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

[dalem]

Dalem, from that article, which of the following esteemed institutions has Wikipedia got wrong their views on climate change?

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
• Joint science academies’ statement 2007
• U.S. National Research Council, 2001
• American Meteorological Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Astronomical Society
• Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
• Geological Society of America
• American Chemical Society
• Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Doesn't matter what Wiki occasionally gets right or wrong. It cannot be cited as an authoritative source because of its previousl-stated vulnerabilities.

Now, as the science, if any of those places support the idea of a link between human activity and global temperature then they are wrong.

-dale

[Parihaka]

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

Sure, the 19,000 and climbing scientists from America alone who dispute the anthropogenic global warming models all believe in area 51, creationism and ESP.
Whats next? Are you going to call them "deniers"? Or tell me they're all in the pay of Exxon?

[Parihaka]

What scientific bodies of national or international standing can you find to match those above? (And not that petition you quoted earlier, or that "Cool Blue Blog" either! Good grief!)

To match them? Match what?
The Institution of Engineers Australia

3. CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING
IEAust considers that there is adequate evidence to support current scientific theories on
global warming. The balance of scientific opinion is that significant warming is already
occurring and will continue. A wealth of data supports this view.
Arguments against global climate change seem to be limited to citing lack of proof, and
refusal to consider anecdotal evidence. This is because current scientific theories are just that
– theories. They can not be tested in the real world on a laboratory scale. They can be tried
only once on a global scale, with no known practical way of reversing the process if we get it
wrong. However, while the theories can not be proven, they are soundly based.
Among respectable scientific circles there really are no conflicting current theories. The IPCC
made up of 2000 eminent scientists from around the world, including Australia's CSIRO and
Bureau of Meteorology, is quite unified in its views. The only conflicting views are from a
few scientists outside the IPCC.
In its 2nd Assessment Report of five years ago, the IPCC stated that human activities have
been responsible for rises in atmospheric carbon that are projected to result in increases in
global mean surface temperatures of 1 to 3.5 degrees Centigrade. Robert Watson (Chair of
the IPCC) states that in the 3rd Assessment Report due out next year:
"model calculations show that the SRES emissions scenarios would result in
projected increases in global mean surface temperature of about 1-5 degrees
Centigrade by 2100, higher than previously projected. These higher projections
are a result of the lower projections of sulfur emissions which tend to cool the
climate, thus offsetting the warming effect of the greenhouse gases.”
2
Climate change science will continue to evolve, and it is unlikely that there will ever be
complete consensus. Underlying scientific principles may be well understood, but there are
many unknowns. Computer models of the global climate are simplifications, based on
incomplete data. However, the predicability of global warming models is constantly being
upgraded, so that accuracy is increasing.

So, the models don't work, but we'll pretend they're right anyway.
We'll misrepresent the skeptics position to dismiss them "The balance of scientific opinion is that significant warming is already
occurring" well duh

All the "few scientists" who do dispute lie outside the "respectable scientific circles".
Pure political propaganda. Perhaps you could point me to where the The Institution of Engineers Australia has actually published peer reviewed research on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?

[Parihaka]

American Chemical Society
Published 1995, amongst the highlights....
Higher temperatures in Antarctica have led to disintegration of some ice shelves. Wrong, Antartica is experiencing lower average temperatures. The ice shelves disintegrate because that's what they do.

the average global temperature in 1995 is likely to be as high as or higher than in any year since record keeping began around 1860.
Wrong, 1934 was the hottest year on record for the twentieth century.

There is some evidence that this North Atlantic circulation has begun to slow. Wrong.

There has been a lot of speculation recently about whether more frequent hurricanes and more intense and longer lasting El Nios are related to global warming.Wrong.


When the models account for the cooling from aerosols, they also reproduce fairly accurately the global warming that has taken place over the past centuryWrong


So no peer reviewed research, a lot of assumptions, and at the end we have

More research is needed but is unlikely to be funded, at least by the U.S. In fiscal 1995, federal agencies spent a total $1.8 billion on global change research. A somewhat larger amount was requested for 1996, but Congress has proposed substantial cuts in the programs of some agencies. For example, the House passed a 25% cut in NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, a major part of its research effort. For NOAA climate and air quality research, the House passed a 41% cut in the request, and the Senate proposed a 33% cut. At press time, it was still not clear how large the final reductions would be because some of the appropriations bills were still in conference and were still subject to a presidential veto. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency, whose research has focused on the effects of global change, has decided to drastically reduce its participation in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

'We want money'

[Parihaka]

Geological Society of America

Interestingly enough, when you follow the cited link for their position statement from wiki, the link doesn't exist.

