Scientists jumping off the warming train

[wolram]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next

What do you guys make of this?

 

[LightbulbSun]

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

I thought science wasn't about popularity?

 

[Gokul43201]

That the world might be a better place if politicians didn't meddle in science (other than dishing out the money we ask for, of course)?

 

[Gokul43201]

I thought science wasn't about popularity?

Ha ha! Clever observation!

 

[wolram]

It was this part that grabbed my attention

newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007.

Many current and former UN IPCC scientists, i do not know how these numbers break down ,
but they seem significant.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I thought science wasn't about popularity?

The primary argument that most people make for global warming is that it's the majority consensus amongst scientists, so should be taken seriously.

 

[NeoDevin]

The bit you quoted doesn't say what type of scientists these are. A quick glance over the list of quotes shows that none (maybe a few, I didn't read the whole thing) are doing climate science. The closest things are meteorologists and environmental scientists, but neither field (necessarily) studies climate change specifically. So they have 650 people who's specialization is something other than climate, and they're trying to portray them as experts.

 

[LowlyPion]

The primary argument that most people make for global warming is that it's the majority consensus amongst scientists, so should be taken seriously.

Before I get all excited about this report I note that the Report itself is a Minority Report.

Hmmm. Who is in the minority on this committee? I see the National Chairman of Men's Room Clean Up - Larry Craig - votes the Minority line.

Senate Majority Committee Members
Barbara Boxer (Chairman)
Max Baucus
Joseph I. Lieberman
Thomas R. Carper
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Frank R. Lautenberg
Benjamin L. Cardin
Bernard Sanders
Amy Klobuchar
Sheldon Whitehouse

Senate Minority Committee Members
James M. Inhofe
John Warner
George V. Voinovich
Johnny Isakson
David Vitter
John Barrasso
Larry E. Craig
Lamar Alexander
Christopher S. Bond

 

[wolram]

The bit you quoted doesn't say what type of scientists these are. A quick glance over the list of quotes shows that none (maybe a few, I didn't read the whole thing) are doing climate science. The closest things are meteorologists and environmental scientists, but neither field (necessarily) studies climate change specifically. So they have 650 people who's specialization is something other than climate, and they're trying to portray them as experts.

A meteorologist has nothing to do with climate? I am sure climate change draws from many sciences.

 

[Evo]

The bit you quoted doesn't say what type of scientists these are. A quick glance over the list of quotes shows that none (maybe a few, I didn't read the whole thing) are doing climate science. The closest things are meteorologists and environmental scientists, but neither field (necessarily) studies climate change specifically. So they have 650 people who's specialization is something other than climate, and they're trying to portray them as experts.

Yes, but all of the scientists in that so called pro AGW "consensus" aren't climate scientists either, and neither were all of the scientists that contributed to the IPCC report.

 

[NeoDevin]

A meteorologist has nothing to do with climate?

I never said that.

Yes, but all of the scientists in that so called pro AGW "consensus" aren't climate scientists either, and neither were all of the scientists that contributed to the IPCC report.

This is true, but at least some of them are.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Meteorology deals with climate, but it's main focus isn't climate.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The primary argument that most people make for global warming is that it's the majority consensus amongst scientists, so should be taken seriously.

Well whoever says that is unscientific since science is about evidence supporting a hypothesis, no matter how many people oppose it.

 

[wolram]

Before I get all excited about this report I note that the Report itself is a Minority Report.

Hmmm. Who is in the minority on this committee? I see the National Chairman of Men's Room Clean Up - Larry Craig - votes the Minority line.

I am not sure i care about the politicians, it is the scientist who advise the politicians, not the other way round.

Edit

The question is, are main stream warmer leaving the fold.

 

[drankin]

So, just maybe, the sky isn't falling after all?

 

[SticksandStones]

Reminds me of another group of scientists trying to debunk Climate Change earlier this year.

Back then it turned out most of the scientists were far from experts in Climatology.

 

[Evo]

Reminds me of another group of scientists trying to debunk Climate Change earlier this year.

Back then it turned out most of the scientists were far from experts in Climatology.

Really, what was this?

Of course it wasn't this latest fiasco by the AGW alarmist Hansen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well whoever says that is unscientific since science is about evidence supporting a hypothesis, no matter how many people oppose it.

You're half right. The average lay person has to take the majority consensus as scientific fact since he/she has no other indicator that's understandable. Unless you think everyone should be running their own experiments to determine the truth of the matter

 

[LowlyPion]

I am not sure i care about the politicians, it is the scientist who advise the politicians, not the other way round.

