"Smoking gun" proves global warming exists?

[pdx_craig]

@xtisme

Should be easy then to provide me with a cite that there is a majority consensus among scientists of various fields that this is taking place and that humans are the cause. That is, if you have spoken to a representative sampling of scientists in the various effected fields when you talk about it in the above quote. I’m just skeptical by nature so I need at least something thats not anecdotal. So that you don’t think I’m loading the deck here, I’ll accept a similar consensus as the majority of scientists in various fields have reguarding Evolution…and dismiss similar disention that some fringe scientists have reguarding Evolution or put forth in reguards to ID or similar creation type ‘science’.

I acknowledge that what I said was anecdotal. I will also acknowledge that it is slightly off topic so I’ve been a little half-hearted about pursuing it. I’m relating my opinion on the precise way that the OP is phrasing the debate.

I wouldn’t hold that global warming is of the same standing as evolutionary theory, but neither can it be dismissed. My point is that it’s hard to have an absolute proof either way, but the evidence has been growing consistently for man made global warming. Now from the scientific standpoint, it would be nice to wait over the next few hundred years and collect more data and observe the effect of humans on the environment, but from the public policy perspective, we have to make a decision now. This is not strictly a scientific decision, it’s a risk assessment.

@xtisme

If this is directed at me, I’m not ‘demanding absolute proof’…I’ll be quite content with my request for a cite that the majority consensus is what you are saying and that there is no serious (and qualified) opposition to this point of view from the scientific community.

Actually I’m referring to the OP which asks if we have the smoking gun(absolute proof). But to further elucidate my opinion, I wouldn’t say that there is no credible opposition, albeit I’ve never read anything that suggested that this opposition wasn’t in the minority. Rather that the earth’s climate is so complex that one can always point to gaps in our knowledge. However, I think man made global warming can be described as a risk that is worth realistically assessing.

@xtisme

Personally, at this point, I think that there IS no such consensus, and that doing anything would be going off half cocked without sufficient data to ensure that what we were doing is A) Helpful at all, B) Worth whatever sacrifices are called for, C) Wouldn’t make matters worse instead of better…law of unintended consequences and all that.

I understand this opinion, and I think this is where the real debate lies nowadays(i.e. what actions should we take?). So when do you anticipate this consensus? Will it be 50 years from now?

Personally, I view taking action now as insurance. You don’t buy it because you know for certain that you will use it but because you realize you might need it. Therefore I’m willing to pay an economic price for policies directed at preventing global warming. I also think there are some policies that make sense on a number of levels such as requiring (or otherwise encouraging) high efficiency vehicles. This reduces smog and conserves resources and I’m hard pressed to imagine how it could make things worse.

[kanicbird]

I think the question is not if the earth’s climate is changing, it is if we humans have anything to do with it and if we can do anything to stop it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

Perhaps you are an expert on the climate Hentor, or perhaps you play one on TV…

I am not an expert on the climate, and I have made no representation that I am. However, you on the other hand…

I make no such claims.

In actuality, a proclamation that there is not sufficient evidence is essentially a claim of expertise. One would need to have some understanding of what the criterion level for sufficient evidence would be to determine whether it has been met or not. You made such a claim, but apparently have no basis for making it. It probably just felt good at the time.

[SentientMeat]

The International Panel on Climate Change is a highly interdisciplinary summary of all the research in the world. It is absurd to consider it as “just one piece”. In many ways it is the jigsaw, it is the “majority consensus” that anthropogenic forcing is responsible for the vast increases in greenhouse gases within the geological eyeblink comprising the industrial revolution.

Now you may continue to believe that this is completely unrelated to the evident warming, but the question is surely not “What if they’re not related?” but “What if they are?”

[UncleBeer]

I think the question is not if the earth’s climate is changing, it is if we humans have anything to do with it and if we can do anything to stop it.

There’s a question you’ve neglected to ask which must be decided before we get to that last one. Namely, Do we want, or need, to do anything to stop it*?

[SentientMeat]

@UncleBeer

Do we want, or need, to do anything to stop it*?

I guess it depends how perverse we are in what we find desirable.

The lower the threshold we decide not to cross, the more expensive it will be. A threshold of, say, 700ppm would be pretty cheap. It might well also cause a mass extinction.

Your call, say our grandchildren to us.

