2007-world record DROP in temps.

Parent Cafe
141

<p>I would agree that the consensus must be about 99%. This is a remarkable and unique consensus. Typically most scientific theories are more controversial with less agreement. Clearly the greenhouse models are complex. The predictions do not appear reliable, verifiable or consistent. These limitations have not diminished the consensus Then there is the rather significant issue that the current hypothesis does not address the numerous large, and rapid changes in climate that have occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. That has not diminished the consensus.</p>

<p>It seems that almost every scientific professional society has issued consensus statements. Many of these consensus statements and professional societies are not involved with climatology. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the AMA and ADA issue consensus statements. Maybe that has happened already and I just did not notice. At least one professional society that I belong to has issued a consensus statement. I guess that makes me one of the consensus scientists. Yup the extent of the consensus is remarkable. In fact it is so remarkable that it stinks of politics and poor judgement.</p>

142

<p>

What is your factual basis for making these claims?</p>

143

<p>Do you think the ice ages and other climate changes are poorly documented? Do you think we should have some understanding of those changes before we reach a consensus that the current warming is a new process caused by man’s production of CO2?</p>

144

<p>Are you suggesting that scientists studying climate change have ignored the planet’s climate history, and have no understanding of the changes known to have occurred in the past? If so, what is the basis for that suggestion? I was under the impression that rather a large amount of work had gone into the study of previous climate shifts - what lies behind your tacit assertion that “we” have no understanding of those events?</p>

145

<p>In spite of all that rather large amount of work that has gone into the study of previous climate shifts, there is NO consensus. There are theories that past changes might be related to some sort of qualitative or quantitative changes in solar radiation. These theories are not well accepted and have little data to support them. </p>

<p>Isn’t it remarkable that we have no consensus on the causes of past climate changes, but nearly a 100% concensus on the current anthropogenic warming model?</p>

146

<p>When Dr Bryson is convinced, I’ll be convinced.</p>

<p>[Global</a> Warming](<a href=“http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Bryson/globalwarming_common_sense_thoughts.html]Global”>Global Warming)</p>

147

<p>What is your information source for making that statement, Edad? Cite?</p>

148

<p>"Fundingfather, “serious threat” does not equal “catastrophe”. The “catastrophe” argument is a red herring. "</p>

<p>Obviously you miss the point of your historian. She says that her studies do not address threat level at all … “serious” or “catastrophic”. It is exclusively focused on studies that support human impact of global warming and does not address global warming’s impact on Earth.</p>

149

<p>Fundingfather, that’s correct. So what’s your point?
Barrons, do you generally rely on a guy who’s been retired for over 20 years over the people who are actually currently involved in research? Or only when the 88 year old tells you what you want to hear?</p>

150

<p>“Man-made” Global Warming advocates just prove that liberals are self-haters.</p>

151

<p>kluge, I do not understand what source you are looking for. The consensus on anthrogenic global warming is well document. You won’t find any consensus and few theories which explain past climate changes.</p>

152

<p>Edad, the IPCC disagrees with you:

    &lt;/p&gt;

<p>There’s a long chapter on climate change at various points in the past, from the most recent 2000 years back through the various ice ages and beyond, at <a href=“http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf[/url]”>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf&lt;/a&gt; What’s your basis for saying there’s “no consensus and few theories” about past climate changes?</p>

153

<p>

^ OK…if you say so, moderator in disguise.</p>

154

<p>“Fundingfather, that’s correct. So what’s your point?”</p>

<p>I guess the more appropriate question is, what is your point? If your “consensus” does not address a specific threat level, what is the point of jeopardizing our economy in an attempt to reverse a non-existent threat?</p>

155

<p>kluge, thanks for the link. I hadn’t had a chance to read it yet.</p>

156

<p>My problem isn’t the fact that a vast majority of scientists and experts say that mankind is the major contributor in global warming / climate change. My problem is that these same experts will admit that many of their claims are hypothetical, a theory, or at least their best guess. That is understandable. I respect that. I don’t need 100% assurance. They understand that they weren’t physically present 50,000 or a million years ago, and therefor they might be off a bit on things. That is admirable.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, many of these same scientists and experts, will expound on their research and report and print hard numbers which many take as fact; I.e. so many millions of years ago, it was 10-15 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. Ok, that’s a broad range I can deal with “guestimates”. Then such a time was 3 degrees; or 1 degree; or worse yet 0.7 degrees warmer or colder. Sorry; but they do not know for a FACT the temperature thousands and millions of years ago. Yet, they post, print, and make claims and have people believe them as fact. </p>

<p>A 5 degree Celsius difference can be dramatic. I personally lose respect and believe the author loses credibility, when they try and put specific claims of such accuracy. No, they don’t know the temperature of the earth or certain place on the earth tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago; or millions; and speak with accuracy levels of 0.7 degrees. Even with co2 level studies and other gases and such, I will not believe that they can be as accurate in their temperature predictions that far back to the ability of tenths of a degree.</p>

<p>If the experts had said that the earth was now 3-4 degrees warmer than 50,000 years ago, (That is definitely huge), and that it was mankind’s fault because of our industrial advances, I would probably have no problem agreeing. But to try and be so accurate as to say we are 0.7 degrees warmer; even over just 100 years ago; and that it’s all mankind’s fault; I have a major problem with it. Possibly that we are warmer. Possibly that it may only be a change of 0.7 degrees. After that, I have a problem. At 0.7 degrees, that allows for a margin of error that shows from these same studies that the earth may have changed significantly numerous times by at least that amount. Most of which were not influenced by mankind at all. So why is this one time of warming; of the many times in the past; which is presumably measured so accurately; all of a sudden all mankind’s fault? </p>

<p>See, the problem is; if Mankind CAN’T change something at all, in any way, shape or form, then a study showing certain changes is totally useless. All such a study could show is mankind’s eventually demise as the earth goes through it’s own evolution. BUT; if mankind can directly influence the planet; both positive and negatively; then such a study becomes very important. It can not only show the what, it can show the how in the cause and the how in fixing it. In other words, we have no control over nature in itself; at least not yet; but we do have control over our own actions. If global warming / climate change was proved to be all natural and mankind isn’t a significant contributor, then those studies would not be read by many and not of much concern. Because there’s nothing we can do about it, so why even think about it. BUT, if we are to blame, then these studies become important to everyone on the planet. Everyone becomes interested because it’s something maybe we can control.</p>

<p>So, am I saying that all these reports and such are written and printed saying mankind is at fault, just so people will read them? No. I’m saying that this topic is much more of interest to people because it says mankind is at fault and therefor can control it. I know, based on the law of chemical composition and physics that mankind is indeed a contributor to to present and future condition of the planet. Where the debate lies is to what percentage or significance. When studies try and show accuracy levels of tenths of a degree, and attribute that change to mankind, I believe there is not enough proof. If that level of change was that small and accurate, there are too many variables that could cause it. If those numbers are not that accurate, which is what I believe, then there is no current way to know if mankind is a major contributor. But if we weren’t, then these studies wouldn’t be of any significance or interest.</p>

157

<p>Fundingfather, lack of absolute knowledge doesn’t mean lack of any knowledge. The precise dimension of the consequences of global warming are uncertain but the general consequences are not. In my home state of California - home to one out of eight Americans, largest agricultural producer in the nation, etc, for example, the most important factor in our economy is water. We have an elaborate water storage and delivery system built to deal with the fact that we have essentially no rain from May to October, which relies on a huge quantity of water being stored in the Sierras in the form of snow which melts throughout the spring and summer, feeding a constant flow of water into our rivers and reservoirs. If the early spring storms are just a little warmer, that precipitation falls as rain, not snow - melting the early season snowpack, and causing floods and later, drought. Just that one consequence of global warming will have a multi-billion dollar impact on the economy of this one state. That’s one example of a consequence which is predictable, and not “non-existent.” Many other similar examples regarding other areas of the country and the world have been predicted as well. How much more do you require in terms of “specifics” before lifting a finger to address the cause of those events?</p>

<p>Christcorp, I’m not going to argue with you. You’ve made your point several times, and my response has always been to point out that I don’t think you have the scientific expertise to presume to know more than the people who work full time on this area of science - yet you do anyway. Everything you say is plausible, it’s just totally lacking in proof, and seems to be based on a deeper, philosophical belief rather than science. So, I’ll stick with the scientists, who I think know a lot more than you do about the problem, and whom I don’t think are basing their conclusions on pre-existing beliefs, but rather are following the data.</p>

