Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow a consensus you say? You mean all scientist (or really only those that agree with them) have come to an agreement that they are right?
You have got to be kidding me right? What school did you go to that taught you that science was built on consensus? Seriously, where did you even get that idea? Have you even taken a science course before? Do you honestly know anything about science?
Do YOU know what the scientific method is? Care to explain it to AT9 so he can see how much you know about science and how facts are developed? Hmm? Yeah, I thought so.
you might want to start actually sharing some of your own reasoning. otherwise, it might seem clear to some that you don't understand what you're talking about. that's not an accusation - that's just my opinion of the way you're going to be received by throwing around empty nay saying and banter.
I voted unsure (I think), I have yet to hear unbiased reports from anyone. I only hear bickering and politics between the two sides...
unbiased? can i suggest that you go back through this thread? some will be clearly biased, some not. some will be biased towards "correct", some will not. my suspicion is that you will be able to tell the difference after truly reading through some of it.
I ran across something related to this, that is the number "928" stuck in my head. So, imagine my surprise when I was reading the following report.
This first one is an article on the findings and the second one is the actual study that contests your claim of consensus by a Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK.
I am sure I am probably wrong. I mean, I am only providing you with actual studies. You have a news paper, so maybe we should go with your source?
ROFLROFLROFL
Nomander all you can provide is a blog and the "Viscount of Brenchley", some deranged rich British guy that likes to spend his money trying to discredit real scientists to get his name in the papers as your sources?
You do know this guy is not even a scientist and is a laughingstock in the scientific world do you not? You do know he gets published by Big Oil as their attempt to "rebuff" all the rest of the real scientific community.
And you like to chirp on about the scientific method and its purpose? You need a 5th grade refresher my man, you have slid way off the edge.
Also a hint to you - a legitimate newspaper source that provides the results of scientific research, along with the original link to that research, is considered a credible source, for future reference. Go get em tiger.
Just for giggles, Nomander, although I can now see this is just a waste of time.
Some comments on your Rich Guy's "research." I also noticed your "study" is not peer reviewed, meaning credible scientists did not even sign off on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.
The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. His claims about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation have been addressed by someone who does know what he's talking about, Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He begins by pointing out that Stefan-Boltzmann is a description of radiation from a "black body" - an idealised planet that absorbs all the electromagnetic radiation that reaches it. The Earth is not a black body. It reflects some of the radiation it receives back into space.
Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.
What of his other claims? Well, the reason the "medieval warm period" doesn't show up on the UN panel's graphs is simple. As far as climatologists can tell, there wasn't one. So why did the Vikings, as Monckton points out, settle in Greenland?
As a paper published in Reviews of Geophysics shows, Vikings first arrived in Greenland at the very beginning of the "warm period" Monckton discusses, when temperatures, even according to his graph, were lower than they are today. They did so because life had become too hot for them in their adopted home (Iceland): not climatically, but politically. There does appear to have been a slight warming in some parts of the northern hemisphere. There is no reliable evidence that this was a global phenomenon. As for the Chinese naval squadron sailing round the Arctic, it is pure bunkum - a myth long discredited by serious historians.
So what of those graphs? Look at them carefully and you see that they are measuring two different things: global temperatures (the UN panel's progression) and European temperatures (Monckton's line). You will also discover that the scales are different.
As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible".
As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right.He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies. "In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels." Michaels, it says, meets periodically with industry representatives to discuss their activities in countering stories about climate change.
Pat Michaels's misrepresentation of Hansen's claims was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear, and somehow transmuted into an "error" of 300%. Monckton gives no source for his claim about Hansen, but Crichton's novel features in his references. The howlers go on and on. There is scarcely a line in Lord Monckton's paper which is not wildly wrong.
why do you think the IPCC is incorrect? why do you think Inconvenient Truth is incorrect? what are the specific reasons you doubt climate change? when is "confident" confident for you?
Let me be clear as this is the "misinformation" of the issue. I do not doubt climate change. I doubt that we can adequately prove with the current evidence that "man is the cause" of climate change. I also think it is wrong to come to conclusions on data that is inconclusive.
See, this is the "wacky" thing here. The "deniers" as people like to call them aren't saying "the matter is settled". They aren't saying "go home, we have all the facts, now we must act!", what they are saying is that:
1) The reports are inconclusive.
2) The software models are not reliable.
3) The science in this area is very young.
4) The IPCC's report is in contest, has inconsistencies and attempts to conclude issues on inconclusive results.
5) Even if it mattered, the scientists are not at a consensus (but science doesn't solve its issues with consensus anyway, so thats really pointless)
I keep telling you to look up with "The Scientific Method" is. The reason I say this is because science is not built on what people "believe", it is built on what they can prove.
Making decisions on 1/2 truths could very well lead to making a decision on wrong information. What happens If you act on information that is false? See the problem? We are not in an acting stage, we are in a learning stage. We need to learn more, we need to let science work and let the push for conclusions go the way of the dodo.
In science, when someone finds something that conflicts with the hypothesis, they get excited and attempt to find out why that is and revise it, and retest it. A result that does not follow the hypothesis is just as important as a result that does. In some cases more so because it only takes ONE fact to prove that the entire hypothesis in its form is incorrect. Science isn't about proving ones belief, it is about finding the truth.
The global warming movement is pushing HARD to slander and sweep away any science that does not praise its results. That isn't science, that is politics.
We should not act on misinformed beliefs, partially understood issues, or fool ourselves into thinking we know something when it is clear to most scientists that the issue isn't fully understood.
Apparently, I am the unreasonable one. Anyone who objects to the rush to conclude on inconclusive data is not asked "what" they have found. Those pushing the IPCC report aren't saying "ohh thats interesting, lets continue to learn", but rather they attack and ignore much of the community that objects to them.
More specifically, look at what I provided about Hansen. He is the lead author of the IPCC report, yet there are some major questions in his research. For instance, he had previous records in his models that suggested that the warmest day on record was in 1998. He did this study and foretold this date would be the "warmest" date. Yet, he revised his data after the data hit and mysteriously it was dead on. The scientist I provided you uses his old data sets and does not reach the same results.
There are all kinds of errors, inconsistencies and issues with the data, but you won't see them if you keep relying on the "news" and specific sites such as "real climate" who have done nothing but attempt to explain away and attack the questions to these issues.
As I said, read the links I have been providing. Ask the questions yourself. Look at the links I provided by Steve McIntyre. He is contesting the actual data, not shooting off on some character assassination like much of the "The world is ending" crowds.
Notice in some of his research he has had to contact them several times to show them errors in their models and you know what? Many of them change because he is right.
So who really has a hard time with supporting their position here? Someone who claims they have all the facts, the matter is settled and done? Or would it seem that those who are honestly questioning the issue and saying that this isn't a complete theory, it is a hypothesis that has issues in its conclusions and doesn't fully support its points so it requires much more study before anyone can be sure of anything?
Nomander I know you are trying to sound reasonable in your thread....congratulations for that. Unfortunately, you are still hopelessly offtarget in your reasoning. Science is not 100% certain... so you want to throw it all out? You say since it is not conclusive, more studies are needed, and then turn around and admit science is never conclusive. Herego, we can never conclude anything from science??
The international scientific community has provided their assessment after decades of research and hundreds of studies that indeed there is a consensus, as close to a slam dunk as is possible in science. So you try to counter with your conspriracy blogs and your British rich guy. Still have not provided a single peer reviewed scientific study to counter anything the IPCC has brought forward.
You quibble about whether one year was hotter then another...who cares? You are missing the forest for your tree, guy.
Scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., today said the 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. Using two global data sets developed at NCDC, scientists determined that the 2005 average temperature was part of a string of very warm years – nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.
Now you are just evading the issue and going on unfounded smear campaigns to cling to your perceived truth.
I provided you with a study that your obviously did not read in the slightest. You provided me with an essay, an essay by the way that is not required to have a peer review and further an essay which provides no sources to which show how the author came to their mysterious number of "928". Both of them do not have peer reviews, but nothing is stopping them from doing one on his study. Yours on the other hand does not require one, how convenient.
Now if you read the second link I gave you, it not only explains why your "essay" is lacking, but it goes on to run the same tests as your author claimed to have done and comes up with a much much different number.
It is clear you are devious now. You show through your postings that you are a "faith" driven religious fevered gossip who worships your position with such fanaticism, that any and all reason is thrown out the window.
You can not contest the study I gave you. You instead choose to make assumptive claims and go off on irrelevant rants that have no backing in "hopes" that you don't have to deal with the information I provided.
The problem with your efforts is that you are looking at issues from an ignorant and uneducated view. You can only "puppet" information thats handed to you by your sites. You never look at the science. You never look at the issue further than headlines that claim you are right.
Since you appear to have ignored this and choose not to read it, I will paste the research for you so you can see the smear of your beloved author and the unscientific responses from "Science" who published it when Dr. Peiser contested it with his studies.
Quote:
Though Oreskes has challenged Dr. Peiser’s analysis by pointing out that the paper by Gerhard and Hansen was not peer-reviewed, her essay appears not to have been peerreviewed either. It may even be the case that the authors of most or even all of the cited abstracts personally believe that humankind is responsible for more than half of the 0.4C
observed warming of the past half century. Dr. Peiser accepts, as does the author of the present paper, that most climate scientists published in the journals probably believe that humankind has contributed more than 0.2C of the 0.4C observed warming over the past half century. But the published papers we have quoted, nevertheless, raise sufficient doubts about important aspects of the imagined “consensus” to demonstrate the falsity of Oreskes’ claim that not one of the abstracts was counter-consensual.
