You need to register and login to create and read (some) posts

Climate Change

I recently got hired as a programmer in a small meteorological institute in Berlin. Since I get along very well with my superior, we also talked about climate change. He is a person whose calling is really meteorology, and also has some 40 years+ experience in the domain. He had a lot to tell me. And it was not what I expected.

Basically, I recommend everyone who is interested in the subject of climate change to read the report of the NIPCC. NIPCC stands for Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. It is basically the counterpart of the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change) which is from which our media takes its sources from, and according to which our policies to combat climate change are mandated. The NIPCC is a response to the climate change reports created by the IPCC, which, according to their own research - with the same data - has many scientific flaws. In their opinion, the IPCC is an organ that is rather preoccupied with "fitting the data" to the current political agenda than anything else.

After reading the summary of the NIPCC report, I find their concerns valid. But see for yourselves.

As a small side note. Fitting data to a given, preconceived result is quite common in scientific literature, especially when the scientists are funded by governments or economic enterprises - which is the case with the IPCC. (And, especially when the finalization of the report is made by politicians, and not by scientists, as NIPCC claims that the IPCC is culpable for.)

To inform you of our current scientific standing on the subject:

Climate is an incredibly complex topic. Unfortunately, we don't fully understand how it works. And our predictions are pretty much wild guesses, due to the immense number of factors that factor in the equation. Moreover, climate typically has several feedback loops which, even if we identified those correctly - which we have not yet with certainty - are highly susceptible to small changes in various parameters. And when I say highly susceptible, I mean it. To the point that depending on the exact setting of a parameter the projection switches the signs in front of the predictand (in our case global temperature)... (so from plus to minus)

Anyhow, read for yourselves.

You can download the reports from here:

I recommend reading the preface and executive summary of the 2009 report, since the entire report is quite lengthy, and also pretty technical.





Hi Aim - thanks for posting something interesting. And congratulations on your new job!

For my own part, I have recently started trying to educate myself regarding climate change, so I found your post timely in the sense that I am definitely interested in the topic.

Honestly, I have not been too environmentally-conscious my whole life. And only now (at this late date) I am starting to work on doing a better job of understanding the world around me, and how my actions contribute to our global situation. (For example, my wife and I recently quit using plastic bags at the grocery store.)

I do know that we live in a world where there is just too much information. I am a smart guy, but I also readily acknowledge (because I know it to be true) that on most subjects, I am very ignorant. I think this is because there is just too much too know, too much to process, to much to "worry about" (i.e. concern yourself with) for everybody.

But with that being said, I personally basically believe in human-caused climate change. The reason I say that is because I have based my judgement on the fact that there is a broad scientific consensus on the subject. (Obviously I could be wrong about this.)

So for example, Wikipedia says:

There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]

For somebody like myself, with a limited amount of time and ability to understand complicated and controversial subjects, I have more-or-less decided that i am going to base my judgements on the mainstream scientific understanding. Science I think is always changing, but for the most part, I think it is the best way we have to try to arrive at the truth collectively.

I have a huge back-log of things I am trying to read, but I am definitely interested to try to read some of the reports that you sent.

And I think it is great that we are having some discussions. As I mentioned in another thread, I am finding that writing my thoughts out one some things helps me clarify (and formulate) my own thinking.

I will post more later when I have a chance to read through some of the information you sent. (So far, I have only glanced at the web-site.)

take care May the people of this world be free.

Hey Ben, thanks for your kind congratulations. I sure am a lucky guy 🙂

Since I'll be working there, I'll be able to provide a good analysis of this controversial subject in some time. However, first, I need to learn many other things, and my estimate is that I'll be able to start informing myself properly about this subject in about half an year. Till then, I'll learn being a better programmer.

There's only two things I want to bring attention, before reading up on the subject somewhat more thoroughly.

  1. The scientific climate (pun not intended) is awful concerning the subject of anthropogenic climate change. Assuming my superior would find a way to reliably verify the inadequacy of the IPCC report, he would probably not even speak out. Why? Because the entire topic is so morally infused, that regardless of the correctness of his findings, he would be shitstormed, judged, lose his job, his face and finally expelled from the meteorologic/scientific community. Utterly regardless whether or not the findings are accurate. And I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem right to me. This is not what I expect from science. This, by the way, is not exaggeration. Being in the business for so long, he witnessed first hand how good meteorologists, colleagues, experienced the treat described above, for failing to comply with the correct agenda. Please note, in your above quote, that it writes: "Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change..." (own emphasis). Indeed, it would be quite crazy to publish anything against anthropogenic climate change right now. Thus, in the next sentence it states that 100% of all scientists agree on this. Frankly, not even Newton had such a success when it comes to scientific reception of his work. And the two subjects have quite a difference in the possibility of verification...  I'm not trying to downplay anthropogenic climate change, for I have no idea whether or not it happens, and if, to what extent, and also in which directions the changes will go. The topic is exceedingly complicated. With our current technology and knowledge we are only capable of reliable predictions for about 7 days in the future. I figure that the percent of scientists disagreeing on projections encompassing several decades in the future will be greater than 0.
  2. Let's make a little thought experiment. First, let's assume that anthropogenic climate change is real and we attempt to diagnose it. One party states that anthropogenic climate change exists, the other states that it does not. If anthropogenic climate change exists, and it is misdiagnosed (NIPCC) then their faulty report resulted in utter global catastrophe. Conversely, if the other party (IPCC) misdiagnosed, then we can all say that no real bad consequences spring out from it, right? Better safe than sorry. Besides, we pushed our energetic sector towards development of renewable energies. However, I doubt that is how the story goes. Mainly because this story omits at what (human) cost this development occurred.

