O'Reilly said question of whether humans are causing global warming is "all guesswork"
SUMMARY: Responding to a viewer's email about whether the current global warming "scare" is "natural" or "man-made," Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asserted: "It's all guesswork." Contrary to O'Reilly's assertion, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the Earth is warming and human activity is very likely responsible for most of that warming.
On the February 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, in response to a viewer email about whether the current global warming "scare" is "natural" or "man-made," host Bill O'Reilly claimed: "It's all guesswork." The viewer asked: "Bill, you stated in the dinosaur piece that global warming is cyclical. Does that mean the current scare is natural, not man-made?" O'Reilly responded: "Who knows, Scott? It's all guesswork, and I'll leave the definitive word to the deity." In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the Earth is warming and human activity is very likely responsible for most of that warming.
On the previous day's O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated: "As you may know, global warming is cyclical, and right now is the focus of a ferocious debate -- almost as ferocious as a T. rex." He later asked Utah Museum of Natural History paleontologist Terry Gates: "The bottom line is, you guys don't know why the dinosaurs disappeared. Now, I've heard that the climate change ... could have led to the dinosaurs disappearing, because you found a lot of bones under ice, you know, frozen there. And that it used to be tropical, and then it was frigid. Am I reading it wrong?" Gates responded: "It was very tropical. It was much, much warmer than it was today. There was very high CO2 levels. There were no permanent ice poles. But climate change may have impacted it once again and made one of the factors that contributed to the dinosaur extinction."
Contrary to O'Reilly's claim that the question of whether global warming is natural or man-made is "all guesswork," in its most recent report, the "Synthesis Report" of the IPCC's "Fourth Assessment Report," the IPCC stated:
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gases) concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). [italics in original]
The authors of the IPCC report stated that the phrase "very high confidence" translates to an "at least 9 out of 10" chance of being correct, and "very likely" translates to greater than 90 percent probability.
The IPCC used climate simulations to represent comparisons between global mean surface temperature anomalies from observations and Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCM) simulations driven with (chart "a" below) both anthropogenic (man-made) and natural forcings and (chart "b") natural forcings only. According to the IPCC, the figure demonstrating the effects of anthropogenic and natural forcings was obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 models. The figure demonstrating the effects of natural forcings only was obtained from 19 simulations produced by five models. The IPCC stated: "The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate." From the IPCC:
Figure 9.5 shows that simulations that incorporate anthropogenic forcings, including increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and the effects of aerosols, and that also incorporate natural external forcings provide a consistent explanation of the observed temperature record, whereas simulations that include only natural forcings do not simulate the warming observed over the last three decades. A variety of different forcings is used in these simulations. For example, some anthropogenically forced simulations include both the direct and indirect effects of sulphate aerosols whereas others include just the direct effect, and the aerosol forcing that is calculated within models differs due to differences in the representation of physics. Similarly, the effects of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes are included in some simulations but not others, and a few simulations include the effects of carbonaceous aerosols and land use changes, while the naturally forced simulations include different representations of changing solar and volcanic forcing. Despite this additional uncertainty, there is a clear separation in Figure 9.5 between the simulations with anthropogenic forcings and those without.
[...]
The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate. Further evidence is provided by spatial patterns of temperature change.
In the IPCC's charts below, the black lines represent observed global mean temperature anomalies, while the mean temperatures produced by climate models are represented by the thick red line (anthropogenic and natural forcings) and the thick blue line (natural forcings only).
An IPCC press release accompanying the "Synthesis Report" stated: "The science related to climate change is vast and complex, and the IPCC has worked with scientists around the world to collect, assess and process the body of solid and up-to-date scientific literature." The press release later stated: "Like all other IPCC reports, this text has undergone a multi-stage review process."
The first section of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, "The Physical Science Basis," released in February 2007, responded to the question: "How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?" in its Frequently Asked Questions section. The report stated:
There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
It explained: "One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations." It added: "A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model 'intercomparisons.' " The report also stated:
A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6). They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record.
The report noted that "models still show significant errors" and that "[s]ignificant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing." However, it added that "[d]espite such uncertainties ... models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."
The IPCC says its Assessment Reports are written by hundreds of authors and reviewed by more than 2,500 scientific experts. Government and expert reviewers also contribute to the content of the reports. According to the IPCC's Synthesis Report:
IPCC reports are written by teams of authors, nominated by governments and international organizations. They come from universities, research centres, business and environmental associations from all over the world. More than 800 contributing authors and more than 450 lead authors were involved in the writing of the AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report).
Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. More than 2.500 scientific expert reviewers were involved in the two-stage scientific and technical review process of the AR4.
For the first review, the drafts are circulated to specialists with significant expertise and publications in the field. A wide circulation process ensures contributions from independent experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines. Revised drafts are distributed for the second review to governments and to all authors and expert reviewers. Governments and expert reviewers can provide comments on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socio-economic content and the overall balance of the drafts. Differing views for which there is significant scientific or technical support are clearly reflected in the final documents.
From the February 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And finally tonight, the mail. Thousands of letters to choose from. And we appreciate all of you who corresponded with us.
Scott Kelly, Brandywine, Maryland: "Bill, you stated in the dinosaur piece that global warming is cyclical. Does that mean the current scare is natural, not man-made?"
Who knows, Scott? It's all guesswork, and I'll leave the definitive word to the deity. What I do know is the cleaner the planet is, the better.
From the February 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: Did global warming wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? And if not, what did? As you may know, global warming is cyclical, and right now is the focus of a ferocious debate -- almost as ferocious as a T. rex.
To get a better view on the subject, I spoke with Dr. Terry Gates, a well-respected paleontologist.
[begin video clip]
O'REILLY: So doctor, let's put it in perspective right off the bat. Sixty-five million years ago, the last dinosaurs were running around. Then they disappeared. When did people show up?
TERRY GATES (Ph.D., paleontologist): People showed up about 100,000 years ago. And that's what we know today as Homo sapiens, so modern man, 100,000 years ago.
O'REILLY: All right. So you're telling me that Raquel Welch was not chased around by a dinosaur? Is that what you are saying, Doctor?
GATES: I'm sorry to say, but yes. That is true. She was not chased around by a dinosaur. They were separated by --
O'REILLY: And Barney Rubble and Fred Flintstone -- no dinosaur interaction?
GATES: I think that Hanna-Barbera got it wrong.
FRED FLINSTONE: Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
[...]
O'REILLY: The bottom line is, you guys don't know why the dinosaurs disappeared. Now, I've heard that the climate change --
GATES: Yes.
O'REILLY: -- could have led to the dinosaurs disappearing, because you found a lot of bones under ice, you know, frozen there. And that it used to be tropical, and then it was frigid. Am I reading it wrong?
GATES: It was very tropical. It was much, much warmer than it was today. There was very high CO2 levels. There were no permanent ice poles. But climate change may have impacted it, once again, and may have been one of the factors that contributed to the dinosaur extinction.
O'REILLY: I also hear a theory about dinosaurs and bacteria. Some new bacteria came in.
GATES: It may be true for a very small group of dinosaurs. Bacteria are evolving into new forms all the time. They're one of the most quickly evolving life forms on Earth. And you don't get massive, whole species-wide deaths because of bacteria today. And we're not talking about one species going extinct. We're talking about an entire group of dinosaurs.
"and I'll leave the definitive word to the deity."
Guesswork, indeed.
If everything is in “God’s hands" – no world problems are “man-made”. How conveeeeeenient.
Copiousdissent wrat:
>>Why do you people have to be wrong with every prediction you have ever made!!
Because we are not, and I think MMFA shouldn't allow you to use this blog just to link to your silly website. (Of course, I was almost swayed by your argument, because who should I believe, you, or the best scientist in the world?)
Compliantconsent does ask one decent question on his site;
"Will I be able to tolerate the next ten years of insanity without blowing a gasket?"
That's for you and your psychiatrist to answer, CD. Best of luck.
Science = guesswork
Religion = truth
Damn, this guy DOES belong in "1984".
Damn, this guy DOES belong in "1984".
More like 84 AD......
After doing my religious-scientific study, it is conclusive that global warming began the day Fox news went on the air. Honest.
Thank God that Bill is finally covering real news. Thanks Bill...hahahaha
The IPCC is no Holy Grail. They used to base their conclusions on the now-discredited "hockey stick" graph. And they admit in this article that clouds are poorly factored into the computer models. That's interesting as 80%+ of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.
FACT: We are currently enjoying the end of a warm interval (interglaciation) between ice ages. Our interglaciation is called the Holocene. The last interglacial (before the last ice age) was called the Eemian. The Eemian Interglacial was WAAY HOTTER THAN TODAY AND CO2 WAS SKYROCKETING AS WELL!!! Modern Man was not here yet during the Eemian but if we were some Al Gore type would have been blowing hot air and blaming "human activity."
Thank God the Earth naturally warmed up from the last ice age, because my country - Canada - was covered by ice several kilometers thick about 12,000 years ago. These warm interglacials typically end after about 12,000 years so statisticly the next ice age is getting close.
CO2 gets a bad rap, but CO2 IS NATURAL AND GOOD: We all produce CO2 every time we exhale. Trees take in CO2 and produce oxygen from it. If we somehow removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere all plants would die the same day, and human extinction would follow. There really is not much CO2 in the air. CO2 is only 0.038 % of the atmosphere, and only about 5 % of that is man made.
There are hundreds of respected scientists (including IPCC Nobel Laureates) with no connection to oil companies who are challenging the alleged consensus about global warming, but they are largely shunned by the mainstream media. The IPCC is far from unanimous. see: http://iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm
Keep an open mind. Listen to all sides of the argument. Climate science is evolving and many aspects are poorly understood. There are no reliable computer models. Peace to all.
