Jump to content

Climate Consensus Con Game


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

Ben, I do this for a living!

If you don't mind me asking, what is your profession?

Your assumptions of what I read and what I know of the issue is typical of your side. I know what the heck I'm talking about. This carbon based theory is based on what some people "want" to find not what is really going on.

And you base this assertion on what? If it's your vague anecdotes versus the opinions of the vast majority of researchers in the relevant fields, and I say this with no disrespect to you, I'm going with the researchers.

Once again, this whole issue should be focused on the cause (pollutants) and not the political BS being promoted by the progressives and those who support a one way street.

Then show me where I'm wrong with relevant data and I'll either challenge it or concede the point. The idea that CO2 is not a pollutant is utter nonsense to anyone who has even the slightest grasp of atmospheric chemistry or ecology. The dose makes the poison, EMT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

And there's the embarrassing part... Please stop emt. You're better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness EMT, wouldn't you admit that there is an economic interest that backs your side as well? Doesn't that side have a vested interest in what they don't "want" to find?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF, Is the article referenced in the OP science or politics? Does the source represent the scientific community or is it better described as a source of politically biased thought and opinion?

It's okay to tell the truth. We may indeed have that "breakthrough".

Dr Fred Singer is a respected scientist. Dr James Hanson at NASA has been a long time proponent of AGW and has left NASA to form a group pushing AGW. So what is political and what isn't. The politicians want the money from the green groups so they push so called solutions that will destroy the American way of life. This current crop of politicians have no faith in the free markets so they use the publics money to fund supporting studies and give money to cronies to build unproven technology and restrict proven sources of energy.

First, it's Hansen not Hanson.

And just because he left NASA to promote actions to mitigate AGW - something he truly believes is critical - doesn't prove anything about political influence. It could just means he actually believes in the need.

And the part about "destroying the American way of life" is shear hyperbole. It's exactly the sort of propaganda being pushed by the Carbon industry. It reminds me of the auto industry reactions to safety and efficiency regulations.

Secondly, it's highly ironic that you would use a paid activist like Singer as an example of independent scientific thinking:

"In 1990 Singer set up the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming....

Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon.[3] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[58] Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[3] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[3]

In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called "the denial machine" met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer's group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.[59] The week after the story, Newsweek published a contrary view from Robert Samuelson, one of its columnists, who said the story of an industry-funded denial machine was contrived and fundamentally misleading.[60]ABC News reported in March 2008 that Singer said he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but he acknowledged that SEPP had received one unsolicited charitable donation of $10,000 from ExxonMobil, and that it was one percent of all donations received. Singer said that his connection to Exxon was more like being on their mailing list than holding a paid position.[61] The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Fred_Singer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to try in this one. I will note a couple things, though.

First: Just perusing the links and quotes, I'm seeing a lot of dates that do not fit into climate change's scale. Remember, geologic time scales are large enough that we have a hard time grasping them, and that goes for both sides. And, with the geologic time scale also comes an actual geologic scale - In almost any observation based science there is variation. When the thing you are observing is immense, the variations can also be large. So, the trap we fall into is applying small-scale, small time-frame observation, small sampling and using any of the outliers as conclusive evidence that the other side's just making shite up. You want bad science? that's bad science.

Second: The idea that "science" isn't consensus is patently wrong. Science, as a process, is following method to create observable, repeatable, or verifiable results, and all it tries to do is gather data. HOWEVER - the "body of science", the INTERPRETATION of that data, IS about consensus. If this were not the case, we couldn't build Theory.

For example, most sane people would agree that gravity exists, and we understand a great deal about it. There is consensus among physicists that gravity works a certain way. If someone comes up with different equations, they are going against the consensus. Does that mean they are necessarily wrong? no. But the onus is on them to shift consensus to the new data. If it turns out that they forgot to carry the 2, then the new way - by consensus - is dismissed.

In reality, consensus plays a large part in both scientific method as well as statistical research. My particular field is epidemiology. If I am crunching numbers relating radiation exposure to cancer, and I get a result that does not mesh with the rest of the connections established in previous studies, it's a red flag; either I've discovered something really novel (unlikely), or the data is wrong because of confounding or effect modification (very likely). It is a red flag, though, precisely because of consensus. If I am doing experiments on reproduction of lab mice, and all of a sudden I have extra mice, I don't jump to the conclusion that they've learned how to reproduce asexually, or that we've got Mouse Jesus on our hands, I assume that I miscounted. Scientific method and scientific analysis by necessity relies on consensus; if it did not, literally every experiment ever done would have to start at the very beginning of having to prove basic things that are, by consensus, accepted as true.

