Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[GaryC 7]

One of the things that always amuses me about political partisans like GaryC, when they try to comment on scientific topics, is their obsession with something called "scientific proof".

Scientists do not deal in proof. (Mathematicians do, but pure mathematicians are not scientists.)

We deal with the real, natural world, trying to explain and predict its behavior. We deal in probabilities, trends, and observable phenomena.

Most scientists (I suspect, although I haven't seen a poll on the topic) would agree with the conjecture, "The sun will rise tomorrow morning." We think it is a highly probable event. But maybe it will turn out that our knowledge of solar physics is incomplete and that, between now and then, the sun will go nova and there will be no tomorrow. The weight of scientific opinion indicates that this is unlikely. But we can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Consider gravity. A well-trained scientist, if he stops and thinks before he speaks (just like other people, a lot of us sometimes have issues in this department) will not say something as silly as "I believe in the law of gravity." Belief is a matter of faith or something else, but not science. Now, Newton's so-called law of gravity is a very useful, if limited, scientific generalization that is now seen as a special case in the theory of general relativity. I suspect that GaryC would admit that he believes in gravity. I don't. But it is a very useful scientific theory. And I will not jump out of a window in order to test it. I find that gravity works.

Theories of climate change are certainly more controversial. The science is newer than the science surrounding gravitation. The science inevitably interacts with aspects of how humanity organizes society. The way we organize society is a topic that some people get emotional about.

However, there are more scientists alive today than ever before and many of us are pretty well trained. I suspect that if we could integrate (in the mathematical sense of the word, you know) over the amount of useful scientific effort concerning climate change and gravitation, we would find that there has been more work on climate change. But this is just my opinion. I'm not sure how I would try to turn my conjecture into measurement. It might be a scientifically interesting measurement, though ...

Twenty years ago, there was a lot more controversy in the scientific literature over the direction of climate change. Feedback loops were very poorly understood then. (And there is still a lot of good work to be done on feedback loops.) The idea that increased CO2 will lead to atmospheric warming has not been controversial for a long time. But, with warming, there is more water vapor in the air and so, more clouds. At that time, there was interesting controversy over whether those clouds would reflect so much incoming sunlight that the planet might, in fact cool. This turns out not to be the case.

Theories of orbital mechanics, which seem to explain the ice ages pretty well, given the recent (past several million years) prevailing atmospheric CO2 levels, predict that we would be entering another ice age sometime soon (either now or in the next few thousand years) if the atmosphere were not perturbed. But humanity is perturbing the chemical composition of the atmosphere at a fantastically fast rate and this is leading to the warming that we are observing. The natural trends indicate cooling, the human induced trends bias the planet toward rapid warming.

These general comments *do* represent scientific consensus as represented by research published in the best scientific journals. Scientists are people, and we are ambitious. We strive to solve puzzles, publish those solutions, and gain the associated prestige from the scientific community. This selection pressure has lead to the creation of premier scientific journals. We want our work to be published in the best possible journals, in order to gain the most notice and secure additional prestige. If you want to know what scientists think is interesting and what is settled, go and read the best scientific journals. Nature and Science are the two general pre-eminent scientific journals in the world. (Nature, a British journal, seems to be successfully displaying Science, published by the American Associated for the Advancement of Science as the "best" single scientific journal in the world.) Start there. These journals, in the past few decades, have started to publish very good news and modest popularizations of the most interesting research articles they publish. They do this primarily to help scientists read accross disciplines. (As a physical and inorganic chemist, it is often difficult for me to penetrate molecular biology or elementary particle physics papers. There is a pretty big gap from my training to those topics.) It is easy to find interesting articles on climate change there. The 8 Feb 2007 issue of Nature is an especially good place to start. It may take a bit of an education to read them, but with persistence they are accessible to anyone with a reasonably good education and good command of English. Follow the citations to find other important journals.

As for a medical doctor (and M.D.'s are not trained to practice science but to live off of medical science that others create) who tried to publish results of a survey (and the science of taking and analyzing a survey is rather interesting in its own right, legitimately subject to peer review) in a third rate scientific journal but was rejected even there -- I repeat there appears to be nothing of interest scientifically to discuss here. This person's opinions might attract a certain attention in the general media and especially amongst political partisans. (It clearly attracted GaryC's attention!) They may try to create the appearance of scientific controversy from the inept attempts of this medical doctor, and only the credulous will be seriously distracted.

