International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects

[Twitterbait]

I didnt. I just have a hard time when people wont believe science because they are too stubborn to believe in it.

 

What science? you are totally ignoring all the scientists that are saying it is a load of crap. there are models that go both ways but it seems some people only hear what they want to hear. Have you read both sides or are you too busy listening to the media?

 

H2o has it right. and i have to agree. this conversation will go nowhere.

peace out.

[Piero]

What Science? This Science.

I still think what some may be neglecting to realize, is something that has been said over and over: The current reality is that the qualified scientific community has been debating climate change for 40 years, and at this point there is a general consensus, given existing data, from the major worldwide scientific bodies.

 

It's not the media who decide, although the media does hook onto it like flies on poop because it's good ratings. But it's the approved reports that are published by major scientific bodies and critiqued by 100s of scientists that actually matter. Hundreds of the best minds that society has to offer on the subject. Hundreds of scientists over the course of 4 decades have researching, collecting data, analyzing, and most importantly rigorously critiquing the findings of their peers.

 

So you see, a very significant part of the scientific process is constant, rigorous, and intense scrutiny by the peer community at large. This is an inherent part of science and the scientific method.

 

So with that said: If you still choose to challenge the scientific community from an uneducated(in climatology) position, it's essentially saying that you believe you're better at being a climate scientist than the best people society has to offer on the subject over the past four decades. And I'm sorry, with all due respect, i don't see how that's not naive on some level.

 

If an actual UN-backed climate scientist were posting, I'm sure even s/he would give up trying to claim the existing consensus has merit. At some point the civilian nay-sayers are just simply refusing to respect the findings of the subject authorities. It's equivalent to challenging a medical specialist regarding the predominant theories in their field. It just does not seem very sensible, imo. I think it was Captain Crunch, or was it Count Chocula who once said, "One of the first signs of wisdom is the realization that you know nothing"

------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the debate needs to go anywhere here, because the debate that actually matters is not on a reef board, it's undertaken by climate scientists around the world, lots of 'em! Really there's not likely to be any debate here that measures up to the type scientists likely have at annual conventions. I don't think that's such an unrealistic thing to assume, do you?

------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to re-quote previous posts again since they appear to have addressed your points prior to them being made. Frankly the newest report from the UN is the freshest perspective. But instead, I'll quote some relatively old news on the consensus. This excerpt is from Science magazine, 2004.

 

(2004)The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes, Science

"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

 

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

 

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

 

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

 

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. 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."

 

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.

2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).

3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).

7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).

8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.

10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

 

10.1126/science.1103618

 

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu

 

The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites:

In Science Magazine

 

LETTERS

Consensus About Climate Change?

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)

Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]

| Full Text » | PDF »

 

 

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:

 

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Discussion.

B. Lovell (2006)

AAPG Bulletin 90, 405-407

| Full Text » | PDF »

 

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply.

L. C. Gerhard (2006)

AAPG Bulletin 90, 409-412

| Full Text » | PDF »

 

Book review: The discovery of global warming.

R. Wilby (2006)

Progress in Physical Geography 30, 141-142

| PDF »

[Twitterbait]

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm...=rep&id=263759

[drock59]

Author: SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

 

Im sure there is no spin or bias in that article.

 

Again, find me one peer reviewed article.

 

Piero, well done.

[H20cooled]

Not sure if anyone saw this; but in my opinion it points out what happens if you disagree with the "norm" view of humans are to blame for this. Really sad, but it doesn't surprise me a bit, i think most scientist are under a LOT of pressure to say whats popular even if they don't believe it.

 

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

[drock59]

i think most scientist are under a LOT of pressure to say whats popular even if they don't believe it.

 

What makes you think that?

 

And why is it sad that the governor wants to appoint someone with similar beliefs to himself? Dont most politicians do that? Pretty sure it happens in the White House, why not in Oregon?

[H20cooled]

Lets see, this guy has been the this position for a while now suddenly what he is saying is different then what the media and everyone is pushing so he gets fired. Yeah thats wrong and sad. But its exactly what I'm talking about pressure to say whats popular. If this guy had said what they wanted him to say (Global warming is our fault) he would have a job. How can you not see that as pressure?

[blown65]

I'm always wary of any information that is validated by someone taking it from CNN. Nearly all news media has an agenda, like a few that visit this forum.

[Piero]

Everyone has an 'agenda', if we want to be technical.

 

It's a fine line between intense skepticism and paranoid dementia. You know anyone without an agenda of any kind? I think people just like saying 'agenda'. I do.

 

CNN actually uses real tools to confirm information. I heard they used a pokey-stick to make sure Anna Nicole was unresponsive.

 

Seriously though, given a general paranoia regarding everyone's subjective agenda, what do we use to get our information from? I think a more pragmatic question is: What information are we the least wary about? CNN I'd guess is a good bet for several reasons, given the alternatives.

 

Don't trust 'dem fancy news folk? Go to the source, the reports. Don't trust 'dem fancy science folk? Get a doctorate in the field you're questioning. Don't trust that fancy-pants brain between yer ears? well...seek meds. oh, and send me some. :P

[blown65]

nvm, I dont wanna argue with this.

