Prev  1  2  3  4  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 167:

51. David Horton at 06:40 AM on 12 May, 2011
    MIne was a rhetorical "puzzle". Needs to be some better measure. "100% of climate scientists not paid by big oil", "100% of climate scientists without libertarian ideological beliefs" "100% of scientists who have done research into climatology" and so on. The "97%" figure always suggests that there is a serious minority, some brave, Galileo-like souls struggling against the crushing weight of enforced consensus, of actual climate scientists who disagree with the reality that increasing ghgs are causing rising temperatures and that humans are responsible for increasing ghgs. Instead it seems to be just Lindzen and Christy deliberately maintaining an illusion that there is still some serious scientific debate on these fundamental matters. I just have a feeling that they, and many other deniers, and the Koch brothers, would be quite happy with this graphic being reproduced for the next 20 years.
    0 0
52. Harry Seaward at 06:59 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Rob @ 49 and DSL @ 50 ROB I've heard that before and sorry, but it does not bother me. I'm actually 58 years old and a Harold Seaward, Jr. Can't help it that my name has been hijacked in the modern world. Try your own last name in the Urban Dictionary. It's kinda funny! Especially #3 and #4 which I hope aren't apropo. DSL Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Proves I'm on to something. Aren't your comments outside the bounds of the Comments Policy?
    0 0
53. Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 12 May, 2011
    50, apiratelooksat50, Don't use the term "warmists." As far as funding... the difference would lie in whether the funding was supplied to actually do research and find the correct answer, whatever it may be, or if it was supplied to find a specific answer (along with any twisted, convoluted method to support that answer), no matter where the truth lies.
    0 0
54. Harry Seaward at 07:19 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Sphaerica at 53 Why not use warmists? Deniers is frequently thrown around on this site. And, I agree with your last paragraph as long as you agree that sometimes the answer might not agree with what your ideals hold.
    0 0
55. Rob Honeycutt at 07:28 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Harry... Okay. I can accept that. I just wanted to make sure you weren't some teenage troll with a bad attitude and an overly clever pseudonym. Believe me, I've heard plenty of derivations of my name. My apologies.
    0 0
56. pbjamm at 07:33 AM on 12 May, 2011
    HS@52 Arguing that "you look like a boiled prawn" or that "you are ugly and your Mom dresses you funny" would be ad hominem. Saying "You're digging very hard, Harry" (DSL@46) is not. The pros/cons of the surveys have been hashed out on SkS more than once before. Is There a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming? How Many Climate Scientists are Skeptics?
    0 0
57. Harry Seaward at 07:34 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Rob @ 55 Apologies accepted. Thanks.
    0 0
58. JMurphy at 07:34 AM on 12 May, 2011
    So, can anyone explain what the made-up word "warmist" means ?
    0 0
59. dana1981 at 07:38 AM on 12 May, 2011
    warmist = realist
    0 0
60. Harry Seaward at 07:43 AM on 12 May, 2011
    JMurphy @ 58 From the Urban Dictionary (these are not my words) To be defined as a global warmist, a person must have all of the following traits: 1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet. 2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. 3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case." 4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change. 5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause. And while we are at it: Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.
    0 0
61. Rob Honeycutt at 07:44 AM on 12 May, 2011
    JMurphy... I prefer the term: Warmanista ;-)
    0 0
    Response: [JC] Rob, weren't you the one that tried floating the term "hottie". I notice it never took off.
62. Harry Seaward at 07:45 AM on 12 May, 2011
    PBJAMM@56 The comment I was referring to was deleted because it was ad hominem. It referred to my initials being HS being the same as high school just like my thinking pattern.
    0 0
63. Tom Curtis at 07:47 AM on 12 May, 2011
    apiratelooksat50 @50, sure apirate, all those American climate scientists produced studies that show global warming is dangerous because it would ingratiate them with the Bush administration. The fact is that funding from governments in western democracies is tied to quality of research; while funding from commercial interests is tied to furthering those commercial interests.
    0 0
64. Rob Honeycutt at 07:49 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Harry... Again, you're getting some stuff wrong. 1) There is NO absolute here. Nothing in science is absolute. Given a competing theory that would explain all the current empirical evidence every one of us here would change their opinion. 2) We continually entertain other possibilities. The problem is, every other explanation is not consistent with the data or even between ideas. 3) No. We believe that science clearly understands the problem and if we don't start applying solutions (that cost, yes, billions of dollars) we are going to have a much much bigger problem on our hands, and one that is likely not to be solvable. 4) No again. The frequency and severity maybe. That's different. 5) Have you ever tried posting as a person who believes AGW over at WUWT or JoNova? This is a pony ride you get here.
    0 0
65. pbjamm at 07:55 AM on 12 May, 2011
    HS@60 By that definition I would consider "warmist" to be an insult and not applicable to any of the regulars here at SkS. @62 I must have missed that one.
    0 0
66. scaddenp at 07:57 AM on 12 May, 2011
    apirate - the likes of NSF fund scientists to find out what isnt known. The funders have no interest in the whether your research ends up supporting one theory or another. By contrast, funding from lobby groups is interested in finding out particular results that support that lobby. This doesnt necessarily mean that the research was badly done but it obviously needs deeper scrutiny. Contracts for research in areas where there is a political interest by lobby group tend to be rather particular about what can be published from that research! In contrast, NSF funded research requires data openness to other researchers.
    0 0
67. JosHagelaars at 08:16 AM on 12 May, 2011
    For those interested, you can find the list of the 77 scientists mentioned in response #30 on http://tinyurl.com/ltakyk. EIKE is a German lobby group of climate sceptics, their slogan on the website says "Not the climate is threatened, but our freedom!". I don't have the impression that a climate scientist is present on the list, in fact in a German newspaper article the public relations man of EIKE states : "We don't need climate scientists" (If you can read German : http://tinyurl.com/2a8354c).
    0 0
68. dhogaza at 08:20 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Harry Seaward: "2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. " So none of us are "global warmists". And you won't find a single climate scientist who is not aware that natural phenomena not only MAY cause climate change, but DOES cause climate change. Milankovich cycles, variations in solar output, positions of the continents (over geological timescales), etc are all know to affect climate. This information comes from science in the first place, thank you very much. The denialist position is that ONLY natural phenomena can cause climate change, which is, of course, incorrect. Denialist is an appropriate descriptive term because to believe this, you have to deny the physical properties of CO2, the fact that when plenty of water is available that rising temperatures don't increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (or that water vapor is not a GHG), etc .
    0 0
69. Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Bray and Storch, "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (2008) is a detailed survey of 373 climate scientists. Regarding the key questions that match the Doran survey, it shows the following results: 20. How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now? With 1 being "not at all" and 7 being "very much", 97.6% of respondents scored 4 or higher, and 67.1% of respondents scored 7 (the highest possible confidence). (Mean score 6.44; median score 7; mode 7) 21. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes? Again 1 is "not at all" and 7 is "very much". 88.9% of respondents scored 4 or higher, and 34.59% scored 7, with an additional 31.89% scoring 6. Only 1.351% scored 1, and 2.973% scored 2. (Mean score 5.68%; median score 6; mode 7) Also of interest are a series of questions about the IPCC and the scientific consensus, of which I will give one example: 39. The IPCC reports tend to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or over estimate the magnitude of the impacts resulting from changes in: 39a. temperature In this question, 1 is interpreted as "underestimates" and 7 as "overestimates", with 4, therefore, indicating accurately estimates. 89.8% of respondents thought the IPCC predictions where reasonably accurate (responses 3 to 5). Slightly more (5.248% vs 4.972%) respondents thought the IPCC significantly overestimated the temperature increases (responses 6 and 7) than thought they significantly underestimated it (responses 1 & 2). (Mean score 3.99; median score 4; mode 4) In questions regarding precipitation, sea levels rise, and extreme events, respondents where slightly less confident in the IPCC, with the lowest confidence being in predictions of extreme events with just 75.9% of respondents agreeing (scored 3 to 5) with the IPCC. The general pattern is that statements given high confidence by the IPCC in their reports are very widely agreed to, while statements given less confidence have greater dissent. That suggests the beliefs of the scientific community as a whole (rather than those of individual scientists) are determined by the quality of evidence; and that the IPCC is accurately reporting on that evidence. So, the general pattern is very clear! The IPCC is reporting on a genuine consensus amongst scientists. The scientists, however, have a variety of opinions on detailed points which shows they are not practising "group think" or following dogma. Indeed, where the evidence is assessed by the IPCC as very good, support of the IPCC position is near universal amongst climate scientists. Deniers such as Harry Seaward and Bud are terrified that the general public might realize this, ie, that the scientific controversy over the core issues in climate change are manufactured by a very few ideological warriors who seem unable to follow evidence. Therefore they will try every trick they know to try and distract from these facts - as can be seen on this thread.
