48 replies to this topic

[mss]

Only by understanding science and accepting the reality of the situation in a non-political, non-partisan way will we be able to take actions that promote a sound economic future for our grandchildren.

The problem with your list is --how many people in each one received money/grants for study - and how many individuals ACTUALLY read the review?
Politics and money effects too many opinions in organizations.
mss

[colion]

The consensus argument has been debunked numerous times in this forum and in the literature. The key question is since when is science based on consensus? It is not! Too many naively equate consensus with scientific truths which are not established by consensus but by one (or more) person being right. Attempts to do so have consistently failed from Galileo to more recent times when NAS pushed the global cooling panic button in 1975 and got the consensus bandwagon rolling at that time. Clearly, we know from numerous examples that consensus can be both right and wrong, reflecting all to often groupthink rather than science. If, for example, the world had followed the consensus that opposed the views of Galileo, Copernicus, and Columbus, we would all be members of the Flat Earth Society happily content that the universe is revolving around us. To pull up one of my favorite quotes, Professor Reiter, Institut Pasteur, noted that "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science." If one, however, is impressed with organizations that support a particular view then it should be of interest to know how that position was reached. Was it a political decision or were the members polled? To what extent are the organizations and its members controlled directly or indirectly by governments and industries that would benefit from acceptance of the global warming myth? If polled, what percentage of the members support the official position of the organization? Take, for example, the IPCC Executive Summary (a clear example of a supposedly scientific body that is strongly influenced by political factors and bodies) which was signed by only 51 people (a small fraction of the total involved) and was generated by a process involving both members of the scientific committees and appointed government representatives. The outrage against some of the comments in the report is demonstrated by the number of scientists involved with the background studies who have openly objected (and in some cases disassociated themselves) to what was published. We know from the published list of over 400 scientists by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that many highly respected scientists oppose the notion that human forcings are a major factor in climate change and where there is smoke there is fire pointing to many hundreds/thousands more (hardly a small minority of the climate change scientific community which brings into question the conclusion that consensus exists). We also know that many of these individuals are members of societies with official positions that are contrary to the view that climate change is largely due to natural causes. We also know from a recent study that over the past three years the proceedings of these organizations contain about an equal number of papers on both sides of the issue - that is hardly consensus and arguably a more valid measure of where the scientific community stands than a list of organizations. We also know that a number of these organizations and their members are impacted to one degree or another by both political and monetary pressures from governmental bodies and lobbyists (primarily companies and environmental groups). Against a background of increasing evidence in the literature (and posted in this forum) that climate change reflects in the main natural causes, contrary to a number of IPCC claims, the bottom line is that there is no evidence of consensus and even if there were it does not mean anything.

Edited by colion, 25 March 2008 - 12:56 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

*the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

Only if you disregard the new data provided by NASA satellites and 5,000 ocean temperature stations, which contradicts that "Consensus". LINK

The models need to be overhauled to include new discoveries:
the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

(Full text on previous page of this thread)

Only by understanding science and accepting the reality of the situation in a non-political, non-partisan way will we be able to take actions that promote a sound economic future for our grandchildren.

The problem with your list is --how many people in each one received money/grants for study - and how many individuals ACTUALLY read the review?
Politics and money effects too many opinions in organizations.
mss

Hmmm.
Now I'm wondering whom MSS is really working for?
Which Fat Cat is paying him off?

"Big Catnip" probably!

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 March 2008 - 01:26 PM.

[colion]

*the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

Only if you disregard the new data provided by NASA satellites and 5,000 ocean temperature stations, which contradicts that "Consensus". LINK

Along these lines is another inconvenient truth. Below is seasonally adjusted CO2 measured at Scripps Mauna Loa (green) and MSUs lower troposphere (blue) and Hadley land/ocean variance. Statistically there is no correlation between CO2 and the other two measurements (r-squared = 0). 20 years and no correlation. Hmmmm. Link

Edited by colion, 25 March 2008 - 04:15 PM.

[maineman]

Western Antarctic Ice Chunk Collapses
NY TImes Tuesday March 25th

No Global Warming?

mm

[grizzly]

The problem with your list is --how many people in each one received money/grants for study - and how many individuals ACTUALLY read the review?
Politics and money effects too many opinions in organizations.
mss

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

You do not trust the validity of scientific studies if some government funding helps support conduct of the studies, but research funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies should be accepted as truth?