When you visit their site however, you get stuff like this

WWU Professors to Present at National Geology Meeting Easterbrook Challenges Global Warming Predictions, Linneman to Discuss Science Education Programs

BELLINGHAM - Western Washington University professors Don Easterbrook and Scott Linneman will present their research at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Philadelphia Oct. 22 to 25.

Western Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook will present his paper, "The Cause of Global Warming and Predictions for the Coming Century," on Monday, Oct. 23.

He will outline 10 abrupt climate changes during the past 15,000 years that have implications for understanding present-day global warming. Easterbrook predicts that temperatures should cool between 2065 until 2100, and that global temperatures at the end of the century should be less than 1 degree cooler than at present. This is in contrast to other theories that there will be a warming by as much as 10 degrees by 2100.

Easterbrook will raise the question, "Global Warming: Are we heading for global catastrophe in the coming century?" in a talk Tuesday, Oct. 24. Easterbrook challenges the theory that the global warming of the past century was caused by human input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide rose sharply between 1945 and 1980, global cooling occurred and temperatures actually declined. If atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming, Easterbrook says, the computer models predicting global catastrophe are meaningless.

In other words, their debate is on-going.

[Parihaka]

I could go on all day, but I guess you're beginning to get the point that Wikipedia is no more authoritative than this or any other board, and their only use is when their 'claims' can be backed up with links.

[clackers]

Doesn't matter what Wiki occasionally gets right or wrong. It cannot be cited as an authoritative source because of its previousl-stated vulnerabilities.

You shouldn't duck the question, Dalem ... if Wikipedia has misrepresented those institutions, which ones?

Now, as the science, if any of those places support the idea of a link between human activity and global temperature then they are wrong.

So, those institutions are 'wrong', and you're 'right' ... you'll have to forgive most of the world for siding with the institutions on that one, Dalem ... ;)

[clackers]

I could go on all day, but I guess you're beginning to get the point that Wikipedia is no more authoritative than this or any other board, and their only use is when their 'claims' can be backed up with links.

The link for the Geological Society of America is now here, Pari:

The Geological Society of America - Proposed Position Statement on Global Climate Change

If you read it, their position statement is quite clear, even if they invite people with ranging beliefs to address their meetings. That's what good science is about. :)

I do agree with you that peer reviewed findings are of course to be held above others. That means you rightly point out the opinions of the 60,000 Australian engineers shouldn't carry as much weight as the IPCC, which has 2000 experts drawn from all over the world, and an extensive reviewing process.

Even less would be the 19,000 people you dragged up as part of your petition link. It turns out that they don't have to be peer reviewed experts in any field at all ... they don't express the opinion of any national or international institution... the only connection they have is that they " ... have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD ...". Heck, I'd get a vote.

And I'm sure you could also get thousands of names on "Science graduates who believe the earth was created in six days" or "Arts graduates who deny the Holocaust" petitions ...

[dalem]

You shouldn't duck the question, Dalem ... if Wikipedia has misrepresented those institutions, which ones?



So, those institutions are 'wrong', and you're 'right' ... you'll have to forgive most of the world for siding with the institutions on that one, Dalem ... ;)

Look here, genius.

This is a topic that really pisses me off and gets under my skin, so I'll apologize in advance for being a turd. I have tens of posts here on this board in a dozen threads or more that outline my particular position on anthro GW, why I think anthro GW is a sh!tty theory with no backing promoted by a$$holes and lapped up by gullible laymen and unpardonable fools alike.

1) Wikipedia: As I said, it's non-authoritative for ANYTHING. If someone said they used Wikipedia to determine that my name is Dale and I like curvy brunettes, I'd refuse to accept it.

2) I'll simplify it here by asking what I always ask: What is the specific mechanism or process by which human activity affects global temperature, corrected for all known variables, and what is the equation set that I can plug numbers into to generate data curves?

-dale

[Shek]

Here's an economist's take on global warming.

What Al Gore doesn't understand about climate change. - By Steven E. Landsburg - Slate Magazine

Save the Earth in Six Hard Questions
What Al Gore doesn't understand about climate change.
By Steven E. Landsburg

Posted Monday, Oct. 22, 2007, at 7:44 AM ET

Barring a last-minute intervention by the Supreme Court, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize will be shared by Albert Gore Jr. Admittedly, Gore has been less of a menace to world peace than some previous laureates (think Henry Kissinger). But there is nothing particularly peaceable about Gore's rhetorical approach to climate policy. At his most pugnacious, Gore has depicted the fundamental trade-off as one between environmental responsibility and personal greed. Of course, as everyone over the age of 12 is perfectly aware, the real trade-off is between the quality of our own lives and the quality of our descendants'.

