#54481 Global Warming

[vorpal blade]

In answer to the question "What do you think is currently the most likely scenario for wiping out massive portions of the global population? (bio-weapons, global warming, zombies ate my neighbors, etc.)" Waldorf and Sauron wrote:

Global warming, definitely; not just because it's happening, but because so many people deny it. The skepticism of global warming is manufactured by the media, and flies in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is definitely happening, and likely caused by humans. Not a single scientific organization dissents. If our country continues to trust *partisan mumble* more than scientists, we're truly screwed.

Nuclear war is also pretty likely, in my book.

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

I had decided to retire from writing in this forum, but after thinking about Waldorf and Sauron’s answer to this question I thought I should say something.

I suppose their comment is typical of many people in the world who get their news from the mainstream media, so I can’t blame them. I believe that the skepticism of global warming comes from the scientists; those pushing the belief in global warming are people who profit by the scare, and they are assisted by the willing support of the media.

Let me tell you where I am coming from. I am a scientist with a Ph.D. in optical sciences, and I know something about the subject. Part of my research has been with light propagation through the atmosphere. I work with other government scientists, engineers, and meteorologists, none of whom believe global warming is caused by man, if indeed it really exists, and they believe there is more evidence against its existence than for it.

Some time ago I got a little tired of the constant editorials written by a non-technical person in a popular national technical industry magazine. She frequently wrote about global warming as though it were really happening, and it was going to be a man-made catastrophe. At that time the magazine ran an opinion poll every other month. So I emailed the magazine and suggested they poll the scientists and engineers about what they really thought about global warming. I gave the magazine ten questions to use based on editorials they had run. They modified my questions, making them more biased toward the magazine’s point of view. They were overwhelmed with the largest response they had ever had to one of their polls. And despite the magazine’s bias the results were overwhelming in opposition to the belief that global warming is real, and if real, they rejected the notion that it is a man made problem.

I wish I could say that the magazine changed its tune. What actually happened was that they discontinued the use of the polls, and continued the use of global warming scare editorials.

I was once hired by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to analyze the results of their atmospheric computer model. They had spent millions of dollars obtaining data for the model and developing the model. After a couple of months it became apparent to me that the model was predicting dire pollution consequences based on biased input data. Only studies that could be expected to show that the air quality would get worse without EPA intervention had been funded and used as input. Anything that might make the EPA look like it was not serving a useful purpose was not funded and was therefore speculation and not part of the model.

Because their computer output showed the EPA what they wanted to hear, that our country really needed the EPA, my bosses were pleased with my analysis. They actually spent only a few seconds looking at the charts, which seemed to reaffirm their preconceived notions, before stating their opinions of what it all meant. My remarks about the bias in the data fell on deaf ears. That was the last time I worked for EPA.

So, forgive me if my skepticism of global warming offends you. I say as a scientist, and for the scientists I know, we are skeptical of global warming. We believe that global warming is a myth pushed on a trusting public by the “partisan mumble” of the mainstream media, opportunistic politicians like Al Gore, and a few politicized scientists who stand to gain financially from the manufactured scare.

And it looks like our country is screwed because so many continue to trust the “partisan mumble” that global warming is real and manmade, rather than trust the real scientists.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Vorpal Blade:

Good to see you back.

Please point me to a single national or international scientific organization or academy that rejects the opinion of of anthropogenic global warming.

I'm not saying that dissenting scientists don't exist; I'm saying no established scientific organization agrees with you and the scientists you know.

On a side note, you might be interested in this article:
http://universe.byu.edu/node/3958

[Cuddlefish]

I'm not saying that dissenting scientists don't exist; I'm saying no established scientific organization agrees with you and the scientists you know.

Source?

Forgive me for being skeptical of your veiws. Like Vorpal Blade, I spend a lot of time around scientists who reasearch this stuff and other educated people who think that the theory of global warming is not supported by any evidence yet presented. I'd like to see if your source is legitimate information from a non-biased source or just more propaganda from a special interest group with a stake in the game.

By all means, try to convince me the global warming isn't a pile of crap. But please, provide sources. I'll dismiss any study that was paid for by a special interest group out of hand.

[Marduk]

On somewhat of a side note, I'd be curious to see if there is any sort of correlation between the scientists and scientific organizations that refute global warming, and those that refute evolutionary theory. There certainly is a corrolary, however, between corporations and organizations who benefit financially from not reducing their pollutant output, and who don't want to give any credence to data that supports global warming.

The truth, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. Is the world going to be thrown into the next ice age in the next 10-20 years? Almost certainly not. But to argue that man can spew all the pollutants that we currently do, into our air and water, without any negative repercussions, is completely without merit.

[vorpal blade]

Vorpal Blade:

Good to see you back.

Please point me to a single national or international scientific organization or academy that rejects the opinion of of anthropogenic global warming.

I'm not saying that dissenting scientists don't exist; I'm saying no established scientific organization agrees with you and the scientists you know.

