TranceAddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate Pages: 1 [2] 3  UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warm (pg. 2) View this Thread in Original format malek 2008 was a cool year, the coolest since 2000... Be prepared for Global cooling as we enter a cool sun cycle. Q5echo quote: Originally posted by Renegade First of all, being a "scientist" (which, I presume, includes everyone with a science degree) does not in itself give you any privilaged insight into the realities of global warming. There are, for instance, "scientists" out there who believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that autism is caused by childhood vaccinations. Their qualifications should have no bearing on how seriously we take their claims, which should live and die by the evidence presented, not by specious claims to authority. let's make one thing clear here, climate sceptics are no different in their appeal to authority than climate alarmists. are you saying you don't appeal to any authority in your arguments for changing how we treat CO2? quote: Second of all, even if we were to allow the argument from authority as a legitimate one in this case, most of the scientists who have signed this letter are not even close to be being authorities on the subject. Just browsing through the list of signatories (which starts on page 218 here), the first name on the list is a "social scientist", the second name is a physicist, the third name is a biosystems engineer, the fourth and fifth names are both physicists, the seventh name is a biologist, the eighth name is a geographer, the ninth name is a "remote sensing scientist"... do I really need to continue? These are scientific disciplines with - at best - tangential relevence to the discipline of climatology. They have presumably done little applied research in the field of global climate change, so what evidence can they possibly bring to the table in support of their claims? What papers on the subject have they published in a journal of scientific review? How many of these papers have passed muster with those scientists most intimately involved with the subject? I think we all know the answer to those questions (none). yes you should continue because the eight names you just called out are the very first eight at the top of an ALPHABETICAL list of 650. are we to assume you didn't know that or are you deliberately obfuscating the list? people immediately following those eight: Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Australia William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S. Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands 221 Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada 222 John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada ...but you get the point, right? hardly think you are in any more in a position questioning any of these people and their scientific and intelectual integrity regarding global climate and/or it's affect on society as i am questioning climate alarmists. the inherent nature of climatology does not lend any one school of scientific thought absolute scientific authority on it's predictions, past or present. it is as complex as the fastest super-computed models could allow in nature and evidently more complex considering the most recent climate models remain indeterminate. i stopped cutting and pasting scientist's credentials, PHD's and directors of climate intitutions and organizations and Universty Dept. heads from around the world on p.222. anyone can else can look at the remaining 600 or so >LINK< not sure why you would want to argue the lack of credentials when the credentials are not only right in front of you but devastatingly more qualified to have an objective opinion than someone who just appeals to contradicting authority (you). it begs the question - are we now dealing with a new dogma? you know, the kind you mock at the drop of a hat? - can no one but alarmists be trusted in their assertions about the world the rest of us live in? quote: Thirdly, even if we were to presume that each of these 650 signatories were authorities on the subject and could bring some credible evidence to the table in support of their claims, 650 - in a global context - is a vanishingly small number. The AGU, for instance, has over 50,000 accredited members, all trained in the Earth sciences that are relevent to the discussion of climate change. Even if the 650 signatories were reliable authorities, they would constitute barely 1% of the reliable authorities who (nominally at least, by virtue of their membership in the AGU) believe the exact opposite. A quick search of that document tells me that only 4 of those 650 are noted as being members of the AGU. Considering that the AGU is comprised of individuals who are trained in the Earth sciences relevent to climate change (and should therefore be the first body of scientists that one should canvass on this issue) the complete lack of apparent dissent concerning the anthropic origins of climate change within this body is telling. let me get some more facts straight for you and everyone here about AGU. the AGU (the AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION. note. a group of GEOPHYSICISTS) does, in fact, have 50,000 members. but lets note here those members can include just about anyone who can fill in an email request. hell, my 16 yr. cousin could join and he's already dropped out of high school, so long he keeps up on his dues. to be a voting member you just have to be "professionally engaged in or associated with the Earth and space sciences." whoopty frikken doo, right? are you still going to argue credentials when your appeals to authority are predicated on such vague membership qualifications and associations? gimme a break dude. here are the current AGU policy makers - the people, for an argument's sake at least, matter - the people you would think base their decisions from superior and senior positions of scientific authority. it's an eclectic bunch but conspicuous nonetheless >LINK< i only count 41 not including the 6 overall Union officer positions. quite a different authority to appeal to when you when you eliminate the 49,000 or so like-minded others that maybe just subscribe to their newsletters. they're not completely unqualified alarmist at all. i'm not saying they're unqualified. a few have as impressive credentials as the 650 sceptics previously listed but are we really going to believe you making the case that these 50 odd alarmists are more "credible" or at least, more "relevant" than those 650 sceptics? no, and surely not on raw numbers. that would be stupid. quote: Finally, this petition appears to have been organised by James Inhofe, whose baseless and irrational objections to anthropogenic climate change are extremely well-known. Without wishing to over-generalise, his efforts are sadly typical of Republican attempts to politicise science during the past 8 years of the Bush administration. Sadly for Inhofe and those who take him seriously, science doesn't lend itself to the partisan rhetoric of politics: you can't win the debate just by having the majority