[Ximenean]

@BrainGlutton

[…] For instance, Western Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream, which is driven by a temperature differential itself based on a salinity differential between the waters of the North Atlantic and the Middle Atlantic. If global warming led to melting ice in the North Atlantic, and that changed the salinity of the water significantly, that might put an end to the Gulf Stream or redirect it – and Western Europe would grow as cold as Labrador. (Bear in mind that Rome is at roughly the same latitude as New York City; it’s only the Gulf Stream that makes it warmer.)

Is there not some doubt over how much the Gulf Stream contributes to northern Europe’s mild climate? This study, if I understand it correctly, suggests that prevailing south-westerly winds due to the presence of the Rockie mountains may be the main cause.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@SentientMeat

Your call, say our grandchildren to us.

Oh! Think about the children! How cliche.

[XT]

@Hentor the Barbarian

In actuality, a proclamation that there is not sufficient evidence is essentially a claim of expertise.

Its obvious that the irony of making this statement is lost on you. Let me just point out that the converse also holds true…that stating that there IS enough data (without providing the cite I requested btw that there is a general consensus in the various scientific disiplines that this is the case) is also a ‘claim of expertise’.

@Hentor the Barbarian

You made such a claim, but apparently have no basis for making it.

Er, no. I ASKED for a cite…thats not exactly the same thing. I said that in my own opinion based on what I remembered from several years ago, that the general consensus was that there wasn’t enough data to base predictions to the level asked for in the OP (i.e. ‘Does this settle the question once and for all?’). I conceeded that this may not be the case anymore (though from this thread I see no indications I was wrong) and requested some additional information.

If you want to ASK me for a cite, I’m sure I can dig up some scientists out there who will say ‘there isn’t yet sufficient data’, or some statement reasonably close to that. As you haven’t asked me for a cite though, nor has anyone bothered to deliver the one I requested, I think you are simply trying to blow smoke.

@Hentor the Barbarian

It probably just felt good at the time.

Probably not as good as the load of BS you dropped with your own post…but yeah, it felt pretty good.

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

Its obvious that the irony of making this statement is lost on you. Let me just point out that the converse also holds true…that stating that there IS enough data (without providing the cite I requested btw that there is a general consensus in the various scientific disiplines that this is the case) is also a ‘claim of expertise’.

It would be ironic if my argument had been “No, you’re wrong. There is enough evidence.” I simply asked you to defend your assertion that we don’t have enough evidence. I happen to believe that there is enough evidence, but that is not the point. (I defer, by the way, to the opinion of experts that this is the case). SentientMeat and others have posted links; there is also the report from the National Academy of Sciences, summarized here. I think the experts are united in affirming the presence of global warming.

Er, no. I ASKED for a cite…thats not exactly the same thing.

Nowhere in your first post, here, to which I responded, did you ask for a cite. What you did do was make a claim about the insufficient nature of the data without any support whatsoever. If you are conceding that was the wrong thing to do, or that you were talking out of the top of your hat, fine, that’s all you need do.

I said that in my own opinion based on what I remembered from several years ago,

This is also incorrect. Nowhere in your post did you refer to any sources for your opinion.

that the general consensus was that there wasn’t enough data to base predictions to the level asked for in the OP (i.e. ‘Does this settle the question once and for all?’). I conceeded that this may not be the case anymore (though from this thread I see no indications I was wrong) and requested some additional information.

Not true. Again, review your own post here. It’s fairly astounding that you would make such claims about what you did and did not say in a post that remains available for all to read.

If you want to ASK me for a cite, I’m sure I can dig up some scientists out there who will say ‘there isn’t yet sufficient data’, or some statement reasonably close to that. As you haven’t asked me for a cite though, nor has anyone bothered to deliver the one I requested, I think you are simply trying to blow smoke.

Oh, I am fairly sure I could predict which cites you would find, and they are simply not scientifically based. But feel free to argue that there is not enough evidence that global warming is occurring, and provide all the cites you would like. You don’t need an invitation from me to do that.

[XT]

I appreciate you giving me the cite then Hentor. Here ya goes:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years **is likely ** the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, **it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores. **

The Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades **are likely ** because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system. A Research Council report, Improving the Effectiveness of Climate Modeling, identifies the lack of a coherent national climate modeling program and sufficient computing resources and suggests areas for improvement.

