Global Warming Opinion: Scientific, Academic, and Corporate

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by imind

to deny that this constitutes consensus is to deny the definition of consensus.

How can that be when you have this?

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

[imind]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

How can that be when you have this?

from your link...

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology.

remove those in non-relevant fields and how many do you have? and of those in relevant fields, please, link us to some of their papers so that we might examine them.

this reminds me of project steve.

ETA: that link appears to link to some of these papers. will gladly read an get back...

have you looked at realclimate.org?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by imind

from your link...
remove those in non-relevant fields and how many do you have? and of those in relevant fields, please, link us to some of their papers so that we might examine them.

this reminds me of project steve.

ETA: that link appears to link to some of these papers. will gladly read an get back...

have you looked at realclimate.org?

I think every one of those fields is relevant in the global warming controversy.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think every one of those fields is relevant in the global warming controversy.

The fields maybe, but how likely is it than an engineer has done any studies on the causes of climate change? Or a mathematician, or a biologist... Maybe we should ask Dr. Phil what he thinks. He has a PhD right? Why should I listen to what these people are saying? Simply because they have PhD's after thier names? Just the fact that they study mathematics alone doesn't mean that thier opinion on the matter is authoritative. It does not mean that they CAN'T be authoritative though. I am sure that there are complex mathematical models requires to study climate and climate change. However unless those people were involved in some studies I don't know why we as the general public should care what thier opinions are.
Now if you had perhaps Joe Someone who has a doctorate in mathematics AND who has done extinsive mathematical modeling on the causes of climate change, then I am all ears. He has expertise in the field with which he is working and has done research on the subject at hand. That's someone to listen to.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The fields maybe, but how likely is it than an engineer has done any studies on the causes of climate change? Or a mathematician, or a biologist... Maybe we should ask Dr. Phil what he thinks. He has a PhD right? Why should I listen to what these people are saying? Simply because they have PhD's after thier names? Just the fact that they study mathematics alone doesn't mean that thier opinion on the matter is authoritative. It does not mean that they CAN'T be authoritative though. I am sure that there are complex mathematical models requires to study climate and climate change. However unless those people were involved in some studies I don't know why we as the general public should care what thier opinions are.
Now if you had perhaps Joe Someone who has a doctorate in mathematics AND who has done extinsive mathematical modeling on the causes of climate change, then I am all ears. He has expertise in the field with which he is working and has done research on the subject at hand. That's someone to listen to.

Climate change is not simply a weather issue.

Mathematics drives everything. Mathematics is the source for all those models you believe when you support global warming.

Biology has huge implications on the issue, moreso than I need to list.

Chemistry has obvious implications.

Geology, geography, etc. All of those listed are relevant.

[imind]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think every one of those fields is relevant in the global warming controversy.

and i was thinking about this while dozing off last night, as i noticed the disclaimer...

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

looks like some of these guys may not even disagree with ACC, just the extent of the damage it might cause. i don't know, its kinda misleading.

[imind]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Climate change is not simply a weather issue.

Mathematics drives everything. Mathematics is the source for all those models you believe when you support global warming.

Biology has huge implications on the issue, moreso than I need to list.

Chemistry has obvious implications.

Geology, geography, etc. All of those listed are relevant.

and economics? i don't know that all those fields are relevant, i would really have to read what they have to say. perhaps they are relevant to specific issues within that report.

the bottom line remains, though, those outside climatology specifically are irrelevant to whether ACC exists, and therefore irrelevant to the question of consensus as pertains to this thread.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by imind

and economics? i don't know that all those fields are relevant, i would really have to read what they have to say. perhaps they are relevant to specific issues within that report.

Abolutely! Economic response to either potential causes or influencing factors to global warming, to the outcome of economic policies by government officials. Sure, they could see the big picture of things.

the bottom line remains, though, those outside climatology specifically are irrelevant to whether ACC exists, and therefore irrelevant to the question of consensus as pertains to this thread.

No, Economics will be the closest one to this. Climatology is not the only science to influence global warming.

[thatguyoverthere]

400 scientists dissent, out of how many? Eight hundred? Four thousand? Forty thousand? Four hundred thousand? Four million?

If there truly is a significant amount of disagreement among scientists, why is that ratio not reflected in the number of scientific organizations that disagree?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Climate change is not simply a weather issue.

Mathematics drives everything. Mathematics is the source for all those models you believe when you support global warming.

Biology has huge implications on the issue, moreso than I need to list.

Chemistry has obvious implications.

Geology, geography, etc. All of those listed are relevant.

