Global Warming ConsensusLooking More Like A Myth

There are 20 comments on the Lucianne.com story from Feb 16, 2013, titled Global Warming ConsensusLooking More Like A Myth. In it, Lucianne.com reports that:

Environment: The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lucianne.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Feb 16, 2013
Well, where have all the deniers gone? They are studying this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...

Don't cry for them, folks.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2 Feb 16, 2013
This is a survey of "professional experts in petroleum and related industries"- people with a real motivation not to want to believe AGW is a crisis.

If you ask earth scientists, only 20% are sceptical, and among climate scientists, it's about 3%.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#3 Feb 16, 2013
Article comes from a website with an ad supporting a poll for Sarah Palin for President............. 'nuf said.
PHD

Overton, TX

#4 Feb 17, 2013
litesong wrote:
Article comes from a website with an ad supporting a poll for Sarah Palin for President..........nuf said.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#5 Feb 17, 2013
Topix doesn't care about either of you.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#6 Feb 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Well, where have all the deniers gone? They are studying this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...
Don't cry for them, folks.
Consensus is not science no matter which side it's on.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7 Feb 17, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Consensus is not science no matter which side it's on.
He's not talking about consensus, idiot, but about overwhelming evidence. That is science, and it's not on your side.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#8 Feb 17, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Consensus is not science no matter which side it's on.
The consensus of the TOP experts or scientists IS considered the best science on a topic that has been studied extensively as has climate warming for the last 30 years.

Who would you go to if you had a brain tumor for expert advice?

Your plumber
A Witchdoctor
a computer programmer playing with statistics in his/her spare time?
Rush Limbaugh????

Your sources are the evivalent of the the above.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#9 Feb 17, 2013
Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37

The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.

"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

AND,

<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#10 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
The consensus of the TOP experts or scientists IS considered the best science on a topic that has been studied extensively as has climate warming for the last 30 years.
Who would you go to if you had a brain tumor for expert advice?
Your plumber
A Witchdoctor
a computer programmer playing with statistics in his/her spare time?
Rush Limbaugh????
Your sources are the evivalent of the the above.
You're making up stuff again. I didn't cite any sources.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#11 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37
The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.
"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
AND,
<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...
As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...
Consensus is not science no matter which side it is on.

Your "908" study wasn't even consensus, it was a compliation of statements in abstracts and the determination of how many times each had been cited.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#12 Feb 17, 2013
Here is the latest poll

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists.

Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming

You can find earlier polls that find about the same here.

The relevance of the 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) who reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers:

It is the more active publishing researchers that are strongly for AGW.

You could find a conspiracy theory around it.

I would return they are on fixed salaries and would be making studies regardless of the results.

There are many parallels of topics being studied -whether electromagnetic fields cause cancer for example, and the results came back negatative.
Under conspiracist theory 101, the researchers should have wanted positive findings and more studies...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#13 Feb 17, 2013
Left off where you can find a list of polls and consensus

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

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#14 Feb 17, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making up stuff again. I didn't cite any sources.
My apologies. I should have been clear.
I was thinking of the Aussie computer programmer guy in the garage type you gave a link too.
You also gave me some time ago a link to some computer skeptics I thought were making up numbers with statistics... Many of them predicted we would have gotten cooler by now, you realize -- They have no force to explain it -- they are playing the magical/mysterious cycles numbers game.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15 Feb 17, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
.. I didn't cite any sources.
.. because you make up stuff.

Also, it's true that deniers are dropping off like flies.
PHD

Overton, TX

#16 Feb 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>.. because you make up stuff.
Also, it's true that deniers are dropping off like flies.
There is a new drug discovered spaced out spacedoutblues. Take one pill and you and walloped again and again will wake up feeling your--self again and again. Quick go to your local sheeplebots store and get one while you can.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#18 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
My apologies. I should have been clear.
I was thinking of the Aussie computer programmer guy in the garage type you gave a link too.
You also gave me some time ago a link to some computer skeptics I thought were making up numbers with statistics... Many of them predicted we would have gotten cooler by now, you realize -- They have no force to explain it -- they are playing the magical/mysterious cycles numbers game.
Here's the paper about the greenland temps. Graphs on page 3

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobas...

Yep, predictions are for cooler and we are seeing it. The force to cause the cooling is the sun. Very low activity is predicted for this cycle 24 and the next two solar cycles. With cycle 25 being the coolest and 26 warming from there. We can see this cycle is very much like the predictions.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#19 Feb 18, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the paper about the greenland temps. Graphs on page 3
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobas...
Yep, predictions are for cooler and we are seeing it. The force to cause the cooling is the sun. Very low activity is predicted for this cycle 24 and the next two solar cycles. With cycle 25 being the coolest and 26 warming from there. We can see this cycle is very much like the predictions.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
here you go -- conclusion from your first source.

Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean
temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of
natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that
seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that
if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the
Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability
of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100

So now what about the Arctic.

See in one local geographic location one could always have had an underground volcano in the past too. More difficult for that over larger areas.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#20 Feb 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
here you go -- conclusion from your first source.
Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean
temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of
natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that
seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that
if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the
Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability
of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100
So now what about the Arctic.
See in one local geographic location one could always have had an underground volcano in the past too. More difficult for that over larger areas.
Yes and? What the conclusion says is that temps in greenland are not higher than natural variability and that current temps are not as high as historical temps.

Another study that supports the fact that we are in a cooling phase since the thermal max.

The statement about computer models is an add on. The data is what is important. The data says what it says.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#21 Feb 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the paper about the greenland temps. Graphs on page 3
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobas...
Yep, predictions are for cooler and we are seeing it. The force to cause the cooling is the sun. Very low activity is predicted for this cycle 24 and the next two solar cycles. With cycle 25 being the coolest and 26 warming from there. We can see this cycle is very much like the predictions.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
"...predictions are for cooler and we are seeing it..."

Wow. Pretty cavalier on your part. Actually, what they're saying is that Greenland is as warm now as it was during the Holocene maximum (or at least what it was 4 Kya). We have lots & lots of other evidence of warming, including the fact that all the warmest years ever are in the past 15 years.

So we're warming DESPITE low solar activity. We are NOT seeing cooling.

Not to mention the fact that Chinese pollution means more reflective aerosols, & when they pass anti-pollution laws (which will happen), warming will be even faster.

The evidence overall is actually quite alarming. It certainly doesn't support your "what, me worry?" attitude.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fracking: Progress or Poison? 1 hr Joe Balls 92
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Quirky 326,056
News Is It Time to End Ethanol Vehicle Fuel Mandates? (Apr '13) 8 hr litesong 6
News Pope Holds Meeting to Encourage Adoption of U.N... 19 hr untilthelighttak ... 7
News Growing global demand for airconditioning as cl... Sun Earthling 1
News Maxwell: Florida needs new amendment to protect... Fri lots 2 do 1
News Global warming: Experts say temperatures could ... May 1 Gore Blimey 5
More from around the web