Milankovitch Cycles

[ding]

No, I am afraid it WAS you. I said PRECIPITATION because I fucking MEANT PRECIPITATION you fucking moron.

That makes what you wrote even funnier.

 

[ding]

So you think that pages long list of authors and reviewers were all in complete and total agreement of every sentence of that report. How about this then, WHAT makes you think dissent is not allowed? Where did you read that? Who said that was the case?

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because of three reasons:

1. Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).
2. Dissenting scientific results which might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.
3. The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019).

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Crick]

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because of three reasons:

1. Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).

1983? Surely there are climate studies with divergent conclusions later than 1983. And "ambiguous and open to interpretation" is not quite dissenting.

1. Dissenting scientific results which might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.

What I saw in your linked articles below was that the IPCC's drive to speak with a single voice was to make their reports more effective at driving public policy to act against AGW. Of course, if you believe that the entire thing is a complete fabrication by a massive conspiracy among the world's scientists, this entire discussion is irrelevant. But I consider their drive to enable and impel public policy decisions no more a political motivation than the desire of medical researchers for people to get vaccinated and cease unsafe sexual practices and eat less fat and salt and sugar and get some exercise each day. You can thank the tobacco industry and current actions by the fossil fuel industry for disseminating the idea that the simultaneous existence of debate and a strong consensus on any scientific question are mutually exclusive. If there is a debate, the argument goes, it would be a mistake to act until it is settled. But of course, neither the tobacco industry nor the fossil fuel industry will ever admit the debate is over. And that is precisely what several posters here routinely argue.

1. The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019).

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

As I have stated elsewhere, when there is disensus on an issue, the findings in IPCC reports will score low marks in Confidence and Likelihood. I think this a perfectly adequate means to communicate the existence of significant divergence in expert opinions on a given subject. To actually present multiple viewpoints would make obese an already elephantine report and the confusion it would produce in the lay reader, left on their own to weigh differing arguments in an unfamiliar field could end the report's successes at growing its establishment as a valid reference on which public policy decisions may be based.

Conclusion from the Hoppe &Rodder 2019 article
[Emphases mine]
Differences between the three epistemic cultures exist--not surprisingly--with regard to the role and value the IPCC reports have for a scientist's own work. The analysis of IPCC readership reveals that traditional climate scientists and life- and geoscientists read the reports more regularly than the surveyed social scientists and economists. Moreover, traditional climate scientists more often state that they read the IPCC reports to be better informed of their own field of research and to gather community-related information than their colleagues in the other two epistemic cultures. Similarly, they also feel significantly more often that the IPCC reports are worth the effort of producing them.
The data indicate that, overall, the general support for the consensus policy is significantly stronger in traditional climate sciences than in life and geosciences and economics and social scientists. We interpret this finding with the idea that the synthesis and consensus-making bring a higher 'payback' for traditional climate scientists than for other disciplines, in form of a knowledge resource. This interpretation is strengthened by another result: the surveyed economists and social scientists wish an increased representation in IPCC reports to a much higher degree than their colleagues from traditional climate sciences and life- and geosciences.
In a broader perspective, our interpretation route leads to questioning in how far consensus is an appropriate tool and communication policy for climate sciences. We acknowledge that this is a far from trivial question, for traditional climate sciences and all the more so for the multi-paradigmatic social sciences. In the consensus diplomacy, dissent and uncertainty are treated as if they undermine the authority of the knowledge if widely shared--even though they are genuine features of the social process of scientific knowledge production. The consensus process which, includes several phases, multiple actors from many institutions and several rounds of comments and reviews, remains susceptible to the disclosure of negotiations and details of active 'consensus-making' (such as Climategate). But if the proposition is that experts disagree, what is the alternative to the IPCC's communication policy of polishing uncertainty and disagreement for public communication and policy advice?
It is an as of yet underexplored question how science communicators should deal with expert dissent and how they should evaluate it themselves (for an analysis of the case of the British Science Media Center, see Rodder [2015]). Sarewitz' argument might be an option: "The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice." [Sarewitz, 2011, p. 7; similarly Hulme, 2013]. For future assessments, it might be worth exploring the alternative strategy of communicating plural views.

