Global Warming Scientific Consensus--Isn't

[The Rabbi]

So, turns out there is no consensus on global warming. There is a rigid orthodoxy among scientific orgs that discourages honest discussion, and gives the appearance of some kind of agreement. But that is illusory.
In any case, "consensus" is not what science is about. If every scientist agreed the earth was flat and one person could demonstrate that it was not, scientific consensus would be wrong. Which is where we are now.
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

More at the source.

 

[Dragon]

Dr. Giaever did not question the idea of AGW itself. He merely stated that, as a matter of scientific principle, there are no "incontrovertible" ideas in science. As a matter of principle, he is correct, and the APS may be legitimately criticized for a very poor choice of words.

Find something he said that actually calls AGW into question, rather than insisting that it (and all other ideas) be OPEN to question, and you'll have something that suggests there may not be a consensus. This ain't it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dr. Giaever did not question the idea of AGW itself. He merely stated that, as a matter of scientific principle, there are no "incontrovertible" ideas in science. As a matter of principle, he is correct, and the APS may be legitimately criticized for a very poor choice of words.

Find something he said that actually calls AGW into question, rather than insisting that it (and all other ideas) be OPEN to question, and you'll have something that suggests there may not be a consensus. This ain't it.

You clearly didnt ahve someone read you the rest of the article.

 

[Ancient lion]

I agree with them. It's a myth.

 

[merrill]

More than 2,000 scientists think Global Warming is real etc etc etc etc etc

Global Warming

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.

However, there is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Our country is at a crossroads: the United States can act responsibly and seize the opportunity to lead by developing new, innovative solutions, as well as immediately putting to use the many practical solutions we have at our disposal today; or we can choose to do nothing and deal with severe consequences later. At UCS we believe the choice is clear. It is time to push forward toward a brighter, cleaner future.

* Clean Car Hearings Hit the Road – First Stop: Detroit, Michelle Robinson

* California On Track to Meet Clean Energy Requirements, Laura Wisland

* The 2 Percent Factor—Where We Live, Brenda Ekwurzel

Get the Global Warming feed


Highlights

* Attack on the Clean Air Act
* Visit our new Climate Hot Map to learn about the effects of global warming
* Steps the EPA Must Take to Reduce Global Warming Emissions

Campaign:

* The Weight of the Evidence

Analysis:

* Climate Change and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution
* Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy

What is Global Warming?

When CO2 and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. Overloading our atmosphere with carbon has far-reaching effects for people everywhere. Learn more
Global Warming Science & Impacts

What does the science say about global warming and what are the connections between climate data and the changes we see around us—and those we expect to see in the future?

Learn more


Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[merrill]

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Download the 2004 Renewing America's Economy (PDF) to see the benefits of a national 20 percent by 2020 renewable electricity standard

UCS also examined the costs and benefits of a national 20 percent by 2020 renewable electricity standard at the state-level as well as for the Western United States. To see the benefits the national standard can bring to your state or region, click below.

RENEWING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING COLORADO'S ECONOMY
RENEWING ILLINOIS' ECONOMY
RENEWING IOWA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING MICHIGAN'S ECONOMY
RENEWING MINNESOTA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING NEW HAMPSHIRE'S ECONOMY
RENEWING NEW MEXICO'S ECONOMY
RENEWING NEW YORK'S ECONOMY
RENEWING OREGON'S ECONOMY
RENEWING PENNSYLVANIA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING TEXAS' ECONOMY
RENEWING WISCONSIN'S ECONOMY
RENEWING THE WEST (regional results)

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/...ergy_solutions/renewing-americas-economy.html


A June 2005 study by the EIA examined the costs and benefits of the national 10 percent renewable electricity standard passed by the U.S. Senate.2 In 2004, UCS also used EIA’s model to examine a similar 10 percent national standard, but again with more optimistic assumptions for renewable energy technology costs and performance.

Both studies found that the consumer, economic, and environmental benefits would be significant, but less than compared with the 20 percent by 2020 standard. To see the benefits that the 10 percent national standard can bring to the United States, and your state or region, click below.