on your side (especially ironic given that Inhofe doesn't even have a fraction of that to begin with). Science is dependent on research and evidence, and any dissenting opinions without that on their side are doomed to be left out in the cold. My advice to climate-change skeptics is simple: find the evidence to support your position, collate that evidence into a paper that meets universal scientific standards, submit that paper to an accredited journal of scientific review and be ready to have convincing answers to the objections that other qualified scientists are sure to raise. The fact that the skeptics can hardly get past the first stage speaks volumes. In this context, I'm sure you can appreciate why I (or anyone else with sympathies for the scientific method) consider the submission of 650 signatures to the US senate to mean absolutely all. it's admittedly long (218 pages) but the report is right >HERE< and it rebutts everything you just said except the predictable demonizing of Inhofe (which i don't really care about him or otherwise. i consider it noise from you. a distraction) Q5echo quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Inhofe is worse than any ing creationist twit I've ever seen. It would behoove you to dispense of literally every word he spews when it comes to climatology. One of the studies he cites, well surprise surprise, the little turd quote mines from the author. It's well worth reading the author's reply: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...ure-since-1850/ And Renegade makes a very valid point about the scientists - of what authority are they, and are we going to label every ing scientist as an "expert" in any given field of research, despite the fact that they may have little to no credentials in that field of research in question?: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...cientists_e.php http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...mpared.php#more What a joke. You can read more on this silly document here: http://www.desmogblog.com/senator-j...-warming-screed http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...e-fooled-again/ I had said long ago that this argument was shaping up into a creationist-evolution argument. It's pathetic yet predictable to see how so many wingers cling to the wrong side of both issues that completely counter what science research demonstrates over and over. In fact, unfortunately you're ing worse than the dip creationists: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...than_the_di.php You share all the same things in common with creationists - blatant dishonesty, quote mining, conclusions created on belief and agenda and then cherry-picking evidence to support those unsupported conclusions, disdain for scientific methodology, and on and on. I gave creationists the benefit of the doubt before I knew better about them, just as I gave climate skeptics the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to make sure they were perhaps being naive - hell I even entertained their ideas and conclusions and examined their so-called evidence with an open-mind. But just as the creationist screeds, the climate skeptics are nothing but cherry-picking, quote-mining, dishonest ing liars. Inhofe's a little turd, dip creationists, everything that sceptics believe is a lie, blah blah blah, just stop this isn't about religion or religious people (although, the argument being made here in this thread points directly to those dogmatic parallels invested in anthropogenic group-think) it's about the fundamental debate and questioning the "consensus". it's the notion that if there is a "consensus" then that gives equity to legislators making laws governing how we live. vast, sweeping laws. potentially financially devastating laws. laws potentially damaging to individual liberties. laws we potentially don't need more of ect, ect. why you insist with the "God sucks" meme is pointless. Renegade quote: Originally posted by Q5echo let's make one thing clear here, climate sceptics are no different in their appeal to authority than climate alarmists. are you saying you don't appeal to any authority in your arguments for changing how we treat CO2? To an extent, I agree: neither you or I are qualified to make informed pronouncements on the issue, so at times we're going to necessarily need to defer to the opinion of experts. The fact that the overwhelming majority of published authors on the subject (which means that a certain quality of evidence must be reached - the review process in scientific journals is quite rigorous) have reached a broad concensus on the issue should be telling us something. quote: yes you should continue because the eight names you just called out are the very first eight at the top of an ALPHABETICAL list of 650. are we to assume you didn't know that or are you deliberately obfuscating the list? My point was that many (if not most) of the people on that list are trained in fields that are not related to the science of climate change. You wouldn't ask an engineer for his opinion on medical issues, so why would you ask an engineer for his opinion on climate-change issues? quote: ...but you get the point, right? hardly think you are in any more in a position questioning any of these people and their scientific and intelectual integrity regarding global climate and/or it's affect on society as i am questioning climate alarmists. I'm not questioning their intellectual integrity (I'm sure they're all quite good scientists in their own right) I'm simply saying that having training in one scientific discipline does not automatically qualify you to give an informed opinion on the prevailing opinion within a completely unrelated scientific discipline. To that extent, the list of names compiled here by Inhofe is - by itself - meaningless. quote: the inherent nature of climatology does not lend any one school of scientific thought absolute scientific authority on it's predictions, past or present. True, but only to the extent that "absolute scientific authority" doesn't exist in the first place. It still takes a certain type of arrogance for the unqualified signatories to this petition to imagine that they could have a depth of insight on the issue equal to those who have studied and published in the field of climatology for decades. quote: it is as complex as the fastest super-computed models could allow in nature and evidently more complex considering the most recent climate models remain indeterminate. That the issue is complex only lends more credence to the idea that one should be intimately involved with the discpline over a long period of time before one can be said to be qualified to pass any worthwhile opinions on the issue. quote: not sure why you would want to argue the lack of credentials when the credentials are not only right in front of you but devastatingly more qualified to have an objective opinion than someone who just appeals to contradicting authority (you). I'm just playing your game. In lieu of any real evidence, you're offering a petition of 650 scientists as support for the claims you're making (here and in other