Bolding and underlining mine. (did you actually read through this cite? Just curious)

Notice the caviots? Will that do you…since you used the cite? Or is this ‘not scientifically based’? If not…you need to find better cites, no?

@Hentor the Barbarian

Nowhere in your first post, here, to which I responded, did you ask for a cite. What you did do was make a claim about the insufficient nature of the data without any support whatsoever. If you are conceding that was the wrong thing to do, or that you were talking out of the top of your hat, fine, that’s all you need do.

Er…sorry. I figured you could follow multiple posts in a thread. I didn’t realize that you could only respond to one at a time. My bad. Here, I’ll repost my reply to your first post…that might help some.

If I’m wrong and the general consensus of the experts in the various fields touching on this subject is that 10 years is plenty of data to make such a strong statement that this subject has been put to rest, i.e. ‘settled once and for all’ then I encourage you to post some cites of said consensus of scientists and fight my ignorance.

If you have evidence that a large majority of scientists have come to a consensus over these issues and that I’m simply in denial I will re-evaluate my position on this subject.

Now that you have the actual request, I’ll just await your cites that there is a general consensus across the various fields of science that impact on this question.

This is also incorrect. Nowhere in your post did you refer to any sources for your opinion.

Obliquely I did (but again its in another of those pesky posts, not the original one):

As I’m not an expert on the subject, I have to basically follow along with those folks who ARE the experts. Afaik, the last time I dipped (admittedly its been a while) more deeply into this subject, the experts were divided on such key questions as A) Is a major climate shift coming or already here, B) What exactly does that mean, what possible range of effects can we expect, C) What are the causes of such a shift if its happening, D) Is human behavior the over all driving force behind a potential climate shift and E) Is there anything humans can realistically do to ‘fix’ the problem.

Seems pretty clear to me that I’m basing my opinion on things I’ve read in the field, but things that I read ‘a while’ ago. I’ll clarify that. I did a research paper on the subject in college about 15 years ago discussing the debate on global warming. At that time there was no firm consensus across even a single disipline, let alone across the multiple scientific fields that touch on this issue. What there was, was mounting evidence that global warming appeared to be real, that it appeared that humans played some role (whether great or small was still under debate), etc…but that ‘more data’ was still needed. A LOT more data.

I have already conceeded that my opinion may be out of date, and that the majority consensus may indeed be that global warming is a reality thats happening now and that humans are the direct cause and that it is possible for humans to reverse the global warming trend by changing their emmissions. I’ve yet to see any evidence though that said consensus has been reached…certainly not in this thread.

that the general consensus was that there wasn’t enough data to base predictions to the level asked for in the OP (i.e. ‘Does this settle the question once and for all?’). I conceeded that this may not be the case anymore (though from this thread I see no indications I was wrong) and requested some additional information.

@Hentor the Barbarian

Not true. Again, review your own post here. It’s fairly astounding that you would make such claims about what you did and did not say in a post that remains available for all to read.

Interesting. Because I seem to be repeating this theme several times in my posts…at least thats how I read them and how I intended to write them.

Lets see:

I don’t think it settles it once and for all, but its certainly another piece of the puzzle. I don’t think we still have enough data, especially long term data, to completely accurately model the earths climate and make accurate predictions…and until and unless we do, there will always be questions.

Thats all true…but a sample size of 10 years is pretty scant when talking about the climate on a world wide scale. While I make no claims to being an expert on this subject, from what I recall it would take a much larger sample size to be able to accurately model the earths weather patterns and climate and make the kind of firm predictions that this statement indicates: “Does this settle the question once and for all?”

This is kind of what I was getting at and how I remembered the debate from my own time in college. Basically how I remembered things was that there were various theories that ran the gamit from ‘global warming’ to ‘a new ice age’…but each always cavioted with something like ‘we just don’t have sufficient data yet to properly model an entire world to make fixed predictions as to what exactly is going on and what it means’.

I could go on, but its getting redundant. I SEEM to be saying here that I don’t believe that there is enough data, and that I don’t think that the current consensus allows for the statement ‘Does this settle the question once and for all?’ to be answered in the afirmitave. Exactly how do YOU read all this?

@Hentor the Barbarian

Oh, I am fairly sure I could predict which cites you would find, and they are simply not scientifically based. But feel free to argue that there is not enough evidence that global warming is occurring, and provide all the cites you would like. You don’t need an invitation from me to do that.

