Why we should listen to the 97%

[bripat9643]

Apparently Saigon believes that the minute a Republican gets elected all the left-wing bureaucrats get fired and replaced by loyal conservatives.

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.

Well, yes, you are correct. In most nations conservative and liberal are mostly related to economic policy. Here is the US, Conservative means willfully ignorant in science, disdainful of any kind of education, and the hate of anyone that looks differant from the North European norm. Just look at the posts in general on the US Message Board.

Apparently "liberal" means being mentally retarded and dishonest to the bone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

A classic worth repeating

"Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average. See above.....


"Climatologist: AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.

Physicist: Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?

Climatologist: Uhm... no.

Physicist: Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet... See above."

 

[Foxfyre]

And your defnition is why so few serious posters take you seriously Old Rocks.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

For the third time now - please post the REAL statistics from your own link.

If you don't, I will.

Go right ahead. I don't mind you proving that it doesn't mean what you insist it means.

 

[daveman]

I have read it - which is how I know that your maths is wrong.

Then perhaps you should write to the author.

btw, If it is a survey of scientists, why are engineers included?

The planet is like a machine. Who knows better how machines work than engineers?

I have a question for you: Why are there no statisticians writing climate models? After all, climate data is nothing but statistics.

Engineers that all too often ignore everything but what they are trying to build. We see that in the siting of nuclear reactors...

Who told the engineers to put it there?

Oh, yes -- geologists. You were saying something...?

...and I have had all too many experiances of having to redisign machinery that the engineer forgot the need for lubrication on.

Yes, I'm sure. Like Saigon, you have a contempt for engineers. Why is that? Is it because they insist your silly ideas won't work?

Dumb ass, you do not realize that stastics is a required course in any scientific field, even Geology?

Is it one of the courses you didn't get to before you quit geology school?

 

[daveman]

Apparently Saigon believes that the minute a Republican gets elected all the left-wing bureaucrats get fired and replaced by loyal conservatives.

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.

Well, yes, you are correct. In most nations conservative and liberal are mostly related to economic policy. Here is the US, Conservative means willfully ignorant in science, disdainful of any kind of education, and the hate of anyone that looks differant from the North European norm. Just look at the posts in general on the US Message Board.

That's what it means to bigots. Are you a bigot?

Sure looks that way.

 

[FA_Q2]

Late, I know. Sometimes it can take a while and the 17th amendment thread has been taking a lot of my time

I am pulling your statements for brevity. I don’t mean to take anything out of context.

Yale/George Mason University, 2011*"When [survey participants were]
asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to
catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great
danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little
danger." That 87% that see moderate to catastrophic effects in a future
sans AGW measures taken. I'd place "serious" consequences somewhere in
there.
http://journalistsresource.org/studi...-change/struct
ure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/#

That does not solve the original problem though. You are reinforcing my entire point here. The argument in the video is rather simple:

We should do something because

• scientists have a ‘consensus’ that the earth is warming
• scientists have a ‘consensus’ that the earth the danger would be severe
• the fix is not severe

He likens this to a trial where ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the level of proof that is required to convict. He then goes on to state that he is going to use THAT standard. <---- RIGHT THERE is the crux of WHY this entire rationalization is bunk. Remember that the OP of this thread was in direct reference to this rationality expressed in the video and NOT other rationalities for AGW. That is why I said earlier that even IF AGW is really occurring and the outcome will be disastrous, this particular video is bunk because the logic is severely flawed. In this set of statistics you have only 41% seeing great danger (which is where catastrophic and serious would be). Lumping moderate with grate is rather disingenuous in my opinion and moderate is definitely NOT serious. There are HUGE differences there. I can tell you though that 41% IS NOT without reasonable doubt. It is not even in the same ballpark.
Further, that certainly does NOT show any consensus at all. You have achieved the first bullet point by all means IF we take the surveys at face value. Scientists have a consensus, according to your data, that the earth is warming. They, however, do not have one as far as the danger is concerned. That has been one of my core points here (and problems with AGW in general).

The very basis of one side of the comparison Dessler made was that
reasons for taking action against AGW were valid. Completely and
unequivocally implicit in that structure is that AGW validity indicates
a very high risk of severe consequences. A state in which AGW is valid
but no risk is thus presented is not one in which ameliorative measures
were necessary. That was not one of the state's examined.