The theory of global climate change of very substantial and solid. Human processes forcing warming seem to be overwhelming background natural forces that would tend to cause cooling. The rate of change is frightening fast. Confirmation of certain hypotheses comes much more quickly than I would have expected. Perhaps five years ago a landmark paper was published in Nature, predicting that the intensity (but not the number) of tropical cyclones would, on average, increase in a warming world. Subsequently, the fraction of Category 3 and higher tropical cyclones in the Atlantic to all named storms does seem to be increasing abruptly. This is the first year that two Category 5 tropical cyclones have come ashore in the Americas. They did not attract so much attention, coming ashore in poor parts of Mexico and Honduras. I suspect the political reaction might have been rather different if they had come ashore in the United States of America.

The political debate will continue. People like GaryC will weave and bob, trying in unscientific ways to find isolated tidbits to agree with their preconceived political notions. Scientists will continue our work. It is likely that the scientific basis for theories of global warming will only continue to get firmer. And the planet's climate changes will probably continue to accelerate. And the odd comments of untrained people at places like this will continue to amuse me. I do hope, very much, though, that more and more people will demonstrate common sense, accept the scientific consensus for what it is, and demand effective action.

**applauds** excellent post

A post that denies the truth. People seem to forget that all of the global warming predictions are based upon computer models. These models do not qualify for "experiments". They are not using the scientific method of observe and experiment. All they are doing is cherry pick observations and run flawed computer models in place of experiments. All of the studies that have come out in the last few years have pointed to the fact that global warming isn't happening. I notice that no one addressed the other posts with a full page of peer reviewed studies that say exactly the opposite. But I guess the truth deniers will always be with us. Their scientific dogma is firmly set and nothing short of a command by God will change them.

[GaryC 7]

Will our "scientist" comment on any of this? It all flies in the face of the scientific dogma that is Global Warming.

2006 study by Danish researchers from Aarhus University found that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.” (LINK) Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde explained that the study was “the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland’s glaciers, according to an August 21, 2006 article in Agence France-Presse. “Seventy percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880’s,” Yde explained. [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ] Niels Tvis Knudsen of Aarhus University co-authored the paper.

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK)

An October 2005 study in the journal Science found Greenland’s higher elevation interior ice sheet growing while lower elevations ice is thinning.

(link)

A June 6, 2006 peer-reviewed study published in Journal of Geophysical Research concluded: “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.”

(link)

A February 8, 2007 peer-reviewed paper published in Science found the melt rate of two of Greenland’s largest glaciers has “suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate.”

(link)

A July 6, 2007 study published in the journal Science about Greenland by an international team of scientists found DNA “evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the Earth’s last period of global warming,” according to a Boston Globe article.

(link)

This one I really like and is germane to the topic of AlGore

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of University of Virginia and the Virginia State climatologist wrote the scenario promoted by former Vice President Al Gore and others showing Greenland’s ice melting and raising sea levels by 20 feet is not supported anywhere in scientific literature, not even by the United Nations.

(link)

Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists," told a Congressional hearing in 2006 that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.”

(link)

Prominent scientist Professor Nils-Axel Morner, declared "the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen."

(link)

Current climate fears tends to ignore the fact that the Vikings arrived in Greenland around 1000 A.D. and found it to be habitable settlement that they farmed for hundreds of years. A 2003 Harvard University study found (LINK) the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1300 A.D. without modern SUV’s or man-made CO2 emissions. The Vikings abandoned Greenland when the Little Ice Age took hold.

I love this one

Top UN Scientist Explains Why Climate Models Predictions Are Failing

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." (LINK)

A leading scientific skeptic of global warming fears, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, took the critique of climate models that predict future doom a step further. Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007, "I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society." (LINK)

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler,” Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK) The article continued, “[Giegengack] says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct linear way.”

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one of the reasons climate models fail is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2's warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

Global warming stopped in 1998.

Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July 2007:

“In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.”

Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists from believers in man-made global warming to skeptics (LINK) and the new peer-reviewed research is why so many proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to threats and intimidation in attempting to silence skeptics. (See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK )

One final note: To many residents of Greenland, a little warming may not be that bad. A June 7, 2007 Washington Post article detailed how Greenland’s residents were “cheering’ on warming. "I can keep the sheep out two weeks longer to feed in hills in the autumn. And I can grow more hay. The sheep get fatter," said one resident. (LINK)

Some more links:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

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

Ok, I'm going to say this one more time just for sh!ts and giggles.

A man who's built his career around environmental issues should walk the walk where his own home is concerned. Now, he may not be lauded solely for his movie...but OF COURSE it's no great coincidence that he rec'd this award NOW...after his movie's been recognized. But the message that he's sent everyone is how we should live a greener life. But he doesn't do it himself.

He didn't have to 'mention his house' and it certainly is germane to his work. It's not a smear campaign to say 'wait a minute...you say this, but you do that!' He tells everyone in the movie to consider 'telecommunicating' instead of flying, but flies to Oslo in a private jet. That's kinda like being lectured to keep your virginity by the town #######. Kinda dilutes the importance of the message. I mean HOW BAD COULD GW ACTUALLY BE? if he's not heeding his own alarmist doomsday warnings?

I don't hate Al Gore...but he didn't deserve this honor. To stand among the likes of MLK, Nelson Mandella, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, Carl von Ossietzky, et al because he's lecturing the world about global warming? Let alone all the more deserving people who could have been honored this year...people who really LIVED and DIED bringing around peace.

Oh, but we're supposed to be happy cos an American undeservedly won it instead, right?

Uhm has Mr Gore ever been to Oslo on his private jet???????? or could you be falling into even more "get Gore" propoganda (the ceremony in Oslo isn't until December)

......... which if true kinda ........ oh never mind

Officially the nominees apparently aren't released for 50 years, or so I just read, so I have no idea if your comprehensive list were or weren't ..... for whatever reason the panel saw fit, Mr Gore was nominated and jointly won and as I have no intention of dissing the panel I stand by their decision and had I been an American I may have been proud of his achievement .............. and I'm afraid your saying its undeserved, his personal footprint ####### and balances to amend it count for nothing, and any other spurious charges you level actually when balanced against his work over 30 years culminating in that film dont add up

[GaryC 7]

So your founding document on whether there is a "consensus" hasn't been peer reviewed. Does this mean our "scientist" will no longer claim there is a consensus? That is what a good scientist would do. There is much more than I have room to post here. I invite you to put your scientific standards to work here and retract your position that there is a consensus.

Peer Review? What Peer Review?

Failures of scrutiny in the UN's Fourth Assessment Report

INTRODUCTION

The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story.

The comments for Working Group I are the only set of reviewers' comments to be made available to the public, and only then thanks to use of US Freedom of Information laws rather than a willingness on the part of the IPCC to allow people to examine the material. Surely all people should be able to examine the involvement and thinking of their governments and the reviewers from their own countries because it is the people who will most certainly bear the economic and political costs of any resultant actions.

Perhaps the IPCC is simply worried that exposing the reviewers' comments and the responses to those comments to close scrutiny will reveal the delusions of thoroughness and widespread consensus.

REVIEWERS AND COMMENTS

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters.

At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments.

The number of reviewers who made just one comment on a chapter varied between 12.6% and 32% (i.e. almost one-third) of the reviewers commenting on that chapter. For four chapters, fewer than six comments were made by more than 50% of the reviewers who commented. For another four chapters, the figure was between 40% and 50%.

Reviewers' comments come in all forms. Many are simple corrections to spelling and grammar, others point out inconsistencies, some ask for a change of wording, many ask for expressions of less certainty, others suggest extensive references that should be included. A minority requests a change of wording and provides extensive reference material to support their statements.

One response to a reviewer’s comment is worth mention - "Rejected. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is full of errors. There are many more papers in support of the statement than against it." - But this erroneously implies that a consensus of papers determines what will be included, which of course is not very different to claiming a consensus determines a scientific truth.

Many reviewer comments appear to be rejected with little or no justification for doing so. In particular there appears a disturbing pattern of rejecting reviewers' citations of references by claiming that a greater number of papers say otherwise but then referring to just one paper to dispute the comments of other reviewers. Rejecting references to papers that challenge or weaken claims of serious man-made interference with climate serve to create from whole cloth a contrived, false “consensus.”

