//
Uncategorized

>Consensus of Global Warming Science Questioned

>Yet another reputable group of scientists are raising questions about the “incontrovertible” evidence for human-induced global warming. No comments, just thought y’all might like to know!

DailyTech – Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate


Advertisements

Discussion

19 thoughts on “>Consensus of Global Warming Science Questioned

  1. >OSO,For the every 1000 scientist you find that sound the alarm that humans contribute to GW, you will find an equal amount refuting that very same position. Bottom line, this issue is nothing more than about $$ and control and making sure that the U.S. pays for the “alleged” world problems. I invite you, if you have not already heard of her, to read the former Washington State Governor’s Book entitled, “Trashing the Planet” by Dixie Lee Ray. This book is a an excellent primer into understanding Acid Rain, GW, and many many other “scientific” issues regarding what is involved with these many issues. By the way, Dixie Lee Ray was a Marine Biologist, so she speaks from a deep scientific background and outlines the political agenda’s that were at work 30+ years ago.

    Posted by hylander | September 20, 2008, 11:52 pm
  2. >Well if you’re not willing to examine the issue properly then please refrain from voicing your opinion. Nothing is worse than people having a firm opinion on something they know little about.OSO, many of us here have examined the issue. While I’m certainly not an expert in climatology, I have looked into the issue with as much fairness and objectivity as I can muster. I know that my colleagues could say the same. My contention with GW is not so much whether its real, or even what it’s cause is. For me, the issue is about the over-the-top rhetoric and propaganda that seems to characterize the debate. And rhetoric and propaganda are things that I do know a bit about, so I don’t feel that I’m out of place in expressing my opinion on the matter. As much as you and others might wish it to be so, the debate on GW is not over, even among climatologists. It is those who falsely assume it to be that shut the door on any sensible debate on the subject.