threads). My point is that even if you want to substitute evidence for arguments from authority, then you still lose: the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the realities of anthropogenic climate change. You can point to the 650, I can point to the 50,000 in the AGU or the thousands involved in the IPCC. I can point to the hundreds (probably more like thousands) of papers published in scientific journals every year which offer support for anthropogenic global warming - can you even produce one(!) paper in such a journal which rejects anthropogenic climate change? quote: it begs the question - are we now dealing with a new dogma? you know, the kind you mock at the drop of a hat? - can no one but alarmists be trusted in their assertions about the world the rest of us live in? Again, this is the problem when you try to reduce the scientific method to the language of politics. That neat division you're painting between "alarmists" holding onto some preconceived dogma on the one side and the deniers holding onto some preconceived dogma on the other side really isn't representative of reality. I know you've just chided Opus for introducing arguments about creationism into the debate, but the method really is the same: when the debate cannot be won, try to force a stalemate. You don't need to be an "alarmist" to accept the realities of global warming. Even the most vociferous climate-change skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, now (somewhat) accepts the effect of human activity on global climate: he just argues that it's not cost effective to do anything about it. Trying to pretend that there is a neat little dichotemy of views here - each with an equal, inherent possibility of being correct - is to simply ignore the overwhelming imbalance of the evidence at hand. This isn't an argument about tax-rates or school-vouchers. This isn't an argument where you pick a side based on some personal, political bias because it happens to fit in neatly with your world-view: this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue for which evidence is readily at hand and for which the evidence is completely unambiguous. To deny anthropgenic climate-change is to deny reality as we can best understand it. quote: let me get some more facts straight for you and everyone here about AGU... [...] ...it's an eclectic bunch Uh-huh. My reason for introducing the AGU into the discussion was to demonstrate to you the futility of offering 650 names as evidence of anything. That a member of the AGU must pay dues is still apparently a greater qualifying hurdle than any of those required to become a member of the 650. quote: i only count 41 not including the 6 overall Union officer positions. quite a different authority to appeal to when you when you eliminate the 49,000 or so like-minded others that maybe just subscribe to their newsletters. Risable, considering that I could still permit you to dismiss the value of the opinion of "49,000" members of the AGU and still be left with a number far greater than the 650 you're offering. quote: they're not completely unqualified alarmist at all. i'm not saying they're unqualified. a few have as impressive credentials as the 650 sceptics previously listed but are we really going to believe you making the case that these 50 odd alarmists are more "credible" or at least, more "relevant" than those 650 sceptics? no, and surely not on raw numbers. that would be stupid. Of course, hence my qualification of "even if we were to allow the argument from authority as a legitimate one in this case...". You're the one who started a thread apparently championing the importance of the views held by 650 self-selecting scientists, not me. quote: it's admittedly long (218 pages) but the report is right >HERE< and it rebutts everything you just said except the predictable demonizing of Inhofe (which i don't really care about him or otherwise. i consider it noise from you. a distraction) I'm not going to read a 218 page Senate report for fun. Summarise the evidence for me (or at least tell me where the most convincing evidence is within those 218 pages) and I'd be happy to go from there. MisterOpus1 quote: Originally posted by Q5echo Inhofe's a little turd, dip creationists, everything that sceptics believe is a lie, blah blah blah, just stop I fully stand by what I said. And if you took the time to read the links I posted above regarding Inhofe, you might understand my sentiments better. quote: this isn't about religion or religious people (although, the argument being made here in this thread points directly to those dogmatic parallels invested in anthropogenic group-think) I wasn't implying that it was - rather, I was stating that the rationales and motivations were similar to that of creationists: quote: You share all the same things in common with creationists - blatant dishonesty, quote mining, conclusions created on belief and agenda and then cherry-picking evidence to support those unsupported conclusions, disdain for scientific methodology, and on and on quote: it's about the fundamental debate and questioning the "consensus". You mean the consensus containing actual experts in their given field of climate research versus a handful of dissenters, many whom are anything but qualified in the field of climate research? Gosh, tough decision on that one. Not to mention some of those put on the "up to 650" list concocted by Inhofe have asked their names to be removed because they fully disagree with the message Inhofe is creating, and some whom have been deliberately quote mined (i.e. taken completely out of context like this article Inhofe used: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...ure-since-1850/ Again I would challenge you to read the posts I gave above and tell me if you stand by the deliberate distortions Inhofe is creating. quote: it's the notion that if there is a "consensus" then that gives equity to legislators making laws governing how we live. vast, sweeping laws. potentially financially devastating laws. laws potentially damaging to individual liberties. laws we potentially don't need more of ect, ect. I understand your point, but as Renegade eloquently discusses with you, this issue is not and should not be a political one - at least to the ridiculous levels Inhofe is making it. I understand that certain decisions are made about political policy that have an effect on all of us, those decisions that are made based on this demonic "consensus" you speak of. But there is a reason why it is a consensus, a very overwhelming majority of one at that, one created out of the leading researchers in the field of science in question, and it has nothing to do with tree-hugging, Greenpeace hippy libruls who want us to hold hands and sing "Give Peace a Chance" in our hemp-made cloths. It does, however, have everything to do with what the current research gives us, and what our best minds in this field of research can best conclude based on the current data in question, nothing more. And for someone like Inhofe and the numerous climate-denying blogs to come around and deliberately distort the data, distort and