At other times changes were made, but simply resulted in new wording which imply a certainty or emphasis very similar to the wording that the reviewer complained about.

The reviewers appear to have had varying success at modifying the emphasis of some paragraphs but one must wonder what the report would have been like if the reviewers had not commented at all.

It is polestar clear that the IPCC-appointed chapter editors believed that their say was final in regard to the certainty of statements and that theirs was the only correct interpretation of the cited material. For many reviewers who could provide logical refutations, either with or without specifying references, the entire process was an exercise in frustration.

The notion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback by way of peer review to the editing teams is here demonstrated to be an illusion. The true picture is there were some 64 reviewers for each chapter, of whom half made very few comments. Most comments were minor drafting amendments.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

Almost all governments see climate change as a major political issue, but government reviewers' comments suggest otherwise. These comments were logged as being from the "Govt. of (name)", but the 11 chapters of the Second Revision show that the names of only 22 national governments (plus the European Commission) were recorded.

By contrast, the USA and Australia, both non-signatories to the Kyoto Agreement, made the second-highest and third-highest numbers of comments respectively, eclipsed only by an individual reviewer. Both countries commented on all 11 chapters and show a degree of interest not reflected in the submissions of any other government.

Large regions of the globe made few, if any, comments under government auspices - Eastern Europe, Russia, the South American continent, the Middle-east and a large part of south-east Asia. Not a single comment came from any African country. Likewise, countries which have been vocal in their claims that they will suffer most from sea-level rises, namely the Maldives, Tuvalu and Bangladesh, failed to comment on any chapters of the report.

Denmark administers Greenland, which is supposedly suffering from the widespread recession of glaciers, but no comments were made on behalf of the Danish government.

Switzerland is seeing the recession of glaciers to their mediaeval extents and a receding snow-line, and incidentally is the home of the IPCC, but likewise had no comments.

Government reviewers commented on the Second Revision and on the Final Draft of the Summary for Policymakers. Because the IPCC required the underlying science chapters to conform to the Summary for Policymakers, the publication of those chapters was delayed until after the publication of the Summary for Policymakers. The correct sequence would have been the other way about: settle the science first, and then summarize it.

The governments of 16 countries plus the European Commission reviewed the Second Revision and made 639 comments. The governments of 26 countries plus the European Commission made 931 comments for the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers, even though the document had already been finalized.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...inal_9-5-07.pdf

[HAL 9000 96]

Edited October 14, 2007 by maviwaro

[HAL 9000 96]

Sorry guys... I'll fix the reply post that did not want to completely paste bit by bit.

Edited October 14, 2007 by maviwaro

[HAL 9000 96]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder how this gels with the fact that there is only one major scientific association (only one) that does not accept that climate change is attributable to human activity. Oh yeah... and that one body (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) recently changed its offical position as they discovered that their original position statement was out of whack with their members' attitudes...

The new position statement is rather less 'certain'.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, not possible to fix it at this time. For Gary's benefit I retrieved the actual articles he cited and posted them for all to see how the actual conclusions suggest something quite contrary to what he is stating.

[GaryC 7]

I wonder how this gels with the fact that there is only one major scientific association (only one) that does not accept that climate change is attributable to human activity. Oh yeah... and that one body (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) recently changed its offical position as they discovered that their original position statement was out of whack with their members' attitudes...

The new position statement is rather less 'certain'.

What does it matter what association supports something? Individual scientists that are independent of the political pressures have come to different conclusions. If you bother to read what I posted there are many scientists within the associations that disagree with what the position of their associations are. Global Warming isn't a scientific problem, it's a political one. Your reaction is typical, accept what supports your dogma and ignore what doesn't. The truth deniers not going down without a fight.

I ask you to please read my last few posts and give me your opinion. It seems that no one else wants to take it on. From what I see the consensus never existed in the first place or at best it was a political consensus rather than a scientific one.

Edited October 14, 2007 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder how this gels with the fact that there is only one major scientific association (only one) that does not accept that climate change is attributable to human activity. Oh yeah... and that one body (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) recently changed its offical position as they discovered that their original position statement was out of whack with their members' attitudes...

The new position statement is rather less 'certain'.