    Posted by Dwight Watson | July 22, 2008, 9:06 pm
  3. >”Well if you’re not willing to examine the issue properly then please refrain from voicing your opinion. Nothing is worse than people having a firm opinion on something they know little about.”Since you apparently consider yourself to be highly educated in the related fields I was inviting you to make the case in your own words rather having us read the gristmill’s propaganda items. Anyone can pretend to know what they’re talking about and just say ‘here, read this website and then you’ll see.’ Its nice that the gristmill has supplied talking points to give you something to say when someone raises objections to your assertions but I thought perhaps you could say something on your own. “A PhD in Mathematics who disagrees with the IPCC, for example, is really no one of consequence and whose disagreement does not affect the “consensus” view because his field of expertise is not related in any major way to climate science.”Really? That's awfully convienient since I guess that gives you an excuse to ignore computer experts such as Allen Simmons who developed computer systems for polar orbiting satellites collecting various atmospheric & other environmental data, helped NASA develop predictor models for the earth's atmosphere, etc. Such a person as this seems qualified to point out, as he does, “how unreasonable it is to ask for accurate predictions working from the current state of both climate theory and available data.” What if there is a problem with the models climate scientists are using to make thier predictions? Perhaps they should listen to the “doctors” who are qualified to diagnosis sicknesses with their models.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 21, 2008, 11:48 am
  4. >”I’d like to know who these wild-eyed crazy climate scientists are. In every single case I have read, the argument is sound and presented in an objective manner and has cogent warnings. Even Al Gore is like that (have you seen his film?)”OSO, I’ll have to say my friend, you lost all credibility with that statement! I agree there are people who present cogent, balanced arguments for the position. But to say that Al Gore fits in here is utterly ridiculous!Anyway, I don’t want to get that started again. Here’s my point. You say we are only supposed to ask the ‘climate scientists’ about global warming because they’re the experts. So I guess other scientists know nothing about it? Good science takes place in community and that community includes scientists from other disciplines. You can’t say that climate scientists are the only ones who have a legitimate position on this issue or that they possess superior knowledge to all others. Good scientists can detect bad research, even if its not in their own field. You’re a teacher, you should know that.Again, I am not saying that carbon gases don’t have some effect on the climate but to the degree that is being posited by the climate scientists, I respectfully disagree.Below is a link to an article by a climate scientist who discusses the way the data is skewed in popular climate science research. He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007.I think he demonstrates the assumptions with which current climate science works and he recognizes the overstatements. He also points out the problem with over confidence in computer models that may or may not reflect actual circumstances and how these models underly most of the research. His call is to recognize the ignorance with which we are all working with this issue and to admit that this is new science and is in no way conclusive at this point.Again, I appreciate the conversation. But I must admit, if you think Al Gore gives a fair representation in his movie, I’m not sure our discussion will ever progress much. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 21, 2008, 11:38 am
  5. >There is no consensus.They predicted global cooling in the 1970s.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 21, 2008, 4:04 am
  6. >I would not say wholesale that the activity of human beings is not having some effect on the earth’s climate. I think it is. I would, however, question the degree to which this is occurring and I would be careful not to blame EVERY phenomenon on this effect. Moreover, I would also be more cautious in saying what I think the catastrophic consequences might be….Perhaps we can all agree that there are things we can do to cut down on the effects we are having on the earth’s climate. But we should also call into question the rabid pit-bull climate change scientists and promoters (Al Gore) who make these crazy, wild prophetic like predictions that are based on fallacy and not fact.I’d like to know who these wild-eyed crazy climate scientists are. In every single case I have read, the argument is sound and presented in an objective manner and has cogent warnings. Even Al Gore is like that (have you seen his film?)There is archaeological evidence of sea level rises going back tens of thousands of years. For climate scientists to say “as the world warms, the ice sheets will melt and the sea levels will rise” is not alarmist, it is simple science since it has obviously occurred before.Glacial melt from Antarctica and Greenland are contributing to around 2-3mm of sea level rise per year. As glaciers and ice sheets melt faster, the rate of sea level rise will increase. That is not alarmist, it is simple science.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 21, 2008, 3:54 am
  7. >MarkI am well aware of the science departments opinion on climate change here at Durham and respectfully disagree with them. I do not agree with someone simply because they have an academic title prefixed to their name just as I would not want someone to assume that everything I say is exactly right on every matter.I’m glad that you have check with the Climate Scientists at Durham. Nevertheless, if one of these scientists approached you and said “There is no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus existed”, what would you say?The fact would be that these so called academics would be committing intellectual suicide. Moreover, they would be exposed for having a strong opinion on something they know nothing about.The fact that you are willing to disagree with climate scientists about climate science is of great concern. Regardless of their qualifications and positions, surely they have more knowledge and expertise in this area than others?Moreover, it would be good to ask them what their political agenda is. Many people (myself included), are annoyed that the issue of climate change has been actively dismissed and ridiculed by the conservative side of politics.As you well know, or should know, a proper interpretation of facts is only appropriate in the community in which it is received. This is why there are divergent opinions on this matter. How can it be that two opinions are formed from the same data?As I pointed out, there is a consensus among climate scientists. The fact that other scientists from other fields might disagree with them is not an issue. A PhD in Mathematics who disagrees with the IPCC, for example, is really no one of consequence and whose disagreement does not affect the “consensus” view because his field of expertise is not related in any major way to climate science.Again let me use the doctor analogy. The climate scientists are the doctors warning the earth about a major sickness. Getting a second opinion will result in a consensus view.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 21, 2008, 3:48 am
  8. >Jeff, I prob won’t read any links, however, because I’m pretty sure we could list 100 competing links and it wouldn’t really contribute much.Well if you’re not willing to examine the issue properly then please refrain from voicing your opinion. Nothing is worse than people having a firm opinion on something they know little about.But if you do decide to look into the issue properly one day, remember to read the arguments of climate scientists rather than anyone else. These are the experts in the field.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 21, 2008, 3:35 am
  9. >j wizzle, you said But this is showing how there really isn’t a consensus. That’s the whole point. You can also add to that the fact that people are going so far out of their way to try and keep dissenters shut up. What are they afraid of?Not really. The issue is whether climate scientists are in consensus, not all scientists. The APS is a group for physicists, which is a different brand of scientist.Put simply – the fact that a whole lot of scientists have different opinions is of no consequence because they are NOT climate scientists.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 21, 2008, 3:32 am
  10. >OSO, granted my bit about the climate change argument was felicitous and without fact. My generalities do open me up to attack. However, I am aware of the facts in this debate and get a bit irritated by the assumptions that the climate change argument is predicated upon. I am well aware of the science departments opinion on climate change here at Durham and respectfully disagree with them. I do not agree with someone simply because they have an academic title prefixed to their name just as I would not want someone to assume that everything I say is exactly right on every matter. (Everyone I know just gave a hearty amen!)As you well know, or should know, a proper interpretation of facts is only appropriate in the community in which it is received. This is why there are divergent opinions on this matter. How can it be that two opinions are formed from the same data? There is obviously quite a bit of room in the argument for interpretation, which makes for a variety of opinions. So it’s not so lock-tight as you think it is or would want to believe. In saying this I must admit that both sides of the argument have their political, and otherwise, agendas to push. I just get sick of the overstatements and exaggerations that I feel the more balanced scientists are trying to correct. I would not say wholesale that the activity of human beings is not having some effect on the earth’s climate. I think it is. I would, however, question the degree to which this is occurring and I would be careful not to blame EVERY phenomenon on this effect. Moreover, I would also be more cautious in saying what I think the catastrophic consequences might be. This is my issue.Like the analogy you used with Jeff, if the only diagnosis I got from every doctor I went to was the same I would be a fool not to believe them. But if I keep getting different opinions, which seems to be increasing, then that is a different story. Granted, at some point I would have to believe somebody and giving you the benefit of the doubt, it would be much wiser to err on the safe side.Perhaps we can all agree that there are things we can do to cut down on the effects we are having on the earth’s climate. But we should also call into question the rabid pit-bull climate change scientists and promoters (Al Gore) who make these crazy, wild prophetic like predictions that are based on fallacy and not fact. This debate is still new and lacks any concrete conclusions. Until there is more work done I think there will be quite a bit more pendulum swinging reactions to each side which only make the whole thing worse. However, as Christians we should be able to engage the issue in a more civil manner. Thus, if I have offended you in any way OSO, let me apologize. We can agree to disagree.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 20, 2008, 1:17 pm
  11. >You are right, Jay.OSO, you are our guest and we should be a little more hospitable. With all joking aside, if you have a position you’d like to put forth or an argument to make I’d be glad to look it over. I prob won’t read any links, however, because I’m pretty sure we could list 100 competing links and it wouldn’t really contribute much. I do appreciate that you take the time to comment here, though. If anything, you are persistent.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 20, 2008, 3:58 am
  12. >Ooo. I think we may all be getting a little touchy here.

