Jim Inhofe Interview
On the night before CPAC, Senator James M. Inhofe’s staff reached out to me to see if I would be interested in interviewing him. I was, indeed, but Inhofe never made it to CPAC Thursday because of a series of unscheduled votes, so it became an email exchange instead.
Because Inhofe is the second ranking Republican on Armed Services Committee and is a former chairman of (and now ranking Republican on) the Environment and Public Works Committee, I decided to focus on issues of interest to the New Atlanticist audience: Israel, Gauntanamo, NATO, energy, and climate. The result is “5 Questions for Jim Inhofe.”
Inhofe’s prominence and issue stances illustrate a recurring theme of mine on transatlantic relations: We simply have very different views of the world. To be sure, we have a common heritage and substantial overlapping values and interests. But how do you come to agreement on, say, the Kyoto accords when a substantial number of prominent American leaders doubt the science behind global warming?
Inhofe is the only “American leader” who doubts the science behind global warming and–frankly–he ain’t so prominent any more.
That GW paragraph reads like total madness. If he’s your “prominent American leader” then I feel for you, buddy.
Any US Senator is very powerful these days and he’s got seniority on two important committees. And, certainly, Inhofe isn’t the only GW denialist in the Senate.
Denialist? How about skeptic? How about demanding good science before making policy? How about rational thinking?
Why do people who question AGW get portrayed as knuckle draggers? Inhofe and others are in fact upholding the scientific method and doing us all a favor.
I agree, Steve. It’s the AGW (Or is it Global Climate Change these days? I have a hard time keeping up with the scorecard changes.) proponents who are denying science.
Let’s see someone put the effort into doing the work necessary to turn AGW/GCC into a Theory on the level of the Theory of Evolution. Consensus ain’t science. Prove it. Repeat your proof. Show others how to repeat the proof.
Or appeal to emotion and just run around with your hair on fire proclaiming the imminent end of the world. That’s an equally valid approach to science.
/sarcasm
Sorry for pursuing that minor point of your post, James.
James~
I’m curious. Inhofe’s answers seem to me to be talking points that that he would give in response to any number of questions. Do you find anything in Inhofe’s answers that is interesting or enlightening?
He’s a politician.
Sure. He illustrates that there are people in positions of power who strongly disagree with the orthodoxy on a number of hot button issues.
I second that, Steve.
It is’t the leaders alone, either, it is tens of thousands of technicaly trained people—scientists, doctors, engineers—that have raised extremely important and wide-ranging objections to the AGW thrust.
Not without recognizing, of course, that there is a small trend of change. There always is. I refer people to the book by two scientists: Michaels(environmental science) and Balling(climatology)–“Climate of Extremes”—for a most thorough critique of the current sensationalism.
Perhaps the most disturbing factor in all of this GW/CC conflict is the overbearing, autocratic, true believer mindset of the AGW proponents that will brook no dissention from the ranks, when many qualified scientists (some 32,000 at last count) raise their hands in solid disagreement. On this basis of “shut up, I know best” are we going to spend many, many billions of our non-existent dollars over the next 10 years?
It should be riding on good science done by objective scientists with a good data collection program that secures the integrity of the data over a number of years, and at the least, a comprehensive effort to get at the missing links of the chains of actions in the atmosphere–especially the impact of clouds, which is not well-defined yet.
The race to institute masssive programs, to spend massive amounts of money, and to even consider altering the governance of the planet to ensure enforcement of restrictions requires far, far more proof of need than exists today, in my opinion.
I feel for you “skeptics.”
You congregate on the back-side of conservative political blogs, giving each other the secret handshake on what “science” really is.
In the old days I’ve asked “if you’ve got the science, why don’t you take it to them?”
“why don’t you rule the National Academies?”
“why don’t you rule NASA?”
… in your souls you know why, which is why you are here, and not there.
Doctors are now climate change experts?
The fact is that 97% of actual climate scientists, who ACTUALLY study the ACTUAL data, believe that it is real and that humans contribute to it.
Near-consensus does not make it a fact, of course, and science-based refutations like the book you cite make for a proper debate. But your argument, much like Inhofe’s, is that some of the most important opinions are that of technically trained people for whom there’s no evidence that they’ve studied the actual data for a minute.
