Global Warming Consensus -- Not man made!!

Keith Stone wrote:

We had a word for them in the real industry, idiots.

damn you keith, stop using all this technical jargon.

SoCal Pete wrote:

C) You don't understand the Scientific Method - and therefore don't understand what it means when Inhofe's group of 400 are skewered through peer-review for errors, omissions, and cherry-picking in their analysis.

I don't buy this arguement. If people can cherry pick the same data to change the conclusions one would reach, isn't it also possible that other scientists and activists like Al Gore are cherry picking their data to draw the opposite conclusions? I mean, when there is as much money to be made off of this (grant money to study and forecast, brokering carbon credits, etc) isn't it possible that this scientific "consensus" might be giving their conclusions a gentle nudge in the direction of alarmism? Especially a non-expert like Gore? A British judge recently said essentially the same thing as you did about An Inconvenient Truth, is he cherrypicking too? You can't just go around pointing fingers when both sides are looking at essentially the same data and reaching opposite conclusions.

yoop - You do recognize how ironic your reply to my post is, right?

I mean, you "don't buy" my argument that the Scientific Method has been misunderstood (or completely ignored) by the original poster - and then you go on to personify the target of that criticism.

Let's just jump straight to your last sentence. You say "both sides are looking at essentially the same data and reaching opposite conclusions."

1) What, exactly, do you mean by both sides? There's science on one side. Who's on the other? (Hint: a TV weatherman with a degree in meterology who thinks climate change is synonymous with predicting rain for the weekend isn't practicing science.) Please break these "sides" down for me in very specific terms, because you're full of crap if you think the scientific community is divided on this in any meaningful way.

2) Looking at data and reaching conclusions is called forming a hypothesis in science. And it's the first step in the scientific process. Unfortunately, for people like you and other anti-science conservatives, it appears to be the last one.

SoCal Pete wrote:

Unfortunately, for people like you and other anti-science conservatives, it appears to be the last one.

Anti-science conservatives...

I like how you present yourself as this Connecticut Yankee; practical and nearly barren of sentiment, a nuts and bolts kind of guy who sizes up data, thinks logically and follows formula...

but then go on to destroy your credibility by enveloping all conservatives as "anti-science."

You realize this is why people think liberals are "pussies," right?

Sorry but this gives me the right to do a little mudslinging of my own!

Ya tree huggin f@g

Global Con-sensus

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.

Related Topics: Global Warming

In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore's assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.

Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.

Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling — all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."

Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.

Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil, though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.

This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric, which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.

Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.

By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?

Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe's 400 scientists and any one of Gore's choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

Gunsmoke wrote:

I like how you present yourself as this Connecticut Yankee; practical and nearly barren of sentiment, a nuts and bolts kind of guy who sizes up data, thinks logically and follows formula...

but then go on to destroy your credibility by enveloping all conservatives as "anti-science."

See, this is part of the problem, Gunsmoke; you're inability to make a logical argument in spite of the fact that you think you do. What did SoCalPete actually say?

SoCalPete wrote:

Unfortunately, for people like you and other anti-science conservatives, it appears to be the last one.

In no way did he say that all conservatives are anti-science. He referred to "other anti-science conservatives". Consequently, you don't have "the right to do a little mudslinging". In fact, if your idea of insulting someone is to call them a homosexual, I can only assume that your idea of witty banter is a string of fart jokes. I'm sure that you're a real hit entertaining the other 5th graders.

I'm sure that when SoCalPete refers to "anti-science conservatives", he is referring to that segment of conservatives who reject science out-of-hand when it runs up against their conservative-religious dogma. Case in point: evolution. Evolution is perhaps one of the most profound, far reaching, and well-supported theories in science, yet you can find a great number of yahoos who think it makes more sense to believe that the universe is 6000 years old because it says so in a book written by a bunch of bronze age desert wanderers in spite of the numerous internal and external contradictions presented therein.