On the one side we have the government of the people, for the people and by the people; and On the other side we have oil/coal companies of the profit, for the profit, and screw the people. I wonder who we should believe?

I have degrees in chemistry and engineering, including a graduate degree, and my graduate research work (quite a few years ago) received financial support including some government support, and I can tell you that the government exerted absolutely no influence over the scientific measurements, data or the results of my research.

My graduate research work had nothing to do with climate science, it was on water treatment technology, but I can tell you that I trust the data of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Center for Atmospheric Research, and research that is subjected to rigorous, critical peer review by respected scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences much more than I trust research by scientists funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies that has not passed the scrutiny of rigorous, critical peer review.

By the way I worked for a Fortune 500 company many years ago shortly after getting out of graduate school, and was asked at times to fudge data to make our treatment systems look better than they were, and I observed our sales people flat out lie several times. I did not stay with that company for long, but it taught me first hand that industry is not a bastion of scientific integrity or truth.

Frankly, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed climate science accepts that global warming/climate change is occurring and that man's activities in the way of greenhouse gas emissions and to a lesser extent, increasing population/development and loss of natural vegetation are the primary cause.

Those who get their science training from the school of Rush Limbaugh and/or oil companies may disagree, but it matters little. There are those who still believe the earth is flat, or accept tobacco industry "science" that smoking is not hazardous to your health.

Frankly, it wouuld be nice to procreate forever; develop and pave every square inch of this planet; and spew whatever we want into the atmosphere with no consequences. I would also like to drink alcohol, smoke, eat pizza, steaks and ice cream to my hearts content, and never exercise with no health consequences. However, most of us are smart enough to know that we have to have some self-control and discipline if we want to live and be healthy. The same is true for our planet. We have to exert some controls on our behavior if want to preserve the natural systems that support life on this planet.

The social, economic, environmental, agricultural, political, health and military consequences of continued failure to address climate change will lead to much worse consequences long-term than if we fail to take action to address this problem now. You can pay me now or you can me later.

Our government and military experts recognize that the military will likely need to respond to the social, economic and political instability that will result from climate change if it goes unaddressed, http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/ . This report produded by the Center for Naval Analyses and Institute for Public Research says:

The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.

The consequences of climate change can affect the organization, training, equipping, and planning of the military services. The U.S. military has a clear obligation to determine the potential impacts of climate change on its ability to execute its missions in support of national security objectives. Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability. Managing the security impacts of climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can control and adapting to those
we cannot. The U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects from climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion: We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.—General Zinni

We are lucky though, the [bleeeep] won't hit the fan for several decades, and we'll likely be dead by then. Unfortunately, our children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren... will have to live with the sad legacy we leave them.

[colion]

Western Antarctic Ice Chunk Collapses
NY TImes Tuesday March 25th

No Global Warming?

mm

First, the issue is not whether or not there is warming but whether such climate change is due to human activities. As discussed in a number of different threads, all believe that the earth came out of the little ice age around 1800 or so and was actually warming before then from the coldest time during this period. Not surprisingly, temperatures have warmed since then otherwise we would still be frozen. U of Alaska has demonstrated that the temperture rise since that period is linear although CO2 is acknowledged not to be a factor for perhaps 3/4 of that time.

More specifically about the Antarctic a couple of thoughts. Studies (latest I believe is 2007 paper in JClimate) have shown that ice melting was concentrated primarily in the Antarctic peninsula which is the area discussed in the article. Nothing new here and has been known for a long time. At the same time, studies have also shown that most of the rest of Antarctic is cooling and has been doing so for at least four decades during which time CO2 has been increasing at a good rate.

So where does that leave things? Warming in one section of the continent is not evidence of generalize warming but rather simply warming in that area. I have not closely followed the research about the cause of this warming but have read about a number of potential suspects, including an underwater volcano in the vicinity of the peninsula, ocean current effects, and the ozone hole. Extending these thoughts it is illogical to assume that melting is prima facia evidence of climate change due to human forcings or anything else. It is certainly evidence of warming, if one believes that ice melts when it reaches a certain temperature, but the cause for the warming simply based on observation of melting is undetermined and could be due to one or more factors. Unsubstantiated claims about the cause are simply irresponsible whether made by a reporter or investigator. In a somewhat convoluted way, the article actually dances around some of these points but one has to read critically between the lines.