And before you guys bring up Al Gore again, please. He’s a spokesperson at best and I don’t honestly care what he thinks. You guys whine as if he’s the only one talking about this stuff. But the real evidence comes from groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If you’re gonna read the GW-denying book, then you ought to make it a point to read the report from the IPCC as well. Don’t just deny because you’re a Republican and you hate Al Gore.
They’re actually separate ideas. AGW is one elements of Global Climate Change.
It’s actually pretty close to it by now. We know what gases cause global warming, and we know that we’re increasing their volume in the atmosphere. Climate Change is a bit more complicated, as the number of factors involved in our biosphere are staggering, so it’s more like long-term meteorology and oceanology forecasting.
People have. Just like with Evolution, people who don’t want to believe it, reject the proof, or decided that if one measurement turns out to be wrong, all of them are wrong.
Seems to me that anyone stating that AGW is:
–settled science.
–proven using good science, data, methods, analysis, models.
–virtually incontrovertable.
–has solved the necessary atmospheric interactions and patterns, model deficiencies, etc.
should offer solid, complete proof of all of these aspects instead of merely a declaration of a supposed fact.
Here lies the problem. Some appear to accept AGW, not because of a careful and full review of the science itself, but because of their innate belief that it ought to be that way, or their belief that some one or more august persons said so, and they believe them!
So far, I have little hope that the vocal believers in AGW have a full grasp of the sciences they are touting to us, or are well-read in all aspects of recent issue bearing on the subject. They do not show it in their writing or reference it, all of it. Are they cherry-picking to the max?
ACTUALLY, YOU MUST PROVE THAT 97% TOO! One might point out again, that even if it were only 3% that disagreed, and 97% agreed: why would that figure in itself make AGW good science? Do you want to know the history of major scientific orthodoxies that “everyone” agreed to, that were simply wrong? Well, get a History of Science book and learn of the foolish things that caught on for a while. Try Eugenics for openers.
Tell me, why should any science be “settled”?
Eugenics was morally wrong, not scientifically wrong. I’m guess you don’t have any better examples of “everyone” agreeing on a piece of science that turned out to be fundamentally wrong.
The volume of information you’re requesting could fill a good-sized room, floor to ceiling. I’m shocked that nobody has provided it to you on a whim.
Did I say that “some of the most important” were not in the field? No.
It is true that the matrix of detailed technical subjects embedded deep in climatology admits of contributions large and small from a very wide array of technical people. One must know the specific, detailed contributions and contexts for someone not “annointed into the climatology profession” for them to be accredited with a find or opinion. The issue is: “what is good science and has it been done in this case.”
Just because someone’s primary occupation is in medicine, or radiology, or biology, or what have you? doe not, or should not, limit them from being able to exercise their brains and technical capabilities on some of the problem, given the right opportunity.
The idea that this AGW area is a closed scientific field, and only those annointed can contribute, is not a proper scientific attitude or position, and is not common sense, in my opinion, so I reject that argument out of hand.
The AGW field has no corner on brainpower, for certain.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
There are, of course, problems with any survey, and one might suspect that climatologists are:
1) self-selecting; people who think the world might be in danger may naturally gravitate towards climatology,
2) be biased due to whomever is paying their bills.
That said, 97% is a pretty big number and I think it’s safe to say that this is probably the way the majority of the current data points.
Of course you’re right here, and I made the same disclaimer in my first post. I am merely pointing out that the general public may be split nearly 50/50 along mostly partisan lines on this subject, but the actual people who study the actual data are not nearly as split (at this point in time).
What I am really suggesting is that many people have made a knee-jerk reaction based on the party they identify with, rather than studying all the science (which would take a considerable amount of time and effort).
I presume you have read the “Climate of Extremes” book. Have you also read the IPCC reports or anything similar?
Of course not. But just sampling a bunch of people who work in medicine, radiology, or biology what they think about climate change, or getting them to sign a petition, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. We would have to know if they *have* exercised their brains on the climate issues. With actual climatologists, the answer is pretty obvious.