I don't think you read what I wrote

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

400 scientists dissent, out of how many? Eight hundred? Four thousand? Forty thousand? Four hundred thousand? Four million?

If there truly is a significant amount of disagreement among scientists, why is that ratio not reflected in the number of scientific organizations that disagree?

From a completely unbiased statement, most scientists I know (and I know a few good ones) really don't buy into global warming. Most don't state any opinion at all. They know it's not an issue of opinion.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

From a completely unbiased statement, most scientists I know (and I know a few good ones) really don't buy into global warming. Most don't state any opinion at all. They know it's not an issue of opinion.

You didn't answer my questions. I don't care about you surveying a few of your scientist friends, that doesn't prove anything.

You were able to quantify a specific number of scientists that dissent: 400. I would like to know what percentage that is of all the scientists that have expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change. This is 400 dissenting out of how many? You brought in this 400 number as some sort of evidence that there is no consensus. I would like you to place this number in perspective, please.

If it is too difficult to quantify the number of individual scientists, then just admit that, and we'll move on to discussing the opinions of scientific organizations.

Again: If there TRULY is a significant amount of disagreement or neutrality among scientists, why is that ratio not reflected in the number of scientific organizations that disagree or are neutral?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

You didn't answer my questions. I don't care about you surveying a few of your scientist friends, that doesn't prove anything.

You were able to quantify a specific number of scientists that dissent: 400. I would like to know what percentage that is of all the scientists that have expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change. This is 400 dissenting out of how many? You brought in this 400 number as some sort of evidence that there is no consensus. I would like you to place this number in perspective, please.

If it is too difficult to quantify the number of individual scientists, then just admit that, and we'll move on to discussing the opinions of scientific organizations.

Again: If there TRULY is a significant amount of disagreement or neutrality among scientists, why is that ratio not reflected in the number of scientific organizations that disagree or are neutral?

I think you know it's too difficult to quantify that. There are 900 papers named earlier in the thread. Many of those are likely from the same scientists. I listed 400 scientists that disagree.

If you want to start guessing at how many in the world agree or disagree, go ahead, but I'm won't even waste my time trying to figure it out.

Given that I have first-hand experience in the scientific community, I think my experience is relevant

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

I think you know it's too difficult to quantify that.

Yes, I do. That is exactly the point of the thread. Since it is too difficult to go through the hundred or thousands of scientists and vet each individual one, it makes more sense to look at the opinions of scientific organizations. It's a lot easier to check the bona fides of an organization, and the numbers should be more manageable.

If there really is a significant amount of scientific doubt or neutrality about the consensus, this doubt is not reflected in the number of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations making or endorsing statements on climate change.

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

If you want to start guessing at how many in the world agree or disagree, go ahead, but I'm won't even waste my time trying to figure it out.

We're discussing how many organizations in the world agree, disagree, or are neutral. I'm not trying to guess, I'm trying to find out for sure. I've provided the results of my research. If there is any evidence to counter my assertions or conclusions, I would be very happy to look at it.

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

Given that I have first-hand experience in the scientific community, I think my experience is relevant

I think the combined experience of those scientific, academic, and corporate organizations, the numbers of experts that they encompass, the sheer amount of data available to them, and their statements or endorsements of statements regarding AGW is more relevant to gauging the true status of overall scientific opinion and the existence of a consensus than stories about you and a few of your scientist friends.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by imind

to deny that this constitutes consensus is to deny the definition of consensus.

When the deniers said that there was still significant debate in the scientific community, I took them at their word. Until I found out about the Oreskes report.

To me, the Oreskes report is strong proof of a scientific consensus. We've been through this before though. The report means nothing to the deniers. The deniers still say that for every scientist that agrees with the "consensus" there is one that disagrees, or that most scientists are neutral.

In fact, many deniers point to this alleged "neutrality" of most scientists as somehow significant. The deniers don't seem to realize that much of the current research and study about climate change is about very specific scientific details. If a physics scientist doesn't explicitly reaffirm the theory of gravity with every paper it wouldn't mean that that scientist (or that paper) is neutral about the reality of gravity!

Anyway, instead of vetting each individual scientist (which could possibly number in the thousands) and see who is pro/con/neutral, I reasoned that the ratio of disagreeing or neutral scientists should be reflected in disagreeing or neutral organizations. I figured that it would also be easier to check the bona fides of a few dozen organizations rather than hundreds (or thousands) of individual scientists.

I also think that if an international corporation or energy company had solid scientific evidence to counter any (or all) of the consensus positions, those companies wouldn't just sit on it and "suffer silently". I would think that their bottom lines would depend on getting the science right, and getting the evidence out if there really was significant scientific doubt.

