Have 'Climate Misleaders' forced scientists to be ever more 'conservative in predictions of future change?

[Gray-Wolf]

Since I saw Mark Serreze mauled in 2007 I believe that I have witnessed a 'trend' for scientists to be ever more cautious/conservative in their proclamations of how climate change will impact society?

 

Am I alone in seeing this or have others noted similar?,  does it bleed away the impetus for action from the general population if folk are only fed the 'low end' predictions instead of all the possible consequences including the ' high end' predictions?

Edited August 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

That would be a good thing if low end predictions are the most likely.You cannot disregard the prolonged lack of warming which is making even the low end predictions seem alarmist. 

[UV-RAY]

Another thread purely designed to cause more chaos in the climate thread, I'll give this one a wide berth and suggest many sceptics show it the contempt it deserves!

[jethro]

I think they've had to become more cautious, as the real life data isn't meeting the high end of the projected temperatures. If temperatures suddenly rocket upwards, caution will be thrown to the wind and we'll be back to drama predictions. 

 

Personally, I welcome the hiatus in the projected warming, it seems to have stemmed the tide of doom somewhat and is gradually making way for a more conservative, measured response. All to the good IMO. 

 

And to fair GW, Serreze by his own admission, warranted a mauling. He did at least admit his mistakes and apologise for his drama queen tendencies. 

[The PIT]

As long as scientists publish their methods and data and are happy to work with people querying their findings there won't be a problem.

[stewfox]

Since I saw Mark Serreze mauled in 2007 I believe that I have witnessed a 'trend' for scientists to be ever more cautious/conservative in their proclamations of how climate change will impact society?

 

Am I alone in seeing this or have others noted similar?,  does it bleed away the impetus for action from the general population if folk are only fed the 'low end' predictions instead of all the possible consequences including the ' high end' predictions?

 

Well 20 years of high end alarmist prediction haven't worked. seem no harm for a low key approach. Don't forget mainstream media including the BBC will always ramp it up anyway.

[VillagePlank]

I would be cautious if I knew I was wrong

 

On a more serious note, I very much doubt that climate scientists are becoming more cautious: the papers, surely, speak for themselves, and peer-review should certainly pick up weasel words - in fact I've never seen such a thing in a paper published by one of the bigger journals.

 

What you need to look at, as was intimated above, is the mainstream media. Given the banking crisis, ongoing terror alerts (etc) the climate - that thing that is in the long grass - is pushed back. It's just not the story it once was. Climate models have been demonstrably incorrect (I've yet to see any explanation of why the Arctic is melting faster than expected, for instance) apart from one run way back in the 1990s (which incidentally has got the climate pretty much bang on but presumes no impact from CO2 and CFCs) I would be pretty quiet if the observations didn't suit my theory, and I'd be even less inclined to report it if I was a journalist.

 

Still from climate misleaders (we're going to freeze!) to climate beguilers (we're going to burn!) - and I do suggest you pick the vitriolic qualifier that suits you best, GW -we know, as time and time again statistics have shown to be the case, since Laplace in 1778, that neither is in fact very likely to happen at all. We know it's going to change (it always has), and we know it's changing now - but the next ice-age is not around the corner, nor is SE England just about to become Kent del Sol.

[knocker]

For some climate scientists, speaking out is a moral obligation

 

As human beings, climate scientists have a vested interest in getting the climate change policy right

 

We scientists talk to each other…a lot. Usually it is about breaking studies or techniques that can help us better understand the world around us. On occasion, however, we talk about how to communicate our science to the world. We believe that our research is critical to helping us all make better decisions now to preserve the future for all of us

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/06/climate-change-scientists-moral-obligation?CMP=twt_gu

Edited August 6, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

From your post over on the 'human thread' it appears the misleader's may find a legal observation to follow a similar path from now on also Knocks? 

[Thundery wintry showers]

My impression is that the most up-to-date scientific evidence has been casting increased doubt on the "high climate sensitivity" scenarios and providing more support for the "low to mid-range sensitivity" scenarios.  Hence, a warming of 2 to 4C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the 21st century is looking more probable than 4 to 6C of warming. 

