The Sun Also Sets(Global Cooling)

[thatonedude]

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

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.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by thatonedude

..... it makes it rather annoying to navigate the thread.

If you find it annoying then I’m all for it.

I see that you edited out those rather elitist remarks about “rural Kansas” that you had posted with a looking down your nose attitude. I’m sure many here would have found them as offensive as I did. “Rural Kansas” is populated with good hard working folks that get up at dark o’ clock in the morning to put food on the tables of folks like you in some tiny hole in the wall state back east so you can pretend that you’re smart and try to tell the rest of us how to live.

Of course Bubba went to an “openly anti-liberal” site for a different viewpoint. Liberals have adopted a single minded assimilation into the religion of global warming. Most of us put liberal ideas aside with other childhood fantasies when we left universities and went to work in the real world.

[thatonedude]

I did delete them. I realized they wouldn't be productive. But if you want to continue on that path we can. I'm just as much of a Kansan as any of you. I was born and raised on a large farm near Dodge. DCHS graduate. My opinion of Kansas is just as valid as yours and was formulated from personal contact for 24 years. I did enjoy the "folks like you" comment, though, as if I represent the East! Far from it. You on the other hand... And don't even try to pretend that most people in Dodge are farmers who get up before sunrise. Who are you trying to fool? Maybe you are referring to the Mexicans at the meat packing plants. I guess you could be referring to the more rural Kansas in the absolute sense. In that case you may be right but working hard doesn't make you any wiser in this world. That idea comes from the Calvinist ideology you may have adopted. Neither does sitting in a remote island of a city with a homogenous political and social atmosphere and visiting anti-liberal websites to collect your next complaint about Dems or Liberals.

"Liberals have adopted a single minded assimilation into the religion of global warming."

And the anti-liberal websites haven't dont the same in the other direction?

[Detector]

Dude, no one says we aren't contributing to some of the warming, just like me eating the steak contributes to the extinction of cattle, what's being questioned is to what degree and the results.

It has been said that when the largest Dinosaurs roamed the earth they released more "greenhouse gases" than man has in their entire existence. And the point is?

The earth has always, and will always, go through warming and cooling periods that we know for a fact. 75% of the warming and cooling periods, man wasn't even around.

We are not gods, and when the earth gets warm, which it will even when caused by man, mother earth will cool it off one way or another. When the earth gets cool, which it will, mother earth will find a way to warm it again.

[aft_lizard01]

Science and Public Policy Institute - “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over

There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.



See how easy it is to find stuff on the internet that supports a view?

[thatonedude]

Science and Public Policy Institute

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search
THIS IS IN NO WAY AFFILIATED AND NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE WHICH IS THE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION DEALING WITH EMR AND HEALTH AND DIRECTED BY DR. GEORGE CARLO. THE TWO ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT ENTITIES.'The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Frontiers of Freedom's Center for Science and Public Policy [1] promotes the views of global warming skeptics. The website links to two other skeptic websites - the Heartland Institute's global warming page and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

[aft_lizard01]

Here is some more of that Consensus:
Report #2 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City - by Joseph L. Bast - The Heartland Institute

Report #2 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: March 3, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Report #2 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
By Joseph Bast, President, The Heartland Institute
Monday, March 3, 2008 (10:30 p.m. EST)


The first full day of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by The Heartland Institute and more than 50 cosponsors, was by all accounts an extraordinary success, from the packed breakfast and lunch plenary sessions to the rapt attention given to panelists during the 20 concurrent sessions addressing nearly every aspect of paleoclimatology, climatology, and the economics and politics of climate change.
It became clear this was no ordinary conference on climate change from the opening presentations by Dr. Robert Balling, professor of climatology at Arizona State University, and Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor of economics at the University of Guelph (Ontario).
Both speakers vigorously critiqued the temperature records that purport to show unprecedented warming in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, documenting a dramatic drop in the number of temperature stations, changes in temperature recording technologies, and apparent bias in adjustments to the data made by proponents of global warming alarmism.
The breakfast speakers also began what would be a running debate over Dr. Patrick Michaels' statements, in the opening address the evening before, that a warming trend, albeit a mild one, could be discerned from recent temperature data and that it was probably of anthropogenic origin. An expected theme of the conference--that there is no consensus on the extent or causes of global warming--was doubly confirmed: Not only do "skeptics" disagree with the so-called "consensus," but they also disagree among themselves!
With some 60 speakers presenting papers over the course of the day, it would be unfair to single out only a few for praise, particularly since the author of this report wasn't able to attend more than a few of the presentations. But people in the hallways buzzed about presentations by Christopher Monckton, a former policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; Willie Soon of the Science and Public Policy Institute and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Dr. George Taylor, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists; and Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality.
Lunch presentations by Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason University, rocked the crowd. Singer announced the release of the Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a systematic and authoritative rebuttal of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report.
There was a moment of sadness when the death of Dr. Frederick Seitz, on Sunday, was announced at the end of lunch. Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University in New York, was one of the most distinguished scientists of his generation and a noted global warming skeptic. He had contributed a preface to Singer's NIPCC report.
The newly formed International Climate Science Coalition used the conference to announce its formation and encourage the scientists and policy experts attending the conference to join it. Tom Harris, a Canadian engineer and executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project in Ottawa, Ontario, is the coalition's new executive director and can be reached at tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net.
The Business and Media Institute also used the conference to announce the release of "Greenhouse Censored," a new report on media bias in reporting on the climate change controversy. According to the BMI report, only 20 percent of 205 network news stories about climate change between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 even mentioned an alternative view to alarmism. CBS scored the worst of the three networks, allowing only one "skeptic" to appear for every 38 alarmists.
A steady stream of reporters and camera crews flowed through the registration and reception areas and utilized the three media suites set up for interviews. Media organizations represented at the day's events included ABC, CBS, CNN, the BBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, among many others.
By the end of the day, more than a few speakers were hoarse from their repeated encounters with reporters, but all were delighted that they were getting their messages out. There is no question but that the media took note of this meeting--the largest gathering of global warming skeptics ever held.
The truth was simply too big to remain hidden: There is no consensus on global warming!
By the end of the day, talk was already turning to follow-up activities to the conference. At least three books, several videos, a journal devoted to climate change, and a follow-up conference (possibly in London in early 2009) are being discussed. Parallels were being drawn between this conference and the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947--which led to the creation of an institution that played a key role in the resurrection of classical liberalism world-wide and the intellectual defeat of socialism.
"It's difficult to imagine how this conference could have been more successful," said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, host of the conference. "The pure quality of speakers and presentations, and the excitement and passion of the audience, is almost overwhelming. We thought we were just bringing together some scientists and other experts to make a point; we may have ended up launching an intellectual movement."
Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus is scheduled to speak on Tuesday morning.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by thatonedude

"one scientist that resigned from the IPCC"

My point exactly.

Fwiw I'm no Al Gore fan.

One of many, the video just showed the one.

[thatonedude]

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". [1] It campaigns on what it calls "junk science", "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), the privatization of public services, smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance. It also provides an online resource for finding right-wing think tank policy documents called PolicyBot.

Natural Resources Stewardship Project - SourceWatch

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a Canadian non-profit group, including a number of leading climate change sceptics, was launched October 12, 2006. [1]

The NRSP has been exposed as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists. [2]

[Bubba]