Actually, the AGW people have put quite a bit of proof out there, not only in the form of the IPCC reports but also in literally mounds of climate research-related papers touching every aspect from paleoclimatology (ice cores and the like) to extreme weather. There’s obviously debate over a number of these effects, but the basic premise isn’t argued by most scientists in the fields, which is why virtually all the professional associations of climate research related scientists have issued statements on AGW pointing out their support for it as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
What do the anti-AGW people have? The irrelevant Al Gore attack? Patrick Michaels? James Inhofe? Michael Crichton?
No, actually, they don’t even have Crichton any more.
Franklin:
I agree that a mere sampling of the population without any prequalification of the subjects is bound to be misleading. In Inhofe’s survey, it is not clear just what the individual’s relevancy is in some cases. What that means is, some of the people were probably not vetted well-enough.
Then, too, quite a few were indeed very well vetted and qualified by profession, degree, contribution, publications, etc. to offer worthwhile opinions.
So what appears to be the pro-AGW tactic, then, is to reject the entire input on the basis of what may be spurrious, politicized, unqualified or unscientific comments on the part of some.
For me, any well-founded argument that is presented under signature should be examined carefully and objectively, even if there are only one or two offered in the world, instead of many. Bulldozer tactics are not welcome, in my view.
I have about 30 or 40 papers on the subject that I have tried to absorb with my somewhat rusty physics, chemistry and math, and several books, including Climate..that I have read. I must say that I am not convinced by any of these of the dire necessity to lay on a huge, costly program to mitigate CO2 production worldwide.
It is perhaps true also that I am highly biased and suspicious of the complex and probably assumption-ridden modeling efforts that have been conducted to predict climate effects decades into the future.
I had quite a few years in physical modeling (all too many years ago now), and was made very aware of the trip ups one can experience much too often. A single bad assumption or unaccounted effect can invalidate the effort, such as missing the proper interactions of clouds, or cosmic rays, or other radiation storms, perhaps gamma rays, for instance.
I am also aware of the desire for “success” on the part of some, who decide to inject a wee adjustment to the model or the data so that the results come out as hoped. Dishonest? Yes. The case in the AGW modeling? I do not know, but has anyone had the access to find out? Have the models been validated properly? I do not know.
But, then, I have not myself been privy to the details of the models used in AGW, so all I have in hand is my deep skepticism born of experience, and my unwillingness to blindly accept what is being set forth in AGW.
For me, it is not a political issue at all to start with, but it can damn well slide into the political and social impact arena in a heartbeat.
This site is not the place, I think, to take AGW up in scientific detail. Shall we sign off?
There is proof? Absolute proof? Verified, and validated proof? From the IPCC? Show it.
Controversial, to say the least.
AGW has been and will be a really fine meal ticket and limelight for climatologists for the next few decades at the least. So they support it. Not a mystery at all.
Proof?
Again I will lay down the challenge to the skeptics. Let us show our evidences and back them up with published, peer reviewed evidence. For every paper you produce that indicates that anthropogenically induced climate change is not occurring I will produce 10 that indicate the opposite. I will be sure to provide papers that directly refute the claims in that paper. I am guessing that once again no one will take up the challenge.
Why is it that no skeptic I have ever encountered has been able to produce any evidence that has withstood peer review?
Why do some believe that internet cranks deserve equal weight to peer reviewed articles in top level journals in any scientific discussion?
Just take the one book, “Climate of Extremes”, gg, and you show me each and every contradiction you see in it, and then the proofs that they are in error, and the ten papers that back each of them up.
It was your idea, so don’t try to skip out on it.
Must be finished by March 18th, or this thread will be closed.
By the way, that is a false challenge, gg. Who can prove that there is NO AGW? There is no doubt that there is, or has been, some warming and cooling, it is a matter of degree to which. So just refute the statements in the book that you believe to be in error, and show all of those ten papers too.
Perhaps some people have the notion that the truth is being skewed in order to further both personal objectives and group-think objectives, even in the toppiest of top and multi-peer reviewed journals?
Perhaps some people think that the group-think impact acts as a governor across the disciplines on what is published, what is not published, what is said and not said, what is funded, what is not funded, and what is rewarded, and what is not? Sort of an effective muzzle on contrarians, EH?