Again, if there really is a significant amount of scientific doubt or neutrality about the consensus, this doubt is not reflected in the number of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations making or endorsing statements on climate change.

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

One month later, the deniers have not provided one single solitary link to challenge either my assertions or the essential accuracy of my conclusion.

Now it has been over three months since my first post on this thread, and my comment still stands.

Since I first began researching this subject roughly eight months ago, the number of organizations that share the view of the alarmists has more than doubled in size, from just over one hundred to just under three hundred. In that same amount of time, the list of those organizations that are neutral has declined by three, and those that agree with the deniers has fallen from one to zero.

297 total

293 alarmist 98.65%
4 neutral 1.34%
0 denier

_ EDIT -

How times change!

As of the ending of my research, the numbers now look like this:

out of 747 organizations

743 agree
4 neutral
0 disagree

99.4% agree
0.5% disagree

Since I first began researching this subject, the number of organizations that share the view of the alarmists has increased sevenfold. In that same amount of time, the list of those organizations that are neutral has remained steady at four, and those that agree with the deniers has remained zero.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

Creating a shit-ton of government policies creates chaos, confusion, and costs far too much money.

There is no chaos and confusion, at least among organizations. They are nearly unanimous. If some, most, or all of those companies listed as agreeing with the consensus stand to profit from global warming, I fail to see the negative economic impact on capitalism.

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

Those organizations that do support the global warming alarmism most likely have something to benefit from.

Please elaborate. Many deniers have implied that some, most, or all of the organizations listed above stand to profit in some way from the global warming hype, but so far they have refused to detail exactly HOW they think all these organizations will go about profiting from global warming alarmism.

Okay, if deniers think that scientists are all corrupt and saying that they agree with the consensus because they don't want their grant money taken away, fine. But, exactly how is Arch Coal and Exxon/Mobil going to profit from global warming hype? Is Arch Coal and Exxon/Mobil going to make their money from the hype in the same manner Sara Lee and Coca Cola will? Don't just raise the shadowy spectre of doubt about their motives, explain to me how they're going to make their money off global warming hype.

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

As a result, you will find few institutions that outright deny global warming. You will find far more than say 'I just don't know'

How many institutions that say 'I just don't know'[can you find? I found four. While that is "far more" than the zero institutions that deny any of the three aspects that characterize the global warming consensus, it is far smaller than the number of organizations that agree with the consensus (global warming is happening, human activity is contributing, and the risks of inaction are real.)

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

Climate change is not simply a weather issue.

Mathematics drives everything. Mathematics is the source for all those models you believe when you support global warming.

MATHEMATICS

SIAM: Mathematicians Confront Climate Change

Originally Posted by link

...The Symposium on Climate Change was organized with unusual rapidity. The seeds were planted in November, when McNerney, who has a PhD in mathematics and worked for many years on alternative sources of energy, won election to Congress in California's 11th district (south of Berkeley). "We got interested in hosting an event with McNerney, and then many things began suggesting climate change as a subject," says David Eisenbud, the departing director of MSRI. Eisenbud and Jones, who was at MSRI for a semester-long program on dynamical systems, began inviting speakers in February, only two months before the event. "It was a miracle that it all came together, but that's a sign of how much people care about this topic," Jones says.

Eisenbud invited Inez Fung, co-director of UC Berkeley's Institute for the Environment, to be the keynote speaker at both the public forum and the scientific symposium. Fung presented a compelling scientific case that global warming is real and has been caused by human activity. The dossier of evidence, she said, contains at least five clues:

* the extremely tight correlation between historical carbon dioxide levels and historical climate, as determined from ice-core samples;
* the dramatic increase in measured concentrations of carbon dioxide (and the even more pronounced increase in methane concentrations, a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide);
* isotopic evidence that the additional carbon dioxide has come from fossil-fuel burning;
* an observed increase in temperature over recent years, with 11 of the 12 warmest years on record occurring since 1995; and
* the unanimity of climate models in forecasting an increase in temperature over the next century (with the increases ranging from 1 to 12 degrees Centigrade)....

-

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

Biology has huge implications on the issue, moreso than I need to list.

BIOLOGY

ARS | Publication request: IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON PLANT BIOLOGY AND CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.

Originally Posted by link

...As a consequence of climate change and rising carbon dioxide levels, a number of aspects of weed biology are likely to be affected. These changes not only impact food security, but may include probable links to public health....

-

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz

Chemistry has obvious implications.

CHEMISTRY

https://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/co...el=mapp_search

Originally Posted by American Chemical Society

There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.

-

Originally Posted by Ballz2Wallz