Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

[robbyr2]

What's the deal with these people that continually deny that climate change exists? There are few of them on priuschat that can't seem to absorb any evidence at all that contradicts their opinion. Any psychologists out there that know what this kind of mental deficit is called?

Flatearth types?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by robbyr2

Flatearth types?

Typically the louder the name calling, the greater the inability of the writer to present a cogent argument in favor of their position. How about instead of that, you present at least some data that furthers the discussion and/or your position.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Typically the louder the name calling, the greater the inability of the writer to present a cogent argument in favor of their position. How about instead of that, you present at least some data that furthers the discussion and/or your position.

TimBikes,

I would respect YOU more if you read and reacted to the citations presented and (if) you could present a well thought out, cogent counter argument.


The fact is, the you presented this as Consensus Science explodes" and presented as fact how 50k scienctists had change their position. This was factually wrong, and a deliberate distortion of the piece. This is the worst kind of "FOX" "Third Reich" type journalism,,,,tell a lie often enough and enough people will believe it enough to give it credence!

Shame on you.

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Some might deny it exists. I would say my position is far more nuanced than that. Climate change has always existed - before and since the rise of man. Man has influenced climate in many ways, no doubt. Anthropogenic CO2 undoubtedly influences climate. However, after years of reading much on the subject, my conclusion is that the affects are not nearly as dramatic as Algore and others claim. 7 meter sea level rise? Puleeze. Even the IPCC, for all it's faults, doesn't believe that. And I could go on.

But trying to discuss it with someone that has "CUT CO2" on their license plate is like arguing against the existence of God with a priest.

Thankfully, psycologists don't call what you have -- or for that matter, what a true "denier" has -- a "mental deficit". They call it "belief".

Data should be the ultimate arbiter. Blind "belief" is what I'm against.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Data should be the ultimate arbiter. Blind "belief" is what I'm against.

I agree with that. From the data I've seen, AGW, while real, is not a big problem. Certainly not the problem hyped by the media, Algore, and environmental advocacy groups. At worst we will likely experience a degree or two of warming over the next 100 years. More than likely, it will be even at the low end of that.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by icarus

TimBikes,

I would respect YOU more if you read and reacted to the citations presented and (if) you could present a well thought out, cogent counter argument.


The fact is, the you presented this as Consensus Science explodes" and presented as fact how 50k scienctists had change their position. This was factually wrong, and a deliberate distortion of the piece. This is the worst kind of "FOX" "Third Reich" type journalism,,,,tell a lie often enough and enough people will believe it enough to give it credence!

Shame on you.

Huh? Why don't you shame Godiva for her mention of "928 papers...". See, the problem with folks like you is when somebody presents an argument counter to their belief set is that they attack the person, not the argument. "Third Reich" journalism?

Why don't you present your rationale for believing that AGW will be a problem. I don't see any real reason for concern.

- The antarctic is cooling and gaining mass, SW Greenland is at a 15 year high for ice, other parts of the arctic - while warmer than usual and with less ice than usual - are likely being strongly influenced by "wind currents" and Asian soot.
- The only temperature record showing a clear temp. rise (still on the order of just 1-2 degrees C/ century) is the GISS dataset, which is largely overstated (visit surfacestations.org to find out why).
- Tropospheric warming is not happening as GCMs predict it would.
- Sea level is rising at a rate consistent (actually, slightly lower than) recent past history.
- Global temperatures over the past 10 years have been flat to slightly declining despite a continued rise in CO2.
- On top of that, as I just linked, the Schwartz paper on climate sensitivity shows a 1.1 degree effect from a doubling of CO2.

Slight warming at best - hardly a catastrophic picture.

On THAT basis, CO2 does not appear likely to be much of a climate problem. Can you share why you think it is? Some specific data points? Some facts? Something other than an ad hominem attack? BTW - I was not the one who started this thread and I disagree with the premise that "50,000 scientists have changed their position". But then again, I disagree that the 50,000 APS scientists are all of the same opinion anyway, pro or con AGW, just because their member organization issues a position statement.