    0 0
70. Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Harry Seaward @28, read my statement again. Unless you wish to suggest the negative forcing (ie cooling effect) of aerosols and land use changes have been mistaken for positive forcings (warming effect) by climate scientists; or that climate scientists mistakenly believe the 0.1 W/m^2 forcing of black carbon some how dominates the 3 W/m^2 forcing from GHG your original point is still wrong, and your attempt to suggest the respondents where confused about the significance of the questions they were answering is still laughable. Seriously, where I not so familiar with the regular output of denialists, I would have thought your comment a parody. The whole output of denialists on this thread has been absolutely ridiculous. It is premised on the suppositions that: 1) Climate scientists are so confused that they cannot understand questions regularly put to the general public in polls; or 2) Multiple surveys of scientific opinion which regularly show agreement in the high 90's with the two simple propositions polled by Doran can some how be out by multiples of 10% because of methodological flaws (which are only ever hinted at, not pointed to); or 3) The existence of three dentists in Woking-on-Rye who disagree with the IPCC (or some equivalent) somehow invalidates the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists who have actively researched the issue to a standard that can pas peer review agree with the IPCC (or think it is too cautious.
    0 0
71. Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 12 May, 2011
    I think one of the things that really floors me about those in denial about climate change is that they think that we -- the people who trust and understand the science -- are just like them, that our understanding is a "belief" that we've arbitrarily chosen, that we cling to it like a dying man clings to a tree in rising flood waters, that we ignore evidence because somehow climate change is a good thing that we want to happen, and that we're the ones who are putting civilization at risk... because if Exxon doesn't make 30 trillion dollars in the coming decades, the economy will crumble and we'll all be thrown into the stone age. It's really just amazing the way they stand everything on it's head, so that down is up, hot is cold, the incline is a decline, the MWP is but current temperature increases ain't, CRU engaged in a global conspiracy but Exxon Mobile is funding research, and on and on and on. With a straight face, they say things like:

    And, I agree with your last paragraph as long as you agree that sometimes the answer might not agree with what your ideals hold.

    (implying that research funded by Exxon Mobile and other businesses is real research that is not looking for a predetermined conclusion, but the work done by scientists on government grants is -- but I'm too darned silly to realize the truth of it all). *sound of muffled gunshot, then a thud as something heavy hits the floor, followed by the clunk of the gun also hitting the floor*
    0 0
72. Chemware at 10:27 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Harry Seaward @60, It's clear you are no scientist. The only thing a scientist believes in absolutely is the scientific method: observation -> hypothesis -> experimentation -> disproof. Every climate scientist worth their salt will acknowledge that it is possible that the current warming is natural in origin due to some as yet unknown phenomena. They will then go on to say that the probability of that is vanishingly small due to the weight of multiple lines of evidence in many scientific disciplines, and because other plausible explanations (eg: it's the sun) have been disproved. On this basis, according to your definition, I have not seen a "warmist" as yet, because no scientist I've met holds absolute beliefs about global warming. Though, being a scientist, I do admit the possibility that such people exist. On the contrary, I have meet a very large number of deniers, who have remarkably similar characteristics to your "warmist": 1) An absolute belief that humans cannot change the average temperature of the planet. There is even a subset who believe that temperatures are really constant or declining and that there is a global conspiracy of meteorologists to forge the temperature record to make it look like there is warming. 2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that CO2 emissions may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. 3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies at coal and oil companies, "just to prevent economic catastrophe." 4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes cannot possibly be related in any way to humankind's CO2 emissions. 5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.