I hope you appreciate that my second highlight there is a classic denier position.

I will give you (and this is what good links will get you) that the IPCC has a desire to speak with one voice. I do NOT equate that with the suppression of dissent. I noted your comments in this regard evolved from "the IPCC rejects dissenting opinions" to "the IPCC rejects dissenting opinions in its reports". That is not a trivial distinction. The scientists that the IPCC asks to work on their reports and the science they bring to the assessment process bring a varied spectrum of opinions and experience. You have to admit that deniers have frequently crowed about denier scientists having worked for the IPCC. That being said, I don't think it possible to maintain that the IPCC brooks no dissent, only that they want their authors and reviewers to settle their varied viewpoints on a singular,qualified (ie, scored) view before they send their work to the printer. This is not the suppession of dissent. It is the resolution of varied viewpoints into a singular expression. If the width and deviation of viewpoints exceeds that which might be resolved, nothing will be presented. The IPCC is not disseminating information it has reason to believe inaccurate or wrong.

 

[ding]

1983? Surely there are climate studies with divergent conclusions later than 1983. And "ambiguous and open to interpretation" is not quite dissenting.

What I saw in your linked articles below was that the IPCC's drive to speak with a single voice was to make their reports more effective at driving public policy to act against AGW. Of course, if you believe that the entire thing is a complete fabrication by a massive conspiracy among the world's scientists, this entire discussion is irrelevant. But I consider their drive to enable and impel public policy decisions no more a political motivation than the desire of medical researchers for people to get vaccinated and cease unsafe sexual practices and eat less fat and salt and sugar and get some exercise each day. You can thank the tobacco industry and current actions by the fossil fuel industry for disseminating the idea that the simultaneous existence of debate and a strong consensus on any scientific question are mutually exclusive. If there is a debate, the argument goes, it would be a mistake to act until it is settled. But of course, neither the tobacco industry nor the fossil fuel industry will ever admit the debate is over. And that is precisely what several posters here routinely argue.


As I have stated elsewhere, when there is disensus on an issue, the findings in IPCC reports will score low marks in Confidence and Likelihood. I think this a perfectly adequate means to communicate the existence of significant divergence in expert opinions on a given subject. To actually present multiple viewpoints would make obese an already elephantine report and the confusion it would produce in the lay reader, left on their own to weigh differing arguments in an unfamiliar field could end the report's successes at growing its establishment as a valid reference on which public policy decisions may be based.

Conclusion from the Hoppe &Rodder 2019 article
[Emphases mine]
Differences between the three epistemic cultures exist--not surprisingly--with regard to the role and value the IPCC reports have for a scientist's own work. The analysis of IPCC readership reveals that traditional climate scientists and life- and geoscientists read the reports more regularly than the surveyed social scientists and economists. Moreover, traditional climate scientists more often state that they read the IPCC reports to be better informed of their own field of research and to gather community-related information than their colleagues in the other two epistemic cultures. Similarly, they also feel significantly more often that the IPCC reports are worth the effort of producing them.
The data indicate that, overall, the general support for the consensus policy is significantly stronger in traditional climate sciences than in life and geosciences and economics and social scientists. We interpret this finding with the idea that the synthesis and consensus-making bring a higher 'payback' for traditional climate scientists than for other disciplines, in form of a knowledge resource. This interpretation is strengthened by another result: the surveyed economists and social scientists wish an increased representation in IPCC reports to a much higher degree than their colleagues from traditional climate sciences and life- and geosciences.
In a broader perspective, our interpretation route leads to questioning in how far consensus is an appropriate tool and communication policy for climate sciences. We acknowledge that this is a far from trivial question, for traditional climate sciences and all the more so for the multi-paradigmatic social sciences. In the consensus diplomacy, dissent and uncertainty are treated as if they undermine the authority of the knowledge if widely shared--even though they are genuine features of the social process of scientific knowledge production. The consensus process which, includes several phases, multiple actors from many institutions and several rounds of comments and reviews, remains susceptible to the disclosure of negotiations and details of active 'consensus-making' (such as Climategate). But if the proposition is that experts disagree, what is the alternative to the IPCC's communication policy of polishing uncertainty and disagreement for public communication and policy advice?
It is an as of yet underexplored question how science communicators should deal with expert dissent and how they should evaluate it themselves (for an analysis of the case of the British Science Media Center, see Rodder [2015]). Sarewitz' argument might be an option: "The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice." [Sarewitz, 2011, p. 7; similarly Hulme, 2013]. For future assessments, it might be worth exploring the alternative strategy of communicating plural views.