Edited by colion, 25 March 2008 - 08:30 PM.

[colion]

You do not trust the validity of scientific studies if some government funding helps support conduct of the studies, but research funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies should be accepted as truth?

From my perspective, certainly not. Research sponsored by private or public monies should never be rejected because of the funding source. The research either stands or falls on its own merits. Unfortunately, too many global warming alarmists and some skeptics use the funding argument because they cannot knock the results for cause. Surely you have noticed this type of argument over and over, including posts in this forum. Except for those who are won over by sensationalism such tactics do not discredit the research and are recognized by many as an attempt to do so on the basis of innuendo in the spirit of McCarthyism. Valid rebuttal on the merits is strongly encouraged rather than ad hominem attacks.

[grizzly]

[The research either stands or falls on its own merits.

I couldn't agree more, but critical peer review of climate change science studies by those with acknowledged credentials in the scientific community from organizations such as NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ,
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) , Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS), American Geophysical Union (AGU) , American Institute of Physics (AIP), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) means so much more than disinformation promulgated by partisan think tanks funded by the oil industry.

There is little doubt about the basic conclusions of peer reviewed scientific literature on climate change. Climate change is occurring due to man's activities.

[colion]

[The research either stands or falls on its own merits.

I couldn't agree more, but critical peer review of climate change science studies by those with acknowledged credentials in the scientific community from organizations such as NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ,
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) , Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS), American Geophysical Union (AGU) , American Institute of Physics (AIP), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) means so much more than disinformation promulgated by partisan think tanks funded by the oil industry.

There is little doubt about the basic conclusions of peer reviewed scientific literature on climate change. Climate change is occurring due to man's activities.

That's funny. You say that you could not agree more that research should stand or fall on it merits. However, in the next breath you try to discredit people by ad hominem attacks without the slightest attempt to discredit the research on the basis of the merits. An interesting but unimpressive argument. Why not give the high road a shot and tell us what is wrong with the data and charts that have been posted or linked to in numerous messages - many are from the journals reviewed by members of the "on high" societies.

You blindly embrace members of the societies that you hold on high even though many do not support the anthropogenic basis for climate change and in fact have publically declared their position. Does it bother you that the societies are not a monolithic blog of "humans did it" chanters but rather a collection of members who span the natural cause-human activity spectrum? You really have to get over the thought that members of a society support all positions that the society takes in the public arena. Are you a member of a professional society and if so do agree with all of its public positions? I certainly don't and know of nobody who does.

You hide behind the standard alarmists mantra of support by the oil industry. How do you handle research by members of the societies that you think so highly of who are in the human activities affects climate change camp and yet are supported by the likes of the oil industry? Yes, they are out there. How do you handle members of the societies who support the natural cause basis for climate change and may or may not be supported by the oil industry? Yes, they are out there. How do you handle folks like Lindzen who are firmly in the natural cause camp and yet have no fossil fuel industry support? Your argument leads us to the conclusion that if someone is free of the stain of fossil fuels that they walk in the light and we can trust their research; now you have put Lindzen on a pedestal. LOL. In my view, your position is quite shallow, inconsistent and certainly not a basis for serious critique of the issues.

You also choose to ignore the fact that hundreds of scientists who support the natural cause basis for climate change are highly qualified, belong to the societies that you think so highly of, and review for the journals that you hold in high esteem. How do you explain that? You also choose to ignore the recent review of the peer review journals that has been discussed before in this forum which demonstrated that half of the papers did not support either position and only about 6% strongly supported one or the other. How do you justify twising these results upside down in an attempt to claim consensus? Learn to luv the fact that there ain't no consensus and even if there were it does not make any difference in the scientific world (with your background I assume that you understand that).

Your view that "Climate change is occurring due to man's activities" is simply your belief system for which you have no evidence. Perhaps one day you will surprise us with a convincing argument. In the meantime, your belief system is your belief system and I'm sure that's fine with most of us but, I suspect, few will think it is worthy of discussion.

Edited by colion, 25 March 2008 - 11:54 PM.