[Vision2020] Exploring Global Warming: Scientific Consensus?

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 23:37:13 PDT 2007


All:

I received an "Off List" response to my post with the subject heading
above.  I thought the response I gave "Off List" might be relevant to this
discussion:

The answer to my challenge is to reference this web site, or some other
source like it:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp

Quote from this website:

>
> Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems
> with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.
> ------
> Convincing arguments are presented, appearing very scientific, that the
> impact of atmospheric CO2, and the human contribution to this impact, will
> not result in the climate related problems that many scientists are warning
> about from human outputs of CO2.
>
> So are the claims at this website credible?  Is it true that large
> increases in atmospheric CO2 from human outputs will not cause any serious
> damaging climate change?  Maybe increases in atmospheric CO2 will have
> positive consequences?
>
> Study this website, and then make your own conclusions, by comparing the
> claims with what peer reviewed articles in respected scientific journals are
> asserting about the same issues.
>
> I am not a scientist.  I am only researching the subject to sort through
> the evidence and arguments.  Someone is misrepresenting the evidence and the
> theory of climate change, or perhaps chaos has descended on the intellectual
> integrity of the Western World, and truth is no longer a concept with any
> meaning.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> > *To:* lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > *Cc:* Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com> ; Ralph Nielsen<nielsen at uidaho.edu>
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2007 2:38 PM
> > *Subject:* [Vision2020] 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
> > >
> > >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070316/619422fc/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list