    0 0
73. Bern at 10:54 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Firstly, I'd like to say "well done!" to everyone here for keeping the discussion as civil as possible (and also the mods for ruthlessly keeping it that way!). It makes it so much more pleasant to read the comment thread, to the extent that I actually *do* read the entire comment thread, rather than giving up after the first half a dozen posts. Secondly, in regard to definition #2 in Harry Seaward's post on the Urban Dictionary definition of 'warmist': yep, that one all by itself rules out pretty much everyone commenting on this site, and every climate scientist who's written a paper I've read. In fact, I recommend Hansen's Milankovic paper to see a nice discussion about how natural forcings affected climate over the past 60-odd million years. I found it to be quite a fascinating read.
    0 0
74. Albatross at 11:24 AM on 12 May, 2011
    Harry Seaward, Please answer my question posed @45. Thanks.
    0 0
75. Phila at 14:00 PM on 12 May, 2011
    Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. " So a "warmist" is a straw man. I kinda figured, but thanks for confirming it.
    0 0
76. scaddenp at 14:28 PM on 12 May, 2011
    Interesting definition of "global warmist". I guess you might find one at Greenpeace meeting but I havent run into one in the science world. Is anyone here a "warmist"?
    0 0
77. owl905 at 15:50 PM on 12 May, 2011
    This just in: Steve McIntyre believes the methodology was flawed and there was actually better responses during the Medieval Survey Period. Bjorn Lomborg refutes the survey with proof … a link to a telephone book. Senator Inhoffe vents that the survey is the second greatest hoax in history. Richard Lintzen intends to publish an article showing that it’s just natural variations in opinion; with pictures of tropical fruit picked since 1995.
    0 0
78. FatherTheo at 16:07 PM on 12 May, 2011
    I used to work in claims. One of the things I noticed was that in terms of assessing an issue, the "experts" always managed to favour the point of view of whoever hired them. Exxon and other fossil fuel giants understand this. Climate change deniers, apparently, do not.
    0 0
79. Harry Seaward at 22:18 PM on 12 May, 2011
    Even though it was off-topic, I think the posts concerning the terms warmists and deniers can be put to good use. Neither camp appreciates the terms and I think we can agree to quit using them. Actually, we are not that far apart. Any reasonable person agrees that the climate changes due to natural phenomena. Any reasonable person agrees that the actions of man have artificially altered the climate. The extent of the effect man's actions have had on the climate are the debating points. So, let's agree to get along, quit using negative terms to describe each other, and continue using this site to have reasonable scientific discussions. (Note: If anyone was offended by the defintion of warmist that I posted, I do apologize. I posted it with the caveat that it was not my defintion of the term. Skeptics feel equally strong about the term denier.) Peace!
    0 0
80. DSL at 23:18 PM on 12 May, 2011
    I'm inspired. I'll apologize as well, for my ad Harrinem attack. Nevertheless, this whole bandwagon thing is irritating. Yes, if one is unwilling or unable to do the math, one must trust the experts. The experts are the climatologists, the atmospheric scientists, and the wide variety of ocean scientists. Their word should trump that of materials scientists and unpublished high school science teachers. How am I supposed to take someone's analysis of the science seriously when he/she brings forth a list like Bern's or Poptech's to present as evidence that experts disagree with AGW? And how am I to take so-called 'skeptics' seriously when they remain silent on the dubiousness of these lists?
