|
|
|
|
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/29/2008 10:54:07 AM | http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3b7119d5-2c9f-4790-8bda-2ca164620613
The end of the fake consensus on global warming
Mark Milke, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, May 29, 2008
An anti-nuclear, Toronto-based, urban-loving, 1970s peace activist who opposes subsidies to the oil industry might be the last person expected to detail cracks in the science of global warming.
But Lawrence Solomon has done just that in a short book with a long subtitle: The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so).
The spark for the book came after an American TV reporter compared those who question the Kyoto Protocol to Holocaust deniers. But Solomon wondered about that so he sought out the experts in specific fields to garner their views.
Consider Edward Wegman, asked by the U.S. Congress to assess the famous "hockey stick" graph from Michael Mann, published by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and which purported to show temperatures as mostly constant over the last 1,000 years -- except for a spike in the last century.
The IPCC claimed the hockey stick "proved" unique 20th century global warming.
But it didn't. Wegman, who drew on the initial skepticism of two Canadians who questioned Mann's statistical handling, found that Mann's "hockey stick" was the result of a statistical error -- the statistical model actually mined data to produce the hockey stick and excluded contrary data. That mistake occurred not because Mann was deceptive or a poor scientist -- he's an expert in the paleoclimate community as were those who reviewed his paper. But that was the problem: the paleoclimate scientists were trapped in their own disciplinary ghetto and not up to speed on the latest, most appropriate statistical methods.
Is Wegman the scientific equivalent of medical quack? No. His CV includes eight books, over 160 published papers, editorships of prestigious journals and who was a past-president of the International Association of Statistical Computing, among other distinctions. Opinions in The Deniers vary dramatically and Solomon, a non-scientist, does not try to settle the disputes. He instead attempts to give readers insight into how non-settled and fragmentary the science actually is on climate change.
For example, think the polar icecaps are melting? That's true at the North Pole, but it's not certain at the South Pole, according to Duncan Wingham. A portion of Antarctica's northern peninsula is melting. But that's a tiny slice of the 14 million square kilometre continent. And confounding evidence exists. Since the inception of the South Pole research station in 1957, recorded temperatures have actually fallen.
Wingham is cautious. He doesn't deny global warming might exist. But his data show the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, not shrinking, and the chapter on why ice measurements are tricky is another fine, informative part of The Deniers.
Is Wingham a flake, a denier in league with flat-earthers? Only if you think the chair of the department of space and climate physics and head of earth sciences at University College London, and a member of the Earth Observation Experts Group, among other qualifications, qualifies for such a label.
The most intriguing part of The Deniers is the attempt by dozens of credible scientists to point out what should be common-sense obvious: the sun might affect Earth's climate.
"We understand the greenhouse effect pretty well," writes Solomon, "we know vanishingly little about how the sun -- our main source of energy driving the climate -- affects climate change."
But the IPCC refuses to even consider the sun's influence on Earth's climate -- it conceives of its mission only to investigate possible man-made effects upon climate. But that's akin to a hit-and-run investigation where police rule out all cars except one model, this before they even question witnesses.
No one who reads The Deniers will be able to claim a scientific consensus exists on global warming. (Some scientists even argue the planet's climate is about to cool.) But it might leave honest readers with this question: So what? Why not spend billions to reduce possible human-induced climate change just in case? Because, as Antonio Zichichi (a professor emeritus at the University of Bologna and author of more than 800 papers) argues, global warming is only one alleged calamity that faces the world's poor. As Solomon writes in his interview with Zichichi, "every dollar and hour diverted to a crisis that might not exist, has real and tragic costs."
