies saying CO2 doesn't have the impact the IPCC says it should, at one of several blogs that cite maddening amounts of research data to support their claims, we soon realize that an accusation saying such immensely complicated details are conceived in the conference rooms of Exxon is............ utterly ridiculous. No offense to Exxon execs, I doubt they could come up with that stuff.

Glad we agree on the point of ad hominem, and I'm all in favor of comparing both sides. But if your assertion that 'skeptics only live in the realm of blogs not supported by research and data' falls apart, then what do we do? How do we explain away all the efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists if it turns out there is literally no reason to ignore them?

And now, back to the mud.

 

[john101477]

The reason that skeptical scientists have become marginalized by other scientists is that they aren't doing science - they are writing blogs, op-eds, documents like the NIPCC etc. Mainstream scientists do a bad job of countering this sort of thing (which is part of the reason I am making an effort here).

Why would mainstream scientists that carry such a vast majority have such a hard time discrediting Singer and his associates then? If the IPCC have so much Proof to the contrary I would think it would be easy to squash.

Is it possible that global warming should be thought of more as a climate shift? record setting weather around the world could possibly point to just such an occurrence. I did take the time to read some of the stuff singer has been involved in through out his career and had to laugh at some of it. He is also the type of scientist I was referring to it seems lol.

 

[Rando]

Yeah, Fred Singer has been on the wrong side of a number of issues in the past - I think he enjoys being a contrarian.

As to the IPCC or who ever having proof to the contrary - they do have evidence to the contrary, there are literally thousands of pages of it in the IPCC AR4 report, but you really can't counter ideology with evidence. An example of this would be a claim made by Bob Carter (one of the contributors to the NIPCC) that global warming stopped in 1998 (a claim made by him in early 2006 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ith-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html ). Unfortunately for him the warmest two years on record are now 2010 and 2005, so clearly global warming did not stop in 1998. So he was dramatically proven to be wrong. However he did not step back and say "hey maybe my understanding of the climate system is wrong, maybe I need to reconsider my argument" he ignored his old claims and started attacking climate science from a new angle. So yeah, proving the skeptics wrong doesn't seem to have much effect.

I great resource for the layman addressing most of the skeptical arguments was published by New Scientist a couple of years ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

I think one of the failings of research scientists is not taking the time to write more articles like this. Unfortunately the way the funding system is set up, scientists are not really paid to convey there results to the public at large. Thats why we end up in silly discussions like this on forums after hours!

Why would mainstream scientists that carry such a vast majority have such a hard time discrediting Singer and his associates then? If the IPCC have so much Proof to the contrary I would think it would be easy to squash.

Is it possible that global warming should be thought of more as a climate shift? record setting weather around the world could possibly point to just such an occurrence. I did take the time to read some of the stuff singer has been involved in through out his career and had to laugh at some of it. He is also the type of scientist I was referring to it seems lol.

 

[77blazerchalet]

1) almost all of the scientific papers supplied as references directly contradict the findings of the NIPCC... 2) I woud challenge anyone to find 400 peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with this view, let alone 4000... 3) none of the authors have published any recent scientific findings in the field of climate science... 4) This is in contrast to the IPCC that seeks input from all active scientists.... 5) I can't say specifically say that the NIPCC is definitely biased by its funding

1) You're looking at the same NIPCC I'm looking at? The papers are cited because they support an overall assessment that human activity is insignificant in global warming, and that the IPCC cannot be relied on as a source proving humans are largely responsible for it. IPCC ones are noted in order to show how they are contradicted by the others. You didn't notice that?

2) On the challenge, I refer you to a site that has rounded up over 850, and if Fred Singer says there are over 4000 references to peer-reviewed papers in the NIPCC, I suppose one would have to do the math to find out how many are duplicates and how many are IPCC ones used to illustrate contradictions. Safe guess is that there are more than 400 that meet your challenge in there, though of course no single report on either side would entirely overturn the other side.....

3) you missed the 2010 one by Joseph D'Aleo & Don Easterbrook, the one by J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten Green, or is their date or topic too far out of your narrow range? Would such a narrow range also eliminate papers from IPCC reports? This other paper by the two is more in the 'field of climate science'? How about Hans Labohm's 2009 paper? ******** Thoenes' paper?

4) and you notice why more IPCC scientists besides Lindzen are raising their voices about how the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers are at odds with those scientists' viewpoints?

5) then why bring up anything related to Heartland, and go so far as to say it 'produced' the NIPCC when it did not?