But it IS the cornerstone of the argument. If we are demanding that the severe consequences are intrinsic in the argument and must simply be accepted then there is not much reason to continue because you have essentially demanded that the argument is correct because the argument has defined itself as correct. That is circular reasoning and there no possible way to debate that type of reasoning.

The fact that the consequences might not be severe is a key point of contention. Unless, of course, I am not reading what you meant by this statement properly.

1) Oreskes, Naomi, 2004, 928 abstracts which mention climate change.
None (0%) disagree with the IPCC consensus
2) Harris Interactive, 2007, survey of 489 PhD members or AMS or AGU:
84% believe warming to be human-induced. 85% believe
consequences of GW range from moderately to catastrophically dangerous.
Only 5% of those surveyed reject AGW.
3) Bray & Von Storch, 2008, 2,058 climate scientists surveyed. None
(0%) reject warming. 98.6 agree slightly to very much that
humans are the primary cause of that warming. 83.5% agreed "to a large
extent" and "very much".
4) Doran & Zimmerman, 2009, 3,146 Earth scientists. 82% (of all
3,146) accept AGW. Of active, publishing climate scientists,
97% accept AGW (This is the one you fellows always use to
demonstrate your weakness in statistics)
5) PNAS paper, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372
climate researchers. 97-98% accepted AGW and the study found a
substantial difference between the expertise and prominence (by
publication and citation rates) between those who doubt AGW and those
who accept it. The greater one's prominence and recognized expertise in
the field, the greater the likelihood they accept AGW.
6) Cook, Nuccitelli, et al in Environmental Research Letters. A review
of 4,014 papers which discussed the cause of global warming:
97.1% endorsed the IPCC position. When the authors were
surveyed, 97.2% of them endorsed the IPCC position.

Doran and Zimmerman were not the only ones to find ~97% acceptance of
AGW.

For the fifth or sixth time: WHERE ARE THE SURVEYS THAT SHOW US
DIFFERENT RESULTS?

1 – meaningless. We have already moved past consensus on warming.
2 – moderate to disastrous – not a useful range. Moderate may mean virtually nothing would be harmed, disastrous could mean we all die. That range is useless as described above.
3 – more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved. Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.
4 – more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved. Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.
5 – more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved. Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.
6 - more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved. Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.

As for the fifth or sixth time you asked this question – that is an argument that you are having with the other posters, not me. I referenced Dave’s statement once and then stated that ‘if you take the statistical analysis at it face value’ which means (or at least I meant it to mean) that contending that statement does not matter as it is irrelevant to my grater point. Again, I GIVE you that, for the purposes of this thread, that there is consensus on that particular point.

I started this thread with the intent to discuss Dessler's statements
and reasoning. You're the first to actually do so. All your
predecessors took this as an opportunity to argue the validity of the
97% figure.

I’ll take that as a complement

EV and hybrid automobiles have the capability right now to replace a
great many of our ICE vehicles. They are doing so. And as the price
comes down and the infrastructure appears, more will follow.

Not in any real sense of the matter. They are trying but the actual dent they are making is non existent. Given that pure EV’s are not 100% carbon free anyway as they still rely on dirty power and hybrids are a joke, the impact is negligible at best and nonexistent at worst. Hybrids are a joke because they still burn gas and a friend of mine had a pure gas vehicle that gets better gas mileage than my other friends hybrid. EV’s are the way to go, hybrids are, imho, pointless.

Either way, they do NOT have the capability atm. They WILL in the future. That is only natural but right now they are lacking in several places. As soon as the price comes down and the infrastructure is built up, we will see that change but I would venture a guess that we are looking at over a decade for anything real to happen on this front.

As to coal...
You have heard no one with the intelligence or authority to make a
difference clamoring to "kill coal". You will hear suggetions that coal
subsidies be reduced, that coal emission requirements be tightened, that
fewer licenses for new coal fired plants be made available, etc. Those
coal facilities taken off line will be replaced (before hand) by sources
with lower carbon output. No one is going to simply shut down
coal-fired power plants without creating replacement capability first.
You get on Dessler's case for making an apparent exaggeration. What is
this?