Well, no point in me looking for cites then, is it…your mind is already made up on the subject. I would point out (again) that the cite you used (from SM) itself pretty much says exactly what I was getting at anyway. But I figure thats ‘not scientifically based’. It probably has a link to a creationist site on there somewhere hidden where only the faithful can see it, right?

Here is the crux of all this. You are claiming that the science is there, that the consensus exists, and that (to quote the part of the OP I was actually addressing) essentially ‘Does this settle the question once and for all?’…your answer, yes. I’m saying that things aren’t nearly so cut and dried, that there IS no majority consensus (yet), that the scientists still have insufficient data to completely model things or make such hard predictions, and that the quest to understand all these questions goes on.

Just for fun, I did a quick google on the whole Global Warming debate. I found this brief article interesting…it doesn’t really go into the science so much as into the debate itself. Just a quick quote, though I encourage you to read through it. As far as I can tell the guy who wrote it isn’t a creation scientist (I assume by your last paragraph you thought I’d be using something similar, though gods know why if you’ve seem me post in other threads):

From the standpoint of policy action, the Cassandras have won the debate going away. The 1997 Kyoto Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, proposed strong reductions in emissions growth. Many nations of the world have all but accepted that something of the sort will become reality. Many companies as well, including Ford and British Petroleum, have begun to acknowledge the need for emissions policies in response to climate change.

Some Cassandras will decry the pace of the action. But it cannot be denied that the Global Warming: YES or NO? debate is no longer about whether to act. Even in the United States, where the Senate has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the question now is how to act.

From the standpoint of science, however, the debate is a draw. We have learned much more about climate over the past decade, but arguably we are no closer to gleaning the future state of the climate. The relationship between human activities, the atmosphere, and indeed the global environment is much more complicated than scientists had thought. Modeling historical climate has proven hard enough, but accurate predictions of future climate — decades or more hence — remain out of reach. An oil crisis, a volcano, or a breakthrough in energy technology would render irrelevant the predictions of even the most sophisticated computer model.

Bolding mine. If you like, I can find some more information for you, but it must needs be in another post, so I’m unsure you will be able to follow it.

-XT

[Quartz]

@BrainGlutton

(Bear in mind that Rome is at roughly the same latitude as New York City; it’s only the Gulf Stream that makes it warmer.)

Got a cite for that? The gulf stream affects Ireland, the UK, and possibly Scandinavia. Rome is in the Med - approx 2000 miles away.

Is climate change happenning? Sure - it’s always happenned. Is the current biosphere (as mainly managed by us) affecting it? I believe so - how can it not? Is our interference a beneficial or a negative factor? Now that’s a good question.

[pdx_craig]

It seems to me that even if the above study is a “smoking gun”, it would take at least a year or so for the scientific community to digest it and come to a consensus.

I don’t agree that with xtisme’s cite stating that the debate is currently a draw. As more research gets done there the evidence keeps mounting. The case for man made global warming is winning the debate, but it is an epic debate that will take time (probably until certain professors retire). The opposition can take comfort in unknowns for quite some time, but they are steadily losing ground. First it was debated that global warming was even happening, now the debate has been pushed back to humanity’s involvement in it and the evidence keeps mounting.

If this were a two horse race, it’s no secret who the favorite would be.

[XT]

@pdx_craig

I don’t agree that with xtisme’s cite stating that the debate is currently a draw. As more research gets done there the evidence keeps mounting.

I agree that the evidence keeps mounting. There is certainly SOMETHING going on. A very likely theory is Global Warming. A likely cause of Global Warming is probably mankind. Its just that we don’t yet have enough evidence to make this a slam dunk. Nor do we have enough data to create models to predict whats going on or more importantly what WILL happen in the future.

@pdx_craig

The opposition can take comfort in unknowns for quite some time, but they are steadily losing ground. First it was debated that global warming was even happening, now the debate has been pushed back to humanity’s involvement in it and the evidence keeps mounting.

Well, I disagree that its this evident at this point. You seem to be suggesting that the opposition is just using ‘god of the gaps’ reasoning to keep up some rear guard fight against the forces of light and good. I’m not seeing it that way, and even dipping back into it there are serious questions (the impact of increased solar emmisions for one thing).