And on the subject of marginalizing skeptic scientists, I meant the mainstream media and so many others places, including posters on this web site who have instructed us not to listen to the skeptics because of their alleged corruption. If they cannot be proven to be corrupt and there is not even a consensus, then why do people try so hard to marginalize them? That's what puzzles me, a guy who will never be able to say with any authority which side sounds more correct. Just doesn't pass the smell when they offer such detailed criticisms of the IPCC reports, and all we hear is this wall of voices yelling "they're corrupt".... but no evidence can be found to prove any form of corruption.

 

[JPK]

Are you making that bet based on a gamblers hunch, or actual data? How do you know that the problem is insufficient stock moving beyond the river mouth, as opposed to poor conditions in the spawning grounds? You appear to have chosen to blame one group of humans - fishermen, and exonerate others (loggers, off-road enthusiasts, farmers, homeowners). Is that choice based on science or on personal interests?

In general, habitat destruction is as much of a problem for wildlife as over hunting - greater in fact. If affects species that aren't normally hunted. Spawning/nesting grounds need as much protection as feeding grounds.

Actual data from other fisheries supporting my gambler's hunch.

There is a lot of myth regarding habitat destruction being a the overwhelming problem. Yes, it is a big and continuing, even escalating problem, but not on the universal scale so often recited.

It appears that you have not read all of this thread or all of my posts. For example, I cite the case of the passenger pigeon. Wiped out exclusively through hunting - from abundance to instinct. Or try bison, hunted nearly to exticntion on to more than local extirpation. Then again, the now recovered whitetail deer, or the turkey, or the eastern Elk.... All examples of removing sufficient breeding stock from the population - and all of these examples arose when environmental factors were limited or nil. How about Atlantic Flyway Canada geese, a very recent example of severe population declines brought about through environmental issues - poor breeding weather over a period of years - exacerbared by hunting take and completly reversed, with populations fully restored through a three or five year (can't recall) temporary hunting closure. For fish, how about eastern sturgeon, or cod, marlin, swordfish, king mackerel, black mullet, redfish (red drum,) the current red snapper issue...

As for the examples of stock recovery through temporary fisheries closures, I'll refer you to my earlier posts and add that of the examples cited some had preservasionist, eco-nuts or whatever you wish to label anti-human, animals and fish before human advocates, anti cost-benefit analysis advocates, with supporting science to boot, claiming that only reducing man's impact on the fish's enviromant could reverse declines. Very similar to the situation with northwest salmon.

Perhaps the two most similar would be the blue crab and the rockfish (Striped Bass) in the Chesapeake Bay. Bay rockfish stocks were restored through imposition of a five year moratorium extended across all user groups (the success of the moratorium may have resulted in its early end, I don't recall.)

Blue crab populations had been dropping but they plummetted with the resoration of the rockfish - law of unintended consequences, rockfish are crab eaters, whereas bluefish, which to some degree had filled some of the vacum left by depleted rockfish stocks, are not.

Virginia had a winter time female crab dredging industry with strong political ties which in turn refused for decades to do the obviously right thing and close the winter she-crab fishery.

The plummeting post rockfish closure crab stocks finally got frightening enough that Virginia closed the winter time she-crab dredging just last year.

Some background - female crabs from throughout the bay migrate south into Virginia waters for the winter, most all are gravid, and they burrow into the bottom. So the Virginia dredgers were were taking from the whole of the Bay's female crab population - not unlike netters at the mouth of a river netting that river's anadromous fish.

The eco-nuts or what ever label you wish to apply had been advocating draconian reduction of silt, nitrogen, etc. into the Bay through its many tributaries, arguing that only the restoration of Bay grasses (nursurey and spawning habitat) and spawning habitat (gravel) for Rockfish, etc, could reverse population declines of crabs and rockfish (and other Bay species.)

However, with the rockfish closure, rockfish stocks rapidly recovered, despite minimal improvement in the overall siltation or grasses issues.

Only one year after the Virginia she-crab dedging closure, crab numbers are on the virge of skyrocketing. Numbers of adult, or at least harvest size crabs, is way up, but most impotantly the numbers of immature crabs is remarkable.

Now as far a exonerating farmers, loggers or others, or blaming fishermen, no not at all. I don't have much doubt that less silt would make for greater spawning success, but not removing pre-spawn fish will certainly improve their spawning success - of that there is NO doubt!

As far a commercial fishermen, if they remain within the bounds of regulation then I don't blame them, I blame the f'in gov't. Likewise recreational fishermen, though from every set of statistics that I have seen, which doesn't include anything on Eastern Pacific Salmon, the recrational take, or for that matter the commercial hook and line take, is so limited that it hardly counts.

