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

[lfalen]

See my reply to Ron. There is considerable evidence to support your position, but it still has more questions as to its validity than does the theory of evolution.


Roger 




-----Original Message-----
Subject: PNAS 2-22-16: Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise, Potential 4 ft., This Century
From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
Date: 02/28/16 04:39:14


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-Ichi 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/20160228/e040dc6e/attachment.html>