@pdx_craig

If this were a two horse race, it’s no secret who the favorite would be.

One would probably have bet on Newtonian physics as the be all, end all, or an earth centered world at times in the past to be the first ‘horse’ across the line. Then there was that whole ‘sound barrier’ thing…

The point is, its supposed to be science. There is a THEORY about Global Warming that makes certain predictions. Time will tell if this theory is correct and more importantly if its a useful predictor of future climate change.

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

I appreciate you giving me the cite then Hentor. Here ya goes:

Bolding and underlining mine. (did you actually read through this cite? Just curious)

Notice the caviots? Will that do you…since you used the cite? Or is this ‘not scientifically based’? If not…you need to find better cites, no?

xtisme, you’re being kind of a jerk, and it seems to be based solely on your own confusion. Your quotations from the cite I gave you discuss the degree to which we are sure about whether humanity is causing the global warming, but are entirely clear that global warming is occurring. Do you understand the difference?

Here’s the relevant quote you failed to cut and paste here:

Part of the debate over global warming centers on disparities between the surface temperature and upper-air temperature. While the Earth’s surface temperature has risen, data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low-to mid- troposphere. The report concurs with a previous Research Council report that said despite these differences, “the warming trend in the global mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming in the 20th century.”

Now, to cut to the chase, I ask you straight-out, do you retract or stand by your statement that there is insufficient data to determine if global warming is occurring? (recall that you made this statement both about whether or not global warming is occurring and whether or not humans are responsible).

If you stand by your statement, then how much more data is needed? What issues need to be resolved that have not been? If you cannot answer these, I suggest that you are simply employing the tried and false delaying tactic of “we just don’t know” given by those who do know but don’t want to pay for any changes. I’m reminded of the line by Matthew Modine in And the Band Played On: “How many dead hemophiliacs does it take?”

And, by the way, it is “caveats.”

[DrDeth]

@DrDeth

Question really isn’t “is there currently some good evidence of global warming?” but rather:

1. How long term is it?

2. is it part of a natural cycle?

3. What is causing it?

4. Are humans having a significant part in the cause- whatever it may be?

5. Is there anything we can really do to stop our part?

6. If one nation, or even half the nations, try and cut back- will it do any good if the others just keep on spewing?

Again- the question is not “is there currently some good evidence of global warming?”.

Can you answer the **other 6 **questions with such certainty?

[XT]

@Hentor the Barbarian

xtisme, you’re being kind of a jerk, and it seems to be based solely on your own confusion. Your quotations from the cite I gave you discuss the degree to which we are sure about whether humanity is causing the global warming, but are entirely clear that global warming is occurring. Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I understand the difference quite well. There were other quotes in there that discussed the degree of uncertainty reguarding Global Warming, though of course there is much better data on that aspect (which I never denied btw), and thus a much higher level of certainty. Certainly SOMETHING is going on out there be it ‘global warming’, the prelude to a new ice age, or (more likely IMO) fundamental global climate and weather pattern changes.

BTW…If I was being a jerk its because, for whatever reason, you seem to rub me the wrong way. Most likely I have the same effect on you. Appologies.

@Hentor the Barbarian

Now, to cut to the chase, I ask you straight-out, do you retract or stand by your statement that there is insufficient data to determine if global warming is occurring? (recall that you made this statement both about whether or not global warming is occurring and whether or not humans are responsible).

No, I don’t retract my statement. As I’ve said, I do think there is sufficient evidence that something is certainly going on…global climate change is afoot, I’m reasonably certain of it. What that means and what effects it will have is still going to take some additional research, as well as additional data. The same goes for what the exact cause is (again, I conceed that human activity is certainly playing some part, whether great or small).

@Hentor the Barbarian

If you stand by your statement, then how much more data is needed? What issues need to be resolved that have not been? If you cannot answer these, I suggest that you are simply employing the tried and false delaying tactic of “we just don’t know” given by those who do know but don’t want to pay for any changes. I’m reminded of the line by Matthew Modine in And the Band Played On: “How many dead hemophiliacs does it take?”

The honest answer to the first part of this is ‘I have no idea’ how much additional research and data will be needed to nail down a model that can accurately predict not only whats going on now but what might happen in a decade. In a century. I’m neither a scientist nor a researcher on this subject. As I said, its been over a decade since I really looked deeply at this subject at all (I did get an ‘A’ on that research paper though :)).

