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

News Scientists jumping off the warming train

  1. Dec 10, 2008 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

    POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
    The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

    Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next

    What do you guys make of this?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2008 #2
    I thought science wasn't about popularity?
     
  4. Dec 10, 2008 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That the world might be a better place if politicians didn't meddle in science (other than dishing out the money we ask for, of course)?
     
  5. Dec 10, 2008 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ha ha! Clever observation!
     
  6. Dec 10, 2008 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It was this part that grabbed my attention

    newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007.

    Many current and former UN IPCC scientists, i do not know how these numbers break down ,
    but they seem significant.
     
  7. Dec 10, 2008 #6

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The primary argument that most people make for global warming is that it's the majority consensus amongst scientists, so should be taken seriously.
     
  8. Dec 10, 2008 #7
    The bit you quoted doesn't say what type of scientists these are. A quick glance over the list of quotes shows that none (maybe a few, I didn't read the whole thing) are doing climate science. The closest things are meteorologists and environmental scientists, but neither field (necessarily) studies climate change specifically. So they have 650 people who's specialization is something other than climate, and they're trying to portray them as experts.
     
  9. Dec 10, 2008 #8

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Before I get all excited about this report I note that the Report itself is a Minority Report.

    Hmmm. Who is in the minority on this committee? I see the National Chairman of Men's Room Clean Up - Larry Craig - votes the Minority line.

     
  10. Dec 10, 2008 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A meteorologist has nothing to do with climate? I am sure climate change draws from many sciences.
     
  11. Dec 10, 2008 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, but all of the scientists in that so called pro AGW "consensus" aren't climate scientists either, and neither were all of the scientists that contributed to the IPCC report. :smile:
     
  12. Dec 10, 2008 #11
    I never said that.

    This is true, but at least some of them are.
     
  13. Dec 10, 2008 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

    Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.
     
  14. Dec 10, 2008 #13
    Meteorology deals with climate, but it's main focus isn't climate.
     
  15. Dec 10, 2008 #14
    Well whoever says that is unscientific since science is about evidence supporting a hypothesis, no matter how many people oppose it.
     
  16. Dec 10, 2008 #15

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I am not sure i care about the politicians, it is the scientist who advise the politicians, not the other way round.

    Edit

    The question is, are main stream warmer leaving the fold.
     
  17. Dec 10, 2008 #16
    So, just maybe, the sky isn't falling after all?
     
  18. Dec 10, 2008 #17
    Reminds me of another group of scientists trying to debunk Climate Change earlier this year.

    Back then it turned out most of the scientists were far from experts in Climatology.
     
  19. Dec 10, 2008 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited: Dec 10, 2008
  20. Dec 10, 2008 #19

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're half right. The average lay person has to take the majority consensus as scientific fact since he/she has no other indicator that's understandable. Unless you think everyone should be running their own experiments to determine the truth of the matter
     
  21. Dec 10, 2008 #20

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I tend to agree that the science is the thing and not the politicians, but for decades Republicans have been philosophically resistant to any thoughts of the existence of AGW apparently because it's anti-business. I find it as no great surprise that a "study" by Republicans would attack the postulates of AGW just as the Tobacco Institute finding no harm with smoking.

    I'm all for challenging postulates and revisiting results, most especially on the basis of new information. It's the shills in the crowd pushing their agendas and working up the crowds on both sides that I think only serves to distract, and not advance.
     
  22. Dec 11, 2008 #21
    You don't even need to do that. Just read up on how the experiments were conducted and see how the results turned out.
     
  23. Dec 11, 2008 #22
    And I'm sure that the average lay person will be well versed in proper methodology and interpretation of data.
     
  24. Dec 11, 2008 #23
    not all screwups require the eye of a rocket surgeon

    http://www.surfacestations.org/
     
  25. Dec 11, 2008 #24

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is an interesting debate, and I think that at the origin lies a fundamental error committed by what I'd call the AGW-crowd, symbolized by the IPCC. Instead of keeping with a truely scientific attitude where a plausible thesis is formulated (AGW), and then elements pro, contra, and uncertainties and contradictions are honestly displayed, with a tentative conclusion (if a conclusion is necessary), but with the humility necessary in the face of a complex phenomenon such as climate, the discourse has been: "we have indications", then "we have strong indications" and finally "we have good confidence" (90% certainty etc...). In other words, instead of inquiring into the phenomenon, an argument was build up to defend a single viewpoint.

    The problem has been that there were dissonances, and that the "proofs" in the past needed amending in a way which didn't go in the direction of more convincing power. As such, by overselling their certainty (for which one can surely find good intentions, and political as well as psychological reasons), they exposed themselves to the critique of bad science.

    But this is problematic. Indeed, once "climate science" (or its representatives) discredited, who is going to find out for real what's going to happen ? Once there are suspicions of a non-scientific agenda, who to believe ?

    Because it is not because one claimed maybe too soon too much certainty, that this means necessarily that the original working hypothesis is wrong. It might simply be that the phenomenon is more complex, and that the "simple and evident" indications that had to serve as proof beyond reasonable doubt turned out to be much more twisted and complex. It is not because one found errors in a proof of Fermat's last theorem, that Fermat's last theorem isn't true.

    This is a pity, because there is a lot of good science out there, but it is difficult now to see it through non-colored glasses.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2008
  26. Dec 12, 2008 #25
    So, if I wanted to decide whether or not astrology was legit, should I consider the opinion of the majority of scientists, or just the people who "specialize" in astrology?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook