[_ Old Earth _] Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments?

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

As you see, I was just pointing out that the Forbes spin on the report was a blatant misrepresentation:

No, Barbarian, you're tryng to do much more. You've tried to denigrate the study as "...the report was thrown together with all the politically-correct gobbledegook postmodernist language." It's hard to imagine a more obvious attempt to cover up the fact that you can't understand it.

So you agree with Lomborg that the answer is a carbon tax?

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn/print

I agree with this:

"Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent." http://lomborg.com/cool_it


Why, indeed, has the debate over climate change stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent?

Lomborg pretty much describes the scepticism I've been addressing, and that the sceptical professionals in the study were addressing, as well. This kind of acknowlegement of other aspects of the debate (yes, there is a debate) seems beyond one-trick ponies stuck on "Oh, but human activity IS the cause" responses every time climate change is mentioned. It's a sign that they're uncomfortable outside their areas of expertise, whatever that is.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Barbarian observes:
As you see, I was just pointing out that the Forbes spin on the report was a blatant misrepresentation:

No, Barbarian, you're tryng to do much more. You've tried to denigrate the study as "...the report was thrown together with all the politically-correct gobbledegook postmodernist language."

Well, it was. I posted a bit of it and asked you if you could tell me what it meant. You couldn't, either. Postmodernism has the bad habit of writing purposely pretentious and obscure prose in order to cover up bad ideas.

It's hard to imagine a more obvious attempt to cover up the fact that you can't understand it.

I notice that you couldn't understand it, either. That's intentional with that sort of writing.

(Mark endorses Lomborg's approach)

Barbarian asks:
So you agree with Lomborg that the answer is a carbon tax?

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-u-turn/print

I agree with this:

"Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent." http://lomborg.com/cool_it

I see dissent constantly from politicians and economists. Until recently, Lomborg was a dissenter himself. And a prominently displayed one. So he was wrong about dissent. And of course, we need to address other issues as well as climate change, but ignoring that is to ignore the cause of millions of deaths happening now, in things like desertification of wide areas as the Earth warms up.

Why, indeed, has the debate over climate change stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent?

As you see, it hasn't. What's happened is that the vast majority of scientists have concluded from the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is a fact, and unless something is done, there will be severe consequences. Notice that Lomborg agrees.

Lomborg pretty much describes the scepticism I've been addressing, and that the sceptical professionals in the study were addressing, as well.

I notice even in your sample of oil company employees, most didn't buy the denier story. That should be a tip-off as well.

This kind of acknowlegement of other aspects of the debate (yes, there is a debate)

So it hasn't been stifled, after all? I agree.

seems beyond one-trick ponies stuck on "Oh, but human activity IS the cause" responses every time climate change is mentioned.

I notice that Lomborg thinks so. Otherwise, he wouldn't be advocating a carbon tax.

It's a sign that they're uncomfortable outside their areas of expertise, whatever that is.

What is politically feasible to do about the change is not a scientific question. But science shows that failure to do anything will result in millions of deaths.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

A bit of that report:

Each claim to know ‘what is at issue’ (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3) with climate change is embedded within a specific frame. Frames work as ‘schemata of interpretation’ that enable individuals ‘to locate, perceive, identify and label’ occurrences within their life space and the world at large’(Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986, p. 464). According to Snow and Benford (1988) frames have three core tasks. Diagnostic framing refers to the identification of an aspect of the world considered to be in need of amelioration – the definition of the problem and the attribution of causality. Prognostic framing attempts to propose ameliorative action and possible solutions, while humbling, undermining or neutralizing existing counter-framings. While diagnostic and prognostic framing aim at mobilizing consensus, the third framing task – motivational framing –includes the ‘call to arms’ by elaborating vocabularies of motive that provide ‘adherents with compelling accounts for engaging in collective action’

Anyone else want to take a stab at guessing what it means?

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

seems beyond one-trick ponies stuck on "Oh, but human activity IS the cause" responses every time climate change is mentioned.

I notice that Lomborg thinks so. Otherwise, he wouldn't be advocating a carbon tax.

