Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus - Page 7

JAD_333 · 12-10-2007, 00:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furkensturker

When the expert can agree on global warming, can someone wake me up?

Who's gonna wake up the rest of us?

On the other hand, maybe we better pay attention. The bill for dealing with the global warming myth is going to come out of our hide. More taxes and
high consumer prices are on the way. The best hedge is to invest in it and get out before global cooling sets in. Could be the next dot.com bubble.

clackers · 12-10-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

... But of course [Lindzen's] not any of those things is he ...

It doesn't matter where he is, Pari, you've got to recognize he's not advocating the majority scientific position of his peers.

Lindzen's a professor at MIT, a respected institution, but you must concede that doesn't make him right ... I mean, so is Noam Chomsky ...

You can find a list of others here who don't agree with him, including Myles Allan, who possibly worked with him at MIT, is now head at Oxford, and obviously doesn't share his views ....

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg...2005-11-03.pdf

I don't know whether you also hold reactionary opinions on string theory or supersonic turbulence or cold fusion ... but this is serious, disputed, PhD level science. I'm not in a position to judge him either by intuition or education, and neither are you.

He and Gray make their findings available to influence their peers, and if it doesn't convince them, that's that!

clackers · 12-10-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The science from Harvard is in the wiki link I provided

In your post at 3.31pm, 12-04-2007, you don't provide a link, Pari ...

clackers · 12-10-2007, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

But of course he's not any of those things is he quackers? ...
I'm calling bullshyt, and you're full of it.

Please don't be posting more one-sided experiments and ignoring the majority of research, Pari. You've already said: "a range of beliefs and discussion is what good science is all about".

It's unscientific to not publish the dots of data on a graph you find don't fit your hypothesis. IIRC, this is what Martin Gardner discovered Rinehart did with his ESP experiments.

If you genuinely have a scientific attitude, you would post a majority of your readings about experiments that reflected the majority view in the field (anthro GW), and a minority of experiments reflecting anti-anthro GW findings, in the interests of balance.

Instead, you've also come up with an extraordinary list of 19,000 "experts" who turned out to be anybody volunteering with a college degree (it could have been me signing up) ... a bunch of right wing thinktanks (one of which you listed twice) who are on this list of alleged Exxon money takers ... http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=4381 ... attacked Wikipedia but quoted it more than anyone ...

If you want the summed views of actual peer reviewed, published scientific research, Pari, somebody has already done that:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

You could post all 928 papers up here if you wanted to.

Oh ... and unbelievably, after putting up nearly 8,000 messages, someone who should know much better is guilty of swearing and name calling ...

clackers · 12-10-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Oh, the numbers do seem to indicate clear connections between primary smoking and lung disease and lung cancer, sure. But the secondary stuff is all twaddle.

So let me understand your clarification, Dale ... to you, "passive" or "secondhand" smoking still has no connection with lung disease and lung cancer?

clackers · 12-10-2007, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Yeah, climate change. Ever noticed "global warming" all of a sudden turned into "climate change?"

I know what you're saying, Gunnut, but it's actually not a new term. The first IPCC was convened in 1988, for instance.

furkensturker · 12-10-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Um, have a reference for that?

The green movement here consists of a lot of "rent a crowd" people. mainly uni students and the unemployed who get paid to protest in logging coupes.

A couple of my staff were paid to protest at a logging site not far from here.

dalem · 12-10-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

So let me understand your clarification, Dale ... to you, "passive" or "secondhand" smoking still has no connection with lung disease and lung cancer?

CORRECT.

-DALE

JAD_333 · 12-10-2007, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

It doesn't matter where he is, Pari, you've got to recognize he's not advocating the majority scientific position of his peers.

Lindzen's a professor at MIT, a respected institution, but you must concede that doesn't make him right ... I mean, so is Noam Chomsky ...

Being right solely because one is a MIT prof is, of course, absurd. But is it any less absurd to say one is not right because a majority of one's peers disagree?

Dragging Chomsky into the picture has the earmark of a bias in the making;
unintentional, no doubt.

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2007, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

It doesn't matter where he is, Pari, you've got to recognize he's not advocating the majority scientific position of his peers.

Says who? Where's your proof? Show me a survey that demonstrates a majority of Lindzens scientific peers advocate AGW theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Lindzen's a professor at MIT, a respected institution, but you must concede that doesn't make him right ... I mean, so is Noam Chomsky ...

Strawman. It doesn't make him wrong either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

You can find a list of others here who don't agree with him, including Myles Allan, who possibly worked with him at MIT, is now head at Oxford, and obviously doesn't share his views ....

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg...2005-11-03.pdf

But Quackers....

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

these are individuals ... you can find individual scientists who believe in silliness like Area 51, Creationism and ESP!

It's reached the stage where I can just post your own fallacious arguments straight back at you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

I don't know whether you also hold reactionary opinions on string theory or supersonic turbulence or cold fusion ... but this is serious, disputed, PhD level science. I'm not in a position to judge him either by intuition or education, and neither are you.