 

It seems highly probable to me that the abrupt warming of the 1980s and 1990s was brought on by a combination of "anthropogenic" and "natural" forcing, with various modes (ENSO, solar activity, NAO, QBO, PDO) moving into positive states that promoted above-average global temperatures, but since the exceptional El Nino of 1998, most of these modes of natural variability have moved into neutral or negative states and this has offset the anthropogenic contribution. Thus, the evidence suggests that anthropogenic global warming is still ongoing, but not at as high a rate as the warming of the 1980s and 1990s might have suggested. 

 

On the other hand, it appears that while global temperature sensitivity may not be as high as previously feared, global carbon dioxide concentrations are going up faster than expected and the Arctic Amplification appears to be stronger than expected.  There are still many atmospheric variables that are under-represented in climate models.  In years to come, we might see the balance of evidence shift back towards more support of the "high sensitivity" scenarios, or alternatively, we might see more firming up of predictions near the low end of the IPCC's projected range.

[UV-RAY]

My impression is that the most up-to-date scientific evidence has been casting increased doubt on the "high climate sensitivity" scenarios and providing more support for the "low to mid-range sensitivity" scenarios.  Hence, a warming of 2 to 4C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the 21st century is looking more probable than 4 to 6C of warming. 

 

It seems highly probable to me that the abrupt warming of the 1980s and 1990s was brought on by a combination of "anthropogenic" and "natural" forcing, with various modes (ENSO, solar activity, NAO, QBO, PDO) moving into positive states that promoted above-average global temperatures, but since the exceptional El Nino of 1998, most of these modes of natural variability have moved into neutral or negative states and this has offset the anthropogenic contribution. Thus, the evidence suggests that anthropogenic global warming is still ongoing, but not at as high a rate as the warming of the 1980s and 1990s might have suggested. 

 

On the other hand, it appears that while global temperature sensitivity may not be as high as previously feared, global carbon dioxide concentrations are going up faster than expected and the Arctic Amplification appears to be stronger than expected.  There are still many atmospheric variables that are under-represented in climate models.  In years to come, we might see the balance of evidence shift back towards more support of the "high sensitivity" scenarios, or alternatively, we might see more firming up of predictions near the low end of the IPCC's projected range.

A well balanced post TWS.

[knocker]

Not a bad read.

 

Why the word watermelon tells you a lot about what is wrong with the climate debate

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/11/watermelon-climate-debate

[4wd]

There is a lot of evidence for watermelons though, including here.

[Methuselah]

Not a bad read.

 

Why the word watermelon tells you a lot about what is wrong with the climate debate

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/11/watermelon-climate-debate

Lawson's antics clearly demonstrate what happens when an individual versed in evidence-free mumbo-jumbo (in his case, economic 'theory') gets involved with evidence-based science: he clearly has not one iota of understanding, at the scientific level...He should go back to the Economics Department and shut up!

[loafer]

I suppose you could validly argue that it was the high climate sensitivity models which were misleading and that the actual outcome has forced scientists to be more conservative, which ties rather neatly into the title of this thread, if not the intention of its original author.

[knocker]

A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/science/a-climate-alarm-too-muted-for-some.html?smid=tw-share

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for the 'bump' knocks. I do think that this is a very important subject for us all and if the 'climate misleader's' have engineered an environment where science 'tones down' their findings so as to spare themselves from the barrage of assaults they would otherwise receive ( including personal attacks on family and friends) then this is a very bad thing.

 

I suppose I would ask for folk to look at the history of the 'climate misleader's' funding and tactics to assess whether this is a healthy dose of sceptical science or a concerted effort to 'stall' action aimed at limiting impacts of any predicted climate changes in favour of a business as usual approach to our futures?

[4wd]

Give it a break, do you actually believe that anyone who suggests AGW extent and risks has been overplayed is funded by oil industry?

 

 

the history of the 'climate misleader's' funding and tactics

 

[Methuselah]

Give it a break, do you actually believe that anyone who suggests AGW extent and risks has been overplayed is funded by oil industry? 

If you mean the likes of 'lord' Monckton then, yes, of course they are...