Perhaps, but he has the wit to see that there are others aspects to the issue. Once again, I see you're not able to address the issue on any other level.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

"Oh, but human activity IS the cause" responses every time climate change is mentioned.

Barbarian observes:
I notice that Lomborg thinks so. Otherwise, he wouldn't be advocating a carbon tax.

Perhaps, but he has the wit to see that there are others aspects to the issue.

I just showed you some other aspects of the issue. As I told you, the fact of anthropogenic climate change is a different issue than "do we have the self-discipline to do what has to be done to reduce the damage?" Personally, I don't think we do. I anticipate, in the next 50 to 100 years, some genuine global-scale consequences as a result.




Once again, I see you're not able to address the issue on any other level.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

"Oh, but human activity IS the cause" responses every time climate change is mentioned.

Barbarian observes:
I notice that Lomborg thinks so. Otherwise, he wouldn't be advocating a carbon tax.

As you learned, Lomborg is concerned, as am I, about how we can have practical and cost-effective methods of dealing with change.

"Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent." http://lomborg.com/cool_it

Once again, Barbarian, I see you can't address the issue on any other level.







Lomborg, and I, will still be concerned with how to adapt to change if and when the "consensus" switches back to global cooling, as it was in the 70s, rather than global warming. The ideologues, however, will be tirelessly manning the ramparts for a brand new "consensus" making sure no challenging view goes unpunished, and no sceptic goes un-demonized. Al Gore has a good start on it by calling sceptics "racist." Racist? That would be like...Al Gore Sr? You're in bad company , Barbarian.

Fortunately, that kind of personal smearing doesn't intimidate people anymore.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Lomborg, and I, will still be concerned with how to adapt to change if and when the "consensus" switches back to global cooling, as it was in the 70s,rather than global warming.

That's just a myth, promoted by a few politicians who are supported by oil company contributions:


The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society > September 2008
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Even then, with climate science in its infancy, there was far more concern about warming than cooling:

The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.
(same source)

The myth was primarily invented by Exxon's senator, James Inhofe, who cited a popular, non-science magazine, in which one of the magazine's staff wrote an article, supposing an impending ice age.

And now you know the rest of the story.

The ideologues, however, will be tirelessly manning the ramparts for a brand new "consensus" making sure no challenging view goes unpunished, and no sceptic goes un-demonized.

See above. Inhofe and company lobbyists have indeed tried to punish government scientists for not following the oil company's spin:

Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences" described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

The Democratic chairman of the House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=scientists+pressured+on+climate&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

Notice the government stonewalled a bipartisan investigation, seeking to determine the extent of the political pressure on scientists.

Al Gore has a good start on it by calling sceptics "racist."

Sorry, I don't listen to Al gore.

You're in bad company , Barbarian.

You cited him. So he's your guy in this discussion. Personally, I don't find him much more credible than Inhofe. Politicians, as a rule, make really bad scientists, and you're probably doing yourself a disservice by using them as authorities. Using Algore as representative of scientists and scientific consensus on climate change isn't doing you much good.

Fortunately, that kind of personal smearing doesn't intimidate people anymore.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

A bit of that report:

Each claim to know ‘what is at issue’ (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3) with climate change is embedded within a specific frame. Frames work as ‘schemata of interpretation’ that enable individuals ‘to locate, perceive, identify and label’ occurrences within their life space and the world at large’(Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986, p. 464). According to Snow and Benford (1988) frames have three core tasks. Diagnostic framing refers to the identification of an aspect of the world considered to be in need of amelioration – the definition of the problem and the attribution of causality. Prognostic framing attempts to propose ameliorative action and possible solutions, while humbling, undermining or neutralizing existing counter-framings. While diagnostic and prognostic framing aim at mobilizing consensus, the third framing task – motivational framing –includes the ‘call to arms’ by elaborating vocabularies of motive that provide ‘adherents with compelling accounts for engaging in collective action’

Anyone else want to take a stab at guessing what it means?

It's not that difficult to understand, Barbarian. Maybe you just aren't familiar with the vocabulary.

