Global Warming: The New Religion

[Civettone]

Wow, Plan_D, you're on a roll today. First identifying a tank with an American star on it as a British Valentine now this outdated stuff.

First, about the article I posted. That was unrelated to my post about IPCC. I hadn't seen Chris' post when I posted mine. The one after that is a reply to that one. It is about the latest IPCC report. Your post is partially about the previous ones, like the one from 2001 (sic).
Also those 17,000 scientists signed their petition back in 1998. Even then it was already a laughing matter in the scientific world. Media Matters - 700 Club anchor touted global warming skeptics' petition reportedly signed by non-scientists, fictitious characters Hundreds of those so called scientists were either fictitious characters or were not at all related to the environment or climate study.
Back in 1998 there was no scientific consensus. Now there is. And like I already said you'll find hundreds of scientists who will disagree. The vast majority (and this is what I claim to be a consensus though I can understand if you don't, in any case you know what I mean) believes that there is indeed Global Warming and that it is hurting our planet and its ecosystem.

And a last thing, there's no point in arguing about temperatures in past centuries as these are results of natural changes. Of course there have been warmer and colder periods in the past. Does that automatically mean this one is also natural? And if it was warmer in Greenland around 1000 AD, was it also warmer in Africa? Was it a global warming?? There are no records of this. Even today there are some places on earth where it is colder than before. This is a normal side result of raised global temperatures and of a disturbed climate system. Even Western Europe had a cooler summer than other years yet no one will doubt that the average temperature in W Eur is raising.

Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years. Copyright Robert A. Rohde

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. There are a relative few individual scientists who disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC. Most of the dissenting scientists do not work in the field of climate science.
Kris

edit: It could well have been an Allied star and thus a Valentine tank

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And neither are you. Therefore you statement that GW is real PERIOD (you came to the conclusion that it is a PERIOD) is not worth anything either.See my point. You choose to believe one side of the story. I choose to believe the either. Until something is proven 100 percent all either of us have is personal opinion. Since both sides (scientists) have evidence, technically all they have is personal opinion.

You missed my point. I'm not a scientist as such my personal opinion - which is the same as yours - isn't worth anything. That's why we have to hear what the scientists say. The vast majority of scientists say there's GW. At least enough for the scientific world to speak of a consensus - you always have some people who are against it, that's always like that.

But the way you represent it is as if there's no consensus and each side is equal. It's not like that. Used to be. If non-scientists still want to disbelieve in GW it's because of non-scientific reasons.

Kris

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Matt308

For got a section

"The Stern Review was criticised by economists on various technical grounds, and Ruth's report does not offer any total costs to the U.S. economy because the methodology for calculating that does not yet exist. Climate science is well-established, but the economics of climate change impacts is still in its infancy, he said.

"We're not ready to assess the large-scale aggregate economic impacts of climate change," Ruth said.
"

And then YOU forget the part immediately after that.

However, while a great deal of work needs to be done to build robust economic models, it is crystal clear from this report, the Stern Review and a number of others that waiting to act will cost a great deal more than the costs of taking immediate action.

"There is a strong need for action across all sectors," he said.

A national policy for immediate action to mitigate emissions, along with efforts to adapt to unavoidable impacts, would minimise the overall costs. The energy sector not only has to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, but also needs to be decentralised to make it more efficient and to buffer it from severe weather events, the report says. Other recommendations include simple market mechanisms such as pricing of water or dropping the tax exemption on fertiliser to get immediate environmental benefits.

Despite pressure from nearly every other industrialised country in the world, including key European allies, the George W. Bush administration has rejected any mandatory emissions caps as too costly to the U.S. economy.

Besides, this article isn't about the Stern Report. It is mentioned but in fact, it's about Matthias Ruth, director of the University of Maryland's Centre for Integrative Environmental Research.

Kris

[Civettone]

The Politics of Global Warming

By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, February 10, 2007


Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.”
Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol “is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

Like I said, you'll find plenty of individual scientists who don't believe GW. And you can quote them as much as you want, there's still a scientific consensus.

You can always believe what you want to believe. That doesn't make it equally true however.

edit: Oh, it gets better after some googling.
In fact, Ball isn’t a climatologist; his Ph.D is in geography, according to Tim Lambert. And although he claims to be “the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology,” Lambert points out that when Ball received his Ph.D, “Canada already had PhDs in climatology,” and proceeds to list several.

