James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

[Mike Davis]

Andre:
Thanks for popping in. Reading your review of the Younger Dryas helped me to understand. Iwas referring to not only that but also the currnet era or the recent 6ky to 10ky to present. I may not get the language correct. but hope to be able to express the doubts.

 

[The Dagda]

well The IPCC was

The bold part may suggest that the conclusions were already clear before the research was done

No it doesn't seeing as they spent much of their early history denying man made contributions played a part. What you have there is just a speculative assessment, or your opinion. Climate change was a reality, but at that time their was far from a consensus on what was causing it. Eventually enough evidence came to light to make them shift their position from denying AGW was a concern to accepting that there was a real man made contribution.

First off, I'm not going to list my sources.

They were anti-GW until the early 90's!? Did the data from the last 10,000 years change all of a sudden then? Yes, I think that funding linked to political agendas could very well have something to do with their change in stance.

And yet I presume your sources are often funded by groups with an ulterior motive. Do you think though that all scientists working on this are deliberately shady, or that they have no conscience and are arguing despite the evidence for or against? We have to assume the evidence is although speculative at least meriting of concern, and we have to accept that some of the nay sayers are just as right and justified in bringing out concerns. The trouble is it's a wheat from the chaff deal.

I think I made it clear that this forum was not the sole source of my information.

The moderators on this site do a good job on insisting that arguments stated are supported and referenced. Especially when it come to GW, imho.

Good I still don't see how anyone can have made their mind up either way given the evidence we have atm, it's highly speculative and subject to revision. I know scientists haven't absolutely despite what you might read.

No, then we would have the current global warming argument situation.

Like I said before argument is healthy for science, it just behoves us to look at where the arguments are coming from and their motivations.

 

[Mike Davis]

I was taught and learned through personal past experience that the future depended on science as science was concerened with facts and theories. The politics was not considered unless it was an unbiased reaserch of the theories behind this phenomena. Science was considered the unbiased search for cause and effect. A search of historical events and theories of future events.
I guess that has all changed. There are those that are still searching but the sad issue is the appearence of personality issues displayed by some are over riding the science involved.
This piece we are discussing is as much news as any other gosip piece put out about anyone in public life. The more visable one makes theirself and the more eeratic the comments the more attention they bring to their past and current life. It is visable all around. It is possible the mentioned person may have been the cause for the interest.

 

[wolram]

There is some evidence that there is no concesus

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

 

[Mike Davis]

No it doesn't seeing as they spent much of their early history denying man made contributions played a part. What you have there is just a speculative assessment, or your opinion. Climate change was a reality, but at that time their was far from a consensus on what was causing it. Eventually enough evidence came to light to make them shift their position from denying AGW was a concern to accepting that there was a real man made contribution.



I think you may need to take a closer look at history of IPCC. And why it was formed. Looking back to this persons testemony regarding climate change is a good start.
But you will probably still believe as fits.

 

[The Dagda]

1988 - The establishment of the IPCC
At its 40th Session in 1988 the WMO Executive Council decided on the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UNEP Governing Council authorized UNEP’s support for IPCC. It was suggested that the Panel should consider the need for:
(a) Identification of uncertainties and gaps in our present knowledge with regard to climate changes and its potential impacts, and preparation of a plan of action over the short- term in filling these gaps;
(b) Identification of information needed to evaluate policy implications of climate change and response strategies;
(c) Review of current and planned national/international policies related to the greenhouse gas issue;
(d) Scientific and environmental assessments of all aspects of the greenhouse gas issue and the transfer of these assessments and other relevant information to governments and intergovernmental organisations to be taken into account in their policies on social and economic development and environmental programmes.

Seeing as the IPCC does no science of it's own and is made up of scientists from across the globe I think you need to ask whether there was a consensus amongst them in 1988, but there we go, some people have an agenda to suggest that these scientists and the organisation they represent are all in on some global conspiracy. So tell me, just what was the scientific consensus in 1988?

 

[Astronuc]

Project Scientist, IPCC Working Group II Technical Support
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=288420