Actually, the authors of the report gave a comment to the Forbes article that explains it in a way less filled with jargon. If you follow the comments you'll find it a ways down. You should read the comments, they're mostly negative there is a lot there to warm your consensus heart. Here's a portion of Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyers' comment:

On second thought the comment is short, I'll post in it's entirety.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …†or “scientists don’t believe …†Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto†are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists†mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards,
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

It's not that difficult to understand, Barbarian. Maybe you just aren't familiar with the vocabulary.

I notice you didn't try to translate it.


"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …”

So they warned Forbes, but the magazine went ahead with the headline, anyway? Well, that's consistent with the journalistic ethics we've seen from Forbes over the last ten years.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct.

Yep. Even an engineer, vaguely familiar with climate science would admit that. But there's still one thing that puzzles me.

If you knew that the headline was false, why did you post it here?

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

That's just a myth, promoted by a few politicians who are supported by oil company contributions:

Which does the CIA belong to?...or the University of Wisconsin team?

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf -

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but
this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.
​

Climate has not been a prime consideration of intelligence analysis because, until recently, it has not caused any significant perturbations to the status of major nations. This is so because during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century. An early twentieth century world food surplus hindered US efforts to maintain and equalise farm production and incomes.â€
​

“The University of Wisconsin was the first accredited academic center to forecast that a major global climatic change was underway. Their analysis of the Icelandic temperature data, which they contend has historically been a bellwether for northern hemisphere climatic conditions, indicated that the world was returning to the type of climate which prevailed during the first part of the last century.†“Their “Food for Thought†chart (Figure 7) conveys some idea of the enormity of the problem and the precarious state in which most of the world’s nations could find themselves if the Wisconsin forecast is correct.â€


Excepts from a Spectator article concerning the CIA global cooling report:

This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling: that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise – much as it pains politicians and scientists – that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.

“Widely acceptedâ€: check. “Global coolingâ€: check.. There was a global cooling consensus among scientists, at least up to 1974. And it went on to appear in Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Times and many more media outlets around the world, at least up to 1976.




​

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

(Barbarian shows a study that showed the vast majority of the world's climate scientists in the 1970s were concerned with global warming)

Barbarian, regarding the "cooling" story, peddled by Inhofe:
That's just a myth, promoted by a few politicians who are supported by oil company contributions:

Which does the CIA belog to?.

Politicians. As you know, scientists were overwhelmingly convinced that warming was a concern. Remember, we're talking about what scientists had found, not what politicians believed. Incidentally, neither the University of Wisconsin, nor any of it's science departments endorsed global cooling. One instructor at the university might have, however.

The good professor more recently, wrote a paper on what might happen if anthropogenic carbon dioxide fell back to pre-agricultural levels:

Climate Model Tests of the Anthropogenic Influence on Greenhouse-induced Climate Change:
the Role of Early Human Agriculture, Industrialization, and Vegetation Feedbacks
S. Vavrus W. F. Ruddiman , J. E. Kutzbach
Center for Climatic Research, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies,

We test the early anthropogenic hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions produced by early
agricultural activities in recent millennia kept the climate warmer than its natural level and offset
an incipient glaciation. We use versions of the NCAR’s Community Climate System Model to
investigate the natural climate that might exist today if CO2 and CH4 concentrations had fallen to
their average levels reached during previous interglaciations (while ignoring the effects of
aerosol changes). The model is run in a coupled atmosphere-slab ocean configuration with fixed
land cover in one experiment and interactive vegetation changes in the other. With lowered
greenhouse gas concentrations, global mean temperature falls by 2.75 K under fixed land cover
and by 3.0 K with vegetation feedbacks included.
Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 27, Issues 13–14, July 2008, Pages 1410–1425

And in the 70s, Kutzbach was part of a group publishing findings on "inadvertentant climate modification", which is what they called global warming then.

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html


I can't help noticing that you're more interested in the political ramifications of the issue, than the actual science involved. Maybe this needs to be moved to a forum where the focus isn't on the science.

And I'm still puzzled as to why you posted that headline here, if you knew it was false, as the people who wrote the report indicated.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

(Barbarian shows a study that showed the vast majority of the world's climate scientists in the 1970s were concerned with global warming)

Barbarian, regarding the "cooling" story, peddled by Inhofe:
That's just a myth, promoted by a few politicians who are supported by oil company contributions:

Which does the CIA belog to?.

