Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

As a member of APS let me assure you all that Tripp has the correct data flow. This was an article in an unreviewed forum that happens to be run by APS.
That being said, I agree with Amped that we always have to be open to new data, nothing is written in stone unless it was brought down from a mountain. The evidence so far is clear that we as a carbon-burning species are having a strong effect on our environment.

Jeremy

 

Who do I look to for the facts on Climate Change? Physicists or Climatologists? Decisions, decisions. A single op ed piece or 928 peer reviewed papers?

Maybe I should wait for the AMA and Bar Association to weigh in. Can't really decide until the licensed Architects have presented their peer reviewed papers.

After all, what could G8, Brazil’s Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, France’s Académie des Sciences, Italy’s Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Russia’s Academy of Sciences, the United State’s National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, the Royal Society of Canada, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Science Council of Japan, the Academy of Science of South Africa, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, the Royal Society, United Kingdom, Malaysia’s Academy of Sciences, New Zealands, Academy Council of the Royal Society, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Sciences, the Woods Hole Research Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, the American Association of State Climatologists, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the World Meteorological Organization, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society, the Pew Center on Climate Change, and 928 peer reviewed scientific journal papers know? None of them are Physicists.

Oh, wait. John Coleman, the local weatherman, says it's all bunk. So there you go.

 

A source for your "pool of $500 billion" would be nice...the UN's environmental wing, the UNEP, has an annual budget of $217 million.

Where the money really is, is in oil.

That's where the "billions" are.

Exxon shatters profit records
Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006


Peeved at Prices? Don't Blame the Dealer
Awash in Profit, Exxon Fights for Pennies While Raising the Rent...
​

And that's also where twits like Monckton get the underwriting for their uncrediantialed (he has a journalism degree) environmental science.

Christopher Monckton | DeSmogBlog
Christopher Monckton and the Heartland Institute

Monckton is listed as a "Global Warming" expert for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based freemarket think tank. The Heartland Institute frequently attacks the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $791,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
The tobacco industry has also been a regular funder to the Heartland Institute, with at least $190,000 coming from Philip Morris since 1993. The Heartland Institute maintains a smoker's rights section on its website called "The Smoker's Lounge."

Christopher Monckton and the Science and Public Policy Institute

Monckton is listed as a "Chief Policy Advisor" for theScience and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). The SPPI was until recently managed under the name "Center for Science and Public Policy Institute" by another freemarket think tank called the Frontiers of Freedom.
The Frontiers of Freedom has received over $1 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.
​

 

Nice catch, Tripp.

OP, welcome to the fail-bus. :der:

... Brad

 

Do you even know what OP means?

 

Ahem . . . So the end is near, I'm a bit curious how much has the temp risen in the last ten years?

What's this?!? None you say! In fact it could have decreased a bit! :twitch:

!LOL!​

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

ound:ound:ound:ound:ound:​

Sorry but anyone that believes in this hooey is either ill informed :doh: a Dumbass :nod: or :crazy:
and anyone that tells you it is a settled matter or uncontrovertible is a :lie:.


Wildkow

p.s. that being said the reason I purchased my Prius on 1/2/06 was to decrease pollution in the
Central Valley of California, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save some bucks on fuel costs.

AND NOT TO RETURN THAT SAVINGS IN THE FORM OF TAXES FOR SOME ASININE
THEORY THAT WILL FUND CRANK SCIENTIST, ALLOW DEMONCRATS ANOTHER FUD ISSUE
OR MAKE AL GORE AND CRONIES RICH!​

p.p.s. I happen to like it warm :thumb: and I happen to like all the new plant growth due to the warmer weather and higher CO2 content in the air. :yo: :usa2:

 

Will you still like it if the temperature rise causes the snowpack to be much smaller than normal and you run out of water to grow the plants?

Seems to me (just observation, no data) that we aren't too far away from that now.

 

Please stop quoting Wildkows posts. He very ill informed and his posts on these subjects just have zero value and frankly appear quite immature. I have him on ignore and every time you quote him I have to read it. Tahnk you, carry on now.

 

Sorry.

I just wanted to express my concern. As a skier, I'm aware that the number of good snowpack years seems to be decreasing as I get older. For those that don't ski, you should still be aware that the snowpack is the source of water for the Central Valley of California.

 

Just giving you a hard time Man.

You've seen the report regarding SMOG levels reducing precipitation in the Sierra Nevada on the CA.Gov site correct? I'll add it in as soon as I find the link again. It's pretty sad. Here is another on Ca and Climate Change concerns.

Regarding climate change, water and California's critical reliance on it:

 

Jason, here is the link to pollution and precipitation reduction in California

 

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?

 

The Powerpoint presentation just reinforces what we can already see happening: less snowpack, drier conditions, more wildfires. Thanks, I think.

Its kinda depressing because it looks as though it will get worse even if we stopped polluting right now.

 

If that depresses you then don't ever read the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment report I always post. Haha

 

This stuff is being repeated on the MSM. Kudlow was all over it on his program tonight. When he said that I was like , "Damn about time". Serves me right for believing what I see on TV. That is some serious crap reporting.

 

When will we see these "more acceptable" sources? Is someone hiding them, to be revealed at just the right moment?

 

Oh no. Not the 928 papers again. Do we have to debunk that nonsense again?

First of all, Oreskes is a professor in the dept. of History at UCSD, not a climatologist. Secondly, her "paper" was an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed article. Third, "On 15 December 2004, she [Oreskes] admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay." Basically, she missed about 11,000 papers in her "comprehensive search". Fourth, of the 928 papers she did happen to include, "only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'." Looks like maybe she had a problem with the decimal point.

See link.

 

Maybe you just haven't looked, Richard. Here is somebody who has:

"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."

Here is what he found...

"This Document has examined 69 peer-reviewed papers out of a much larger number that have appeared in various international Journals in the last six years. These papers cover a wide range of topics pertaining to the present debate on the GW science. Most of the papers listed above have questioned the present view of the GW science and when taken together, these papers and many others not listed here provide an emerging view of the science of global warming & climate change which is at odds with the prevailing view."

I'm not saying he is "right" and Oreske's wrong (though arguably he is much more qualified than a history professor). What I'm saying is that there is still much to learn and a great deal of uncertainty in climate science. To characterize the discussion as "settled" (as per Algore) does severe injustice to a large body of evidence to the contrary.

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

 

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".