Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Regarding sticky: Reviews on Global Warming

  1. Jul 3, 2005 #1
    Monique: Thank you for posting links to the two reviews on climate change, in the sticky thread. I am heartened to see that in fact, the PF are not comprised of global warming skeptics, as was my first impression. Both reviews lie with consensus opinion. It's been my experience that all "anti" warming reviews and papers tend to come from Shell, Exxon, etc. or those in their employment. Should you come across any reviews that oppose the consensus, I would be interested to see them, and to see who has put them together.

    I would like to mention one thing. You introduce these two reviews with the note that there is "controversy" in the scientific community ... and it is my understanding that this is not an accurate reflection of the state of things. For example, see:


    This link relates a survey of climate change literature. Of 928 papers analyzed, not one opposed the consensus opinion. There is no controversy among climate scientists, in my understanding.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 4, 2005 #2
    To balance Naomi Oreskes work it may be interesting to take note of

    However this last claim is rather colored. These 10 were only the the "5"'s scores in the polls that gave answers in the range 1-5 from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The real outcome was more balanced somewhere in the order of 60-40%. The point remains however that there is no consensus that there is consensus. :yuck: :biggrin:
  4. Jul 7, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From Andre's link

  5. Jul 12, 2005 #4
    But then again some seem to have a different idea:

  6. Jul 13, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is JSE, from Andre's link, considered a reputable source? If so I would like to know since they also publish a good amount of UFO information.
  7. Jul 13, 2005 #6
    I wonder if it's relevant which publication it's in. There have been doubts about peer review processes anyway. This is an essay allegly written by David Deming. Hence he is responsible for the contents. So the questions are, if this is the truth the whole truth and nothing but and if DD can back up his claims, especially the E-mail part about killing the Medieval Warming Period.
  8. Jul 13, 2005 #7
    Of course the publication is relevant. For various reasons - some journals are tougher to get into, etc. ??

    So I looked into David Deming. Your link takes me to the National Center for Policy Analysis. They claim:

    I find little to disagree with, there! Yet despite these nice words, the topics under discussion on this page:


    Are all one-sided. NCPA doesn't appear interested in making good policy ---- they appear interested in finding information that supports the policy that they want. Policy making is not an easy task. You certainly don't make policy by pre-arranging the data you want!! So why is NCPA, whose very name indicates analysing policy, only linking to anti-warming sites?

    This is an example of what I mean in another thread when I say that I am not interested in being swamped in questionable sources. Your approach doesn't help your goal.
  9. Jul 13, 2005 #8
    I’m sorry if you don’t appreciate my methods. But it’s a bit tough indeed to find the right attitude in delicate matters like this. So I just try to live up to the scientific method, which may not be all that popular at times:

    Rule one: Science is processing facts, not opinions. Rule two: never confuse the opinion of the majority with the truth. Rule three: the scientific acceptance standards are independent of the attractiveness of the conclusions. Rule four: Never let the mere urgent interfere with the truly important. Rule five: find and remove the fallacies.

    So it's all about politics and nothing about science? What if you compared to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC, some one-sideness too, perhaps.

    Anyway, Deming makes some serious acquisitions here directly aimed at the IPCC, especially the killing of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) part. Notice how he almost managed to do that without ad hominems and other red herrings. Only one escaped unfortunately:

    That’s an circumstantial ad hominem, He should not have done that but if you’d compare it with the usual classification of sceptics then it is not too bad.

    About the killing the MWP, I was following that closely. I was aware of the literature about the MWP and I shared the feeling of Deming: “we’re being conned here, shamelessly”. Never before in the history of science, has such a controversial hypothesis with such a shipload of disproving evidence, been endorsed so quickly and with such a triumph. This mere fact has made a lot of sceptics, me included. You simply cannot do that for the sake of the mere urgent, sacrificing the truly impoprtant, the truth. Now we see the dismantling but the damage has been done. It will take another generation or two before we are back to normal.

    Now back to Deming. He had better substantiate the acquisitions or shut up and apologizes. But if he does, then we have a nasty situation don’t we? Not only has the hockeystick been falsified from all kind of angles (Soon and Baliunas, McIntyre and McIttrick – twice, Von Storch and Moberg) but it could also have been a deliberately constructed political tool to persuade the masses.

    Sorry for all the ranting. But I'm very unhappy with the global warming myth and all the damage it does to the world.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2005
  10. Jul 13, 2005 #9
    This all seems superfluous to anything I said.
    More swamping with virtual data.
    A scientific approach should certainly not require a generation or two. You can run the models in a matter of days with different variables included or excluded. We can determine immediately if the presence or absence of the MWP has any bearing on the projections, and if so, to what extent. Any bias has no place in science.

    Well, you can't expect me not to ask for some references on *that.* Exactly what damage has been done?
  11. Jul 13, 2005 #10
    The Kyoto clock says "cost about US$ 60,758,560,000
    while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is
    0.000630089 C"
  12. Jul 13, 2005 #11
    How does "cost" translate into "damage?"

    And how does this stack up against the "cost" of warming (which you even acknowledge is happening)?

    And why bring Kyoto's potential temperature affect into it? Red herring to this discussion.
  13. Jul 13, 2005 #12
    Funds not available for mitigating real problems.

    There is nothing humans can do to change changes in climate since CO2 is not causing any significant climate change.

    It may be advisable not to mention red herrings.
  14. Jul 13, 2005 #13
    Can you give some specific examples of problems that have remained unmitigated as a result of the "Kyoto watch?"

    Would you agree that humans can potentially have a beneficial effect on climate whether we are responsible (as we appear to be) or not? I assume you are aware of some of the predictions (despeciation, economic havoc, rising sea level, etc) for what may happen as the warming trend continues.
  15. Jul 14, 2005 #14
    As long as there are economic fugitives knocking at our doors for a better life in the west, there are problems to mitigate. If that doesn't happen anymore then go ahead and waste your money on a non problem.

    The best whe can do is clean the air of haze and soot and stop polluting emissions. change in CO2 output is counter productive.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Regarding sticky: Reviews on Global Warming
  1. Global warming (Replies: 1)

  2. Global Warming (Replies: 2)

  3. Global warming (Replies: 5)

  4. Global Warming (Replies: 2)