    0 0
81. JMurphy at 01:28 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Actually, Harry Seaward, I don't think there is any comparison between the two terms. If the word "warmist" means what you have posted from the Urban Dictionary (I can't check it from my work computer because access is denied for some reason) then, as has already been pointed out, I doubt whether anyone can be described as one. In fact, I reckon that definition (if true) is intentionally humorous, and actually a comment on those who actually believe that it describes real people - rather than imaginary constructs from the fevered minds of those in denial. Denial, however, especially political denial, is a valid and accurate description of someone who, faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept, rejects it, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. This is different from, of course, those who are genuinely sceptical and can outline valid arguments without reference to money, conspiracy, politics or any form of obsessive behaviour.
    0 0
82. funglestrumpet at 01:36 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Tom Curtis @ 16. There is sound scientific proof established since Tyndal's experiments on the greenhouse effect that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. That is where the debate should be, not on whether we are the cause of the warming it generates. As things stand, all the public sees is the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and his sort refusing to believe that we are to blame (when they can be drawn away from their Lego bricks and Playdough, that is). It takes some doing to argue otherwise succinctly. If we bring it down to the fact that we must do what we can for the sake of both your children and mine and, all other children for that matter, it comes down to discussion of that action. Simple statement of long established scientific proof is much easier to present and defend, and much more likely to build up political support. Perhaps we need to place full page adverts in the popular press about the likely effects of each degree rise in global temperature together with latest IPCC predictions. Even Murdoch’s rags are desperate for advertising revenue. Surely, Kyoto teaches us that business as usual really is not an option. Arguing whether it is our fault or not is a very successful diversionary ploy that is working a treat as far as the fossil fuel industry is concerned. They must be laughing all the way to the bank. The public knows that the temperature is rising and we should trade on that fact.
    0 0
83. dhogaza at 01:57 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Harry Seaward - false claims of symmetry don't make the asymmetric difference between accepting science and denying science symmetric, no matter how much you want to argue that it does.
    0 0
84. Stephen Baines at 02:49 AM on 13 May, 2011
    What I would like to see someday is a historical perspective of how the level of consensus has changed over time. Those who deny the existence or importance of a consensus hold to the ideal of the lone genius holding out against a massed array of undiscerning like-thinkers. Of course the trick is to distinguish Galileo from a stubborn contrarian or an outright quack. One way is to track how many of their peers have been convinced by their arguments over time. I remember when the scientific world used to be full of those skeptical of human induced climate change. One by one they have slowly been convinced by the weight of evidence. Only stubbborn contrarians like Lindzen seem to have been left behind. His only resort are sour-grapes (and rather uncollegial) arguments that suggest his colleagues have been bought off. That is the way with all scientific progress. Ideas that are initially questioned broadly slowly become adopted when it is clear they have merit. A stubborn few are always left behind as critics, but I can't think of a single instance in the annals of science where the progression toward a new consensus has reversed. If Lindzen were proposing a new idea or theory, one could argue that he might win out eventually. But he is in reality posing old theories that have been superceded. People outside science just don't have the historical perspective to realize this - which may explain why he now revels in this limelight.
    0 0
85. Stephen Baines at 02:58 AM on 13 May, 2011
    @ funglestrumpet Whether people are reponsible for climate change is relevant. If they are not, there is no reason scientifically to believe the climate will continue to change in any particular direction. It also suggests that scientists have no clue about what drives the climate -which would call into question any call to control climate by changing CO2. That is why the appeal to natural causes of climate variation is one of the most common arguments against taking action.
    0 0
86. Albatross at 03:09 AM on 13 May, 2011
    All, Harry keeps ignoring this rather inconvenient question initially posed @45, so I'll repeat it here for everyone to see what is being avoided: "Please list for us all the professional scientific societies of the same standing as the American Meteorological Society (for example) who state that human emissions of GHGs are not contributing to global warming."