What does it matter what association supports something? Individual scientists that are independent of the political pressures have come to different conclusions. If you bother to read what I posted there are many scientists within the associations that disagree with what the position of their associations are. Global Warming isn't a scientific problem, it's a political one. Your reaction is typical, accept what supports your dogma and ignore what doesn't. The truth deniers not going down without a fight.

I ask you to please read my last few posts and give me your opinion. It seems that no one else wants to take it on. From what I see the consensus never existed in the first place or at best it was a political consensus rather than a scientific one.

1) Those associations represent tens of thousands of scientists the world over.

2) As is yours - you're the one who posts things like that article about the Schulte survey, making explicit statements of "definitive proof" while not asking the most elementary questions about that survey, or indeed the original one by Oreskes. The original researcher was at least honest enough to admit her limitations - you don't seem to even want to consider potential criticisms that undermine your already pre-conceived position.

Do us all a favour and stop pretending to be impartial - on this issue, as with all the articles you post rubbishing the Democratic party you are anything but.

[Fandango 1,440]

Ok, I'm going to say this one more time just for sh!ts and giggles.

A man who's built his career around environmental issues should walk the walk where his own home is concerned. Now, he may not be lauded solely for his movie...but OF COURSE it's no great coincidence that he rec'd this award NOW...after his movie's been recognized. But the message that he's sent everyone is how we should live a greener life. But he doesn't do it himself.

He didn't have to 'mention his house' and it certainly is germane to his work. It's not a smear campaign to say 'wait a minute...you say this, but you do that!' He tells everyone in the movie to consider 'telecommunicating' instead of flying, but flies to Oslo in a private jet. That's kinda like being lectured to keep your virginity by the town #######. Kinda dilutes the importance of the message. I mean HOW BAD COULD GW ACTUALLY BE? if he's not heeding his own alarmist doomsday warnings?

I don't hate Al Gore...but he didn't deserve this honor. To stand among the likes of MLK, Nelson Mandella, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, Carl von Ossietzky, et al because he's lecturing the world about global warming? Let alone all the more deserving people who could have been honored this year...people who really LIVED and DIED bringing around peace.

Oh, but we're supposed to be happy cos an American undeservedly won it instead, right?

Uhm has Mr Gore ever been to Oslo on his private jet???????? or could you be falling into even more "get Gore" propoganda (the ceremony in Oslo isn't until December)

......... which if true kinda ........ oh never mind

Officially the nominees apparently aren't released for 50 years, or so I just read, so I have no idea if your comprehensive list were or weren't ..... for whatever reason the panel saw fit, Mr Gore was nominated and jointly won and as I have no intention of dissing the panel I stand by their decision and had I been an American I may have been proud of his achievement .............. and I'm afraid your saying its undeserved, his personal footprint ####### and balances to amend it count for nothing, and any other spurious charges you level actually when balanced against his work over 30 years culminating in that film dont add up

Sorry, I meant that to was 'but WILL fly...' cos that's what I think he'll do.

Here's the deal:

In its formal citation, the Nobel committee called Mr. Gore “probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.”

measures that need to be adopted by everyone but him?

You've made yourself clear, I have as well....we can do this all day if you really want to

[no name 1]

I wonder how this gels with the fact that there is only one major scientific association (only one) that does not accept that climate change is attributable to human activity. Oh yeah... and that one body (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) recently changed its offical position as they discovered that their original position statement was out of whack with their members' attitudes...

The new position statement is rather less 'certain'.

What does it matter what association supports something? Individual scientists that are independent of the political pressures have come to different conclusions. If you bother to read what I posted there are many scientists within the associations that disagree with what the position of their associations are. Global Warming isn't a scientific problem, it's a political one. Your reaction is typical, accept what supports your dogma and ignore what doesn't. The truth deniers not going down without a fight.

I ask you to please read my last few posts and give me your opinion. It seems that no one else wants to take it on. From what I see the consensus never existed in the first place or at best it was a political consensus rather than a scientific one.

1) Those associations represent tens of thousands of scientists the world over.

2) As is yours - you're the one who posts things like that article about the Schulte survey, making explicit statements of "definitive proof" while not asking the most elementary questions about that survey, or indeed the original one by Oreskes. The original researcher was at least honest enough to admit her limitations - you don't seem to even want to consider potential criticisms that undermine your already pre-conceived position.

