[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's just it though, I've not seen a refutation of the points, I've just seen refutation of the people.

That's because none of the people have presented any evidence to refute. All they have presented is their opinions. That's not enough to make any case. It's like on Matlock when the defense rests without presenting a case, because the other side has simply failed to make a showing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Well lets start with April has been the coldest April in a century.

Look the weather always changes. It's a fact. It will get hot and cold. The issue is, that Man kind has very very little affect on global warming. He has a great affect on polution, but less than 1% affect on global warming.

1% is pretty big. Room temperature is 293 degrees above absolute zero (you know, roughly the temperature of outer space). If that changes by 1%, that's 29 degrees different (celcius, the larger unit). The warming everyone is so excited about is only 1-2 degrees so far. Even if humans only affect 0.05% of warming, that's enough to account for what's at issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Even if humans only affect 0.05% of warming, that's enough to account for what's at issue.

Do humans affect .05% of warming?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Unfortunately, in today's age of complicated science very few Tom, Dick and/or Harrys can make bold claims without having something to back them up. As has been pointed out, while there may be bold visionaries who stood out from the crowd throughout the history of science, there are equally bold visionaries who may have had near-prophetic ideas that were scoffed at and kicked to the proverbial wayside because of their inability to provide a reason for their ideas...only to have someone, somewhere along the line, more-or-less "steal" their glory because they could actually get people to understand and/or accept the theory and/or logic behind their idea(s).

I'll grant you this however, this goes both ways. This is what science is about. People make suppositions and other people poke holes in them. The IPCC is not beyond reproach is it? Can they not be held to account for what many scientists are saying is overstated paranoia regarding anthropogenic warming? You might know there are a wealth of climate scientists who do not buy into the anthropogenic hype, but how much can they refute without the original data? Why are some PhDs worth listening to while others are not? What's the concern of a little scientific scrutiny?

- Energy & Environment is a professional journal which publishes papers that question various aspects of the IPCC consensus. They are a group of scientists who challenge the conclusions of the consensus and in so-doing, published a paper detailing serious problems with the way in which climate data was handled. From this paper and several others, two scientific committees were then convened by members of the US Congress in 2006. This is not some fabrication of the right-wing nutjob to naysay for the sake of it.

- FOI had to be invoked to get the original temperature data from the author of the more frequently cited paper by Dr Philip Jones. He claims unabashedly, that he no longer has some critical weather data. I'll remember this is acceptable practice the next time I see a thread on Rove and missing emails. Similar difficulties are experienced by those challenging the consensus on Ice core studies in which the data has not been made available.

- The Lavoisier Group was established to challenge the integrity of IPCCs reports and recommendations. It also notes that the Australian government stands to gain over $12 billion annually in carbon trading permits and carbon taxes. IMO, you can too often locate and follow the money.

- 60 scientists convened to challenge aspects of the Kyoto Protocol claiming; "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based."
Is this not important? Why would we want to employ the; "I've got bananas in my ears" approach to science? Climate science is an 'emerging science' and arguably one of the most complex to address. Virtually every one of the 60 cited have specified and vast expertise in climate science. These are not quacks, they are not "right-wing" zealots. They are merely tenured professors and scientists specifically related to this field who challenge the anthropogenic hype generated by those who too often are influenced by motives other than scientific advancement. Simply calling them "right-wingers" etc... while ignoring their contribution to the field for nothing more than the fact they are challenging popularized hype is intellectually lazy.

*It should be noted that while I've been using the word "consensus" I've done so out of utmost fairness. There really is no consensus on anthropogenic warming at all nor the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change. Our contribution to it has yet to be quantified. What is there to refute and scoff? We've seen little other than hype and alarmism. Taking steps to reduce emissions and reduce pollutants to both water and land is admirable. Allocating funds to "stop warming" is a ridiculous attempt at grabbing money.

And this is where every single one of your "citations" fails. In my not-so-humble opinion, this is where most of you right-wingers get things ass-backwards;

This is intellectually lazy. The number of scientists who challenge the anthropogenic hype is endless and growing. To relegate this to nothing more than a left-wing/right-wing issue is myopic at best. Am I to assume you support the "consensus" because you're a left-winger? Does this make you somehow more credible a defendant? (it should be noted that on almost all issues, I'm dead-center politically)

I'm curious, is there more to your defense of global warming than simply being responsible and wanting a better environment for your children? If not it seems your focus on partisanship is at the least, highly suspect.

you point to anthropogenic climate change believers such as myself and say "you guys are pseudo-religiously brainwashed zealots!" As far as I'm concerned, the reality is completely the opposite:

It's a shame you've jumped out onto this limb. I've not once claimed anthropogenic climate change believers such as you, are pseudo-religious, brainwashed zealots, but you're quickly prepared to make that claim of those who challenge you. Interesting.

I am convinced by logic, sound reasoning, and science as best we know it, while the skeptics practice an oddly fervent rejection of anything that smacks of pro-climate-change.

More intellectual laziness. This is an emerging science. To make any such claims of relying exclusively on logic, reasoning, and science as best we know it is fallacious at best, if not wholly dishonest. We are in the process of trying to understand warming phenomena and there are a host of folks (like you) employing the; "I've got bananas in my ears" approach to science indicting contrarian views as nothing more than 'rightwing, oppose anything that smacks of challenging pro-climate-change'. * At least try not to use the very sentiment you're readily willing to indict others for.

I believe I have probably studied every single plausible objection that I've heard on these forums (solar radiation, volcanoes, Mars warming, cooling earth regions, etc. etc.), and found reasonable and scientific rebuttals to each one. Until you provide me with something that can't be shot down in a couple paragraphs, then you simply haven't got a leg to stand on.

I am not a scientist. You're welcome to challenge any one of the thousands who question the anthropogenic hype, maybe convene with other scientists like yourself and get government hearings, and publish peer-reviewed papers as those who challenge the hype have done. BTW, winning arguments on MacNN is really not anything that you'd want to put on your resume to impress even the like-minded to join you in your endeavor.

Once again: when you cite someone like Tim Ball, it is thoroughly alright to say "whoops, Tim Ball, there goes your argument"; because, after all, Tim Ball has never done anything useful in the field, and has never proposed any other reasonably backed theory to explain the current climate-change problem.

Again, this is intellectually lazy unless you can supply us with your, more impressive resume. This is, but one of thousands who challenge the hype.

Saying "no, climate change isn't anthropogenic" isn't good enough; a mountain of evidence collected thus far suggests that it is.