The "deniers" and The Deniers matter because the book is about the search for scientific explanations for a complex phenomenon by eminent scientists in a better position than most to judge whether a consensus exists on global warming. Their collective verdict, much varied in the particulars, is "no." | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/29/2008 1:04:21 PM | | Uhhhh Wegman has gone on record as stating that he is not qualified to speak to the reality of global warming. That won't stop global warming denialists from putting words in his mouth though. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/29/2008 1:21:21 PM | | I take it you don't like the post then?...oh well! Global warming seems to be turning into global scamming don't it. The left needs a new angle to scare people...how about as night falls they can tell everyone the suns burning out and we are facing global darkness. Then the algore can lift that darkness with his almighty powers just before daybreak and bring light to our planet once more. algore be praised!! We could all have a chance to see his amazing powers every day then and he would never be wrong. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 2:14:38 PM | The original post is untrue. The consensus of any independent scientist, not funded by Republican "think tanks" (that's any oxymoron) still agree. In other words, unless you have been bought and paid for to be a shill for the corpora-tocracy, and you have two brain cells, you know global warming is a real problem and will cost us dearly in the future.
Do me a favor, anyone who doesn't believe this, be sure NOT to contact me as I don't suffer fools gladly. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 3:47:48 PM | So for all of you who believe in man made global warming are you not thrilled and excited about the rising cost of oil ?
You should be.
Decreased oil usage is exactly what you've been hoping for.
This is your chance to stop driving and not only save the planet but save money too.
Just think you'll be able to cancel your auto insurance, no more car payments, trips to the auto repair shop, inspection fees or drivers licenses.
This will be great right ?
Isn't this what change is all about ?
Who would have thought that a simple raise in gas prices would solve so many problems.
What we need though is for gas prices to increase to $20/gallon. Then we'll see some real benifit. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 4:05:49 PM | | Where can I buy some of the carbon credits that The algore is selling? You got to give the guy some credit...create a need and reap the profits. Now that's capitalism at its finest...no product...all profit. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 4:37:32 PM | | Al Gore gets the Nobel Peace Prize for this. I lost ALL, what was left, respect for the NPP committee and how it qualifies it's selection. I hope they realize how worthless this makes the NPP now. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:07:02 PM | So, let me get this straight.
What exactly do republicans understand?
Obviously economics is out.
Obviously social conciousness is out.
Obviously Christianity is out.
Obviously diplomacy is out.
Obviously Science is out.
What's left?
There is no debate on GCC anymore. You may not like Al Gore, but the science is accurate and alarming. The "experts" are not debating IF GCC is happening, they are now ONLY debating if it can be reversed.
GS! Beautiful! A girl has to have standards! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:28:17 PM | What's left? I take it you mean left wing?
Facts are out
Honest discussion is out
Global warming is new religion...that's in.
Emotional voting is in
Self guilt is in
Self doubt is in
Science that fits need is in
Science that doesn't follow the party line is out
Ideas are out unless party approved
American culture is out
That should be enough for now...list is too long
As for the republicans they are democrat light... If you want GCC to be reversed just wait for the next natural warming/cooling cycle to start...it has never failed in billions of years. Hotter...colder...it's a natural cycle | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:48:31 PM | Sorry, I'll take my $100,000 education over your lack of knowledge any day!
Yes, I am Liberal. Get use to Liberals standing up for themselves better! I plan on making it standard fare from now on! I am tired of the ignorant bully types thinking that simply saying something the loudest will make them right!
Well, the VAST majority of educated people are on my side, not yours. So, enjoy your ignorance alone! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 7:48:15 PM | A whole lot of concepts are being confused here, in due part to the media hysteria surrounding global warming.
First of all:
1. Global warming only purports to a global climactic trend, not the cause. Whether we are, or are not, causing the rise in temperatures is another discussion. No scientist, even those amongst the "climate skeptics" group, question that global warming is occurring. It is. What they do question is if we humans have an impact - and if so, how much. The research in this area is still new. That's what those scientists are fighting is to end the misrepresentation of the issue by the UNFCC and their kin. That does not mean that come the advent of more insightful research in the future that they will not change their mind. They are fighting not the notion of climate change, but the notion of bad science.
2. Pollution is bad. Increasing our global footprint is bad. Minimizing both things can only lead to good. People too easily dismiss such concepts, somehow thinking that because they read one thing, that the Earth is disposable. It isn't. A tragedy of the commons. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 8:26:27 PM | I can't wait until the UN (Useless Nincompoops) get Big Al to do his next movie on the effects on the Martians and the Jupiterians(??) driving their SUVs.
