Good presentation. I’m a big fan of your scientific/policy analysis. On area of confusion, however, is your endorsement of the conclusions from the IPCC Working Group 1.
In the past, you’ve cited cases where the IPCC lacks scientific integrity (see below). You are likely aware of many other areas of where data is selective used (or adjusted) to hide inconvenient conclusions.... e.g. solar influence on the climate; measured temperature adjustments and urban heat island effects; overly hot models; ECS assumptions; the hockey stick; and many more. Given these long standing integrity problems, how do we trust the IPCC’s conclusions?
2 of many examples to illustrate the point:
1. You highlighted 54 studies relating to hurricane “normalized damaged”: 53 of these studies showed no human attribution. These 53 studies were ignored by the IPCC. One study supported attribution – and this was the only one cited by the IPCC (since the conclusions supported the IPCC narrative). This is clearly unacceptable science.
2. The sun’s influence on past/present climate is a major topic. Yet the recent report deleted findings from earlier IPCC reports that showed the sun could account for part (or a majority) of recent temperature changes. Clearly this conclusion was inconvenient. To address this problem, a small group created the PMOD data set using controversial adjustments to the satellite data. This modified data conveniently showed the sun had a minor impact of temperatures. The last IPCC report deleted the conventional data and relied soley on the adjusted/controversial PMOD data.
Clearly the IPCC wants to suppress this important scientific topic (only a handful of pages discuss the sun, from the 2000+ pages in the report).
Excellent interview - I thought the host got a little lost when discussing the drought in the Horn of Africa and mixed it up with climate change - I was hoping you would bring up the Indian Ocean Dipole as a possible cause.
Thank you Roger, an excellent interview bringing together so many aspects of science, political science, climate and policy. Very refreshing to hear someone talk like a scientist - admitting errors, discussing assumptions, and in particular being clear about the construction and usefulness of scenarios. I made several notes to incorporate in my Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) currently in preparation, examining the so-called energy "transition" from an energy (not just emissions) point of view.
Roger posts some good stuff here. I subscribed in the past but canceled because there was no participation in the comments by RPJr. In fact the comments section is almost non existent. There would doubtless be more interaction if the author participated.
Good presentation. I’m a big fan of your scientific/policy analysis. On area of confusion, however, is your endorsement of the conclusions from the IPCC Working Group 1.
In the past, you’ve cited cases where the IPCC lacks scientific integrity (see below). You are likely aware of many other areas of where data is selective used (or adjusted) to hide inconvenient conclusions.... e.g. solar influence on the climate; measured temperature adjustments and urban heat island effects; overly hot models; ECS assumptions; the hockey stick; and many more. Given these long standing integrity problems, how do we trust the IPCC’s conclusions?
2 of many examples to illustrate the point:
1. You highlighted 54 studies relating to hurricane “normalized damaged”: 53 of these studies showed no human attribution. These 53 studies were ignored by the IPCC. One study supported attribution – and this was the only one cited by the IPCC (since the conclusions supported the IPCC narrative). This is clearly unacceptable science.
2. The sun’s influence on past/present climate is a major topic. Yet the recent report deleted findings from earlier IPCC reports that showed the sun could account for part (or a majority) of recent temperature changes. Clearly this conclusion was inconvenient. To address this problem, a small group created the PMOD data set using controversial adjustments to the satellite data. This modified data conveniently showed the sun had a minor impact of temperatures. The last IPCC report deleted the conventional data and relied soley on the adjusted/controversial PMOD data.
Clearly the IPCC wants to suppress this important scientific topic (only a handful of pages discuss the sun, from the 2000+ pages in the report).
Excellent interview - I thought the host got a little lost when discussing the drought in the Horn of Africa and mixed it up with climate change - I was hoping you would bring up the Indian Ocean Dipole as a possible cause.
Thank you Roger, an excellent interview bringing together so many aspects of science, political science, climate and policy. Very refreshing to hear someone talk like a scientist - admitting errors, discussing assumptions, and in particular being clear about the construction and usefulness of scenarios. I made several notes to incorporate in my Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) currently in preparation, examining the so-called energy "transition" from an energy (not just emissions) point of view.
Roger posts some good stuff here. I subscribed in the past but canceled because there was no participation in the comments by RPJr. In fact the comments section is almost non existent. There would doubtless be more interaction if the author participated.