And Ball apparently hasn’t published much if anything on climatology. “During much of the 28 years cited,” Lambert writes, “he was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters.”

Further, Ball once stated that “CFC’s were never a problem…. it’s only because the sun is changing,” he was an “adviser” to an oil-industry-funded group called “Friends of Science,” and he once write an editorial called “Warmer is better” about how global warming could be good for Canada.

Just so we know who we’re dealing with.

Hall essentially accuses the thousands of scientists who do believe that humans are at least partly responsible for global warming of having no evidence to support this — despite the hundreds of papers and studies on the subject. I.e., Simply closing your eyes and saying, “I don’t see that evidence!!!” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Further, Ball offers none of his own. He cites no papers rebutting the majority view, and in fact doesn’t substantiate his argument in any way, other than to imply that, “I’m a climatologist, so I know what I’m talking about.” The entire editorial is, really, just a long whine.

Oh, and Ball was a professor for ten years which isn't the same as having taught for 28 years: he was an Acting Dean of Students, and an instructor/lecturer. Deerwood South Tobacco Creek

Kris

[plan_D]

I have to laugh - "there's still a scientific consensus"

There was a scientific consensus that the world was flat. There was a scientific consensus that illness was caused by too much of one of the four humours. There was a scientific consensus that when going over a certain speed you wouldn't be able to breath.

As the scientist, Ball, clearly stated consensus doesn't make fact. Where's the counter to that man's argument?

[Matt308]

Your right Chris. Science is based upon postulated theories. Not abolute truths. For science's theories are continually evolving on micro and macro levels. Even Galileo's findings have been modified over time.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Like I said, you'll find plenty of individual scientists who don't believe GW. And you can quote them as much as you want, there's still a scientific consensus.



Kris

As chairman of the IPCC, Watson was responsible for propagating the myth that only 1 or 2 percent of scientists did not believe humans were responsible for global warming. Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz.

As chairman of the IPCC, Watson was responsible for propagating the myth that only 1 or 2 percent of scientists did not believe humans were responsible for global warming. Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I have to laugh - "there's still a scientific consensus"

There was a scientific consensus that the world was flat.

No, there wasn't. It's a myth that (educated) people used to think the Earth was flat. Just look at this:

There was a scientific consensus that illness was caused by too much of one of the four humours. There was a scientific consensus that when going over a certain speed you wouldn't be able to breath.

Interesting. Not only are you claiming there was ever a consensus about that. Would like to see you prove that.

As the scientist, Ball, clearly stated consensus doesn't make fact. Where's the counter to that man's argument?

What are his arguments? What are his scientific claims? Where's his research?? Try finding that for me, and we'll talk about it...

Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz.

Matt, you should really read my post. I already clarified the hoax of the 17,000 scientists. Not only was it almost ten years ago, hundreds of them were fictitious characters or scientists in another field. What makes it more interesting is that you mentioned the NAS because I also remember the NAS claiming a few days later that they did not support the petition.

Science is based upon postulated theories. Not abolute truths.

Scientifically there's no such thing as 'the truth'. Does that mean we cannot believe anything for certain? 1 + 1 is not equal to 2.
I think we can acknowledge this but then move on and start crediting science. Or else we can just as well start taking on creationism again
Kris

[Matt308]

Is human activity the cause of climate warming?

In the first paragraph of his article Global Warming: Its Happening, Trenberth (1) appears to state that global warming is occurring as a result of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration resulting from such human activities as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. However, on close examination it will be seen that he has carefully avoided making this specific claim. Moreover the impression given is misleading, for as he later acknowledges:

It is one thing to identify changes in climate that deviate from past patterns. But it is much more difficult to demonstrate that such changes are the result of human activity… As a result [of the smallness of human-induced effects and natural climate variability], any anthropogenic signal in the climate record is hard to detect. (Comment in square brackets added by author.)

Nevertheless, Trenberth accepts the conclusion of the 1995 Scientific Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC95) (2); namely, that: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," and by implication, the conclusion that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are a significant contributor to global warming. However, this was not the view of all scientists who contributed to the draft material used in preparing IPCC95, and it is not the view held today by all scientists in the field. For example, in May 1997, Klaus Hasselmann (3) of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, wrote in Science magazine:

...the inherent statistical uncertainties in the detection of anthropogenic climate change can be expected to subside only gradually in the next few years while the predicted signal is still slowly emerging from the natural climate variability noise [i.e., the predicted signal has not yet emerged].