Quote:
After examining the erroneous essay by Oreskes, the unsatisfactory circumstances in which it was published, and the failure of Science to correct more than one of its numerous deficiencies, we may conclude as follows:
-that Oreskes’ essay provides no sound basis for the assertion that a
unanimous scientific “consensus” exists on climate change, for, though
most climate scientists probably believe that humankind has caused
0.2C of the past half-century’s 0.4C warming, there is no unanimity;
- that even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes, there were more
scientific papers explicitly doubting or even rejecting the “consensus”
than explicitly supporting it;
-that less than half of the papers which Oreskes said had implicitly
endorsed the “consensus” had in fact done so;
-that more than half of the papers which Oreskes considered had not
mentioned anthropogenic climate change at all;
-that the definition of “consensus” in Oreskes’ essay is so limited, and
her findings as published so greatly at variance with the content of the
papers she reviewed, that the essay provides no justification for her
frankly-political contention that –
“our grandchildren will surely blame us they find that we
understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed
to do anything about it”; and
-that Science, having been given evidence of Oreskes’ errors before
publication, in the form of a direct survey of more than 500 climate
scientists, and after it, in the form of several letters pointing out the
material errors some of which we have reported here, refused to allow
the survey, the letters, or any other correction to appear in print, save
only the correction of the database search term which Oreskes had
used.
Now here is the interesting thing. Naomi Oreskes "essay" provides no sources and her expertise on the issue is lesser than that of those who question her. She is:
"The writer is an associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California."
You claim to have much faith in an unqualified individual over those who are qualified from an institute of science as well. Dr. Peiser’s analysis doesn't just say "she is wrong", but goes on to explain "why" through attempts to replicate her claims (unsuccessful) and then finding out how errors in her methods of coming to her findings. He then goes on to provide what the actual findings are to support his claim. You might have saw this if you would have read the study, but again, you do not read, you "wiki", "newspaper" hunt, and quote from any site that attempts to prove you right. Very scientific, but then you don't know anything about science, do you?
You can go ahead and claim all you like, but I am sorry bily, you are DEAD WRONG. All you are doing from here on out is to scream and cry like a baby who can't have their candy. It is obvious you do not want to discuss, but to indoctrinate those around you. Peddle your garbage propaganda to someone else who is stupid enough to take your arguments somehow having a shred of legitimacy. I ain't buying it, run along.
Nomander...who is Oreskes and what does that have a whit to do with anything I have provided? Man you are all over the place. I am concerned for you. Obviously you have not a clue about what real science is about and what qualifies as scientific research. I'm done wasting my time with you.
Nomander I know you are trying to sound reasonable in your thread....congratulations for that. Unfortunately, you are still hopelessly offtarget in your reasoning. Science is not 100% certain... so you want to throw it all out? You say since it is not conclusive, more studies are needed, and then turn around and admit science is never conclusive. Herego, we can never conclude anything from science??
The international scientific community has provided their assessment after decades of research and hundreds of studies that indeed there is a consensus, as close to a slam dunk as is possible in science. So you try to counter with your conspriracy blogs and your British rich guy. Still have not provided a single peer reviewed scientific study to counter anything the IPCC has brought forward.
You quibble about whether one year was hotter then another...who cares? You are missing the forest for your tree, guy.
Scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., today said the 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. Using two global data sets developed at NCDC, scientists determined that the 2005 average temperature was part of a string of very warm years – nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.
one, I already proved your "consensus" claim is at the least, in major contest. Using it as one of your supporting premises only makes your conclusion logically wrong, or have you not taken a logic class either?
Funny, you post me a link that my previous links have already shown major problems with.
Go down to post 80 where McIntyre explains this part. If you are so interested, his detailed research that led to conflict with Hansen is more specifically detailed in the above research as well as in many other areas of the site. You won't read them though, so whats the point?
And we can predict with reasonable confidence that the record annual and decadal temperatures for the contiguous 48 U.S., set in the 1930s, will soon be broken.
It only took about one year for Hansen’s prediction to come true, even though 2001 wasn’t very warm. Hansen et al 2001 did a major adjustment to US records and changed 1998 from being about 0.6 deg C cooler than 1934 to a statistical dead heat. 1998 continued to make small gains and the 1934 record was finally broken by 2005 - by a rejuvenated 1998.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hans_k2.gif (broken link)
Left - from Hansen et al 1999; right - from Hansen et al 2001.
And oh yes, help me here, who is it that is talking about the “record annual” temperatures, now said to be of no interest?
Nomander...who is Oreskes and what does that have a whit to do with anything I have provided? Man you are all over the place. I am concerned for you. Obviously you have not a clue about what real science is about and what qualifies as scientific research. I'm done wasting my time with you.
LOL you don't read your own research? Who is she? Wow... now you are really starting to make yourself look silly.
You want to know who she is, well... look at your link you provided me about consensus. Then, look who wrote it. /sigh
Edit:
Here is a bigger clue for you:
Quote:
Undeniable Global Warming
By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ROFL
