Wrong doesn't even begin to describe it Pt. II

I was hoping to be able to stop from posting on Climate Change, as already done HERE and HERE.

But once again, we have another fine piece of reporting from Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun.

And while The Sun is noted for its journalistic excellence by SO MANY Torontonians, I just had to comment on it b/c his readership is so much bigger than mine and I wish it was oh, I don't know, accurate.

First, this comment:

"Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven."

Hmmm, could he be using a rhetorical device to link global warming (Hi, this is 2007, the accurate term is actually climate change, but welcome to the 1990s) to another supposed disputed scientific controversy (that shouldn't be disputed at all, by the way)....*cough* evolution *cough*. Sorry, I had a piece of antarctic ice core stuck in my throat. I would LOVE to know if he's read ANY of the many scientific papers that's been released on the changing climate that point to this serious issue. Because those thousands of papers couldn't possibly actually weigh as much as an anchor, could it?

"The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a “Summary for Policymakers” which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters."

UN spinmeisters, eh? well, let's see. I've addressed the authors debacle previously, both the number of scientists (2500 are the REVIEWERS, not the authors) and who they are. And while I said I addressed this issue already, it's kind of fun. Here's a list of the authors from the 2001 IPCC climate change report. Now, the 2007 list of authors isn't released yet, but judging from the 2001 list, I'm sure what they'll have done this time around is fire the whole lot of them and replaced them with geneticists, environmentalists and the boogeyman (I've been told he's on the UN payroll too).

If you can't be bothered to get these little pieces of information right, which are readily available on the IPCC main page, and found within seconds of googling "IPCC", then don't bother writing it. I wonder if he did ANY research on this, or whether all he did was watch Larry King Live, which, I've been told, is a bastion of truth and knowledge.

Maybe they were premature in releasing the summary before the final report was ready to be published, but that's not to say that they won't release a much larger volume that goes into detail what their research shows. Again, from the IPCC site, the final report is 4 volumes long. Count it with me. FOUR. Is that enough for you Mr. Worthington? Probably not, because you wouldn't read it anyways because it's not 'scientific enough'.

"Talk of “consensus” in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided."

"Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of “consensus.” Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens’ bodies."

If the scientists were just sitting around the coffee table making stuff up and agreeing that it's true then yes, consensus would be nonsense. However, when they're doing independent research and testing their hypotheses gathering information, affirming that their results are in agreement with each other, that's a whole different story. And no, consensus isn't always a compromise. It can be, just not every time.

And apparently, any scientists working for the IPCC are now puritans too. Just wanted to let you know in case Mr. Worthington wasn't clear enough.

"Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who’ve been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC."

And yet, Mr. Worthington couldn't give his readers one example of who those scientists that Prof. Lindzen talked about were. Didn't he watch the show? He couldn't have jotted one name down? Prof. Lindzen is a 'genuine scientist', but all those people writing for the IPCC? They're clearly not because they don't hold tenure or publish papers in scientific journals. They're merely genetics-quoting hippies. Yep. That's clearly who they are.

As for the "Friends of Science" website. I'll let DeSmogBlog take it over from here, who've catalogued the supposed 'expertise' of this group.

"Predicting climate change is more than computerized models — and far more complex than predicting the weather change — which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week."

"Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it’s man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet."

I'm so tired of pointing this out. Really. Predicting any complex system is...wow, complex. So does that mean we shouldn't try? And it's not like these computer models are based on variables pulled out of thin air. It's using historical data and trying to infer what will likely happen. Yes, there's uncertainty but there's uncertainty in any model. Again, my point is not to disparage economics, but why is it that uncertainty in economic forecasts are much more accepted than say, climate change predictions? Both are large complex systems, both use mathematical and computer models to predict behaviour, so why is the risks in one more accepted than another?

On the other hand I totally know where he got his information on carbon dioxide from. A very reputable scientific source, I'm just saying. I'll let RealClimate do the heavy lifting on this one.

Finally,

"As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life."

Yes, all those people who live in low-lying coastal areas who may get flooded from sea level increases due to melted ice caps will be SO MUCH more comfortable.

Alright, I'm done. I'm going to back to sleep, where it's a Mr. Worthington-free world and it actually makes sense.

P.S. A much more compelling reaad is Pheton's Reins, by MIT professor Kerry Emanuel.