quote mine the words from the leading scientists, and draw up a politically-motivated boogyman picture of a tree-hugging librul of those who disagree with their obvious agenda is ing obvious and annoying as hell. And it has all the same markings of those creationists who have deliberately distorted, obfuscated, and quote mined the leading evolutionary researchers. Hence my comparison. quote: why you insist with the "God sucks" meme is pointless. I didn't. That was your strawman you created from my argument. Q5echo quote: Originally posted by Renegade The fact that the overwhelming majority of published authors on the subject (which means that a certain quality of evidence must be reached - the review process in scientific journals is quite rigorous) have reached a broad concensus on the issue should be telling us something. My point was that many (if not most) of the people on that list are trained in fields that are not related to the science of climate change. I'm simply saying that having training in one scientific discipline does not automatically qualify you to give an informed opinion on the prevailing opinion within a completely unrelated scientific discipline. To that extent, the list of names compiled here by Inhofe is - by itself - meaningless. but thats exactly the issue here, there is no concensus. the issue has become that this "broad consensus" you claim is actually the product of the very politicizing that you're accusing the other side of doing. quote: December 13, 2007 His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General, United Nations New York, NY United States of America Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The Summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: -Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. -The average rate of warming of 0.1 - 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. -Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled’, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the 'precautionary principle' because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. The current UN focus on "fighting climate change", as illustrated in the November 27th UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems. Yours faithfully, Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada Franco Battaglia, PhD, Professor of Environmental Chemistry, University of Modena, Italy Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Australia William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S. Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences Renato Angelo Ricci, PhD, Honorary President of the Italian Physics Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Padova, Italy Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. Walter Starck, PhD (marine science), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries with 1000 dives from northern Cape York to the Capricorn group), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy. i'm sorry but these signatories are not small potatoes in the climate science world by any stretch quote: True, but only to the extent that "absolute scientific authority" doesn't exist in the first place. sure it does when they start telling me how to live "or else" quote: You don't need to be an "alarmist" to accept the realities of global warming. no, to be an alarmist you have to ignore the growing piles of data pointing to things other than anthropogenic global warming to answer the questions about climate change and man's effect on it. furthermore, alarmist use the data that has been driven by this false consensus to scare people into accepting vast, sweeping, society changing laws that otherwise would be balked at given a non-hysteria driven environment funny you shopuld mention Bjorn Lomborg because thats exactly what he was referring to when talking about Al Gore and making laws based on "unsettled science". quote: This isn't an argument where you pick a side based on some personal, political bias because it happens to fit in neatly with your world-view: this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue for which evidence is readily at hand and for which the evidence is completely unambiguous. i'm not saying it's inherently a partisaned issue, i'm saying it becomes one when you look to impose your world-view on me through law...based on unsettled scientific hysteria. and if it were "completely unambiguous" like you say then the rest of us that don't want your laws and want to further explore the un-answered questions will now become the Bertrand Russell's and the John Dewey's of the climate establishment because far be it from us to accept a "reality" illustrated by men than to "deny" it. quote: Uh-huh. My reason for introducing the AGU into the discussion was to demonstrate to you the futility of offering 650 names as evidence of anything. That a member of the AGU must pay dues is still apparently a greater qualifying hurdle than any of those required to become a member of the 650. riiiight. could have swore you were more appealing to their authority since you quoted their policy position as "more relevant" and "fairly unambiguous" as included "having over 50,000 accredited members, all trained in the Earth sciences" than just teaching me a lesson in futility, but...whatever. (and they're not all "accredited" btw. i think i made that clear) quote: I'm not going to read a 218 page Senate report for fun. Summarise the evidence for me (or at least tell me where the most convincing evidence is within those 218 pages) and I'd be happy to go from there. i'll let MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former UN IPCC lead author and reviewer and an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences summarize my argument against concensus with the following: quote: April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week. A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing. In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface. Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions. Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy. Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Ni o and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries. Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable. Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate. Q5echo quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Again I would challenge you to read the posts I gave above and tell me if you stand by the deliberate distortions Inhofe is creating. sorry man you're going to have to do better than linking to three angry blog post by this guy, a computer science major, on the same subject. and this guy another angry blogger/grad student that "obtained his bachelor's degree in marine biology from UCLA. He is also an avid follower of politics and current events and spends most of his spare time reading blogs or watching Comedy Central." Renegade quote: Originally posted by Q5echo but thats exactly the issue here, there is no concensus. the issue has become that this "broad consensus" you claim is actually the product of the very politicizing that you're accusing the other side of doing. Bollocks. Find me one scientific organisation of repute which denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change - one. (After that you can address my earlier challenge to find one paper published in an accredited scientific journal which reaches the same conclusion.) If that doesn't constitute a consensus, I don't know what does. quote: sure it does when they start telling me how to live "or else" No scientific body is telling anyone how to live, they're merely saying that if emissions are not cut fairly drastically that global climate patterns are going to be irreperably changed and that this eventuality carries a whole host of adverse consequences. When a doctor tells you that you're going to have a heart-attack if you don't start eating properly, you don't tell him to go himself and whinge about how he's "telling you how to live", you presume that he knows what he's talking about, acknowledge the reality of the situation and (hopefully) take steps to avoid such an outcome. Stop framing this in terms of some over-arching moral / political debate between two sides who just happen to hold two different (yet equally meritorious) world-views: that really isn't an accurate representation of the situation. One side has reality on their side, the other doesn't. That's the only dichotemy that matters here. quote: no, to be an alarmist you have to ignore the growing piles of data pointing to things other than anthropogenic global warming to answer the questions about climate change and man's effect on it. What data? I presume that it's been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal? If so, could you please post it here without delay? If it turns out that anthropogenic climate change is bunk and we can go on growing our economies in perpetuity without any concern for the environment, then believe me: there'll be no-one happier than me. Based on the available evidence, that just simply isn't a prudent (much less reasonable) conclusion to make though. quote: furthermore, alarmist use the data that has been driven by this false consensus to scare people into accepting vast, sweeping, society changing laws that otherwise would be balked at given a non-hysteria driven environment Haha, yes, it's all just a massive conspiracy, carried out by the green-lobbies in conjunction with big-science to usher in a new world order comprised of "vast, sweeping, society changing laws"... you don't really believe what you're posting, do you? quote: funny you shopuld mention Bjorn Lomborg because thats exactly what he was referring to when talking about Al Gore and making laws based on "unsettled science". Counter-point: Bjorn Lomborg is full of . quote: i'm not saying it's inherently a partisaned issue, i'm saying it becomes one when you look to impose your world-view on me through law...based on unsettled scientific hysteria. First of all the science (as I have already said and -apparently - will need to continue saying) isn't "unsettled". Secondly, I am trying to do no such thing: what "laws" do you think that my green buddies and I are trying to impose that will drastically affect your life in any way? quote: i'll let MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former UN IPCC lead author and reviewer and an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences summarize my argument against concensus with the following: Oh come on, even he concedes as "almost certainly true" that "[t]here has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level". Are you arguing against anthropogenic climate change or just that it's not worth our while to do anything about it? Magnetonium Whoa, whoa ... I'll be quite frank with everyone - I dont think that current climate change is 100% nature-driven. What average people like me, and scientists like Abdussamatov are saying is that climate change isn't 100% driven by humans. Yes, there is human footprint on the planet. Its a no-brainer that 6.7 billion people are causing some effect on the planet. I personally look at that effect as destructive to the environment foremost than climate change. I believe that ecological, environmental destruction of the life systems on the planet is the main problem. Pollution, release of carcinogens, toxins, hormones, pharmaceuticals, and so on. I believe that the reason why people all of a sudden started caring about the dam global warming has little to do with people wanting to stop the destruction of the environment - like how many people are going to give up goods and livestyles which are products of such destructive processes as cutting down the world's rainforests, release of pollution, etc. The real reason people care about "global warming" and how politicians like Al Gore want to institute "changes" is because they want to maintain the current system by concentrating only on factors which, for example in this case, relate to CO2 emissions. Because they fear that greenhouse gases have the potential to undermine the system and the current way of life of many people. Governments especially fear climate change because they dont want to lose control. They already have many people under therapy and control through media, entertainment, slave labour-built goods, etc. Campaign to battle climate change is not only futile, but its morally wrong and incomplete. Its hard to imagine how its possible to change the current increases in C02 levels without pissing off many people and drastically changing lifestyles. It will take a long time, and already I can see how current methods - carbon credits - are failing miserably. So far all I see is money made, but little progress. The planet will respond in its own way to this emergency. And it most likely will be otherwise from what is expected. Very little is considered or thought of other factors, like the sun. Very little is known or understood of how the nature works to balance the climate and temperature. If you pull off most cars from the road and shut down the polluting industries, that won't change things much, believe me. EDIT: For example, a simple observation shows that drought and climate change in sub-Saharan Africa can be explained simply through deforestation. Not CO2 emissions. josh4 quote: Originally posted by Renegade When a doctor tells you that you're going to have a heart-attack if you don't start eating properly, you don't tell him to go himself and whinge about how he's "telling you how to live", you presume that he knows what he's talking about, acknowledge the reality of the situation and (hopefully) take steps to avoid such an outcome. Actually I wouldn't put that past the PDD climate change conspiracy crew. I wouldn't be half surprised if Q punched the doctor. MisterOpus1 quote: Originally posted by Q5echo sorry man you're going to have to do better than linking to three angry blog post by this guy, a computer science major, on the same subject. and this guy another angry blogger/grad student that "obtained his bachelor's degree in marine biology from UCLA. He is also an avid follower of politics and current events and spends most of his spare time reading blogs or watching Comedy