Global warming - its finally been proven

[jdm61]

Walk on what? Water will be all thats left.

I'm sure that they will have adequate warning. Wonder what animals did when it was warm enough year round in places like Canada to support huge herds of animals that, at best, could keep their body temperature maybe 20 degrees above ambient air temperature much like a modern tuna? Or what did animals and people do when the glaciation was so pervasive that sheet ice came down to within four blocks of the Ohio River in what it today downtown Cincinnati? The climate changes. One must marvel at the arrogance of the idea that we can either cause it to change drastically or prevent it from changing at all.

[Triton]

Thats not what I recall hearing.

You need to listen harder...

I dont know about this whole climate change terminology.

Again with that listen harder thing...

I dont think those are average temperatures, I think they are peak instances. If the temperatures kept getting colder why does the arctic ice keep melting away?

It does that every year, oddly antartic ice is at a record high... maybe it's only warming up in the northern hemisphere...

That they want to control stuff isnt the motive.

Says you. It looks very much to me like they want to control you... and me.

Hindsight is great isnt it?

History is great. We can learn from it.

I beg to differ. But that aside it wouldnt be as bad as the whole world dying.

So you are seriously trying to say that people have never died because of the crack pot ideas of environmentalists? If you are I can prove that you are 100% incorrect.

Ill stick with logic thankyou.

You mean like the logic that allows a pile of global warmistas to fly to Indonesia to attend a conference on global warming and how to reduce mankinds "carbon footprint?"

[jdm61]

But Triton.......a Gulfstream G550 has a TINY carbon footprint when compared to a Yukon Denali.....right? I read the other day that the northern sea ice is refreezing at a rate around 30% faster than last year. Guess I will be getting a refund or rain check on my Northwest Passage cruise. Maybe the next time Al Gore blows enough hot air, it will open back up again.

[BLANNELBERRY]

Although this is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, it accurately describes the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.


BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

[ttoney83]

or Bush or Obama etc.
Still looking for an ulterior motive though. That they want to control stuff isnt the motive.

Control IS the motive; Control means profit as well, so Money and Power are the motives for the AGCC Cult. Prince Phillip once stated;

For conservation to be successful it is necessary to take into consideration that it is a characteristic of man that he can only be relied upon to do anything consistently which is in his own interest. He may have occasional fits of conscience and moral rectitude but otherwise his actions are governed by self-interest. It follows then that whatever the moral reasons for conservation it will only be achieved by the inducement of profit or pleasure.

The man is really quite funny and in many respects brilliant, but, if the quote is accurate, then it speaks to the true motive of the Goracle and the AGCC cult.

[ttoney83]

Hindsight is great isnt it? I dont know of the instance you speak of but I doubt it represents most of their efforts. They are also the people that protect us from all sorts of chemicals that might be put in products we buy that are harmful.

Triton brings up a very good point. It is of course no proof of intent on the part of environmenalists to reduce the population. However, DDT was known to kill the pests (Mosquito's) which carry Malaria. It was so effective that people pretty much stopped dying of Malaria around the world. Ban the use of DDT and people start dying again. The whole bit about egg shell thinning and other such scare tactics used in the book Triton cited were actually naturally occurring phenomenon albeit a phenomenon not known to the average reader of the book. In fact, later studies, and then current knowlege showed that many other species benefitted from there being fewer disease carrying insects flying about, after all, Mosquitos don't just feed on humans.

And "these people" protecting us from all sorts of chemicals? I guess these are the ones ensuring there isn't too much Melamine in products coming from China, or protecting us from death from tainted Heparin coming from China and only God knows what else.....

[thombrogan]

Although this is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, it accurately describes the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.

Consensus means nothing in science. To use it is to cease being scientific.

[Triton]

Although this is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, it accurately describes the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.

At one time the scientific consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth. At another time there was a scientific consensus that said that heavier objects fall faster then lighter ones. Consensus is not science... and global warming doesn't even have a consensus...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

[Codger_64]

Even a cursory look at the bona fides of Naomi Oreskes shows that she is not a scientist and does not speak for the scientific community in part or whole. She did a selective survey of papers and drew her own conclusions of what they meant. Back in 2004. The papers she cited predated that, of course. Her data is dated and skewed to the point of uselessness.

[Triton]

Even a cursory look at the bona fides of Naomi Oreskes shows that she is not a scientist and does not speak for the scientific community in part or whole. She did a selective survey of papers and drew her own conclusions of what they meant. Back in 2004. The papers she cited predated that, of course. Her data is dated and skewed to the point of uselessness.