... to what degree? Unless you can quantify our contribution to it, you're just saying "climate change is anthropogenic" which is likewise, not good enough. There's a mountain of evidence to suggest warming is a natural phenomena.

Unfortunately, no one that you have yet cited – and, in fact, no one else period - has been able to say "no, climate change isn't anthropogenic because of this, this, and this" and been able to back up their points. Not one. By all means, keep on working at finding someone (I'd gladly read it), but I warn you, the anti-consensus success rate on these forums (from the ozone hole deniers to the Iraq war supporters to the global warming deniers) has been dismally low.

Indicting those who challenge the anthropogenic hype while throwing in your take on the Iraq war is a little disingenuous IMO. I've not necessarily seen; "climate change is not anthropogenic", but the straw-man is noted. Generally, the debate is on the integrity of the unavailable original data, to what degree are we culpable, and will any change in human behavior have any meaningful impact on climate change. Until some very basic information is made available, there's really nothing to refute and scoff at other than your partisan talking points.

There is no consensus at all with regard to anthropogenic warming. So... while challenging the consensus may have a dismal track record in these forums, that's not what is happening here.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

People make suppositions and other people poke holes in them. The IPCC is not beyond reproach is it?

You are obviously missing important points here, such as the IPCC not dealing with "suppositions." A supposition is more or less a hypothesis, which in the scientific method is not backed by any significant data/results. While there is an admittedly fine gradient of "truth to speculation" per se, the IPCC generally deals with what extensive experimentation has shown regarding those hypotheses. Big difference.

Secondly, no one is "poking holes" in the IPCC's work. (At least, not beyond the nitpicking of fine details that is a hallmark of scientific debate!) This is the thrust of my argument, and you ignored it. Again, I insist, please show me a scientific paper – not an opinion, or speculation, or supposition, but a honest-to-God publication including things such as hypothesis, data, and analysis of results – so that we can examine this "poking holes" claim you're making.

- Energy & Environment is a professional journal which publishes papers that question various aspects of the IPCC consensus. They are a group of scientists who challenge the conclusions of the consensus and in so-doing, published a paper detailing serious problems with the way in which climate data was handled. From this paper and several others, two scientific committees were then convened by members of the US Congress in 2006. This is not some fabrication of the right-wing nutjob to naysay for the sake of it.

I'm not familiar with the journal, so I can't comment. I am curious as to whether those committees were convened by the notorious Sen. Imhofe, however.

- FOI had to be invoked to get the original temperature data from the author of the more frequently cited paper by Dr Philip Jones. He claims unabashedly, that he no longer has some critical weather data. I'll remember this is acceptable practice the next time I see a thread on Rove and missing emails. Similar difficulties are experienced by those challenging the consensus on Ice core studies in which the data has not been made available.

Some random quote from a website somewhere? No idea what data, or what "frequently cited paper" you're referring to. I do not know what you're referring to when you say "the data for ice core studies have not been made available," since there have been many scientific publications on that data in the last few decades; are you saying scientific journals are accepting publications that do not include data?!?

- The Lavoisier Group was established to challenge the integrity of IPCCs reports and recommendations. It also notes that the Australian government stands to gain over $12 billion annually in carbon trading permits and carbon taxes. IMO, you can too often locate and follow the money.

As I've pointed out to you before, and to this forum in general, the oft-cited Lavoisier Group is/was a front for Australian mining corporations, and was founded by the heads of said organizations to serve as a vocal downplayer of global warming issues. If you demand credibility, you lose it when you start bringing up groups such as this.

- 60 scientists convened to challenge aspects of the Kyoto Protocol claiming; "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based."
Is this not important? Why would we want to employ the; "I've got bananas in my ears" approach to science? Climate science is an 'emerging science' and arguably one of the most complex to address. Virtually every one of the 60 cited have specified and vast expertise in climate science. These are not quacks, they are not "right-wing" zealots. They are merely tenured professors and scientists specifically related to this field who challenge the anthropogenic hype generated by those who too often are influenced by motives other than scientific advancement. Simply calling them "right-wingers" etc... while ignoring their contribution to the field for nothing more than the fact they are challenging popularized hype is intellectually lazy.

Links? Where is this coming from? Where can I read their claims and/or evidence that casts the current consensus in doubt? Thanks.

There really is no consensus on anthropogenic warming at all nor the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change. Our contribution to it has yet to be quantified.

Wrong.

The number of scientists who challenge the anthropogenic hype is endless and growing.

Wrong.

More intellectual laziness. This is an emerging science. To make any such claims of relying exclusively on logic, reasoning, and science as best we know it is fallacious at best, if not wholly dishonest.

More-or-less wrong. It certainly is an "emerging science" (although it's matured quite quickly), but why can't one can't rely on logic, reasoning and science because of this? In that respect it's no different than any other science (many which are even more "emerging").

We are in the process of trying to understand warming phenomena and there are a host of folks (like you) employing the; "I've got bananas in my ears" approach to science indicting contrarian views as nothing more than 'rightwing, oppose anything that smacks of challenging pro-climate-change'. *

I repeat: what contrarian views?! Where's the evidence? Where's the papers? Joe Blow with a Ph.D up the road saying "I've got a bitchin' doctorate and global warming isn't happening!" doesn't cut it.

I am not a scientist. You're welcome to challenge any one of the thousands who question the anthropogenic hype, maybe convene with other scientists like yourself and get government hearings

I'm not a scientist. I'm a recently graduated science student who couldn't stand the idea of grad school. Anyone with a general B.Sc calling themselves a scientist is gonna get his ass whooped!

and publish peer-reviewed papers as those who challenge the hype have done.

Ohhhhh, goody! Finally, some hard evidence to peruse!

Link please. Link please. Link please!

Again, this is intellectually lazy unless you can supply us with your, more impressive resume. This is, but one of thousands who challenge the hype.

Why should I have to supply anyone with my resume?! I haven't written any papers. I haven't stood up in the media and claimed that that global warming isn't real. I'm some dude arguing about what has and has not been published in the literature...and, by God, Tim Ball has not been published. So why did you bring him up again? Case closed.

... to what degree? Unless you can quantify our contribution to it, you're just saying "climate change is anthropogenic" which is likewise, not good enough. There's a mountain of evidence to suggest warming is a natural phenomena.

Anyone who denies that global warming is a natural phenomena is cracked in the head. If you want quantifications on human contributions, however, for a start please go read the "Attributing Climate Change" section (I think that's the section title) in the latest IPCC FAR publication. I plowed through it a couple weeks ago, and I think it ran around 60-odd pages, so that's a pretty good start.

