The 'Consensus View' on Global Warming...

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
4,429
Location
Michigan
Couple notes before I introduce my main topic.

First, I use the term AGW, which stands for 'anthropogenic global warming'. This means that mankind either is the cause for global warming, or that mankind had a significant role in global warming. This is different than simply referring to CC or climate change, which is global warming regardless of the reasons.

Second, I quite agree that CC is happening. I believe CC is normal and to be expected. I do not know to what extent humans have played a role in that change. I also do not think any of us really know the answer to that question.

Therefore, I doubt AGW. That does not mean I do not believe it exists; rather it means I am agnostic on the subject. I do not think that there is a scientific consensus view agreeing with AGW, which is the main topic I am about to present.

Finally, I think that without a real consensus view on AGW, we ought not to be spending trillions of tax dollars and putting ourselves (the US, UK, and other industrial 1st-World nations) into a non-competitive role with regard to manufacturing and paying smaller countries while they continue to do what we are no longer allowed to do. We're hurting ourselves and for no good reason.

Now, having said that...

This is an article from Reason.org, one of my favorite think-tanks. It tends towards a libertarian viewpoint and I generally find myself in agreement with what I read there, despite the fact that I do not consider myself a true libertarian anymore.

http://reason.org/blog/show/peer-reviewed-journal-articles

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles Challenging the Climate Change Consensus

As the debate over climate change and the right policy approaches continues to reach hyperbolic levels, Ken Green has usually provided a sane and reasoned perespective. Ken is an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who has the notable credentials of a Ph.D. in environmental science and being a former peer reviewer for the International Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC). So, he knows a little about climate science as well as the politics surrounding it.

The article that this blog entry links to is worth reading. It is a PDF file and frankly, it's a bit of a slog to read, but I feel it is worth it. In it, author Ken Green rebuts Senator Kerry's assertion that there is consensus amongst scientists about AGW, and he shows that the evidence supports the conclusion that not only is there no consensus, but that the recently released emails from CRU prove that some scientists conspired to manipulate the peer-review process itself to prevent opposing views from being published wherever possible.

Here is the link to that PDF file:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/EEO-No-6-Green-g.pdf

Please note that I am not claiming AGW does not exist. I'm claiming there is not the 'consensus view' that some have claimed exists. I am also claiming that certain CRU scientists attempted to suppress opposing viewpoints. That does not make their data right or wrong, nor does it make the data of their opponents right or wrong. It simply points out that they attempted to suppress any conclusion other than their own. This casts doubt on the 'consensus viewpoint'.

In the end, AGW may be real, or it may not be. But I do not think it is finished science. I realize that science is seldom based on unchallengeable, undeniable results, but I doubt that consensus exists, and therefore I think it unwise to proceed down the paths we are currently pursuing.

The part I find most amusing (and frustrating) about responses I have read in the press about those who make the claim I make (that AGW is not a consensus viewpoint and may not exist), is that they never defend that. Instead, they mew and cry that "of course global warming exists, it's proven science!" Well, yes, but that wasn't the question, was it? Obfuscation fools stupid people, but I'm not stupid. It makes me angry that they won't actually address the accusation, but keep playing stupid word games.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Regarding the leaked CRU emails, we really don't know what the scientists meant when they said hide the decline and we can't explain the fall in temperatures. The AP is reporting what the scientists said they meant, but we really don't know if that is true. For all we know, they could be just getting their story straight. At any rate, the CRU is the hub of climate science in the world. Most of the data is gathered and disseminated there. After the e-mails were leaked, they said that the original data was destroyed and that all they had left was value-added data. So, when you've got ten journal articles that all say the same thing and one of them is proven to have used manipulated data and is fraudulent, the whole enterprise of climate science is called into question, IMO.

This is what happens when science and politics cross paths.
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
4,429
Location
Michigan
Regarding the leaked CRU emails, we really don't know what the scientists meant when they said hide the decline and we can't explain the fall in temperatures. The AP is reporting what the scientists said they meant, but we really don't know if that is true. For all we know, they could be just getting their story straight. At any rate, the CRU is the hub of climate science in the world. Most of the data is gathered and disseminated there. After the e-mails were leaked, they said that the original data was destroyed and that all they had left was value-added data. So, when you've got ten journal articles that all say the same thing and one of them is proven to have used manipulated data and is fraudulent, the whole enterprise of climate science is called into question, IMO.

This is what happens when science and politics cross paths.

I agree.

It's not about the bits where this guy said he'd come up with a 'good trick' to 'hide data' or that bit where some guy threatened to punch a denier in the nose. It's about the fact that these scientists represented AGW as a consensus viewpoint, something that politicians around the world picked up on. Al Gore is not a scientist, neither is John Kerry. I'm not a scientist either. We have to educate ourselves as best we can and try to make rational decisions based upon what we're told by the scientists who do understand the data.

And what we're seeing is that no, there was not and is not consensus. Many scientists disagree with the data and the conclusions; many think the data and conclusions are correct but seriously overstated.

In the end, we're left with serious doubt about the veracity of the claims made by CRU and echoed by politicians. It does not mean that AGW does not exist - it means that there is no consensus view as has been claimed.

That, to me, is a show-stopper. Either the data has to be reexamined and reanalyzed with proper peer review, or these claims that the sky is falling must be abandoned.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
I agree.

It's not about the bits where this guy said he'd come up with a 'good trick' to 'hide data' or that bit where some guy threatened to punch a denier in the nose. It's about the fact that these scientists represented AGW as a consensus viewpoint, something that politicians around the world picked up on. Al Gore is not a scientist, neither is John Kerry. I'm not a scientist either. We have to educate ourselves as best we can and try to make rational decisions based upon what we're told by the scientists who do understand the data.

And what we're seeing is that no, there was not and is not consensus. Many scientists disagree with the data and the conclusions; many think the data and conclusions are correct but seriously overstated.

In the end, we're left with serious doubt about the veracity of the claims made by CRU and echoed by politicians. It does not mean that AGW does not exist - it means that there is no consensus view as has been claimed.

That, to me, is a show-stopper. Either the data has to be reexamined and reanalyzed with proper peer review, or these claims that the sky is falling must be abandoned.

The scariest part about this is that right now at this moment, we are hurtling toward global agreements in Copenhagen in which the view that the science is settled is widely accepted. This treaty has the potential to drastically change the way we live in some very expensive ways. We need to get politically active fast because there are only five days left of this summit. President Obama has said that he will agree to any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen. He has even said that he will implement it through executive orders if he needs to. We need to get educated about this fast and we need to express our opinions to our elected officials faster. Please research Copenhagen, the leaked treaty, and climate-gate. Then write your elected officials.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
The scariest part about this is that right now at this moment, we are hurtling toward global agreements in Copenhagen in which the view that the science is settled is widely accepted. This treaty has the potential to drastically change the way we live in some very expensive ways. We need to get politically active fast because there are only five days left of this summit. President Obama has said that he will agree to any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen. He has even said that he will implement it through executive orders if he needs to. We need to get educated about this fast and we need to express our opinions to our elected officials faster. Please research Copenhagen, the leaked treaty, and climate-gate. Then write your elected officials.

Not that I disagree with you, but what makes you think that the politicos will listen? After all, there are millions of Americans who have fought against the whole health insurance debate, and look where that got us.
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
The Earth is not stagnant. It is consistantly changing and going through cycles.

Recently the e-mails of scientist endorsing the cause of global warming revealed that they have been lying. Imagine that. Lying to obtain money in the form of grants from the government.

Do humans impact the Earth? Oh yeah, definately. From strip mining to polluting rivers with toxic waste. There's no argument there. But the real issue is the fact that we can't trust our leaders, nor can we apparently trust our scientists to tell us the truth.

Instead, as always, it's all about political agendas and wealth and has nothing to do with saving us from ourselves.
 

Latest Discussions

Top