"And they admit in this article that clouds are poorly factored into the computer models. That's interesting as 80%+ of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor." -- interesting, when planes were grounded it was pretty well proven that rmoving those man made objects from the air had a dramatice effect -- reduction -- in cloud cover.
Granted, it hasn't been proven that contrails causing increased cloud cover -- like so many other human impacts on the planet -- can be attributed to global warming. That being said, it's just one of many planetary impacts we're having. But I guess we can't say that humans have any impact on the weather.
Let's see now. Some of the people who you say are proven scientists and all and disagree with global warming, let's take a look at who you're actually talking about:
1. Gerald E. Marsh: Retired physicist - not a climatologist.
2. Dr. Arthur Robinson: Biochemist - not a climatologist.
3. Khabibullo Abdusamatov: Astronomer - not a climatologist.
4. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin: Natural scientist / oceanographer - not a climatologist.
5. Jeff Jacoby: Columnist @ Boston Globe - not a climatologist.
6. Dr. Tim Patterson: Professor of Geology - not a climatologist.
7. Dr. Nathan Paldor: Professor of Dynamical Meteorology - not a climatologist (but closer than the rest).
8. John Brignell, PhD: Retired professor of Industrial Instrumentation - DEFINITELY NOT a climatologist.
9. Robert M. Carter: Geologist and Marine Biology professro - not a climatologist.
10. Prof. David H. Douglass: Profess of Physics - not a climatologist.
11. Christopher Monckton: Journalist and international business consultant - not a climatologist.
12. David Bellamy: Botanist - not a climatologist.
Need I go on? In all of the articles you cited, and or linked to on that one page, these were the names of the people who wrote said articles, and while they are indeed all scientists, with the exception of a few, none of them, repeat, none are scientists in the field of climatology, in which global warming is being studied. Most, if not ALL of them, after a cursory, and easy Google on their names turn out to be basically right wing loons, who trumpet repeatedly that no matter what the science says, they're right that global warming either doesn't exist, or isn't manmade, mostly because of their political affiliations.
Maybe you should check your sources before posting them? Sure, there are people who disagree, and are skeptical about global warming, turns out most if not all of them aren't involved with climatology, never studied it, and don't know much about it, but that doesn't stop them from yelling from on high.
Mags,
One who lives in glass houses should not throw stones, wouldn't you agree? Looking for the scientists who were part of the IPCC, I found the following article. What is your take on this? If you can find a list of the scientists involved in the IPCC study, I'd appreciate it.
Bitten by the IPCC
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Friday, March 23, 2007
As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."
How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"
First and foremost, Prof. Reiter believes, the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny. In contrast, studies conducted under the more open auspices of the U.S. government's Global Climate Change Research program, for example, are entirely in the public domain.
Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.
"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.
"The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that -- it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung."
AnotheAmerican wrote:
>>As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising
I think you assertion is laughable. Prof. Reiter is the author of the infamous documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a ridiculuos propaganda piece debunked by *real* scientists.
link
You see, as I wrote above, you denialists will quote bullsh*t all day. So I put the same challenge to you as I have put to others. Show us the *peer reviewed* papers that refute global warming. Our side has won the debate 635-0. Your side that denies global warming doesn't even have a debate.
achrispage6992 wrat:
>>I don't think there is really any doubt as to whether the earth is warming. Obviously some disagreement is healthy in terms of how much man is causing this and how much is natural. I am of the belief that it is both simultaneously. In any event, I am somewhat curious to know on what grounds you assert the study by Stephen Swhartz is not peer reviewed.
You are entitled to your *belief* that GW is not man-made, but the science shows you are wrong. It is that simple.
Schwarz is peer-reviewed, but if you read the link, it shows he very much believes in GW.
Just because Schwartz very much believes in global warming does in no way negate the findings of his study. Have read the study or are you simply saying that this is not a peer reviewed study which may refute how much man is really causing warming because Shwartz believes in GW?
You seem to be quite informed on this issue so you know that the main question about man made warming is usually phrased in terms of climate sensitivity. Schwartz essentially showed that if you increase the CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to 560 ppm expected before 2100, the temperature increases around 1 celsius. The IPCC idicates that the warming will increase by 3-5 degrees. Basically Shwartz's paper shows warming to be much less and more in line with natural occurrrences in terms of timing. The idea that these peer reviewed findings shouldn't be taken seriously simply because Shwartz believes in global warming is rather peculiar. Perhaps Shwartz does not take his paper seriously either?
As for your denial that the earth is not warming because of natural phenomenom, which is what you seem to be asserting when write "You are entitled to your *belief* that GW is not man-made, but the science shows you are wrong. It is that simple." then I would say you are somewhat confused. I never idicated that GW is not man made but rather a combination of both man and nature. You know good and well that the earth warms and cools in cycles due to natural events. So my "belief" that global warming is caused by both man and nature is based on known science.
If you rerally want to know about all estimates of climate sensitivity, and not just the ones that agree with your world view, see here.
Schwartz is a good scientist, but he is not an expert on climate sensitivity to CO2 (his expertise is aerosols and acid rain). He appears to have gotten the wrong lag time for climatic response to CO2. This is an example of denialists cherry picking one study rather than looking at the balance of evidence.
What pray tell is my world view? I simply showed that there is at least one peer reviewed study which contradicts the 635 Funnyman refers to. Furthermore, this idea that because Shwartz believes in GW his study shouldn't be taken seriously is illogical. Again, to hold that view then you would have to assume that Shwartz himself doesn't take his study seriously. Perhaps he don't.
I will also assume that since you seem to dismiss Shwartz's study on the basis that he is not a expert in the specific field addressed in the study; then of course you would have no problem in dismissing some of the 635 studies Funnyman refers to on that same basis. I guess cherry picking can be a two way street.
I would also guess that you believe that GW is entirely a man made problem. Perhaps you can point me to some studies which show natural cycles is not a contributor to the warming. I would be interested in looking at that. Why are you so opposed to the idea that GW is a simultaneous occurrrence of natural cycles and man?
Relax. People who point to the schwartz study have usually found it through the right wing denial machine. I doubt anyone would have heard of it were it not for the politics of the issue. Foster et al have a pretty devastating response, but this as yet unpublished. You can read it on James Annan's blog if youa re rally interested.
As for the possibility of natural contributions to the current warming, they are minor after 1975 or so. Solar irradiance is flat. Inter annual variability cannot account for the rapid warming (especially when tracked with ocean heat content, which is also rising). Many studies suggest that were it not for the enhanced greenhouse effect we would be cooling slightly.
Denialists usually point to Schwartz for no other reason than his estimate is low. It's the same garbage as the people who point to only the high estimates. If this is not you, then I apologize. If you were only pointing out Schwartz as a peer reviewed pub, then fine, but you should also know the flaws, Schwartz's expertise in the field and the reaction his work is getting from people who have devoted their careers to the issue.
Seriously, what makes you think I'm not relaxed?
Your points are well taken but you seem to wholly dismiss Shwartz's study based on subjective thinking. For example this blog :http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/stephen-schwartz-vs-scientific.html takes Annan to task for his disagreements. Take them as you will, but the point is that this isn't exact science and Annan is hardly the final authority the validity of Shwartz's findings. Anyway, to avoid being tangential and venturing into scientific matters way above my head my point all along about Shwartz was that there is in fact a peer reviewed article which contradicts the consensus of your world view.
As for natural explanation of global warming there are plenty of studies which contradict your arguments like this one:the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological and there is some interesting studies on the eccentricity in Earth's orbit which is believed to be a factor in global warming and cooling. My point is that I believe there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that GW is man made and occurring naturally. One compounds the other. To dismiss natural phenomenon out of hand in preference of placing all the blame on man is rather close minded, IMO.
Crimson,
Sorry about the link (the blue one) I should have checked it before posting it. Anyway, the study I referred to is done by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia which reports that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.
"If you can find a list of the scientists involved in the IPCC study, I'd appreciate it."
You might try the IPCC report itself, specifically Annex II to Working Group I report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
(Starts on page 955 if you need more help.)
kayakhigh wrat:
>>CO2 gets a bad rap
Here we have another global warmer denialist who makes ridiculous assertions and links to bogus web sites.
Science is conducted with facts, not with hype. When a scientist marshals together facts, he puts them in a scientific paper. Other scientists peer review that paper, and if the paper passes muster, it gets published. That is how science works. It is not based on the opinions of people, scientists or not, who cannot prove their assertions by facts. Statements that global warming is not real and man-made, not backed up by a peer-reviewed paper, are simply opinions, and hold no more weight than saying that blue is the best color.
So what is the *real* science on the record? There have been 635 peer-reviewed papers that say global warming is real and man-made. And how many peer-reviewed papers have their been that refute global warming? 0. Yes, the side that states global warming is real and man-made has won the debate 635-0.
link
Until you can produce even *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, you have absolutely no argument. I am not going to look at any links that do not link to peer-reviewed science, because such links are simply bulllsh*t, and there is so much bullsh*it out there that you will send us on a goose chase all day refuting every single stupid argument. (Really--CO2 gets a bad rap!) Show us the *science* that supports your view point.
Funny,
That was easy. Time to toss out your argument that there is no peer-reviewed data refuting global warming my friend.
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears August 20, 2007New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.
See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
AnotherAmerican wrote:
>>That was easy. Time to toss out your argument that there is no peer-reviewed data refuting global warming my friend.
Wrong! You might want to be careful who you link to. You see, Infofe is a denialists, and not a very bright one.
First, Scwartz's conclusions have been criticized by other scientists. But more importantly, Swartz states explicity that he believes in global warming!
So nice try, AA. But as usual, your links do not back up what you say.
