IPCC Chairman: Despite Attacks from Critics, Climate Science Will Prevail

If we fail to act soon, I doubt any of us could afford the cost. We like to put a dollar amount to everything, but some vital things will not be able to be bought from extinction.

A little sarcasim, we will fight on I promise you that!!!!

Science is quantifiable, measurable, observable reality. It is not something made up for political or distractionary reasons, it is simply the human effort to understand the world around us. Now the RESPONSE and ATTACK from non-scientists which attempts to discredit the science IS for political or distractionary reasons. I don't think it is fair to suggest that because industry is making it a divisive issue, we should disregard the scientific consensus.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

* Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

* If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

* Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."
______________

I hope that this helps as well. If someone tells you that climatologists are ignoring solar activity, they are lying to you.

Yeah thanks for the replies. It's a lot to go through. I'll get back to you at some point :)

For anyone who wants to research those claims, I hope you look in credible sources. The truth is much more complicated than these excessively biased bullet points can offer.

So again... there's really no need for any argument at all about if it's real or not. We should all be spending our time boycotting and taking down those assholes. Eh?

if you spent 10+ years in school, countless thousands of dollars, thousands of hours in intensive studies, and your job is depending on the existence of AGW, you wouldn;t even acknowledge any material that refutes AGW, that would destroy your whole career and life path.

Are you assuming that there was no such thing as a climatologist before the theory of anthropogenic climate change? They would still have jobs, but less funding for research. Even that may be debatable considering the evidence that, whether human-influenced or not, climate IS changing and research is necessary.

We also need to consider the wider scientific community and the fact that they are also putting their reputations on the line in support of the science. It's not just "greedy" climatologists that want to make a living by "scaring the world". We're talking about every nationally recognized academy of science worldwide supporting the science. 82% of all individual scientists and 97.5 % of climate scientists. This would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever... and for what? More money for research? Research that might undermine their "evil plot" if it came to light? I'm sorry Dagum, but the idea that climatologists lack integrity simply because they are climatologists is a bit weak. These scientists are under extreme scrutiny by their peers (from all scientific fields), and they are being persecuted by industry funded think-tanks and pseudo-scientists (i.e. Steve McIntyre) every day. Do you think they would continue a farce under this pressure simply to get more funds to do more research? It really does not add up that all of this is a massive hoax. There is too much attention and too many qualified experts that concur for it to be anything other than reality.

I guess it's a good thing I'm a nice guy then. Not all scientists are the amoral machines that they are unfairly portrayed to be.

That's NOT how it works. And besides; any scientist can make much, much more money in commercial work- the sort of work that produces all these climate issues to begin with, so the entire argument about scientists making up climate change in order to get money is not only flawed, it's actually pretty moronic.
Sorry, money isn't the only thing that motivates people. ;)

Global warming put climatologists on a Global pedestal. They where in the international spot light and their mission was to save the entire Planet. Global warming elevated the whole profession to a new level of prominence. Climatologists received exuberant amounts of funding and attention from countries all the world. What other profession other than climatology has EVER been charged with saving the whole WORLD?

It’s the hallmark of their profession. Who would ever willing give such a claim to self importance like that up?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I never had any impression that a climatologist was going to save the world. They are not charged with that task, they are simply trying to study the earth and understand what is affecting the climate. Policymakers around the world are the ONLY ones who can regulate and invest in the infrastructure required for the green movement to truly take off. Climatologists just observe, interpret, and report. Why are you demonizing people for doing their jobs? Why do you jump to the wild accusation that they are ALL narcissistic and want to be the saviors of the planet? You're generalizing an entire group of people based on an opinion which cannot be substantiated. So far you have claimed that ALL climatologist are only interested in money and looking like a messiah. What do you say to the many other fields of scientists that support their conclusions? Are ALL scientists egotistical self-serving narcissists?, or is it just scientists who agree with climatologists? I have an idea that all of the answers you would provide to these questions would not be based in facts, but rather opinions. I keep asking that we move the debate to the facts... to the science. But it always comes back to you attempting to discredit scientists.

"Policymakers around the world are the ONLY ones who can regulate and invest in the infrastructure"

That is not accurate. Private companies can and do invest in green infrastructure all the time. It's an investment to make money off of. One of the most notable investors is the same person who invested money in this website. He owns an investment company that only invests in green companies. (it’s a very green $$$ business venture).

And I am not saying all scientists are egotistical self-serving narcissists. But this is the only opportunity for their profession to be elevated to such a level. A reasonable person would have trouble letting that prestige go, especially someone who values their intellectual achievements (as scientists usually do ) and wants recognition for them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/03/al-gore-conflict-of-interests

Which private companies are able to regulate Big Coal and Big Oil? Which companies have the right to build wind farms off the coast without federal permission? Which companies have the power to change federal limitations which block renewable energy from the grid?

http://www.modernizethegrid.com/media-room/diverse-coalition-urges-congress-to-e...

Take a look. The federal govt has to be on board for the green energy movement to succeed.

You can't assume that this man alone is the bedrock of climate science validity. Even if he is ALLEGEDLY guilty of anything, it does not discount all of the work done by many thousands of scientists worldwide. Again, my point from earlier, debate the science instead of attacking individual scientists.

From the article:

"All the scientists who work on IPCC assessments devote their time voluntarily and receive no compensation. Yet their work is unprecedented in scale; it is the world’s most comprehensive source of climate change information. The latest assessment, AR4, completed in 2007, had more than 450 lead authors who worked during the course of several years to complete the report; their efforts were supplemented by about 800 contributing authors and some 2,500 expert reviewers.