On a side note, you might be interested in this article:
http://universe.byu.edu/node/3958

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an active global warming scare organization, listed in 2005 the following as major “skeptic” organizations:
Global Climate Coalition
George Marshall Institute
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Greening Earth Society
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The UCS further in 2007 listed a number of “advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.” These organizations were guilty of the sin of accepting money from ExxonMobil, and the UCS claims they provide “disinformation,” i.e. they contradict the UCS. The organizations in their selected list are:
Africa Fighting Malaria
American Council for Capital Formation, Center for Policy Research
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute
American Friends of the Institute of Economic Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
Arizona State University, Office of Climatology
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Cato Institute (shocking, ExxonMobil funded them for 0.2% of their expenses)
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Centre for the new Europe
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Education Foundation (became FreedomWorks)
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Consumer Alert, Inc.
Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Fraser Institute
Free Enterprise Action Institute
Frontiers of Freedom Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University
Independent Institute
Institute for Energy Research
International Policy Network
Lindenwood University
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Environmental Policy Institute
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Science and Environmental Policy Project
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
Tech Central Station
Weidenbaum Center, Washington University (formerly Center for the Study of American Business)

To that distinguished list I would add:
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Accuracy in Media
Alternate Solutions Institute
American Policy Center
Americans For Prosperity
Australian Libertarian Society
Business & Media Institute
Carbon Sense Coalition
Cascade Policy Institute
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cornwall Alliance
Economic Thinking/E. Pluribus Unum Films
Freedom Foundation of Minnesota
Frontiers of Freedom
ICECAP
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis (Nigeria)
Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)
Instituto Liberdade
International Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
Instituto Bruno Leoni
John Locke Foundation
Liberty Institute (India)
Manhattan Libertarian Party
Mannkal Economic Education Foundation
Minimal Government Thinkers (Phillipines)
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Science and Public Policy Institute
Sovereignty International

I suspect some will dismiss this list of organizations on the grounds that some organizations are not scientific enough for them, or some are too conservative, or some have been tainted by oil company funding, or some advocate a scientific opinion. I could question the bias and funding of the organizations on the other side of the issue.

If you look up the Wikipedia article on “Scientific opinion on climate change” you are told that “Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organizations hold non-committal positions.” Part of my objection to this claim is that the author of the Wikipedia article evidently has a biased point of view about what constitutes a society of national or international standing.

The Wikipedia article lists 48 organizations that seem to concur with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It looks impressive, until you start to ask about the hundreds of other scientific and professional organizations that are not listed. In the past I have belonged to the Optical Society of American (OSA), SPIE, and a couple of other national professional organizations of scientists. These organizations are not listed in the Wikipedia article, possibly because they haven’t issued statements one way or the other. I have found no evidence that they concur with the “consensus” of global warming scare organizations. I conclude that the great majority of professional organizations are trying to stay out of the controversy, because they realize there are valid arguments to be made on each side, and a truly scientific, non-political approach would be to hold off making a judgment.

The only “concurring” scientific organization that I thought about joining was the American Physical Society (APS). The main reason I didn’t join was that I didn’t like the liberal political view of the leadership. The leadership doesn’t always represent what the rank and file believes, and the leadership does not reflect the views of the many who, like me, don’t want to be associated with them. Sometimes the members publicly reject the leadership position, as this statement, signed by over 200 APS members, indicates: (http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... etter.html)

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human --on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.

That’s a letter I could sign.

[Wisteria]

I'm curious, Marduk, are you a scientist or in a scientific field of study? If so, I'd be interested in seeing a list of scientific groups that refute evolutionary theory. I believe you'd be much more hard-pressed to find such scientists than those that refute global warming. I have two biology-based degrees from BYU and know several biology faculty members personally and well, and you would be hard-pressed even at BYU to find a real biologist who does not believe in the theory of evolution to some degree. The two aren't even really comparable in my mind.

[Marduk]

No, I'm not, nor did I ever claim to be. Like I said, it just was a curiosity, seeing as how politically, the groups are generally the same. And perhaps I should have specified, I meant speciation. I understand (almost) no one refutes evolution within a species.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an active global warming scare organization, listed in 2005 the following as major “skeptic” organizations:
Global Climate Coalition
George Marshall Institute
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Greening Earth Society
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

I'm not a big fan of UCS and their arrogant authoritarianism, but let's go through these. Let me reiterate that my criteria has been "national or international scientific organization or academy." None of these six fall into that category.

Furthermore, a few of them are organizations centered around their stance on climate change. I'm looking at organizations with a reason for existence beyond a common interest in pushing a specific viewpoint. There's a difference between skeptic organizations and scientific organizations that are also skeptical. And just as I discount the opinions of... shall we call them "Dissent Organizations," I also don't see much use in appealing to "consent organizations" like UCS. Now, we can disagree about this, but they're still not national or international societies or academies.