Your kidding, right? There have been several statements and proposals to tax coal out of the market. Obama himself stated that he wanted to make it so expensive that coal would cease to exist. That is not ‘ending subsidies.’ iT is talking about taxing them to death. Then we get screwball concepts like cap and trade – DIRECT assaults on energy prices that are boondoggles. These are NOT exaggerations, they are real proposed ‘answers’ using AGW as cover. Worse, they don’t provide any real solutions in the long run.

I was simply being honest about the numbers. 85.2% believe that the
danger is moderate to catastrophic harm in the next 50-100 years.
Personally, I put catastrophic further out the scale then severe. And,
as I think I stated elsewhere, it is not reasonable to accept AGW but
reject the idea that it will cause severe future harm is left
unaddressed. The people who think we'll farm Antarctica and the
Canadian tundra and take tropical vacations in toasty Nova Scotia just
haven't got a grip. The disruption to agriculture, fishing and water
supplies will be disastrous even if temperatures barely break +2C. And
you KNOW they're going a lot further than that.
Since we're talking about future events, the evidence will come in the
form of reasoned predictions and projections. They are plentiful. If
you really haven't seen one you can start with the IPCC AR4 report
linked above and move on from there with any search engine.

No, we don’t KNOW that they are going to get worse. Reasoned predictions is one of my problems because so far, NONE of the ‘predictions’ that were so reasoned have come to fruition. Many others have variances that are so wide as to make them unusable and yet other leave out entire effects (like cloud cover) from the models entirely (the link is broken btw, get a 404). This is my core problem, accurate and reasonable predictions are nowhere to be found afaik. Sure, the IPCC has a lot of predictions but what we need are predictions that have come to pass – essentially verifications that the computer models used are actually accurate. Those models are only capable of making determinations based on the variables that are fed into them. With nothing to base the accuracy of those variables on, what you have is no more accurate than predicting the lottery.

No one has any thoughts of farming Antarctica but they do have issues with the severity of the feedback loop, historical CO2 levels and the overall effects of warmer weather particularly accepting that we are not in a terribly warm time in history.

What does "...not suggesting anything with added 'risk.' mean?
A goodly number of scientists have spend the last couple of decades
figuring out what the likely effects will be. Read AR4. Check your
favorite search engine. That the solutions that have been suggested so
far do not seem adequate and could be expensive can be chalked up to the
difficulty of the problem. Do you think no one has been working on it?
Do you think the folks that are working on it are simply stupid? If a
good idea comes to you, feel free to pass it on. Hell, patent it and
get rich. Standing around bitching doesn't do anyone any good.

Tell me, what have I been ‘bitching’ about. A goodly number of scientists have spent a long time guessing what those risks are going to be and they are not only at odds but they are also unable to verify with current trends. This last decade did not do as they thought it would.

The economy is going to be eaten up dealing with the effects of the
warming you didn't want to try to stave off earlier. Our budget will be
consumed dealing with relocating a few million people plus their homes
and their businesses. The economies of the world will be draining
themselves trying to keep their larders full and the cisterns topped
off. Doing nothing now so we'll have the strength to do something
later? You're no dummy. How can you even think of saying such nonsense
without seeing it for exactly that?

Because you are right back to assumed catastrophe.

What do you believe AGW believers want to dismantle that could be used
to deal with global warming?

Ps: I was a little hot yesterday. We've been dealing with a major
"family emergency" the last two days (and many more to come) and I
vented on you and others. Mea culpa.

Many I have talked with support rather harsh penalties on both vehicles and energy production (and support things like cap and trade). Those concepts are completely devoid of the fact that we currently have NOTHING to replace them. The EV market is growing and will continue to grow naturally and supplant gas vehicles. That is going to happen and we are not going to speed it up by placing draconian requirements on our current vehicles. The ONLY thing that does is harm the economy and actually remove money from innovation as it is placed back into increasing the costs of those vehicles. Increasing the cost of energy is EVEN WORSE. That is a terrible idea. Even worse than that, the replacement that we do have is vilified by the green crowed: nuclear. We should be pushing our nuclear program HARD and recycling the spent rods. The tech for that exists RIGHT NOW. Instead, they are pushing subsidies for wind and solar, 2 techs that are woefully ill-equipped to take over the grid. Not only are they not ready BUT, even worse, they will NEVER be capable. We should be utilizing them, of course, but they are not energy replacements but rather energy SUPPLEMENTS. Again, they will do this on their own without the government trying to artificially set them up. What they are trying to dismantle is real innovation through crating false markets and the economy by trying to drive up energy costs in order to reduce use rather than going to better energy sources.