    0 0
87. Bud at 03:27 AM on 13 May, 2011
    It is irrelevant how many scientists there are in total nor how many are "climate" scientists. It only takes one experiment by scientist or non-scientist to prove them all wrong. Consensus is not part of scientific method. Consensus is a political process. Nevertheless, the fact that large numbers of scientists and people from other disciplines refute the AGW hypothesis from their own area of expertise, that fact alone is sufficient to refute the political argument that there is consensus among scientists. Obviously there is no such consensus. And, in any event, it is irrelevant for the purposes of a scientific discussion.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: (DB) OK, by your logic, because I disagree with your comment it is then refuted. QED.
88. Bud at 03:41 AM on 13 May, 2011
    The idea that the science or the energy budget is "settled" is blown apart by Trenberth. When asked by his colleague, Tom Wigley, “where's the Global warming?” Trenberth admits they can't answer the question. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate." (Leaked Climategate email: Oct. 14, 2009: Filename:1255496484.txt)
    0 0
89. Bibliovermis at 03:43 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud, Words have multiple meanings. Choosing a different meaning of the same word to defend your position only clarifies how wrong you are. Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research. If your explanation for a scientific consensus is vast conspiracy, rather than the outcome of the scientific method, you're almost certainly engaged in cognitive dissonance rather than rational thinking.
    0 0
90. les at 03:48 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud, 87 Not a fan of Kuhn, then? Can you post us some sources from the history and/or philosophy I'd science that backs-up your views? I've read a lot of that kind of stuff but have not cone across anything like you've posted by recent writers. Much appreciated.
    0 0
91. Bud at 03:51 AM on 13 May, 2011
    "Recently Lyman et al. [1] have estimated a robust global warming trend of 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2 for Earth during 1993–2008, calculated from ocean heat content anomaly (OHC) data. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003-2008 data, we find cooling, not warming. This result does not support the existence of a large frequently-cited positive computed radiative imbalance (see, for example, Trenberth and Fasullo [2])." "In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.” [1] J. M. Lyman et al., “Robust warming of the global upper ocean,” Nature, Vol. 465, 2010, pp. 334–337. [2] K. Trenberth and J. Fasullo, “Tracking Earth’s energy,” Science, Vol. 328, 2010, pp. 316–317. Recent energy balance of Earth, R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0171 USA E-mail: rsk@pas.rochester.edu International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November)
    0 0
92. Rob Honeycutt at 03:51 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud... Funny how Trenberth would probably be one of the first in line on the list of climate scientists who accept AGW. So, I'm not sure how your comment relates to the topic, and in fact, you obviously have a critical misunderstanding of Trenberth's statements.
    0 0
93. Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud @ 87... "It only takes one experiment by scientist or non-scientist to prove them all wrong." Same goes for gravitational theory, relativity and evolutionary theory (still looking for that darned pre-cambrian rabbit). The point is that no one is even close to putting forth a competing theory on global warming. There have been a few ideas put out but none comes close to explaining the full body of empirical evidence the way CO2 does. The day someone puts out a realistic competing theory I can guarantee that everyone in the "warmanista" camp (okay, John maybe "hottie" is better) will be all ears! I would welcome a rational new theory with open arms.
    0 0
94. Albatross at 04:16 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud, Perhaps a more appropriate, more powerful, term to use is 'consilience'. I agree though, nature and physics do not give a hoot about polls, and science is not a popularity contest. With that said, the theory of AGW is well established. If the 'consensus' issue is irrelevant, please then explain why those in denial about AGW or so-called 'skeptics' insist on falsely claiming that there is no consilience and second, then claiming that this somehow refutes the fact that the theory AGW is real. These studies and polls have been conducted to address that very strawman raised by "skeptics". Regarding the stolen emails and the often mangled interpretation of Trenberth's words, that has been dealt with at SkS here, here and here. The latest research suggests that the 'heat' may not have been 'missing' after all, we just were not looking in the right places.
    0 0
95. pbjamm at 04:21 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud@87 "Nevertheless, the fact that large numbers of scientists and people from other disciplines refute the AGW hypothesis..." They may dispute the AGW hypothesis but no one has yet to (successfully) refute it. The fact that there is dispute also does not mean there is not consensus. consensus (from dictionary.com) : 1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2.general agreement or concord; harmony. or according to m-w.com: a : general agreement b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned Notice that 100% agreement is not required to reach a consensus. As Bibliovermis points out @89 "Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research." Nothing nefarious about many scientists reaching similar conclusions (general agreement) when examining the facts.
    0 0
96. Albatross at 04:24 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud, You are straying off-topic, please take questions about the "missing' heat to another thread. And you ought to know that the fine example of cherry-picking by by Knox and Douglass has been refuted by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) . You see, 'skeptics' keep trying to shoot holes in the theory of AGW, bless them, but they keep failing, and have been doing so for well over 100 years now. Worse yet, in order to try and shoot holes in the theory, they oftentimes have to resort to cherry-picking, inappropriate statistics and tricks to hide the incline (e.g., in temperatures) or decline (e.g., in Arctic sea ice), and all sorts of other antics.
    0 0
97. JMurphy at 04:31 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud wrote : "Nevertheless, the fact that large numbers of scientists and people from other disciplines refute the AGW hypothesis from their own area of expertise, that fact alone is sufficient to refute the political argument that there is consensus among scientists." Can you define "large numbers" and compare it to the total number of scientists ? Do you also agree with the "scientists and people from other disciplines" who reckon they can refute Evolution, HIV/AIDS, Smoking/Cancer, the Greenhouse Effect, etc., etc. ? Can I ask again : do you agree with the 100 scientists I pointed you towards here ? If not, could you explain why ? What have "political argument[s]" got to do with a consensus among scientists ? Do you think the consensus over Evolution is also a "political argument" ? Do you even believe in Evolution ? Are you Poptech or do you just love to repeat his assertions about so-called refutations ?
    0 0
98. Harry Seaward at 04:32 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Alb at 86 I don't know of any scientists period that would make that statment. Stands to reason the professional scientific societies would not either. I thought we all agreed that human GHG emissions are making some sort of contribution to global warming. And, remember this survey referenced in the article starting this thread is referring to this questions: "2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Activity can mean and does imply other factors other than GHG emissions. The question is not inconvenient, it is merely inept.
    0 0
99. DSL at 04:37 AM on 13 May, 2011
    Bud, Lyman and OHC are discussed here. If you still have questions, ask them there. Aye, Rob, at 94. Would it not be most excellent if it turned out that the planet isn't warming as we think it is, or that some mechanism is going to kick in and bring cooling? John's book would stop selling, but I suspect he wouldn't mind so much. Indeed, it would be the opportunity for another book: What Went Right. But everything's about probability, and right now a much warmer coming century is much, much more likely than temperature-as-usual or cooling. It also seems silly to think that climate scientists will "win" somehow by predicting a warmer planet. Such a hoax would be readily dismissed within a decade or two, and the income gained from employment would be balanced by the eventual inability to gain employment in one's chosen field. And what happens to scientists in a warmer future, if we go BAU? It's not like climatology is going to expand as a field. It's likely going to contract, as government spending will need to be shifted to mitigation, damage control, and infrastructure construction/reconstruction as migrations (forced and voluntary) occur.
    0 0
100. Albatross at 04:44 AM on 13 May, 2011
     Harry @98, "I don't know of any scientists period that would make that statment." Bad news, I'm a scientist and I made that statement. But then again, you don't know me ;) As for agencies who have issued statements on the theory of AGW (from here) Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies: African Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Kenya National Academy of Sciences Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Uganda National Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Tanzania Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences Zambia Academy of Sciences Sudan Academy of Sciences Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus: Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences"
     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.