Politicians. As you know, scientists were overwhelmingly convinced that warming was a concern. Remember, we're talking about what scientists had found, not what politicians believed. Incidentally, neither the University of Wisconsin, nor any of it's science departments endorsed global cooling. One instructor at the university might have, however.

The good professor more recently, wrote a paper on what might happen if anthropogenic carbon dioxide fell back to pre-agricultural levels:

Climate Model Tests of the Anthropogenic Influence on Greenhouse-induced Climate Change:
the Role of Early Human Agriculture, Industrialization, and Vegetation Feedbacks
S. Vavrus W. F. Ruddiman , J. E. Kutzbach
Center for Climatic Research, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies,

We test the early anthropogenic hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions produced by early
agricultural activities in recent millennia kept the climate warmer than its natural level and offset
an incipient glaciation. We use versions of the NCAR’s Community Climate System Model to
investigate the natural climate that might exist today if CO2 and CH4 concentrations had fallen to
their average levels reached during previous interglaciations (while ignoring the effects of
aerosol changes). The model is run in a coupled atmosphere-slab ocean configuration with fixed
land cover in one experiment and interactive vegetation changes in the other. With lowered
greenhouse gas concentrations, global mean temperature falls by 2.75 K under fixed land cover
and by 3.0 K with vegetation feedbacks included.
Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 27, Issues 13–14, July 2008, Pages 1410–1425

And in the 70s, Kutzbach was part of a group publishing findings on "inadvertentant climate modification", which is what they called global warming then.

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html


I can't help noticing that you're more interested in the political ramifications of the issue, than the actual science involved. Maybe this needs to be moved to a forum where the focus isn't on the science.

And I'm still puzzled as to why you posted that headline here, if you knew it was false, as the people who wrote the report indicated.

My answer just disappeared. I'm not doing it again tonite. Tomorrow.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Since this is a science and faith board, let's bring the discussion back on topic tomorrow. Post something about the science, instead of political ideas.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Since this is a science and faith board, let's bring the discussion back on topic tomorrow. Post something about the science, instead of political ideas.

Wrong again arbarian. It's nearly impossible to talk about science and not see it's political implications. They're intricately interteined. It's impossible to read the IPCC reports, for instance, without being hit right in the face with their political agenda. In fact, almost anything ever written about climate change ends with a political diatribe about what part of my life government HAS to take control of...right now to save the world. It's our last chance, after all, the earth is going to end tomorrow if I buy the wrong light bulb, just ask Al Gore. Your arguments are like the writings of progressive journalists "What me biased? I'm just talking about the natural order of the universe. It's you who's biased."

You don't have any moral high ground here, Barbarian.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Wrong again arbarian. It's nearly impossible to talk about science and not see it's political implications.

Nonsense. Scientists do it all the time. You just focus on what is, and don't talk about the political implications. The reason this is done is, as you see, to keep one's political ideas from contaminating the facts.

They're intricately interteined.

That's what Lenin said about the truth. But for those of us who are not inclined to his philosophy, there's an objective scientific truth, quite apart from our political leanings

It's impossible to read the IPCC reports, for instance, without being hit right in the face with their political agenda.

Too bad for them, then. Let's stick to the science, and leave the politics to the politicians.

In fact, almost anything ever written about climate change ends with a political diatribe about what part of my life government HAS to take control of...right now to save the world.

I just showed you several examples where it does not. Let's stick to the science, and discuss the politics where it's on-topic. Otherwise, we get stuck in hysterical exaggeration and the truth suffers.

It's our last chance, after all, the earth is going to end tomorrow if I buy the wrong light bulb, just ask Al Gore.

Yes, like that. Once you do that, you poison the well for yourself, and you are no longer able to rationally consider the real.

Your arguments are like the writings of progressive journalists "What me biased? I'm just talking about the natural order of the universe. It's you who's biased."

I'm just pointing out the facts. I haven't said what I think we should do about it. Once you decide that the facts are secondary to your political ideas, you've lost touch with reality.

I dismiss any massive global regulation as a way out, because for one thing, I doubt that any nation has the will to do it. So we have to find other ways. But I don't hide the truth from myself to do that.

You don't have any moral high ground here, Barbarian.

I haven't talked about the moral implications. They exist, but making good guys and bad guys is just another path to self-delusion. And we can't afford to be deluded when it comes to things like this.

Get the truth first. And then figure out what, if anything can be reasonably done. Starting with a political or moral position, and trying to pare down the truth to fit those, that's the path to disaster. It's like the headline you introduced here. In all likelihood, the editorial board of Forbes is made up of people who are more or less as honest as the next guy. But their political motivations led them into producing a rather egregious falsehood, even after they were overtly warned against it.

Nothing good can come of such a corruption of the truth.

Ask the rulers of the Soviet Union. Yes, I know; the Soviet Union no longer exists.

My point, exactly.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Nonsense. Scientists do it all the time. You just focus on what is, and don't talk about the political implications. The reason this is done is, as you see, to keep one's political ideas from contaminating the facts.

Of course they do. Keep telling yourself that. If you close you eyes and wish real hard you can believe it's true.

for those of us who are not inclined to his philosophy, there's an objective scientific truth, quite apart from our political leanings.

Of course you do, and so did Ptolemy, who had his "objective truth" and
consensus for centuries.

And so do the IPCC and American Physical Society...or maybe not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ing-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

War of words over global warming as Nobel Laureate resigns in protest. A Nobel laureate has quite on of the worlds leading organizations for scientists in protest at its assertions that the evidence of damaging global warming is "incontrovertible".

In a fresh challenge to claims that there is scientific "consensus" on climate change, Prof Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society, where his peers had elected him a fellow to honour his work.


The society, which has 48,000 members, has adopted a policy statement which states: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."


But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."


The US-based Norwegian physicist, who is the chief technology officer at Applied Biophysics Inc and a retired academic at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the oldest technological university in the English-speaking world, added: "Global warming has become the new religion."

Prof Giaever is one of the most prominent scientific dissenters challenging the controversial man-made global warming claims of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former US vice-president Al Gore.

He has testified to the US Senate about his doubts, calling himself a "sceptic" on global warming and citing both his birthplace and other scientific scares he has seen come and go during his career.

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?" he said.

Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."
Prof Giaever, 82, is not alone in rejecting the APS's insistence that there is consensus on the existence and severity of man-made global warming.

Several prominent members have expressed frustration that it has refused to reconsider its position – drawn up in 2007 – in the light of the "Climategate" controversy about the findings of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today," dissenters wrote in an open letter to it its governing board.





"Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."

"Global warming has become a new religion."


Strong words for a Nobel laureate in physics I'm looking forward to finding out whether he's a racist, or holocaust denier, or flat-earther, a diabolical oil company employee, or just a common political hack.

 

[TOG]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

All the geophysicists, meteorologists and biophysicists that I know believe that global warmnig is caused, at least in part, by human activity. Of course, I only know one of each, and the meteorologist and the geophysicist are the same person, so it may not be statistically significant.

The TOG
​

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

All the geophysicists, meteorologists and biophysicists that I know believe that global warmnig is caused, at least in part, by human activity. Of course, I only know one of each, and the meteorologist and the geophysicist are the same person, so it may not be statistically significant.

The TOG
​

Heh...maybe not. :p

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Barbarian observes:
Nonsense. Scientists do it all the time. You just focus on what is, and don't talk about the political implications. The reason this is done is, as you see, to keep one's political ideas from contaminating the facts.

Of course they do. Keep telling yourself that. If you close you eyes and wish real hard you can believe it's true.

Denial isn't going to do you much good on this. The fact is, the scientific literature focuses on the evidence, not political or social issues.

(Mark insists that reality depends on political outlook)

Barbarian chuckles:
That's what Lenin said about the truth. But for those of us who are not inclined to his philosophy, there's an objective scientific truth, quite apart from our political leanings, there's an objective scientific truth, quite apart from our political leanings.

Of course you do, and so did Ptolemy, who had his "objective truth" and consensus for centuries.

