Of course people will critique the panel. How many of them are scientists with a legitimate scientific argument? How many of them have something at stake? What percentage of scientists critique the panel? If it's 10% of scientists then 90% are OK with the panel right? This is why it's important to guage the state of the literature as a whole, not to get caught up with this stuff. And the last sentence about "all the panel members are not in agreement" has been addressed several times already in this thread. But I'll repeat it again, not everyone has to agree for there to be a consensus. In fact, I would be more suspicious if every single person on the IPCC panel agreed.
The IPCC could easily include an additional report that outlines the criticisms. There is no restriction on how the panel publication is presented. Criticisms on what has been included (and not included) is crucial to understanding the state of the science. It could very well help to better define what needs to be examined (which is considerable by the IPCC's own admission). Also, a very large portion of the IPCC report relies on computer model forecasting. This is where the terms such as "likely" or "very likely" come from. These are predictions of the future, and not actual facts. These have launched a whole host of criticisms as the models are nowhere near robust enough to serve as a stand-in for the the global climate.
Well, I hope the majority of climate researchers aren't as corrupted as you imply they may be. A proper scientific literature review should be done without pre-existing notions of what the outcome will be. But since every review article agrees with the consensus, it makes it easier to be confident in the conclusion.
My comment on the abuse of literature reviews was not being associated with any group. That should have been clear. I never suggested that climate researchers are corrupt as you seem to have implied. I was pointing out that such a review method is not value-free. Again, the word consensus is vague.
I won't go through all of them again but they have been addressed. For example, when you state "the level of contribution is not known", the response was that the level of contribution and whether there is a contribution are two separate hypotheses that shouldn't be confused with one another. When you state "not everyone agrees", the response was that not everyone has to agree for a consensus. The rest of the issues can be found elsewhere in the thread.
Consensus implies nothing more than "general agreement." It's a public relations word here. The word itself says nothing about the degree, depth, association, range and the like. It possesses no innate reference to any of the above qualities. It is bland. And whether you like it or not, such a stated consensus does not stand in as knowledge for what everyone in the field of climatology is thinking or accepting.
Take the IPCC publication as an example. Here is an organization that promotes the existence of AGW, but maintains that there is no fully established measure for the depth or range of that impact. It appears to matter to them, too.
Absolutely not. In science, evidence for something is stronger than the lack of evidence against something. You have to make your conclusions on what has been published. Why would people choose not to publish good data refuting human contribution to climate change? Especially considering the money behind the movement (oil companies, big industry, etc.), if there was enough evidence to publish a negative review article, it would have been done by now.
You have been arguing your position on the basis of the number of literature reviews, not actual evidence. The actual evidence can be
interpreted a number of ways. Also, you have neglected to consider that there are numerous papers published that consider a phenomena, but don't allocate a blame to what is being observed. A good example is the reduction of ice in the arctic region this past summer - which inevitably ended up being blamed on anthropogenic global warming because there was an already well established expectation in place. The published research has since noted that the cause of ice reduction was a cyclical event and caused by natural ocean current oscillations. The levels of ocean ice coverage are now back to average levels. Is this a refutation of AGW, or an observation that a natural event is in operation that has no relation to human activity?
Because that's how science works. Science is not perfect and it evolves but the best we can do is work with the data that we have. If most scientific research indicates that humans affect climate, then I would tend to agree with that position. Scientists aren't perfect but in general I trust science more than politicians, businessmen, etc.
You have stated that
if scientific research indicates that humans affect climate then you would agree to that position. That's plenty of "ifs." Fair enough. But you clearly neglect that the AGW position itself is also driven by politics as well - both in science and beyond. You should then be very concerned that this political view can, and does, taint the science - which I agree is a very serious issue.
None of us can comment on the quality of the research as we are not experts. The depth and range are overwhelmingly in support of the consensus.
No, there is no consensus about the depth and range. The word "consensus" says nothing about such qualities. At best, it is a statement of a low-level order of agreement among those who agree with such a view.
For me, this argument is about science, not so much about climate change, which is not one of my major interests. It's being able to distinguish real science from junk science, lay science or lay opinion pieces in the lay press. There is a significant anti-science movement out there (the anti-psychiatry Scientologists, the oil lobby, right wing governments that don't want to face resulting policy decisions) and they try to dupe the public.
Then you ought to be concerned that the debate about the science of climate change is affect by
two broad fronts. You repeat oil-lobbies etc.; yet you do not appear to acknowledge, for example, a massive multi-billion dollar environmental lobby with its own agenda. They too have done plenty to misrepresent science or scientific research because they are primarily political organizations, and not scientific organizations. You might want to be interested in just the science, but climate change is now political. Don't think for a moment that this has not had a massive effect on the science. Science and scientists have never lived in a vacuum.
Right now, AGW view is establishing what the public policy framework will be for today and tomorrow. This position is not being established by science, but by
political means. Trillions of dollars will have to be spent to address these positions. That will represent a massive diversion of funds from other necessary activities. You may not be interested in climate change, but the politics will eventually be interested in you.
