People following this blog (assuming there are any) know Richard Tol and I had a disagreement recently. I basically accused him of rewriting the Aggregate Impacts section of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) to make it favor his own work while excluding important information and other, more modern, work.
They’ll also know Tol’s response when this issue was first brought up (by Bob Ward) was to tell what was aruably a lie:
In fact, that section was moved from Chapter 19 to Chapter 10. As far as I am aware, Mr Ward did not raise this concern with the IPCC. He was informed no later than 2 April 2014 that the text was moved rather than added.
The reality is the text Bob Ward referred to bares no resemblence to the text Tol claimed was moved. The text was completely rewritten, a fact Tol has since acknowledged. Unfortunately, it appears Tol has made another false claim, one which he refuses to correct or back up. Today I’ll discuss that claim and what evidence is available regarding it.
Some arguments are too stupid to treat with respect. Today I’ll discuss one:
Again, this seems absurd. If I don’t let you comment on my blog, I’m not censoring you. You’re welcome to comment elsewhere.
My last post criticizing changes apparently made to the recent IPCC report by Richard Tol in order to promote his own work and views was online for only about 20 minutes before Tol responded. The exchange which followed was priceless.
My last post discussed how it appears Richard Tol abused the IPCC process to dramatically rewrite material in order to promote his views as the IPCC’s views while removing information and references. Today I’m going to show additional details which make the revisions even more suspect.
There’s a spat between Richard Tol and Bob Ward I haven’t paid any attention to. It seemed boring until I saw a tweet today from Tol which claimed Ward admitted to lying. I rarely hear anyone make such an admission. Naturally, I was curious.
It turned out Tol’s claim was misleading. Ward hadn’t admitted to lying. He said some things, and Tol interpreted them, in their totality, as Ward admitting to lying. Whatever. It was boring, but it wasn’t a complete loss. I discovered an interesting abuse of the IPCC process which Tol defends. It’s not surprising he defends it given he’s apparently the one responsible for it.
Guys, the global warming debate is over. We’ve alwaysn know the greenhouse effect is real. Now though, we know exactly how strong the greenhouse effect is. Skeptical Science tells us so:
Let’s summarize several basic facts, which we will then use to reproduce Figure 1:
- Doubling the CO2 concentration (which is equivalent to 3.7 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing) causes temperature increase of 3°C.
Would you look at that? It’s not just a fact Earth’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3°C. It’s a basic fact. If you don’t believe it, you’re just a dirty denier who refuses to admit the obvious.
And that includes the stupid Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, previously considered to be representative of the consensus on global warming. Those idiots just told us:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).
Clearly, they don’t know what they’re talking about. They aren’t aware it’s a basic fact the climate sensitivity is exactly 3°C.
Can you imagine anything so ridiculous?
Philosophy was once a passion of mine. I viewed it as a field of intellectual problems which required no specific knowledge, the perfect mental exercise. Then I got older. I realized what I viewed as philosophy was an ideal far removed from what philosophers actually do.
I lost interest in the field, but I never lost interest in the idea. I still love to examine philosophical issues, and I like when it involves other topics I’m interested in. Today I’m going to talk a bit about one philosophical issue involving global warming.