Wrong there. Ptolemy was quite open about his system as a means of calculating position; he never claimed that his epicycle model was objectively true. And when Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory, he presented it as a model that would accurately show the movement of planets, not as objective truth.

In science, the truth is always provisional on new evidence.

And so do the IPCC and American Physical Society...or maybe not.

IPCC is a semi-governmental body, and hence open to political issues. Let's take a look at the APS:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Nothing there that is not demonstrably true.

In a fresh challenge to claims that there is scientific "consensus" on climate change, Prof Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society, where his peers had elected him a fellow to honour his work.

He resigned, because the vast majority of his fellows (many of who are climate scientists, while Ivar is not; his area of expertise is in solid state tunneling in superconductors) have concluded from the evidence that the observed global warming is caused largely by human activities.

But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."

Data is. Conclusions are not. And if Ivar says otherwise, he just excluded Albert Einstein from science. (Einstein didn't stay up to find out about the eclipse data testing his theory of gravitational effect on space; he concluded the evidence he had was incontrovertable)

Ivar declares;
"Global warming has become the new religion."

It's an observed fact. You've seen the data before. Would you like to see it again? Even most deniers have now accepted the fact of warming, while trying to find a way to conclude that we aren't a major cause of it.

Several prominent members have expressed frustration that it has refused to reconsider its position – drawn up in 2007 – in the light of the "Climategate" controversy about the findings of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

As you discovered earlier, independent news agencies and government investitgators thoroughly went through all the stolen emails, and others not stolen, and found no evidence of any fraud at all. "Climategate", they all concluded, was a hoax.

You saw all those results, too. Would you like me to show those to you, again?

"Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today," dissenters wrote in an open letter to it its governing board.

Here's the actual data year, by year. Notice the steady rise in temps since 1880, with an accelerated rate of increase in the last few decades. We don't have any reliable temp records before that, but what proxy data we do have, indicates a rise since start of the industrial revolution.

No point in denying that; it's just a matter of fact. The fact that deniers have abandoned reason or analysis of data for hysterical declarations like:
"Global warming has become a new religion" demonstates that they are more motivated by political ideology than by any scientific concerns.

There are deniers capable of rational discussion, but Ivar seems not to be one of them.

So, would you like to see the data again? It hasn't changed. Except of course, another year has passed, and we have one more year, also in the top ten all-time warmest.

And one more time; how about taking your political issues to the appropriate board. If you don't want to discuss the scientific issues, you'd probably be more effective with your story where people are interested in politics.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Barbarian,

It seems when you get stuck in a rut you just keep repeating your talking points like a parrot. I know it would be embarrassing for you to admit your failure, but you're way off track from the OP. Let me remind you of key comments I made starting this thread.


"A recent study of professionals in one group - professional experts in petroleum and related industries - finds they are. The study is about framing of issues within specific groups of experts, and does not claim results are generalized over all professionals."


I know it's hard for you, Barbarian, but please try to focus here, . Do you see those qualifying phrases "professionals in one group - professional experts in petroleum and related industries " and "The study is about framing of issues within specific groups of experts, and does not claim results are generalized over all professionals." Those qualifiers define the point of the OP, and they don't deal with "is AGW real" nor with "all qeoscientists and engineers." Because why? Well because it specifically mentions professionals in "one group" and "framing of issues." Yet, once again you yammer on about "but, but, but...it's real!"

Also in the OP was:
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.



I'm not a geoscientist, but as a layman I think I fit in this class of sceptics:

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”


All of which means I have no firm opinion on whether or not AGW is real, and I don't care. I DO care about how we respond to consequences of climate change (warming or cooling.) And, whether you like it or not "Organizational Studies" IS a science, and this study was conducted for a European organizational study group.

As you learned, Barbarian, you're way off track from the OP. Because why? Because, once again, you have shown you have only one way to discuss the issue, and it's not relevant to the OP. You keep trying to hijack this thread,
and I regret letting you get away with it thinking you might find you way back to a responsible discussion. It's clear you have no idea whatever about the study, the report, nor or my comments on it. Maybe your comments would be more appropriate somewhere else.