As far as NA's fishing beyond sustenance levels, perhaps selling into the market under false pretenses, yea, blame, if that is what is happening.

I am a hunter, I am a fisherman - recreational now but I have done some limited commercial fishing in the past.

You need to read or at least read a summary of "Tragedy of the Commons." It explains the overfishing going on worldwide now and the overhunting that has gone on in the past in the US and continues worldwide. BTW, I am not writing of sport hunting, which where undertaken throughout the world provides both the $'s and the incentive to maintain both habitat and game populations, I am writing of commercial or subsistence hunting, which, unchecked, will leave vast areas berift of mammals and birds or anything else that can be eaten.

JPK

 

[JPK]

Honestly, it would take an awful lot of work to go through and refute the points in this guys website one by one. But let us just discuss the first point the first point of "Hansen Flattening data". Are you trying to imply that Hansen falsified data with this? If anything the evolution of the GISS temperature record demonstrates one of the strengths of science - methods are improved and data is constantly scrutinized and re-analyzed using the best available methods. It seems that the author of that page seems to be assuming that the 1987 data is closest to the truth, and that the current analysis (which mind you has been scrutinized and refined with input from the mainstream and skeptics alike) is somehow wrong.

Secondly I think this a great example on selecting sources. I personally would suspect that any page that starts out with:

"NASA's James Hansen is the United States' leading scientific alarmist about global warming. "

Is not exactly an unbiased source about climate science

The source I cite is as unbiased as Hansen or the IPCC, meaning that they all take sides. The only difference is that the source I cite takes the other side!

Try the other links I provided and read yourself the admissions from the core of the pro anthropogenic view that the much ballyhoo'd models which are supposed to be so improved do not reflect anthropogenic warming until the 1970's. And you think they should be relied upon to take us back one full century of civilization?

Here is one:
Email exchange between: Michael Mann, Edward Cook and Tom Crowley, May 2, 2001, (Subject: “Hockey Stick” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=172&filename=963233839.txt]).
Cook to Mann: “I think that most researchers in global change research would agree that
the emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred
since after 1970. I am not debating this point, although I do think that
there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative
contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past
20-30 years at least.”

Also, with the accusations of corruption, or science for sale, thrown about by the anthropogenic warming side, wouldn't Hansen's enviable take raise a hell of a stink if he were on the other side? That it doesn't simply because he is on the anthropogenic side is hypocracy at its finest.

JPK

 

[john101477]

I great resource for the layman addressing most of the skeptical arguments was published by New Scientist a couple of years ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Wow some great reading there Rando, Thanks. So reading some of the links in there as well, i was a bit confused I guess is the best word about how the account for temperatures before recorded temperature was possible or available. It sounded as if they counted rings on trees and measure depths of growth...
Also they keep saying the earth is the warmest it has been in the last 1000 years at least. talking to my grandfather he talks about the changing weather all the time, about how when he was a kid, he would see rains up until near may (northern california) and that the first weather moving in would usually begin about oct. We still se rain into may and some times even early june but until this year rains were not coming until dec or even january i think it was 2 years ago. This year has been quite good rain wise.
As for it getting hotter, I do not know about global weather, but I do know that Northern California seems to be about the same every year. Hotter than heck for july and august. tempratures always reach about the same 105-113 ish depending on where your at. This happens every year and has since my grandad can remember.

 

[Rando]

To adress these point by point.

1) Yes I am looking at the same NIPCC report you are. Lets take a look at some of the references, starting at the begining - section 1.1:

Armstrong, J.S. 2001. Principles of Forecasting – A
Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. - BOOK

Armstrong, J.S. 2006. Findings from evidence-based
forecasting: Methods for reducing forecast error.
International Journal of Forecasting 22: 583-598.
Ascher, W. 1978. Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policy
Makers and Planners. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Baltimore, MD. - BOOK

Balling, R.C. 2005. Observational surface temperature
records versus model predictions. In Michaels, P.J. (Ed.)
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming.
Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham, MD. 50-71. Climate Change Reconsidered
12 - BOOK

Bryson, R.A. 1993. Environment, environmentalists, and
global change: A skeptic’s evaluation. New Literary
History: 24: 783-795. - LITERATURE REVIEW JOURNAL?