The Global Climate Coalition is not a scientific organization but an organization of businesses, and it has been defunct since 2002. The Marshall Institute is a policy institute oriented to scientific policy, but not national or international scientific organization. The Oregon Institute is not a national or international scientific organization.
SEPP, Greening Earth Society, and Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change are not national/international scientific organizations and are organizations created out of dissent (not established organizations that, through research, found reason to dissent).

The UCS further in 2007 listed a number of “advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.” These organizations were guilty of the sin of accepting money from ExxonMobil, and the UCS claims they provide “disinformation,” i.e. they contradict the UCS.

I'm not able to research every one of the organizations on UCS's list, but the one actual national scientific organization listed, the American Council on Science and Health simply disagrees with UCS on matters of policy and degree of the problem. Did I miss any other national scientific organization?
I think UCS has overstated their case against Exxon Mobil, but I find your attitude toward the study puzzling. Earlier you were saying "those pushing the belief in global warming are people who profit by the scare." Here's a question: is science as a field really science at all, or is it ultimately determined by economics? Do scientific studies (and I'm talking everything here, not just climate change) reflect empirical reality, or simply the most <i>profitable</i> conclusions? When scientific consensus exists on an issue, is that even meaningful?

I ask because an assumption built in to my initial argument is that we ought to trust scientific consensuses. Now, we have been arguing whether such a consensus exists, but you raise the question whether scientific consensus even matters. In this article published in Science Magazine by Naomi Oreskes, she sampled 928 refereed journal articles with the keywords "climate change" and found that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Interestingly, she follows that up with a degree of uncertainty:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

(See also the follow-up letter linked below the article)

You wrote:

To that distinguished list I would add...

There are a few science-oriented "dissent organizations" here, but those don't meet my standards. You were right when you predicted "some will dismiss this list of organizations on the grounds that some organizations are not scientific enough for them, ... or some advocate a scientific opinion." I think taking issue with organizations that aren't "scientific enough" is to be expected from me, given that I appealed to scientific organizations in the first place. And as I've said, there's a difference between <i>advocating a scientific opinion</i> and being <i>being organized in order to advocate a given scientific opinion</i>. I readily acknowledge that there are many dissenting scientists who have banded together to express that dissent, but those kinds of groups are <i>fundamentally different</i> from, say, the National Academy of Sciences or the American Geophysical Union.

If you look up the Wikipedia article on “Scientific opinion on climate change” you are told that “Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organizations hold non-committal positions.” Part of my objection to this claim is that the author of the Wikipedia article evidently has a biased point of view about what constitutes a society of national or international standing.

This article is actually (not suprisingly) where I was first introduced to the idea of consensus among scientific organizations. I didn't, however, simply take it at face value. In fact, I spent hours and hours trying to find an example to prove it wrong, and I couldn't. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but I still haven't seen one, even after going through your very interesting research.

You ought to realize that Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively by many editors. The page as it exists today is the compilation of thousands and thousands of revisions by hundreds of authors. There is also ongoing discussion about the page among users at its talk page.

I will agree that there is a bias, but it seems to be (as you say) a bias toward national and international scientific organizations that have issued statements on climate change. And those results seem to be biased toward organizations whose fields are... well... fairly relevant. I'm not surprised that the OSA and SPIE haven't issued statements, but if they did, you could go ahead and add their statement to the page.

The Wikipedia article lists 48 organizations that seem to concur with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I counted 82. As Al Gore would say: recount!

It looks impressive, until you start to ask about the hundreds of other scientific and professional organizations that are not listed. In the past I have belonged to the Optical Society of American (OSA), SPIE, and a couple of other national professional organizations of scientists. These organizations are not listed in the Wikipedia article, possibly because they haven’t issued statements one way or the other.

The article doesn't say that every such scientific organization concurs. It says that none dissent.

I have found no evidence that they concur with the “consensus” of global warming scare organizations. I conclude that the great majority of professional organizations are trying to stay out of the controversy, because they realize there are valid arguments to be made on each side, and a truly scientific, non-political approach would be to hold off making a judgment.
Interesting: so you read silence on the issue as a statement that the issue is ambiguous? Props for a clever argument, but if I'm in a discussion where 50 other people consent, none dissent, and I say nothing, can you <i>really</i> interpret that as a statement of skeptical moderation? It seems to me to rather be a tacit acceptance of the majority opinion.

Now, I can agree that an organization that reaches a disagreement with the consensus would be afraid to stick it's neck out. I'm just not sure there's evidence that such an organization exists. And, in the interest of science, shouldn't we demand a little proof?

The only “concurring” scientific organization that I thought about joining was the American Physical Society (APS). The main reason I didn’t join was that I didn’t like the liberal political view of the leadership. The leadership doesn’t always represent what the rank and file believes, and the leadership does not reflect the views of the many who, like me, don’t want to be associated with them. Sometimes the members publicly reject the leadership position, as this statement, signed by over 200 APS members, indicates:

Ouch... that's out of 46,000 APS members, or .4% of the membership.

Just for fun, here's the APS response to the letter you posted:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.
The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members. The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.

The committee also recommended that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but it requested that the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone. POPA regularly reviews all APS statements to ensure that they are relevant and up-to-date regarding new scientific findings.

Appointed by APS President Cherry Murray and chaired by MIT Physicist Daniel Kleppner, the committee examined the statement during the past four months. Dr. Kleppner’s committee reached its conclusion based upon a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research. APS members were also given an opportunity to advise the Council on the matter. On Nov. 8, the Council voted, accepting the committee’s recommendation to reject the proposed statement and refer the original statement to POPA for review.

[vorpal blade]

I don't have time this week to write the response I would like to write. I hope to write next week. Have a nice Thanksgiving week, everyone.

[Lexi Khan]

I think that the global warming alarmists here are forgetting two things.

The first is that at this point, most scientists in the world are employed by governments--which means that their paychecks depend wholly on government agendas and if they don't conform to the party line, they lose their jobs. I am a global warming denier, but if I were employed by the government, theoretically I would agree with global warming just to keep my job. Governments have worked hard over years to keep useful information out of the public sphere.

In 1972, Dutch chemist Johannes Rook came forth with proof that the carcinogenic chemical chloroform volatilizes from chlorinated water. Tom Bellar, a water chemist with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, duplicated Rook’s findings in a series of experiments two years later. In his book, The Blue Death, water chemist Dr. Robert D. Morris explains, “To avoid release of the information [regarding chloroform from chlorinated water], the EPA simply chose not to publish [Bellar’s] findings.” In fact, Dr. Morris notes, the issue of chloroform in water only surfaced when Mike Toner, a reporter with the Miami Herald began researching and publishing the implications of Rook’s original findings. Dr. Morris goes on to describe his own experience with the EPA: Dr. Morris had conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of all available studies on chlorinated water for presentation at the EPA. When he presented his findings to the agency, however, he was shut down, interrupted, and mocked.

“Had [the agency critics] been speaking to an audience of epidemiologists,” Dr. Morris writes, “the flaws in [their] critiques would have been obvious.” Dr. Morris was the only epidemiologist or physician in the room. He goes on: “Without intending to I had indicted the EPA drinking water research laboratory, which had signed off on the safety of our water supply under the existing standards.” Dr. Morris’s scientifically valid meta-analysis was mocked and ignored because it implied that the U.S. government’s official water safety standards were sub-par.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II explored this same type of problem in their book, The China Study. Dr. Campbell personally conducted the largest and most comprehensive diet study in the history of the world. And yet, when he presented his compelling conclusions to the United States Food and Drug Administration, he was similarly ignored and mocked. This time, it was because Dr. Campbell’s findings would have destroyed the dairy industry had the FDA recognized the study, and the FDA had to defend the food pyramid, which prioritizes dairy products.

It would seem to the unbiased observer that science and politics do not always work together to promote the best interests of American citizens or even humankind at large. This is especially true when it comes to climate science.

I hope that you find the time to peruse the recently published emails from the University of East Anglia--turns out, those climate scientists you respect so much have actually been falsifying information and collaborating to keep dissenters from being published in respectable journals. It's no wonder that they've never actually published their DATA before making outrageous claims.

Also, I wonder if you are aware that climate science is an astoundingly new field. Remember, people can't even accurately predict the weather for next week. Why are we trusting them to predict the weather for the next millenium?

Also, to say that global warming is a bad thing is to presume that we are operating at our best possible temperature right now. Think about it: in the past, people were able to grow grapes in England. Historically, the globe has actually been warmer. Ice is the enemy of life: a good dose of warming would increase global biodiversity exponentially. It would make farming possible in previously impossible areas, and since plants would have more CO2 in the air, we could essentially end world hunger.

Also, do you know that the IPCC and other global warming alarmist organizations are made up primarily of meteorologists? I would think you would at least want to hear the points of view of soil scientists, geologists, oceanographers, and other earth scientists here. Oceanographers agree that at this point, there is not enough data on ocean temperatures period to even make models--in other words, so little is known about ocean temperature that no one can plausibly claim that the debate is over with global warming. If you're actually talking about GLOBAL warming, as in, the entire globe including water, there is not even enough information to begin a debate.

Speaking of running models--since when has science been decided by models instead of actual scientific experimentation? Do you realize that when you plug in football teams into these climate models the "scientists" use, you will get a different winning team every time? It is incredibly foolhardy to trust a model without any experimentation accompanying.

PS. There is no way to experiment with climate change. The world is far too complex for it.

Basically, before you jump to conclusions about climate change, I wish you'd think about it a little more. Sorry.

[Lexi Khan]

Wrote that last comment right before I read about how now NASA is implicated in the ClimateGate scandal too. Sorry again to the ecoalarmists out there...