I sure hope some movie studio has some left over styrophome so he can have more scenes of the ice caps breaking off. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 10:58:09 PM |
Why don't you go back and look at the graphs since the industrial revolution. From those, you will see a steady incline in world temperature. Especially in the 21st century. ;-)
I've seen the graphs. why don't you tell us the CYCLES instead of alluding to something that does not support your stance?
humans contribute only 3% of the overall pollution and yet it's humans that seem to be responsible for the cycles of warming and cooling? We've hade cycles of warming and cooling in the past 100 years. If humans were behind this to any significant degree, we wouldn't be having coolnig cycles like we are in now. Since 1999 the world temperatures have been cooling. Did you hear about Antarctica increasing?
This planet is going through natural cycles whether humans are part of it or not. Humans could reduce their impact, but since humans contribute just 3% it would not be prudent to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of wasteful government spending to decrease our impact, though it would be wise to decrease it anyway. I am not one to say be wasteful with anything we use. I think people fly too often for example...especially for business trips - and the consumer ends up paying for the waste.
Our oceans are sinks for carbon dioxide. there is no big scare with what humans are doing now, but as i stated just now, there's no point to not be concerned about our neglible impact. primarily, the major reasons to make energy consuming objects more efficient is for the cost of living and for preserving our resources.
We'd be doing a lot better by harvesting our forests to reduce lumber prices and so when forest fires happen, we won't be letting the trees go to waste and there's be LESS carbon dioxide produced from the wildfires if we were actually allowed to thin the forests and clear out dead wood.
Are you ready to be reasonable about this? | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/2/2008 2:08:02 PM | Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially about Global Warming. That's been verified by scientists misquoted by Wiki. Another case of anybody can edit.
Warming has been measured since the end of the last mini-iceage. That's a good thing. Less iceage=good.
The correlation between man and global warming has not been proven. It in fact can't be proven at this time. It can be inferred by proxy data but the disagreements about that are rife.
Saying there is a consensus about a theory that hasn't been proven means that consensus has been declared by someone not in the scientific community. Theories undergo extremely grueling testing before acceptance. Trying to stifle discussion is counter-productive. Calling people uneducated or stupid because they disagree with you is silly. I merely means they see things through different perspectives.
It's also extremely rude. This is a dating website, not Thanksgiving with the in-laws.
But it makes sense to burn less carbon. It saves money. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/2/2008 6:16:11 PM |
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially about Global Warming. That's been verified by scientists misquoted by Wiki. Another case of anybody can edit.
True, good wikipedia articles have citations at the bottom of the page, where you can find verifiable links. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/2/2008 11:31:08 PM |
The correlation between man and global warming has not been proven. It in fact can't be proven at this time. It can be inferred by proxy data but the disagreements about that are rife.
Saying there is a consensus about a theory that hasn't been proven means that consensus has been declared by someone not in the scientific community. Theories undergo extremely grueling testing before acceptance. Trying to stifle discussion is counter-productive. Calling people uneducated or stupid because they disagree with you is silly. I merely means they see things through different perspectives.
"Proof" is a mathematical tool, not a scientific one. There are many scientific theories that have yet to be proven. Gravity is one. The correlation between human activity and global warming has been explicitly endorsed by every national scientific organization with any link to the climate. That may not constitute 'proof', but it certainly demonstrates widespread acceptance WITHIN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNITY of the basic premise that human activity is warming the climate.
Whatever rife disagreements are to be found on that basic premise are almost entirely outside of the climate science community in places like these forums, bolstered by the handful of skeptics with bona fide climate science credentials whose minority theories have been unable to survive the peer review process.
There is indeed vigorous debate within the climate science community over the severity and imminence of the wide range of impacts anticipated as a result of climate change, made especially challenging because there is no evidence that the atmosphere has seen this rapid of an increase in greenhouse gasses in all of human history.
There is even more vigorous debate between policy makers over which strategies will most effectively minimize those impacts, yet the governments of every free country in the world, even the Bush administration, have also explicitly endorsed the connection between human activity and global warming.
They just can't agree on what to do about it.
