Consensus DENIED!

[Nessa]

Here is a collection of links to scientists of varying varieties that are skeptical of global warming. If there IS no debate, as some claim to believe, then how can there exist people who co-exist with colleagues sharing their profession, and take stances contrary to them? I think that's what they call (in scientific circles) a debate.

List of global warming activists, now skeptics | Spero News


.

This list is of Scientist that have" spoken out recently to oppose the perceived alarmism of man-made global warming". They are only questioning the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are four Scientist on this list that think Global warming is not occurring or has ceased. The others are questioning the cause of Global warming.

Even more ridiculous is the existence of a climate scientist like John Christy (PhD, Atmospheric Science), who is ON the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (part of the so-called "consensus", apparently) who is an outspoken critic of popular views of global warming.

John Christy is quoted as saying

"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time

He acknowledges that the majority or consensus of his colleagues disagree with him.

Consensus :majority of opinion

There is lil' or no debate on whether or not global warming is occurring. You've shown four Scientist that dispute the existence of Global warming.

The debate on whether or not it is man-made is another issue. The majority or consensus opinion is that it is man-made. Even your source acknowledges that.

 

[Panda]

No one is arguing whether or not the earth is warming, but there is not a universal consensus that it is warming completely due to man-made causes. Now, it seems to me that man-made CO2 must contribute to SOME degree, but to what degree?

It has been shown that when CO2 levels are highest in the atmosphere global temperatures are higher.

I honestly have NEVER seen any scientific data that shows that man-made CO2 is the cause of global-warming, let alone a major contributor. It seems to be based mostly on the assumption that, before the Industrial Revolution, there was less man-made CO2 and therefore global temperature rise correlates to that. That's not science! Where is the actual data? Exactly HOW MUCH CO2 are we actually releasing in relation to how much is released naturally by organisms, volcanoes, etc.?

Yes this is the big question. How much do we contribute to global warming?
As a note earlier I thought you were trying to deny global warming completely my mistake.

 

[Yerda]

Let's say for a moment in time we can control the earths temperature, where do we set the thermostat?

A rise (above pre-industrial levels) beyond 2 degrees Celsius is perceived as dangerous for the Earth's biological systems. The projected rise of anything up to 5 degrees Celsius would be catastrophic.

By the way, to CONTROL the average global temperature, according to what I've read, hinges on controlling the atmospheric CO2-equivalent. We set a target for emissions that won't raise the CO2 beyond a desired level (in parts per million - roughly 440 in the stuff I've read) and we won't see a raise (beyond the 2 degrees) in temperature. Or so the theory seems to me.

 

[Nessa]

Here is a recent news article that is related to this topic.

An Environmental Protection Agency report released Thursday warns that global warming will increase disease and other health problems nationwide in coming decades.
"Climate change poses real risks to human health," says the EPA's Joel Scheraga. Some of the environmental effects will be irreversible, he says. The report details health impacts ranging from Hantavirus to wildfires to asthma, all increased by climate change.

Feds; Climate change to cause irreversible health risks.

 

[tomspug]

This list is of Scientist that have" spoken out recently to oppose the perceived alarmism of man-made global warming". They are only questioning the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There are four Scientist on this list that think Global warming is not occurring or has ceased. The others are questioning the cause of Global warming.



John Christy is quoted as saying



He acknowledges that the majority or consensus of his colleagues disagree with him.

Consensus :majority of opinion

There is lil' or no debate on whether or not global warming is occurring. You've shown four Scientist that dispute the existence of Global warming.

The debate on whether or not it is man-made is another issue. The majority or consensus opinion is that it is man-made. Even your source acknowledges that.

I like how you say there is little or no debate, even when you admit IN YOUR POST that a debate exists. Talk about disillusionment. I didn't see John Christy use the word 'consensus', did you? "Consensus" in the dictionary may me "majority of opinion" but it is being used by people like Al Gore in such a way as if the definition means "there is little or no debate" and that is a lie.

And, once again, I have never claimed to argue that the earth is not warming (although there are many scientists now arguing that the earth has stopped warming).

 

[Nessa]

This list is of Scientist that have" spoken out recently to oppose the perceived alarmism of man-made global warming". They are only questioning the cause.


I like how you say there is little or no debate, even when you admit IN YOUR POST that a debate exists. Talk about disillusionment. I didn't see John Christy use the word 'consensus', did you? "Consensus" in the dictionary may me "majority of opinion" but it is being used by people like Al Gore in such a way as if the definition means "there is little or no debate" and that is a lie.

And, once again, I have never claimed to argue that the earth is not warming (although there are many scientists now arguing that the earth has stopped warming).

Maybe the difference is your definition of consensus.

Consensus : majority of opinion

Originally Posted by John Christy
"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time

So yes, by definition, John Christy said consensus.

 

[tomspug]

You don't get it.

Consensus does not equal NO DEBATE, but when people use the word consensus rhetorically to imply that debate is either "unnecessary" or even "dangerous", it is THEY that are usually the word incorrectly, not me.