Edit

The question is, are main stream warmer leaving the fold.

I tend to agree that the science is the thing and not the politicians, but for decades Republicans have been philosophically resistant to any thoughts of the existence of AGW apparently because it's anti-business. I find it as no great surprise that a "study" by Republicans would attack the postulates of AGW just as the Tobacco Institute finding no harm with smoking.

I'm all for challenging postulates and revisiting results, most especially on the basis of new information. It's the shills in the crowd pushing their agendas and working up the crowds on both sides that I think only serves to distract, and not advance.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You're half right. The average lay person has to take the majority consensus as scientific fact since he/she has no other indicator that's understandable. Unless you think everyone should be running their own experiments to determine the truth of the matter

You don't even need to do that. Just read up on how the experiments were conducted and see how the results turned out.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You don't even need to do that. Just read up on how the experiments were conducted and see how the results turned out.

And I'm sure that the average lay person will be well versed in proper methodology and interpretation of data.

 

[Proton Soup]

And I'm sure that the average lay person will be well versed in proper methodology and interpretation of data.

not all screwups require the eye of a rocket surgeon

http://www.surfacestations.org/

 

[vanesch]

This is an interesting debate, and I think that at the origin lies a fundamental error committed by what I'd call the AGW-crowd, symbolized by the IPCC. Instead of keeping with a truly scientific attitude where a plausible thesis is formulated (AGW), and then elements pro, contra, and uncertainties and contradictions are honestly displayed, with a tentative conclusion (if a conclusion is necessary), but with the humility necessary in the face of a complex phenomenon such as climate, the discourse has been: "we have indications", then "we have strong indications" and finally "we have good confidence" (90% certainty etc...). In other words, instead of inquiring into the phenomenon, an argument was build up to defend a single viewpoint.

The problem has been that there were dissonances, and that the "proofs" in the past needed amending in a way which didn't go in the direction of more convincing power. As such, by overselling their certainty (for which one can surely find good intentions, and political as well as psychological reasons), they exposed themselves to the critique of bad science.

But this is problematic. Indeed, once "climate science" (or its representatives) discredited, who is going to find out for real what's going to happen ? Once there are suspicions of a non-scientific agenda, who to believe ?

Because it is not because one claimed maybe too soon too much certainty, that this means necessarily that the original working hypothesis is wrong. It might simply be that the phenomenon is more complex, and that the "simple and evident" indications that had to serve as proof beyond reasonable doubt turned out to be much more twisted and complex. It is not because one found errors in a proof of Fermat's last theorem, that Fermat's last theorem isn't true.

This is a pity, because there is a lot of good science out there, but it is difficult now to see it through non-colored glasses.

 

[Al68]

The bit you quoted doesn't say what type of scientists these are. A quick glance over the list of quotes shows that none (maybe a few, I didn't read the whole thing) are doing climate science. The closest things are meteorologists and environmental scientists, but neither field (necessarily) studies climate change specifically. So they have 650 people who's specialization is something other than climate, and they're trying to portray them as experts.

So, if I wanted to decide whether or not astrology was legit, should I consider the opinion of the majority of scientists, or just the people who "specialize" in astrology?

 

[NeoDevin]

So, if I wanted to decide whether or not astrology was legit, should I consider the opinion of the majority of scientists, or just the people who "specialize" in astrology?

Are we now debating whether or not climate science is legit? I thought we were debating whether their conclusions were correct?

 

[mathwonk]

seeding johnny isaakson's name on there and seeing the news item appears in a right wing news source, (thats its name), makes me think this is more nonsense promulgated by the right wing anti science community.

We have had media oriented gatherings here in georgia, where isaakson is from, in which the participants were specially chosen from the apparently tiny community of anti climate change advocates, and they were invited by the republicans in state government to publicize their pro business, pro pollution, point of view.


all you have to do is watch al gore's video for yourself to see whether the information is persuasive or not. and a nobel prize does have some credibility to most people.

i could be wrong, but offhand i am amazed this kind of thing can garner any attention at all in this forum from reasonable people.

 

[seycyrus]

...
all you have to do is watch al gore's video for yourself to see whether the information is persuasive or not. and a nobel prize does have some credibility to most people.

Whether the information is "persuasive"? Lots of salesmen have information that fits that criteria. It has nothing to do with the validity of their product.

Gore's prize came about in a large way due to the popularity of his video, not the other way around.

