Meaningless
"Many" is not a majority.
As for "disagree with you", you imply that many climate scientists would disagree with the idea that "the majority of climate scientists think that man-made CO2 is causing the earth in general to be warmer than it might have been otherwise". Even the ones that disagree about CO2 would probably say that the majority of their collegues think otherwise.
I know what you meant, but still, that is my understanding of the current stance of climate scientists on the issue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...ate_change.htm
... among others seem to say there is a fairly firm consensus.
Meaningless
Wait a minute...
Scientific methodology fail on your part. You have to prove the AGW theory as correct, and have not!
We are only at step 2 so the AGW thing is still only a hypothesis. Predictions still are failure as the commonplace.Elements of scientific method
Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:
1) Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Yes, I know. I actually tried to pull the wool over your eyes on that one. The corrections go on to talk about the satellites not being the same place every 24 hours.
You passed that test.
Any idea how many I have brought up that you failed?
Even the corrected data is no proof that the temperature changes are caused by any one thing. They are simply data points.
We have been down that road before in this thread.
That is indeed an interesting assertion to make, and if you wish to pick it back up, we can.
Have I stated your meaning correctly here? or did you mean something else?
So according to WC he is now purposely being deceitful... yet he also wants to convince people that AGW is a hoax...
great logic!
I have too much history to go through, but this was one of the articles I read along with that:
Precision and Radiosonde Validation of Satellite Gridpoint Temperature Anomalies. Part II: A Tropospheric Retrieval and Trends during 1979–90
maybe you should consider the point that science is an ever changing field when it comes to ideas and beliefs. What is believed to be correct today, can easily become null and void in the future.
Climate Debate: What's Warming Us Up? Human Activity or Mother Nature?
The cover of Chemical & Engineering News shows arctic ice in 2007 -- the lowest amount on record, with an open Northwest Passage visible. C&EN features a major analysis of the divisive issues at the heart of the global climate change debate. (Credit: The American Chemical Society)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1221073725.htmC&EN's cover story notes that global warming believers and skeptics actually agree on a cluster of core points:
•Earth's atmospheric load of carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas -- has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s.
•Carbon dioxide bloat results largely from burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
•Average global temperatures have risen since 1850, with most of the warming occurring since 1970.
"But here is where the cordial agreements stop," writes Stephen K. Ritter, a senior correspondent for C&EN. "At the heart of the global warming debate is whether warming is directly the result of increasing anthropogenic CO2 levels, or if it is simply part of Earth's natural climatic variation."
Ritter presents a sweeping panorama of global climate change science from the point of view of those who support both scenarios. The story notes that the debate is growing ever more contentious in light of the recent disclosure of e-mail messages suggesting that some scientists supporting the human activities scenario tried to suppress publication of opposing viewpoints.
Most climate scientists maintain that man-made global warming is happening, the article states. This majority opinion has been disseminated in peer-reviewed reports over the past 20 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an en y established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.
Climatologist Michael Hulme of the University of East Anglia, in England, told Ritter that the scientific evidence backing the basic idea of human activity changing the global climate system is now overwhelming, even if scientific predictions for future climate change are still shrouded in uncertainty.
"It is vital that we understand the many valid reasons for disagreeing about global warming and climate change," Hulme says in the article. "We must recognize that they are rooted in different political, national, organizational, religious, and intellectual cultures -- our different ways of seeing the world.
"But we must not hide behind the dangerously false premise that consensus science leads to consensus politics," Hulme adds. "In the end, politics will always trump science. Making constructive use of the idea of climate change means that we need better politics, not merely better science."
However, global-warming skeptics argue that there is still a lot of guesswork in how scientists come to their conclusions. They take exception to the notion that there is a "consensus" agreement on the science -- that the science is settled and devastating man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion.
"The only contentious aspect of the IPCC assessment is attribution -- what is the cause of global warming and climate change," says atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, who is president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a public policy ins ute based in Arlington, Va. "We have looked at every bit of data that IPCC has brought forth, and we see no credible evidence for human-caused global warming. None."
In response to the latest IPCC report, Singer and other scientists formed the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). NIPCC is an international coalition of scientists -- 35 participants relative to the 2,500 participants in IPCC's 2007 assessment--convened to provide a "second opinion" on the scientific evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change. The NIPCC report was published by the Heartland Ins ute, a Chicago-based public policy organization. Unlike the IPCC report, the NIPCC conclusions are not peer-reviewed.
Science does not progress by concensus.
So, you agree then that the AGW theory is pseudoscience?
Predictions continue to fail by the AGW community.Elements of scientific method
Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:
1) Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)
I agree that most the emails are harmless. What do you make of quotes like this:
That 7 years is now 12 by some data."The scientific community would come down on me if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."
Phil Jones; 7/5/05
Very good yo watch:
Yes, actually it does.
Again, as I have noted, this consensus aside, limiting CO2 will have the benefit of weaning us from energy sources that face imminent economic depletion ahead of other countries that don't, among other things.Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making
Main article: Politicization of science
In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.
For example, many people of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[8] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[9]
The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[10] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[11] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[10]
The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness...
--------------------------
(edit)
Also, since you didn't really contradict me concenring the accuracy of my interpretation of your assertion, I will act on the assumption that it was a fair statement.
[A consensus of experts is meaningless] -DarrinS
If the consensus of 9 of 10 doctors who review a spot on your X-ray is that you need to get a biopsy, is that a valid reason for the test?
Then why would they?No climate scientist would claim otherwise.
Let me ask you this. When the solar radiation is measured in watts per square meter, and radiative forcing uses the same measurements, then shouldn't any greenhouse forcing increase or decrease by a near linear percentage? The radiative forcing during the time period used by the IPCC, AR4, increased by 0.18%. This means the radiative forcing by greenhouse gasses should increase by that amount as well.
Would you agree or disagree?
are you being deceitful this time wc?
I have SAR, TAR, and AR4, readily available on my computer. Where do you want me to look?
I do not consider myself informed enough to meaningfully commit to either. I will leave the quibbling over variables to the peer-review panels and publishing of papers.
Have you submitted your conclusions to a formal journal yet?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-15-2010 at 11:42 AM. Reason: typo/grammar
Not at all. Lean 2004 has good numbers for solar irradiation by proxy data. Others studies show both higher and lower levels. I didn't pick the highest, which would account for 100%+ the global warming we have seen since 1750. Right or wrong, I trust Lean's assessments.
I don't have the time or credentials for anyone to consider a paper.
My God man...
It's simple math! Some things really are that simple.
SAR, TAR, and AR4?
The question was directed to Darrin, but feel free to put forth something to fill in for him. He seems adverse to posts that take longer than a minute to compose.
Unless you are going to test me on its accuracy?
I don't think you will find any of us "deniers" opposed to limiting CO2. However, it needs to be by methods that are not harmful to our economy.
If it were that simple, then it should be simple enough to model accurately, correct?
One of your main assertions regarding this issue that the climate models are not accurate enough.
Which is it, simple or complex?
Short-term harmful or long-term harmful?
Harmful to whom?
I readily concede that most policy proposals that seek to limit CO2 emissions are harmful to *somebody*, especially in the short-term. That is a cost I am willing to bear, because I think the long-term benefits of moving to renewables and more efficiency outweigh the short-term harm.
But this moves on to another tangent.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