At each successive stage of drafting, the report was carefully reviewed. A total of about 90,000 comments were produced during the review process. The authors considered and reacted to each of those comments. By the time it was completed, AR4 cited approximately 18,000 peer-reviewed publications. It also included a limited amount of gray (or non-peer-reviewed) literature in cases where peer-reviewed literature was unavailable. (For example, there is often no peer-reviewed literature on impacts of climate change, both current and projected, in many developing countries.)"
_____________

This is bigger than a handful of "world domination seeking" scientists. It is not a grand scheme that originated from the IPCC. The IPCC was formed after the general consensus for anthropogenic climate change in order to consolidate and summarize the vast amounts of information into something policymakers could comprehend. They don't make policy or suggest geoengineering as you imply from your first comment. They admit when they discover errors, but the vast majority of their projections were underestimated. I hope that you can see the bias when people focus on the few overestimates.

"attacking individual scientists"

If I were to say this man cheated on his taxes or on his wife or something about his private life, that would be character assassination.

However in the context of his professional career Dr. Rajendra k. Pachauri engaged in all sorts of unnecessary professional misconduct, motivated primary by money.

You can’t play down Dr. Rajendra k. Pachauri scientific significance either. He is Chairman of the IPCC, which oversees the CRU's. The AGW hypothesis existed before, but the IPCC is the only organization that has climate research units to measure the climate on a global scale. Other scientists can hypothesizes all they want, the IPCC is the only organization that has the ability to collect the data.

I need more proof of his guilt than your opinion, Dagum. I went to your link and read the article, and everything in it was speculation of his involvement with the Himalayan glacier error, not to mention the speculation that the error was intentional to begin with. No proof. I also need to have proof that this man single-handedly convinced the entire world of climate scientists that anthropogenic climate change was real... because all evidence shows that the world of scientists came to the consensus of the theory and THEN the IPCC was formed for the consolidated summaries that they could provide policymakers. Your claim that the IPCC is the "only scientific organization able to gather data" is absurd. The IPCC does not gather data AT ALL, they interpret and summarize reports done by individual scientists, scientific academies worldwide, and other scientific organizations (i.e. NASA, NSIDC, NOAA, etc.). AND all viewpoints that withstand scientific scrutiny are expressed in the reports. They have NEVER claimed to be infallible, and they have always reported their errors once discovered.

From the IPCC website:

"The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports."
________________

This man, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, is not the linchpin to the science of anthropogenic climate change. Attacking his character with assumptions will not bring down the mountainous evidence of global warming, or the tens of thousands of earth scientists that support the theory, or the data collected by several independent organizations that confirm the same theory, or the observable changes in our earth's chemistry and climate, or the multiple benefits for sustainable clean energy.

I know from previous conversations that you want clean energy, but by spreading unfounded seeds of doubt against the science of climate change, you are throwing a wrench in the green movement. You are unwittingly aligning yourself with the institutions that are fighting the move to renewable energy. I think it would behoove you to just accept that you are not the expert on this subject, and believe me, I am not claiming to be an expert either. I am simply saying that we NEED to appreciate the expansive knowledge base of the scientific community and hopefully adjust our behaviors accordingly and wisely. Focusing on the few errors of over-estimation and claiming intentional misconduct while simultaneously ignoring the MANY under-estimations is a clear sign of impartiality and it is a COMPLETE DISTRACTION from the reality of our situation.

I am not trying to attack your character, Dagum, but I think you need a more balanced approach to this subject. Not every earth scientist is evil, and they can't all be wrong. 97.5% is a remarkable consensus, and it will take you a long time to discredit each and every one of them. Let's stick to the science.

The concept of Global warming is killing the green movement by unnecessarily politicizing the issue of saving the environment. In the court of public opinion, it’s the average person perception that counts. The average person thinks all sorts of wacky things when tell them the earth is going to melt down.Now the average joe is falling back to party lines to make sense of the madness.

Global warming has generated a lot of mistrust and for what?

The Green movement needs to DIRECTLY attack pollution and not hope that incidentally pollution will be cut if we go outside and rail against the climate.

So you blame the scientific community for politicizing the issue instead of the industry funded think-tanks, and the outspoken politicians and critics with direct ties to the fossil fuel energy industry. I humbly disagree with you.

Public opinion does not always equal reality, and I think we should focus on the reality of our situation. It does not make sense to me that we should ignore science in favor of public opinion (refer to my first comment about Galileo) especially on an issue as HUGE as anthropogenic climate change. Informed decisions are EXACTLY what we need.

I'm with you on this one dagum.

Eli Kintisch is a reporter, and that piece was in the opinion section of the LA Times. He is not an IPCC scientist, and geoengineering is not the science behind anthropogenic climate change. It is a suggested response by some to the dangers that the science has exposed. Geoengineering is a very controversial subject, and it should not be considered lightly. Painting roofs white is one thing, but intentionally polluting the air with "less" dangerous aerosol is quite another. Ideally, we would stop all pollution and the problems would immediately stop, but that is not the case. We will still feel the effects of climate change for centuries AFTER we move to clean renewable energy. But every day that goes by we are making the situation worse and the recovery longer.

However controversial geoengineering may be, it doesn't make the science of climate change any less true. I know that you will disagree Dagum, but as THIS article expresses, the science is solid.