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/20 ... e-scandal/

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I'm afraid this is an abridged version of a longer draft that was lost with a power failure.

I think that the global warming alarmists here are forgetting two things.

The first is that at this point, most scientists in the world are employed by governments--which means that their paychecks depend wholly on government agendas and if they don't conform to the party line, they lose their jobs.

Did you even read my last post!?

I hope that you find the time to peruse the recently published emails from the University of East Anglia--turns out, those climate scientists you respect so much have actually been falsifying information and collaborating to keep dissenters from being published in respectable journals. It's no wonder that they've never actually published their DATA before making outrageous claims.

I've been following it, it's deplorable behavior, and I still haven't reached a conclusion on how widespread the corruption is.

Also, I wonder if you are aware that climate science is an astoundingly new field. Remember, people can't even accurately predict the weather for next week. Why are we trusting them to predict the weather for the next millenium?

Ok, so, in that case why are you a "denier" (your words) rather than an agnostic? Who are YOU trusting?

Also, to say that global warming is a bad thing is to presume that we are operating at our best possible temperature right now. Think about it: in the past, people were able to grow grapes in England. Historically, the globe has actually been warmer. Ice is the enemy of life: a good dose of warming would increase global biodiversity exponentially. It would make farming possible in previously impossible areas, and since plants would have more CO2 in the air, we could essentially end world hunger.

A gross oversimplification that ignores all the negative predictions about global warming. Does ending wold hunger include flooding out some of the world's most impoverished areas.

Also, do you know that the IPCC and other global warming alarmist organizations are made up primarily of meteorologists? I would think you would at least want to hear the points of view of soil scientists, geologists, oceanographers, and other earth scientists here. Oceanographers agree that at this point, there is not enough data on ocean temperatures period to even make models--in other words, so little is known about ocean temperature that no one can plausibly claim that the debate is over with global warming.

Source? I browsed the web sites of the first 8 oceanographic institutions listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oc ... of_America

Here are a few things I found on basic browses of their websites:
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1033
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=13366
http://www.noaa.gov/factsheets/new%20ve ... rvices.pdf
http://www.mbl.edu/news/press_releases/ ... 06_16.html

After browsing them, and finding no support for your above statement, I didn't continue beyond the first 8. If you do have a source, I'd be happy to see it.

Speaking of running models--since when has science been decided by models instead of actual scientific experimentation? Do you realize that when you plug in football teams into these climate models the "scientists" use, you will get a different winning team every time?

What are you talking about?

It is incredibly foolhardy to trust a model without any experimentation accompanying. PS. There is no way to experiment with climate change. The world is far too complex for it.

And said models are far too complex for you to simply dismiss out of hand.

Your argument seems to be quite different from Vorpal: he claims that there is no scientific consensus. You seem to be saying scientific consensus doesn't matter, because science itself is bunk. I say there is a scientific consensus and I think we should trust science.

Basically, before you jump to conclusions about climate change, I wish you'd think about it a little more. Sorry.

You too.

[Cognoscente]

Something always bugs me when people argue for two disparate conclusions simultaneously. Global warming is a myth, but even if it DOES exist it could be a GOOD thing! That sounds like people who say legalization of marijuana won't lead to a rise in use... but even if it DOES, it's still not that harmful! Either global warming is real or it is not. Either it would be a good thing or a bad thing. Those are two separate arguments. Your sub-argument dilutes your primary argument. Pick a single thesis and support it.

That said, count me as a skeptic. I don't know that scientists as a general body have access to the data one would need to really come to one conclusion or another. Scientific experiments usually measure the effects of a handful of variables. Not billions of rapidly changing variables across 500 million square kilometers of planet. Any conclusion we collectively postulate, no matter how educated, is simply a guess at that level.

[Whistler]

Regardless of whether or not global warming is happening, air pollution is real, and causes respiratory problems... so it would still be a good idea to reduce air pollutants (included in fuel-burning emissions).

[Imogen]

we talked about this at dinner tonight. and i basically said what whistler did. even if global warming isn't real, it can't hurt to reduce our emissions and use resources more wisely.

[Proteus]

I am too easily drawn into debate when I don't have a fully-formed opinion This time I think I'll practice a little self control.

I like that climate change is being discussed though.

That said, I have really enjoyed the warm weather this year that might just be me talking from Chicago winter experience, but I've heard Utah is having a less intense season than usual.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Ibut I've heard Utah is having a less intense season than usual.

Oh, this is mild this year.

[Damasta]

Glad to see you're back, Imogen.

I also think that regardless of the validity of anthropogenic climate change, we should do our best to be good stewards and limit, as much as possible, how much damage we do to our planet and the biosphere. I think that the globe is getting warmer, though it's less clear how much mankind's activities are to blame for that. I also feel that if it is anthropogenic, that we've probably already gone too far. The kind of changes that would be necessary to fix the problem would be too drastic. Either people won't support them and so the disaster will happen anyway, or a totalitarian state would have to emerge to force adherence. This would mean a drastic reduction in the living standards for everyone--essentially a return to barbarism. Either way, lots (meaning, possibly, billions) of people will starve to death. But that's only [/i]if[/i] mankind has an appreciable effect on the trend.

[vorpal blade]

Let me explain by giving a little more background to what I think the science says. I believe in global temperature cycles, that is, on the average the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. Scientist don't know exactly why this happens to the earth. We think that there have been some periods of cooling, following a massive volcanic eruption, and perhaps following a large meteor strike, but other than that we can only guess that the sun goes through cycles that may be of a long or a short duration, or both. I don't think those facts are in much dispute. About 1,000 years ago there was a period of warming much warmer than we are experiencing now, a fact conveniently covered up by some scientists.

With modern technology we are better able to measure slight shifts in average temperatures. As I understand it, there was a gradual warming of about 1 degree in the 20th century. It is important to note, however, that for a couple of decades following World War II the average temperature declined. This was during a period of increased burning of fossil fuels, and apparently increased levels of carbon dioxide. Many scientists sounded warning alarms that we were headed for another ice age. As I recall the scientists said that the problem was all the fossil fuels we were burning was blocking the sunlight and cooling the planet.

Nowadays, of course, popular science doesn't say that burning fossil fuels will cool the planet, but they say that there must be other factors that were responsible for the cooling that overwhelmed the fossil fuels we were burning. I haven't read anywhere what those factors could be. But it raises an interesting point; if there are other unexplained factors involved that can overwhelm the effect of increased carbon dioxide in the air, how do we know that the increase in temperature we have seen is caused by the carbon dioxide and not other, as yet undetermined, factors? I think the answer is that we obviously don't know.

Apparently in the late 1980s and 1990s the temperature increased again, somewhat dramatically. We don't know this for sure; we do know that some scientists have fudged the data to make it look that way. One group was recently caught reporting that October was the warmest month on record, only to have watch dog groups point out that they had used the data for September and reported it as October. Not surprisingly September was the warmest October on record. This is an example where the “accident” was caught. We know from recently released private emails that other scientists have been doing the same sort of thing and were not caught, until now. The so-called “hockey stick,” an alarming rapid increase, generally heralded by the likes of people like Al Gore, has been generally discredited.

The debate goes on. The scientific data I hear about is that for the last decade global temperatures have remained steady or have actually declined. You probably wouldn't know that from following the main stream media. There is still some debate about the accuracy of some of the weather stations. Over the years weather stations have become surrounded by hot streets and buildings as urban creep has set in. This gives the appearance of global warming. Some of these stations now adjust their data to account for such factors as a heat exhaust duct from a large building that is just six feet away from the temperature measuring device. How do you calibrate for that without making assumptions that invalidate the measurement? Subtract x degrees to account for the hot air exhaust from the building, making sure that x degrees still allows for global warming.

Does carbon dioxide add to global warming? I think most people are unaware of what a small percentage carbon dioxide adds to the atmosphere. We are talking about 380 parts per million. Some scientists spread alarm that this has increased from perhaps 250 ppm in 100 years. Let's look at it in a different way. The percent of air that is not carbon dioxide is now about 99.962 %. It used to be 99.975%. Is the difference between the two, 0.013%, significant? Some scientists believe it is. I would suppose this change in carbon dioxide levels could be significant if carbon dioxide were a major global warming gas, but it isn't. Considering that atmospheric quantities like water vapor are much more significant, the argument that adding carbon dioxide to the air has a measurable effect on the environment doesn't stand the test of reasonableness. Nevertheless, the cautious scientist will say that carbon dioxide might have some effect on global warming, even if that effect is only 0.01 degree temperature difference.

Many scientists point out that in times past the percent of carbon dioxide was actually much greater than it is today, and there was no global warming during that time period. Others have fudged the data and in effect claimed that the carbon dioxide did lead to global warming – hundreds of years later. Since the earth goes through cycles you can argue for heating or cooling, depending on your bias.

So, global temperature cycling is real, but there is still some doubt about whether we are currently experiencing global cooling or global warming. And there is a lot of doubt about whether the present situation is anthropogenic. Some would say that the anthropogenic theory of global warming has been soundly disproved, but scientific courtesy prevents most scientists from saying so in public, or on the record.

What scientists have attempted to do to bolster their research is to extrapolate from the data they have, or the data they have handpicked, and feed this into large computer programs where the details of what is going on have been lost. These computer models of the atmosphere have been known to falsely predict what actually happens. About five years ago the models predicted increasing severe hurricanes striking the United States. It looked like a good bet at the time. We had recently had some severe hurricanes which some scientists were blaming on global warming. The complex computer models predicted that this trend would continue. The models were catastrophically wrong. Eventually we might get another severe hurricane season, and the scientists will say, “Aha, I told you so!” But in point of fact the computer models were terribly wrong. Yet the ivory tower scientists cling to their computer models.

So, back to the question, why are so many scientists apparently on board with the idea that we are experiencing anthropogenic global warming? Well, there are a lot of people involved, and the reasons differ from person to person. A lot of my opinion is based on an accumulation of experiences, which might appear as speculation. First, the “consensus” is not as great as it first appears. There are a few scientific organizations, of the society or collection-of-similar-discipline scientists type, who have made a public statement to the effect that mankind has caused global warming and we need to do something about it. To me it is inappropriate for such an organization to take a stand, one way or the other. They ought to be more cautious, more objective, more open-minded. It strikes me as an organization that has been high-jacked by a leadership with a particular agenda in mind. In every organization of this type the people who get to positions of leadership are people who aspire to make a difference in this world. Currently there are a lot of organizations where the difference they want to make is to reduce population growth, stall industrialization, return to a simpler life-style, end the domination of “big oil,” and foster clean, green, eco-friendly technologies. It makes them feel good about themselves to push this philosophy on the rest of us, for our own good. They may not feel qualified to judge the science of global warming, but they like the results they expect to see by taking steps to do away with fossil fuel technology.

Some organizations get labeled as “neutral,” when to my mind they are politely and scientifically opposed to the organizations lead by global warming alarmists. Consider the statement by the American Geological Institute http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/climate_statement.html They say:

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Global climate change is one of the major policy issues facing the United States. The policy decisions that face our Nation's leaders must be based on the best available scientific information. The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available. AGI recognizes that:

Earth science is central to questions concerning climate change. Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences.

The Earth's climate has changed continuously through geologic time and will undoubtedly change in the future. Geological, geochemical, and other evidence indicates that some of the changes that occurred in the past have been rapid -- occurring within decades.

Because rapid climate change would have significant economic and social impacts on our society, further research is required to elucidate geological, chemical, and biological interactions responsible for past climate change and to evaluate how these processes shape our climate today. Further research is also required to evaluate the relative impact of human activity on global climate and the interaction of such activity with the underlying natural processes. In particular, studies are needed to better understand past rapid climate change and sequestration of carbon in rock, soil, and biomass. This research deserves high priority in federal funding.

Uncertainty is inherent to our understanding of complex natural systems, particularly with respect to prediction of the future behavior of such systems. Such uncertainty must be communicated to and taken into account by policymakers.

This statement was endorsed by 16 member societies, the kind of earth science organizations one would expect to have formed an educated opinion. This is what I would expect from such an institute, if they chose to issue a statement at all. “We don't know.” To say more or less than this indicates an agenda of some sort. The statement that “such uncertainty must be communicated to and taken into account by policymakers” was absent from the statement quoted in the Wikipedia article, and to me the AGI statement indicates a serious caution that other organizations have stepped way over the line in making a politically charged assertion that is not backed up by the facts.

There are scientists who have made a career out of writing articles supporting the anthropogenic theory of global warming. They have staked their professional reputations on this theory. To be proven wrong at this point would lead to disgrace. Such a scientist is the distinguished Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServe ... _President He has a vested interest in closing the debate on global warming and validating his career. The kinds of international and national organizations and individuals that promote individuals like Dr. Cicerone are the kind that award Al Gore and Barack Obama Nobel peace prizes, whether they deserve it or not, because they are seen to share the same vision of mankind, and are on the same team, or they expect to co-opt them to the same team.

It is my understanding that there are relatively few scientists in the world who actually feel competent to make a statement about where we are headed in the global temperature cycle. Most scientists are skeptical, but defer to the distinguished “experts” in the field. That's the way scientists are, but they normally try to investigate competing theories to make a name for themselves. The IPCC has made it appear that there are hundreds of concurring scientists, simply by rewriting their conclusions after the scientists have gone home, and making their statements reflect the views of those in charge, or so says Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and others.

Why haven't we seen a lot of scientists publishing competing theories? Well, this kind of work requires a large investment of funding. Those who would normally fund these studies have in some cases been told that they must not. In some cases it just isn't in the best interests of those with the money to throw doubt on the global warming scare, which is generating billions of dollars in government and private environmental funding. As a politician said recently, it would be a shame to waste such a good crisis. A crisis causes people to shell out more money than they normally would, and gives power to the politicians to make people do things they normally would not want to do. Those with the “proper” vision see this as an opportunity to get rid of “big oil,” reduce the influence of America in the world, cause zero population growth, invest more money in windmills and solar energy, and a host of other pet projects.

Not only can't you publish much without funding, but you can't publish if the recognized magazines won't let you. And some of them won't let you publish if part of your funding comes from an oil company, which is seen as coming from someone with an agenda. The agenda of the environmentalists and others who fund the global warming scare is seen as magically free of all taint, because it is the cause they believe in. So the funding of the global warming skeptics is seen as sufficient to deny publication, but the funding of the global warming scare mongers is seen as blessed.