[Piero]

no worries. The inherent ubiquity of agendas across the media outlets should not prevent us from seeking information though, I don't think.

[drock59]

How can you not see that as pressure?

 

The feeling you get when you think this, is the feeling i have when people like you refuse to accept the scientific fact that Global Warming is happening. I see the pressure...certainly... but for crying out loud, I think there would be more dissent if it was all boiled down to over arching pressure. More consensus on global warming than any other scientific topic.

 

 

The inherent ubiquity of agendas across the media outlets should not prevent us from seeking information though,

 

Doesnt it seem kind of like, "DUH", to not get all your news from just a couple of sources? I dont know about everyone else, but I dont watch the nightly news and say, "Hmm, that sounds accurate." I always go check out the stories that I am truly interested in.

 

Seems that everyone has an agenda but if a person looks in enough places and reads enough stories , one can certainly come up with a meaningful and semi-accurate answer for ones self.

[drock59]

H20, you linked to this earlier in the thread:

 

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

 

Its been ten years since that article was published. I just thought I would throw that out there. Im sure there is still some good info, but its pretty old when we are talking about Global Warming, no?

[H20cooled]

More info: Link

 

The feelings I get is we are all being exposed to a complete and utter snow job be individuals and groups that have one agenda; to stop what they believe is causing problems whether or not it is actually causing problems.

 

Quotes from the article:

 

Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.

 

"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.

"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."

 

"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats."

 

Here is another new theory on the cause: LINK

 

This just goes along with what I'm saying, NO one has any idea on the actual cause and its all just a bunch of theories.

 

Quotes:

 

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

 

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

 

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

 

 

 

And more new info: LINK

As I been saying....

 

Quotes:

 

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.

 

They (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

 

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

 

I find this quote very interesting

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

 

This is really good to

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

[Piero]

I don't myself blindly follow politicians and journalists on the subject of science, I look towards the scientific community for direction because they are qualified, and so do the good politicians and journalists I suspect. The message comes from the majority of the scientific community(refers to previous posts about peer review, scrutiny, yadda yadda), the politicians and the media are just pointiong to the reports that are approved and published by the major scientific bodies.

 

Of course it's all just theories(see scientific method), but the current consensus revolves around the best theory we have at this point and time given available data. And the professionals have the burden of determining that, not us.

[H20cooled]

I don't myself blindly follow politicians and journalists on the subject of science, I look towards the scientific community for direction because they are qualified, and so do the good politicians and journalists I suspect. The message comes from the majority of the scientific community(refers to previous posts about peer review, scrutiny, yadda yadda), the politicians and the media are just pointiong to the reports that are approved and published by the major scientific bodies.

 

Of course it's all just theories(see scientific method), but the current consensus revolves around the best theory we have at this point and time given available data. And the professionals have the burden of determining that, not us.

This has nothing to do you with you, I'm referring to the scientific community in general feeling huge political and financial pressure on support the Global Warming theory. These sites and info that I posted all point to the HUGE pressure that they are feeling to pick the right thing. So, how can you go into this believe that you are getting the honest and unbiased truth if you know that scientist are being forced to choose between the truth or a job? That is my whole reason for doubting these theories.

[Piero]

I share your skepticism of outside influences. But again we're returned to the point I initially made: We're really not qualified to challenge the world's climate scientists on their research...whether they are subjective or not, imo.

[H20cooled]

So, whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true? Thats fine I prefer to remain a skeptic, I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

 

What I think is really funny is that now everything is causing Global Warming, Valentine bouquets are now bad. LINK

[drock59]

I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

 

Really? Interesting. So do you agree that the past changes in Earths temperature are due to CO2? If not what are they due to? I have linked to and quoted a variety of sources that link past Earth temperature to CO2. Just wondering what you think is causing it and how that differs from the super duper majority of the scientific community.

 

Also, you say there is nothing we can do about it. Dont you think it is a bit naive to think that 6 billion humans cannot change the Earth?

 

I think that if scientists were really being pressured as much as you think they are, they would make more of a stink about it. There would be a zillion blogs, investigative reports and such about it.

 

Canada is supposedly supposed to house some of the skeptics to Human caused Global Warming:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6355273.stm

[drock59]

whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true?

 

I generally believe a wide variety of professionals in their field. If my car was broken and I took it to 1,000 mechanics and 950 of them told me I needed a new clutch, i would be inclined to get the clutch repaired. My clutch may not have a problem but I trust that the professionals who know much more about automobiles than I, do( and that not all 950 are trying to screw me over ).

[Piero]

H20,

So' date=' whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true?[/quote'] nope, that's not what i said at all.

 

I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

What exactly are you basing that opinion on? Not being an actual climate scientist, you think it's a bit naive to claim you inherently know something the scientific community missed? (see previous posts addressing exactly this).

 

Try one of the actual climate science forums I linked if you're so skeptical about objectivity. Take your sketpicism to that arena, place it at the foot of real climate scientists who can post to the internet anonymously.