Generally, the debate is on the integrity of the unavailable original data, to what degree are we culpable, and will any change in human behavior have any meaningful impact on climate change. Until some very basic information is made available, there's really nothing to refute and scoff at other than your partisan talking points.

What?!?!?!1111?? Where is the debate on the "unavailable original data?!" And furthermore, if there is debate why aren't the dissenters publishing their own data which shows their differing conclusion?!

There is no consensus at all with regard to anthropogenic warming.

*snort*

So we're back to this, are we.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Well lets start with April has been the coldest April in a century.

Really eh? Is that around the world, or where you live? Because it's been cold and rainy here too, oddly so. Then again, it was the warmest winter on record, was it not?! Jebus. It's almost as if we are talking about the existence of...climate change...or something.

Look the weather always changes. It's a fact. It will get hot and cold. The issue is, that Man kind has very very little affect on global warming. He has a great affect on polution, but less than 1% affect on global warming.

Link please!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Nothing is wrong with that. But don't make it a "way of life" if profits are all there is to it.

Fair enough, but I think "way of life" and "making money" are pretty tightly linked where I live. Good luck separating those two.

It's not. I only said that arguements of "right" and "wrong" lose their luster when they involve someone making gobs of money off it. It's not the gobs that suffer. It's only the appeals to morality that do.

True.

greg

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

1% is pretty big. Room temperature is 293 degrees above absolute zero (you know, roughly the temperature of outer space). If that changes by 1%, that's 29 degrees different (celcius, the larger unit). The warming everyone is so excited about is only 1-2 degrees so far. Even if humans only affect 0.05% of warming, that's enough to account for what's at issue.

I said mans affect on global warming is 1%. NOT that man is changing the temperature by 1%. If global warming amounts to a 4 degree change, man has contributed less than .04 of one degree.

And more important, there is absolutely NOTHING man can do to change it. It is a natural event in our enviornment.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I said mans affect on global warming is 1%. NOT that man is changing the temperature by 1%. If global warming amounts to a 4 degree change, man has contributed less than .04 of one degree.

And more important, there is absolutely NOTHING man can do to change it. It is a natural event in our enviornment.

Once again, I'll have to ask you for a link to the science behind your claims? (Not that I expect I'll get one, but it does no harm...)

If you feel that there is nothing man can do to change global warming, then you must feel that CO2 has no affect on it as well then, right? After all, there's no question that man can change CO2 levels. Are you saying that CO2 is not a "greenhouse gas"?

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah I'd like to see you back up that 1% claim too.

[ayneadams]

Copy, paste and run ............

---------------------------------------------
DVD to iPhone
Download DVD to iPhone Free Trial

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah I'd like to see you back up that 1% claim too.

Hey. Don't change the subject. Hehehehe.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Secondly, no one is "poking holes" in the IPCC's work. (At least, not beyond the nitpicking of fine details that is a hallmark of scientific debate!) This is the thrust of my argument, and you ignored it. Again, I insist, please show me a scientific paper – not an opinion, or speculation, or supposition, but a honest-to-God publication including things such as hypothesis, data, and analysis of results – so that we can examine this "poking holes" claim you're making.

Answer this; What percentage of warming is the result of human activity?

- Is there any question as to the level of contribution by man to warming?

Why do you continuously ask for peer-reviewed work? The peer-reviewed work of others' has been reviewed and there are problems. The data already exists. Why are you asking those, viewing the same data as I'm guessing you have, submit something entirely new??? Do we act like we don't know how this works now? One more question;

- Are you open-minded at all?

Dear Dr. Peiser,

A couple of weeks ago, you submitted a Letter to the Editor on Naomi Oreskes' Essay "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" In its current form, it is too long for a Letter, but we would consider a shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or less, not counting the references. A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was published in our Jan. 14 issue.

Best regards,

Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
ekavanag@aaas.org

-----------
From: Peiser, Benny
Sent: 23 February 2005 14:13
To: Etta Kavanagh [ekavanag@aaas.org]
Subject: Letter to the Editor of SCIENCE

Dear Etta Kavanagh

Please find attached my revised letter which I have shortened below the 500 words limit. I will submit the letter also in electronic form via your website.

With best regards

Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores University

----------

e-letter to Science Magazine
sent: 23 February 2005

Letter Details: N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004

Abstract: As requested by Associate Letters Editor Etta Kavanagh,
I have revised and shortened my letter below.

Letter Text:

Oreskes (1,2) presents empirical evidence that appears to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes also claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned even once in the peer-reviewed literature since 1993. Her assertion has been extensively reported ever since.

I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") were assessed (3). The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years" (4).

Oreskes claims that "none of these papers argued [that current climate change is natural]". However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (5).

The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (6).

Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous. After all, the explicit and implicit rejection is not restricted to individual scientists (7). It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which formally rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global warming:

"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time" (8).

Despite this manifest scepticism, I do not wish to deny that a majority of publications goes along with the notion of anthropogenic global warming by applying models based on its basic assumptions. It is beyond doubt, however, that an unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank, which comprises almost 12,000 abstracts, will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, there is no such thing!

In light of the data presented above, Science Magazine should withdraw Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.

References

1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686)

2. N. Oreskes (2005) Correction. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5708, 355

3. ISI Web of Science, (http://www.webofscience.com/)

4.) Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 include abstracts. The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes, plus two categories (#7,8) which I added: 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position; 2. evaluation of impacts; 3. mitigation proposals; 4. methods; 5. paleoclimate analysis; 6. rejection of the consensus position; 7. natural factors of global climate change; 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change. While 29% of the documents implicitly accept the 'consensus view', these papers mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

5.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405.

6.) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change"; K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67. M.E. Fernau at al. stress: "More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult", M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.

7.) "Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater energy market distortions at large social and economic costs." H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.

8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471.

--------

From: Etta Kavanagh [mailto:ekavanag@aaas.org]
Sent: 13 April 2005 22:39
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Your letter to SCIENCE

Dear Dr. Peiser,

After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.

Best regards,

Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
---------

From: Peiser, Benny
Sent: 14 April 2005 15:37
To: 'Etta Kavanagh'
Cc: 'dkennedy@aaas.org'
Subject: RE: Your letter to SCIENCE

Dear Etta Kavanagh

I am extremely disenchanted to hear that you have decided against publication of my letter.

