News The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

[Skyhunter]

There is a lot of debate going on in the media and on forums like these as to whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real.

Here is a link to an article in the AAAS Science Magazine that states there is no disagreement between climate scientists as to the consensus, not majority or plurality, but the consensus opinion.

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

Here we have the consensus of scientific opinion.

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. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

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.

If there is no scientific basis for denying AGW, why is there so much doubt being expressed in the media and by layman on blogs and forums?

Where is the disinformation coming from and why?

 

[twisting_edge]

>>If there is no scientific basis for denying AGW, why is there so much doubt being expressed in the media and by layman on blogs and forums?<<

Perhaps the only disinformation is "there is no scientific basis for denying AGW"?

 

[Skyhunter]

>>If there is no scientific basis for denying AGW, why is there so much doubt being expressed in the media and by layman on blogs and forums?<<

Perhaps the only disinformation is "there is no scientific basis for denying AGW"?

And that is a scientific observation?

If it is disinformation, then I am sure you can provide something more scientific than flippant comments.

 

[twisting_edge]

>>If it is disinformation, then I am sure you can provide something more scientific than flippant comments.<<

Sure. Would you accept Mr. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT) as a source?

from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

I can dig up more, but so can you if you try.

 

[Skyhunter]

>>If it is disinformation, then I am sure you can provide something more scientific than flippant comments.<<

Sure. Would you accept Mr. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT) as a source?

from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

I can dig up more, but so can you if you try.

The opinion page of the Wall Street Journal?

That is an OP-ED it does not have to be accurate or even go through a fact checking procedure.

This just supports the OP of the thread that the media is raising doubt, not the scientific community.

 

[twisting_edge]

Which of the parties do you feel is lying in this case? Mr. Lindzen, or the WSJ for failing to publish the piece he wrote accurately?

Perhaps you had better write a letter to MIT bringing this lie of Mr Lindzen's to their attention right away. I am sure MIT would have grave problems with one of their senior staff publishing lies in a major newpaper.

 

[Bystander]

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:

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.

Only the first category is an "explicit" endorsement; the "implicit" endorsements of categories 2, 3 are equally easily argued to be inferences based on topics by the AAAP study authors --- the "political winds" blow research money over the fence into my study area, who am I to argue? There is NOTHING "remarkable" in the fact that no papers asserted that there is "no global warming;" that's part of the scientific method --- the possibility of constructing perpetual motion machines of the first or second kind is still formally acknowledged, or alternatively, it is a formal concession in scientific arguments that the first and second laws of thermodynamics may be violated (don't bet any money on it). So, we have some fraction, about 1/3, of AAAP's "75%" who explicitly endorse the climate change argument. We have AAAP overstating the results of the study. We have a member of a history department lecturing the scientific community and general public on what steps to take.

Violating "formal scientific principles," there is NO CONSENSUS!

 

[Skyhunter]

Which of the parties do you feel is lying in this case? Mr. Lindzen, or the WSJ for failing to publish the piece he wrote accurately?

Perhaps you had better write a letter to MIT bringing this lie of Mr Lindzen's to their attention right away. I am sure MIT would have grave problems with one of their senior staff publishing lies in a major newpaper.

I didn't say they were lying. I said it is an OP/ED. An OP/ED in a conservative newspaper. Opinion and editorial is not even true journalism, let alone science. I can write an article and get it published on an OP/ED page.

To reiterate, it is an editorialized opinion. Not a peer reviewed scientific study.

 

[twisting_edge]

Only the first category is an "explicit" endorsement; the "implicit" endorsements of categories 2, 3 are equally easily argued to be inferences based on topics by the AAAP study authors

They may even be less than that. Consider categories 4 & 5 "methods / paleoclimate analysis". Either of those may address strong negative feedback systems similar to the "Iris Effect" described in the paper I quoted. Unless the author explicitly argued against the consensus opinion as his primary thesis in a paper, it would not necessarily be counted in that sixth category ("rejection of the consensus opinion").

There are plenty of papers about the North American CO2 sink, although they are almost all trying to explain it away. Yet the sink still exists. It's a pretty strong argument that our understanding of the system is not perfect if North America is a net consumer of CO2.

 

[Evo]

ITo reiterate, it is an editorialized opinion. Not a peer reviewed scientific study.

Where did you post a peer reviewed scientific study? I don't see it. I see an essay.