Consensus is not the final arbiter of truth, but it is the weight that the lever of new data has to move.

Honestly, this debate is tired. There is broad consensus that some sort of climate change occurs because a staggering amount of the data show it to be so. There is a bit less consensus that it is caused by mankind. There is a good amount of consensus as to the processes on the theoretical level. The evidence is overwhelming to some people, intriguing but not actionable to others, and dubious to even fewer. Honestly, in my opinion (and experience in disaster prep and management) is that we should be spending this time preparing to make changes while we wait for more data. Let's find some things that we can change that would help (in theory) that also have benefits outside of climate change. Baby steps.

Very well stated. But I'll be surprised if your audience understands your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

What you said...this whole thing is horse s*** and an excuse by brazen liars to separate hard working Americans from their money. The Libs want to control of health care; and thru the EPA; the CO2 we exhale...what's next? One child rule to cut down on the number of humans exhaling? Even the Chinese are backing off that...how about a Human carbon emission tax? Wearable CO2 tax meter; better yet, implantable meter; to make sure we're not putting too much evil CO2 in the atmosphere? How about a vegetation tax? Why a vegetation tax you ask; because vegetation consumes that evil CO2...this is the same logic used to enforce illegal immigration...go after the consumer of illegal immigrant labor...the plants respirate CO2 and create photosynthesis, so tax their use of CO2...or just kill all the plants outright...problem solved.... the fact that Al Gore believes in AGW, is prima facia evidence that this is BS.

That certainly make ICHY's point that folks like you are latching on the political propaganda instead of the discussing the scientific case, which, in your case appears to be beyond your capabilities..."just kill the plants outright..problem solved.." :dunno:

It's a remarkable post to make at this point in the discussion. (Next time start with Al Gore so we don't have to read the rest. ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I am an Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, and I do this sort of thing every single day. Whether it's Environmental Compliance or field work, I live and breath the EHS world. I spent yesterday sampling the upper Parkerson Mill watershed while also helping to remove 16 trash bags worth of debris from the stream banks. I have a decade of experience in Hazardous Material Response (Horizon being one of those events where I witnessed the total disregard of U.S. Law by the Obama Administration in allowing BP to run the cleanup instead of the USCG) and mitigation. I am currently serving on two boards involving water quality issues in the State of Alabama and the Apalachicola Bay. I've dedicated the last 7 years in helping establish watershed management plans in East Alabama.

I've read more than I care to share and listened to a myriad of PhD's who either agree or disagree with the man-made climate change issue. The split in those cases resemble the split in this thread. Quite frankly I'm tired of the blowhards who use this topic for their own gain on either side. You want to fix the problem? Attack it at the source. Not through BS spin and self serving special interests on either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I am an Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, and I do this sort of thing every single day. Whether it's Environmental Compliance or field work, I live and breath the EHS world. I spent yesterday sampling the upper Parkerson Mill watershed while also helping to remove 16 trash bags worth of debris from the stream banks. I have a decade of experience in Hazardous Material Response (Horizon being one of those events where I witnessed the total disregard of U.S. Law by the Obama Administration in allowing BP to run the cleanup instead of the USCG) and mitigation. I am currently serving on two boards involving water quality issues in the State of Alabama and the Apalachicola Bay. I've dedicated the last 7 years in helping establish watershed management plans in East Alabama.

I've read more than I care to share and listened to a myriad of PhD's who either agree or disagree with the man-made climate change issue. The split in those cases resemble the split in this thread. Quite frankly I'm tired of the blowhards who use this topic for their own gain on either side. You want to fix the problem? Attack it at the source. Not through BS spin and self serving special interests on either side.

This is an honest question, as this isn't one of my big issues, but can you elaborate on "attack it at the source". What are you suggesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I am an Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, and I do this sort of thing every single day. Whether it's Environmental Compliance or field work, I live and breath the EHS world. I spent yesterday sampling the upper Parkerson Mill watershed while also helping to remove 16 trash bags worth of debris from the stream banks. I have a decade of experience in Hazardous Material Response (Horizon being one of those events where I witnessed the total disregard of U.S. Law by the Obama Administration in allowing BP to run the cleanup instead of the USCG) and mitigation. I am currently serving on two boards involving water quality issues in the State of Alabama and the Apalachicola Bay. I've dedicated the last 7 years in helping establish watershed management plans in East Alabama.

I've read more than I care to share and listened to a myriad of PhD's who either agree or disagree with the man-made climate change issue. The split in those cases resemble the split in this thread. Quite frankly I'm tired of the blowhards who use this topic for their own gain on either side. You want to fix the problem? Attack it at the source. Not through BS spin and self serving special interests on either side.