I would be grateful if you could send me evidence for your claim hat "the basic points of [my] letter have already been widely dispersed over the Internet." As far as I am aware, neither the details nor the results of my analysis have been cited anywhere. In any case, don't you feel that SCIENCE has an obligation to your readers to correct manifest errors?

After all, these errors continue to be employed by activists, journalists and science organisations (as I have informed you on a number of occasions since January).

A statement by the Royal Society from March 2005, for instance, uses Oreskes' flawed study as a key argument in the climate change debate:

"In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it" http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2986

Aside from the purely technical matter of Oreskes' factual errors, does SCIENCE really want to stand behind her bizarre claim of a complete scientific consensus on global warming? Are you not aware that most observers know only too well that there is absolutely *no* consensus within the scientific community about global warming science? If not, let me remind you:

A recent international survey among some 500 climatologists found that "a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."

As Professors Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr have stressed:

"The public statements made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression that the scientific fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved. They claim that the scientific community has already established the conditions for taking concerted action. This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in the scientific community. That's because a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes" (Der Spiegel, 24 January 2005; http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...42376,00.html).

Even Tony Blair has emphasised the remaining uncertainties and ongoing scientific debates among climate scientists:

"So it would be true to say the evidence [on anthropogenic global warming] is still disputed. It would be wrong to say that the evidence of danger is not clearly and persuasively advocated by a very large number of entirely independent and compelling voices. They are the majority. The majority is not always right; but they deserve to be listened to" (Tony Blair, Davos Speech, 26 January 2005;
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7006.asp)

I very much regret your decision to reject my letter using a contrived technicality as an excuse. Obviously, your refusal leaves me no option than to publicise the results of my analysis somewhere else (results which anyone can of course verify) - but also to deplore the sad reality of your refusal to publish corrections of a fatally flawed paper.

With best regards

Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores University
Faculty of Science

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Hey. Don't change the subject. Hehehehe.

Is that all you're going to say? Make an unsubstantiated claim and then scurry off?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I have seen some effective arguments against Oreskes's study, which is why I don't cite it. However, what I do find interesting is the listed citations of Mr. Peiser's letter; from what I can see, most of the extensively quoted studies are from the mid-1990s! Furthermore, the couple mentions regarding solar forcings are also about 4 years old; since this was a major talking point, our knowledge of solar forcing (while still incomplete) has been updated considerably since that time, and current opinion is that while important, solar forcing has been overshadowed by the recent and meteoric rise of carbon dioxide, of which humans seem to be solely responsible.

Back to work!

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

SourceWatch Report on Benny Peiser

Out of mild curiosity, I looked up the man you quoted. Sourcewatch (which has an admittedly biased slant, but which to my knowledge is generally pretty factually accurate) has this nice little page on our hero...suffice to say, we're pretty much back to square one here. Of course, he's not a climatologist - which he never claimed to be; he was merely trying to point out some inaccuracies in Oreskes' study - and he's a relatively minor "player," having about 3 studies published. Furthermore, it looks like he's even had to backtrack somewhat on some of his criticisms in the following years.

Once again, I'm left here waiting for links to these studies by climate-change skeptics which have been repeatedly referred to in this thread.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*snip stupid letters only found on Conservative Republican blogs*

Leave it to eBuddy to post these stupid letters and that dumbass fake list supposedly signed by other climatologists (a list fraudently produced and distributed by a con artist nut that used to sell shares in a fake energy trading company, but now sells homeschool material based on litteral Bible translations.)

Dr. Peiser has since conceded that he was incorrect. His recreation of the study originaly published in Science (of which the editor replied to Peiser telling him that his claims had already been addressed in other issues of Science and on their webpage) was wrong.

He's also conceded that there is a general concensus among scientists of various fields, however, Dr. Peiser maintains that a general concensus does not mean unanimous (which, of course, the original study had already shown.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Once again, I'm left here waiting for links to these studies by climate-change skeptics which have been repeatedly referred to in this thread.

You're not going to find any. I've asked countless times for the skeptics to produce a peer reviewed study that shows conclusively to the contrary.

Never happens, probably never will. All I ever see are those stupid letters and that fake list that pops up every now and then.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're not going to find any. I've asked countless times for the skeptics to produce a peer reviewed study that shows conclusively to the contrary.

Never happens, probably never will. All I ever see are those stupid letters and that fake list that pops up every now and then.

Heh heh heh...oh, I've been around the block a couple times myself; I know very well I'm not going to get anything. I just figure that if I keep emphasizing how untenable their position is one day some sort of logical magic will switch on and Teh Light will be seen. I'm still waiting.

And yeah, see, you ruined my "gentle trap" regarding Peiser; of course I know all about his letter, since it got so much publicity. In fact, of course, his "34 abstracts that reject or question anthropogenic global warming" was later whittled down by him to a single one - which wasn't even a peer-reviewed paper containing research, but an editorial!

What's amusing is the Skeptics' hilarious trend of latching onto any argument which casts doubt on the issue, and then dropping it like a hot potato when that particular argument is torn to shreds, and running on to the next hot potato! I've helped debunk a range of issues from "global warming isn't real," "there is no scientific consensus," "volcanoes cause more warming than humans do," "carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming," "the sun is responsible for climate change," "it's just a natural cycle," "it used to be even warmer than it is now," and the classic "they didn't even have thermometers a thousand years ago, how could anyone possibly know the temperature then LOL?!" Even better is the sudden popularity of anti-global-warming news such as The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was well-hyped for about, oh, a week here on the board and dropped just as fast when it became apparent it was less a triumph of Skeptical Reasoning and more of a complete embarrassment to that cause.

Ahhhh well, who knows, maybe something concrete will accidently pop out at some point and I'll have something challenging to tackle...

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What's amusing is the Skeptics' hilarious trend of latching onto any argument which casts doubt on the issue, and then dropping it like a hot potato when that particular argument is torn to shreds, and running on to the next hot potato! I've helped debunk a range of issues from "global warming isn't real," "there is no scientific consensus," "volcanoes cause more warming than humans do," "carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming," "the sun is responsible for climate change," "it's just a natural cycle," "it used to be even warmer than it is now," and the classic "they didn't even have thermometers a thousand years ago, how could anyone possibly know the temperature then LOL?!" Even better is the sudden popularity of anti-global-warming news such as The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was well-hyped for about, oh, a week here on the board and dropped just as fast when it became apparent it was less a triumph of Skeptical Reasoning and more of a complete embarrassment to that cause.

Been there, done that. You forgot the "Mars has global warming, so it's normal here" argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

SourceWatch Report on Benny Peiser

Out of mild curiosity, I looked up the man you quoted.