What issues need to be resolved? Well, for starters I’d say 'what EXACTLY does ‘Global Warming’ mean, and what potential range of effects will/could it have? What is the exact cause (i.e. human activity, solar, gulf stream effects, biological, other), and is there anything that humans can reasonably do about it…or do we need to just hunker down like in the last several ice ages and just get through it? Those are some basic questions that I do not believe there is any kind of scientific consensus on as far as answers goes…at least not the last time I really looked into this, and I didn’t see any indications thats changed in a quick google search earlier today at work.

You seem to (again) be throwing a lot at ME to have to prove, without actually proving shit yourself (again, my annoyance level rises at you…must just be the chemistry between us). You have certainly not shown me this consensus among scientists proving your point yet…your big cite was one from SM. Tell you what…I’ll start doing more when I see YOU doing something.

@Hentor the Barbarian

And, by the way, it is “caveats.”

Thanks for the english lesson.

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

BTW…If I was being a jerk its because, for whatever reason, you seem to rub me the wrong way. Most likely I have the same effect on you. Appologies.

Thanks for the apologies, but I honestly have no strong feelings about you in particular - I suspect you are a fine person. I do dislike some of your arguments, which I point out. I hope this is not out of line in some way.

You seem to (again) be throwing a lot at ME to have to prove, without actually proving shit yourself (again, my annoyance level rises at you…must just be the chemistry between us).

You simply made a statement that we don’t have enough data. I assumed that you either had some basis in fact for this judgment or were offering it to try to subvert the argument. It seems perfectly reasonable, given a statement that we have not reached a goal yet, to ask what exactly will determine when that goal is reached. That’s it in a nutshell.

You have certainly not shown me this consensus among scientists proving your point yet…your big cite was one from SM. Tell you what…I’ll start doing more when I see YOU doing something.

Again, it was your assertion to defend. However, here you go.

This reference is to not only consensus on the fact of global warming, but also discusses the impact of humans on the problem.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

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 […] 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”[…]

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), 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).

[…]it is not likely that [these reports] 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).

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.

[…]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.

[XT]

Thanks for the cite. Thats all I was asking for. Let me look it over and see whats what in there. My position may be changing depending on whats said and what I can dig up myself. Appreciate it Hentor.

-XT

[Triskadecamus]

Climate change has occurred throughout the history of Earth’s Atmosphere. At times, that change apparently happens catastrophically, in terms of geologic time scales. (That would be anything less than hundreds of years being nearly instantaneous.) Long scale rates of change often seem to last for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Recently, some data reported in Science magazine indicate that our current dates for the Last Glacial Maximum may apply only in the northern hemisphere, with a difference of as much as fifteen thousand years for the date of the LGM for the southern hemisphere. There is considerable controversy about the possible existence of a period in geologic history when the entire Earth was frozen, perhaps all the way to the Equator. Climate is a deep and enduring mystery.

Weather records comprise an instantaneous data point, with respect to Global Climate. Our entire direct observation data set for our climate is less than a hundred years, and covers significantly less than half of the planet’s surface. It is unlikely that the entire impact of our species on the climate of the planet could possibly extend much more than a thousand years. During that thousand years the climate has, by all evidence changed in a non-linear fashion, on a scale greater than that of the last century. Our most enthusiastic prognosticators are unable to predict weather beyond seven days.

Economically, it is pretty easy to predict that any society wide implementation of change in our use of resources is going to cost someone a lot of money. Our ability to predict the cost of changes is significantly more developed than the ability to predict the results of such changes. The processes by which the climate will change are imperfectly understood. The process by which society can be changed is even less clear, even supposing a consensus existed on exactly what those changes ought to be. After all that argument, there is still the unaddressed question of what climate changes are now occurring that are not affected by human activity.

Global warming is an observed phenomenon. The part that Global Warming has in the larger picture of Global Climate is ambiguous. The influence that humans have on that phenomenon is not demonstrated to be either significant, or insignificant. It is a factor. We just don’t know what it is a factor of, or how much of a factor of whatever it is a factor of it is.

But it is a political emergency. That much is clear.

Tris

“Our friend brings us good news. If the Persians darken the sun with their arrows, we will be able to fight in the shade.” ~ Dieneces of Sparta ~