The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition registered climatescience.org.nz for their domain. A bit cheeky, given the dearth of actual climate scientists in their "coalition". Greenpeace New Zealand has countered by registering climatescience.co.nz and climatescience.net.nz and creating a web site describing mainstream climate science. The Climate Science Coalition's Owen McShane has complained (link to radio discussion), claiming that they are "passing off" their site as the CSC's one. It's easy to see that his claim is untrue. If you look at their site you'll see that it doesn't look like the CSC one and doesn't claim to be the Climate Science Coalition's site.
McShane also claimed that climatescience.co.nz contains "very little science at all". This claim is also obviously false. You just have to visit the site to see that it is full of scientific information.
But McShane's biggest whopper is this:
For instance, many of their claims are not even supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states: "The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century ... does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect ... has been identified. Climate has always varied ..... so the observed changes may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required ..." (from IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001, 'The scientific basis').
We have no argument with this. But it's not what Greenpeace would have the public believe.
Yes, Greenpeace wants the public to believe that an anthropogenic effect has been identified. But is the IPCC really saying that there is no evidence that warming is anthropogenic? Maybe we should look at the entire passage.
Detection and attribution
The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact.
Identifying human-induced climate change requires two steps. First it must be demonstrated that an observed climate change is unusual in a statistical sense. This is the detection problem. For this to be successful one has to know quantitatively how climate varies naturally. Although estimates have improved since the SAR, there is still considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of this natural climate variability. The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that "the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system".
Having detected a climatic change, the most likely cause of that change has to be established. This is the attribution problem. Can one attribute the detected change to human activities, or could it also be due to natural causes? Also attribution is a statistical process. Neither detection nor attribution can ever be "certain", but only probable in a statistical sense. The attribution problem has been addressed by comparing the temporal and spatial patterns of the observed temperature increase with model calculations based on anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols, on the assumption that these patterns carry a fingerprint of their cause. In this way the SAR found that "there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record". Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion. The present status of the detection of climate change and attribution of its causes is assessed in Chapter 12.
In other words, the IPCC thinks that humans are probably causing the warming.
McShane's site now has comments, so readers might like to see if you can get him to make a correction.
Hat tip: frogblog.
That's always aggrivating. Article opens by raising a common criticism, then spends the rest of its time dropping logic and evidence bombs on it from a great height. Quote miner only touches the first part.
It's like when you're debating someone and you say "Of course, that could be true, but..." and they cut you off at "but".
I've come across this particular mined quote before. It's been used by Vincent Gray and John A of ClimateAudit.
To add to the last comment, it has also been used by Chris de Freitas, which makes three of the people in the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" who've quote-mined it.
Google for "the observed change may be natural"
Either there are a lot of very dishonest people out there, or a lot of very stupid people re-quoting what the dishonest have told them.
Paul, especially is you compare it to a Google for the extended quote: "the observed change may be natural." "Having detected a climatic change"
Actually, going back to my last comment, after googling I'm not sure whether Chris de Freitas is in the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition." However, another NZCSCer, Gerrit van der Lingen has used it as well, so my point still stands.
It must be a Kiwi thing, like the Haka...
Either there are a lot of very dishonest people out there, or a lot of very stupid people re-quoting what the dishonest have told them.
I wouldn't call them stupid, Paul, just gullible. Or wishing so hard that their worldview is true that they will believe anything.
Whether that is stupid is debateable.
Best,
D
I'd call them stupid, Dano. For posting this. A submission to the NZ Parliament by a well-known "long range forecaster" Ken Ring (moon tides in the atmosphere, don't y'know). Here's a choice bit:
"CO2 is also nearly twice as heavy as air (molecular weight 44, that of air
29) so it cannot rise anywhere beyond haze level of a couple of hundred feet. The Greenhouse cover is 20 miles up, at the top of the atmosphere, and is formed by water vapour. Any CO2 at higher levels is ejected there from volcanoes and kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Nevertheless, it is continually FALLING, not rising, which is how and why vegetation receives it, enabling plant life to grow."
That certainly is stupid.
But I find, Gareth, that the gullible don't check facts if someone writes something that agrees with their worldview. Or, sometimes, they will check facts that only appear on websites that look real purty to their worldview.
In your example, say, some CEI shill will state that a long-range wx forecaster says that global warming is hooey. That is good enough for the rube - he won't check the link because the CEI shill has said something that is good enough for him. Darn alarmists and environazis.
Best,
D
You are right, of course. This bunch are harvesting views (any views) that fit their world view. They are a coalition in search of suitable "science".
You could say they have a concencus** on their preferred contrascience, G.
Best,
D
** (how do the rubes misspell it?)
I've been debating with McShane and fellow travellers via the NZ Skeptics group. It turns out that McShane is a prominent member of NZ skeptics and justifies Ken Ring's participation by "We have been happy to have Ken Ring at conferences when he exposed Cold Reading."
In other words, McShane feels that because Ring is skeptical about some paranormal thing then his rubbiish pseudo-science should be included in his group of "Scientists" providing commonsense(sic).
Furthermore the coalition claims "Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no
scientific reason to believe that catastrophic change is underway. The
Earth's surface has warmed slightly, but climate extremes have not
changed for the worse."
This kind of stuff is so patronizing that it borders on being oxymoronic. Like "lying for truth".
If they were at all balanced, then they would also say that there is no scientific reason to believe that catastrophic change will not happen.
John
What I report in my recent post greenhouse defect in new zealand is relevant here. Therein, I should have been harsher on the NZ CSC for their quote mining. But I read this post of yours too late.
What I report in my recent post greenhouse defect in new zealand is relevant here. Therein, I should have been harsher on the NZ CSC for their quote mining. But I read this post of yours too late.