RENEWING AMERICA'S ECONOMY - 10 PERCENT BY 2020 RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD

RENEWING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING COLORADO'S ECONOMY
RENEWING ILLINOIS' ECONOMY
RENEWING IOWA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING KANSAS' ECONOMY
RENEWING MICHIGAN'S ECONOMY
RENEWING MINNESOTA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING NEW ENGLAND'S ECONOMY (regional results)
RENEWING NEW HAMPSHIRE'S ECONOMY
RENEWING NEW MEXICO'S ECONOMY
RENEWING NEW YORK'S ECONOMY
RENEWING OREGON'S ECONOMY
RENEWING PENNSYLVANIA'S ECONOMY
RENEWING TEXAS' ECONOMY
RENEWING UTAH'S ECONOMY
RENEWING WISCONSIN'S ECONOMY

To learn more about the Renewing America's Economy analysis, view our methodology, and view the methods chapter in our 2001 report, Clean Energy Blueprint.

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[The Rabbi]

More than 2,000 scientists think Global Warming is real etc etc etc etc etc

]

It wouldnt matter if 2000 scientists thought the earth was flat. It doesnt make it true.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Global Warming Scientific Consensus--Isn't

Where's

the

SNOW??!!!!

​

 

[merrill]

In the last ice age there was not:

*a damaged ozone layer

*300 billion people

*billions of cars/trucks

*billions of homes

*millions of large downtown commercial/office structures

*tons of coal fired plants

*tons of nuke plants

*millions of manufacturing plants

*tons upon tons of toxic lawn/landscape chemicals spread upon millions upon millions upon millions of yards trying to create the un-natural yard

*a huge polluting USA government

*a quite large polluting oil industry that dos not give a damn

*a large unknown amount of depleted uranium weapons dust being spread
around the world

*millions of americans who don't give a damn and believe what misinformed
politicians tell them

 

[bripat9643]

Dr. Giaever did not question the idea of AGW itself.

I'm afraid he did.

In his resignation note, Giaever wrote: "In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

That is questioning the idea of AWG.

Furthermore, he said the following:

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Giaever declared himself a dissenter in 2008, "I am a skeptic... Global warming has become a new religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money," he added.

He merely stated that, as a matter of scientific principle, there are no "incontrovertible" ideas in science. As a matter of principle, he is correct, and the APS may be legitimately criticized for a very poor choice of words.

In other words, he questioned the idea of AGW. Furthermore, he goes on to express skepticism that AGW is anything to be concerned about.

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Find something he said that actually calls AGW into question, rather than insisting that it (and all other ideas) be OPEN to question, and you'll have something that suggests there may not be a consensus. This ain't it.

Been there. Done that.

 

[konradv]

So, turns out there is no consensus on global warming. There is a rigid orthodoxy among scientific orgs that discourages honest discussion, and gives the appearance of some kind of agreement. But that is illusory.

Sure, there's no consensus on the "when" and "how bad" issues, but the "if" is settled, unless you can explain away Conservation of Energy.

 

[Jarhead]

In the last ice age there was not:

*a damaged ozone layer

*300 billion people

*billions of cars/trucks

*billions of homes

*millions of large downtown commercial/office structures

*tons of coal fired plants

*tons of nuke plants

*millions of manufacturing plants

*tons upon tons of toxic lawn/landscape chemicals spread upon millions upon millions upon millions of yards trying to create the un-natural yard

*a huge polluting USA government

*a quite large polluting oil industry that dos not give a damn

*a large unknown amount of depleted uranium weapons dust being spread
around the world

*millions of americans who don't give a damn and believe what misinformed
politicians tell them

TRUE!

Yet there was an ice age noine-the-less...

and a subsequent warming...and then a mini ice age in the 1700's....and lo and behold, a subsequent warming....one that we may still be experiencing.

 

[Jarhead]

Global Warming Scientific Consensus--Isn't

Where's

the

SNOW??!!!!

​

there were record snowfalls last year.......so I guess global warming JUST STARTED THIS YEAR?

Jeez...I swore I would never respond to this guy with his crayons....but I just couldnt resist.