I love the words from old A.N Whitehead to the effect that when all scientists agree on something, they are uniformly wrong.
Just pull out the references to peer reviewed research referenced by the book. I’ll check the references and meet the demands of the challenge I laid down.
Research can either confirm or deny. If the evidence is against AGW it would be far easier to disprove its existence than in the inverse case (it does exist and we need to prove it). Assuming you are correct and AGW is not extant then it should be relatively easy to show.
Perhaps people who do not want to believe what the evidence and the science based on that evidence show look for excuses to dismiss it.
No, it was your challenge, so you get the book, read it, and then make your play. Not my job to pull out anything.
Manning,
The challenge stated,
You have not performed your part of this deal.
Informing me of a book on climate change published by the CATO institute is not providing published peer reviewed evidence. The only criteria you met was that something was published, and that by a political rather than a scientific entity.
Provide me with evidence that has withstood peer review, as laid out in the challenge, and I will refute it piece by piece and match you 10 articles to 1.
Is that so difficult to understand?
I know it is difficult to do because of the dearth of evidence that for you position that has been performed with the required rigor, but that is the point.
I have access to a research library so I can check the articles. I will not be sending money to the CATO institute.
The some 286 references in over 13 pages in the book are indeed peer reviewed papers from the respected journals in the field, or major reports sponsored by the likes of MIT and others. The authors are scientists, not popularizers. Michaels is a full professor of environmental sciences at UVA, and Balling is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State U.
The flyleaf cites Nigel Lawson, Benny Pieser, Roy
Spencer and Will Happer recommendations for the book, all of whom are well-recognized in the field.
The more frequently cited Journals are: Nature; Science; Journal of Geophysical Research; Geophysical Research Letters; Journal of Climate; Climate Research, and many others.
I have identified a work here that is scientifically sound, and based upon peer reviewed papers or other scientific publications. It therefore is of indifference to me that it was a CATO publication, and it should make zero difference to you. Unless you are trying to get out of it using the publisher as a ruse.
But that would figure. I don’t blame you for not wanting to take up 227 pages of text setting forth the challenges across the spectrum of GW investigations, and buttressed by those 286 or so peer-reviewed references, with the necessity for furnishing ten papers in rebuttal for each one in the book, but AFTER ALL, IT WAS YOUR CHALLENGE.
That you evidence a distaste for CATO is simply another huge sign of bias and intellectual snobbery at work; how could they possibly publish a scientific work? I suggest to you that getting a real, comprehensive scientific challenge to AGW published today is bucking a huge political group-think trend. The book is there. The peer review aspect is there.
Either accept it or reject it, but if you do reject it, your challenge is absolutely dead in my book; you will have failed, ignominiously.
So, why don’t you just give him the 286 references like he asked for?
I gave him one reference to CE, and that is that.
It is a book of 273 or so pages. To read it and comment it he will have to obtain a copy. Otherwise, he cannot meet the challenge at all.
I fully anticipated a bunch of sneaky attempts to avoid the issue by hook or crook.
GG can get the book, read it, and comment, or the challenge is over.
Oh 217 pp, not 273.
Must be my eyes. 227pp.
CE is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, it is a book meant for consumption by the general population. It is not at all what Grewgills asked for.
Or, you could give him a couple of the references out of your copy, and he can read the actual, peer-reviewed, scientific papers for himself, for free.
Why are you requiring that he spend money on something he doesn’t want, in order to give you the proof you are asking for?
Then you are the one avoiding the challenge, by hook or by crook as you say. You haven’t offered him what he asked for, instead you’re asking him to spend money on something that is not what he asked for, in order to find references to the things he did ask for.
If you really want to settle this, go get your copy, flip to the back, and give him a damned reference!
I guess, Michael, I don’t really care whether he makes the attempt or not. It was his challenge, and I am sure he will find a way not to simply get the book and read it.
I do not intend to elevate his opinion over those of the authors, plus I am wondering just what qualifications gg has to even read the book, much less to actually make cogent comment or even challenges.
