Global Warming Scientific Consensus--Isn't

[merrill]

January 27, 2012

The Wall Street Journal today published an opinion piece from 16 scientists urging candidates for public office to ignore the looming threat of climate change. While it’s entirely appropriate for scientists, like all citizens, to voice their personal opinions on public policy, the op-ed repeated a number of deeply misleading claims about climate science.

To take just one example, the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. Here’s what we know: 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record. Over the past decade, record high temperatures outpaced record lows by more than two to one across the continental United States, a marked increase from previous decades.

So where should decision-makers and the public turn to understand what the vast majority of scientists with relevant expertise really think about climate change?


Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal - The Equation

 

[Meister]

Global Warming Scientific Consensus--Isn't

Where's

the

SNOW??!!!!

​

Stick your sorry ass in my neck of the woods, we have snow.

 

[Meister]

The only solution the the UN wants is that the first world countries pay the third world countries money. That is the solution to the so called global problem. Yet, the nuts just can't see it.

 

[Ed Spacer]

The manner thst global warming is being used is a farce. I am also a studying meteorologist,and its a political agenda geared by the socialists to kill industry,and create sheep. True,environmentally locally horrible,but,the sun is a growing star,and as a growing star,is creating a greater electro magnetic pull to all the planets closer to it,as proof by the axis planetary tilt,and the atomic influx of solar radiation,which is actually destroying the ozone layer,NOT HUMANS. eventually,this planet,as the sun grows more,and pulls the planets closervto its orbit,in millions of years,it will be uninhabitable. The true scientific community already realizes this,abd the agenda is a compkete lie and a farce. Manmade global warming DOES NOT EXIST,and if i have to use scientific formulations to prove ut,i will. Its a horrible lie to kill industry. Volcanoes are the only big issue that can lower temperature with millions of tons of ash,then flux back to normal. Simple understanding of astronomy will give the true reason for global warming. Its not people.

 

[Ed Spacer]

also,if you see the stronger and greater frequency of solar storms,this is also proof that as growing star,and is the ultimate cause for global warming. The green agenda is a commie agenda to kill jobs and industry and make people dependant on the government. I welcome a debate and xhallenge to this,with unbias scientific evidence.

 

[Ed Spacer]

The only solution the the UN wants is that the first world countries pay the third world countries money. That is the solution to the so called global problem. Yet, the nuts just can't see it.

there is no problem. Only concocted agenda to spread lies,now rhe DOE is trying to force this teaching to children instead of teaching independent practical skills. Thats why i dont even watch the weather channel anymore.

 

[Meister]

The only solution the the UN wants is that the first world countries pay the third world countries money. That is the solution to the so called global problem. Yet, the nuts just can't see it.

there is no problem. Only concocted agenda to spread lies,now rhe DOE is trying to force this teaching to children instead of teaching independent practical skills. Thats why i dont even watch the weather channel anymore.

Yup, it's just one way to try and redistribute the wealth of this country to other countries.

 

[Dragon]

I am also a studying meteorologist

You might as well not have mentioned that. It gives you ZERO expertise on this subject. Meteorology is NOT climate science.

Now, since your own credentials are zip, and you have no authority, please provide evidence and/or argument backing up the assertions you made in the rest of your post, just as anyone else would need to who, LIKE YOURSELF, is NOT a climate scientist.

 

[bripat9643]

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,

If it has "no significance," then why do the warmist cult members keep calling it a pollutant? Every word is "a matter of definition." According to the scientific definition of "pollution," that is, an unnatural substance chemically toxic to plant or animal life, C02 doesn't qualify.

It is factually true that global temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998. That's what the warmists own data shows.

talks about the idea that global warming will "destroy civilization," which is a straw man,

No it's not. That's exactly what warmist cult members have been implying with their hysterical scare stories.

claims that increased CO2 is likely partly responsible for the increased crop yields over the same period, which is without supporting evidence,

There is abundant evidence that higher CO2 levels increase crop yields. Scientists have studied the matter thoroughly and the evidence is indisputable.

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,

Bunk. A bunch of warmist shills defended their milch cow. They didn't "debunk" a thing except their own undeserved reputations as objective scientists and honest men.

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.

There isn't the slightest thing preposterous about it. The conspirators were caught in the act. That's what the Climategate papers were all about.

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.

So the only people "qualified" to be skeptics are the ones on the government payroll getting paid to produce evidence that global warming is true?

The Catholic church told Galileo that he wasn't "qualified" to claim that the sun had spots on it or that Jupiter had moons in orbit around it.

The notion that only those in the cult are "qualified" is the indisputable indication of a cult, not science.

Anyone with a PHD in the physical sciences is qualified to look at the evidence and determine if it's credible.

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.

You pretty much just claimed that only warmist cult members are "qualified" to make a decision abut the credibility of global warming theory.

Einstein worked in the Post Office when he derived his theory of relativity. He wasn't "qualified" to overturn Newtonian physics. Nevertheless, he did.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Rabid, there are many Scientific Societies in the world. Surely you can find one that states that AGW is incorrect? Well, no, you cannot. Because there is not such.

How about a National Academy of Science? Outer Slobovia? How about Saudi Arabia? No, once again, there are not any that state that AGW is wrong.

OK, at least one major University. Come on Rabid, just one major University that states that AGW is not correct. But no, once again, such does not exist.

You know why? Because the consensus in Science that AGW is correct and a clear and present danger to all of us is overwhelming.