You're absolutely right that name calling is counter productive, as is stifling discussion. But please understand that to dispute the connection between global warming and human activity today is much like someone thirty years ago disputing the connection between tobacco use and cancer. So much like it that some of the same scientists once employed by tobacco companies to dispute that link are now paid by fossil fuel companies to fuel the climate change skeptic cause.
This debate will rage on between those who support the results of the scientific method and those who aren't yet ready to accept those conclusions. Meanwhile, policy makers all over the planet are focusing their attention on how best to assure the best possible quality of life for future generations.
Now there's a pertinent discussion to have.
Dave | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/2/2008 11:47:32 PM | | the last time I saw 300 million being spent for nothing was when a scientist wanted funding to convince everybody humans came from monkeys. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:28:07 AM |
the last time I saw 300 million being spent for nothing was when a scientist wanted funding to convince everybody humans came from monkeys.
1.Evolution doesn't imply humans came from Monkeys.
2. Darwin didn't get a research grant.
3. Considering a huge segment of genetics is based on this theory, if the development of the theory of evolution cost 300 million, it would have been one of the greatest deals we ever got.
4. keep it on topic. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/3/2008 5:55:30 AM | http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3333
Carbon Taxes: Hand over your money! “We are saving you from yourself”
Income tax has been used to fight wars (its original intent) and since World War II primarily for social engineering. Most of the time taxes are used to punish - behave as we want or you will pay. This is probably a legacy of the moral authority governments adopted when religion lost its sway, although we pay much more than a tithe.
Governments specialize in the hypocrisy of sin taxes. Most object to these taxes, but as good citizens pay their share. Others find ways to circumvent the system and while we’re glad when they get caught there is a certain empathy. The anger rightly turns on authorities that fail to catch most of the miscreants. If you had positive taxes, that are rewards for changing behavior, more would change and people who try to cheat the system would receive the full and justifiable wrath of the people.
A major problem with moral taxes is they don’t accept human nature as it is. The punitive part is to create the behavior wanted, but it also precludes achieving the goal because they won’t then use a system that will work. For example it is considered equally sinful to offer an incentive to achieve a goal, especially if it is financial. Liberal governments consider money evil when you have it so believe they are doing you a favor by reducing the amount you have. Sin taxes are to save you from yourself.
Carbon taxes are the latest example of a punitive sin tax. They are imposed to punish those who break the rules of environmentalism; the new religion. They are designed to reduce the amount of CO2 humans put in the atmosphere because we’re told it is causing climate change. It is not and it is unlikely to reduce consumption. All they do is anger taxpayers and are justifiably labeled another tax grab.
While CO2 is not a problem the government believe it is and they have wasted billions convincing us it is, so they’re unlikely to admit error. However, as I have always said, it is economically prudent to reduce energy consumption.
I recently considered trading my car primarily to offset increased fuel costs. The more I investigated the more I began to reconsider.
I have a 1992 Toyota Camry (V6) that is in first class condition. It provides surprisingly good fuel consumption even though most of my driving is urban. My bookkeeping indicates I get about 10 liters per 100 km (28 mpg).
An Internet search suggests it is worth approximately $3,000 (Canadian). I considered a more fuel-efficient vehicle and decided the Toyota Yaris was suitable for my present needs. A model with reasonable features was priced at $17,970, so the difference to trade is $14,970. The Yaris fuel consumption is given as 7 liters per 100 km (40 mpg) city and 5.6 liters per 100 km (50 mpg) highway.
I can afford to trade my vehicle although my plan was to get at least 400,000 km (249,000 miles). It currently has 200,000 km (124,300 miles) and with my annual driving at about 10,000 km (6,200 miles) I could anticipate another 20 years. The question became how much fuel could I buy with the $14,970 difference. Of course, I have to consider what I am currently spending before I make a projection. I will be conservative and assume my driving will continue to be mostly urban. The difference in consumption between my Camry and the Yaris urban rate is 3 liters per 100 km (12 mpg). If I assume an average price of $3 per liter (approximately $12 per US gallon) over the next 10 years this means I could still buy 4,990 liters (1318 gallons) with my $14,970 not counting interest on the unspent portion of the money. It simply isn’t worth it, especially when I know CO2 isn’t causing climate change.