Central." Ahh yes, thank you for reminding me of yet another characteristic that GW deniers seemingly share with creationists – ignore any information that counters any claim they make completely. You really do make a perfect creationist, Q. Now in regards to the first guy you attacked via ad hominem, let’s take a look at what he presents. He links to an article of one of the guys on you and Inhofe’s favorite lists that’s both funny and sad to read: http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/ Now I know you won’t read it Q., so that’s just for everyone else. Another link that angry computer science guy links to takes a little closer look at your lovely list and the arguments presented. Since I know you won’t read the links, allow me to print it here for you: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...e-fooled-again/ quote: SEA LEVELS ARE STILL RISING MORE THAN 50% FASTER NOW THAN PRE-1990 On what does Inhofe’s office base the “Sea Levels Fail to Rise” claim? Nothing more than a single blog post by a former TV meteorologist, Anthony Watts, who runs a denial website. That post claims “We’ve been waiting for the UC [Univesity of Colorado] web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story.” [img] http://sealevel.colorado.edu/curren...b_global_sm.jpg[/img] Does it look to you like the recent data shows that the rate of sea level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests? If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked. In particular, look at the most recent data points at the upper right. They are precisely on the long-term trend. For an even clearer picture without the fluctuations that are driven by short-term temperature changes (i.e. last winter was cold), go to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s key indicator page for sea level rise (click here). Role your mouse over the final data point in the upper right from August 2008. Again, it is almost precisely on the long-term trend. Yet Inhofe’s office looks at the data and sees “Sea Levels Fail to Rise?” Who are you going to believe, traditional media — Inhofe, or your own lying eyes? In fact, JPL has two nice side-by-side graphs of sea level rise that show the rate of sea level rise since 1993 has consistently been about 70% higher than pre-1993 — a far bigger jump than the climate models had projected: [/img] http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/images/SeaLevelGraphic1.jpg[/img] The sea level rise data is in fact a reason to be more worried today about the pace and scale of global warming, not less. You see, Q., that’s why I don’t trust deniers and dips like Inhofe spreading their bologna. Inhofe quoting one source, a ing meteorologist blogger is bad enough, but further examination of the data itself should be completely embarrassing to Inhofe, you, and any denier. That is if any of you actually had any shame. quote: THE SUN PLAYS ONLY A SMALL ROLL IN RECENT WARMING No matter how many studies debunk the myth that the sun is a dominant cause of recent warming, the deniers just can’t let go. Inhofe’s office shouts “Study: Half of warming due to Sun!” On what basis? Again, a blog post by a denier — this time one who selectively quotes from a new Geophysical Research Letters study (subs. req’d). The blog and Inhofe’s office write: quote: … they conclude that “Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.” First, let’s give the full quote from the GRL study: quote: However, during the industrial period (1850-2000) solar forcing became less important and only the CO2 concentrations show a significant correlation with the temperature record. Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta and West, 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun. (Just in case you’re wondering, Q., that’s called quote mining – deliberately choosing to leave out the full quote in context to obfuscate the point or say something completely different than what the author’s originally suggest. Inhofe has done this a number of times, and I’ll show you another time later. ) quote: Oops. The study shows that in the industrial period, it is carbon dioxide, not solar forcing, that is significantly correlated with the temperature record. The authors were not saying that their study found half the warming in the last century can be explained by the sun. It was saying their study found that only CO2 had a significant correlation, that the sun was not significantly correlated to temperature, and that the sun was clearly under half the contribution. Second, Scarfetta and West’s 2007 paper has been thoroughly debunked by RealClimate here, which notes, “S&W make a number of unjustified assumptions and sweeping statements which turns it into a mere speculation. In a way, the conclusions are already given when S&W assume that the sun is the predominant cause from the outset.” Third, even the very few analyses that conclude the sun was a significant contributor in the past century find that the sun’s impact relative to carbon dioxide has been shrinking (since, of course, greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations have been soaring). So, a statement that up to about 50% of the warming in the last hundred years can be explained by the sun turns into at most 25% to 35% of the warming since 1980 can be explained by the sun in Scarfetta and West’s 2006 paper, which, in any case, was debunked by RealClimate here. Fourth, there is a large literature on this subject which makes clear the sun’s contribution to the accelerated warming of the last few decades is minimal. Since the myth won’t die, I will repeat some of them here. The Naval Research Laboratory and NASA reported in September that, “if anything,” the sun contributed “a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years.” The study, “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006,” found: quote: According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years. A major 2007 study concluded: quote: Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures. http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/medi...spa20071880.pdf More studies can be found on the excellent debunking website, Skeptical Science: • Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.” • Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.” • Usoskin 2005 conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” • Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found “most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases.” • Solanki 2003 concludes “the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970.” • Lean 1999 concludes “it is unlikely that Sun-climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970″. • Waple 1999 finds “little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend.” • Frolich 1998 concludes “solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade.” This gets fun – the author examines the list of “scientists” of Inhofe’s a bit more closely: quote: FORGET PADDED, LAUGHABLE LISTS: SCIENCE, NOT SCIENTISTS, TELLS US HUMANS ARE WARMING THE PLANET DANGEROUSLY Inhofe’s Office claims “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” Yet the vast majority of those names are simply repeated from a 2007 list that was widely debunked, see Inhofe recycles unscientific attacks on global warming” and here and here and here. Let me repeat what I wrote at the time. “Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable.” For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science? I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously. Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list. Why? Because he apparently told CNN and the Washington Post: quote: These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don’t account for anything like the technological progress we’re going to experience…. None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years…. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen. And people say I’m a techno-optimist. So Kurzweil actually believes in climate science — rather than the reverse, as Inhofe claims — but thinks catastrophic global warming won’t happen because of a techno-fix that stops emissions. If wishes were horses … everyone would get trampled to death. In the real world, energy breakthroughs are very rare, as we’ve seen, and it’s even rarer when they make a difference in under several decades. Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe’s list: quote: CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that there is a “consensus” about mankind’s role in global warming. Wow, a TV weatherman expressed skepticism. If only the IPCC had been told of this in time, they could have scrapped their entire report. Seriously, Wikipedia says “Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University.” I guess Inhofe has a pretty low bar for “prominent scientists” — but then again he once had science fiction writer Michael Crichton testify at a hearing on climate science. I don’t mean to single out Baskerville. Inhofe has a lot of meteorologists on his list, including Weather Channel Founder John Coleman. I have previously explained why Coleman doesn’t know what he is talking about on climate, and why meteorologists in general have no inherent credibility on climatology. (http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/...limate-experts/). In any case, they obviously are NOT prominent scientists. hen we have people like French geomagnetism (!) scientist Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist Louis Le Mouël, geophysicist Claude Allègre, geomagnetism (!!) scientist Frederic Fluteau, geomagnetism (!!!) scientist Yves Gallet, and scientist Agnes Genevey — whose “research” on global warming is brutally picked apart by RealClimate here and especially here (and again here by other scientists), who together “expose a pattern of suspicious errors and omissions that pervades” their work. So, yes, the Inhofe list is utterly ignorable compared to either the IPCC report or the Bali declaration by actual prominent climate scientists. The notion it is relevant to the climate debate is laughable, as even a cursuory examination makes clear. Since Inhofe’s office is beating a dead horse, let me also quote from climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who, at Grist, had a running “The ‘Inhofe 400′ Skeptic of the Day” and repeatedly identified some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical. One posting deserves repeating here. And some folks want off of Inhofe’s list, but apparently once you’re on, you never get off (MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!): quote: Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe’s staffers that began: quote: Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”. You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”. Yet, as Dessler notes, “he’s still on the list.” And he is still on the “new” 2008 list from Inhofe’s office! Dessler’s other conclusions: quote: Second, the more I look through this list, the more it perfectly demonstrates the weakness of the skeptics. The AGU, for example, has 50,000 members, the majority of whom are Ph.D. Earth scientists. Inhofe would have been tickled pink to take any one of them. But he couldn’t. Despite the huge numbers of qualified scientists out there, Inhofe could barely muster a few dozen for his list. As a result, Inhofe was forced to include on this list people with zero qualifications as well as people who are not actually skeptics. In the end, I estimate that his list is 80-90 percent bogus — which leaves a few dozen credible climate skeptics on the list. Hmm, just what I’ve been saying all along. Third, several commenters here as well as other websites have taken it upon themselves to look at the qualifications of the authors of the IPCC. Despite their best efforts, none of them has been able to provide names of any authors of the working group 1 report that are similarly unqualified. It seems that a careful analysis of the situation shows clearly that the scientific consensus is as robust as ever. Keep tryin’, Jim. My only disagreement with Dessler: I’d end by saying “Stop tryin’, Jim — please!” Given how padded and laughable the 2007 list was, I am not going to waste any time on the new names that Inhofe has added for the 2008 list. I leave that pointless task to others. Let me make a final point for the media, from my Salon piece, “The cold truth about climate change“: quote: In fact, science doesn’t work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview. One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term “consensus” in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists. So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly “prominent scientists” who supposedly “recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.” As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren’t climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus. But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does “think global warming is real”). Or, for that matter, my opinion — even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea. What matters is scientific findings — data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant. As Inhofe’s office likes to brag (see here), his 2007 “report” garnered tremendous coverage from the traditional media. The truth is there is no news in Inhofe’s new report — just a recycling of long-debunked denier talking points and padded, irrelevant lists of names. The only news is whether the media will get suckered by it — and, sadly, given how many times they have been suckered already by the deniers, even that doesn’t qualify as news. Now can you please make a worthwhile comment in regards to the this criticism of Inhofe, or will you continue to play the ignorant fool just like all creationists I’ve ever seen? Now, as for your other guy you attacked via ad hominem, how shocking that he actually utilizes evidence to easily debunk Inhofe’s screed: quote: Let’s start with the claim made in the report’s title: that “half of warming” is due to solar forcing. Despite being debunked over and over again, skeptics like Inhofe have latched onto a few studies published during the last decade that purported