In the book I cited, the argument put forth is that, while there is some warming trend at the moment, and AGW probably makes a rather small contribution, it comes nowhere near any castastrophic levels in the next centuries. Disasterous Anth. Global Warming, or DAGW, is simply not in evidence according to their findings. I will stand with their conclusions.
Dude, he asked you for an apple and you gave him an orange! If he doesn’t bake you an apple pie from that, it’s not because he wasn’t willing to make the attempt.
Stop making this about the book! The book isn’t a scientific document. If you want a scientific response, you need to put up a scientific document. If you want a pop culture response, then you can put up the book, but that’s not what you asked for, and it’s not what Grewgills offered.
I say again, it is strictly up to him; what a crock. He has my reference, period. There are libraries around most habitable places that one can use for free, as in no money needed.
The issue of the publisher, to me, is totally irrelevant to the content and the scientific integrity of the authors.
So let the games go on.
I’m guessing he’s going to make the same point I’ve been making, that you haven’t given him what he asked for, so the ball is still in your court.
You are judging the scientific basis of a book based on the fact that it is published for general consumption? To me, it is the validity of the supported scientific argument that counts, not the publisher or the relative ease of understanding achieved.
The question arises, have you read it? Probably not. So you are also from the school of priesthood and arrogance, judging from externals.
On this point I will leave it to gg to do it or not, not you.
What Michael said.
Honestly manning, how difficult would it be for you to flip to the back of your copy of the book and provide a handful of references?
At this point, with the amount of time you have spent arguing against providing this information you could have given a good bit of it already. Why are you so opposed to doing this?
Since you’re obviously too damn lazy to actually look up the IPCC Reports available for free on the Internet with all the technical data and support listed and available for analysis, I’ll link to it. Enjoy!
Especially you since you don’t need to go out and buy a whole new book on it.
The reason Grewgills wants a peer-reviewed scientific publication is so that he doesn’t have to second-guess every given fact. Since this book was not itself a peer-reviewed publication, that means he not only has to provide a counter-argument to it’s argument, he has to independently verify the accuracy of every claim made to support it’s argument. That is an unreasonable request to make of someone when all you’re asking for a counter-argument.
He has 289 references from peer-reviewed Journals to work with, carefully annotated in the book, which uses these references to make its case and to present evidence in support. It is a body of scientific work the authors are presenting, not a single paper, that tells a quite different story from the IPCC, and others. It takes the IPCC reports to task using the references, and it is recommended by stalwarts in the field.
That should be quite enough for anyone to read, assess, and come to conclusions about the material.
It is fully up to gg now…I am done arguing with surrogates.
One further comment: to Brett.
Since this “Climate of Extremes” volume is carefully constructed to challenge the orthodoxy of the IPCC, with examples of the relevant IPCC reporting and conclusions, and with full references to IPCC and other relevant sources, it does make an excellent case, in my opinion.
It thus seems to me that “dangerous AGW” and IPCC conclusions are not “settled science”, and proof does not appear to be forthcoming that it is settled by the IPCC reporting itself.
We appear to have a tainted and politicized core source here, rather than a scientific paragon. Too many discrepancies have been found, and it is not my job to sort it out.
manning,
Why spend so much time and energy arguing against directly giving me the references from the book? Wouldn’t it just be easier to share some of the references?
Here are a few:
Johns, T.C. et al. (2003) Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios. Climate Dynamics 20: 583—612
Seager,R et al. (2007) Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America. Science Vol. 316. no. 5828, pp. 1181 – 1184
Hanson, J et al. (2007) Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 1925—1954
See it’s not that hard. It is actually far easier than posting comment after comment to avoid doing so. Are you avoiding this because you are not confident of what I will find in the articles you might choose?
BTW two of the above references are freely available for review on the internet. Science requires a subscription, but any good research library will have a subscription.
If you think that is all you need to give him, then he shouldn’t need to give you anything more that a reference to a place where you can find 10 times the number of references to contrasting conclusions. Would you accept?
No
The issues are in the content of the book and peer-reviewed references. Read the book, or not.