Do you not think that it is wrong to consider skepticism to ever be unnecessary or dangerous? What exactly is wrong with asking for more proof?

 

[Nessa]

You don't get it.

Consensus does not equal NO DEBATE, but when people use the word consensus rhetorically to imply that debate is either "unnecessary" or even "dangerous", it is THEY that are usually the word incorrectly, not me.

Do you not think that it is wrong to consider skepticism to ever be unnecessary or dangerous? What exactly is wrong with asking for more proof?

\
Nothing is wrong with seeking the truth. But you shouldn't assume I don't get it just because we aren't in agreement. Truthfully, we aren't that far apart on what we believe. There is no reason to say, I don't get it.

 

[tomspug]

Sorry, poor choice of words, I'm afraid.

I only meant to say that I understand that the definition of consensus is incorrect, but I was not the one to use it incorrectly. It is the politicians and businessmen that pretend that "consensus" means that we must all be in agreement and engage in no more debate. It is a wonderful rhetoric that suits the greed they tend to possess well.

 

[Storm]

You don't get it.

Consensus does not equal NO DEBATE, but when people use the word consensus rhetorically to imply that debate is either "unnecessary" or even "dangerous", it is THEY that are usually the word incorrectly, not me.

Who has done that, Tom? I think you're reading things into others' statements that they didn't intend.

Do you not think that it is wrong to consider skepticism to ever be unnecessary or dangerous? What exactly is wrong with asking for more proof?

Nothing.

 

[Father Heathen]

So, did anyone watch those Penn & Teller episodes I linked? Pretty neato, huh?

 

[Nessa]

Sorry, poor choice of words, I'm afraid.

I only meant to say that I understand that the definition of consensus is incorrect, but I was not the one to use it incorrectly. It is the politicians and businessmen that pretend that "consensus" means that we must all be in agreement and engage in no more debate. It is a wonderful rhetoric that suits the greed they tend to possess well.

Thanks, we aren't that far apart. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding we may have had.

So, did anyone watch those Penn & Teller episodes I linked? Pretty neato, huh?

I watch Penn and Teller.

 

[tomspug]

...and the one you're probably wanting to see; Enviromental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria

Excellent. Very fun to watch!

 

[Yerda]

So, did anyone watch those Penn & Teller episodes I linked? Pretty neato, huh?

The girl getting people to sign a petition calling for water to be banned is Penn and Teller gold.

 

[Mathematician]

Physicists? Can anything else be more open-ended?

 

[Yerda]

So, in review, a non-peer reviewed paper has been bandied by a small group in a large scientific society as demonstration that the IPCC findings are flawed. It is evidently so convincing that the APS has issued a statement asserting that it does not represent the APS' views.

The myth of the consensus is thoroughly exploded...

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Heh. Of course there is debate. There are complex problems in predicting climate change but the balance of evidence strongly suggests global warming is occurring and that human activity is significantly contributing to it. This is reflected in the fact no scientific body of national or international standing (including the APS) rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. Unsurprisingly the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was for a long time the one and only major scientific organisation to do so. Eventually the AAPG had to change their position on the matter after many members began to leave the organisation in protest and many more threatened to do the same.

I'm sorry if that's a bit of a bummer, Tomsplug.

I'm also sorry that the efforts of PR (aka propaganda) firms have turned whatever sensible debate there could have been into a complete farce. The issue of Climate Change, in particular Global Warming, has been subject to massive PR campaigns to disrupt & misrepresent real Climate Science in the media. One of the basic tactics used is to push controversy as high up the agenda as possible no matter how insignificant, baseless or fallacious it is. Its been very successful.

 

[Troublemane]

Well, just so you know they do have an episode where they do the same thing with the bible and another with creationism.

Penn & Teller on the bible
YouTube - Bible: Fact or Fiction? - Penn and Teller, ********! Pt1
YouTube - Bible: Fact or Fiction? - Penn and Teller, ********! Pt2
YouTube - Bible: Fact or Fiction? - Penn and Teller, ********! Pt3

Penn & Teller on creation
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Creationism 1/3
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Creationism 2/3
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Creationism 3/3

...and the one you're probably wanting to see; Enviromental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria

Love em. P&T rock. Thnx for posting em

 

[rojse]

DailyTech - Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

There is now no doubt that there most certainly is NOT a consensus on global warming (and that there never has been).

I am wondering why you consider a physicist is competent to speak on the field of global warming. Would you also consider climate scientists competent to speak about physics?

 

[Troublemane]

Of course Global Warming may be occurring, what is at issue here is the effect humans have had. Also, theres the fact that (according to the most up to date studies), North America has significantly reduced its carbon emissions over the past decade, while Europe has...well, not gone down. China has increased significantly. So...are we going to convince China to reduce its carbon emissions, or are we going to just sell them our unused carbon credits?

...Hmmmm. Sounds like a money opportunity there. I would bet the plan is to just sell "carbon credits" to those developing nations, to offset their pollution, and make money while doing it. Whatchyall think?