Cerf, C. and Navasky, V. 1998. The Experts Speak. Johns
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. - BOOK

Christy, J. 2005. Temperature changes in the bulk
atmosphere: beyond the IPCC. In Michaels, P.J. (Ed.)
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming.
Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham, MD. 72-105. - BOOK

Craig, P.P., Gadgil, A., and Koomey, J.G. 2002. What can
history teach us? A retrospective examination of long-term
energy forecasts for the United States. Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment 27: 83-118. - TRADE MAGAZINE

Dyson, F. 2007. Heretical thoughts about science and
society. Edge: The Third Culture. August. - BOOK

Essex, C. and McKitrick, R. 2002. Taken by Storm. The
Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
Key Porter Books. Toronto, Canada. -BOOK

Frauenfeld, O.W. 2005. Predictive skill of the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation and related atmospheric
teleconnections. In Michaels, P.J. (Ed.) Shattered
Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Rowman &
Littlefield. Lanham, MD. 149-182. -BOOK

Green, K.C. and Armstrong, J.S. 2007. Global warming:
forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts. Energy
Environ. 18: 997–1021. -TRADE MAGAZINE

Henderson, D. 2007. Governments and climate change
issues: The case for rethinking. World Economics 8: 183-
228. -ECONOMICS JOURNAL

Michaels, P.J. 2009. Climate of Extremes: Global Warming
Science They Don't Want You to Know. Cato Institute.
Washington, DC. - THINK TANK

Michaels, P.J. 2005. Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion
of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the
Media. Cato Institute, Washington, DC. - THINK TANK

Michaels, P.J. 2000. Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About
Global Warming. Cato Institute. Washington, DC. -THINK TANK

Pilkey, O.H. and Pilkey-Jarvis, L. 2007. Useless
Arithmetic. Columbia University Press, New York. -BOOK

Posmentier, E.S. and Soon, W. 2005. Limitations of
computer predictions of the effects of carbon dioxide on
global temperature. In Michaels, P.J. (Ed.) Shattered
Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Rowman &
Littlefield. Lanham, MD. 241-281. -BOOK

Solomon, L. 2008. The Deniers: The World Renowned
Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming
Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those
who are too fearful to do so. Richard Vigilante Books.
Minneapolis, MN. -BOOK

Spencer, R. 2008. Climate Confusion: How Global
Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering
Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.
Encounter Books. New York, NY. -BOOK

Tetlock, P.E. 2005. Expert Political Judgment—How Good
Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ. -BOOK

Trenberth, K.E. 2007. Global warming and forecasts of
climate change. Nature blog. http://blogs.nature.com/
climatefeedback/2007/07/global_warming_and_forecasts_o
.html. Last accessed May 6, 2009 -BLOG???????

Just looking at the first section on Climate models, there are NO references to peer reviewed scientific literature.

Lets skip forward to find an actual scientific paper, here is one I happen to familiar with from section 1.3:

Soden, B.J. and Held, I.M. 2006. An assessment of climate
feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. Journal of
Climate 19: 3354-3360.

(Note it is in a respected peer reviewed journal)

Now compare the conclusions from the actual paper:

Progress in reducing uncertainties in model predictions of climate sensitivity requires an accurate assessment of the differences in various feedback strengths
between models. However, because calculation of
model feedbacks can be both time consuming and computationally demanding, it has been difficult to get a
reliable comparison of the strength of climate feedbacks between models. Here we assessed the strength
of model feedbacks using a consistent method that has
been applied to an existing model archive of twentyfirst-century climate change experiments performed for
the IPCC Fourth Assessment.
This analysis confirms two widely held beliefs about
the behavior of climate feedbacks in models: (i) water
vapor provides the largest positive feedback and that
the strength of this feedback can be estimated assuming
constant relative humidity in all models; and (ii) clouds
provide the largest source of uncertainty in current
model predictions of climate sensitivity. This work also
identifies some less well-recognized aspects of climate
feedbacks: (i) clouds appear to provide a positive feedback in all models, and (ii) intermodel differences in
lapse rate response stem primarily from differences in
the meridional distribution of surface warming, with
these differences in turn responsible for much of the
intermodel spread in water vapor feedback.

So in act the paper they use a reference confirms the IPCC report!

2) Again I am not going to go through all 850 references presented here, but lets look at the first 20 or so. Of those 7 are in Energy and Environment, which is a trade magazine for the energy industry and is not listed in Web of Science, PubMed or Scopus. Others include "The electricity Journal" and "Irrigation and Drainage". Two other references are 'submitted' with no indication that they were actually published. I don't think I need to continue.

3) Notice that with the exception of 1 all the papers are in "Energy and Environment" which is a trade magazine. The 1 that isn't is about polar bears and policy, not climate science and is written by economists.