And in the same month, Richard A. Kerr (4), in a commentary for Science, reported that:

...many climate experts caution that it is not at all clear yet that human activities have begun to warm the planet--or how bad greenhouse warming will be when it arrives.

Such doubts were recognized by those responsible for the drafting of IPCC95. Thus Benjamin D. Santer (4), Convening Lead Author of Section 8 of IPCC95 is quoted by Richard Kerr (4) to have said:

...quite clearly few scientists would say the attribution issue [that warming is due to human-activity-induced greenhouse] is a done deal.

And John Houghton, Leading Editor of IPCC95 as well as the earlier reports IPCC90 and IPCC92, told me as recently as July 8, 1996 (personal communication):

No one to my knowledge who is informed is claiming certainty of detection or attribution [of anthropogenic influence on global climate]; certainly the IPCC is not...

From a letter in Nature by John T. Houghton (5) we also know that the statement that "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate," was adopted at the plenary session of the IPCC in Madrid in November 1995, which meeting, he says, constituted "the final part of the very comprehensive and thorough IPCC process of peer review." The 177 delegates to this plenary (from 96 countries and including representatives from 14 NGOs and 28 IPCC lead authors) subjected the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) to line-by-line approval and "accepted" the background scientific chapters [i.e., they satisfied themselves that these chapters present a "comprehensive, objective and balanced view" of the science].

However, acceptance of these chapters by the plenary was "subject to revision by the lead authors to take into account the guidance provided by the plenary meeting and in particular the need for overall consistency" [i.e., to make the chapters consistent with the SPM]. In particular, as Houghton (5), Santer (6) and others have made clear, the IPCC procedures required the scientific chapters to be made consistent with the SPM, rather than vice versa.

In fulfilling the Herculean task of revising Chapter 8, Convening Lead Author Benjamin Santer deleted several sections that were inconsistent with the SPM including this:

Finally we have come to the most difficult question of all: "When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?" In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in the Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, "We do not know."

In attempting to reconcile such diverging views with the SPM, the best wording that Santer and his collaborators could devise was that:

The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate.

Defending this formula in a letter to the Wall Street Journal (6), Santer argued that this is the same "bottomline" conclusion as that of the 9 October 1995 draft version of Chapter 8.

From the record, however, it is clear that this controversial conclusion was dictated by the Madrid plenary over the objection of some scientific contributors to the draft documents, and goes beyond what any leading atmospheric scientist has yet been willing to defend before the scientific community.

Conclusion: In considering the question of human activity and climate change it is essential to distinguish between global warming, which is a progressive increase in the annual mean global temperature, and human-activity-induced greenhouse warming, as may, for example, be caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a result of fossil fuel combustion or deforestation.

Almost no meteorologist denies that the mean global temperature has increased by about 0.5° C over the century and a half for which we have enough observational data to estimate a global mean. Nevertheless, it remains true today, as it was concluded in the 1990 IPCC report (Reference 7, page 254), that:

...it is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to (an) enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

But the way you represent it is as if there's no consensus and each side is equal. It's not like that. Used to be. If non-scientists still want to disbelieve in GW it's because of non-scientific reasons.

Kris

No I did not represent it in any way other than my opinion. Which is why I stated it as "my personal opinion".

I know there are plenty of scientists that believe in GW. There are also plenty that dont.

My point is that until either side can seriously prove it then it is nothing but theory and speculation. There is no PERIOD, and unless someone is a scientist then they have nothing more than opinion.

[Njaco]

I place all my trust, blindly, with scientists, especially those from South Korea.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Njaco

I place all my trust, blindly, with scientists, especially those from South Korea.

You must be going with the consensus...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Wow, Plan_D, you're on a roll today. First identifying a tank with an American star on it as a British Valentine

You seem to be catching up with him...
...alteast he thought before he spoke.

Consensus says its a Valentine Tank.

[renrich]

As far as I am concerned, I believe that most of the supporters of the THEORY that GW is largely caused by human activity, are leftists. That is plenty of evidence for me that they are wrong and their theories shold be rejected.

[Matt308]

It boils down to a question of how much is enough. And the current response is more, more, more.

Again. If we are in such dire straits, then the right thing for all those anthropogenic GW supporting countries to do is press on without those who don't support it. But that aint gonna happen.