Coffeehouse Thread

18 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Global Warming Consensus? Define Consensus

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    phreaks

    wrote:

    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. 

    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966



    Sorry, couldn't resist  [6]

  • User profile image
    raymond

    Thanks. I already knew about it and so does Al Gore.

    Cool

  • User profile image
    Minh

    The U.N.'s IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is the work of 2,000 scientists.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Minh wrote:
    The U.N.'s IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is the work of 2,000 scientists.



    You mean, 2,000 scientists contributed to the research.
    Surely, 2,000 scientists didn't author it, did they?

    I'm not sure how many times I've said it, but that is a fallacy; just because wikipedia and NPR says it's so, doesn't make it the truth.

    Actually, only a handful of scientists wrote it.

    The article I quoted addresses that very topic though.

    Article wrote:

    Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures.

    But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

    The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

    By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    phreaks wrote:
    

    I'm not sure how many times I've said it, but that is a fallacy; just because wikipedia and NPR says it's so, doesn't make it the truth.


    LOL. On the other hand, everything reported by FOX "News" is totally trust-worthy, right?

    PS. It's a report by the U.N., not the oil companies, so maybe, it's not the result you expect.

  • User profile image
    androidi

    After all those documentaries totally shattering the global warming theory, it's hard to have a consensus (in the public, I'd be worried if scientists had a consensus about this topic). I like the political changes and as long as the climate of fear can be kept up there's better chance of getting mainstream alternatives to oil/gas sooner. The point isn't the CO2 emissions but the other emissions which no one talks about. Those are the real problem and they get much better managed by moving to other methods of powering cars.


  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Minh wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    

    I'm not sure how many times I've said it, but that is a fallacy; just because wikipedia and NPR says it's so, doesn't make it the truth.


    LOL. On the other hand, everything reported by FOX "News" is totally trust-worthy, right?

    PS. It's a report by the U.N., not the oil companies, so maybe, it's not the result you expect.


    Well, when you have one of the lead scientists of the very report you note, openly attacking the report as propaganda, then yes; I question the politics of it all.

    What I am reiterating isn't knowledge gleaned from FoxNews or Exxon, it's from an MIT Sloan professor that was one of the authors of your reactionary IPCC report.

    By lead scientist I mean one of the few that actually wrote part of the report itself.

    It's interesting that you align me with Foxnews though, I don't watch television news, and I gather my facts by actually researching the topics, not by gathering disparate paragraphs regurgitated by various news outlets and sanctioned by Al Franken, Moveon.org, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.
     
    I'm not conservative either, so there goes your conspiracy theory.



  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    phreaks wrote:
    
    Minh wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    

    I'm not sure how many times I've said it, but that is a fallacy; just because wikipedia and NPR says it's so, doesn't make it the truth.


    LOL. On the other hand, everything reported by FOX "News" is totally trust-worthy, right?

    PS. It's a report by the U.N., not the oil companies, so maybe, it's not the result you expect.


    Well, when you have one of the lead scientists of the very report you note, openly attacking the report as propaganda, then yes; I question the politics of it all.

    What I am reiterating isn't knowledge gleaned from FoxNews or Exxon, it's from an MIT Sloan professor that was one of the authors of your reactionary IPCC report.

    By lead scientist I mean one of the few that actually wrote part of the report itself.

    It's interesting that you align me with Foxnews though, I don't watch television news, and I gather my facts by actually researching the topics, not by gathering disparate paragraphs regurgitated by various news outlets and sanctioned by Al Franken, Moveon.org, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.
     
    I'm not conservative either, so there goes your conspiracy theory.





    I think you need to read a bit on how the IPCC works...

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/7/132554/4894

    And your quotes come directly from the Senate Comittee on Environmental and Public Works website where outgoing Senator Inhofe (R-Okla) has his own agenda going.  It appears that Mr. Inhofe is quite deep in the pocket of Oil interests.

    But, ultimately, your question was about Consensus (or lack thereof).  While the IPCC contains the consensus, it did not form it.  It is nothin more than a document that a whole crapload of countries and scientific groups agreed upon. 

    Now, who do you think a consensus would include? 

    Would it include:

    IPCC Endorsers wrote:

    • Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
    • Royal Society of Canada
    • Chinese Academy of Sciences
    • Academié des Sciences (France)
    • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    • Indian National Science Academy
    • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    • Science Council of Japan
    • Russian Academy of Sciences
    • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    • National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
    • Australian Academy of Sciences
    • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    • Royal Irish Academy
    • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    ... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

    In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:


    Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

    Perplexed

  • User profile image
    raymond

    Cannot trust those man-made global warming deniers, especially those Harvard astrophysicists. What do they know anyway? Wink

    Who Dares Question the Global Warmocaust?