I have no need to type 289 references into here with my two fingers, and a few references, 5, 10, or 20, would not be sufficient to decide anything for or against the propositions. In fact, a good percentage are from IPCC itself. It is a holistic body of work on the main subjects, such as the temp predictions, Greenland ice melt, hurricane influences, sources of data and validity, and IPCC models, assumptions and results. Plus, given those references, you would still not have the full content of Michael’s/Balling’s text that weaves the story together and presents further results. So a few lines are useless.
Manning,
Grewgills isn’t going to try and counter the contents of the book. That wasn’t his offer, and it doesn’t make sense from a scientific perspective.
Nor, for that matter, is he going to seek out the book in order to pick the references that he is supposed to counter, that also doesn’t make sense from a debate perspective.
Grewgills made a very reasonable offer, but you have been altogether unreasonable in your response. Nobody is going to fault him for not going forward at this point.
Here is a proposition for you gg. Forget the challenge. Forget the other papers. Just read the damn book and comment if you like, or not. It is far more productive to have the message read, especially by those who think they know all the answers, than to argue over references. (I personally have no qualms about any refs at all, because I don’t have the papers referred to.)
I see where the AGW/CC scientific community has become so politically dominant and closed that they can use influence to block contributions from being published and reviewed in the classical manner and places, or they intimidate scientists into conforming to the orthodoxy, or into holding their fire as the DAGW case is being made in the political and mass media.
And then they claim, well, your book has not been properly reviewed, so it cannot be considered! Nice! That has been the context of this book issue. I believe that position to be dead wrong, and basically designed to shut out the opposition and counter-argumentation.
So my simple proposition is for you to open your mind, get a copy of the book from a library, and have a read for yourself, now without the onerous conditions of your challenge on your head.
It was a self-defeating one anyway under the prevailing conditions of “that kind of peer review”, which is not something to be bragging about at all. Sensorship, whether overt or covert is highly distasteful to unearth.
Let GG speak for himselof, Michael.
I believe the classical manner is “review and publish”, not “publish and review”.
Peer-review isn’t censorship, nobody is preventing the dissemination of rejected articles. Peer-review provides a mechanism where by readers of approved articles can trust the basic claims and science in those articles without having to verify them independently.
He’ll correct me when I’m wrong.
Anonymous peer review, isn’t it? How convenient. So how does anyone get a “non-reviewable”, or “non-reviewed” paper published anywhere of scientific importance? I suggest that they cannot do so with any ease.
This leaves the control of the review process in the editors’ hands and their secret lists of reviewers. If the editor and his cohorts around the community are mantled in a new orthodoxy and politicized as well, by AGW/CC or DAGW, for instance, the wee small dissenting voices seem to have little or no chance of a good hearing.
On the other hand, if reviewers were to sign and publish their reviews, there would be an open exchange of pros and cons possible.
Given the quite large amount of money being shoveled into AGW-related efforts, there is a natural motive for the participants to keep the ball rolling as far as possible, for all the reasons of getting ahead: money, fame, positions, degrees, opportunity to do their research, and on and on… minus, of course, their integrity.
I do not see where there is an adequate scientific check on this rush to orthodoxy at all, yet we have the new administration talking in many billions of dollars for AGW/CC, and quite possibly DAGW. So the issue hits us all directly in the pocketbook now.
The motivations of some groups to be able to control the efforts to mitigate AGW/CC from an international governing position represents far greater potential woes for the US.
There is certainly little reluctance on the part of the media to sensationalize AGW reports from the community.
All it takes is a whiff of Al Gore around Obama to start the shudders.
One must have a paper produced to disseminate and review, say a sweet little draft, before actually reviewing it, and then deciding to publish it in the literature.
Michael has represented my position well in this conversation.
Still, why not provide those 5, 10, or 20?
Which in itself would mean that a good percentage are repeat references and that a good percentage of the papers referenced come to an entirely different conclusion than that forwarded by the book. Somehow I suspect that this is the case with a number of the peer reviewed articles referenced and my guess would be that is the case with the majority of them. You have apparently read the book so it should not be difficult for you to pull out the peer reviewed article references that actually support the author’s and your position. Why spend so much time and energy avoiding this?