How many people would make the trade if there was a positive incentive? A great many because I am sure there are many who simply cannot afford it even though they would benefit from lower fuel costs.
A very simple way for any government to achieve the goal of reducing automobile fuel consumption, the single largest user according to the “ title="Institute for Energy Research">Institute for Energy Research, is to provide a tax write off on the price difference if you trade from an 8 cylinder to a 6 or to a 4. (I am aware there are some incentives in some countries but they are for the most part tokenism.)
I do not include the Hybrids. The Prius (some prefer pious) is mid value at $32,530, a ridiculous exploitation that can never justify the cost difference. Besides they are, according to CNW Marketing Research Inc., from “...initial concept to scrappage ...not that energy efficient.”
The argument that the government could not afford this program is not solid. First, if you want to solve energy and environmental problems there is a cost. Second, they will recoup the money from taxes on the increased sale of new more fuel-efficient cars. Third, it will create employment in the sagging automobile manufacturing sector. Four, unlike a carbon tax it does not exacerbate essentials like industrial or home heating costs - it is use specific.
It is time for governments to stop moralizing, stop punitive taxation, and face the reality of human nature. If they really think carbon production and energy consumption are problems then take some positive action that will work. We all like a bargain and will change our behavior readily if there is an incentive. We would also have no empathy for transgressors. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/3/2008 7:39:21 AM | Good to see you back wvwaterfall are you in the business of global warming activism yet? It's going to be very profitable.
It's really heartwarming to read that people are willing to stop Ad Hominem attacks and stop insulting those who disagree with them. Can't we respect each others intelligence? I have a scientific background and I look at the data and can come up with conclusions based on facts. I don't need someone to tell me what to think because I can think for myself.
I've looked at the data on both sides of this debate and it doesn't add up. The world is getting warmer. CO2 is increasing. But the correlation between the two is coincidental at best. Saturn is getting warmer, Mars is getting warmer and the Earth is getting warmer. Trying to keep the Earth changeless is ridiculous. The Oceans have been higher and they have been lower. The Earth has been Warmer and Colder.
The Age of Dinosaurs was much warmer. Who's to say that wasn't the perfect temperature and it's an anomoly that it's this cold now?
Then find out what happens when the glaciers melt and interrupt the heat transfer from the tropics to the poles. A new Ice Age starts. A period cycle of warming then cooling.
I realize that some people can't think independently and need to rely on 'experts'. Then they must argue about the quality of your experts vs theirs. It's not a discussion when you don't use your own arguments you just paraphrase others, then claim to be more intelligent.
What I think is the Global Warming is over-hyped and is seriously going to hurt those who are living in poverty. A new tax just for living is going to be built in to everything we buy, but not the developing countries. Just the foolish guilt ridden western democracies. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/3/2008 9:13:08 PM | NASA has documented recently that the hottest years in the last century were not recent but during the dust bowl - Surprise no SUV's back then - Since the Republican party is no more, I'm gonna become an Anarchist and just document how wrong all those wacko liberals with their $100,000 educations can be
Notice how the wacko ecos have stopped calling it Global Warming and now just call it Climate Change - make no mistake - they including B Hussein Obama want the UN to start taxing us based on our GNP - I intend to fight it all the way - let's take back this country | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 3:49:34 AM | My Grandfather once told me that sometimes common sense leaves the room and thats when the lunatics take over. This paradise in which we all live is being ravaged by pollution and by the striping away of every natural resouce we can possible get our hands too. Rainforests which have lived for centuries and provided us with the very air we breath are being lost at the rate of area size of wales and the oceans are being filled with effluent and sewage. The increases in asthma in children has risen beyong imagination because of the toxins we pump into the air from our vehicles and industries.
What does it matter if Geenhouses gasses, climate change, Global warming or anything else is 'real' or not. We are turning the world into a barren wasteland and a toilet and if we don't stop, the planet going to stop feeding us. Then we will all be dead and the planet will heal itself within a few years and return to be the paradise we were all meant to live in. It's just we won't be there to enjoy it anymore. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 4:10:58 AM | There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..."