... after admitting effective arguments against Oreskes's study. BTW; who authored those effective arguments??? Anyway, Oreske says herself; "Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open."

That was fair of her to mention that these questions are still open. From reading posters here I'd have thought it was a shut case. Then she goes on to say; "But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

Meh. Maybe, maybe not. Remember, the "consensus" is it is "likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." What this can also mean is that it is plausible there are other contributing factors that we may find have more of an impact than we thought. Not really hard to get a scientific consensus on something this vague.

Sourcewatch (which has an admittedly biased slant, but which to my knowledge is generally pretty factually accurate) has this nice little page on our hero...suffice to say, we're pretty much back to square one here. Of course, he's not a climatologist - which he never claimed to be; he was merely trying to point out some inaccuracies in Oreskes' study - and he's a relatively minor "player," having about 3 studies published. Furthermore, it looks like he's even had to backtrack somewhat on some of his criticisms in the following years.

And how has he back-tracked? I'll show you...
Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpei...-abstracts.htm
and...
I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/1...mblingsof.html)
Which is really all I've been saying in most of these warming "debates". I don't feel the need to repeat every solitary point I've made to date. Look through my other posts and you will find that I've never argued that warming is not taking place. I wholly believe it is. As always, my skepticism is kept strictly in regards to the "chicken littles" on this issue. I don't think you can have a consensus on something you can't measure. Let me qualify, it is meaningless to chest-pound consensus on 'emerging science'. There's been "consensus" on many fallacies. This is my opinion. I am also not a scientist.

What I want to know is, why do people get so worked up about this? I'm not burning any more fossil fuels than you are.

Once again, I'm left here waiting for links to these studies by climate-change skeptics which have been repeatedly referred to in this thread.

Climate change skeptics is a bit of a misnomer. The dissent is on to what degree man is culpible for climate change. I've asked this three times now in this thread and have yet to get an answer. If you're saying warming is caused by man and there is consensus on this I'd argue you're being disingenuous. Again, what is the "consensus"? “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." EUREKA!!! Hardly the ringing sound of alarmism from many here @ MacNN. As always, scientists say one thing; hype says something different.

This is what kills me. I, who admittedly places global warming below toothpicks for schnauzers in importance, say there can't be consensus on anthropogenic warming because I've not seen a consensus view of to what degree? Man produces C02 through the burning of fossil fuels, yes. It is also generally understood that man has had a major impact on producing C02. There are natural factors for warming however and "it is likely we'll find problems with our current understanding". until there is consensus on to what degree man is culpible vs natural phenomena, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be chest-pounding "consensus". I mean, can't we let science do what science does? Others said I scoff at warming science. I don't scoff it at all. There's not a whole hell of a lot to scoff at. People assume that if you even hint at challenging the degree of man's contribution that you are somehow fighting for the oil companies or that you oppose measures to curb our burning of fossil fuels. i oppose no such thing. Everyone has their battles. This is not mine.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Leave it to eBuddy to post these stupid letters and that dumbass fake list supposedly signed by other climatologists (a list fraudently produced and distributed by a con artist nut that used to sell shares in a fake energy trading company, but now sells homeschool material based on litteral Bible translations.)

Who is this person you're talking about? I think we're talking about two different issues here before you get your panties in a bunch.

Dr. Peiser has since conceded that he was incorrect. His recreation of the study originaly published in Science (of which the editor replied to Peiser telling him that his claims had already been addressed in other issues of Science and on their webpage) was wrong.

Humility is indicative of lacking credibility? He based his study on the fallacious foundation for which Oreske apologized herself. This is what he admitted to.

He's also conceded that there is a general concensus among scientists of various fields, however, Dr. Peiser maintains that a general concensus does not mean unanimous (which, of course, the original study had already shown.)

... and still questions anthropogenic warming hype.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And how has he back-tracked? I'll show you...
Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/1...mblingsof.html)

Since that page is a 404, can you please cite some of these papers? Shouldn't be too hard if they really do come out every week.

What I want to know is, why do people get so worked up about this? I'm not burning any more fossil fuels than you are.

I've often wondered that too. I think it's because unlike most scientific topics, this one is interactive. Whereas mostly you're just watching from the sidelines as new drugs are discovered, or new particles predicted, in this arena you're actually expected to do something in your daily life in response to (and affecting) the science. Whether this aspect of it is positive or negative is debatable...

“Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." EUREKA!!! Hardly the ringing sound of alarmism from many here @ MacNN. As always, scientists say one thing; hype says something different.

To some extent that is just the difference in the way scientists talk. They use language that is more technically correct and therefore more dry and boring and calm-sounding, but what they're feeling is that this is some very grave matter they're reporting on. Did you ever see Awakenings? When he's reporting on the smashing success of the new L-dopa treatment, which seems to have totally cured locked-in patients, he's standing there listing all the dry boring symptoms of the "before" case and people are falling asleep. He's elated, and the audience thinks he's comatose. That's the way a lot of scientific communication is.

until there is consensus on to what degree man is culpible vs natural phenomena, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be chest-pounding "consensus".

It does when the disagreement is over whether it's 50% or 75%. Either way, it's significant. The consensus actually does say we're responsible for "a majority."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and still questions anthropogenic warming hype.

...Without evidence.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To some extent that is just the difference in the way scientists talk. They use language that is more technically correct and therefore more dry and boring and calm-sounding, but what they're feeling is that this is some very grave matter they're reporting on.

I still remember my very first biology lab report in university...I got it back, and on this one part where our group experiment had returned some extraordinarily accurate results (I can't remember what it was, within a couple tenths of a percent what we were supposed to get anyway)...and the TA had double-circled in red ink the exclamation mark I had used for emphasis, and written "THIS IS SCIENCE, WE DON'T GET THIS EXCITED ABOUT IT."

It does when the disagreement is over whether it's 50% or 75%. Either way, it's significant. The consensus actually does say we're responsible for "a majority."

Precisely. To add further, if ebuddy would read some of the science behind what we're debating, such as that section of the IPCC FAR I linked to, he would have a much-improved understanding of the science behind it, some of the methods used, some of the major problems, and how this conclusion is reached. Again, CO2 is thought to be at this point the major significant driver of climate warming/change, and human activity is almost solely responsible for its recent rise. Unfortunately, it has always been a problem to get anyone to read any scientific literature around here...perhaps not enough exclamation marks?!

Originally Posted by ebuddy

And how has he back-tracked? I'll show you..