Let's chat sometime, you and I. I've got some significant interest in that field as it relates to Public Health, and would love to talk to you more about the Horizon spill as well - I love me some disaster epidemiology.

I would, as well, love to hear your proposal for attacking it at the source. I can get down with it.

Also, a personal thank you for picking up the trash. That kind of stuff breaks my damn heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I am an Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, and I do this sort of thing every single day. Whether it's Environmental Compliance or field work, I live and breath the EHS world. I spent yesterday sampling the upper Parkerson Mill watershed while also helping to remove 16 trash bags worth of debris from the stream banks. I have a decade of experience in Hazardous Material Response (Horizon being one of those events where I witnessed the total disregard of U.S. Law by the Obama Administration in allowing BP to run the cleanup instead of the USCG) and mitigation. I am currently serving on two boards involving water quality issues in the State of Alabama and the Apalachicola Bay. I've dedicated the last 7 years in helping establish watershed management plans in East Alabama.

Thank you for the answer. I would have thought perhaps an Emergency Medical Tech given your handle.

I think we're talking past each other on the definition of pollutant. If we define a pollutant as something actively and instantly harmful (e.g. HAZMAT, garbage, crude oil), which is where I think you're coming from, CO2 is not a pollutant. If we define it as something that can cause serious environmental problems and destabilize natural systems when present in elevated concentrations, CO2 certainly is a pollutant.

The dose makes the poison.

I've read more than I care to share and listened to a myriad of PhD's who either agree or disagree with the man-made climate change issue. The split in those cases resemble the split in this thread. Quite frankly I'm tired of the blowhards who use this topic for their own gain on either side. You want to fix the problem? Attack it at the source. Not through BS spin and self serving special interests on either side.

The split on this forum and among the general public is far wider than the split among the scientific community. Even the public perception is wrong:

consensus_gap.jpg

Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change.Not one. Among climatologists, the number is around 97% sharing the opinion that there is warming. Now I don't know who you spoke to that had a Ph.D in a relevant field, but they are almost certainly in the minority on the climate change issue.

I understand we're reaching point where refutations will be dang near useless, so it's probably time to shutter this debate and agree to disagree, but if you want the last word, take it. I promise to mull it over. Lord knows it's only a matter of time before the next climate change debate rolls around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care about the last word. I only care about what's proven to be the real issue here, in MY opinion....which is based on tangible evidence and my own experience. CO2 is just a part of the overall pollutant load but it's not as significant an issue as some make it out to be. It's not just about hazmat so please stop trying to minimize my knowledge (even if it's un intended) and perception of what we are talking about. Scientists have agendas much like politicians. Some are so hard headed they won't even try to think outside their box, if you will.

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Cool. Shoot me a PM if you're ever bringing a patient up to Children's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Cool. Shoot me a PM if you're ever bringing a patient up to Children's.

Cool deal. What's your role there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Cool. Shoot me a PM if you're ever bringing a patient up to Children's.

Cool deal. What's your role there?

Clinical engineering technician. Basically a medical equipment grease monkey. I'm there 55 hours a week a lot of the time, so you may catch me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Cool. Shoot me a PM if you're ever bringing a patient up to Children's.

Cool deal. What's your role there?

Clinical engineering technician. Basically a medical equipment grease monkey. I'm there 55 hours a week a lot of the time, so you may catch me.

Good deal. I rarely get that opportunity anymore. I work at AU full time and get on a unit two to three times a month with Care in Columbus to keep my skilz up. Lol. It's possible that I might be sent up there on a pediatric transport. I'll try to hit you up en route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Cool. Shoot me a PM if you're ever bringing a patient up to Children's.

Cool deal. What's your role there?

Clinical engineering technician. Basically a medical equipment grease monkey. I'm there 55 hours a week a lot of the time, so you may catch me.

Would that be CHOA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm also a Paramedic, which is why my AUF account is what it is.

Cool. Shoot me a PM if you're ever bringing a patient up to Children's.

Cool deal. What's your role there?

Clinical engineering technician. Basically a medical equipment grease monkey. I'm there 55 hours a week a lot of the time, so you may catch me.

Would that be CHOA?

Children's of Alabama, yep.

EDIT: Sorry, you meant Children's of Atlanta. We've gone through some acronyms in the last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care to participate in this discussion (not qualified enough, lol.). However, it is not hard to pick out the insecure egomaniacs. They are the ones who feel the need to bash others intelligence. Do they realize how transparent they are?

Thanks to those who can debate like adults and keep it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

cru_2005.gif

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Thank you Ben.

It's always fascinated me how people bring up the natural history of climate variation as a profound argument against AGW. Don't they realize they exact same scientists who have defined and studied this natural variation are the ones who support AGW? It's a very naive perspective of science.