Finally some one has come forward and spoken sense. The whole earth has been heating up and cooling down for thousands of years.
On the BBC ( March 27 2007 ) they show a documentary on this. After taking Ice Samples from the North Pole dating back to The Medieval period. Warming kicked in about 950, due to sun spot activity. Following this, by the Little Ice Age beginning about 1300. The Little Ice Age ended in about 1860. Period, ( In London the River Thames froze over, never done so since )
Lucky you we not driving a car in 1860 or else you would have been taxed for the earth cooling. Stupid Comment ? The British government taxed peoples windows in houses on their size. Wake up the Tax collectors about ! Why are so many people like sheep and run to & fro with the wind? Look at the Facts. Take care. I put all my paper and carboard in to recycle. All waste food goes in a compost. If I can make sure I buy the min I can in the way of plastic, and I run my Car on Propane. No smell & no fumes what-so ever,, NO CARBON, and a solar panel in the Garden. What have you done ? Put your money where your mouth is ! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 5:02:08 AM | http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
A great webpage that breaks down the rediculous arguments against global warming by catagory, and number of appearances.
So lets take a look at the consensus.
3 There is no consensus 6.2%
The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific consensus.
Scientist roll call
Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Academies of Science from 19 countries
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 (United States of America)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature
However, it's more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...
Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus
That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...
Judge the science, not the person
Ultimately what matters is what a person says, not who says it (that's not to say there's people I respect and pay attention to but I don't automatically agree with everything they might say). In the global warming debate, there are smart people on both sides subscribing to polar opposite views - intelligence does not always equate to correctness. This is a debate where people often form a view then muster up the arguments (valid or not) to back up their preconception. So note the credentials but ultimately, make your judgements based on the scientific arguments.
NASA has documented recently that the hottest years in the last century were not recent but during the dust bowl - Surprise no SUV's back then - Since the Republican party is no more, I'm gonna become an Anarchist and just document how wrong all those wacko liberals with their $100,000 educations can be
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
16 1934 - hottest year on record 2.6%
NASA's "Y2K" glitch
Contrary to many reports, the error wasn't a Y2K bug but a mixup over data corrections with the NOAA. NASA GISS obtain much of their temperature data from the NOAA who adjust the data to filter out primarily time-of-observation bias (although their corrections also include inhomogeneities and urban warming - more on NOAA adjustments). From January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data.
USA temperature versus global temperature trends
What is often overlooked is the temperature adjustments only applied to temperatures in 48 U.S. states. As the USA comprises only 2% of the globe, this has had infinitesimal effect on global trends.
The graph below (courtesy of Open Mind) compares the global temperature trend from before and after adjustments. Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.
I've looked at the data on both sides of this debate and it doesn't add up. The world is getting warmer. CO2 is increasing. But the correlation between the two is coincidental at best. Saturn is getting warmer, Mars is getting warmer and the Earth is getting warmer. Trying to keep the Earth changeless is ridiculous. The Oceans have been higher and they have been lower. The Earth has been Warmer and Colder.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
ect. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 7:21:47 AM | Heating in the solar system is widespread:
New storm on Jupiter hints at climate change
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
And attacks on credible scientist continue.
"To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."
-- NASA Administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, May 30, 2007 interview
NASA chief silenced http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2271ac23-6895-4789-9da0-6b28968b8d15
The truth is for every credible scientist you put forth I can counter with an equally credible scientist, who doesn't stoop to hysterical attacks on intelligence or integrity. Global warming is going to be a big business and it really isn't going to accomplish a thing.
But get in on the ground floor with David Mayer de Rothschild of the British wing of the Rothschild banking family. Your going to make a killing.
The Academy chose to honor one Professor Eric R. Pianka, an eminent ecologist who studies desert ecologies, with its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award. Professor Pianka used the occasion to champion the notion, apparently without sanction of the Academy, that the Earth can only be saved if ninety percent of the human beings alive today are purged form the planet. He championed airborne Ebola as the most efficient virus to accomplish this. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