But you DO judge him, don't you Quackers

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

he may unfortunately be like Russel Targ, the Stanford laser pioneer who wasted American taxpayers' money with his ESP research for the military and declared Israeli magician Uri Geller was the "genuine article". Or Nobel Prize Winner, Ivan Pavlov, who believed in Lamarckian evolution. Or this list of eminent scientists who it may be claimed believe in a 6000 year old Earth or that as a species we're not descended from anything: Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

you attempt to damn him by trying to associate him and the many other skeptics with any crackpot associations you can.
A purely political move on your part, because despite being shown evidence that there are many scientists who do disagree with the AGW theory, you simply recite the mantra "The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming"

Well, it's not the entire global scientific community, not even close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

He and Gray make their findings available to influence their peers, and if it doesn't convince them, that's that!

You mean if it doesn't convince the scientists you approve of then that is that and to hell with all the ones you don't approve of.

More and more like the priesthood with every post.

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2007, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Please don't be posting more one-sided experiments and ignoring the majority of research, Pari. You've already said: "a range of beliefs and discussion is what good science is all about".

I'm posting both scientific opinion and scientific research from acknowledged leaders in their fields.
All you're posting is religious propaganda and slander.
As I asked here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

So go on. Post some science rather than character assassination and politics, I dare you.

but you can't can you? It took Patch all of a couple of hours to post good science, but that's not your forte because you know the science isn't settled, instead you stick to your religious specialty of denigration. So don't lecture me on what science to post, because you aren't even in the game.

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2007, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

In your post at 3.31pm, 12-04-2007, you don't provide a link, Pari ...

As I stated, the science from Harvard is in the wiki link I provided. Interesting, considering you inferred you had read that link by claiming everyone in it were just individuals and likened them to area51 watchers and esp believers.
So now we have you denigrating people when you don't even know who they are or read the links provided. What a surprise.

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

attacked Wikipedia but quoted it more than anyone ...

And while I remember, you might find if you actually read the thread that it was Gunnut and Dalem who attacked wiki, not me, and IIRC I've only linked to it once, in response to yours.
Dumbass.

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2007, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

You could post all 928 papers up here if you wanted to.

Quote:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly
in the United States, frequently assert
that climate science is highly uncertain.
Some have used this as an argument against
adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. For example, while discussing
a major U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency report on the risks of climate
change, then–EPA administrator Christine
Whitman argued, “As [the report] went
through review, there
was less consensus on
the science and conclusions
on climate change”
(1). Some corporations
whose revenues might
be adversely affected by controls on carbon
dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements
suggest that there might be substantive
disagreement in the scientific community
about the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed
in the reports of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s
purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science
as a basis for informed policy action,
primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and
published scientific literature (3). In its most
recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally
that the consensus of scientific opinion is
that Earth’s climate is being affected by human
activities: “Human activities … are
modifying the concentration of atmospheric
constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant
energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming
over the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
[p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In
recent years, all major scientific bodies in
the United States whose members’ expertise
bears directly on the matter have issued similar
statements. For example, the National
Academy of Sciences report, Climate
Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key
Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures
to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly
asks whether the IPCC assessment is
a fair summary of professional scientific
thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s
conclusion that most of the
observed warming of the
last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase
in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific
community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological
Society (6), the American Geophysical
Union (7), and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) all have issued statements in recent
years concluding that the evidence for human
modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements
involves many opportunities for
comment, criticism, and revision, and it is
not likely that they would diverge greatly
from the opinions of the societies’ members.
Nevertheless, they might downplay
legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis
was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts,
published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed
in the ISI database with the keywords
“climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus
position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate
analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25%
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts,
developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic
change might believe that current
climate change is natural. However, none
of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing
in the peer-reviewed literature agree with
IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and
the public statements of their professional societies.
Politicians, economists, journalists,
and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate
scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of
course, be wrong. If the history of science
teaches anything, it is humility, and no one
can be faulted for failing to act on what is
not known. But our grandchildren will
surely blame us if they find that we understood
the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions
are not well understood, and there are ample
grounds for continued research to provide
a better basis for understanding climate
dynamics. The question of what to do
about climate change is also still open. But
there is a scientific consensus on the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. Climate
scientists have repeatedly tried to make this
clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June
2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies,
Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the
Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science:
An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press,Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol.
Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See AAAS ATLAS OF POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT.
9. The first year for which the database consistently
published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors
had put “climate change” in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton
Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we
know we’re not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting
on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and
the History of Science Society for their support of
this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and
G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M.
T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
BEYOND THE I VORY TOWER
The Scientific Consensus
on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
ESSAY

Posted here just so everyone knows what he's talkng about. Sorry about the formatting, can't be arsed correcting it from its PDF.

So, in reply

Quote:

Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)

Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.

DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

Oh ... and unbelievably, after putting up nearly 8,000 messages, someone who should know much better is guilty of swearing and name calling ...

Dumbass.

gunnut · 12-10-2007, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clackers

I know what you're saying, Gunnut, but it's actually not a new term. The first IPCC was convened in 1988, for instance.

OK, then why did they start using the term "global warming" rather than stick with "climate change" for the last 20 years?