158

<p>Kluge; you are absolutely correct. I don’t know as much as the scientists/experts. I never said I did. Therefor, refrain from putting words in my mouth or making assumptions of what I presume. But then again, that is exactly what I am arguing. You are wrong.</p>

<p>The fact is; while I most definitely don’t know as much as those who have studied this topic for years; nor have I ever claimed to; I do know enough to know that they, the experts, don’t know everything. The proof of that is their own admittance. They have admitted in just about every case they have submitted that there is quite a bit of speculation and theory based on what mathematically SHOULD happen.</p>

<p>You arguments in this thread aren’t going to change my current opinion or position. That’s because you also don’t have any proof. As also admitted by the “experts”. This is not to say however that in the future that there won’t be some finding that do in fact change my position. I think the only real difference between our two differing opinions, is that I am willing to admit that what I believe, based on my own studies and the reports of MANY pro and con experts, MIGHT BE WRONG. You however refuse to admit that your opinion / position, based solely on what the “experts” say, could be wrong. Your theory is; “If (they) said it, then it must be true”. That is our only real disagreement here.</p>

<p>I will continue to read as much as I can on this subject. I will read theories from ALL sides of the topic. I will weigh that information with the information I’ve already processed. I will continue to form opinions and positions. I am sure that such an opinion or position may change many times in the months and years to come. </p>

<p>You continue to have a position based on official findings. Believe that they can’t possibly be wrong. And if they do happen to be wrong, you can feel secure knowing that it isn’t YOUR opinion or position that is wrong, but rather theirs. And you can also continue believing that anyone who doesn’t agree with the “official” mainstream position, 100%, and without question; must obviously be viewing the topic through philosophical, theological, or some other new age non-scientific agenda. After all, questioning or even doubting the mainstream position is always wrong. We should have 100% faith and trust in the “Subject Matter Experts” of all things. The doctors concerning our health and medicine. The lawyers when it comes to what is legally right and wrong. The auto mechanic when it comes to that $300 bill when we thought it was just a $30 oil change. The ultra left or right college professor who teaches obviously on a personal opinion or agenda. etc… Obviously, questioning and doubting the “subject matter experts” is a no no in your book. That’s cool. As long as you admit it, it’s acceptable.</p>

159

<p>Some one with more energy than me will need to plow through this, but here is a petition site by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine asking scientists to help stop the US from signing on to Kyoto. More than 19,000 scientists have signed the petition saying that any global warming now occuring is natural and will not create a “crisis”. Here’s the site:</p>

<p>[Home</a> - Global Warming Petition Project](<a href=“http://www.oism.org/pproject]Home”>Home - Global Warming Petition Project)</p>

<p>Interesting tidbits in the summary of the peer reviewed article are that when George Washington crossed the Delaware it was the coldest winter in the US in 1500 years (or North America). Current temps are the result of a warming trend that started about the year 1800, we are only just feeling the effects. Overall hurricane data show no statistically significant increase in either frequency of landfall or intensity of storms. We are experiencing natural warming trend that correlates to increased solar activity; has happened before, will happen again, it’s cyclical.</p>

<p>ps - one of the participants in the Int’al Conf. on Climate Change in NY last week was Dr. Vincent Gray, executive director of the New Zealand Climate Coalition and a participant/contributor to the IPCC report who is now speaking out on how the IPCC summary everyone is using to fuel the hysteria was written by politicians, not scientists, and that the IPCC summary misconstrues and misrepresents what the actual scientific conclusions in the body of the work say.</p>

160

<p>Sorry, I agree with Crichton. There’s no consensus. I quote the 19,000 number 'cause that’s what the petition has in signatures. The study authors are real scientists who have done “real science”. As additional info comes in the date is refuting some of the origl conclusions. At one time there was a consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong, but that didn’t stop them from castigating Gallileo for saying they were wrong. Some times it is the few who have actually got it correct, even if being correct is politically incorrect.</p>

<p>Dr. Vincent Gray is a real scientist who helped put together the IPCC science report, you know, that thing you’re so in love with.</p>