We do not need to reduce the use of energy (which is reducing the economy by its very definition) but rather we should be working on better energy sources. The real sad part for me is the murdering of nuclear – a VERY reliable an clean source of energy. Coal produces more radioactivity and that puts it right in the air.

to the PS: If THAT was venting then you are AMAZINGLY calm compared to some of the other posters here So far, not a single insult and that would be a MAJOR milestone for a dozen others that I can think of off the top of my head!

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again we have dumb asses claiming that some survey shows that most scientists are skeptical of AGW. Were that so, why does every Scientific Society in every nation state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger in their policy statements? And the same for every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

By the way, Watts and Monkton have zero scientfic credentials, and Spencer states that GHGs do warm the atmosphere, he just does not thing that presents that much of a problem.

In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;

AGU Statement on Climate Change | Climate Etc.

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and
Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

You continue to fail to read your own links. You ARE aware that your link leads us to Judith Curry who is NOT among the scientific consensus that AGW as a problem is an almost certain fact? She is not a denier, but as a scientist she also strongly questions the reliability of the climate models used to sell AGW as a sociopolitical reality.

Among her most recent writings:

Returning to my experiences with decision makers in using weather and seasonal climate forecasts, I would like to remind that uncertainty about the future climate is a two-edged sword. There are two situations to avoid: i) issuing a highly confident statement about the future that turns out to be wrong; and ii) missing the possibility of an extreme, catastrophic outcome. Avoiding both of these situations requires much deeper and better assessment of uncertainties and areas of ignorance, as well as creating a broader
range of future scenarios than is currently provided by climate models.

Or maybe things are changing? The whole issue of uncertainty seems to be growing in importance. Skeptics are increasingly getting their papers published (including some that have emerged from the skeptical blogosphere). The policy debate has broadened far beyond CO2 mitigation, although climate scientists don’t seem to understand this. Unfortunately, the ostracism of scientists that do not socially support the consensus continues. And the insistence on scientists supporting urgent action on CO2 mitigation continues unabated.

The global climate modeling effort directed at the IPCC/UNFCCC paradigm has arguably reached the point of diminishing returns in terms of supporting decision making for the U.N. treaty and related national policies. At this point, it seems more important to explore the uncertainties associated with future climate change rather than to attempt to reduce the uncertainties in a consensus-based approach. It is time for climate scientists to change their view of uncertainty: it is not just something that is merely to be framed and communicated to policy makers, all the while keeping in mind that doubt is a political weapon in the decision making process. Characterizing, understanding, and exploring uncertainty is at the heart of the scientific process. And finally, the characterization of uncertainty is critical information for robust policy decisions.

All found at her website:
About | Climate Etc.

 

[Snookie]

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

A classic worth repeating

"Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average. See above.....


"Climatologist: AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.

Physicist: Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?

Climatologist: Uhm... no.

Physicist: Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet... See above."

Huh?

 

[mamooth]

You continue to fail to read your own links. You ARE aware that your link leads us to Judith Curry

Judith Curry - RationalWiki
---
Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler.

Some other stuff she's been wrong about:

Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4]
The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5][6]
(From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[7]
Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.[8]

This list could actually go on for much longer -- just go to her blog for more info.
---

 

[westwall]

You continue to fail to read your own links. You ARE aware that your link leads us to Judith Curry

Judith Curry - RationalWiki
---
Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler.

Some other stuff she's been wrong about:

Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4]
The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5][6]
(From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[7]
Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.[8]

This list could actually go on for much longer -- just go to her blog for more info.
---

rationalwiki....for people so stupid even regular wiki is too advanced for them!

 

[Saigon]

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.

Not really.

The governments of Germany, the UK, Finland and New Zealand are conservative by any definition.

Hence this idea of a socialist conspiracy makes no sense at all. It's a fantasy.