to show a link between solar activity – cosmic rays, in particular – and rising greenhouse gas emissions. (The idea being that cosmic rays helped water droplets form in the atmosphere, leading to increased cloud clover and, thus, lower average temperatures.) This theory lost a lot of its clout (read: all) when scientists discovered that global temperatures continued to increase even after solar radiation dropped off. Indeed, a study published last year in the Proceedings of the Royal Society (sub. required) found that “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” While acknowledging that solar radiation likely played a climatic role during the pre-industrial era, the authors – Mike Lockwood of the University of Southamptom and Claus Frohlich of the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos – concluded that solar activity peaked some time between 1985 and 1987 and that the present warming trends could therefore not be attributed to sunspots, solar forcing or cosmic rays. A study published only last month in Geophysical Research Letters attributed only 10 percent of warming over the last 100 years to changes in solar radiation – not the 65 percent or so claimed by a few other studies. If anything, the authors say, solar forcing in the last two decades may have actually caused a slight overall cooling. Inhofe and Morano point to a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters (sub. required), which they claim shows that “approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun,” as proof that their argument is scientifically sound. As Joe Romm noted in a recent post, however, that’s only part of the story. Indeed, if you look at the entire quote in context, what it says is exactly the opposite: that carbon dioxide, not the sun, is responsible for the temperature increase over the last few decades. Romm even went directly to the source – the study’s author – to verify the claim; as might be expected, she told him that her conclusions “were misinterpreted” by Inhofe. The report’s other “major” finding is that sea levels are apparently not rising anymore. The evidence? An op-ed penned by the reliably skeptic Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (and tellingly highlighted by Roger Pielke on his blog). That’s funny because every study I’ve found only using Google Scholar and the search term “sea level rise” has argued the exact opposite: that sea levels have risen appreciably over the last century and that future sea-level rise will be significant. For example, a study published last year in Science found that sea levels would rise between 0.5 and 1.4 meters above 1990 levels by the end of the century. Another study, published in 2006, found strong paleoclimatic evidence for future ice-sheet instability and fast sea-level rise – much faster than previously thought. (According to Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, the lead author, polar warming by 2100 could reach levels last seen 130,000 to 127,000 years ago – when sea levels were several meters above current levels.) But, wait, what about those 650 scientists Inhofe and Morano claim believe climate science is hogwash? Joe Romm once again does an exemplary job debunking this list of supposedly “prominent scientists,” pointing out that most of the names were simply rehashed from a 2007 list that was also widely debunked. Last year’s list (which boasted 413 “prominent” scientists), for instance, included 20 economists, 44 television weathermen, 84 scientists who have either accepted money from, or are otherwise connected to, the fossil fuel industry or likeminded think thanks and 70 scientists with no apparent expertise in the subject, according to Adam Siegel. It doesn’t help that scientists have also been included on the list against their will. Andrew Dessler noted earlier this year at Grist that meteorologist George Waldenberger was on the 2007 list – this despite asking Inhofe’s staffers to remove him from it. In his e-mail, Waldenberger wrote: “I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”. You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”. Who wants to bet he made the 2008 list as well? http://www.desmogblog.com/senator-j...-warming-screed Would you care to please address anything that he stated specifically, or will you continue to play the ignorant fool just like all creationists I’ve ever seen? Back to more quote mining by Inhofe: quote: quote: I see Inhofe's "Gang of 650" also includes Erich Roeckner, a renowned climate modeler at Germany's Max Planck Institute, who's quoted as saying there are still kinks in current climate models. But that's not controversial; all climatologists recognize that their models can't account for every last physical process. Inhofe's report then cites Roeckner telling Nature in 2006, "It is possible that all of them are wrong"—implying that he's casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change. But he's not! Roeckner was referring to the IPCC's emissions scenarios, which involve assumptions about the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. (Scroll down here for the full quote.) We already know that emissions are growing faster than the IPCC's worst-case scenario, and that's bad news, not good. Anyway, Roeckner's as far as you get from a "dissenter": See this 2004 paper, which yet again establishes the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and temperature increases. Or see this link, where Roeckner is qutoed in multiple news stories sounding downright alarmist about the consequences of man-made warming. "Humans have had a large one-of-a-kind influence on the climate... Weather situations in which extreme floods occur will increase," he informed Deutsche Welle in 2004. "Our research pointed to rapid global warming and the shifting of climate zones," he told ABC News in 2005. Quite the heretic, that one. Second, Oliver Frauenfeld. Inhofe quotes him from his chapter in Shattered Consensus: quote: "Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it. Before we can accurately understand the midlatitudes' response to tropical forcing, the tropical forcings themselves must be identified and understood ... Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain." Frauenfeld is talking about the modelling of ENSO events by General Circulation Models. He doesn't think they as good at this as the IPCC does, but he is not saying that GCMs can't successfully model the rest of the climate system. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...mpared.php#more More on Inhofe’s deliberate obfuscation and quote mining: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...ure-since-1850/ Now, would you care to address Inhofe deliberately misleading you and us via quote mines, or will you continue to act like an ignoramus much in the same way as Inhofe and all the other creationists I’ve ever known? Lebezniatnikov I used to be a little bit climate-skeptic... but Opus' post there made me realize there really is a consensus. Damn, that's researching your argument. CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE Pages: 1 [2] 3

Privacy Statement