Second item: I can't help but notice the "slinging of personalities" around here. By that, I mean the sort of argument like "I hate Al Gore and Michael Moore. They support global warming theory, therefore global warming is a hoax." Let me put this out there fore everyone to understand:

Al Gore's opinion on global warming is moot. It simply doesn't matter. He is not a climate scientist. All that Gore has done is bring the message to the masses. Now, some might argue that he has exaggerated some parts, but rejecting global warming because you don't like Al Gore is about as asinine a reason as there is. Just shut the eff up about Al Gore already. Stop trying to kill the messenger. In contrast, I have never heard someone say "The reason I believe that global warming theory is accurate is because Ann Coulter (or Limbaugh, or Hannity, etc.) say the opposite." For example, people mention Senator Inhofe, but they don't believe global warming theory because he doesn't; they simply point out that he is not a climate scientist and doesn't agree with the prevailing scientific opinion.

Anyone who believes (or denies) an argument such as as this based solely on which political pundits or hacks they like, is an idiot. It's science. If you don't understand the process or can't be bothered to learn how it works, then don't bothering commenting on it. Go read a mystery novel, pick up some paint brushes, or a strum a couple of simple chords over and over on your guitar until the mind-numbing nature of it halts all sensation of time in your brain. Just stay the hell a way from the voting booth. You'll do more harm than good otherwise.

In closing, I have little doubt that there are true, honest, climate scientists out there who disagree with the prevailing opinion regarding global warming. I also imagine that if you bothered to look, you could find paleontologists who don't believe that the Cretaceous extinction event was caused by a meteor smashing into the Yucatan Peninsula. Funny that we (the layman, popular press, and media pundits) don't argue about this. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that no business entity will suffer if we discover an alternate theory as to why the dinosaurs disappeared.

There will always be disagreement on issues in science. That's the nature of science, kiddies. We don't all hold hands and sing Kumbaya (and we certainly don't have some sort of secret conspiratorial society with special handshakes, bent on social conquest). But that doesn't mean that there isn't a clear, well-supported majority position.

[quote]SoCal Pete wrote:

B) You don't understand the difference between a partisan-generated list of TV weathermen, economists, social scientists, computer programmers, etc. masquerading as climate change experts versus actual climate change specialists. (If your child was sick, would you take him to a PhD in chemistry or a medical doctor?)

C) You don't understand the Scientific Method - and therefore don't understand what it means when Inhofe's group of 400 are skewered through peer-review for errors, omissions, and cherry-picking in their analysis.

quote]

Your reference to the scientific method is laughable. Does the scientific method include shouting down and sliming other scientists as on the dole of "big oil"? Does it mean stopping any further research or skepticism on this topic because it is a moot point? "The science is settled" and cannot be changed. This is science?

If I took my sick child to a PHd in chemistry, they would probably tell me I should take him to a doctor to do some tests. You would take your child to Al Gore, who would be happy to sell you some snake oil for the "cure".

By the way, here's a list of some of the 100 "TV weathermen" who were banned (censorship is science?)from presenting at the UN Bali conference:

Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

No, that's not science. You have created a straw man. No scientist would ever advocate stopping research or state that everything is settled and cannot be changed. On the other hand, no scientist would state that everything is still up in the air and we cannot or should not go forward because there exists a slim minority who hold alternate opinions.

No one ever said science was easy or presented simple explanations leading to black-or-white decisions.

And here we are, back to the cult of personality. Thanks for reading, Timmy.

Oh, and to Kevin52, I just loved this nugget you pulled from Investor's Business Daily:

"This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric, which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines."

How much do you think GE makes on solar panels and wind turbines? Do just a little research, just a smidgen. For a moment, extend your eyes and fingers past some poorly examined arguments from a business magazine and look around the net for some facts. Think about them and draw some conclusions. GE makes about $2 billion per year on jet aircraft engines alone. Forget about the fact that it makes steam and gas turbines, that it is pushing so-called "clean coal" generation and the like. Solar and wind make up a very small portion of their overall sales. When it comes to financial incentives, their incentive is to keep things the way they are because fossil fuel-based equipment is where they make their money. Right now, solar and wind is little more than PR for companies like GE. It ain't their bread-and-butter.

Tool.

You know, it's funny that people like you try to claim the high ground and claim to speak for science. Your posts are tinged with religious fervor and anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically an idiot.

Instead of attacking people & questioning their motives, why don't you look at the data for yourself? My guess is that you can't, just like the vast majority who are global warming "advocates."

The models used to predict the temperature and ocean level increases that have people like you concerned are deeply flawed. In particular, the role of aerosols and cloud formation are not included. No informed scientist will take these predictions seriously until the model is fixed.

So to cite a scientific consensus on this issue suggests ignorance - either willful or that of the misinformed.

Read this if you can, but I doubt that you can get past the abstract:

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/vyushin/Papers/Govindan_Vyushin_PRL_2002.pdf

Wow, PRL cited on LetsRun. This is a good day!

I actually looked at Imhofe's report that was linked on the original post. I had thought that these were scientists who testified before Imhofe's committee. No. The report consists mostly of quotes plucked out of a variety of sources by Imhofe's staff. I only made it though about 20 of these quotes, but was surprised by what I read. I had read that many of the scientists are not climatologists, and this is true. But I was surprised that many of these statements themselves can not accurately be termed "anti-global-warming". Some express nuanced reservations (human activity is only part of the story) or claim that a warm world ain't so bad. One I saw was by a historian complaining that the global warming movement had been taken over by corporate interests and took attention away from more pressing social justice concerns. My favorite simply stated that a warmer climate won't cause the polar bear to become extinct. And these were the ones at the top of the list--I can only suppose the list gets weaker towards the bottom, but I don't know for sure. Here are quotes from some of Imhofe's "opposition" scientists:

1. "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural," Kukla explained.

2. Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers. "There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population," he said, adding, "As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator." Rancourt added, "Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middle class."

3. "There is some evidence to show that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. What is in doubt, however, is whether the steps that are proposed to be taken to reduce carbon emission will really bring down the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and whether such attempts, even carried out on a global scale, will produce the desired effect," Radhakrishna wrote in an August 23, 2007 essay.

4. "the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities.

5. Particle Physicist Jasper Kirkby, a research scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, believes his research will reveal that the sun and cosmic rays are a "part of the climate-change cocktail."

6. Noble wrote a May 8 essay entitled "The Corporate Climate Coup" which details how global warming has "hijacked" the environmental left and created a "corporate climate campaign" which has "diverted attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement."

7. "This is telling us that despite the on-going warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear. That would be very encouraging." Ingolfsson is optimistic about the polar bears future because of his research about the Earth's history.

dmb wrote:

You know, it's funny that people like you try to claim the high ground and claim to speak for science. Your posts are tinged with religious fervor and anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically an idiot.

Instead of attacking people & questioning their motives, why don't you look at the data for yourself? My guess is that you can't, just like the vast majority who are global warming "advocates."

First, I would never say that "anyone who doesn't agree with (me) is automatically an idiot". I am willing to make an exception in your case, though.

Second, my posts are not tinged with religious fervor. I may say things emphatically, but neither religious belief nor blind faith (the hallmark of religious fervor) play a role. If I hold a brick in my outstretched hand and declare with great conviction that it will hit the ground when I release my grip, I am not guilty of "religious fervor" (tinged or otherwise). I am only guilty of restating what science has discovered and described.

Third, while I have degrees in science, have been employed in said field for about 30 years, and generally do not have difficultly reading papers in appropriate journals, I am not a climate scientist and am not in a position to critique the fine points of specific items. Are you? (I would expect, however, something a little more recent than a paper from 2002 to support your claims.) I have read a considerable amount of material on the subject from those who do the research and have surveyed the landscape to reach my conclusion. More importantly, I understand the scientific process and realize that a single (or two or three) papers in opposition do not by themselves alter the overall picture.