What you need to always keep in mind is that climate research is conducted right around the world, in at least 40 countries. There is a huge range of governments there, obviously.

So when we talk about a scientific consensus, that is a consensus that exists right across the political spectrum.

 

[Saigon]

Wrong. All government below the level of elected officials is liberal. Your analogy doesn't make sense because it's based on your view of reality, not mine. You're the one claiming US "ministries" are packed with conservatives the minute a Republican gets elected, not me.

This must be one of the silliest things you have ever posted - and that is saying something!

What evidence do you have that "all government" is liberal?! Care to present some proof of that?!

I'm not claiming Ministries are packed with anyone - go into any Ministry and what you will find is a mix of people with a wide range of personal political opinions. Certainly after 8 years of Bush we might have seen more conservatives in senior positions than we do now - but immense amounts of climate science was conducted under Bush as well.

As I said to Fox, climate research isconducted in 40+ countries, with a range of governments from strongly right wing to communist. We also see a range of research results. But when we talk about consensus, it is also a consensus across political divides, without question.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that. Next time - read the material before you post it!!

 

[westwall]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that. Next time - read the material before you post it!!

No, the great majority of climatologists..... That's all bucko... just them... And we have seen the crappy, substandard work they do.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.

Not really.

The governments of Germany, the UK, Finland and New Zealand are conservative by any definition.

Hence this idea of a socialist conspiracy makes no sense at all. It's a fantasy.

What you need to always keep in mind is that climate research is conducted right around the world, in at least 40 countries. There is a huge range of governments there, obviously.

So when we talk about a scientific consensus, that is a consensus that exists right across the political spectrum.

The usage of the terms as commonly used in America would place the governments of the Germany, the UK, Finland, and New Zealand well left of center or 'liberal' in our vernacular. And our own government is not that much different being also left of center and much more liberal than conservative in our vernacular.

"Conservative' as it is commonly used in America these days means small government, fiscal accountability, constitutional integrity, individual liberty and accountability, and few, if any, social services provided by the central government. That certainly doesn't describe the government of the USA. A lot of taxpayer money funneled into global warm research and green technology subsidies is considered a liberal concept, not conservative here.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

If the only real conservatives in existance are the Tea Party, then you are right that there is little evidence of Tea Party thinking in international politics or science.

However, there are genuine conservatives in every country on earth, and they are as involved in science and politics as anyone might expect. I don't actually see massive differences between the centre of the GOP and the conservatives in those countries listed. There are areas like abortion where they are very different, but attitudes towards most things are the same.

It makes no sense at all to claim that the German CDU or Uk Conservative party are not conservatives because they are not some cardboard cut-out of the right wing of the GOP. Talk to any member of those parties and you will find that you have more in common than you do points of real difference.

In reality, what we are then discussing here is not conservatism, but Christian fundamentalism or right-wing extremism. For myself, I am not much interested in what either left or right wing extremists have to say about science. Dismiss the extremists, and what we are left with is a genuine, board consensus. Perhaps not 97% of scientists, but very likely 90% or so - and from right across the political spectrum.

 

[bripat9643]

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.

Not really.

The governments of Germany, the UK, Finland and New Zealand are conservative by any definition.

Ahem . . If I recall correctly, you declined to post any definition of the term. You ran away numerous times when asked to do so. So give us the definition by which the governments of Germany and the UK are considered "conservative."

Hence this idea of a socialist conspiracy makes no sense at all. It's a fantasy.

What you need to always keep in mind is that climate research is conducted right around the world, in at least 40 countries. There is a huge range of governments there, obviously.

So when we talk about a scientific consensus, that is a consensus that exists right across the political spectrum.

Wrong again. It exists almost entirely among left-wing cranks

 

[Saigon]

Bri Pat -

So give us the definition by which the governments of Germany and the UK are considered "conservative."

Have you heard of dictionaries?

Use one. All dictionaries will provide a broadly similar definition, and that is the same definition I use.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri Pat -

So give us the definition by which the governments of Germany and the UK are considered "conservative."

Have you heard of dictionaries?

Use one. All dictionaries will provide a broadly similar definition, and that is the same definition I use.

I see you are running away once again. I asked for your definition.