 

[Art]

Most propaganda is persuasive. There wouldn't be much point in producing it if it wasn't. However it does not mean it is accurate and even ignoring the arguable pieces in Gore's movie much of it was flat out dishonest.

 

[wolram]

This is enough for even a hardened warmer to ask questions about what consensus means,
as spouted by the IPCC.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Edit, to add.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

 

[LowlyPion]

It might simply be that the phenomenon is more complex, and that the "simple and evident" indications that had to serve as proof beyond reasonable doubt turned out to be much more twisted and complex.

I agree with that. I'm not convinced about some of the reasoning on CO2 for instance.

But then again there are those that would rather study the thing until the planet incinerates. What is the balance between prudence for future generations and unnecessary concerns?

The opportunities to be colossally right or wrong are staggering and border on being brilliantly circumspect or being inevitably futile regardless of what is undertaken to prevent or change things.

 

[drankin]

I agree with that. I'm not convinced about some of the reasoning on CO2 for instance.

But then again there are those that would rather study the thing until the planet incinerates. What is the balance between prudence for future generations and unnecessary concerns?

The opportunities to be colossally right or wrong are staggering and border on being brilliantly circumspect or being inevitably futile regardless of what is undertaken to prevent or change things.

We should be concerned and climate study should never be dissuaded. Pollution needs to be controlled as much as economically possible. No one on either side of the issue argues this. It shouldn't be a right-wing/left-wing battle (I'm so bored with this). It needs to be studied without bias. Scientists that have determined that the end of the world is eminent need to continue to compare their studies with scientists that show otherwise. Core samples have shown that the Earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere at times in the past and has not "incinerated" (for example).

No question that the climate is changing. It always has. If the entire Earth simply stopped fossil fuel consumption overnight, the climate is still going to change. There are still going to be natural disasters.

All these scientists that disagree with IPCCs stand simply reinforce my suspicion that the hype is just that. 20-30 yrs ago we were supposed to expect an ice age because of human fuel consumption. Challenging popular conclusions has always been a healthy quality of science.

 

[LowlyPion]

20-30 yrs ago we were supposed to expect an ice age because of human fuel consumption. Challenging conclusions has always been a healthy quality of science.

I missed that. Can you provide some actual peer reviewed citations for that claim. I've seen that mentioned before, but haven't seen any actual scientific citations for the claims for a anthropogenic global cooling hypotheses from years past. I know there was a Newsweek article from 1975, but that hardly qualifies as science or as representing any consensus on the issue to the extent that has developed on the AGW hypothesis. I surely hope this counter-argument attempting to discredit AGW is not solely based on a Newsweek article, undoubtedly published to sell magazines as opposed to advancing the boundaries of climate science.

Personally I find such a conclusion counter intuitive and have some difficulty believing that much momentum was ever developed for such a hypothesis.

 

[LowlyPion]

The thing that I find most puzzling is this marriage of agendas from the Republican Party and the Evangelical Right in disclaiming any possibility of Global Warming.

Is the right wing Evangelical idea that warming is not a rightful concern of Christians, based on something other than just being anti-science? (The reason I ask I see that Rev. Richard Cizik was forced to resign from the NAE today over comments expressing support of gay marriage. But he was already in the outhouse with other evangelicals for believing in AGW.)

Are they smarting still over being made fun of for thinking the world only started 6K years ago? And hence they embrace anything that is anti-science?

Is this where the Republican Embrace of ignoring it comes from or are Republicans really just drawn to the profit motive to exploit and pollute as long as profit can be realized?

I just find it a curious bond and can't really see where one begins and the other leaves off on the issue.

 

[Bystander]

"Ice age coming?" Sunday supplement science from more like 50 years ago. "AGW hypothesis?" Not an hypothesis --- it is a speculation; it appeals to unidentified "feedbacks," unidentified coupling mechanisms, and generally ignores established physical principles (conservation laws, thermodynamic laws, radiation laws, laws governing transport phenomena).

"Right wing, religious agenda?" CBOT is looking to be skimming trillions in "carbon futures, emissions futures, and other derivatives;" insurance companies and other underwriters stand to take in hundreds of billions in anticipatory rate hikes; the ABA stands to make hundreds of billions in liability claims --- who's got an agenda?

Science is science. If the bookkeeping on the conservation principles doesn't balance, if it's necessary to appeal to unidentified mechanisms and effects, if predictions are made and modified after events falsify them --- then you're dealing with the preschoolers in the Kraft Singles commercials, or something even less sophisticated.