4) Yup a small fraction disagree with the overall conclusions, but unlike the with the NIPC they were given he chance to express their opinions in a scientific forum.

5) I guess define what you mean by 'produced', they funded it, published it and are promoting it. Both the lead authors are paid by the Heartland institute and several of the contributors are on the staff of the Heartland Institute. I guess I don't know how you define produced, but I would consider this produced by the Heartland institute.

I don't mean to be presumptuous here, but I am having a hard time believing that you are truly an undecided observer here. How is it that you managed to pass by all the various reports and position statements from all sorts of governmental and non-governmental scientific organizations the world over, and settle on this one report from a political think tank? Why are you giving this one report as equal a footing to the positions of the hundreds of SCIENTIFIC organizations that are on the opposite side of the debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

1) You're looking at the same NIPCC I'm looking at? The papers are cited because they support an overall assessment that human activity is insignificant in global warming, and that the IPCC cannot be relied on as a source proving humans are largely responsible for it. IPCC ones are noted in order to show how they are contradicted by the others. You didn't notice that?

2) On the challenge, I refer you to a site that has rounded up over 850, and if Fred Singer says there are over 4000 references to peer-reviewed papers in the NIPCC, I suppose one would have to do the math to find out how many are duplicates and how many are IPCC ones used to illustrate contradictions. Safe guess is that there are more than 400 that meet your challenge in there, though of course no single report on either side would entirely overturn the other side.....

3) you missed the 2010 one by Joseph D'Aleo & Don Easterbrook, the one by J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten Green, or is their date or topic too far out of your narrow range? Would such a narrow range also eliminate papers from IPCC reports? This other paper by the two is more in the 'field of climate science'? How about Hans Labohm's 2009 paper? ******** Thoenes' paper?

4) and you notice why more IPCC scientists besides Lindzen are raising their voices about how the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers are at odds with those scientists' viewpoints?

5) then why bring up anything related to Heartland, and go so far as to say it 'produced' the NIPCC when it did not?

And on the subject of marginalizing skeptic scientists, I meant the mainstream media and so many others places, including posters on this web site who have instructed us not to listen to the skeptics because of their alleged corruption. If they cannot be proven to be corrupt and there is not even a consensus, then why do people try so hard to marginalize them? That's what puzzles me, a guy who will never be able to say with any authority which side sounds more correct. Just doesn't pass the smell when they offer such detailed criticisms of the IPCC reports, and all we hear is this wall of voices yelling "they're corrupt".... but no evidence can be found to prove any form of corruption.

 

[Rando]

I am going to stop derailing this thread, and would like to make a general comment (not directed at anyone in particular). First, is the realization that we cannot be experts on everything, and we need to trust the opinions of others in many topics. I am PhD atmospheric scientist, and I don't consider myself an expert enough to evaluate all the arguments on climate change. These leads to the second point, if you are not an expert, where do you get your information and who do you trust. I think this is where we run into the most problems. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge in climate science can make an argument which is seemingly authoritative to the layman [Benjamin et al., 1997]. They can even provide references to support there point [Rando and Rando, 2011].

So the question comes down to, what is a good source? One way of thinking about this is to compare it to issues we are more familiar with. If we are looking for info on the impact of OHVs on stream beds, would we consider the Sierra Club or Defenders of Wildlife or even MoveOn.org good places to get information? I know I wouldn't. Similarly I wouldn't go to the OHV Manufacturers association or BillyBob from IH8MUD, who wrote a blog post about it. I would look for information from the USFS or the BLM that studies and maintains these roads, or the USGS or someone similar who does research into water quality and resource use.

Similarly with climate change, if you actually want to learn about the issue you need to pick your sources carefully. Again, the Sierra Club or Defenders of Wildlife, are probably not good sources. Similarly political think tanks such as The Heartland Institute or CATO are probably not good sources either. Likewise blogs like Dr Joe Blow's blog or the Earth Justice Blog are probably not wise sources either. The best sources are ones that aggregate data from many practicing scientists (so that it represents the current view and is not to swayed by one or two peoples particular viewpoint) and are subject to review by other experts. These don't have to be government sources, the American Geophysical Union (which represents 10's of thousands of geoscientists from climate modelers to petroleum geologists) or the American Meteorological Society would be good places to start. Secondly this is a world wide issue, so don't limit yourself to the US only. You can cut through US politics by looking at international sources such as:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/Home/climate-change/myths.aspx

That being said, if you just want to reinforce your own preheld beliefs, google 'Global Warming is Bogus' or 'The sky is falling'.