I hope you appreciate that my second highlight there is a classic denier position.

I will give you (and this is what good links will get you) that the IPCC has a desire to speak with one voice. I do NOT equate that with the suppression of dissent. I noted your comments in this regard evolved from "the IPCC rejects dissenting opinions" to "the IPCC rejects dissenting opinions in its reports". That is not a trivial distinction. The scientists that the IPCC asks to work on their reports and the science they bring to the assessment process bring a varied spectrum of opinions and experience. You have to admit that deniers have frequently crowed about denier scientists having worked for the IPCC. That being said, I don't think it possible to maintain that the IPCC brooks no dissent, only that they want their authors and reviewers to settle their varied viewpoints on a singular,qualified (ie, scored) view before they send their work to the printer. This is not the suppession of dissent. It is the resolution of varied viewpoints into a singular expression. If the width and deviation of viewpoints exceeds that which might be resolved, nothing will be presented. The IPCC is not disseminating information it has reason to believe inaccurate or wrong.

And yet dissenting opinions are absent from the IPCC reports. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Crick]

And yet dissenting opinions are absent from the IPCC reports. The proof is in the pudding.

The names of numerous authors with dissenting opinions appear in report credits. I doubt there is a single one of the many names that agrees with every single point in those reports. A limited number of authors - of all persuasions - were unable to come to agreement with their respective groups and withdrew from the process. I assume you disagree with the UN's decision that their reports should "speak with one voice". Can you explain why? What dissenting opinions do you believe were repressed by the IPCC that the public and the world's scientists need to see receive IPCC imprimatur.

 

[ding]

The names of numerous authors with dissenting opinions appear in report credits. I doubt there is a single one of the many names that agrees with every single point in those reports. A limited number of authors - of all persuasions - were unable to come to agreement with their respective groups and withdrew from the process. I assume you disagree with the UN's decision that their reports should "speak with one voice". Can you explain why? What dissenting opinions do you believe were repressed by the IPCC that the public and the world's scientists need to see receive IPCC imprimatur.

Yes, because it's the antithesis of science. There's no telling how many things they are keeping from the public. The big one would be the disagreement on climate sensitivity which is 2 to 3 times the radiative forcing of CO2 alone.

 

[Crick]

Yes, because it's the antithesis of science. There's no telling how many things they are keeping from the public. The big one would be the disagreement on climate sensitivity which is 2 to 3 times the radiative forcing of CO2 alone.

Once more, the IPCC is not conducting research. They are not doing science. They are assessing published research for the purpose of providing "policy makers with regular scientific assessment on climate change, its implications and potential future risk, as well as put forward adaptation and mitigation options." This is a different goal with different rules than a research scientist testing a hypothesis.

The IPCC is not keeping things from the public because, again, the IPCC is not conducting research. They don't own knowledge. The disagreements concerning climate sensitivity are all published and widely discussed by people in the field.

​

 

[ding]

Once more, the IPCC is not conducting research. They are not doing science. They are assessing published research for the purpose of providing "policy makers with regular scientific assessment on climate change, its implications and potential future risk, as well as put forward adaptation and mitigation options." This is a different goal with different rules than a research scientist testing a hypothesis.

The IPCC is not keeping things from the public because, again, the IPCC is not conducting research. They don't own knowledge. The disagreements concerning climate sensitivity are all published and widely discussed by people in the field.

​

If they were doing science their reports would include discussions on dissenting opinions. The IPCC is a political organization.