 

[Rach3]

If there is no scientific basis for denying AGW, why is there so much doubt being expressed in the media and by layman on blogs and forums?

Where is the disinformation coming from and why?

Rather than fall into the usual political banter, why not apply empirical principles to this question? Let's propose various "models" of disinformation, and see how well they respectively fit reality!

I propose the following model: we are in a giant "echo-box" full of very confused people, most of which are functionally illiterate and have no concept of critical thinking. Furthermore, they do not know the scope and limitations of their reason; so they may have strong opinions on matters which they've never considered or researched - and critically, they will resist changing their worldview in light of strong evidence.

In the model, psuedoscientific nonsense - e.g. Intelligent Design, will bounce around the walls of our "echo box" without significant dampening. In the absence of critical reasoning, ideas will compete for volume but not validity; so even thoroughly debunked ideas will remain for decades bouncing around the echo walls. Emotion will "select out" the ideas to be amplified most. Thus ideologically convenient* worldviews would be disproportionally more prevalent than inconvenient ones (*e.g., Intelligent Design; cold fusion; hafnium isomer bomb; "science" of racial/ethnic/gender superiority; global warming denial; "Star Wars" missile defence; "War on Terror...").

My model is quite cynical, as you see. I'd love to see it refuted!

(edited for clarity)

 

[twisting_edge]

Opinion and editorial is not even true journalism, let alone science. I can write an article and get it published on an OP/ED page.

Really? Point to me an article you have had published on the editorial page of a major newspaper. It's not as simple as you seem to think, unless you are a regular columnist (e.g., Dowd, Krugman, etc.).

Give it a whirl and get back to me.

After you've received your hundredth rejection slip, you might consider why the WSJ (and the NYT) publish papers by people that hold senior positions like Mr. Lindzen's. He has a professional reputation to maintain. That's why people might be inclined to trust him.

To be quite honest with you, I do tend to trust Mr. Lindzen's opinion on the working of the process a little more than yours. I don't find the lack of peer-reveiwed papers that are inherently critical of the peer reveiw process (as Mr. Lindzen's is) to be any surprise at all.

 

[Rach3]

What kind of joke is this? Editorials suddenly have scientific merit? And they're giving peer-reviewed journals a run for their money?

 

[Gokul43201]

Where did you post a peer reviewed scientific study? I don't see it. I see an essay.

Evo, that essay was submitted to Science, which is peer-reviewed. However, that a paper is peer-reviewed does not make it infallible...hardly. What it does, nevertheless, is separate it from unreviewed stuff that gets published in newspapers and magazines.

 

[Evo]

Evo, that essay was submitted to Science, which is peer-reviewed. However, that a paper is peer-reviewed does not make it infallible...hardly. What it does, however, is separate it from an unreviewed stuff that gets published in newspapers and magazines.

Yes, I know Science is peer reviewed, but it's not a scientific study, it's an essay.

But I think we're getting off course here. I have asked an expert I met to come here to discuss this, but I don't know if he will. He's into some really fascinating stuff. I'd really like to hear his opinions.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

I'm not posting to debate the topic. I'm just letting you know where the skeptism comes from since you asked.

First, I'm sorry to say, that scientists cannot even agree that it is a consensus.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000713slouching_toward_sci.html

But from a layman's perspective...

It's because the planet has gone through warming and cooling trends and high hurricane cycles that date back long before the industrial revolution. We've been told we're going to destroy ourselves "in 10 years" for 30 years now. The unwashed masses are getting sick of it.

The biggest "official" measure taken to correct the alleged problem seems to be the Kyoto treaty, which exemps two nations with larger burgeoning industrial growth than even the US has.

What sets off a lot of red flags as well are the kind of people who do the most to push global warming. The political agenda behind most of these groups makes their message all that much harder to swallow.

Add to that the reports of increased solar activity and enough contradictory reports stating that the Earth's surface is, in fact, cooling, us uneducated surfs tend to become skepitcal. Many reports also seem very clear in illustrating that natural phenomenon contribute more to greenhouse gasses than man does.

Even one of the original key drivers of Kyoto has backed off some...

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate%20Data%20new%2Epdf

Two sites that science minded readers may lend some credence...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.globalwarming.org/

And here are a few random articles that I found from a little digging (not easy to find by search engine standards)...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040602061025.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2001/1627.html

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860

Crush me at your leisure.