 

Again, we can choose to believe whatever we want here, but we're not climate scientists so we sound silly. We can debate for another 100 years, but we're debating something that will possibly play out in 50 years, so what's the safe, intelligent approach?

 

Additionally I believe these subjects were already specifically addressed on previous pages of the thread, so I'll point to those.

[Piero]

I generally believe a wide variety of professionals in their field. If my car was broken and I took it to 1' date='000 mechanics and 950 of them told me I needed a new clutch, i would be inclined to get the clutch repaired. My clutch may not have a problem but I trust that the professionals who know much more about automobiles than I, do( and that not all 950 are trying to screw me over ).[/quote']

 

well said. As the sample size of (qualified) opinions grows, basic statistical analysis leans towards the vast majority.(are we going to debate the legitimacy of the science of statistical analysis next? We'll need a professional statistician for that)

 

The current reality is that the qualified scientific community has been debating climate change for 40 years, and at this point there is a general consensus, given existing data, from the major worldwide scientific bodies. In fact a very significant part of the scientific process is constant, rigorous, and intense scrutiny by the peer community at large. This is an inherent part of science and the scientific method.

 

With that said, if you still choose to challenge the scientific community from a RELATIVELY ignorant(in climatology) position, it's essentially saying that you believe you're better at being a climate scientist than the best people society has to offer on the subject over the past four decades. And I'm sorry, with all due respect, I don't see how that's not naive on some level.

 

At some point the armchair scientists who casually challenge the research of real scientist are just simply refusing to respect the findings of the subject authorities. It's equivalent to challenging a medical specialist regarding the predominant theories in their field - it's ego over intellect, imo. I still seriously doubt that any of the debate here measures up to the debate that real scientists likely undertake themselves, so i don't see why admitting that you 'don't know' seems so difficult for some.

 

I have my own thoughts. Most of them agree with predominant scientific theory because to me it seems logical and I do place - for lack of a better word - some 'faith' (not blind, mind you)in the scientific method and the scientific community. Some of my thoughts do question predominant theory details and are skeptical, but i would never go so far as to ask such questions without first acknowledging that I am clearly not qualified on the subject, despite my fascination with science.

[reefgeek84]

Global warming does exist, but not due to humans...I can find you as many people that say it is not due to humans, as ones that say it is human fault.

 

Everyone thinks Al gore is some great guy that he has all the answers...he is a tool. There is one huge discrepancy in his video...there is a part that he has a huge graph on the wall and he uses a lift to bring him up to the top to show the dramatic increase in c02 due to us humans. There are two lines on this graph..c02 and temp. and these lines follow each other almost identical. Well when he gets to the end of it the top graph (c02) goes like 90,000ft high ( I hope you get the sarcasm) and the bottom graph does not follow the same trend, he then does not even talk about it again, interesting...

 

Also, you are seeing way more reports of human cause come to light because the people behind it want you to believe it...the ones that are against it have known about this trend and there is nothing that can be done about it, so why try to solve the earth's natural cycle?

 

Also, this seems to be a fad and everyone wants to be part of the majority, it is human nature, (I can find you countless studies on this) so everyone is going with this story. Also people that disagree with the mainstream media, they can risk losing grants and their jobs...do not believe me? Oregon's Climatologist's job is now hanging in the balance, because he came out and said that it is not humans fault and stupid Ted (our retarded govener ((that one is for Drock ))) disagrees with him...so lets take his job away if there is a disagreement, so why would anyone speak up?

 

Most who believe the human cause of global warming have done no research to both sides...Give me sometime and I will find just as many people who disprove the theory of the human's causing it...the whole car thing does not hold water...cause the numbers would be cut down the middle if you are not one sided about the whole issue, so yes you would a tough time picking cause 50% would say the clutch needs to be replaced and the other 50% would say it was your syncros.

[reefgeek84]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol21/vol21_iss14/record2114.23.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

Books disproving global warming...I searched global warming...which is the liberal (aka advocates) term for this change in the earth.

http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/store-books/product/0742551172/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-1500-Years.html

http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Predictable-Distortion-Scientists-Politicians/dp/1930865791/sr=1-3/qid=1171351373/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/105-2584085-7600418?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Consensus-State-Global-Warming/dp/0742549232/sr=1-6/qid=1171351373/ref=sr_1_6/105-2584085-7600418?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Other-Myths-Environmental/dp/B000BZ6UR6/sr=1-7/qid=1171351373/ref=sr_1_7/105-2584085-7600418?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

15 mins of searching (including some skimming)...My point is simply that for every person you find to prove global warming is happening due to humans, I can find you someone else to disprove that. I will also believe climatologists over scientists any day... and majority of climatologists disagree that it is human caused. Would you like me to go on?

 

Anyone who does not like this...will claim that the people who have written this stuff are not their scientists so they are wrong.

[reefgeek84]

So, whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true? Thats fine I prefer to remain a skeptic, I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

 

What I think is really funny is that now everything is causing Global Warming, Valentine bouquets are now bad. LINK

Yeah, I read about this too...

 

cows are also a cause http://www.tierramerica.net/2000/1126/acent.html