He back-tracked by admitting his counter-argument was simply wrong. He does still maintain that there were flaws with Oreskes' study – which from what I've read, perhaps sounds reasonable – and he still maintains an anti-anthropogenic climate-change stance (as already pointed out, without any scientific backing, up to and including the fact that he's not involved in climatology in any way). That's fine, but the fact that you brought him up as some sort of "proof" that there is no consensus on global climate change is simply laughable.

The bottom line is: if any scientific field required unanimity before reaching a conclusion, there would never be any conclusions reached. Ever.

greg

[Tiresias]

Wow. 13 pages.

So, what's this thread about, anyway?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Since that page is a 404, can you please cite some of these papers? Shouldn't be too hard if they really do come out every week.

The link was copied-in as part of his reply letter. I'm not going to read every abstract supplied there to see if one specifically challenges anthropogenic warming. I italicized the entire piece, that was not my interjection.

I've often wondered that too. I think it's because unlike most scientific topics, this one is interactive. Whereas mostly you're just watching from the sidelines as new drugs are discovered, or new particles predicted, in this arena you're actually expected to do something in your daily life in response to (and affecting) the science. Whether this aspect of it is positive or negative is debatable...

I would say "generally positive" in respect to employing some modicum of discipline in not wasting resources. Invariably, in these arguments I end up asking what vehement proponents of warming want from me. I've not gotten a reply. If you want me to use less. Fine. I use less now. It is summer and I'm riding my bike to work. While I may not necessarily be doing this strictly for the benefit to the environment, I'd argue that my family uses less than the average person in the US. (which may not be saying a whole lot admittedly). What I don't like to see is "consensus" being used as some bully-pulpit for political action. I think this does science a great disservice and too often (not unlike the preacher railing on homosexuality and drugs only to find out he's been doing drugs and having sex with other men) the people doing the preaching lack credibility. This is the subject of the thread. While paying "carbon-credits" may help someone with a footprint 12 times the average person sleep well at night, it certainly is not reducing the "likelihood of warming due to greenhouse gas emissions". It's just ridiculous. It's just another item too many are using to pit (R)s against (D)s because that's all people can see in this.

To some extent that is just the difference in the way scientists talk.

To some extent I'd agree.

They use language that is more technically correct and therefore more dry and boring and calm-sounding, but what they're feeling is that this is some very grave matter they're reporting on.

I disagree. I don't believe there is consensus on the gravity of this matter. I think in some cases they are being sufficiently vague to have that consensus. We get this picture in our mind of a scientist saying; "Global Warming is caused by man and unless we do something about it, we'll all be under water by this time next century!" and all the scientists in the room clap their hands in agreement. This is not how it works. There are three working groups of the IPCC and they are most certainly not in agreement. In fact, from what I've read, there is considerable difficulty in getting this kind of consensus because of the implications, and that getting the IPCCs work published on time is an absolute chore. Here is a press conference held by the IPCC that kind of alludes to what I'm saying;
press conference

Did you ever see Awakenings? When he's reporting on the smashing success of the new L-dopa treatment, which seems to have totally cured locked-in patients, he's standing there listing all the dry boring symptoms of the "before" case and people are falling asleep. He's elated, and the audience thinks he's comatose. That's the way a lot of scientific communication is.

I understand your analogy, but I think you've applied it a little falsely. In this instance, there's been smashing success. In regard to climate change science, I believe some are elated and some are... well... still employing science for a better understanding.

It does when the disagreement is over whether it's 50% or 75%. Either way, it's significant. The consensus actually does say we're responsible for "a majority."

I'll bite. What to do about it?

...Without evidence.

Given that he's not a scientist, this doesn't surprise me. As always, I don't see a heck of a lot wrong with scrutiny. There is a scientific component to all this and a subsequent political implication. We don't necessarily want scientists policy-making and we don't necessarily want politicians conducting research. As you mentioned, this is part of what makes this issue dicier than most.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

if ebuddy would read some of the science behind what we're debating, such as that section of the IPCC FAR I linked to, he would have a much-improved understanding of the science behind it, some of the methods used, some of the major problems, and how this conclusion is reached. Again, CO2 is thought to be at this point the major significant driver of climate warming/change, and human activity is almost solely responsible for its recent rise. Unfortunately, it has always been a problem to get anyone to read any scientific literature around here...perhaps not enough exclamation marks?!

That's a little unfair. On issues that interest me, I think many can attest to me having clicked their links and I'll often challenge them on aspects of those links. I've not yet done so in regards to the link you're referring to and perhaps after work, I'll take a look. Most of the challenges I've seen from various sources is the accuracy of the projections models which I think is important. Maybe that link will clear some things up.

He back-tracked by admitting his counter-argument was simply wrong. He does still maintain that there were flaws with Oreskes' study – which from what I've read, perhaps sounds reasonable – and he still maintains an anti-anthropogenic climate-change stance (as already pointed out, without any scientific backing, up to and including the fact that he's not involved in climatology in any way). That's fine, but the fact that you brought him up as some sort of "proof" that there is no consensus on global climate change is simply laughable.

I brought him up for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it shows that Science did not deny his contribution because it lacked credibility or because it had already been covered by them on the internet. They first asked him to submit under a specific word-limit. When he did so, they simply replied; "After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it." Implying that he used other medium to communicate the point. That's how I took it. That's how Peiser took it. I also thought it might be wise to consider that Oreske herself admitted that aspects of her research were conducted erroneously, and to show that dissenting opinion is not always embraced by the scientific community. I think all of the above were illustrated well thank you.

The bottom line is: if any scientific field required unanimity before reaching a conclusion, there would never be any conclusions reached. Ever.

I think the underlying premise is that those who make such statements of affirmation regarding this science are being disingenuous and actually harm the scientific process. There's a difference between "unanimity" and "struggling to get consensus". People who espouse certainty on these matters almost always have no job on the line in so-doing. There's a reason scientists use sober rhetoric. They could be found mistaken. IMO, Again I don't think it's wise to chest-pound consensus on this science.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Wow. 13 pages.

So, what's this thread about, anyway?

I think it has something to do with how we should all "saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave the world" by having our lights blazing, three 30" monitors running, TV left on, windows open, and mountains of paper strewn everywhere.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The link was copied-in as part of his reply letter. I'm not going to read every abstract supplied there to see if one specifically challenges anthropogenic warming. I italicized the entire piece, that was not my interjection.

I know it wasn't your writing, but you do support the source, don't you? I mean, this is the guy that made a stink about 44 papers backing him up, then later admitted it was really only 1, and that 1 wasn't peer reviewed. I want to see if he's exaggerating again, and I would think you would too. Surely you, if anyone, need no reminder not to hang your hat on internet sources who cite broken links as the only support for their arguments...?

I just wish that what he's claiming were true, and if it is I want to see the studies that show it. I need more than his questionable word on it.

Invariably, in these arguments I end up asking what vehement proponents of warming want from me.

Sometimes I think they just want you to pat them on the back and tell them what a good job they're doing (for the earth and for science), and that you admire them.

I disagree. I don't believe there is consensus on the gravity of this matter. I think in some cases they are being sufficiently vague to have that consensus.

They absolutely are. That's the whole point. They scaled back the gravity of the matter to be as conservative, or if you prefer, as "vague," as necessary so that everyone could at least agree there is a problem that is man-made. And they did.

I'll bite. What to do about it?

Um, raise the CAFE standards? Lower the speed limits? Inhance public transportation? Try to replace air travel with rail? Replace coal electric with nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, etc? Plant lots more trees? Protect the rain forests?

Given that he's not a scientist, this doesn't surprise me. As always, I don't see a heck of a lot wrong with scrutiny.

Unless it's scrutiny of the skeptics, apparently.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who is this person you're talking about? I think we're talking about two different issues here before you get your panties in a bunch.

Yes, two different people, but the two items are often posted together or inevitably in the same thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Humility is indicative of lacking credibility? He based his study on the fallacious foundation for which Oreske apologized herself. This is what he admitted to.

No, he reproduced a study incorrectly and didn't read the "apology" by Oreske where she clarified the search term used for the study. Results of which Peiser then again reproduced with the correct study form and conceded his argument.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's a little unfair. On issues that interest me, I think many can attest to me having clicked their links and I'll often challenge them on aspects of those links. I've not yet done so in regards to the link you're referring to and perhaps after work, I'll take a look.

Oh I'm not challenging you on clicking links in general; I'm challenging you on clicking links on this subject, which I can confidently say you have a poor history of doing.

Most of the challenges I've seen from various sources is the accuracy of the projections models which I think is important. Maybe that link will clear some things up.

I've posted links on other threads regarding the accuracy of climate models...remember, as each year goes by, we can measure how our successively older models are "holding up," and identify where problems arise so we can incorporate that information into newer models. I recently linked to a new study (I believe published in Science, but I'm not sure) which concluded that our climate models have thus far been surprisingly accurate. Again, no one on earth will tell you there aren't problems with every model - we always need more information here or are lacking detail over there - so it goes without saying that there are always questions and/or concerns about them as a whole. However, to repeat, at least one recent published study on those models has concluded that their accuracy rate has been quite positive. (I do not have time to search at work, but I'm pretty sure you should be able to find it on here...if I remember correctly it might've needed a subscription to Science at the time though).

The link was copied-in as part of his reply letter. I'm not going to read every abstract supplied there to see if one specifically challenges anthropogenic warming. I italicized the entire piece, that was not my interjection.

As an FYI response to this comment, further research will show that the abstracts supplied by him have since been shown to be equally inaccurate. As I mentioned, as of last year I believe only a single one of those abstracts were still upheld by him, and that one was not even peer-reviewed or involved research! This seems to indicate exactly the opposite point that Peiser set out to prove, does it not?!

I also thought it might be wise to consider that Oreske herself admitted that aspects of her research were conducted erroneously, and to show that dissenting opinion is not always embraced by the scientific community. I think all of the above were illustrated well thank you.

From what I remember, Science's position was that Oreskes' inconsistencies were already public knowledge and widely dispersed by the time Peirser's letter was ready for publishing. Given that the subsequent faults in his "study" were arguably of an even more gross nature, I don't see any evidence of a valid point being made.

I think the underlying premise is that those who make such statements of affirmation regarding this science are being disingenuous and actually harm the scientific process. There's a difference between "unanimity" and "struggling to get consensus".

Again, I don't know if there's ever been a scientific issue where consensus hasn't involved a struggle. (There's been heated "scientific debate" regarding the affects of pollution, smoking, and of course the "ozone hole" issue which was hotly denied by members of this board up until a couple years ago.)

And if I may be frank, I fail to see how such "disingenuous statements of affirmation" which are backed by scientific study are harming the scientific process when compared to what we see in this thread: "disingenuous statements of denial" which are backed by either zero scientific study, or completely outdated or discredited scientific study.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know it wasn't your writing, but you do support the source, don't you? I mean, this is the guy that made a stink about 44 papers backing him up, then later admitted it was really only 1, and that 1 wasn't peer reviewed. I want to see if he's exaggerating again, and I would think you would too. Surely you, if anyone, need no reminder not to hang your hat on internet sources who cite broken links as the only support for their arguments...?

I don't know what you mean by broken links. He's got everything from 1993 to 2003, sorted by year, and all abstracts contained within. I'm comfortable enough in admitting defeat on this man's work that I won't be picking through abstracts. There was a reason why I cited this man and copy-pasted his letter and it really had little to do with whether or not I agreed with him entirely. I had originally thought his peice did a masterful job of showing lacking consensus and it was the first thing I found, but y'all have sufficiently ripped that to shreds. I also wanted to show that dissenting opinion is not readily embraced by the more mainstream outlets. They did not critique the substance of his rebuttle to Oreske's work. They told him to edit it down to an acceptable submission size. He did so. They then told him they wouldn't be submitting this because it had already been widely disseminated through the internet. So... between the original submission and the subsequently revised submission, it had magically been widely disseminated throughout the internet? I don't buy it. Peiser (according to him) had not disseminated the conclusion of his study to anyone at that point.

I just wish that what he's claiming were true, and if it is I want to see the studies that show it. I need more than his questionable word on it.

Sometimes I think they just want you to pat them on the back and tell them what a good job they're doing (for the earth and for science), and that you admire them.

I have no problem patting the scientists on the back and saying; "good job for the earth and for science. You've dedicated your life's work to something very thankless." However, I will not pat the backs of those who chest-pound consensus as a bully pulpit for political action, while burning up 12 times more fossil fuels than I'm even capable of and telling me how their lobbying government to act in limiting what I am capable of. I'm for disciplined change. There are too many who I feel want something more than disciplined change and this is what peaks my spider-senses. It is too easy to twist science when it is being used for an agenda. The scientists are not screaming what the popular media is screaming. They rarely do. I've never been in favor of this.

They absolutely are. That's the whole point. They scaled back the gravity of the matter to be as conservative, or if you prefer, as "vague," as necessary so that everyone could at least agree there is a problem that is man-made. And they did.