P.S.: What's PRATT?

wow. You made a big assumption and it was incorrect not all climatologists are on board with AWG. There isn't a general agreement. But then again you will just make another statement like you did earlier implying that those of us who aren't convinced that this isn't just a political money grab have a lower understanding than you. But then again we can't tax water vapor but CO2 producers are another thing. So why isn't the AWG folks screaming about China and India? The US is much cleaner in our emissions than they are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

cru_2005.gif

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Thank you Ben.

It's always fascinated me how people bring up the natural history of climate variation as a profound argument against AGW. Don't they realize they exact same scientists who have defined and studied this natural variation are the ones who support AGW? It's a very naive perspective of science.

P.S.: What's PRATT?

wow. You made a big assumption and it was incorrect not all climatologists are on board with AWG. There isn't a general agreement. But then again you will just make another statement like you did earlier implying that those of us who aren't convinced that this isn't just a political money grab have a lower understanding than you. But then again we can't tax water vapor but CO2 producers are another thing. So why isn't the AWG folks screaming about China and India? The US is much cleaner in our emissions than they are?

He cited his sources, you need to cite yours. By pretty much any definition other than unanimity there IS a general agreement among climatologists. Check post #85, and the link at the bottom coming from the University of Chicago's study. If you have data that disagrees from a non-partisan or research institution, we'd love to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

cru_2005.gif

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Thank you Ben.

It's always fascinated me how people bring up the natural history of climate variation as a profound argument against AGW. Don't they realize they exact same scientists who have defined and studied this natural variation are the ones who support AGW? It's a very naive perspective of science.

P.S.: What's PRATT?

wow. You made a big assumption and it was incorrect not all climatologists are on board with AWG. There isn't a general agreement. But then again you will just make another statement like you did earlier implying that those of us who aren't convinced that this isn't just a political money grab have a lower understanding than you. But then again we can't tax water vapor but CO2 producers are another thing. So why isn't the AWG folks screaming about China and India? The US is much cleaner in our emissions than they are?

He cited his sources, you need to cite yours. By pretty much any definition other than unanimity there IS a general agreement among climatologists. Check post #85, and the link at the bottom coming from the University of Chicago's study. If you have data that disagrees from a non-partisan or research institution, we'd love to see it.

"He cited his sources, you need to cite yours." Pick one

http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

cru_2005.gif

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Thank you Ben.

It's always fascinated me how people bring up the natural history of climate variation as a profound argument against AGW. Don't they realize they exact same scientists who have defined and studied this natural variation are the ones who support AGW? It's a very naive perspective of science.

P.S.: What's PRATT?

wow. You made a big assumption and it was incorrect not all climatologists are on board with AWG. There isn't a general agreement. But then again you will just make another statement like you did earlier implying that those of us who aren't convinced that this isn't just a political money grab have a lower understanding than you. But then again we can't tax water vapor but CO2 producers are another thing. So why isn't the AWG folks screaming about China and India? The US is much cleaner in our emissions than they are?

He cited his sources, you need to cite yours. By pretty much any definition other than unanimity there IS a general agreement among climatologists. Check post #85, and the link at the bottom coming from the University of Chicago's study. If you have data that disagrees from a non-partisan or research institution, we'd love to see it.

"He cited his sources, you need to cite yours." Pick one

http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html

NON-partisan, Blue. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly scholarly sources, are they? Still, thanks for those.

However, that still seems like bad math to me. I don't have offhand totals, but I wonder how many people we are going to qualify as "climate scientists." If we lump in meteorologists, geologists, oceanographers, marine biologists, hydrology, environmental scientists, etc., I imagine the figure would be quite large. The Doran study regarding public opinion vs that of what they termed "earth scientists" sent invitations to participate to 10,257 scientists. Here are the relevant quotes:

"An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state

geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).

...

Of our survey participants (3,147 respondents), 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations."

So, if they mailed out over 10k invitations to what seem to be majority US/Canadian sources, we could assume that the number of "earth scientists" was many times that considering other developed countries with respected university or research systems (Germany, France, UK, etc.).

So, even if those links are accurate, and "1000 Scientists" disagree, it's still at very minimum at least 90% consensus (1000/10257). I'd call that general agreement.

Yes, these are really rough numbers. But when phrases like "there's no general agreement" get thrown out there, we need to be very clear what we mean by general agreement. It's not a 50/50 split. It's not even a 75/25 split. We're talking at best 1 out of every 10 disagreeing, and a good possibility of the proportion being even more skewed to agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that in mind, I'll leave this here. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It's the 2010 Anderegg study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Abstract:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...