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | July 20, 2008, 3:19 am
  13. >Mark, you said OSO, it appears that you have made yet another salient oversight. You seem to take whatever the APS says as fact that is not to be questioned.Actually all I was pointing out was that the APS supports the consensus view of global warming. This was in response to the erroneous view that the APS was somehow questioning the consensus (as per the CRM blog article).Moreover, Mark, I would say also that you don’t know much about Global Warming science – your comments contain all sorts of assumptions and rumours posing as facts.If you’re going to have a strong opinion on a subject, you cannot be ignorant of the facts, otherwise you are fair game.I suggest that you avail yourself of the climate science department at Durham University and ask their expert opinion. Then contact me again and we’ll discuss things.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 20, 2008, 2:05 am
  14. >But this is showing how there really isn’t a consensus. That’s the whole point. You can also add to that the fact that people are going so far out of their way to try and keep dissenters shut up. What are they afraid of?

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 20, 2008, 2:04 am
  15. >Jeff,When a doctor tells me I’m sick, I tend to believe him.If I don’t like what the doctor says, I get a second opinion.If that doctor gives the same diagnosis and treatment, I would be a fool to ignore him.Similarly,If a climate scientist says that there’s something seriously wrong with the current global warming trend, I would believe him.If I chose to, I would then go to another climate scientist for his opinion. After doing this about 1000 times I would discover that a consensus opinion exists among climate scientists about what is going wrong.I would be an idiot to ignore this consensus, or a fool to believe that they were all wrong.

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 20, 2008, 1:59 am
  16. >OSO, it appears that you have made yet another salient oversight. You seem to take whatever the APS says as fact that is not to be questioned. I think what these more balanced scientists are trying to say is that there have been biased, irresponsible overstatements and exaggerations advanced in the field of GW that they are trying to correct. This is a typical research blunder on the part of those who have an agenda to push rather than an honest attempt to view the data and come up with objective conclusions. The problem with many associated with APS is that their minds were made up long before the research began. This is not to say that there is no warming trend that is detectable, but no more than the cooling trend detected in the 1970’s. This is just another side of the coin. When that theory was debunked another theory had to be developed. After all, if the earth is not cooling, it must be warming. That is, it couldn’t simply be going through normal stages that it has probably been going through for millions of years. There has to be something industry and big business are doing wrong! Thus the ball gets rolling. Now these overstatements are being pointed out, and rightfully so. Serious researchers have little tolerance for those who use science as a platform for their political agendas. I’m sure we’ll see more of this in the future.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 19, 2008, 12:40 pm
  17. >Is that the same Monckton who wanted to put all the AIDS patients in concentration camps?

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | July 19, 2008, 11:18 am
  18. >Good grief, OSO! You buy the whole agenda lock, stock, and barrel, huh?

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 19, 2008, 2:10 am
  19. >Like most reporting done by climate sceptics, the reality of this move by the American Physical Society is not as massive as you might think.On the front page of the APS website is this major announcement:The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:”Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.http://www.aps.org/.APS Climate change statement, November 2007.Screenshot of APS front page.If you want to read what climate scientists have to say about climate science, click here

    Posted by One Salient Oversight | July 19, 2008, 1:49 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

Photobucket
All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: