Deutsche Bank ~ Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments

Well for skeptics who refuse to listen to those “untrustworthy” scientists, 
how about listening to one of the biggest banks on the planet?
I came across this incredible document that I just can’t resist sharing.  I’ve included the outline to give a taste of the breathe of this report.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On September 8, 2010,
Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA) and the Columbia Climate Center (CCC) published a report responding to the major claims of climate change skeptics. The report, entitled “Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments” aims to examine the many claims and counter-claims surrounding the current climate change debate. The report presents responses to the most prominent arguments of climate change skeptics, including claims that Earth is not warming; that any warming is not human-induced; and that warming is not harmful and does not require mitigation.
 pdf at  
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf

Executive Summary 
Earth is not warming
Claim: Global average temperatures have not risen since 1998.
Claim: Climate researchers are engaged in a conspiracy: global warming is a hoax.
Claim: Climate models are defective and therefore cannot provide reliable projections of future climate trends.

Earth may be warming but human activity is not responsible
Claim: The greenhouse gas signature is missing.
Claim: The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as, or warmer than, today.
Claim: Atmospheric CO levels rise hundreds of years after temperature in ice cores.
Claim: Earth’s climate is driven only by the sun.
Claim: Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Claim: CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the infrared radiation that it can.
Claim: Climate sensitivity is overestimated in current climate models.

Earth may be warming, and humans may be responsible, but we don’t need to act to stop it.
Claim:  Increasing carbon dioxide will stimulate plant growth and improve agricultural yield.
Claim: Human society and natural systems have adapted to past climate change.

page 10
“. . . Many criticisms, however, center on matters that have been resolved scientifically or on selective use of observations that may be misinterpreted. Cook (2010) outlined five characteristics of attacks on science (originally from a study that focused on public health by Diethelm and McKee 2009) that apply to many claims from those skeptical of climate science: (1) conspiracy theories, by which the existence of a large body of accepted evidence is itself purported to be proof of a conspiracy, as has been expressed about the IPCC report; (2) fake experts, the presentation as experts of people with scant training in the field; (3) selectivity, by which isolated studies or graphs are presented out of context; (4) impossible expectations, the practice of demanding research to provide greater certainty than the study system permits, such as complete weather predictability; and (5) use of misrepresentations and logical fallacies, including straw man arguments, such as “CO2 isn’t the only driver of climate;” this true statement is integral to our understanding, but is largely irrelevant for the case about anthropogenic change.

This study aims to respond to the most common misconceptions that are presented to challenge the position that GHG emissions are adversely impacting Earth’s climate and will continue to do so. . .”


page 11
2. The Hockey Stick Controversy 
“. . . The National Academy of Sciences report (2006) supported Mann’s conclusion that temperatures of the latter half of the twentieth century were the highest in the record, but asserted that  the authors should have better communicated the uncertainty of data; namely a specific year or decade (1998 and the nineties) could not be identified as the warmest because of the uncertainty associated with proxy values for individual years or decades (especially prior to 1600). Overall, National Academy of Sciences (2006) rejected the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick and endorsed, with a few reservations, Mann et al’s work. . .”


page 12
“. . . The second assessment, commissioned by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Sub Committee on Oversight, was carried out by a team of statisticians (Wegman et al. 2006). They also concluded that the methodological errors in the original Mann et al papers had no impact on the scientific conclusion. They carried out a social networking analysis of Mann’s co-authorship network to evaluate whether “independent studies” could be unbiased. They interpreted the absence of McIntyre and McKitrick in Mann’s co-author network (i.e. the authors who publish with the co-authors of Mann et al.) as evidence of bias, and stated that Mann and co-authors were disproportionately influential in climate literature and the peer review system.  Although Budd (2007, see below) subsequently refuted this claim of disproportionate influence, similar allegations have been made in the wake of the CRU emails stolen in fall of 2009.

page 13
3. A Response to the Major Claims of those who are Skeptical of Climate Science  
3.1.  Earth is not warming
3.1.a. Claim: Global average temperatures have not increased since 1998 
Subclaim: Record cold in winter 2009-2010 in the US proves that global warming is not real
3.1.b. Claim:  Climate researchers are engaged in a conspiracy: global warming is a hoax
3.1.b.1. Significant government research funds prove that scientists are in it for the money
3.1.b.2. Stolen emails of climate researchers demonstrate conspiracy
Data access:
Misleading methods:
Undue influence in the IPCC processes:
Attempts to subvert the peer-review process:

