Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 7 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No it doesn’t imply a world wide conspiracy,
You said
"but when politics gets mixed in, as it has with environmental science,"
and
"if the scientific community is propping up poor conclusion for political reasons, there's a real chance that some bad ideas could get disseminated as good ideas."
I really find the "if" starting the second quote off interesting because the "if" there contradicts the conclusion that you come to earlier in your post. You seem to be typing "if", but really meaning it not to be there.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
People, who believe an idea is fundamentally true, will sometimes find evidence to support such ideas, whether evidence exists or not.
If the evidence exists then it is true and no problem.
If the evidence does not exist then the peer review will weed out these papers.
If these things do not happen, then the community at large is putting forth this mentality and thus are conspiering to hide the truth.
You do indeed imply a conspericy whether you intended to or not. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
If you don't want such things to happen, be more careful with the words you choose.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And (fortunately for me) there are in fact scientists from other fields who “sound the bells of alarm” when they notice such fallacies in the evidence from time to time. But largely, scientists tend to form little niches which can impede the movement of new ideas.
I believe it was you who critisized me for not citing my source (which I actually did by definintion by the way).
So would you please cite your source. Provide me with examples of published peer reviewed articles criticizing the scientific consensus on human impact on global climate.
You're apparently a scientist. You should be able to do this promptly given your knowledge of the subject, right?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Please ask him then, what parts of the IPCC ( http://www.ipcc.ch/) report and the ACIA ( http://amap.no/acia/) report does he disagree with?
I could ask him, but he is a busy person, and I don't know when I could get back to you with an intelligent, thoughtful answer. A quick answer to your question is that the data the IPCC presents do not warrant the conclusions they draw.
If I may, does his opinion really matter? Whatever he says, wouldn't global warming subscribers like yourself just argue with him? I have yet to see debate change anyone's mind.
What if he came back with a technical analysis of everything wrong with the IPCC reports? How would you know if he is right or wrong? If you had the technical expertise to judge his response, then you don't really need his opinion. You can judge the empirical data for yourself.
For intelligent, thoughtful critiques presented by non-anonymous scientists, read Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints. It is an excellent summary of arguments both pro and con.
(amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0737709081/ref=wl_it_dp/
002-9643452-8496055?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=IIC36V0LHLQJY&v=glance&colid=1PRL9REGJR6J6)
Most people who believe in global warming do so because they believe the authorities (such as the IPCC) who tell them it is so. I wanted to toss out the fact that there are scientists who disagree. The bottom line is one shouldn't just take the word of the IPCC, or their scientific critics. A consumer of science should always asks, "How do you know that? What data do you have to support it? What assumptions are you making about unknown variables? Do the data really warrant these conclusions?" Search for what parts of the reports you don't agree with for yourself. That is the best and most convincing answer.
Best,
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I said ‘if’ because I meant ‘if.’ Maybe you should just read what I said and not try concocting superfluous conclusion from my words.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I really find the "if" starting the second quote off interesting because the "if" there contradicts the conclusion that you come to earlier in your post. You seem to be typing "if", but really meaning it not to be there.
And I imply no conspiracy.
Quote:No, that’s not what I criticized you for. I criticized you for making arrogant speeches when someone asks you for a source.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I believe it was you who critisized me for not citing my source (which I actually did by definintion by the way).
Quote:Think about this, if there is a consensus on global warming then would it not be possible that peer reviewed articles may reflect this consensus, simple because the consensus exists? In other words, if the scientific community accepts certain positions as infallible, then articles refuting those positions are less likely to find themselves accepted for publication then articles supporting the consensus.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So would you please cite your source. Provide me with examples of published peer reviewed articles criticizing the scientific consensus on human impact on global climate.
That being said; try looking up some articles by Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Basically, the IPCC uses computer simulations as the bases for their conclusion. But we may not fully understand the climate enough to make reliable simulations possible. We don’t understand fully the affect of aerosols, water vapor and cloud cover, all of which must be incorporated into the models. As it stands now, IPCC models are overestimating the warming affect.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I could ask him, but he is a busy person, and I don't know when I could get back to you with an intelligent, thoughtful answer. A quick answer to your question is that the data the IPCC presents do not warrant the conclusions they draw.
In a nutshell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And I imply no conspiracy.
Just because you say things doesn't make them true. You can state again and again and... but if you provide no counter argument then it just turns into a yes/no school yard argument. Basically, provide logic. As a scientist, you should know this already.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I believe it was you who critisized me for not citing my source (which I actually did by definintion by the way).
No, that’s not what I criticized you for. I criticized you for making arrogant speeches when someone asks you for a source.
I stated, "...Source Sue Johanson." in another thread which you responded "...if you cite a source, I’ll consider it." I responded "Actually I did cite my source,..." which you replied "No, you didn’t cite your source. Giving someone’s name is not citing your source." In which this last post only makes reference to arrogant speeches. So, you are wrong. You did criticise me for not citing my source, which I actually did by definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cite
Cite:
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof
AND
make reference to
I made reference to Sue and plugging her name into google with the topic in that discussion provided her homepage with all the information necessary info on it. NOTE: You are guilty of this here as well. You citisised me for only providing a name which you did in you response to me here. So, by your definition of citation, which I will hold you to, give me a link. Cite your source to the level which you have required others.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Think about this, if there is a consensus on global warming then would it not be possible that peer reviewed articles may reflect this consensus, simple because the consensus exists?
If you read the article above you would realize that there have been papers published that say that global warming has nothing to do with human activities. It just turned out that they are bad science and proved to be just that. So, your comment here is rather incorrect to say the least.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In other words, if the scientific community accepts certain positions as infallible, then articles refuting those positions are less likely to find themselves accepted for publication then articles supporting the consensus.
A quote from the above linked article (because it is obvious that you didn't read it):
"
So even if the conclusions of the Shaviv and Veizer (2003) study discussed earlier, for instance, had been correct, this would be one small piece of evidence pitted against hundreds of others which contradict it. Scientists would find the apparent contradiction interesting and worthy of further investigation, and would devote further study to isolating the source of the contradiction.
"
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That being said; try looking up some articles by Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
Link me. Abid by your own definition of citation.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@CantTakeSky:
Since there has been an increase of about 1 degree C in the last century in average global temp. there is no doubt that the earth is warming. I would think that the only arugment here is whether we are causing it or at least helping that along or not.
Do I believe that it is happening? Yes.
I tend to think that given that ( http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm) 122 Lead Authors, 515 Contributing Authors with 420 reviewers submitting valuable suggestions for improvement, followed by review by governments and experts, through which several hundred more reviewers participated are going to be more or less right (given current knowledge). Especially since the different models used to predict tell pretty much the same tale.
Do I think that this could change tommorow? It's a possibility.
From what I see though, this discussion is rather a catylist for change in the thinking of how we live as a global community.
What I mainly focus on is that we have an overwelming amount of evidence in the direction that we are causing global warming to a large extent. So lets change things.
But, even if we are not causing global warming, things should change anyway. The health hazards that go along with production that produces greenhouse gases, etc are an argument unto themselves. Look at all the chemicals that enter our food chain that are harmful to us, etc. ie Even if we aren't harming the planet, it is undeniable that we are harming ourselves.
So, if we are causing it then we (as people that live on earth) should adopt certain policies to change that. If we aren't, then we should adopt the same policies for many other reasons.
So, lets huck that stone at that bird as save ourselves, and we just might kill two birds with one stone as well.
The book you linked to is at a high school level. Anything a touch more technical?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SigmaNunki,
It's nice top be back, if only briefly. It's strange, I also have RealClimate in my message. I'm still super busy, so I only drop in for a few minutes every few weeks. Haven't read further down the line yet, but here are some things I ran across and gathered together that seemed apropos to the topic:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Real information seems to be anathema on this board (I noticed no one commented on the ScienceDaily postings), but for those who like to inform their opinions with facts, and who like to monitor the real debates, the website is a portal to climate research discussion. (Please note some linked sites require paid subscription.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603975
Countdown to global catastrophe
Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages
This is obviously not the original report itself. (It will be interesting to see if it makes it onto the internet. Some reports of great interest seem to be tightly controlled and can't be found even with extensive searching.)
Below are more incidental global warming studies encapsuled in sciencedaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113717.htm
Stratosphere Temperature Data Support Scientists' Proof For Global Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111164648.htm
Antarctic Iced Over When Greenhouse Gases -- Not Ocean Currents -- Shifted, Study Suggests
... And it's not a blessing
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
People who really want to claim the high ground of science should 1) learn the rigors of scientific methodology, and 2) look at the data themselves rather than rely of pronouncements of scientists.
Without supercomputers and access to ALL the data, we are all, no matter how well informed, too limited to perform a definitive personal scientific evaluation. Yes, even your husband. As you may know, the science is assembled by many people around the globe. Different research teams uncover new factors, feedback cycles, gage strength of response etc. Then these pieces are assembled into supercomputer models. The models are run (forwards and backwards in time) and the accuracy of the predictions is checked against many measures. The modelers probably have the best overall view of the state of the science, but not of the nuts and bolts of its mechanics. So while your plea for informed discussion is an elevating one, I'd like to point out that no one (not even those global climate modelers in Switzerland) can possibly pay the ticket price you'd charge for an entry in the debate.
And then we have people referencing a science fiction author as a source of learned scientific discourse.
Now dang, but I just read what accounts for the difference between calculated and actual global warming for any given CO2 level, but I can't remember where that was. There is a reason, but until I can lay my hands on a url, I'll have to defer on specifics.
... And it's not a blessing
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As one can clearly see, I did not, in fact, criticize you for not citing your sources, I simply said that I would consider the information if you cited a source.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I stated, "...Source Sue Johanson." in another thread which you responded "...if you cite a source, I’ll consider it." I responded "Actually I did cite my source,..." which you replied "No, you didn’t cite your source. Giving someone’s name is not citing your source." In which this last post only makes reference to arrogant speeches. So, you are wrong. You did criticise me for not citing my source, which I actually did by definition.
Quote:Bad science? What I see is disagreement within the field. The evidence for substantial climate change due to an anthropogenic global warming is, after all, less then conclusive. That some people have come to conclusions that contradict the prevailing attitude is not bad science, yet proclaiming that their science is “bad” because it does not support the consensus might be. The article that you posted places a lot of emphasis on the peer-review process, and seems to suggest that the Peer-Review Process fails if it does not serve to support the consensus. Indeed this seems to be tantamount to the very thing for which I have expressed concern. If we accepted this authors assertions then accepted scientific journal articles can now be dismissed if they refute the notion of anthropogenic global warming. The papers that the author noted may very well have been flawed, but that alone does not render their conclusions inconsequential, particularly if the evidence as a whole is largely inconclusive.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
If you read the article above you would realize that there have been papers published that say that global warming has nothing to do with human activities. It just turned out that they are bad science and proved to be just that. So, your comment here is rather incorrect to say the least.
If the evidence is not conclusive, then it stands to reason that conclusions drawn in contrary to a thesis may be flawed. However, it also stands to reason that conclusion drawn in favor of the same thesis are certainly as likely to be flawed, if they are based on the same inconclusive evidence. Essentially, the inconclusiveness of the information makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusion one way or another, but if the scientific community has decided that one thesis is more likely, then it stands to reason that the flaws in papers contrary to this prevailing thesis are more likely to be aired, then those in support of it. The “consensus” then may be wholly or partially circular.
Quote:You’re a smart guy, aren’t you? I think you can figure it out. Like you said, google it.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Link me. Abid by your own definition of citation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was curious enough about the whole issue to look for global warming naysayers.
First I found the Leipzig Declaration. It looked impressive enough, though the list is outdated (last updated in 1997). Out of curiosity, I looked for publications of the 'scientist' signatories (not the TV weathermen who also signed) to get a feel for their area of expertise and their forum for scietific publishing. Nearly all of those listed are found only in reference to aformentioned Declaration, which appears to be their only contribution to climate study. Many, sadly, have since passed on. Out of the entire list, I could find only three who had any publications listed on the internet. Only one was significantly geared to large-scale (though not global) climate. None appear to be researchers in the field.
I could have saved myself the effort if I had simply checked out this site:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Glo
bal_Climate_Change
Quote:
When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.
Checking out "global warming" and uncertain further, I came across:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertain
ties.html
Quote:and
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet.
Quote:
But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult.
The debate according to them is apportioning HOW MUCH is due to human activity, and HOW FAR will the changes reach.
Trying to find the nub of the challenge, I found:
http://www.globalwarming.org/
However, one will find articles written for newspapers by staff writers and similar items, not high level expertise. But don't take my word for it, check it out.
In http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363384
Quote:
The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
On the other hand Dr. S. Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (who funds that?) has gotten a lot of air time lately. I couldn't find a good list of his scientific publications, however, just some scattered references to selected items. However, he is one of the few signatories of the Leipzig Declaration who appears to actually have done research and published in peer-reviewed papers.
Anyway, time's too short to try to track these experts down. They leave too few internet tracks. (Even I have more internet references than they do.)
As I have said before, the global warming consensus, which appears to be in place as of the time, is the best science we have at the moment. But the competative, contentious nature of science continues to generate alternatives. Debate is certainly not being stifled, and as with any complex issue, anomalies and contradictions will always emerge. Does this mean th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME