Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 11 days
Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
    #3460449 - 12/07/04 03:47 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

This is an article from Science that states that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.


For those who don't know:
Science and Nature are the two non-specialized science journals; they are written primarily for scientists and other technically minded people, and present orriginal research and reviews that are of interest to all scientists, regardles of discipline (unlike, say, Journal of the American Chemical Society, which only interests chemists).

In other words, this a primary mouthpiece for the scientific community. Since it presents original research, many articles in Science will be mistaken; however, this article is a review of over 900 articles dealing with the subject of climate change, and so is more reliable than any papers dealing with original research.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Quote:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-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). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). 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). 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)].

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)]. 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)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), 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).

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).

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

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu />


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3460980 - 12/07/04 05:49 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

all this says is that out of 900 articles written, none of them
refute the notion that mankind is (negatively) impacting the
environment.

essentially, if what some claim is true, that there is a wide-spread
scientific bias towards the human explanation, than this summary
doesn't mean anything because they wouldn't have written any
articles contrary to their widespread agenda.

but, then again, if you believe the unbiased nature and principle
of these magazines, then you can postulate that, just as many
of us believe, that climate change has been impacted by man.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 11 days
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: afoaf]
    #3461137 - 12/07/04 06:20 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


essentially, if what some claim is true, that there is a wide-spread
scientific bias towards the human explanation, than this summary
doesn't mean anything because they wouldn't have written any
articles contrary to their widespread agenda.




What's the difference between "wide-spread scientific bias" and consensus?

What this article demonstrates is that most researchers studying climate change favor an explanation that includes the influence of humans. None oppose the notion. Thus, there is consensus in the community of scientists stuyding the climate that humans have impacted the climate, and continue to do so. Those who claim differently are wrong.

This is not to say that the scientists aren't wrong, of course, just that everyone actually writing published, peer-reviewed papers agrees.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3461648 - 12/07/04 08:20 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

The root of the issue is that this line..."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"...is fundamentally flawed. Simply looking at the natural climate changes throughout history shows that the change over the last 50 years is statistically insignificant. It happens all the time and therefore there is no way to connect it to human causes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 11 days
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Catalysis]
    #3463870 - 12/08/04 09:52 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

The people doing this research have access to those data (historical climate change), and are trained to analyse it. In fact, we are talking about the same people that produced those data - from ice cores taken from glaciers, for example. And yet they still hold the position that humans have had an impact on climate change.

The statement you refer to is not fundamentally flawed in that it is self-contradicting; it is fundamentally flawed in that you either disagree with it or disagree with the arguments used to support it.

The paper here doesn't deal with the particular arguments within the community of scientists studying climate change over whether humans have had an impact on the climate; it is pointing out that there isn't one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3465484 - 12/08/04 03:46 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

This is not to say that the scientists aren't wrong, of course, just that everyone actually writing published, peer-reviewed papers agrees.




my point exactly.

except, some people think this 'consensus' is contrived and not
arrived at honestly.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 11 days
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: afoaf]
    #3465550 - 12/08/04 04:00 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


except, some people think this 'consensus' is contrived and not




They do (almost) all work for universities, those bastions of elitist liberal thought. And they get government money. :shiftyeyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3466371 - 12/08/04 05:59 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

phi1618 said:
The people doing this research have access to those data (historical climate change), and are trained to analyze it. In fact, we are talking about the same people that produced those data - from ice cores taken from glaciers, for example. And yet they still hold the position that humans have had an impact on climate change.

The statement you refer to is not fundamentally flawed in that it is self-contradicting; it is fundamentally flawed in that you either disagree with it or disagree with the arguments used to support it.

The paper here doesn't deal with the particular arguments within the community of scientists studying climate change over whether humans have had an impact on the climate; it is pointing out that there isn't one.




Actually I'm not sure that's true. I think that if you look at the climate data, you can see that any recent climate change is not significant compared to past data.

Now, as a scientist, I will try to explain what is really going on here. We get our funding from you, the taxpayer through government funding organizations. Personally I get mine through NIH and NASA. I assume that these people get funding through other government science organizations. What happens is that these people get a research grant because of the political sway that it holds. They then spend 10 months of the year at their vacation home living off the money and they take a couple months doing some simple research at the library to come to a conclusion. This conclusion, however, is devoid of any hard evidence that humans are causing the earth to be destroyed within the foreseeable future. Its like that group that currently studied if Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem or not. Shit, they probably got 100k of your tax dollars to do it and that could have been spent on research like cancer, Parkinson's, and nerve damage.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 11 days
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Catalysis]
    #3466881 - 12/08/04 07:24 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Actually I'm not sure that's true.



Which statement does this refer to? That the climate scientists refered to in this article are the same scientists that produced data about the past climate?

from the article:
Quote:

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.




So, from the article and the analysis they did, it's not clear either way. However, it should be noted that the primary way that people study the climate is by developing computer driven models and comparing the output of these models to geological and other available climate data. So, I strongly suspect that there is a large overlap between paleoclimate researchers and those interested in the impact of human activity on the climate.