So you have 16 scientists that are saying that AGW is not a major concern. Note, not a major concern, not that it does not exist. Against how many hundreds of thousands that clearly think that AGW is a major concern, and are presenting evidence on more than a daily basis.

AGW Observer

Climate Change: The Next Generation: Arctic Methane Emergency Group

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Pattycake, how about a real paper from a real scientist that backs up you bullshit?

 

[Old Rocks]

The manner thst global warming is being used is a farce. I am also a studying meteorologist,and its a political agenda geared by the socialists to kill industry,and create sheep. True,environmentally locally horrible,but,the sun is a growing star,and as a growing star,is creating a greater electro magnetic pull to all the planets closer to it,as proof by the axis planetary tilt,and the atomic influx of solar radiation,which is actually destroying the ozone layer,NOT HUMANS. eventually,this planet,as the sun grows more,and pulls the planets closervto its orbit,in millions of years,it will be uninhabitable. The true scientific community already realizes this,abd the agenda is a compkete lie and a farce. Manmade global warming DOES NOT EXIST,and if i have to use scientific formulations to prove ut,i will. Its a horrible lie to kill industry. Volcanoes are the only big issue that can lower temperature with millions of tons of ash,then flux back to normal. Simple understanding of astronomy will give the true reason for global warming. Its not people.

Ever consider some high school science courses?

 

[bripat9643]

Hey Pattycake, how about a real paper from a real scientist that backs up you bullshit?

You mean a paper published in the journals that are under the control of the global warming fraudsters?

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, Pattycake, sure. All the scientists in the world from all the various nations and political ideologies are in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool poor little you.

Need some more tinfoil for your hats?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, Pattycake, sure. All the scientists in the world from all the various nations and political ideologies are in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool poor little you.

Need some more tinfoil for your hats?

No, just the ones sucking on the government tit. They get paid to produce support for global warming. The term "conspiracy" is something of a misnomer since it's right out in the open.

 

[Meister]

Sure, Pattycake, sure. All the scientists in the world from all the various nations and political ideologies are in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool poor little you.

Need some more tinfoil for your hats?

your bs is getting real old, rockhead. Your religion is losing steam with every passing month, that must really bite, huh?

 

[merrill]

Sure, Pattycake, sure. All the scientists in the world from all the various nations and political ideologies are in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool poor little you.

Need some more tinfoil for your hats?

No, just the ones sucking on the government tit. They get paid to produce support for global warming. The term "conspiracy" is something of a misnomer since it's right out in the open.

Who are the ones being paid to support Global Warming?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, Pattycake, sure. All the scientists in the world from all the various nations and political ideologies are in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool poor little you.

Need some more tinfoil for your hats?

No, just the ones sucking on the government tit. They get paid to produce support for global warming. The term "conspiracy" is something of a misnomer since it's right out in the open.

Who are the ones being paid to support Global Warming?

Every "climatologist" with a government grant to study "climate change" is being paid to produce support for climate change. If they return a result that says global warming isn't a problem - whoops, that's the end of their research grant!

That's how government money corrupts science.

 

[Dragon]

If it has "no significance," then why do the warmist cult members keep calling it a pollutant?

There are no warmist cult members. Climate scientists don't use the word as a rule in describing CO2. The claim is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been dramatically increased by human activities and that this is causing global warming. Whether we classify CO2 as a "pollutant" has no relevance whatever to whether or not that claim is true.

It is factually true that global temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

No, it's not.

No it's not. That's exactly what warmist cult members have been implying with their hysterical scare stories.

There are no warmist cult members. Climate scientists backing AGW, i.e. almost all of them, speak of serious impacts on quality of life, plagues, famines, bad shit generally, but "destruction of civilization" would happen only as a worst-case scenario, if, say, we get an overreaction of the planet's homeostatic mechanisms that starts an ice age. That's considered a speculative theoretical possibility but not a likely outcome.

There is abundant evidence that higher CO2 levels increase crop yields.

You know what? You may be right on this one. Global Warming May Boost Crop Yields, Study Says

However, the same studies also suggest lowered nutritional levels for the crops, so it isn't actually much of a boon.

They didn't "debunk" a thing except their own undeserved reputations as objective scientists and honest men.

Actually, that's the only thing they didn't manage to preserve. The conclusion was that the impact on the integrity of the data and conclusions was nil. The reputations of those involved did in fact suffer.

Anyone with a PHD in the physical sciences is qualified to look at the evidence and determine if it's credible.

Wrong. As you would know if you knew anything about science. Besides, what's being discussed here is whether or not there is a consensus among climate scientists about global warming, and only climate scientists who disagree with it can be counted towards determining whether there is or is not a consensus. (Also it's necessary to define what's meant by "consensus." Does it mean merely overwhelming concurrence or actual 100% universal agreement? In the former case there is a consensus. In the latter there only almost is.)

You pretty much just claimed that only warmist cult members are "qualified" to make a decision abut the credibility of global warming theory.

No, I only claimed that climate scientists are the only people who should be called climate scientists. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, and each opinion must be judged on its merits. But when a list of "dissenters" is presented to dispute the claim that there is a consensus on the issue among climate scientists, and most of those on the list of dissenters aren't climate scientists, that's a valid criticism of that argument.

 

[Dragon]

Every "climatologist" with a government grant to study "climate change" is being paid to produce support for climate change.

Since almost all climate research, whether on climate change or on anything else, is being funded by government grants, this amounts to giving yourself an excuse to dismiss the entire body of science in the field.

Having done that, you are left with nothing. Enjoy your ignorance. I understand it's bliss.