I will repeat: Consensus in science is never absolute. Reread my remark about the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. DO A LITTLE RESEARCH and you'll discover that not every paleontologist agrees it was caused by a meteor impact. But again, it's funny that we don't argue about that.

If someone finds an opposing view or two and stacks that against dozens that counter it, they haven't discovered a lack of consensus. Further, if they then support the opposing view, they are not being wise, they are simply guilty of providing a rationalization for their pre-existing beliefs.

Once again, nothing substantive.

Just a thinly veiled personal insult and a diatribe.

If you bothered to look into the issue, you'd see that there are more than fine details at stake.

Also, what's the problem with a paper written in 2002? It critiques the underlying model which is still in use today. Not much has changed, but the model is still in use.

Now what side is ignoring data and selectively using facts?

I repeat my challenge, but I'm aware that all that you can do is rant and insult.

dmb, do you read the items that people post?

I make a humorous off-the-cuff remark and suddenly I suffer the accusation "that all that (I) can do is rant and insult". Sure, go ahead and dismiss everything I said about the scientific method, the concept of scientific consensus, and the like, and just complain that I "rant". That does a lot for your position. Just like the material on global warming: pick out the stuff you like and ignore all the rest. You still haven't figured out what the term "scientific consensus" means.

For those interested in a good read, I strongly recommend the following article:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/skepticism_and_the_scientific_consensus.php

It's not about global warming per se, but it does present some good information on what concepts like scientific consensus and scientific skepticism really mean, and gives some good examples of skepticism versus denialism across a number of fields.

Oh, puhleez, now you're all sensitive. Ok, I'll put on the kid gloves.

I don't need a crappy lecture from you on the scientific method or what consensus means. I'm a working scientist and I understand the underlying issues. I fully understand that I could be wrong. However, I wasn't trained to take anyone's word for it and I feel comfortable questioning assumptions in any model so long as I can see the equations.

I have raised issues and provided links to sources that contain citations of fundamental work or have directly cited the literature in this field.

You accuse me of selective citation. Ok, then tell me where these critiques of the global climate change models are refuted? Not in some silly blog about smoking and medical research, but in peer reviewed scientific literature?

dmb,

You point (over and over again) to supposed limitations in computer modeling, but modeling is only one part of an extensive array of evidence regarding climate change. The vast majority of climatologists have concluded that CO2 emissions are leading to climate change, despite whatever limitations on modeling might exist--you aren't the only one to have seen that 2002 paper. What gets people like me so irritated is the ease with which non-climatologists, mostly lay people, but also scientists in other fields like you, feel qualified to dismiss this consensus because they have glommed onto some contrarian argument or other. It's especially troubling given the effort put forth by interested parties (Exxon, et al) to muddy the waters. Many people are ignoring the consensus for purely ideological reasons (see all the anti-Al Gore statements).

I have not put in the time to fully judge the primary sources--and neither have you--so I'm taking the pro-science approach of acknowledging the consensus and deferring to it. This is the objection JimFiore keeps bringing up and you keep ignoring. You may not think of yourself this way, but unless you are a full-time climatologist (and I think you'd have told us by now if you were), you are a flat-earther or conspiracy nut, like your compatriot Senator Inhofe. Actually, I don't really think you're a nut. I think you are simply over-confident about your knowledge of climatology, based on a half-hour of internet surfing and skimming a few articles. And you like being a contrarian and you like coming onto this board and throwing your weight around (you really do have a highly combative and irritating internet persona...)

Put another way, suppose in your field of science there was a 95% agreement among your colleagues about a particular issue (which you shared), and some Associate professor in another field had read two or three articles and was confidently proclaiming the minority 5% view to be correct. What would you think of that guy?

p.s. a good overview of the anti-climate change movement is here:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html

click on "Contrarians"