Investigation of the allegations:
3.1.b.3. Climate researchers have removed stations from the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) 
Microsite influences:
3.1.b.4. The IPCC AR4 report is ridden with erroneous data and references that overstate the impacts of global warming

page 18
Five specific claims about observed or potential climate change impacts have been the focus of criticism of the integrity of the IPCC AR4 report and of the IPCC as an institution. These are as follows:
Himalayan glaciers:
Improper attribution of disaster losses to climate change:
Amazonian vulnerability to drought:
African crop yields:
Area of the Netherlands that is below sea level:
IPCC review:

page 22
3.1.c. Claim: Climate models are defective 
Clouds:
Aerosols:
Subclaim: Aerosols and their decrease due to pollution control explain the observed warming trend.
Small spatial scales:

page 24
3.2. CO2 is not responsible for any warming of the Earth system that may be occurring.
3.2.a. Claim: The greenhouse gas signature is missing from in the tropical atmosphere 
Karl et al. 2006
Arndt et al. 2010
Nova 2009
Santer et al. 2008
Douglass et al. 2008
Thompson et al. 2009

page 25
3.2.b. Claim: The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm or warmer than today, so GHG emissions don’t affect climate
Mann et al. 2008
Mann et al. 2009
Frank et al. 2010
Kaufman et al. 2009
Cronin et al. 2003
Wilson et al. 1979
Fillipi et al. 1999

page 26
3.2.c. Claim: Atmospheric CO2 levels rise hundreds of years after temperature in ice cores, so CO2 does not cause climate to change.  
Lorius et al. 1990
Hansen et al. 2007
Kawamura et al. 2007
Lüthi et al., 2008
Broecker 1982
Anderson et al. 2009

3.2.d. Earth’s climate is driven only by the sun 
Lean 2010
Lockwood 2010
Erlykin 2009
Benestad and Schmidt 2009
Cook 2009
NASA 2009
Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010
Weart 2008,
Lean and Rind 1996
Svensmark 2007
Kristjansson et al. 2008
Kulmala et al. 2010

page 27
3.2.e. Claim: Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
IPCC WGI 2007, p. 99
IPCC WGI 2007, p. 135
RealClimate 2005b

Subclaim: Climate models cannot simulate the effect of water vapor because they lack detailed cloud physics. 
Dessler and Sherwood 2009
Chung et al. 2010

page 28
3.2.f. Claim: CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the infrared radiation that it can.
Archer 2007
Archer and Archer 2009
Allison et al. 2009

Claim 3.2.g. Climate sensitivity is overestimated in current climate models
Lindzen 2009
Kump et al. 2004
Lindzen et al. 2001
Lin et al. (2002
Su et al 2008
Lindzen and Choi 2009
Trenberth et al. 2010
Spencer 2009
Revkin 2010
RealClimate 2010a, 2010b
Schneider and Schneider 2010
IPCC WGI 2007
Knutti and Hegerl 2008

page 28
3.3. Earth may be warming, and humans may be responsible, but we don’t need to act to stop it.  
3.3.a. Claim:  Increasing carbon dioxide will stimulate plant growth and improve agricultural yield 
IPCC WGI 2007, p. 526-527
Leakey et al. 2009
Högy et al. 2009
Gleadow et al. 2009
Bloom et al. 2010
Lobell and Burke 2008
Burke et al. 2009
Battisti and Naylor 2009
Schlenker and Roberts 2009
Lobell et al. 2008
Burke et al. 2009
Doherty et al. 2010
Kurukulasuriya et al. 2006
Seo et al. 2009

page 31
3.3.b. Claim:  Human societies have adapted to previous warming periods 
Diamond 2005
Weiss and Bradley 2001
de Menocal 2001
Brooks 2006
Kuper and Kröpelin 2006
Hassan 1997
de Menocal 2001
Sachs 2008
Sokolov et al. 2009
IPCC WGII 2007, p. 813
Solomon et al 2009
Spierre and Wake 2010
Immerzeel et al. 2010
Warner et al. 2009
CNA 2007
Blair 2009
Feng et al. 2010

page 33
4. Conclusion
IPCC AR4
Richardson et al. 2009
Stott et al. 2010
Arndt et al. 2010
National Academy of Sciences 2008
NRC 2009
US GCRP 2009
Nova 2009, 2010
D’Aleo and Watts 2010
AP 2009
UK Parliament 2010b
Russell et al. 2010
Leake 2010c
Pew 2009
Krosnick 2010
Russell et al. 2010
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 2010a
NOAA NCDC 2010a
UK Met Office 2010
NASA GISS 2004
PCMDI 2007
Revkin 2010
Lüthi et al. 2008
IPCC WGI 2007, p. 120-121
Cook 2009
Wild 2009
IPCC WGI 2007
Richardson et al. 2009
Sokolov et al. 2009

page 35
Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors and the Columbia Climate Center answer Ross McKitrick’s “Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank” 

page 39 - 53
References

page 54 -
Appendix: Selected Resources