Given this, I take that you don’t know any scientists. If you did you would realize that a conspiracy of this proportion somehow covering 80%+ of all scientist and controlling all major scientific publications globally is laughable on its face.
It’s not, nor has it ever been, easy to get published in any top ranking journal (Science, Nature, etc). There are, however, many other journals to submit to and if the research and the accompanying article are sound it will be publishable in one of them. If the research and accompanying article are unsound then it is indeed quite difficult to get published in any of them.
When you position requires conspiracy theories, you should reconsider your position.
There is little reluctance on the part of the media to sensationalize anything. That is a prime reason to go to primary sources rather than simply blindly trusting mass media accounts of anything, particularly anything technical. In this case the primary source is the scientific literature. Why are you so opposed to going there?
Apparently, I have not been clear to you. One more try. Michaels et al have created composite charts from the source data and peer references and then commented upon the comparisons: For example the three versions of the IPCC temperature predictions plus added new source data, and has then commented upon the disparities shown as a result. There is no single reference short of the book/page numbers for each of these several syntheses in the book that support his conclusions. Without the book, these page numbers would be useless. The supporting papers referenced from Journals, the IPCC, etc. do indeed reach their own conclusions, so all of the value added of importance is contained in Michael’s comparative analysis while using newly available information from peer references. Is this so hard for you to understand?
There is no “Superpaper” that is peer reviewed and referenced: that is what the book provides in somewhat more readable form than a pure paper. And, just for the record, while I agree with much of what Michaels writes, because he makes sense,I am not in a position to verify the background.
Michaels does refer to some of his older background papers, however. Perhaps they will help you:
Michaels,P. J. et al, “Revised 21st Century Temperature Projections” Climate Reserch 23 (2001): 1-9.
Michaels, P.j. ET AL, “”Extended Comment on Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensivity to the Choice of Model and Convective Scheme” Journal of Climate 18(2005) 5,179-82.
Michaels, P.J. et al. “Trends in Precipitation on the Wettest Days of the Year across the Contiguous United States,” International Journal of Climatology. 24(2004) 1,872-82.
Michaels, et al, “Sea Surface Temperatures amd Tropical Cyclones in the Atlantic Basin” Geophysical Research Letters 33(2006)doi: 10.1029/2006GL0025757.
289 odd old references are the starting point, then, for Michaels to perform his analysis and draw some cogent conclusions in the book.
While these references are used, if you, or anyone, were to attempt to assess this work and to review it, you could not do so without the book itself, including the rest of the peer references in the back. That has been my sticking point.
Hence, sending you these or other references from the back of the book is worthless, and there is no way short of copying the book proper to make the main work available. The book is copyrighted. Is this clear now? It is the book, or nothing, simply said.
It is not my political conspiracy theories that I am concerned with, but the evidence of the public treatment of Michaels and others in unfair and politicized ways that is mentioned promanently in his book that concern me. I have no first hand experience with it in DAGW, Michaels does.
You have Al Gore to thank for raising the spectre of conspiracy in GW/CC/AGW with his “An Inconvenient Truth” pitch, and his subsequent comments and actions around the globe. 10 lies do not make a truth (or was it more than 10?).
manning,
Now was that really so hard?
At first blush it appears your first reference directly deals with the topic at hand and the second deals with it in the course of the paper, the third and fourth deal with potential effects of warming on climate rather than the existence or extent of AGW.
A quick reading of abstracts indicates that Michaels thinks that climate will indeed continue along the current trend (increasing global avg temps), but thinks that future temps will fall into the lower third of the IPCC projections. In short Michaels and his co-authors are not disputing the existence of AGW (at least not in the refs given), but dispute the higher end temperature predictions and have some differences of opinion how increasing temps will effect severe rainfall events and hurricanes.
More after I have had time to read and digest the articles.
A question for you manning; have you read any of the peer reviewed articles referenced?
Which is essentially what I posted some time back, if you read it. But, then, I have the book. The book is quite sufficient for me now, so I will not be scarfing up the rest of the reference material.
Financial matters are absorbing my time now: the economy threatens to get me long before the climate.
If you turn up anything interesting, you can reach me at ma*****@ya***.com, rather than this four-deep page of Joyner’s.