The funny thing is that someone else later went back and did another "study" using her same methodology and determined that there was no scientific consensus. That author was immediately attacked as not having had his study "peer reviewed" in a scientific journal. Apparently consensus is only okay if it support global warming...

[shaldag]

Blannelberry has shown inprevious arguments about climate change that he does not distinguish between empirical evidence and other types of information, nor between peer-reviewed papers and those that are mere opinion pieces. furthermore, he posts about scientific consensus with great authority, although he is (as far as I know) not a scientist, not a member of a scientific faculty, has never conducted a scientific experiment, never reviewed a sceintific paper, never been to a scientific meeting...etc.

Of course, scientific consensus does not mean anything; science does not work that way.

So why do people continue to bring it up? Because this is a political issue--and they think that it strengthens their argument.

I have been to climatology conventions--and I can tell you that the sessions fit nobody's idea of consensus.
Vigourous debate would be more like it.

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is a real pehnomenon remains to be seen. There are serious scientific and methodological issues regarding the measures used, the models used, and the issues of whter these measures derive form human activity. Whether or not ACC proves to be valid, the peolple inflating their side of the story out of all proportion to the evidence and methodology do science a disservice. They help insure that people do not understand scientific investigation, andl allow the zealotry of their political beliefs to undermine the value of science in society.

[jdm61]

Funny how anyone who argues with Al Gore is not a "real scientist" and their stuff has not been "peer reviewed" and yet Gore was given a pass for the blatant inaccuracies and exagerations in his movie because he "means well"

[BLANNELBERRY]

Blannelberry has shown inprevious arguments about climate change that he does not distinguish between empirical evidence and other types of information, nor between peer-reviewed papers and those that are mere opinion pieces. furthermore, he posts about scientific consensus with great authority, although he is (as far as I know) not a scientist, not a member of a scientific faculty, has never conducted a scientific experiment, never reviewed a sceintific paper, never been to a scientific meeting...etc.

Of course, scientific consensus does not mean anything; science does not work that way.

So why do people continue to bring it up? Because this is a political issue--and they think that it strengthens their argument.

I have been to climatology conventions--and I can tell you that the sessions fit nobody's idea of consensus.
Vigourous debate would be more like it.

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is a real pehnomenon remains to be seen. There are serious scientific and methodological issues regarding the measures used, the models used, and the issues of whter these measures derive form human activity. Whether or not ACC proves to be valid, the peolple inflating their side of the story out of all proportion to the evidence and methodology do science a disservice. They help insure that people do not understand scientific investigation, andl allow the zealotry of their political beliefs to undermine the value of science in society.

I'll respond to shaldog because he seems to be my greatest adversary or at least the smartest objector when it comes to ACC. We debated this issue for several pages on another thread. And, I'll tell you what I learned from our dialogue, but first I'll respond to some of the other accusations and concerns people continually voice about this issue.

"A scientific consensus doesn't mean ACC is a fact"- this is absolutely true. I agree. However, if there is a consensus, it gives one an idea of what the experts are saying.

Now, every time I post or cite an article from a secondary source- ie scientific weekly, or new science, etc.- i get accused of not being able to differentiate between a secondary source and a peer reviewed scientific journal. This is not true, as you've seen above, i prefaced the link with "although this is not a peer-reviewed scientific, etc..." to explicitly discern between the two.

But, if you're as scrupulous as Shaldog, you'll dismiss all secondary sources altogether- that's fine. So, you can scrap the article I posted. But if you do that, then you better scrap everything that has been posted on this thread thus far. Why? Because none of it appears on or in a peer reviewed scientific journal- the only unbiased source. Although, I don't believe the IPCC is unfairly biased, and I don't believe the mags I read to be either- but that's irrelevant at this point.

Okay, if that's the case, what do these journals indicate?

Well, from the ones I have read, they state or directly imply ACC is a problem. However, there are ones that I've read that don't make an explicit conclusion one way or the other. However, none of them- again, the ones i've read- provide compelling evidence that ACC is not a problem. I have asked Shaldog to cite or refer me to one such journal, but he has been unable to do so.

With that said, what I've learned from Shaldog, to some extent, is some of the methodological problems and statistical errors with trying to concretely prove ACC. However, if you asked Shaldog, who admittedly has more experience with ACC than I, which way does the majority of evidence point to thus far- he would have to say ACC, even though we may come to find out- in the future- that ACC is erroneous. As of right now, ACC is seemingly a problem.

