[Vision2020] PNAS 2-22-16: Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise, Potential 4 ft., This Century

[Ted Moffett]

The current well established scientific consensus, that the primary driver
of the unquestionable significant increase in global average surface
temperature since 1880, is the greenhouse effect from human sourced
greenhouse gases, is not "dogma," as you phrased it.

It is the result of over a century of scientific theory, data gathering,
and rigorous skeptical analysis, going at least as far back as Nobel winner
Arrhenius's 1896 paper on the temperature increase resulting from
increasing atmospheric CO2 level, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the
Air upon the Temperature of the Ground:"
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

You can find lists of PhDs who believe in a variety of
scientifically questionable propositions.  Such lists do not disprove the
validity of empirically well established scientific theories.  Scientists
are human beings and have biases, prejudices and make mistakes, like all
human beings do.  That's why the peer review process for scientific
publications and proposed theories is so rigorous, and will eventually
expose flawed data or theory.

Consider another such list, about Creationism as a "scientific theory:"
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Do you support Creationism as a scientific theory, given the list of
credentialed academics named at the website just above?  To claim that
anthropogenic global warming is "dogma" is similar to claiming that
Darwinism is "dogma."

You employ the all too predictable terminology of so called global warming
"skeptics" when you declare the science on this issue is not "settled."
All competent scientists are skeptics, including the 1372 climate
researchers referenced in the PNAS article at the bottom of this post,
"Expert credibility in climate change," with 97-98 percent agreeing with
the IPCC on global warming.

I have studied the work of numerous climate scientists, who are among the
most published in this field, and they do not use the word "settled" to
describe their conclusions. Science in principle is always open to new data
or theory, thus never entirely settled.

Consider the following analysis, by one of the most well published climate
scientists, current director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
NASA's Gavin Schmidt, as he resonds to the "the science isn't settled"
phraseology regarding global warming:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/\
Unsettled Science
— gavin @ 3 December 2009

"Unusually, I’m in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall
Street Journal op-ed page:

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”

The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that
its author normally writes, but the headline is correct. The WSJ seems to
think that the headline is some terribly important pronouncement that in
some way undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change but they are
simply using an old rhetorical ‘trick’."
-------------------------------------
The following peer reviewed analysis from the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences explores the consensus among qualified scientists that
human impacts are indeed changing Earth's climate:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

They conclude that 97-98 percent of the most well published researchers in
this field agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett



On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> There is climate change all the time, but how much is due to anthropogenic
> causes is debatable. Read the book The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon. He
> lists the following as questioning some aspects of the prevailing dogma -
> Dr. Edward Wegman, Dr.  Richard Toll, Dr. Christopher Landsea, Dr. Duncan
> Wingham, Dr. Robert lCarter, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr.
> Syun-I*chi Akasodu, Dr. Tom V. Segalstad,, Zbigniew Jaworoski, David
> Bromwich, Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, Dr. Eigil
> Friis-Cristensen, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Sami Solanki, Japer Kirby,
> Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. George Hukla, Rhodes Fairbridge, Dr. William
> Gray, Dr. Cliff Ollier, Paul Reiter. Some who formally embraced the
> anthropogenic aspect but now have doubts are Roger Revelle, Claude Allegre,
> Reid Bryson and David Bellamy. Ravelle is Al Gores mentor. There is climate
> change but the cause is not settled. This  dose not mean that we should not
> be concerned about air pollution and should be trying to improve that.*
>
> *Roger*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20160227/929b826c/attachment.html>