Quote:

I think that if you look at the climate data, you can see that any recent climate change is not significant compared to past data.



This sidesteps the arguments and methodology of researchers interested in climate change. Climatologists delop models to predict particluarly long term changes in climate. These models incorporate data from a variety of sources (further down) and are weighed against the geological and climatic record.

Human activity has produced a substantial increase in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 150 years ( http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html ) The models developed by climatologists all predict that this is causing change in the climate and will have an increasingly significant effect over the coming decades.

The problem with your argument about the climate data is that you're trying to detect a signal against an extemely noisy background. Only an enormous and likely catastrphic change would be detectable with 95% confidence.

Quote:

We get our funding from you, the taxpayer through government funding organizations. Personally I get mine through NIH and NASA. I assume that these people get funding through other government science organizations.



You are not talking about a small group or an isolated community of researchers. The people involved in studying the climate include climatologists, computer modelling specialists, astronomers (impact of incident energy and its fluctuations from the sun), aerologists (study the composition and chemistry of the atmosphere), oceanographers, biogeochemists (study the flow of elements through biological, geological, and atmospheric cycles), meteorologists, biologists, glaciologists, geologists, etc. etc.
Nor are researchers studying climate change limited to the US.
This is not an isolated, or even relatively isolated, group of people. This isn't Dr. Ricaurte (NIDA funded drug researcher). This isn't even a single discipline.
What you are suggesting is that a huge group of people who studied in different countries and universities and who have a variety of specialties and get their funding from a variety of sources are cooperating in distorting the facts in order to get funding more easily.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #8357459 - 05/03/08 11:58 AM (16 years, 19 days ago)

The claim by Oreskes has been shown to be inaccurate.

See http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
. [Re: Phred]
    #8357520 - 05/03/08 12:18 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

.


--------------------
.

Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 23,698
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 21 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (moved) [Re: phi1618]
    #8357742 - 05/03/08 01:28 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

This thread was moved from Political Discussion.

Reason:
This thread appears to be discussing science, and as a similar thread was creating quite the spout of drama in the Politics forum very recently, I am going to move this one to Science & Technology for further discussion in efforts to spare the dramatics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8357822 - 05/03/08 02:00 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

I think you appended the wrong reply to the wrong article.

This has nothing to do with any list being sneered at by the minions of Markos Moulitsas and everything to do with a scholarly refutation of Naomi Orestes' errors of fact -- errors which she then admitted to.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #8357835 - 05/03/08 02:03 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/15/21 05:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8357840 - 05/03/08 02:06 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

Ummm... no. See Geokills' rationale for moving the thread to the proper forum.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Phred]
    #8357851 - 05/03/08 02:08 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/15/21 05:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
. [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8357893 - 05/03/08 02:20 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

.


--------------------
.

Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8358008 - 05/03/08 02:57 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

Super, you are responding to some post that was never in this thread, and that wasn't made by me in the first place.

Go to my post of today, click on the link, read it. Don't stop at the end of the first paragraph, read the entire article. Check out some of the embedded links as well, if you wish.

The article I linked has nothing to do with some list of hundreds of scientists and everything to do with showing how Naomi Oreskes screwed the pooch in her article in Science where she claimed her exhaustive search of every relevant scientific paper published in a decade failed to unearth a single paper which disagreed with the AGW orthodoxy. AGW adherents trumpeted long and loud for years that this was definitive proof no "real" scientist disbelieved their hypothesis.

As it turns out, Oreskes was wrong. Quite a few real scientists do dispute the orthodoxy, yet she somehow managed to miss (at the least) a few dozen of their papers.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
. [Re: Phred]
    #8358418 - 05/03/08 05:01 PM (16 years, 19 days ago)

.


--------------------
.

Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #8369525 - 05/06/08 04:08 PM (16 years, 16 days ago)

Nature won't publish articles that the editors consider to be against the mainstrean or what they think the majority believe. Its probably the same with Science. They're in it for the money.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Are we too late to save our climate?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
BrainChemistry 5,643 99 08/11/09 11:47 AM
by Minstrel
* Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
( 1 2 all )
libertaire 1,966 23 05/01/09 09:00 PM
by BrainChemistry
* The Scientific Importance of the Moon jdirty 1,210 6 04/28/07 01:16 AM
by elbisivni
* Climate Change tak 949 10 03/14/06 05:03 AM
by WhiteBunny
* Welcome to the rational face of climate cult alarmism Visionary Tools 594 0 06/02/08 01:01 PM
by Visionary Tools
* Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual Visionary Tools 974 4 01/20/08 02:17 PM
by badchad
* Dried Mushrooms Slow Climate Warming In Northern Forests Floyd_ 391 0 11/10/08 11:32 PM
by Floyd_
* I completely lost trust in scientific studies
( 1 2 all )
Epigallo 4,179 34 11/12/08 03:22 PM
by Plasmid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
5,462 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.