Sources: University of Illinois / Cryosphere Today; NASA; GISS; Surfacestations.org; Douglass, et al; S. J. Holgate, AGU; UAH satellite data; Stephen Schwartz.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Huh? Why don't you shame Godiva for her mention of "928 papers...". See, the problem with folks like you is when somebody presents an argument counter to their belief set is that they attack the person, not the argument. "Third Reich" journalism?

Why don't you present your rationale for believing that AGW will be a problem. I don't see any real reason for concern.

- The antarctic is cooling and gaining mass, eastern Greenland is at a 15 year high for ice, other parts of the arctic - while warmer than usual and with less ice than usual - are likely being strongly influenced by "wind currents" and Asian soot.
- The only temperature record showing a clear temp. rise (still on the order of just 1-2 degrees C/ century) is the GISS dataset, which is largely overstated (visit surfacestations.org to find out why).
- Tropospheric warming is not happening as GCMs predict it would.
- Sea level is rising at a rate consistent (actually, slightly lower than) recent past history.
- Global temperatures over the past 10 years have been flat to slightly declining despite a continued rise in CO2.
- On top of that, as I just linked, the Schwartz paper on climate sensitivity shows a 1.1 degree effect from a doubling of CO2.

Slight warming at best - hardly a catastrophic picture.

On THAT basis, CO2 does not appear likely to be much of a climate problem. Can you share why you think it is? Some specific data points? Some facts? Something other than an ad hominem attack?

Sources: University of Illinois / Cryosphere Today; NASA; GISS; Surfacestations.org; Douglass, et al; S. J. Holgate, AGU; UAH satellite data; Stephen Schwartz.

I didn't shame anyone else, because frankly, I didn't read much beyond the original post. Your original post claimed that 50k scientists have changed their position on global warming. My shame on you is not for your opinions per sey, but rather using a selected forum excerpt agreeing with your opinion, to falsely claim that the whole organization had changed it's position. When it is pointed out to you from your source that what you posted is patently false, you haven't (I confess I haven't read the entire thread!) admitted the false hood!

Icarus

[richard schumacher]

"Dr Madhav L Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years. Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere/ocean/climate for over 49 years and has published over 120 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific commentaries etc. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers in various international Journals and authored a book on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling, published by Springer-Verlag in 1989.

Khandekar is presently on the editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards (Netherlands) and is a former editor of the Journal Climate Research ( Germany). He is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change Documents (AR4) to be published in 2007."

But you don't want to hear anything contrary to your belief set, do you?

I welcome informed independent views. The opinion of someone bankrolled by oil companies is not very credible:

Khandekar and the "Friends of Science"
Listed as a member of the "Scientific Advisory Board" for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature , the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

Madhav Khandekar | DeSmogBlog

But let us assume for sake of argument that Dr. Khandekar is untainted. In 1970 one could still find a few elderly astronomers and a few flakey grad students who didn't believe in the Big Bang. Would you care to bet how the weight of expert opinion on global warming will evolve over the next five years?

Or try this simple test in the privacy of your own mind: if over the weekend George Bush disobeys Dick Cheney and reads that email from the EPA, and announces on Monday that he is initiating a crash program to cut CO2 emissions from the US, would your opinions change?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by icarus

I didn't shame anyone else, because frankly, I didn't read much beyond the original post. Your original post claimed that 50k scientists have changed their position on global warming.

Icarus

Sorry to disappoint - that was not my posting and I disagree with that premise. So you now have permission to re-read my post.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

I welcome informed independent views. The opinion of someone bankrolled by oil companies is not very credible:

Khandekar and the "Friends of Science"
Listed as a member of the "Scientific Advisory Board" for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature , the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

Madhav Khandekar | DeSmogBlog

But let us assume for sake of argument that Dr. Khandekar is untainted. In 1970 one could still find a few elderly astronomers and a few flakey grad students who didn't believe in the Big Bang. Would you care to bet how the weight of expert opinion on global warming will evolve over the next five years?

Or try this simple test in the privacy of your own mind: if over the weekend George Bush disobeys Dick Cheney and reads that email from the EPA, and announces on Monday that he is initiating a crash program to cut CO2 emissions from the US, would your opinions change?

Oh Richard. Why bother posting if all you can come up with is more ad hom attacks and rants about George Bush (whom I did not vote for nor do I like). Why won't you and Icarus consider the data I presented and respond to that.