Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

You have my most humble apology! I misread the original post and thought it was you. My shame should have been directed at Amped instead! I have indeed shamed myself in my response to you and as I said,,I am sorry,

Icarus

 

If you'll look at the italics below, you'll see where I got the 928 papers from. The italics is a quote from a different Priuschat thread. I didn't make it up or research it. Just quoted it over from a post by MeganPrius (without citation, mea culpa). But she provided one HERE.

And in my reply I used the very last entry, the 928 papers (if anyone had bothered to read what I wrote). It was a nice sound bite. Personally, I don't care how many peer reviewed papers it is to one. I still say the one is a doofus.

I don't see why I should be more accurate than Fox News. (Although I usually am. They have a license to lie and make stuff up.)

If you don't like it....bite me.

 

Luddites?

 

LOL! No problem Icarus. Really. No apology necessary. I've pulled that one myself once or twice in the "heat of the moment". Look, I hope I haven't been insulting - certainly don't mean to be. I truly understand why some people are concerned about climate change. I came from a position of believing it a bit, then doing a lot of research - to not believing it much at all - to doing a lot more research and landing up a bit in the middle. I'm sure my views will evolve more in the next few years as well as more research is done. All I'm saying is that there is what I consider to be a pretty large body of evidence that says, yes, CO2 has an impact. But no - it's not really as bad as the media and a lot of advocacy groups make it out to be. But hey, I will admit the science is complicated and often contradictory. And reasonable people can come up on different sides of the equation.

 

I've laid out my case about the Oreske paper based on 4 observations about her qualifications as well as the study methodology, and the best you can come up with is "bite me"?

It's always interesting - and I'm making an assessment here based on other "Godiva" posts - how supposedly open-minded liberals can in fact be so closed minded - and not even realize it.

But hey, whatever.

 

Wow, I don't check this thread in 2 days and it's run amok. I found the data on posts #2 and 3 in the very article that amped posted (at the time they were down near the bottom). I jumped over to the APS site and sure 'nuff...

I do agree that consensus can be a dangerous thing. It has a tendency to produce group think and stiffle people asking important questions. That said, the onus is, at the moment, on the denialist to poke holes in the current "consensus" view. Up to this point they have not been able to do that.

Like dogfriend, I'm not a practicing climatologist. I have a degree in Geology, some post graduate work in Hydrology, but in the main I've been a programmer for the last 10 years. Simply looking at the vast quantities of carbon that we put into the atmosphere annually, it's hard to image how we couldn't be having an impact. Many of our other activities have clearly left a noticable imprint on the face of the planet and it's only getting worse as more and more of the people of the earth (who are also getting more numerous) adopt more energy intensive life styles.

Tim has pointed out the uncertainty of climate models and current limitations of the science. To me, this is the most dangerous aspect because it means that our risk is much higher because we simply don't know what the hell is going to happen with much certainty. As such, I think that we're obliged to mitigate our risk. We need to act in a prudent and responsible manner. We have (to simplify things) two obligations. First, to the preservation of the current climate regieme (as much as we can at this point) because it contributes a vastly to our economy, our way of life, and our well-being (not necessarily in that order). Second, we need to mitigate risk to our economy by not going overboard with #1. By continuing to refine the science we can optimize our response, but we need to start mitigating risk now, with the information, flawed as it may be, that we have now. We'll never have perfect, completely convincing data, and waiting for that fairy tale scenario is only increasing the chances that we'll suffer a catastrophic change.

 

Yup, time to play it safe and make the changes that give us our best shot at keeping our economy and civilization intact - i.e. getting our emissions down and giving new technologies (and jobs) a chance to flourish.

 

Hey Tripp. As you know, I'm all for conservation and reducing our use of fossil fuels. That said, let's assume the alarmist view is accurate - maybe 2 - 4 degrees, or even 6 or 8 degrees global warming due to CO2 (a case that is only in the models and not borne out by any empirical observations, I might add).

What amount of CO2 reduction is required to mitigate this temperature increase? Or, thought of another way, what impact will a reasonably attainable level of CO2 reduction have on future temperatures? It has been calculated that Kyoto would only delay modeled future warming by 6 years.

I'm all for wholesale conversion of our economy to more sustainable forms of energy, but practically speaking this is a long way away under even the most optimistic scenarios and unlikely to have much of an effect on global temps under any probable schedule.

 

I still think you are wrong however in your opinion of climate change. I urge you to read "The weathermakers" by Tim Flannery.

Icarus

 

You'd have to weight it against the expected losses to the economy due to the worst case environmental scenarios. If we can expect trillions of dollars in damages then I'd say that we'd be able to go negative on CO2 output and come out ahead.