 

[bripat9643]

So, turns out there is no consensus on global warming. There is a rigid orthodoxy among scientific orgs that discourages honest discussion, and gives the appearance of some kind of agreement. But that is illusory.

Sure, there's no consensus on the "when" and "how bad" issues, but the "if" is settled, unless you can explain away Conservation of Energy.

Once again the warmist cult member demonstrates his total ignorance of science.

The "if" isn't settled either.

 

[konradv]

TRUE!

Yet there was an ice age noine-the-less...

and a subsequent warming...and then a mini ice age in the 1700's....and lo and behold, a subsequent warming....one that we may still be experiencing.

You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

 

[konradv]

TRUE!

Yet there was an ice age noine-the-less...

and a subsequent warming...and then a mini ice age in the 1700's....and lo and behold, a subsequent warming....one that we may still be experiencing.

You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

BTW, I thought we were supposed to be going into an Ice Age, not out of one. What happened to that? People keep saying that was the theory in the 70s. What's changed is shown in the video.

 

[Jarhead]

TRUE!

Yet there was an ice age noine-the-less...

and a subsequent warming...and then a mini ice age in the 1700's....and lo and behold, a subsequent warming....one that we may still be experiencing.

You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

yo...

I did not.

Did you bother to read the post I was responding to?

 

[Jarhead]

TRUE!

Yet there was an ice age noine-the-less...

and a subsequent warming...and then a mini ice age in the 1700's....and lo and behold, a subsequent warming....one that we may still be experiencing.

You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

BTW, I thought we were supposed to be going into an Ice Age, not out of one. What happened to that? People keep saying that was the theory in the 70s. What's changed is shown in the video.

yep...theories change...thus why they are called theories and not facts.

Bottom line...I just dont see global warming as an issue.....too many of the "facts" have been proven to be nothing but theories.

 

[Dragon]

There was nothing of significance to the WSJ article except for the quote from Giaever, who, interestingly enough, is not listed as one of the 16 signatories.

The article speaks of "the lack of warming over the past 10 years," which is a factual untruth, states that "CO2 is not a pollutant," which is a matter of definition and has no significance to the subject, talks about the idea that global warming will "destroy civilization," which is a straw man, claims that increased CO2 is likely partly responsible for the increased crop yields over the same period, which is without supporting evidence, makes a reference to "climategate," which has been debunked as having any significance for the global warming issue beyond sensationalism and its utility for propaganda purposes, raises the argument that it's all done to obtain funding, which is preposterous given how huge a conspiracy would be required, and in general is nothing new, nothing of value, and overall, nothing.

As for the list of signers, the following are either non-scientists or those whose expertise lies wholly outside climate science: J. Scott Armstrong (marketing), Jan Breslow (genetics), Roger Cohen (journalist), Eward David (electrical engineer), William Happer (physics, specializing in optics), Michael Kelly (engineering), William Kininmonth (meteorologist), James McGrath (chemistry), Burt Rutan (engineering), Harrison H. Schmitt (astronaut), Hank Tennekes (meteorologist). That leaves Claude Allègre, Richard Lindzen, and Nir Shaviv, who actually are scientists in the appropriate fields, and Rodney Nichols and Antonio Zichini, whose specialties I was unable to find.

That means eleven of the seventeen (not sixteen -- jeez, they can't even get their own count right!) are bogus and two more may well be. We have only three genuine qualified global warming skeptics that can be verified out of that list. This is actually pretty typical of such claims.

Britpat, one might make a similar point if the APS had declared that the law of gravity or the theory of relativity was "incontrovertible." In fact, Einstein himself might have objected. That does not imply dispute over what is supposed to be rendered "incontrovertible," it merely insists on retaining proper scientific method and procedure.

 

[konradv]

TRUE!

Yet there was an ice age noine-the-less...

and a subsequent warming...and then a mini ice age in the 1700's....and lo and behold, a subsequent warming....one that we may still be experiencing.

You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

yo...

I did not.

Did you bother to read the post I was responding to?

You mentioned natural cycles and suggested that's what we're seeing. What did I miss? I just pointed out that you can't assume that, based on the very post you think I didn't read!!!