Do us all a favour and stop pretending to be impartial - on this issue, as with all the articles you post rubbishing the Democratic party you are anything but.

*applause*

[GaryC 7]

I wonder how this gels with the fact that there is only one major scientific association (only one) that does not accept that climate change is attributable to human activity. Oh yeah... and that one body (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) recently changed its offical position as they discovered that their original position statement was out of whack with their members' attitudes...

The new position statement is rather less 'certain'.

What does it matter what association supports something? Individual scientists that are independent of the political pressures have come to different conclusions. If you bother to read what I posted there are many scientists within the associations that disagree with what the position of their associations are. Global Warming isn't a scientific problem, it's a political one. Your reaction is typical, accept what supports your dogma and ignore what doesn't. The truth deniers not going down without a fight.

I ask you to please read my last few posts and give me your opinion. It seems that no one else wants to take it on. From what I see the consensus never existed in the first place or at best it was a political consensus rather than a scientific one.

1) Those associations represent tens of thousands of scientists the world over.

2) As is yours - you're the one who posts things like that article about the Schulte survey, making explicit statements of "definitive proof" while not asking the most elementary questions about that survey, or indeed the original one by Oreskes. The original researcher was at least honest enough to admit her limitations - you don't seem to even want to consider potential criticisms that undermine your already pre-conceived position.

Do us all a favour and stop pretending to be impartial - on this issue, as with all the articles you post rubbishing the Democratic party you are anything but.

1. And of those tens of thousands of scientists there are people that do not agree with the "consensus" but they are silenced. But that is ignored in favor if the political consensus.

2. As if your being impartial. I post something and you object to the methods of how they come up with the opinion. So I post something that does fit within your set of rules and they are ignored and instead I get an attack. I didn't mention the democrat party here, you did. I was posting "peer reviewed studies" that contradict your precious consensus. So do us all a favor and play by the rules that you set and not sink to the level of attacks when I try to do the same.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder how this gels with the fact that there is only one major scientific association (only one) that does not accept that climate change is attributable to human activity. Oh yeah... and that one body (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists) recently changed its offical position as they discovered that their original position statement was out of whack with their members' attitudes...

The new position statement is rather less 'certain'.

What does it matter what association supports something? Individual scientists that are independent of the political pressures have come to different conclusions. If you bother to read what I posted there are many scientists within the associations that disagree with what the position of their associations are. Global Warming isn't a scientific problem, it's a political one. Your reaction is typical, accept what supports your dogma and ignore what doesn't. The truth deniers not going down without a fight.

I ask you to please read my last few posts and give me your opinion. It seems that no one else wants to take it on. From what I see the consensus never existed in the first place or at best it was a political consensus rather than a scientific one.

1) Those associations represent tens of thousands of scientists the world over.

2) As is yours - you're the one who posts things like that article about the Schulte survey, making explicit statements of "definitive proof" while not asking the most elementary questions about that survey, or indeed the original one by Oreskes. The original researcher was at least honest enough to admit her limitations - you don't seem to even want to consider potential criticisms that undermine your already pre-conceived position.

Do us all a favour and stop pretending to be impartial - on this issue, as with all the articles you post rubbishing the Democratic party you are anything but.

1. And of those tens of thousands of scientists there are people that do not agree with the "consensus" but they are silenced. But that is ignored in favor if the political consensus.

2. As if your being impartial. I post something and you object to the methods of how they come up with the opinion. So I post something that does fit within your set of rules and they are ignored and instead I get an attack. I didn't mention the democrat party here, you did. I was posting "peer reviewed studies" that contradict your precious consensus. So do us all a favor and play by the rules that you set and not sink to the level of attacks when I try to do the same.

Sure there are dissenters - I'm not denying anything here, merely pointing out that for many large scientific bodies to adopt a specific position on this issue, and for it not to represent the views of at least a large number (dare I say majority) of their members is rather bizarre IMO.

I also never said I was impartial - the real truth is I have a very limited understanding of climate science, and I wonder honestly how you can say any different. The questions I asked about that Schulte study are not exactly unreasonable - given that the original researcher identified a number of methodological problems in her work that caused her major critic to revise his original conclusions somewhat. Asking whether or not an apparently similar qualitative follow-up study took that into account isn't unreasonable, though perhaps beyond your capability to answer (and indeed, mine).