[Vision2020] Exploring Global Warming: Scientific Consensus?

[lfalen]

Ted
I normally do not respond to dares ar challenges.  I never accepted any when I was a kid and wont now. I listed several respected scientists that did not agree with the prevailing dogma. I will list mors as I have the time. I am not committed to either scenario.however I think that there are plenty of holes in Al Gore's "The inconvenient Truth." I just read some place that he even admitted that he had exaggerated the case, but that was ok in order to get people to listen. I would prefer to listen to what scientists have to say, not Al Gore. Also it is worth checking where their funding source is. On one side it may be the government or a a group with a left wing agenda. On the other it may be a company with a financial stake. I think that this is relevant. 
In any case in large cities (not here) there is a problem with air pollution that should be addressed within the realm of what is economically feasible. Our current sources of energy such as oil are finite. It only makes sence to look for renewable sources. Again  within the context of what is economically feasible and with out overwhelming regulation.
I think that you are a little outside in your prospective, but  I applaud your concern none the less. I am going to retire on july i, after that I may have more time to devote to these discussions. Thanks for your commentaries I enjoy reading them. They are thought provoking.

Roger


-----Original message-----

From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:38:22 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Exploring Global Warming: Scientific Consensus?

> Roger et. al.
> 
> I have a challenge for you on global warming and human impacts regarding
> peer reviewed articles that appear in respected scientific journals authored
> by climate scientists.  I have given this challenge to a Environmental
> Science teacher I know to discover what they will find.
> 
> Provide one reference to an article meeting the conditions I just mentioned
> that will claim that if CO2 from human outputs (or even other natural
> sources) induce a level of 500 ppm, there will not be major climate change,
> without other significant variables that can counteract the impacts of 500
> ppm atmospheric CO2 levels.
> 
> Perhaps the increasing CO2 in our atmosphere is not due to human output of
> this gas, given that the data is incontrovertible that CO2 has increased
> from about 280 ppm at pre-industrial levels, now reaching 380 ppm?
> What caused this CO2 increase, if it is not human activity?
> 
> Do you think that the CO2 atmospheric outputs that are increasing in
> absolute amounts every year due to human impacts will not eventually result
> in CO2 levels of 500 ppm, unless our outputs are addressed?  Perhaps the
> extra CO2 will be absorbed from the atmosphere, which does occur naturally?
> Can these natural processes of CO2 absorption keep up with human CO2
> outputs?
> 
> Or perhaps other variable(s) that can offset the warming impacts of
> significant atmospheric CO2 increases will intervene.
> 
> That increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will warm the climate has a solid
> theoretical and empirical basis in climate science.
> 
> Of course you can find scientists who will question the scientific evidence
> for human induced global warming.  Science always has debates and
> disagreements.  It does not function as a dictatorship.  These debates do
> not nullify the importance or reasonable probability of the truth of the
> conclusions of hundreds of scientists around the world who warn that human
> induced global warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> 928 abstracts on climate science related subjects are mentioned in the
> Science magazine article below, with not one claiming that human induced
> global warming is not occurring, and the conclusions of numerous respected
> scientific organizations are also presented that insist the evidence for
> human induced global warming is solid.  To claim that "Global warming is
> occurring, the cause is unclear" is to ignore this huge body of scientific
> study from hundreds of scientists:
> 
>  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
> 
> *BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:*
> *
> The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
> 
> Naomi Oreskes**<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#affiliation>
> *
> P*olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
> assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
> argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
> administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
> review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
> change" (1 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref1>).
> Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on
> carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the
> science (2 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref2>).
> Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the
> scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This
> is not the case.
> 
> The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
> World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
> Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
> basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
> and published scientific literature
> (3<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref3>
> ). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the
> consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by
> human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of
> atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ...
> [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been
> due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in
> (4<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref4>
> )].
> 
> IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
> bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
> matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
> Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,
> begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
> of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
> temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in
> (5<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5>
> )]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
> of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
> that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
> been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
> reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p.
> 3 in (5 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5>)].
> 
> Others agree. The American Meteorological Society
> (6<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref6>
> ), the American Geophysical Union
> (7<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref7>
> ), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
> have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for
> human modification of climate is compelling
> (8<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref8>
> ).
> 
> The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for
> comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
> diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
> they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
> tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
> between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
> "climate change" (9<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref9>
> ).
> 
> The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
> consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
> paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
> papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
> implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
> paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
> Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
> 
> Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
> paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
> However, none of these papers argued that point.
> 
> This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
> literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
> statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists,
> journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement,
> or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
> 
> The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
> science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
> failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame
> us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
> change and failed to do anything about it.
> 
> Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
> are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
> understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
> change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
> reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
> tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
> 
> *References and Notes*
> 
> 1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
> 
> 2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
> Policy *2*(1), 3 (2003).
> 
> 3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
> 
> 4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
> and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
> 
> 5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
> Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy
> Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
> 
> 6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. *84*, 508
> (2003).
> 
> 7. American Geophysical Union, Eos *84 *(51), 574 (2003).
> 
> 8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
> 
> 9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
> was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although
> the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not
> about climate change.
> 
> 10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
> "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
> AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of
> Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
> assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming,
> M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
> 
> 10.1126/science.1103618
> 
> 
> On 3/16/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > It is interesting that the left has to resort to  name calling and
> > belittling people that they disagree with. Childish, global Warming Denyers.
> > Not that some on the right are any better, Re" Michael Savage "Liberalism is
> > a Mental Disorder".
> > I would make some comments on the letter that you posted.
> > Global Warming- There are several scientists who disagree with the view
> > that man is the cause of global warming.
> > Habibllo Abdussamattov, Head of Space Reasearch at St Petersburg's Pulkovo
> > Astronomical Observatory in Russia; Timothy Bell, former professor at the
> > University of Winnipeg in Canada; Richard Linzen professor of Atmospheric
> > Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Nigel Calder, former
> > editor of New Scientist. Bell and Lindzen have lost funding because of there
> > views. Calder said " Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling
> > any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the
> > present system"  Dr. Hansen receives a lot of federal funding for his
> > research. Global warming is occurring, the cause in unclear. Anyone who
> > wants to be objective should present Channel 4's "The Global Warming
> > Swindle" along with Al Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth"
> >
> > Weapons of mass destruction- I am not a big fan of Bush and no weapons of
> > mass destruction were found. But that does not mean that there hadn't been
> > amy there. Just what do you think think Hussein used on the Kurds.
> >
> > Creationist- I do not agree with fundamentalists on evolution, but I would
> > not call them childish.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> 
>