Our side has 635 papers on our side. Your side has 0.
lnk
In 2007, Schwartz published a new estimate of climate sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide.[2] Schwartz estimated climate sensitivity based on the heat capacity and the time constant of the climate system. Heat capacity was estimated with ocean heat content and the time constant by perturbations and relaxations in the surface temperature record. His estimate of climate sensitivity was about one-third of the most recent estimate by the IPCC. Schwartz's estimate has been criticized by climate researchers Grant Foster, James Annan, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. In their analysis, Schwartz's method produces climate lag times that are "unrealistically low in comparison to the known behaviour of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing." [1]
Despite his lower estimate for sensitivity, Schwartz is still concerned about global warming. Schwartz explained his research by saying "it means that the climate is less sensitive to [carbon dioxide] than currently thought, which gives some breathing room, but a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of [carbon dioxide]."[3]
Funnymanpants, I'm not so sure. I usually trust a scientist who describes the results of new studies as "fear (of something) bites the dust". ;0)
Seriously, FMP, you should get an award for your patience. How many times have you dealt with these same links ove rht elast year or so? I've tended to avoid the Climate Change threads here, as it's pretty clear the deniers have their feet planted pretty firmly. Hats off to you for being so gemerous with your time.
Col. Harlan Sanders wrat:
>>Seriously, FMP, you should get an award for your patience.
When do I get my medal? Ha ha!
AA wrote:
>>[report by Inhofe]
One more word about Inhofe.
link
"The U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science has struck again.
Anthopogenic (man-made) global warming bites, declares >ASTRONOMER< Dr Ian Wilson after reviewing blah blah blah. AA, doesn't this give you pause to question your sources?
Funnymanpants,
Once again you include a link from Wikipedia, which has NO independent verification and where any hack can write anything they want.
You go on to say: "I think you assertion is laughable. Prof. Reiter is the author of the infamous documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a ridiculuos propaganda piece debunked by *real* scientists."
Rather than just smear the author, show me the worst example of his 'lying' in the above-referenced article. What is he saying that is not true?
Goodfellas wrat:
>>Rather than just smear the author, show me the worst example of his 'lying' in the above-referenced article. What is he saying that is not true?
Read my link. I'm sorry if you don't like it. The documentary he produced has been debunked. The burden of proof is on your side. I have shown that there are 635 papers supporting global warming. There are 0 refuting it.
If this Dr. Reiter really thinks that global warming is a swindle, then he has to publihs a *peer-reviwed* article showing this. Otherwise, he is just stating an opinion.
Put up or shut up.
"Only God really knows..."
And HE ain't talkin'...! ;>)
O'Reilley knows! God tells O'Reilley what is good! To be against O'Reilley is to be against God! There is only one great truth in the world... the Gospel! The Gospel according to O'Reilley! God speaks to O'Reilley and O'Reilley tells the world! O'REILLEY O'REILLEY O'REILLEY ALL MIGHTY!!! Extend to Testament! Let us have a book of O'Reilley! We will hex the Petitude and slip him in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!!!
Just like here in Pittsburgh every year. I guess we really have 4 seasons.
Early winter, mid-winter, late winter and nuclear winter. I wonder what the scientist back during the dinosoar period were saying. And what about the "comet"aters like Duckbill Taurantoreilly. Somebody was was about something. Too bad Bruce Willis wasn't around to destroy those nasty asteroids.
I guess we really have 4 seasons.
When I lived in Colorado, we had four seasons - baseball, football, hockey, and elk. :-)
O'REILLY: Did global warming wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago?
...
O'REILLY: Now, I've heard that the climate change... could have led to the dinosaurs disappearing, because you found a lot of bones under ice, you know, frozen there. And that it used to be tropical, and then it was frigid. Am I reading it wrong?
GATES: It was very tropical. It was much, much warmer than it was today. There was very high CO2 levels. There were no permanent ice poles. But climate change may have impacted it, once again, and may have been one of the factors that contributed to the dinosaur extinction.
---
So then, to answer O'Reilly's original quesion: no, it wasn't global warming, it was global cooling that killed the dinosoars according to this theory. And the whole "global warming" intro was nothing but a weak attempt to confuse the concept of global climate change in general with the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
Thanks for looking out for dinosoars, Bill.
I am an intellectual blasphemer
When Alexander Cockburn, author of the forthcoming book A Short History of Fear, dared to question the climate change consensus, he was punished by a tsunami of self-righteous fury. It is time for a free and open ‘battle of ideas’, he says.
Alexander Cockburn
...
Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found to be astounding - and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many, many years.
There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus.
This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. ‘Climate change denier’ is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.
In my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear, I explore the link between fearmongering and climate catastrophism. For example, alarmism about population explosion is being revisited through the climate issue. Population alarmism goes back as far as Malthus, of course; and in the environmental movement there has always been a very sinister strain of Malthusianism. This is particularly the case in the US where there has never been as great a socialist challenge as there was in Europe. I suspect, however, that even in Europe, what remains of socialism has itself turned into a degraded Malthusian outlook. It seems clear to me that climate catastrophism represents a new form of the politics of fear.
And, just like the others, what does he really know about climate change other than he's a hard core right winger, and that this is some sort of leftist ideaology or something or other?
This guy, Cockburn, is a journalist, and posesses no knowledge of global warming, which is WHY people were, and are probably mad at him for writing things that he has no Earthly idea about.
I posted more above. Here is a link discussing peer reviewed studies that do not show global warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8AA wrat:
>>I posted more above. Here is a link discussing peer reviewed studies that do not show global warming.
No, your link doesn't show that. It is a hyped report by notorious Inhofe. who continually misleads on global warming.
Again, AA, our side has 635 peer-reviewed papers supporting global warming. Your side has 0.
Show us the *science* that supports your ridiculous view. Put up or shut up.
AA, if you're interested, this is a pretty good website, about Climate Science, by Climate scientists, with some commentary on Inhofe (your source, who has been discussed here at length in the past). I'll admit that this site doesn't have nearly as many exclamation points as Inhofe's, so if those are important to you with regards to science, it may not be helpful.
On another topic, but still about Inhofe, here's some additional insight into the man.
notanotherconservative2254 wrat:
>>When Alexander Cockburn, author of the forthcoming book A Short History of Fear, dared to question the climate change consensus, he was punished by a tsunami of self-righteous fury.
Cockburn is a left-wing journalist, not a scientist. And he engaged in a debate with another left-winger and lost the debate in an embarrassing way.
Let me put he same challenge to you as I posted above. Sorry to cut and paste, but if I don't, I'll be answering stupid arguments all day.
Here we have another global warmer denialist who makes ridiculous assertions and links to bogus web sites.
Science is conducted with facts, not with hype. When a scientist marshals together facts, he puts them in a scientific paper. Other scientists peer review that paper, and if the paper passes muster, it gets published. That is how science works. It is not based on the opinions of people, scientists or not, who cannot prove their assertions by facts. Statements that global warming is not real and man-made, not backed up by a peer-reviewed paper, are simply opinions, and hold no more weight than saying that blue is the best color.
So what is the *real* science on the record? There have been 635 peer-reviewed papers that say global warming is real and man-made. And how many peer-reviewed papers have their been that refute global warming? 0. Yes, the side that states global warming is real and man-made has won the debate 635-0.
link
Until you can produce even *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, you have absolutely no argument. I am not going to look at any links that do not link to peer-reviewed science, because such links are simply bulllsh*t, and there is so much bullsh*it out there that you will send us on a goose chase all day refuting every single stupid argument. (Really--CO2 gets a bad rap!) Show us the *science* that supports your view point.Funny,
Taking a look at your link, I see it is from an article posted in 2004. The argument that there is no peer reviewed studies contrary to global warming is out of date. Please correct me if I am wrong.
On the whole, I think a discussion about man-made global warming is very good. I do want to hear both sides.
AA wrote:
>>The argument that there is no peer reviewed studies contrary to global warming is out of date. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, you are wrong.
lnk
The debate is over, AA. Unless you can produce real science, there is no longer a debate about global warming, unless you want to also say there is a debate about the earth not being the center of the solar system.
So you're telling me that Raquel Welch was not chased around by a dinosaur?
No, she was chased around by an old splotchy perv with a falafel.
Raquel Welch chased by a dinosaur? Ridiculous...!
According to the McCain campaign John McCain NEVER chased Raquel Welch. Perhaps had she been a lobbyist, though... ;>)
Media Matters is really something. First they have me defending Buchanan, then they have be defending the New York Times, and now they have me defending O'Reilly (whose views I also generally dislike). But it is very unlikely that Bill O'Reilly was unaware of the IPCC report.
The main problem with the IPCC report is that it uses these loaded words that are "unlikely" to be taken as they describe in their footnotes. The IPCC actually has very low standards for its terms describing likelihood. "Very likely" represents a 90% confidence factor. "Likely" represents a 66% confidence factor.
Note that a 50% confidence factor is a coin toss, representing no knowledge at all. I have a 50% confidence factor that your next toss won't be tails. So toss it twice and there is a 75% confidence factor they won't both be tails (much better confidence than "likely" in the IPCC report). There is an 87.5% confidence factor that you won't toss tails three times in a row (almost "very likely", by IPCC standards).
If a pharmaceutical company could only show a 90% confidence factor that their drug worked, it would not be allowed on the market. If a polling organization could only show a 90% chance that Obama was leading Hillary, the result would be deemed within their margin of error, or "too close to call". Ordinarily, if a theory has only a 90% confidence factor, it would be labeled as a "conjecture" until the evidence becomes more solid.
Statistical significance is at about 95% or 1 error in 20. The 90% confidence level (1 error in 10) is thus about halfway to statistical signifigance. Also, remember that the IPCC confidence factors are not the result of statistical sampling, but rather they are estimates of likelihoods. In statistical sampling, the confidence factors have a mathematical meaning. These confidence factors do not. So they wouldn't represent statistical significance even if the reported confidence level were 95%.
Further, the IPCC likelhoods do not represent the unanimous, or even nearly unanimous, voice of climatologists. Probably they represent the prevailing views.
None of this should be taken as saying that I don't believe the "very likely" conclusions of the IPCC report should be taken seriously. Just that they appear to reflect an early stage in scientific understanding of the phenomenon. A major finding in earlier IPCC reports (the infamous "hockey stick" chart) has been debunked as being the result of cooked research and does not appear in the fourth report.
No, that is pretty much the opposite of what I am saying.
I am saying that I *DO* believe the report. But the report itself is not nearly as far-reaching in its claims as Media Matters implies.
I think that Bill O'Reilly is wrong when he says that it is just a guess. In scientific terms it would be more of a concensus conjecture. That has quite a bit more weight than a guess. But it has far less weight than settled science.
What I am saying is that the IPCC report itself raises serious doubts as to whether even their "very likely" conclusions are correct. That is the correct scientific frame for them to take. It is bad in science if you fail to discover the truth, but far worse if you report something as true which turns out to be false. So the IPCC report took a very cautious stance. Unfortunately they used words, such as "very likely", which convey a different meaning to the general public than is implied by the definition of those terms as found in the document.
Put it this way. If you look at the high likelihood consequence of global warming from the IPCC report, they are generally good--more rainfall, higher crop yields, lower human mortality, etc. But I don't think you can assume on that basis that global warming is a good thing.
If you were a pollster and found there was a 90% chance that global warming was anthropogenic, you would say it was "too close to call". And if Media Matters found the Bill O'Reilly was saying Obama had a lead when he was, in fact, within the polling margin of error, I'm sure they would take him to task for it. The IPCC conclusions at the "very likely" level are still not yet statistically significant.
Mazzulla wrat:
>>Put it this way. If you look at the high likelihood consequence of global warming from the IPCC report, they are generally good--more rainfall, higher crop yields, lower human mortality, etc. But I don't think you can assume on that basis that global warming is a good thing.
You might actually try reading the report. It states that the consequences will either be catastrophic or very catastrophic.
And your nonsense about 90% is really rather silly. 90% is not to close to call, unless you and George Bush have invented some new math.
Again, Mazulla: our side has 635 papers supporting global warming. Your side has 0. Put up or shut up.
Of course 90% is too close to call. All the major polling companies use a 95% confidence level for their margins of error. That is about twice as strict as the 90% confidence level reported as "very likely" by the IPCC.
In fact, this is one of my criticisms of journalists coverage of polling data. When a poll is "too close to call", then rather than saying "a statistical dead heat" they should report the likelihood that candidate A is leading candidate B. Journalists should realize that there is nothing magical about the margin of error such that being inside it has no information and being outside it has perfect information.
Statistical significance, also known as a 95% confidence level, is not even all that reliable. One out of 20 statistically significant findings is wrong.
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml
Mazzulla wrat:
>>Of course 90% is too close to call. All the major polling companies use a 95% confidence level for their margins of error. That is about twice as strict as the 90% confidence level reported as "very likely" by the IPCC.
Sure, Mazzula. Like I said before, if there is a bomb in your basement, and there is even a 1% chance of it going off, do you reason that there is not a high enough probability to do anything, and bring up an analogy to polling data? What do you do if there is a 90% chance? And or course your whole analogy is bogus. 90% probability is extremely high in science. Science cannot state anything with 100% probability, as I have pointed out.
Have you jumped out a window yet? Have you produced one peer-review?
Put up or shut up.
Of course 90% is too close to call. All the major polling companies use a 95% confidence level for their margins of error. That is about twice as strict as the 90% confidence level reported as "very likely" by the IPCC.\
This argument seems so silly now compared to 3 years ago. Science has moved on. There are more observations and data. The ice wasn't melting as fast when the report was written. Many scientist believe the IPPC report was watered down to make it more politically palatable. The commendations for reductions in greenhouse gases are now thought to be too lenient.
There isn't any doubt that we are the ones putting the CO2 up there it can be proved by the C13 isotope data. There isn't any doubt the world is warming. Deniers can only fish around hopelessly for other causes which they cannot document, or they nitpick about the use of arithmetic or terminology like the poster above.
He claims 90% is too close to call when being wrong leads to major climate change which lasts for centuries.
Also, I go back to the "hockey stick" chart of climate change, which appeared in earlier IPCC reports and which does not appear in the fourth report.
The "hockey stick" chart was peer reviewed, but this does not mean that the peers actually verified the results. All it means is that the peers found that the research, as reported, seemingly met their standards as a valid report of findings. When later researchers actually tried to reproduce the results, they found that they could only do it if they cooked the data.
This kind of thing rarely happens intentionally, but it is actually very hard to do statistical research without unintentionally cooking the results. That is, if your standard is statistical significance, then 1 in 20 studies you do will yield a false positive result. It is hard to see how the "hockey stick" could have been unintentional, but no researcher would believe that a false finding like that would stand up, so it very likely was the result of gross error rather than an intent to deceive.
The unfortunate thing was that journalists and others took the "hockey stick" and created a public meme out of it, without any understanding of the way science works and that initial findings, even peer-reviewed findings, are often wrong.
So I think that the IPCC is correct to present the science as it exists, but to couch their results in the very cautious way they have done, which makes it very clear that many of the findings are wrong. According to the IPCC, we should expect that about 10% of their "very likely" findings are wrong, but of course these findings are not all independent, so the errors could easily be much higher or much lower than that.
Mazzulla wrate:
>>The "hockey stick" chart was peer reviewed, but this does not mean that the peers actually verified the results. All it means is that the peers found that the research, as reported, seemingly met their standards as a valid report of findings. When later researchers actually tried to reproduce the results, they found that they could only do it if they cooked the data.
No they didn't. You might want to look at realclimate.org to get the *real* story.
Like I said, Mazzulla, show us the *science* that supports your position. As far as your 10% nonsense goes, science cannot prove anything with absolute certainty. The only field in which absolute certainity exists is math.
Once again, our side has 635 peer-reviewed papers. Your side has 0. Put up or shut up.
The IPCC deleted the "hockey stick" from their fourth report. I don't know why I should take realclimate.org's word over the peer-reviewed science as presented by the IPCC. Clearly the IPCC found the graph, which was the cornerstone of earlier popularizations of the IPCC report, no longer suitable for inclusion.
The "hockey stick" authors appear to be in a mode of explaining that they were upfront about the uncertainties in their research.
The recent reviews of the article tend to support its conclusion that the current century was warmer than the previous three (a period of global cooling widely known as "the little ice age"), but appear to accept the criticisms of the hockey stick for its representation of climate consistency over the longer period.
Scientists are also human beings, and as such also have political ideas. Back in the 1980s the "Union of Concerned Scientists" were very active in opposing missile defense research, mostly on the grounds that it couldn't be made to work. They used their credentials to support these statements. Certainly their concerns had weight, but they turned out to be wrong, as recent successes in missile defense have shown. The fact that they were scientists did not mean that the statements of the "Union of Concerned Scientists" were scientific findings.
Mazzulla wrat:
>>The IPCC deleted the "hockey stick" from their fourth report. I don't know why I should take realclimate.org's word over the peer-reviewed science as presented by the IPCC. Clearly the IPCC found the graph, which was the cornerstone of earlier popularizations of the IPCC report, no longer suitable for inclusion.
Sure they did. And I am supposed to believe this from you, when you don't even understand the difference between conditional and unconditional probability--when you think that if you toss a coin enough, you can disprove a 90% finding? I trust realclimate because they are real scientists.
The rest of your argument is simply more bullsh*t. Having lost the scientific argument, you want to attack science! Like I said, if you really don't believe in science, go jump out a window 90 feet high. Don't get on a plane.
Oh, and those scientists who were against missile defense: none of them published peer-reviewed papers. (By the way, I am not even aware that missile defense does work--since when?)
We have 635 papers on our side. You have none.
Put up or shut up.
The "hockey stick graph" refers to Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999. It is in the most recent IPCC report. It is the first reconstruction listed in the spaghetti graph in FIgure 6-10, page 467 of Chapter 6.
It is also untrue that the "hockey stick" has been debunked. You can read the National Academies report on climate reconstructions of the past 2000 years to see for yourself.
It's interesting that you wouldn't take ReaClimate's view, but you seem to accept someone else's mistake without checking the original source.
Mazzula wrote:
>>Further, the IPCC likelhoods do not represent the unanimous, or even nearly unanimous, voice of climatologists. Probably they represent the prevailing views.
No. See my link below. There is consensus. And the hockey stick chart has not been debunked, despite the hype from the denialists. You need to try to keep up with the newest propaganda.
Sorry to cut and paste, but if I don't, I'll have to answer all the bullsh*t of the denialists all day. So here is the challenge I posted above:
Science is conducted with facts, not with hype. When a scientist marshals together facts, he puts them in a scientific paper. Other scientists peer review that paper, and if the paper passes muster, it gets published. That is how science works. It is not based on the opinions of people, scientists or not, who cannot prove their assertions by facts. Statements that global warming is not real and man-made, not backed up by a peer-reviewed paper, are simply opinions, and hold no more weight than saying that blue is the best color.
So what is the *real* science on the record? There have been 635 peer-reviewed papers that say global warming is real and man-made. And how many peer-reviewed papers have their been that refute global warming? 0. Yes, the side that states global warming is real and man-made has won the debate 635-0.
link
Until you can produce even *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, you have absolutely no argument. I am not going to look at any links that do not link to peer-reviewed science, because such links are simply bulllsh*t, and there is so much bullsh*it out there that you will send us on a goose chase all day refuting every single stupid argument. Show us the *science* that supports your view point.Until you do, you have no argument.
Didn’t your mother warn you about arguing with people about their religion? That’s all you have here – these folks are not about to back down from their “beliefs”. I commend you for telling it like it is, but if you’re expecting a “convert”, forget it - it’s fruitless!
funny,
Just to be consistent, since you have posted your request at least three times in this thread, (I have no problem with you doing so,) a challenge to find such studies, I am also repeating myself by posting again here that I did find peer reviewed studies disagreeing with aspects of global warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Interesting discussion!
So you don't believe that humans cause global warming, but just what if we did? Do you want to take that chance by continuing on our possible fossil-fueled demise?
But I guess that's OK with many folks, because when the rapture comes they won't have to worry about such trivial things like conservation, green energy, etc.
AA wrat:
>>Just to be consistent, since you have posted your request at least three times in this thread, (I have no problem with you doing so,) a challenge to find such studies, I am also repeating myself by posting again here that I did find peer reviewed studies disagreeing with aspects of global warming.
Ah, no you didn't. I already linked to the author of the peer reveiwed study who stated the *opposite* of what your link shows. Your link is to the notorioius Inhofe, called the "leader abuser of science," by one writer (I posted the link above). You see, AA, he mislead you. He told you a peer-reviewed study showed on thing, when it didn't.
No, this debate isn't interesting, because your side continues to link to bogus bullsh*t, while our side links to real science.
Again, AA: our side has 635 peer-reviewed papers on our side. Your side has 0.
Put up or shut up.
A Google search turned up this one...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf
Although it predicts a 20 year global cooling, that doesn't contradict the IPCC findings. It's main challenge is in the assumption that CO2 forcings predominate.
Actually, that doesn't contradict the IPCC either. The IPCC doesn't say that greenhouse gas emission is the dominant factor in global warming, it simply makes the somewhat obvious assertion that it is a factor.
In other words, the main reason that you can't find any reviewed articles that contradict the IPCC report is that the IPCC report's conclusions are not actually as strong as is widely believed.
Mazzula wrat:
>>In other words, the main reason that you can't find any reviewed articles that contradict the IPCC report is that the IPCC report's conclusions are not actually as strong as is widely believed.
Now you are just spouting more bullsh*t. You are really desperate, aren't you? Unable to find *any* science to back up your denialist religion, you have resorted to semantics. The IPCC report is quite strong in its language. It states that global warming is real, man-made, and *catastrophic.* You apparently haven't read it.
Again, Mazzula, our side has 635 peer-reviewed papers supporting our position; your side has none.
Put up or shut up. I'm not falling for your semantic games.
I have the report in front of me right now.
You have to be careful to separate the claims. I think that too many people think the report says more than it does.
It is unequivocal about warming--that is extremely significant, in my view, and reflects a scientific advance. It also strongly suggests ("very likely") that greenhouse gasses are the dominant cause. It is unequivocal that some of the increase in greenhouse gasses is anthropogenic. But it stops short of saying that this component of the increase in greenhouse gasses is the predominant cause of global warming. It rates the probability that any human activity whatsoever makes a "substantial contribution" to global warming as only "likely" (i.e. between 66% and 90%).
In other words, they are examining this logical chain: (1) we produce greenhouse gasses, (2) greenhouse gasses are the dominant cause of warming, thus (3) human activity is responsible for global warming. Step 1, they take. Step 2, they think is very likely (90%). Step 3, they do not take past 66%.
If I had to bet, I would wager that this is where the science will end up, but it isn't there yet. And that is also pretty much the position as stated in the IPCC report. I think that O'Reilly overstated the uncertainty in the science, but Media Matters overstated the certainty. A 66% confidence level is not quite just a guess, but it isn't really much better than an educated guess. It certainly doesn't represent settled science. You wouldn't build a bridge based on science with a 66% confidence level. You would wait for the detailed calculation.
I believe we have already shown we can exert great influence over the atmosphere, as evidenced by the smog in the 1960s and our cleanup of the atmosphere following the Clean Air Act. So I am not unwilling to believe that we are responsible for global warming. But the IPCC report doesn't go that far, except with a 66% likelihood.
That's why I disagree with both O'Reilly and with Media Matters, but defend the caution in the IPCC report. I think that the IPCC did a very good job.
Look, it's clear you haven't read the IPCC report, so please stop misrepresenting it.
If you think I am trying to refute global warming, then you misunderstand me. I think it is very clear that the climate has been warming lately, and my personal belief is that human activity has a lot to do with it, and that we should consider creating climate control technology even if the warming would have happened without us.
I am not entirely convinced that the reason for warming is the anthropogenic release of greenhouse gasses, although I agree with the IPCC that they provides a forcing in that direction (which is what they mean when they say things like "at least partly responsible"). Furthermore, warming itself will tend to lead to more greenhouse gasses being generated. The IPCC report also raises the possibility of other forcings, anthropogenic and otherwise, being significant.
Even if all published findings were consistent with the IPCC findings, that would not establish all of the IPCC likelihoods as fact. There are lots of scientific conjectures that appear likely, and which have neither been refuted nor established as fact.
Physicists will frequently wager about such things. Of course, there are lots of conjectures where it is hard to find a physicist who will take the other side of the wager, but that in no way implies that the science is settled.
For example, until recently, it was widely believed that while the universe was now expanding, it would eventually begin to contract. This conjecture led to a widespread search for the missing mass-energy that would be required to bring about this contraction. I think that the concensus view among astrophysicists was that it would eventually be found, perhaps as dark matter or neutrinos. It would have been hard to make a wager on it. There is, however, recent evidence that the expansion is accelerating, and thus that the contraction will not occur. But there was a decades-long period in which no peer-reviewed article was inconsistent with the conjecture, and the concensus view would have put the likelihood very high that the current expansion would eventually reverse.
The link you referred to did not say that there are no peer-reviewed documents that are at odds with global warming, it simply said that the ISI database didn't include any among the 928 articles it returned on the basis of her particular search. Certainly there have been far more than 928 articles written on climate research. I assume, however, that articles that contradict the IPCC findings are rare, and I have not written anything that is inconsistent with their findings nor have I tried to refute them.Mazzulla wrat:
>>Even if all published findings were consistent with the IPCC findings, that would not establish all of the IPCC likelihoods as fact. There are lots of scientific conjectures that appear likely, and which have neither been refuted nor established as fact.
>>The link you referred to did not say that there are no peer-reviewed documents that are at odds with global warming, it simply said that the ISI database didn't include any among the 928 articles it returned on the basis of her particular search. Certainly there have been far more than 928 articles written on climate research.
Stop your bullsh*t Mazulla. When all the scientists say the same thing, then it becomes scientific fact.
But, having lost the scientific debate, you want to attack science itself!
I'll tell you what. Since you think that science is so flexible, I want you to go and jump out a window. You see, there is debate about gravity as well. It was thought that gravity was an established law, but then the planets didn't move in accordance with those laws. So Einstein had to come along and create a new theory. But now scientists are questioning even his theory. That's the way science works. You form models and continually try to refine those models.
But since you think science is flexible, then please, jump out a window that is 90 feet off the ground. Because since there is debate about gravity, it oviously doesn't exit.
So, Mazzulla, since you want to bullsh*t even more than most posters, I put a new challenge to you: either find *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, or jump out a window.
When you do one of those two things, come back and post here.
A small point - Funny wrote: When all the scientists say the same thing, then it becomes scientific fact.
Uh.. no it doesn't. Look at the history of scientific discoveries my friend.
AA wrat:
>>A small point - Funny wrote: When all the scientists say the same thing, then it becomes scientific fact.
>>Uh.. no it doesn't. Look at the history of scientific discoveries my friend.
What the heck are you talking about? I said *scientific fact,* as in, that is what the whole scientific community believes in.
Funny,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess what you meant was not what you wrote. I must admit, it sounded like a close minded, dogmatic pronouncement by someone who refuses to believe there is more than one side to the issue of global warming. I didn't want to misunderstand you're meaning so I asked. :-)
AA wrat:
>>I must admit, it sounded like a close minded, dogmatic pronouncement by someone who refuses to believe there is more than one side to the issue of global warming. I didn't want to misunderstand you're meaning so I asked. :-)
Sorry, AA, but it is your side that is close-minded. I guess there are some people out there who think that the earth is the center of the universe, and criticize those who disagree as not looking at all sides of the argument. Being open-minded means looking at an argument honestly and coming to a conclusion. It does not mean blindly adhering to a position in the face of facts.
I am not disagreeing with the scientific concensus, at least as represented by the IPCC.
Just what percentage do you think the IPCC assigns to this statement, "There has been a substantial anthropogenic ontribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century"?
The answer, according to their report: "Likely" (i.e. less than 90% but greater than 66%).
You don't get an answer like 66% likelihood to statements of scientific fact.
At one time, you might have gotten an answer like that to the belief that AIDS was caused by HIV, but not now. As science moves on to settle these questions, the likelihoods move into the 99.9%+ category.
Furthermore, scientific fact is not the facts as decided by the scientific community, it is the facts as presented in scientific research. The difference between these two statements is usually subtle, because normally the scientific community doesn't coalesce in advance of the research. However sometimes, the community opinion does come in advance of the research, as with the conjecture (later refuted) that enough mass-energy would be found to support the conclusion that the universe would eventually contract, or the conjecture (later confirmed) that HIV causes AIDS.
My opinion is that most of the IPCC likelihoods will eventually be confirmed, but they haven't been confirmed yet--at least not according to the IPCC report. At this time, it characterizes most of its concerns with relatively low likelihoods (given that the usual scientific standard for significant findings is a 95% confidence level).
In other words, everything that I have been saying, all in support of the IPCC report, has been supported by statements that appear in the IPCC report itself. The people who have been disgreeing with me have been taking the position that because I was disagreeing with them, that I was also disagreeing with the IPCC.
My position, however, is not that the IPCC is wrong, it is that the report is being misused to advance a position that it does not, in fact, represent. The report itself is a good example of scientific caution. Unfortunately it is being used by people who have neither the training or the inclination to understand what scientific caution is, or why it is important.
My only criticism of the IPCC report is that their use of terms such as "likely" and "very likely" was unlikely to be taken as those terms were defined in the document. Better terms would have been "suggested" and "strongly suggested", with "likely" being reserved for conclusions that reach the 95% confidence level, "very likely" for 99% confidence level (three standard deviations), and they should have presented actual findings without any qualification at all, merely citing the studies that supported them. That would have been more in line with the way people with scientific training actually take those kinds of confidence levels.
Mazzula wrat:
>>My position, however, is not that the IPCC is wrong, it is that the report is being misused to advance a position that it does not, in fact, represent.
Yes, of course you do. Because you don't want us to do anything about global warming. Hey, let's wait another decade or two! If the oceans start gobbling up cities, then we can know for sure!
As far as your position has gone, you have tried to minimalize the report every way you can, including comparing percentages to flipping a coin! That tells you everything about how honestly you want to discuss this issue.
As far as the consensus goes, there are 635 papers supporting global warming. There are 0 refuting it. What percentage would you put on those numbers?
Until you can produce even *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, you have absolutely no argument.
Sadly Funnypants we cannot use that exact argument much longer. The demand for publication in science is such that less reputable journals are becoming willing to publish articles which have been rejected by mainstream science journals. The current standards for "peer review' are subject to considerable variation. Articles get published by some journals which claim peer review but they only check the spelling and possibly the credentials of the author.
For a subject as complicated as global warming, we want to see peer reviewed articles from well recognized etablished journals where the reviewers are experts in climatology.
Middleleft wrat:
>>For a subject as complicated as global warming, we want to see peer reviewed articles from well recognized etablished journals where the reviewers are experts in climatology.
Thanks. I guess that is how I should frame the debate. My line is "any peer-reviewed article that refutes global warming." The paper has to be both peer reviewed and it has to refute global warming. No paper does both, but yes, there are some bogus papers with embarrassing errors that the denialsts use.
But how about a paper in a well established biology journal that shows species change due to global warming? I have seen some of these, and shouldn't we allow these?
But how about a paper in a well established biology journal that shows species change due to global warming? I have seen some of these, and shouldn't we allow these?
That's fine with me so long as they are reviewed by biologists. If the data pertains to climate then the climate guys have to look at it too.
Peer review is not just for us readers but also for the scientists. I read a great thread on Open Mind about a scientist who published an article in a publication that was not peer reviewed. He made some foolish elementary errors. He was completely debunked by the posters who knew more about the subject than he did. He then tried to defend his errors in public discussion, unsuccessfully. It was embarrassing and the end of his publishing on that subject.
Mazulla wrat:
>>Note that a 50% confidence factor is a coin toss, representing no knowledge at all. I have a 50% confidence factor that your next toss won't be tails. So toss it twice and there is a 75% confidence factor they won't both be tails (much better confidence than "likely" in the IPCC report). There is an 87.5% confidence factor that you won't toss tails three times in a row (almost "very likely", by IPCC standards).
Good grief you are full of bullsh*t! You obviously don't understand conditional probability, do you? Your little mathmatical game is patently stupid. You cannot compare the two probabilities because one is conditional and one is not!
If a scientist told you there was even a 1% chance that a bomb would blow up in your basement, would you start flipping a coin 100 times, or would you f**ng get someone to remove the bomb? If the scientist told you there was a 90% chance that the bomb would blow up, would you call that a low probability?
Oh, according to my model, you are full of 100% bullsh*t.
Funny,
I am wondering why thou dost protest so much? After all, you have not read these 600+ reports you tout.
I have a link that says some of these reports contradicting the IPCC conclusions are peer reviewed just like you asked. I didn't go back and look at your link that said the reports cited by Inhoe is not peer reviewed. Will you please provide it again?
I think Mazzula sounds very knowledgeable and even handed in this discussion while you sound like your so emotionally invested in this that you resort to explicatives and challenges and simply saying what we have provided is untrue. Do you have anything posted after 2004 to support your arguments?
The link I provided shows that the report in question was produced by
Environmental Sciences Department/Atmospheric Sciences Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory with the U.S. Department of Energy. Does that not count for anything or are you dismissing it out of hand?
I found another report: "A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions," published in the December 2007 International Journal of Climatology, is the latest study to cast doubt on the efficacy of climate modeling. Climate scientists David H. Douglass, John Christy, and S. Fred Singer analyzed 22 climate models and found their predictions at odds with actual warming over the past 30 years.
Funny, if a report makes it to the International Journal of Climatology, does that not mean it is peer reviewed?
I don't mind you disagreeing or correcting me. I don't claim to be an expert. I just find it a little hard to believe that there are absolutely no peer reviewed studies that have different conclusions than "man made global warming" is proven. Lets get to the truth.
AA wrat:
>>I am wondering why thou dost protest so much? After all, you have not read these 600+ reports you tout.
Oh please, AA. Just admit you have lost the debate. You link to Inhofe, who gets it totally wrong. I linked showing that. Please read more carefully. And I linked to a site that shows nothing has changed since 2004.
If you want to start saying there is a debate about the earth being the center of the solar system, you can do so. But the science is not on your side. And if you think Mazulla is a serious debator, you might want to read more carefully. He thinks that flipping a coin can change the likelhood of an event! Anyone can sound intelligent; that doesn't meant they aren't full of BS. As are you. You link to Inhofe, who is completey wrong and now you expect me to take you seriously? You will simply link all day to bogus info if I don't call your bluff.
Again, AA. We have 635 peer-reviewed papers on our side. You have 0. (You did not provide a link.)
Put up or shut up.
Put
Funny,
I am getting rather tired of your non-denial denials. I'm wondering why you won't show me the link I asked about? Calling Inhofe wrong is fine, but just because you are saying it doesn't really prove it to me.
I also asked you if you had anything to offer beyond the 2004 article. You did not provide anything there either.
My friend, you are 0-2.
I thought you could find any of 400+ links by querying on the title, "A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions". But since you asked here is one.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/12/14/tropical-trends-stir-warming-debate/AA wrat:
>>I am getting rather tired of your non-denial denials. I'm wondering why you won't show me the link I asked about? Calling Inhofe wrong is fine, but just because you are saying it doesn't really prove it to me.
You are completely lying through your teeth. Go back to the first page, and my link is right there. And go to the second or third, and the second link is there. If you are too lazy to do that, then why should I debate you? Am I expected to provide the link more than one time?
Oh, and your article at the end? IT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED! It is simply more bullsh*t.
Put up or shut up, AA.
Funny,
Apparently you do not follow your own advice. Whatever your reasons for doing so, You are in my book still 0-2.
ps. How do you know these are not peer reviewed? What is your basis for coming to that conclusion? Do you have any proof? Is there some place that says which articles are "peer reviewed"?
I may be wrong but having a report published in a journal signifies peer review does it not?
AA wrat:
>>Apparently you do not follow your own advice. Whatever your reasons for doing so, You are in my book still 0-2.
Sure AA. My links there are right there on the first and second page. But of course, I haven't backed up my assertions!
At this point, you are just posting nonsense rather than admit your defeat. If you want accept that I have linked twice, when the links are there for all to see, is there any reason to take you seriously?
Hey, anyone who is following this debate, decide for yourselves. AA is saying that I didn't link disproving Inhofe, and I didn't link showing that other peer reviewed papers since 2004 support the consensus. Go back and look and see how dishonest AA is being.
PS Peer reviwed mens that other scientists review the articles. Yes, the papers are peer reviwed. As in 635-0.
Funny, I simply asked you to repost your link, which you refused to do and still have not done. Fine. I can go look. Perhaps you can show me where you got the 635 number? I do not see it anywhere. We do want to be accurate don't we?
Again, you have not proven that the article I cited is not peer reviewed. Simply saying so does not make it so. Publishing in a Journal is a de facto peer review my friend.
AA wrat:
>>Funny, I simply asked you to repost your link, which you refused to do and still have not done.
yes, I have done. They are on page 1! You don't want to look, or are you too embarrassed? I am guessing the latter.
Again, AA: We have 635 papers to support the fact that global warming is real. You have 0.
Put up or shut up.
I may be wrong but having a report published in a journal signifies peer review does it not?
NO it does not!
It only means that the publisher of some Journal needed articles for the next issue. I'll give you an example. The executive editor of Lancet the top medical Journal recently stated that they publish only 5% of th articles submitted. 95% are rejected for various reasons. He said ALL of those rejected articles eventually get published somewhere as the authors keep submitting themn to lesser journals until they get acceopted. At the lower end the disreputable journals often have no experts qualified to review the submissions.
OK, suppose I was told that there was a 1% chance there was a bomb in my basement, and suppose I believed that. Then what should I do about it?
Should I, for example, give my house away? Sell it for $1 to some passing sucker? Probably I should try to find out if it is really true, and then try to figure out the least draconian way to solve the problem.
You see, the problem is not just that there is global warming (which I have not denied) but the problem is how to characterize the costs and benefits of that warming and the costs and benefits of solutions. Most people's livelihoods currently depends upon having a large carbon footprint. I think we ought to focus first on finding technologies that allow that situation to change, rather than first threatening livelihoods with draconian demands that we reduce the carbon footprint.
The IPCC report has only a 90% chance that anthropogenic forcings are even a factor (as obvious a conclusion as that seems to be), but one of their very rare 95% likelihoods is that "warming during the past half century cannot be explained without external radiative forcing", in other words, they are even more sure that humans aren't the only cause than they are sure we have contributed to the problem.
There are many steps we could take to reduce global warming short of reducing the carbon footprint. We could increase particulate pollution in the atmosphere, or we could increase the sequestration of carbon by requiring that all waste paper be buried in landfills, we could demand that detergent companies re-introduce phosphates which would fertilize the oceans, we could try to encourage volcanic eruptions. Of course, all of these things also have down-sides. The question is what we can do that would have the most beneficial effect with the least harm to people who, often, are on the edge of survival.
Mazzula wrat:
>>You see, the problem is not just that there is global warming (which I have not denied)
No, but you have tried to minimalize its impact by playing semantic games, by mischaraterizing the IPCC report, and by dismissing a 90% probability by comparing it to flipping a coin 3 times!
Now you are presenting a moving target. The question about what to do about global warming is certainly worthwhile discussing, but that is not what the MMFA posting was about, nor is it what the debate is about. My position is simple: global warming is real, man-made, and catastrophic. The first two statements are scientific fact. The last one is the logical conclusion drawn from the first two, and presented in the IPCC, which you apparently have not read.
AA wrat:
>>Again stating something is "scientific fact" when it is not. This is tiresome.
It is the scientific consensus. We have 635 peer-reviewed papers on our side to back up our point.
And how many do you have?
0. As in none. As in the big goose egg.
So sorry you are getting tired of being wrong. But put up or shut up.
Funny,
You are a bit too dogmatic for me when you do not know what you are talking about.
Getting rather tired of the fact that you will not say anything other than you have a link that says there are 900 some peer reviewed articles vs none that disagree, I decided to go back and look at your proof. Here's what I found:
The article you quote is
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change by Naomi Oreskes. It was published in 2004 and searched abstracts from refereed scientific journals between 1993 to 2003. You have not provided any proof that this has not changed in the four years. Therefore your data is too old for you to state unequivically that it is 928 or some such number to 0. You do not know if since 2003 peer reviewed abstracts have appeared that contradict your assertion.
I tried to link to the reference but one needs to join AAAS in order to get to the link.
We do not know which scientific journals were searched. We do not know if there are others that were not searched.
The article states:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view;
me- If that is the case then 75% would be 696. And out of those almost 700, it could be that all or most of them are evaluations of impacts or mitigation proposals after already accepting the consensus opinion. Oreskes does not say how many actually provide the actual scientific proofs that global warming is man-made. Therefore your assertion of 600= to zero is unsubstantiated by the very document you say proves it.
The article goes on to state: 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
-me. I am not so sure. Oreskes does not say that she reviewed those articles. The article provides no data on how Oreskes came up with her conclusions that none of these had dissenting opinions.
Oreskes goes on to say in the article: 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.
-Me So Oreskes is not saying that these papers are the definitive answer. She is saying they may be wrong. I find it interesting that Oreskes adds the little editorial opinion regarding grandchildren. It is clear that she is pushing her point of view.
So Funny, the article you provided does not prove there are zero peer reviewed articles contrary to the IPCC report. In fact, it shows someone who is pushing the man-made global warming agenda. I think it is time for your to admit that. To simply say 'put up or shut up' is no longer relevant. Even the article you provided does not do that.
AA wrat:
>>You are a bit too dogmatic for me when you do not know what you are talking about.
Sure AA. Again, show me *one* peer reviewed paper that refutes global warming. Just one. you can't. Instead, you rely on word parsing. Oreskes states that 635 papers support global warming. But AA raises such great questions as "Oreskes does not say that she reviewed those articles." when of course she *does* state that she reviwed the articles. And "Oreskes does not say how many actually provide the actual scientific proofs that global warming is man-made. " when she states the opposite in her conclusion.
Nor did you look at the second link I provided, which shows that even when Oreskes was shown to be wrong, she was not.
Again, AA: we have 635 peer-reviewed papers on our side. You have 0.
Put up or shut up.
ps. I thought I posted it somewhere but do not see it. The article funnyman cites is from 2004 and cites articles from 1993-2003.
The author of the article holds a doctorate in Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science,
Her aticle was used in Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"
I found this just now: From: Prof. Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change"
METHOD
I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):
RESULTS
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:
- Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
- 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
- Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
- 67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
- 87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
- 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
- UPDATE: among the 34 abstracts, a few of them were found that shouldn't have been included in the group. For one example, see Prometheus (search for Oreskes); the reader is recommended to look at the 34 abstracts whether this error of Peiser's analysis changes the qualitative conclusions
- 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
- 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
Sorry for the small print at the end. Let me try again:
According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
One last time:
According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.
It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
AA wrat:
>>I found this just now: From: Prof. Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University
you see AA, you are really making a fool of yourself. If you actually go back and look at my link I provided on page 2, you would have avoided making such an embarrassing mistkake:
link
Second, it appears he has since gone even further when pressed by an Australian television program, Media Watch. The transcript is here, and Tim Lambert summarizes it here. The gist is that he has backed down to the position that just one of his 34 abstracts fit his description as rejecting the consensus view on climate change -- and it was an editorial, not research of any kind.
Again, AA:
Our side 635:
your side 0:
Put up or shut up.
more:
This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a scientific concensus on climate change".
In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
he
AA wrat:
>>In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
yea. Boy, are you embarrassed yet? Did you see my link above (which I had to post for a second time because of your sheer stupidity) that shows that Peiser was not only dead wrong, but that he admitted so? You see, AA, you might want to try reading more carefully. I posted the link a long time ago, and you kept trying to deny it existed.
Again, AA: we have 635 papers on our side.
You have 0.
Put up or shut up.
Funny,
I have shown you papers published in journals disproving your contention earlier. Simply saying they were not peer reviewed and repeating yourself is tiresome. Frankly, I don't believe you know what it means to be peer-reviewed. You simply choose not to accept them.
As an aside, the link you provided does not, in my humble opinion, negate anything that Peiser wrote. What we do know is that Oreskes made a lot of errors in her article. Your claim of 635 to 0, (where you haven't shown where you got that number,) is incorrect.
Mistakes made in Peiser's contention? Perhaps. However he still proves Oreskes was incorrect. She even admits it.
Peiser does provide this article that disproves your contention.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)
AA wrat:
>>I have shown you papers published in journals disproving your contention earlier. Simply saying they were not peer reviewed and repeating yourself is tiresome. Frankly, I don't believe you know what it means to be peer-reviewed. You simply choose not to accept them.
No you didn't. I have responded to this bogus charge on page 1. You never responded. The author of the paper stated the opposite: that he *does* believe in global warming. So stop lying through your teeth.
>>Mistakes made in Peiser's contention? Perhaps. However he still proves Oreskes was incorrect. She even admits it.
I don't know what you are talking about. From my link above, it is Presier that admits he is totally incorrect.
Put up or shut up, AA. Still can't do it, huh? So you resort to rhetoric.
Our side 635: your side: 0.
AA wrat:
>>Mistakes made in Peiser's contention? Perhaps. However he still proves Oreskes was incorrect. She even admits it.
I forgot to point out that Preser's research was so weak that *Science* did not even publish it. And again, the fact that Preiser admitted that *none* (as in 0--recognize that number) of the abstracts that refuted global warming did not do so.
So again, AA: we have 635 papers that support our view on global warming, and you have none.
This is typically how these debates go, though. The deniers link to bogus sites all day long. You link to Inhofe, Preiser, and Klaus Martin Shulte, all who are dead wrong, and all who have not published a peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming. You will continue to link to bogus crap all day.
Which is why I say once again:
Put up or shut up.
I am reading this a day later and only want to repeat what I think is evident to everyone who reads this thread. I provided a report that disproves your contention and it is in the same database that Oreskes used.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)
I am not surprised that you ignore it like you have ignored every other article I have provided. All along you have ignored providing us with where you got the number 635. It may be out there but I haven't found it anywhere and repeated requests for you to provide it have fallen on deaf ears. You also ignore the fact that this article by Oreskes, (which I have demonstrated, is itself biased,) is not wholly inclusive of all peer reviewed articles and reports during the time period, which again is at least four years out of date.
The peer review argument is a good one, but not the only argument for deciding what is science. I assume many of the peer reviewed papers Oreskes found also had dissenters. Your over reliance on "peer review" that only supports your own bias shows you to be much more close-minded than those of us you mistakenly and arrogantly belittle. You ignore any criticism of errors in Oreske's research but discount fully and completely and at face value, errors by Oreske's critics.
You have shown repeatedly by resorting to insults and ignoring of any proof that does not support your view that you are too invested in the subject to be open minded.
However it has been a fun discussion. :-)
Flipping a coin three times is close to a 90% probability (87.5%). The person who objected to that clearly either never took a probability class, or didn't understand what they were being taught.
In other words, if I predict you will fail to flip tails on your next three flips, there is a 1 in 8 chance I will be wrong. The IPCC estimates about a 1 in 10 chance that their "very likely" conclusions are wrong.
The "independence" argument comes into it because many of the IPCC likelihoods are dependent on each other. So whereas my statement about coin flips will pertain to any three flips you make, many of the IPCC statements will rise or fall together. That is kind of like what happened to the mortgage aggregators when they thought that mortgage risks were independent of each other, and thus would be subject to the law of large numbers.
By contrast, the usual minimum scientific standard of likelihood, which is 95%, is to be wrong about 1 time in 20. So the IPCC "very likely" conclusions are about halfway to the usual minimum standard of significance. This is still strongly suggestive.
And most scientists understand that even a 95% confidence level does not establish a scientific fact. Just look at all the election polls (should be about 1 in 20) that fail to predict the outcome within their stated margin of error.
Mazulla wrat:
>>Flipping a coin three times is close to a 90% probability (87.5%). The person who objected to that clearly either never took a probability class, or didn't understand what they were being taught.
>>In other words, if I predict you will fail to flip tails on your next three flips, there is a 1 in 8 chance I will be wrong. The IPCC estimates about a 1 in 10 chance that their "very likely" conclusions are wrong.
Um, if you think that flipping a coin is the same as scientists stating a certain probability, then *you* need to take a probability class. It shows you how dishonest you have been in this whole argument. If you want to determine probability, you set up a probability model. I can't think of a worse model than flipping a coin 3 times. Either you know this, and you are being outright dishonest by trying to snow people with another analogy to mortages, or you are an idiot. I think it is the first.
And as for your assertion that "And most scientists understand that even a 95% confidence level does not establish a scientific fact," I would like to see you back that up.
You like to play number and word games.
But again, our side has 635 peer-reviewed papers to back up our side.
Your side has 0.
Put up or shut up.
It's really embarrassing to read the proponents of the GLoBal WarMing theory resort to such shameful tactics as name calling and telling the opposition to just "shut up".
It always amuses me when people who couldn't tell the difference between an "alpha score" from a hole in the wall start talking as if they were some kind of scientific geniuses.
Lets just all try to stick to the fact, please.
notanotherconservative2254 wrat:
>>It's really embarrassing to read the proponents of the GLoBal WarMing theory resort to such shameful tactics as name calling and telling the opposition to just "shut up".
Yes, you don't like it because you have lost the debate. And the only reason I have to employ my tactics, as I have explained before, is that if I don't, the other side will simply post bullsh*t all day long. You can see it happening right here. They post to one denialists website, and when we refute that, they simply link to another. So it is time for the other side to do the answering. The science shows that global warming is real and man-made. If the other side has *real* science, and not bullsh*t reasoning and bogus sites, then post it and we can have a debate.
It is evident that you are employing the same kind of bullsh*t. Do you think that I am fooled by your reference to alpha sources?
Again, conservative, our side has 635 peer-reviwed papers to back up our argument. Your side has 0.
Do you think that I am fooled by your reference to alpha sources?
It's "alpha score" and it's a basic statistical term that is used in science.
Now that we know you are scientifically illiterate, do I really care what other points you are making? Nope. Not really.
notanotherconservative2254 wrat:
>>Now that we know you are scientifically illiterate, do I really care what other points you are making? Nope. Not really.
Wow. This is funny. You are as desperate as the rest. And you have proved my scientific illiteracy how?
Again, conservative, we have *635* peer-reviewed papers on our side. The number of papers on your side?
0.
So I can see why you don't want to debate me any more, having lost the debate.
Put up or shut up.
for your perusal excerpt from the IPCC Report:
No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.
Nope. Not Steve, although he sounds like a really great guy!
Not really Mazzula either. I just started using that handle on a financial blog because it kind of reminded me of luck (mazel) and money, and I kept with it on some other blogs. Also, I am amused by the ZBS character "Dr. Mazoola" in the Jack Flanders series "The Fourth Tower of Inverness" (but that spelling was already taken on the financial blog). See zbs.org .
But I won't keep answering guesses. Someone might guess right!
Please. "Global warming" is a complete scam. When the Soviet Union fell the communists did not go away. The reformed and became environmentalists. "Global warming" is nothing more than a cheap attack on capitalism.
It is all about restricting business.
I drive a Toyota Sequoia and I do not recycle.
In 10 years the nutters on the left will be squawking about global cooling.
SC_parker wrat:
>>Please. "Global warming" is a complete scam.
Sure it is. And some people still believe that the earth is the center of the solar system. Oh, that pesky science! Don't let it get in the way of your right-wing rant.
SC,
Why must you harm the recycling business? When the landfills continue to overflow because people like you don't recycle, can I use your front yard as one? Thanks in advance.
"What I do know is the cleaner the planet is, the better."
Well at least if nothing else, BOR admits this.
Funny,
Here's another article debunking your source. Are you still going to cling to "put up or shut up"?
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
AA wrat:
>>Here's another article debunking your source. Are you still going to cling to "put up or shut up"?
Well, except that isn't the case!
link
AA, I've asked you to produce *one* peer-reviewed paper that debunks global warming. You have not been able to do so.
We have 635. You have 0.
Put up or shut up.
Funny,
Even the link you provided says the following:
You'd think that those would the best seven, so I looked at them. He does better than Pieser, because three of them really so reject the consensus.
So your contention has again be proven wrong and you provided the link!
Be that as it may, your links never disproved my contention that your 635 is no where to be found. Your reliance on Oreskes does not prove that there are no scientific papers rejecting man-man made global warming. I have provided more than one that does in journals, which by their nature are peer reviewed. It is sheer denial to say the scientific world has all agreed that there is man-made global warming when daily we see that scientist after scientist who disagree with the IPCC conclusions. Mazzula has pointed out that the previous IPCC report was in error and the famous 'hockey stick' global warming data was in error which also disproves your contention about peer review, since it was peer reviewed and still was wrong.
I'm done. Thanks for the discussion.
AA wrat:
>>Even the link you provided says the following:
>>You'd think that those would the best seven, so I looked at them. He does better than Pieser, because three of them really so reject the consensus.
Yes, but I guess you couldn't read further, could you?
"The three that do reject the consensus are Gerhard, which was published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; Shaviv arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn't explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn't changed over that period; and Zhen-Shan and Xian, which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published. (What is the next number in this sequence? 60. Their answer is 60.)
Did you get that, AA? One wasn't published, one is seriously flawed, and one was published in a Petroleum Magazine! Are you serious? I wanted you to find *one* paper that was peer-reviewed that was published. You didn't.
>>Be that as it may, your links never disproved my contention that your 635 is no where to be found. Your reliance on Oreskes does not prove that there are no scientific papers rejecting man-man made global warming.
No, of course not! Even though it is published in *Science* magazine, and states exactly that; and even though no one has disproven it, thought two have tried--despite that, I haven't proven my case!
>>Mazzula has pointed out that the previous IPCC report was in error and the famous 'hockey stick' global warming data was in error which also disproves your contention about peer review, since it was peer reviewed and still was wrong.
>> I have provided more than one that does in journals, which by their nature are peer reviewed.
No, you haven't. What you did is link to the notorious senator Inhofe, who said there were peer-reviewed papers. The paper in question was peer reviewed, but it did not refute global warming. That link is still on the first page. You never responded to it, probably because you cannot.
No. You see, this is the problem with arguing with you. You think that if you state something, it is true. You think that if you link to a bogus site, that makes it true. No, no, and no. I pointed Mazzula to realclimate.org, and he never looked at the website.
Let me repeat: 635 peer-review papers support global warming. 0 do not. There is simply no debate that global warming is real and man-made just as there is no debate that the earth is not the center of the universe. That is simply the science.
Funnyman,
I think you are in error. All three of those papers were published. Just because someone does not like them, does not mean they aren't there. Your denials remind me of an ostrich. '
The critiques of the papers may well be valid. I don't know. I find it curious that you conveniently leave out all those articles used as a basis for Oreske's conclusions that have also been criticized for erroneously falling into her arbitrary categories.
I find it curious that you completely ignore the same criticisms that you levy against me. To follow the bird analogy that what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander.
Hope I haven't ruffled your feathers! :-)
To: Mazzula - EXCELLENT ANALYSIS of IPCC's lack of "confidence" in IPCC's own work. I always thought their terminology was wierd, but you really explained it well. I wouldn't let someone do brain surgery on me because they were "90% sure" I needed it - that's for sure.
To: The poster who wanted proof that CO2 is beneficial: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html
To put it simply No CO2 = No Oxygen to breathe and we are all history. That 0.038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is fine with me.
I think a lot of people are poorly informed regarding Earths's natural climate cycles. Look at these graphs:
1. 12,000 year history: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
This shows the warming trend (Holocene Interglacial) that melted away the last ice age. Notice the temperature peaked about 8,000 years ago, and the overall trend is declining temperature, with lots of ups and downs.
2. Five million year history: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png
Note that once again the overall trend is declining temperatures, lots of ups and downs, and the variations between glacials(ice ages) and interglacials (warm intervals like the current Holocene) is becoming more intense.
3. LONG TERM CO2 history: http://net33.com/images/earth_co2_temp_history_millions.gif This shows earth has gone into ice ages several times when CO2 was 15 times higher than it is today. Today's CO2 levels are very low compared to Earth's long-term average.
4. 65 Million Year History - same story - average temperature declining : http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png
THESE CHARTS PROVE ONE THING 100% FOR SURE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STABLE CLIMATE. Nature does not do horizontal lines. Temperature and Co2 are always rising or falling with no help from humans. This goes WAAAY back before humans came along.
Summary: THE ONLY NATURAL CONSTANT IN CLIMATE IS CLIMATE CHANGE ITSELF
Peace from Canada
If I understand you correctly you believe that anyone who is not a climatologist could not possibly know anything, and should be dismissed as a quack?
Then please add Mr. Al Gore to your quack list. Gore is a lawyer turned politician who claims he invented the internet. Not exactly a "climatologist"
The simplistic notion that "CO2 causes global warming and controls climate" is equivalent to saying "hot dog sales cause recessions and control the economy".
It's a childish oversimplification of an extremely complex
topic.
Whoever eventually figures out all of the variables controlling climate and creates a scientific computer model that actually matches with the historical climate graphs (in my last post) will get a well deserved Nobel Prize, but I doubt that will occur in our lifetime. We are a long way from having an accurate computer model of climate and that's why titles like "climatologist" don't mean much to me. The scientific community only knows so much, and there is a lot more to be learned.
It might surprise some of you to know that I am a former Green Party Candidate and before that I was a candidate for Canada's Marijuana Party. I'm no right wing oil company stooge. I would describe myself a truth seeker, and I am comfortable with the truth
and I seek out the truth. It was during my time with the Green Party that I did a lot of reading and came to realize that long term cycles are being ignored, and climate science is poorly understood at best.
Peace to All