Furthermore, the word has gone out that the prestigious magazines are not to give any recognition to the heretic doctrine that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and we have little or nothing to do with it. So, they feel justified in refusing publication to the scientists they dismiss as “global warming deniers.” A lot of this information, plus deliberate falsification of data, is just now coming out with the stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K.

This isn't the first time in history that a scientific view has been granted sacrosanct status, and you aren't allowed to deny it while maintaining your status as a real scientist. Scientific “consensus” is not always corrupt, but it does happen. Beware anyone who claims a consensus of scientific opinion. The scientists give lip service to scientific dialog, and most of the time they actually practice it, but from time to time they circle the wagons and take a stand on the prevailing theory. Scientists can be remarkably intolerant without realizing it. A serious scientist could not afford to appear like he was an ignoramus and challenge the wave theory of light, until Newton came along. Once Newton's views were accepted it took centuries to challenge the particle theory of light; or until the 19th century. Now no one wants to challenge Einstein on the wave/particle duality. It is extremely difficult to challenge the prevailing opinion and be taken seriously. Forget about funding and prestigious scientific journals. And the establishment, the respected and distinguished scientists in a field, are always protective of their professional reputations. But it is usually relatively easy to tell people what they want to believe.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Let me be clear: I'm simply trying to prove my original point that scientists overwhelmingly believe in global warming. I have not been satisfied in my request to "point me to a single national or international scientific organization or academy that rejects the opinion of of anthropogenic global warming." I acknowledge that there is some dissent and much debate in the scientific community. However, I still firmly believe that, call it consensus or not, the vast majority of scientists believe in global warming.

So, as much as I'm interested in the intricate science of it all, I'm more interested in the, shall we say, meta-science. As a scientifically-literate non-scientist, I have seen lots of debate from both sides, and I realize that the discourse on the existence of global warming is more than I could ever read.

Therefore, I need to trust somebody that has done the research and reported their findings.

Isn't it conceivable that if science really is science at all, if it really is interested in the pursuit of truth, at least one reputable scientific organization (one, of course, not established with an a priori rejection of global warming by dissenters) would validate the claims of the dissenters?

As you rationalize the scientific "consensus" (or whatever you'd like to call it), one thing seems clear: faith in science as a discipline and disagreement with global warming are mutually exclusive.

Now, I think one could make a very good case for skepticism of science, and explaining the beliefs of the scientific field as dogma. You can't throw out the scientific consensus on global warming without calling into question every tenet of every scientific field—even if these tenets are reaffirmed, they all must be reexamined.

I hope you don't take this as an insult, but you're nothing close to an expert on climate science. Neither am I (and I'm not insulted). Us debating the science of this issue seems rather fruitless—maybe you'll parrot something you heard on Rush Limbaugh and I'll respond with a rebuttal that I found on a google search. There are peer-reviewed articles that address the scientific concerns you brought up. But that's that's outside what I see as the scope of this discussion. (But if you really want, I can respond to the first part of your question point by point).

Whether or not you believe it was appropriate for scientific organizations to take a stand on climate change is irrelevant. The fact is, they found it appropriate and they did take a stand. And it isn't just a few; as I pointed out in my last answer, my last tally was 80 national and international organizations. (And I found a few more since then.)

You explain the consensus position as the result of power-hungry leaders, self-interest, desire for career consistency, economics, need to fit into a community, suppression, and dogma. You do realize that the exact same arguments can be (and are) made against the dissenting side, right? I believe that these factors do play in on both sides, but that the deciding factor is that scientists actually believe what their research indicates. I believe that for both sides: scientists have looked at the evidence available to them and believe that it fits best with a certain interpretation, which they then debate and further refine. Maybe I'm naive.

So again, I ask you directly (and this is now the cusp of the issue as I see it): is science as a field really science at all, or is it ultimately determined by economics and self interest? Do scientific studies (and I'm talking everything here, not just climate change) reflect empirical reality, or simply the most profitable conclusions? When scientific consensus exists on an issue, is that even meaningful?

You seem to be telling me that scientific consensus is not meaningful. But if I have put words into your mouth, please correct me.

And the invitation to "point me to a single national or international scientific organization or academy that rejects the opinion of of anthropogenic global warming" is still open.

P.S. The AGI position is considered neutral because it contrasts both with the consensus position and the dissent position. It is also one of the earliest positions of a scientific society that has yet to be revised; having been released in 1999, it can't really be a response to the other statements referenced on the Wikipedia page. You may be interested that in its more recent climate change policies submitted to congress, such as the one from last week, the AGI is far more in line with the consensus:

It is now widely accepted by the scientific community and by a growing number of policymakers that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" (GHG). The potential consequences of such alterations to the Earth's heat and radiation balance are the source of considerable debate.

And if you'd like to add the extra line into the wikipedia article, go ahead and edit it.[/i]