    "...But even if CO2 hasn’t caused changes in the past, couldn’t it still be responsible for the recent warming trend?  Astrophysicists Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon [9] don’t think so.  They believe that the sun has more to do with our climate’s warming than CO2.  The astronomers among us will know that the sun goes through a magnetic cycle which runs in approximately eleven year intervals.  During this cycle, the amount of energy emitted from the sun varies, along with the strength of the sun’s magnetic field.  Scientists have discovered that the sun’s cycle is not completely uniform; some cycles go on for longer than others, resulting in different levels of light intensity and magnetic forces. [10]

    Baliunas and Soon explain that “the question [of] how the sun affects the climate is unresolved” [[11]] but some studies suggest that differences in the energy output and magnetism of the sun can have effects on cloud coverage, atmospheric chemistry, and circulation patterns, all of which have very significant impacts on global climate [[12]].  Furthermore, their data shows that global temperatures seem to have a much closer relationship with solar variability than with atmospheric CO2 levels [[13]]. 


    Baliunas and Soon must be mad scientists--watch the videos--they must be crazy! Wink

    Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&mode=related&search=

    For a real nut listen to one of the writers of the IPCC report-- John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist .  Wink

    Globabl Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&mode=related&search=


    So what if he has all those awards, he is just a trouble maker and religious nut:  Wink

    "...1996 Special Award, American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."

    1991 Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, NASA Headquarters. ..."

     "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true."[6]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy


    Two Sides to Global Warming

    Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?

    "...With so many researchers in the climatological community apparently convinced of the reality of dangerously rapid man-made climate change, why do I continue to rely so much on the skeptical Christy? Christy is the climatologist who has put together the highly accurate atmospheric temperature data from satellites since 1978. And confidence in his data is bolstered by the fact that they correlate nicely with temperature data from radiosondes, which are a completely independent measure of temperature. Christy's data show that since 1978 the planet is warming up at a rate of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade. The Arctic, according to Christy's data, is indeed warming faster than the rest of the planet, at a rate of 0.39 per decade. But the Antarctic is cooling by 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.

    For the nationalistic, Christy's satellite data find that the lower 48 states of the U.S. are warming at a rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. If temperatures continue to increase by 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares to an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. Not much of a crisis. Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. ..."

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

    They call this a consensus?

    Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

    Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

    National Post's Deniers series:
    Scientists who challenge the climate change debate

    Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

    What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."



    "...More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. ..."
    The series

    Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
    Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
    The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
    Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
    The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
    The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
    Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
    The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
    Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
    Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
    End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
    Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
    Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
    The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
    Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
    Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
    Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
    Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII

    Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
    Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
    The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
    Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
    Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII


    "...Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

    What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af


    Could not have said it better:

    "...Does this imply that we should simply dismiss the work of the many hundreds of scientists saying that humans cause global warming?  Of course not.  We would be guilty of a double standard if we said that the plausibility of some alternative theory conclusively disproves the mainstream view.  And even if the sun really does play the most important role in determining global climate, we can’t conclude that greenhouse gas has been completely uninvolved in causing the current warming trend; we have every reason to believe that it plays at least some role.  But it may be wise to reconsider the way we think about the global warming debate.  It doesn’t seem like the scientists who question our responsibility for global warming are indefensible skeptics who refuse to acknowledge what is obviously true.  Rather, it appears that there is still a lot of research to be done before we can consider this case to be completely closed.  Perhaps people like Ellen Goodman should avoid name-calling until they’ve heard all the evidence. ..."

    http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/shahar/shahar2.html#_edn11

    You say consensus, I say propaganda.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda


    Cool
     

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    raymond wrote:
    

    Cannot trust those man-made global warming deniers, especially those Harvard astrophysicists. What do they know anyway?  


    Yeah, everyone knows that climatologists are worse at climate study than astrophysicists... OH WAIT.

  • User profile image
    Dodo

    Always when I come here there's at least ONE thread about global warming. I hope in the new Channel 9 the term 'global warming' will be banned [6]

  • User profile image
    raymond

    DoomBringer wrote:
    
    raymond wrote:
    

    Cannot trust those man-made global warming deniers, especially those Harvard astrophysicists. What do they know anyway?  


    Yeah, everyone knows that climatologists are worse at climate study than astrophysicists... OH WAIT.


    What is Christy?

    http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    raymond wrote:
    
    DoomBringer wrote:
    
    raymond wrote:
    

    Cannot trust those man-made global warming deniers, especially those Harvard astrophysicists. What do they know anyway?  


    Yeah, everyone knows that climatologists are worse at climate study than astrophysicists... OH WAIT.


    What is Christy?

    http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html

    A really bad website.  (also, the guy has a PhD in atmospheric sciences.  Of course he doesn't know anything about climate, of course)

    Listen, raymond, ad hominem style tactics on the scientists isn't going to win you much.  I'm more interested in the actual science.  Climate models refined over a decade have shown that CO2 emissions trigger ehanced warming.  The models have made predictions that have come true.  Of course, reality doesn't matter to you.

    Hey, Tom Brokaw himself said Global Warming is true.  You can't dispute that guy.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    Shut the f*ck up, friends. I think this video will answer all your questions.

  • User profile image
    DigitalDud

    We're boned, better go work on making Mars livable.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    DoomBringer wrote:
    Climate models refined over a decade have shown that CO2 emissions trigger ehanced warming.


    I'm throwing the bulls%&t flag on that comment.