 

[Crick]

If they were doing science their reports would include discussions on dissenting opinions. The IPCC is a political organization.

The IPCC was formed by the UN to provide information to policymakers. If you want to describe that function as political, feel free. If you are suggesting that the IPCC is pushing a political agenda (liberal, conservative, socialist,communist, fascist), then you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[ding]

The IPCC was formed by the UN to provide information to policymakers. If you want to describe that function as political, feel free. If you are suggesting that the IPCC is pushing a political agenda (liberal, conservative, socialist,communist, fascist), then you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Which explains why they act like a political organization instead of a scientific organization.

Of course they are pushing a political agenda. The UN was formed - in part - to increase political cooperation among its member countries.

 

[Crick]

Which explains why they act like a political organization instead of a scientific organization.

Of course they are pushing a political agenda. The UN was formed - in part - to increase political cooperation among its member countries.

I would agree with you that the UN - and by extension the IPCC - is not working to push one political viewpoint over another but to foster cooperation and understanding with, in the IPCC's case, the best, most reliable and most objective information available.

 

[ding]

I would agree with you that the UN - and by extension the IPCC - is not working to push one political viewpoint over another but to foster cooperation and understanding with, in the IPCC's case, the best, most reliable and most objective information available.

I disagree. They are attempting to strong arm science. As such they are the antithesis of science.

 

[Crick]

I disagree. They are attempting to strong arm science. As such they are the antithesis of science.

How?

 

[ding]

How?

Through ostracizing anyone who dares take a position opposite to theirs.

 

[Crick]

Through ostracizing anyone who dares take a position opposite to theirs.

Ostracizing? Not inviting them to IPCC teas? Taking them off the Christmas card list?

The IPCC is tasked to assess published science. That is going to require them to make judgements on studies and papers. They cannot publish everyone and that is what you're actually complaining about. I admit that their status gives their judgements weight and this process is not the purest form of the scientific method in action. However, the risk of harm that global warming presents outweighs the risk of harm to science; as well, the increased funding that climate science has experienced over the last few decades have undoubtedly singificantly advanced our knowledge in the field.

 

[ding]

Ostracizing? Not inviting them to IPCC teas? Taking them off the Christmas card list?

The IPCC is tasked to assess published science. That is going to require them to make judgements on studies and papers. They cannot publish everyone and that is what you're actually complaining about. I admit that their status gives their judgements weight and this process is not the purest form of the scientific method in action. However, the risk of harm that global warming presents outweighs the risk of harm to science; as well, the increased funding that climate science has experienced over the last few decades have undoubtedly singificantly advanced our knowledge in the field.

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said,

"many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Crick]

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said,

"many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Then they need to ball up, don't they.

 

[ding]

Then they need to ball up, don't they.

That's hilarious. Is that your advice to kids that are bullied at school? The very act of their bullying implies they know they are wrong and don't want anyone to investigate as it might expose their errors.

 

[Crick]

That's hilarious. Is that your advice to kids that are bullied at school? The very act of their bullying implies they know they are wrong and don't want anyone to investigate as it might expose their errors.

This isn't grade school. It's the real world. And as I already explalined, the harm posed by unchecked global warming far outweighs the harm from some scientists not getting included in the big book. It's not like the IPCC publishes a list of science that failed to make the grade. And if someone puts out a paper that no one agrees with and that gets debunked left and right, their not going to feel real good about how their peers treat them, IPCC or no. Science has always been a bit cutthroat that way. Your complaint here is like griping about the firefighters tracking mud into your burning house.

 

[ding]

This isn't grade school. It's the real world. And as I already explalined, the harm posed by unchecked global warming far outweighs the harm from some scientists not getting included in the big book. It's not like the IPCC publishes a list of science that failed to make the grade. And if someone puts out a paper that no one agrees with and that gets debunked left and right, their not going to feel real good about how their peers treat them, IPCC or no. Science has always been a bit cutthroat that way. Your complaint here is like griping about the firefighters tracking mud into your burning house.

All the more reason for every dissenting opinion to be discussed and evaluated rather than dismissed and discouraged.