Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations.

By Joseph Romm, Salon

The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say "the science is settled." But that's where the agreement ends. The science isn't settled -- it's unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.

But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word "consensus" to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet. When scientists and others say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear "consensus of opinion," which can -- and often is -- dismissed out of hand. I've met lots of people like CNBC anchor Joe Kernen, who simply can't believe that "as old as the planet is" that "puny, gnawing little humans" could possibly change the climate in "70 years."

Well, Joe, it is more like 250 years, but yes, most of the damage to date was done in the last 70 years, and yes, as counterintuitive as it may seem, puny little humans are doing it, and it's going to get much, much worse unless we act soon. Consensus of opinion is irrelevant to science because reality is often counterintuitive -- just try studying quantum mechanics.

Fortunately Kernen wasn't around when scientists were warning that puny little humans were destroying the Earth's protective ozone layer. Otherwise we might never have banned chlorofluorocarbons in time.

Consensus of opinion is also dismissed as groupthink. In a December article ignorantly titled "The Science of Gore's Nobel: What If Everyone Believes in Global Warmism Only Because Everyone Believes in Global Warmism?" Holman W. Jenkins Jr. of the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote:

What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads? It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof. Many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses, especially well-funded hypotheses, they've chosen to believe.

Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.

How sad that the WSJ and CNBC have so little conception of what science really is, especially since scientific advances drive so much of the economy. If that's what Jenkins thinks science is, one would assume he is equally skeptical of flossing, antibiotics and even boarding an airplane.

(Note to WSJ: One reason science works is that a lot of scientists devote their whole lives to overturning whatever is the current hypothesis -- if it can be overturned. That's how you become famous and remembered by history, like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein.)

In fact, science doesn't work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview.

One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.

So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.

But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea.

What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.

A good example of how scientific evidence drives our understanding concerns how we know that humans are the dominant cause of global warming. This is, of course, the deniers' favorite topic. Since it is increasingly obvious that the climate is changing and the planet is warming, the remaining deniers have coalesced to defend their Alamo -- that human emissions aren't the cause of recent climate change and therefore that reducing those emissions is pointless.

Last year, longtime Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote, "There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution."

In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying feedbacks and other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/...arming_deniers/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sooooooooo?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sooooooooo?

[dalegg 143]

This guy is really stating why nothing can be done. If the damage has been done over the past 70 years, then in order to reverse course we would have to return to life 70 years ago, but in fact we would have to be even more conservative since we'd have to spit out those same pollutants with more than double the population. But in reality we'd have to even get cleaner than that because we would have to make up for the fact that China and other developing countries probably weren't doing anything at all back then and now we have to make up for their growth.

What would reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 accomplish when 1990 was far too high? What are we hoping to get 10 more years out of suburban life in Texas?

Cutting emissions by 80% in 2050 sounds according to this guy like its too late and I can't imagine what life would be like if we tried to do that now. Either way we are uncomfortable as hell.

If this guy is right, then anything we do it pointless.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The world will change and many of us will die. We're likely approaching another genetic bottleneck, but humanity has survived them before. Maybe it will survive this one too, if not make way for the next species.

In any event, I'm not gonna sweat it. I have an SUV to buy.

[nowhereman 1]

The world will change and many of us will die. We're likely approaching another genetic bottleneck, but humanity has survived them before. Maybe it will survive this one too, if not make way for the next species.

In any event, I'm not gonna sweat it. I have an SUV to buy.

2012 is the end, according to many ancient calendars.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The world will change and many of us will die. We're likely approaching another genetic bottleneck, but humanity has survived them before. Maybe it will survive this one too, if not make way for the next species.

In any event, I'm not gonna sweat it. I have an SUV to buy.

Quite a legacy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The world will change and many of us will die. We're likely approaching another genetic bottleneck, but humanity has survived them before. Maybe it will survive this one too, if not make way for the next species.

In any event, I'm not gonna sweat it. I have an SUV to buy.

Quite a legacy.

The question right now is, Escape, CR-V, Rav4 or Sportage?

At least I'm going compact SUV.

[dalegg 143]

The world will change and many of us will die. We're likely approaching another genetic bottleneck, but humanity has survived them before. Maybe it will survive this one too, if not make way for the next species.

In any event, I'm not gonna sweat it. I have an SUV to buy.

2012 is the end, according to many ancient calendars.

Yeah, so why all this talk about a trillion dollar deficit? Who cares!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A trillion dollars, when dollars are intangible nothings. Getting off the gold standard was fvcking genius.

[GaryC 7]

Salon.com A real athoritative source there.

If you can do it I can do it better.

Global Warming Consensus Melts

By Evan Sumortin | June 10, 2009

In Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, he assures the public that the "[global warming] debate in the scientific community is over." The Heartland Institute disagrees. On June 2nd, 2009 the Institute hosted its Third International Conference on Climate Change, touting an impressive speakers list that included scientists, economists, and politicians. Their stated mission was to challenge the "consensus" on global warming.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has spoken at the conference since its inception. Each time, he confronted the alleged scientific consensus by exposing the fundamental reason why many scientists support global warming despite so much evidence to the contrary. "Endorsing global warming just makes their life easier," Lindzen argued.

According to Dr. Lindzen, scientists that are able to relate their work to global warming are more likely to receive instant recognition with politicians and the media. Often times, this recognition leads to government funding. "Most of the atmospheric scientists and oceanographers who I respect do endorse global warming," he readily admitted. "The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming."

To exemplify this point Lindzen mentioned Wally Broecker, a Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. "[His] work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However," Lindzen notes, "[broecker] staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so." For example, in September 2008 Broecker was the recipient of the Balzan Prize for "his extraordinary contributions to the understanding of climate change."

Lindzen further asserted, "Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science...thus, for over twenty years the National Academy had a temporary nominating group designed to facilitate the election of environmental activists. The current president of the academy is one of these. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm...There are numerous other examples."

The scientists who are willing to stand up to alarmism have seen their grants disappear and their work dismissed as junk-science. "James Holdren was long on the board of the MacArthur Foundation which has awarded 'genius' grants to numerous environmental activists" and "Science and Nature have both publicly taken positions against publishing anything that opposes the notion of dangerous anthropogenic warming, while publishing highly dubious science endorsing the notion," stated Lindzen.

In the case of Science magazine, the controversy followed a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, in December of 2004. Her research consisted of analyzing 1,000 papers on the subject of global warming, published since the early 1990s. She concluded that 75% of them backed the theory of man-made global warming and none dissented from it.

Dr. Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, was one of many scientists to disagree with Dr. Oreskes's unequivocal conclusions. Dr. Peiser decided to conduct his own analysis with the same documents and found the following: "Of all 1117 [papers], only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. 322 [papers] (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 470 (or 42%) [papers]... 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."

Dr. Peiser submitted his findings in order to be published in Science but was rejected on the grounds that "basic points" of his research had been "widely dispersed over the internet." Dr. Peiser challenged the legitimacy of this statement stating, "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere." Later, he wrote back to them, "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them." They did not.

Lindzen argued that proponents of global warming "fail to note that there are many sources of climate change, and that climate change occurred many times both before and after man appeared on earth. Given the ubiquity of climate change, it is implausible that all change is for the worse. Moreover, the coincidence of increasing carbon dioxide and the small warming over the past century hardly establishes causality."

Despite these doubts, mainstream reporters continue to insist on a consensus.

In a recent debate on MSNBC's Hardball between the host, Chris Matthews, and U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), Matthews claimed, "There is a huge consensus on global warming in the country right now and man's contribution to it." He continued to openly criticize Rohrabacher's skepticism about global warming by calling him names without actually confronting several scientific arguments that Rohrabacher presented. Rohrabacher was condescendingly asked, "Are you a Luddite...are you a part of the Planet of the Apes that doesn't want science?" To this he responded, "[i'm] someone willing to speak the truth...in my lifetime I have never seen an effort with more pressure to try to cut off debate than this issue... you have just demonstrated to your audience by calling names...how do you discuss science with those types of terms?" At the conference, Rohrabacher challenged "believers" of global warming by boldly stating, "The case is not closed...the tide is turning."

Although mainstream reporting continues to exaggerate the consensus among the scientific community, the tide is indeed turning. In a recent Gallup Poll, a record high 41% say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated. That is a 6% increase from the 2008 poll.

http://www.aim.org/briefing/global-warming-consensus-melts/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you can do it I can do it better.

[GaryC 7]

CITIZEN JOURNALISM: 'Realists' challenge claim of consensus on warming

By Marieke van der Vaart SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Sunday, June 7, 2009

CITIZEN JOURNALISM

Several hundred scientists, politicians and activists participated in the third annual International Conference on Climate Change on Tuesday, marking another stage in the timeline of a scientific social movement.

The conference, sponsored by the nonprofit Heartland Institute, hosted panels of climatologists and meteorologists as well as members of Congress to address questions surrounding global warming and climate-change legislation.

In its 25 years, Heartland has drawn together about 31,000 scientists, more than 9,000 of whom hold doctorates, to provide a forum for scientific debate on the issue of man-made global warming.

Self-titled "global warming realists" who are scientific members of Heartland's community band together to fight the misconception of scientific consensus on the issue of global warming.

The third conference opened with the publication of "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change."

Mirroring the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the nongovernmental group, NIPCC, claims membership by several hundred scientists skeptical of IPCC's findings. Although individual members of the NIPCC have questioned the U.N. body's claims for years, the release of their own 800-page report makes their arguments difficult to ignore, said Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast.

"This is the first time the realists have had a comprehensive reply to the IPCC," he said. "The other side kept saying, 'Where is your report? Where is your IPCC?' This book says we're here, we have got our act together."

The report, the largest collection of independent research on the topic, doesn't claim perfection.

"This is not the last word on climate change," Mr. Bast said. "It's much more intellectually honest."

Conference speakers said openness to questions is missing in the global-warming debate.

"It's not about discussing facts," said astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon of the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "It's always been a non-engaging debate. It's all about how much money you get from Exxon Mobil."

Environmental activists also attack Heartland for its past ties to Exxon Mobil Corp. Mr. Bast countered that the foundation's emphasis on global warming predated funding from the corporation.

Scientists at the conference disputed the claim that human activity and emissions of carbon dioxide cause catastrophic global warming. Instead, they examine climate change in the context of history and credit natural atmospheric cycles with recent warming.

"Cooling, warming, change in general are natural features of the climate," said Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The mere existence of change tells us nothing beyond this."

Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, criticized the models used by the IPCC for failing to sufficiently take into account natural factors like cloud coverage.

"All you need is to alter cloud coverage by 1 percent, and you've got global warming or global cooling," Mr. Spencer said.

Heartland's third conference took place in Washington to emphasize to legislators what's at stake in the issue of man-made global warming.

"The specter of man-made global warming has been promulgated and has been used [for] stampeding the public in the biggest power grab in all of human history," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, told attendees.

Mr. Bast and his colleagues hope their openness to debate will fuel public involvement.

"Today, you're seeing the transition of an ad-hoc group of scientists turned into a social movement," Mr. Bast said.

Marieke van der Vaart, who lives in Fairfax County, is studying journalism and American history at Hillsdale College.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...sus-on-warming/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think HAL and Steven have probably assumed the fetal position by now. You have truly pwned them both. From this onslaught, they may never recover.

[GaryC 7]

I think HAL and Steven have probably assumed the fetal position by now. You have truly pwned them both. From this onslaught, they may never recover.

My sarcasm meter just pegged. No matter, I still think I am right and I firmly believe that history will show that. Man made GW is a hoax.