It seems to me that what is never shown in the news, for instance, is how a large amount of peasants in third world countries struggle to survive due to subventions in "developed" countries for various products they have been producing . So, for instance, if we want biofuels, we need cereals to create that. To remain competitive with other fuels, our government dishes out subventions to our own producers, say on cereals. Thus, the market price plummets, with considerable effect on the other continents.

Another big question mark is the taxation of CO2 "consumption". Obviously, if anthropogenic climate change is indubitably verified and CO2 its main culprit, it makes a lot of sense. Yet, if it is not, it's pure ripoff.

Thus, it seems to me, that there are real consequences if the IPCC is wrong, and NIPCC right. True, the consequences are not utter distopia as it would be if the NIPCC is wrong, and the IPCC right, but still, not to be neglected. I say they are important enough to take a deeper look into the controversy, the science, and especially the methodology adopted. Luckily, the same data has been used. Thus, there must be good explanations why the two reports arrive at totally different conclusions.

The only people that are served by denying climate change are capitalists, particularly oil companies who are increasingly being held liable for their denial. Oil companies knew this was coming. They predicted it. They even predicted the legal climate and pending lawsuits. If Oil companies believe in anthropogenic climate change...

What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline

You might want to consider this

Which points out that the Heartland Institute is a partisan thin tank that sponsors the NIPCC.

"The Heartland Institute has focused on fighting government regulation of tobacco and fossil fuels. It has received funding from a range of organizations and foundations, including a reported $13 million from the secretive Donors Trust, which pools and distributes money to Heartland and other groups involved with fostering doubt and confusion about climate science. In the past, Heartland has campaigned to downplay threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as against the Endangered Species Act. It is infamous for its billboard experiment (left) comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber"

This is obviously not an unbiased organization. It is front for corporate lobbies, a desperate last-ditch effort to manipulate people's thinking on things like second-hand smoke, acid rain, ozone depletion, and so on. The Wikipedia entry suggests it lacks scientific expertise in this area, which I suspect is quite true.

Other interesting reads




-- All you need is love...

Wah! : ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, Donors Trust, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation is not exactly the funding source I would accept if I was a scientist of any kind.

I will read the reports of both sides and decide then. If you want, I can give a good (personal) assessment afterwards. Concerning who profits, well, there is always someone who profits. Two things are absolutely "strange" when it comes to the NIPCC, besides the entire content of Mike's post. First, that almost all authors are American. I find this utterly strange. Meteorologic science occurs everywhere, thus, if the NIPCC claims were true, more people from many different countries would have joined them, which would result in a higher diversity of nationalities in scholars subscribing that report. Second, that the NIPCC themselves discount all responsibility from the organisations which support them. It is written in the preface.  ... wtf really. ?!?!?!

Anyhow. I have an almost paranoic attitude towards the media. Mostly because I can't remember the mass media being ever on the side of Truth ever since I was born practically. And I don't know how it is in your respective countries, but here in Germany, we are bombarded with climate change ads permanently and ubiquitously. This does not feel right. Something is fishy, and I'd really like to know what.



This topic is needful, thanks.

Although I am not well versed in human effects on the climate on a scientific level, though I find meteorology quite interesting, I can at least be more mindful on what I use and recycle and narrowing the learning curve overall; the book, 'A century of Spin' comes to mind.

It is also wonderful to have proven, unbiased scientific facts and resources to read up on for this topic (downloading it to Dropbox now). There are aspects of the news media that have too many contradicting and confusing points on it and others who desire to expose the lies so I'm glad of that.

I agree that those who are making the most impact on our world climate need to be more accountable and respond appropriately and immediately instead of being drunk with greed and capitalism, throwing propaganda money in trying to make others believe their lies, flat-earthers included.  What are they waiting for, the entire earth to be smothered in CO2 gasses, there won't be any debates/ denials/calls to action at all if that keeps up.

Recent forum posts

building a better and more inclus …
building a better and more inclus …
What is money video series
Skip to toolbar