Okay, if you don't read those journals but you do follow common sense and logic then answer this, why are we spending and appropriating money to prevent something that doesn't exist?

If our carbon foot print has Zero effect on our environment, why should we spend any money, or change industry in any way, to reduce emissions?

One other thing Shaldog was right about, I shouldn't of compared modern evolutionary synthesis to ACC at this point in time. It was a bad comparison- the former is a fact, the latter is a "theory" or "hypothesis"- with compelling evidence.

[thombrogan]

Are you intentionally mispelling shaldag's name? It's above every one of his posts if you forgot the correct spelling. I'm sorry you don't feel I'm smart enough to deserve a response. I'm sorry for anyone who uses popularity in place of logic feels I'm not smart enough for them.

[BlackHills]

Although, I don't believe the IPCC is unfairly biased, and I don't believe the mags I read to be either- but that's irrelevant at this point.

Here's a letter from Dr Vincent Gray, who was a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel.

The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

Well, from the ones I have read, they state or directly imply ACC is a problem. However, there are ones that I've read that don't make an explicit conclusion one way or the other. However, none of them- again, the ones i've read- provide compelling evidence that ACC is not a problem. I have asked Shaldog to cite or refer me to one such journal, but he has been unable to do so.

Here's a list of peer reviewed articles skeptical of ACC. I'll admit I haven't read them all as I don't have as much interest in this subject as you do, but this should give you a start.

Okay, if you don't read those journals but you do follow common sense and logic then answer this, why are we spending and appropriating money to prevent something that doesn't exist?

Because it's a way for the Govt to have more control over the economy and businesses.

[BLANNELBERRY]

Here's a list of peer reviewed articles skeptical of ACC. I'll admit I haven't read them all as I don't have as much interest in this subject as you do, but this should give you a start.

You should read what you cite, otherwise you run the risk of appearing ignorant.

First off, many of the articles listed, are precisely that "articles" cited in secondary sources. Meaning, they are conclusions drawn from scientific data and research the author did not produce/conduct.

Secondly, the one's that are Journals come mostly from AGU (American Geophysical Union) and do not outright denounce ACC. However, some of them claim for it to be inconclusive.

Third, I know we don't believe in a consensus among scientists, but i thought you might find this interesting:

The AGU issued a position statement on climate change in December 2003 [1], and revised and reaffirmed the statement in 2007 [2]. The revised statement begins:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

[BlackHills]

You should read what you cite, otherwise you run the risk of appearing ignorant.

First off, many of the articles listed, are precisely that "articles" cited in secondary sources. Meaning, they are conclusions drawn from scientific data and research the author did not produce/conduct.

Secondly, the one's that are Journals come mostly from AGU (American Geophysical Union) and do not outright denounce ACC. However, some of them claim for it to be inconclusive.

You've read all of those already? I'm impressed. I just looked at the page again, I stopped counting at 50 articles but there were probably close to that many more listed. I certainly couldn't read that many articles in 35 minutes.

[jdm61]

One could argue that "consensus" is the bane of science. It discourages thinking outside of the box and causes people to cling to their long held pet theories even in the face of new contrary evidence.

[eyeeatingfish]

I'm sure that they will have adequate warning. Wonder what animals did when it was warm enough year round in places like Canada to support huge herds of animals that, at best, could keep their body temperature maybe 20 degrees above ambient air temperature much like a modern tuna? Or what did animals and people do when the glaciation was so pervasive that sheet ice came down to within four blocks of the Ohio River in what it today downtown Cincinnati? The climate changes. One must marvel at the arrogance of the idea that we can either cause it to change drastically or prevent it from changing at all.

Im not going to run around about where to relocate people who are uprooted by rising ocean levels. It wouldnt be easy or cheap.

I dont see whats so arrogant about thinking that we can change the climate? Some chemicals we humans have produced can really hurt the atmosphere, and the ozone layer. Now how much global warming is natural and how much is human induced, im not sure.

[BLANNELBERRY]

You've read all of those already? I'm impressed. I just looked at the page again, I stopped counting at 50 articles but there were probably close to that many more listed. I certainly couldn't read that many articles in 35 minutes.

You need to learn how to read. No where in my response do I say the word "All." Furthermore, you don't need to be a genius to differentiate between source material and secondary material.

Lastly, you ignore my point altogether with this trivial accusation. You should acknowledge the fact that there is a sea (pun intended) of compelling evidence to support ACC. And despite your own sentiments regarding this issue, that there exists enough evidence to compel your country to spend money to mitigate your (our) carbon footprint.