We'll likely disagree here, but when you've got to be so conservative as to say Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. I still maintain you don't have much of a consensus at all. I'm sorry.

Um, raise the CAFE standards?

This is being looked at. You have to raise these standards and still ensure your product can remain in existence and competitive.

Lower the speed limits?

Didn't they raise speed limits to ease congestion? Is there data to suggest slowing down will make any difference to the environment at all other than increasing road rage?

Inhance public transportation?

I think most transit authorities try as best they can to meet demand. It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to send a bunch of fossil-fuel-burning buses out half full of passengers.

Try to replace air travel with rail? Replace coal electric with nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, etc?

I have no problem at all with any of this. I've looked into it for personal use. Turns out solar was a little cost prohibitive, but maybe the costs will come down over time.

Plant lots more trees?

Should we have Arbor Day, then Arbor II day?

Protect the rain forests?

Okay.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh I'm not challenging you on clicking links in general; I'm challenging you on clicking links on this subject, which I can confidently say you have a poor history of doing.

Yeah I know... dishes, walk the dog, coach softball, converse with the wife, hang out on the internet, hit myself over the head with ball-ping hammer, read Global Warming links...

I've posted links on other threads regarding the accuracy of climate models...remember, as each year goes by, we can measure how our successively older models are "holding up," and identify where problems arise so we can incorporate that information into newer models. I recently linked to a new study (I believe published in Science, but I'm not sure) which concluded that our climate models have thus far been surprisingly accurate. Again, no one on earth will tell you there aren't problems with every model - we always need more information here or are lacking detail over there - so it goes without saying that there are always questions and/or concerns about them as a whole.

You can understand where future projections are concerned, a .03 discrepancy can become exponentially more inaccurate say... 10, 20, 30 years down the road?

From what I remember, Science's position was that Oreskes' inconsistencies were already public knowledge and widely dispersed by the time Peirser's letter was ready for publishing. Given that the subsequent faults in his "study" were arguably of an even more gross nature, I don't see any evidence of a valid point being made.

Weren't you the one that originally stated there were some valid concerns with Oreske's work? Oreskes claimed to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database from 1993 – 2003 using the keywords "global climate change." Per Peiser, the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for that period, it lists only 905 abstracts. This was what sparked Peiser's curiosity in the first place. He used the same ISI database and the same key words as Oreskes but used all documents listed. While Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, she later confirmed that she had limited her search to “articles”, while Peiser used “all document types” in his initial study. This difference was between the “928” abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents Peiser found and considered. While Peiser is not beyond reproach, certainly neither was Oreskes.

Again, I don't know if there's ever been a scientific issue where consensus hasn't involved a struggle. (There's been heated "scientific debate" regarding the affects of pollution, smoking, and of course the "ozone hole" issue which was hotly denied by members of this board up until a couple years ago.)

Again, IMO when your consensus must be as sufficiently vague as; "Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.", you don't have much a consensus of anything.

And if I may be frank, I fail to see how such "disingenuous statements of affirmation" which are backed by scientific study are harming the scientific process when compared to what we see in this thread: "disingenuous statements of denial" which are backed by either zero scientific study, or completely outdated or discredited scientific study.

I'm not the one advocating potential "carbon-credit sales" or "carbon taxes" that could equate to billions annually on the tax-payers backs to be paid to the same entities that use gas taxes to increase enforcement of seat-belt laws. I don't trust the loud ones on this issue and I only see this as an opportunity to give more to the same entities that have been poor stewards of all this in the first place. BTW; this includes Al Gore. How kindly do you take to people telling you what to do? Scientists aren't the policy makers. We'd behoove ourselves to ensure we're not enacting oppressive policies on what "most" may "likely" be caused by.

[Sky Captain]

Al Gore at the Marin Civic Center

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Al Gore at the Marin Civic Center

How do we know the SUV drivers weren't all infiltrators, just like the author? They have ironic enviro bumper stickers sometimes, akin to the "preserve the earth encased in asphalt" ones...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Al Gore at the Marin Civic Center

Classic! Very typical of California "saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave the planet" types. Here in LA, you can hardly turn around without seeing some gas hog-driving moron with hypocritical bumperstickers about saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaving the planet (presumably everyone else's job- as usual) and/or how the oil companies are personally out to get them.

I've said it before- this group has found their PERFECT leader in eGore.

[Buckaroo]

Those save the planet wako's are the worst at following what they preech. They preech one thing and do exactly the opposite. They want everyone else to do without, but not them.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Conclusion: preeching wako's are not cool.



greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've said it before- this group has found their PERFECT leader in eGore.

You've said it many times. Over and over again. Never bothered to give any evidence, but evidence is for Democrats. You're more in favor of bombing first and asking questions later, I suppose.

[Buckaroo]

Glaciers are shrinking, glaciers are growning, temperatures are warmer, temperatures are cooler . . . when are the idiots going to finally realize that everything going on in the enviornment changes all the time, and man has nothing to do with global warming. Man does have an affect on pollution, but not global warming.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tyne | Global warming boost to glaciers

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Glaciers are shrinking, glaciers are growning, temperatures are warmer, temperatures are cooler . . . when are the idiots going to finally realize that everything going on in the enviornment changes all the time, and man has nothing to do with global warming. Man does have an affect on pollution, but not global warming.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tyne | Global warming boost to glaciers

Don't bother trying to think, or read for that matter.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Don't bother trying to think, or read for that matter.

I read it jerk. It's all a bunch of BS.

[tie]

That's your critique? Maybe you should read it again.

[Buckaroo]

Well, do you think the liar Gore will run for President? He says he won't, but he's good at lieing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Well, do you think the liar Gore will run for President? He says he won't, but he's good at lieing.

THAT WAS FUNNY LOLZ!!!

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

THAT WAS FUNNY LOLZ!!!

I forgot the

[Buckaroo]

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions' - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change

The wacos never give up. Now they claim it's three time worse than previously reported.

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 03 June 2007
Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

[tie]

As usual, Buckaroo has no counter-point to make, beyond calling the scientists "wacos." (He's used this word repeatedly, but I still have no idea what it means.)

Keep posting these articles, Buckaroo; you'll save us the work.

[Buckaroo]

Here's my counter point:

They call this a consensus?

They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

[BRussell]

That's great Buckaroo, except that those Gallup poll results appear to have been just made up. I'm truly shocked and surprised that conservatives and other anti-science crusaders would make **** up.