    You are trying to establish a causal relationship... something that has not actually been established as historical evidence has shown periods of time when CO2 levels and temperatures were elevated but with no direct causal relationship as you are claiming. At best a correlation can be drawn between them existing at the same time but NOT that one always causes the other and in the order we keep hearing... in fact ice core samples have shown that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases.

    DoomBringer wrote:
    The models have made predictions that have come true.


    Again... utter bull.

    There were plenty of models and scientists who came out last year and said we were going to have another above average year of hurricanes... we didn't. One year of above average hurricanes + one year of below average hurricanes = average level of hurricanes over given interval... and already this year we've seen estimates lowered and a rather slow start to this year's season (granted we have yet to hit the historical height).

    Furthermore if said ultra-accurate models were so accurate and actually existed (which they don't) it would be incontrovertible evidence that those who do not accept the theory of global warming could not dispute... and yet doubt remains because such models are inherently imprecise because our understanding of the forces in play is incomplete.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    dahat wrote:
    

    DoomBringer wrote:
    Climate models refined over a decade have shown that CO2 emissions trigger ehanced warming.


    I'm throwing the bulls%&t flag on that comment.

    You are trying to establish a causal relationship... something that has not actually been established as historical evidence has shown periods of time when CO2 levels and temperatures were elevated but with no direct causal relationship as you are claiming. At best a correlation can be drawn between them existing at the same time but NOT that one always causes the other and in the order we keep hearing... in fact ice core samples have shown that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases.


    Well, pick that flag back up, because you are confused. 

    He didn't say that 20% more CO2 equals 20% more heat, he said that climate models show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by definition, increases the ability to hold heat.  (aka enhanced warming).

    dahat wrote:


    DoomBringer wrote:
    The models have made predictions that have come true.



    Again... utter bull.

    There were plenty of models and scientists who came out last year and said we were going to have another above average year of hurricanes... we didn't. One year of above average hurricanes + one year of below average hurricanes = average level of hurricanes over given interval... and already this year we've seen estimates lowered and a rather slow start to this year's season (granted we have yet to hit the historical height).


    None of that shows that what he said was 'utter bull'.  It was nice and wordy, but off the mark. 

    Climate models have, indeed, made predictions that have come true.  That doesn't mean that every climate model is always right.  It does mean...well...that climate models have made predictions that have come true.
    dahat wrote:

    Furthermore if said ultra-accurate models were so accurate and actually existed (which they don't) it would be incontrovertible evidence that those who do not accept the theory of global warming could not dispute... and yet doubt remains because such models are inherently imprecise because our understanding of the forces in play is incomplete.


    By definition, it will never be complete.  I don't believe that anyone said there were ultra-accurate models; you added those adjectives. 

    And, Again, I'd like to point out that there is no 'Theory of Global Warming'.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Theory+of+global+warming&go=Go

  • User profile image
    dahat

    ScanIAm wrote:
    Well, pick that flag back up, because you are confused. 

    He didn't say that 20% more CO2 equals 20% more heat, he said that climate models show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by definition, increases the ability to hold heat.  (aka enhanced warming).


    On the contrary, I would contend that you are the one who is confused as my statement was quite clear. I was referring to there not being a proven causal relationship between the two, only that there exists a correlation.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    None of that shows that what he said was 'utter bull'.  It was nice and wordy, but off the mark. 

    Climate models have, indeed, made predictions that have come true.  That doesn't mean that every climate model is always right.  It does mean...well...that climate models have made predictions that have come true.


    I never said that no model is every right... even a broken clock is right twice a day. The science is not there yet to create an accurate model on that we want to base policy on, especially considering the input data has been shown more and more in recent years to be inaccurate from the start, leading to a suspect output.

    It is utter bull to base such a theory on the predictions of some models that are suspect... or are you saying it is ok to put more stock in evidence that supports ones views and ignore evidence that does not?

    ScanIAm wrote:
    By definition, it will never be complete.  I don't believe that anyone said there were ultra-accurate models; you added those adjectives.


    His implication (and yours it seems) was that these models are so accurate that their predictions should be believed despite contradictory evidence, thus such a model would need to be not just accurate, but ultra-accurate. Neither of which are they today.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    And, Again, I'd like to point out that there is no 'Theory of Global Warming'.


    You are right... global warming isn’t a theory. A theory generally acceptance of a starting point and some basic concepts, something that doesn’t quiet exist as its proponents keep having to pick and choose data so as to support their theory not unlike how religion tends to operate. Science on the other hand revises it’s theories over time so as to better model the available data.

    Furthermore, I was specifically referring to one of the key disputes over acceptance/proof of this theory, the question of whether or not human activities are to blame.

    It is the Chicken Littles of the world who cry "the globe is warming" who are trying to change the status quo. In order to do so they must provide sufficient evidence to warrant such a change or gain sufficient political/economic/physical strength to force their will on the rest of us. The first they have not been able to do yet and the second they continue to try through a type of adherence to this idea that can only be described as religious in nature, preaching facts that the science does not support, all the while hoping to sway disbelievers through incomplete science, intimidation and fear.

    Call me when either of those changes, until then I’ve got better things to worry about.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.