In other words, climate policy is almost entirely about you and me making sacrifices for the benefit of future generations. To contribute usefully to the debate, you've got to think hard about the appropriate level of sacrifice. That in turn requires you to think hard about roughly half a dozen underlying issues.

1. How much does human activity affect the climate? This is actually a whole menu of questions: What can we expect given the current level of carbon emissions? What if we cut those emissions by half? By two-thirds? And so on. These are questions for physical scientists, not economists or politicians.

2. How much harm (or good!) is likely to come from that climate change? This is partly a matter of physical science and partly a matter of economics. If the world temperature rises 3 degrees, agronomists try to predict the wheat yield in Oklahoma; economists try to predict when Oklahomans will turn to alternate ventures—and when it will become profitable to grow wheat in Alaska. Climatologists estimate what it takes to put New York underwater; economists estimate the cost of moving New York inland.

3. How much do we—or should we—care about future generations? Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel laureate for economics, argued long ago that you (and I) should care exactly as much about a stranger born 1,000 years hence as we do about a stranger who's alive today. Phelps' view has been highly influential among economists, who now take it as more or less the default position. But even economists are sometimes wrong, and there are powerful arguments for "discounting" the welfare of future generations. First, many people (myself excluded, however) believe we should care more about our countrymen than about a bunch of foreigners—hence the sentiment for a border fence. If we are allowed to care less about people who happen to be born in the wrong country, why can't we care less about people who happen to be born in the wrong century? And second: Few of us feel morally bound to churn out as many children as we possibly can, which means we think nothing of denying future generations the gift of life. If it's OK to deny them their very lives, shouldn't it be OK to deny them a temperate climate?

There is a ton more to be said in response and counter-response, but in the end, you've got to take a stand. Does the next generation count 100 percent as much as our own, as Edmund Phelps demands? Or 99 percent? 95 percent? 90 percent? I'll show you later how much the answer matters.

4. How likely are those future generations to be around, anyway? If you think life on Earth will be destroyed by an asteroid in 200 years, it makes little sense to worry about the climate 300 years from now. (Of course, the issue is complicated by the fact that our climate policies change the survival odds.)

5. Just how rich are those future generations likely to be? If you expect economic growth to continue at the average annual rate of 2.3 percent, to which we've grown accustomed, then in 400 years, the average American will have an income of more than $1 million per day—and that's in the equivalent of today's dollars (i.e., after correcting for inflation). Does it really make sense for you and me to sacrifice for the benefit of those future gazillionaires?

6. How risk-averse are we? This matters not just because of uncertainty about the effects of climate change but because it affects the way future generations want us to behave. Imagine yourself as a disembodied soul, waiting in line to be born—possibly next year, possibly 100 years hence. If you have little tolerance for risk, you'll want us to pursue policies that make life about equally good at all times; if you're willing to roll the dice, you might prefer a policy that allows some generations to live riotously at the expense of others.

Only after you've addressed each question in turn can you say something sensible about climate policy. To carry out that program in detail would indeed be a Nobel-worthy achievement. I don't propose to earn my Nobel Prize in this column space, but I can at least offer a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to show you how this stuff works.

First, I'll make the extreme assumption that our environmental recklessness threatens to shave 1 percentage point off economic growth forever. Because of compounding, our disposable incomes will be reduced by 9.5 percent a decade from now and by 63 percent a century from now—perhaps because we'll spend 63 percent of our incomes relocating coastal cities. Now toss in some standard (but arguable) assumptions about risk aversion and discounting. (Note to econogeeks: I assumed a risk-aversion coefficient of 1, and I discounted future generations' welfare at an annual rate of 5 percent, partly because we might care less about them and partly because we're not sure they'll exist.) Run this through your calculator, and you'll find we should spend up to about 17 percent of our incomes on climate control—provided that our investment is effective. That's an expenditure level that I expect would satisfy Al Gore.

Change the numerical assumptions, and you'll change the numerical conclusion. Make the discount rate 1 percent instead of 5 percent, and you can justify spending up to a whopping 62 percent of our incomes on climate control; lower the discount rate to 10 percent, and you can't justify spending more than 8 percent of our incomes.

The moral of that story is not that economists can justify anything; it's that assumptions really matter. Therefore you need to be clear about your assumptions, and you need to be prepared to justify them. If you're not talking about discount rates and levels of risk aversion, you're blathering.

The most thoughtful assessment of climate change is the Stern Review, prepared in October 2006 at the behest of the British government. The Stern Review reaches conclusions generally compatible with Al Gore's worldview, but only after laying out the underlying assumptions so clearly that skeptics like me can tinker around with them and see how the conclusions change. In other words, they've taken a hot-button issue and reduced it to its constituent pieces so that opposing parties can stop yelling at each other and say, "Let us calculate." That's what I call a contribution to world peace. I wish the Nobel Committee had agreed.

[Parihaka]

The link for the Geological Society of America is now here, Pari:

The Geological Society of America - Proposed Position Statement on Global Climate Change

If you read it, their position statement is quite clear, even if they invite people with ranging beliefs to address their meetings. That's what good science is about. :)

Thanks for the link, I'll update wiki, and indeed a range of beliefs and discussion is what good science is all about.

I do agree with you that peer reviewed findings are of course to be held above others. That means you rightly point out the opinions of the 60,000 Australian engineers shouldn't carry as much weight as the IPCC, which has 2000 experts drawn from all over the world, and an extensive reviewing process.

Even less would be the 19,000 people you dragged up as part of your petition link. It turns out that they don't have to be peer reviewed experts in any field at all ...
they don't express the opinion of any national or international institution... the only connection they have is that they " ... have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD ...". Heck, I'd get a vote.

And I'm sure you could also get thousands of names on "Science graduates who believe the earth was created in six days" or "Arts graduates who deny the Holocaust" petitions ...

My point is that none of these organisations statements bear any significance unless those statements are backed up with scientific research, which allows us to move away from the 'I've got more scientists than you' or 'those scientists are moonbats' or 'most scientists agree' type arguments, because those are political statements, and the debate is in fact is still continuing, even within the GSA.

So perhaps we should examine what science we actually agree on.
The Earth is going through a warming period. Yes?

If so, how long has it been going on for, what is the evidence to support this warming, is this warming increasing, and what is the evidence that it is of an anthropogenic origins?

[clackers]

This is a topic that really pisses me off and gets under my skin, so I'll apologize in advance for being a turd.

Apology accepted, Dale!

Wikipedia: As I said, it's non-authoritative for ANYTHING. If someone said they used Wikipedia to determine that my name is Dale and I like curvy brunettes, I'd refuse to accept it.

Well, other people might call that being stubborn, Dale! As much as we all distrust Wikipedia as the Fountain of Truth, the sources for this topic are all listed at the bottom of the page ... either those institutions warn against anthro climate change or not ...

I have tens of posts here on this board in a dozen threads or more that outline my particular position

Posting on the web doesn't make you right, I'm afraid, Dale ... see your own Wikipedia argument, for instance. I think people are more likely to listen to the collected views of experts in the field than you and me.

What is the specific mechanism or process by which human activity affects global temperature, corrected for all known variables, and what is the equation set that I can plug numbers into to generate data curves?

Extraordinary. You can't do this mechanistic, every-dot-in-space-and-time analysis for a complex, multivariable discipline like meteorology, so meteorology isn't valid? Then add the weather to the economy, or history, or the human mind, or the three body problem or sub atomic particles ... but these are all fields in which further research is possible ...

[Parihaka]

Pari, these are individuals ...

Almost missed this
National Center for Policy Analysis
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
NCPA
Harvard University
CATO Institute

I'd hardly call these 'individuals'

[dalem]

Well, other people might call that being stubborn, Dale! As much as we all distrust Wikipedia as the Fountain of Truth, the sources for this topic are all listed at the bottom of the page ... either those institutions warn against anthro climate change or not ...

Posting on the web doesn't make you right, I'm afraid, Dale ... see your own Wikipedia argument, for instance. I think people are more likely to listen to the collected views of experts in the field than you and me.

True. I only made that point to illustrate why I'm not going into great detail now. I believe the concept of the debate is useful to an audience though.

Extraordinary. You can't do this mechanistic, every-dot-in-space-and-time analysis for a complex, multivariable discipline like meteorology, so meteorology isn't valid? Then add the weather to the economy, or history, or the human mind, or the three body problem or sub atomic particles ... but these are all fields in which further research is possible ...

But none of those other scientific issues are asking me to elect politicians or spend billions of dollars, are they? Anthro GW is a great example of bad populist junk science being lassoed for nefarious means.

-dale

[RustyBattleship]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic here, but I think most of the Global warming we are experiencing is natural. It actually started about 10,000 years ago at the end of the last major Ice Age.

The last major Ice Age started at the end of the last major period of Global Warming which started at the end of the previous major Ice Age, etc., etc.

We've had at least one recordable Mini-Ice Age since the last major one and some periods of extreme temperatures. The early to mid 1940's had extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters (a hell of a time to have a World War).

I think most of what climate change we are experiencing is natural with the exception of the depletion of the South Polar Ozone layer. That I attribute to the massive deforestation of South America and Southern Africa. Without those tall rain forests, you do not have rain. Without rain you do not have thunderstorms. Without thunderstorms you do not have lightning. Without lightning you do not have ozone.

But that's only my pet peeve.