 

[twisting_edge]

Editorials suddenly have scientific merit? And they're giving peer-reviewed journals a run for their money?

The issue is not about science. Go reread the original comment. It is about the media bias in reporting the science. The original comment on the matter is quite clear in that regard.

In that category of debate, I would say editorials certainly have a great deal of merit. Wouldn't you?

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, I know Science is peer reviewed, but it's not a scientific study.

Its content however, has been assessed by peers in the field to not misrepresent the scientific knowledge in the field.

In many scientific (at least in many physics) journals, you have what are called review articles. These rarely report any new science. They mostly review and summarize the knowledge contained within a field. They are nevertheless held to as high a standard as a paper reporting original work.

Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be any errors or misrepresentations in the article, only that it isn't very likely.

 

[Evo]

Its content however, has been assessed by peers in the field to not misrepresent the scientific knowledge in the field.

In many scientific (at least in many physics) journals, you have what are called review articles. These rarely report any new science. They mostly review and summarize the knowledge contained within a field. They are nevertheless held to as high a standard as a paper reporting original work.

Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be any errors or misrepresentations in the article, only that it isn't very likely.

I would agree with that. But it's an overall synopsis. It should be represented as such and not a specific study as there is no specific data here. Perhaps I am too nit picky.

 

[Rach3]

I would agree with that. But it's an overall synopsis. It should be represented as such and not a specific study as there is no spcific data here. Perhaps I am too nit picky.

Not at all! An essay reviewing a scientific consensus is not a "scientific study" and should not be advertised as such.

 

[twisting_edge]

Not at all! An essay reviewing a scientific consensus is not a "scientific study" and should not be advertised as such.

Then perhaps you can explain why it takes a peer-reveiwed article to contest a non-peer-reviewed article?

It would seem to me it comes down to the credentials of the author and the publication.

 

[Evo]

Then perhaps you can explain why it takes a peer-reveiwed article to contest a non-peer-reviewed article?

It would seem to me it comes down to the credentials of the author and the publication.

Not really, going through peer review for scientific issues is quite critical and there is a valid reason for it.

 

[twisting_edge]

Perhaps in this case, you might make an exception. The fellow seems to know what he is talking about. For example, I don't believe anyone bothered to read this part of it:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

His point is not that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, but that they media hype is more than a little overstated.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps in this case, you might make an exception. The fellow seems to know what he is talking about. For example, I don't believe anyone bothered to read this part of it:

His point is not that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, but that they media hype is more than a little overstated.

I haven't read the whole article, but he does seem to be unbiased.

 

[Rach3]

Then perhaps you can explain why it takes a peer-reveiwed article to contest a non-peer-reviewed article?

It would seem to me it comes down to the credentials of the author and the publication.

Science editorials are opinions of the editors and do not undergo peer-review. This is a point of confusion which has been propagating throughout this thread, I apologize for it. The essay is a non-scientific meta-analysis of the current (peer-reviewed) literature in climate change, looking at trends in general consensus. It does not examine the merits of scientists' viewpoints, merely their popularities; I cannot emphasize too strongly that this is not the science.

This article does not establish the merits of anthropogenic climate change; it does establish that there is a general consensus on those merits. If you want to personally on those merits, this is not an acceptable basis for argument (nor any editorial!). Rather, you would have to go to some of those hundreds of referenced articles, and use the actual scientific arguments themselves.

 

[Gokul43201]

Science editorials are opinions of the editors and do not undergo peer-review.

Didn't notice that it was an editorial. I apologize as well.

Edit : It is an essay, not an editorial. I believe (but can't confirm) that essays also go through peer review. I'm not sure what field the peers would have been chosen from, for the article in the OP.

 

[SOS2008]

There are plenty of studies. The problem is the debate about the studies (per this link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ ). Nonetheless, it is my understanding that there is consensus that the Earth is experiencing climate change -- why, how much, how fast, etc. is what is being debated.

 

[Rach3]

Note that the (Science editorial) author is a professor of history, not a climatologist.

 

[Evo]

Note that the (Science editorial) author is a professor of history, not a climatologist.

Good point, as always.

 

[Rach3]

I haven't read the whole article, but he does seem to be unbiased.

Just skimming the article, I'd disagree. The word "alarmist" or "alarmism" appeared no less than 17 times; also the phrases "sinister" and "witch hunt". It labels the consensus view as "junk science", without elaboration; it emphasizes the "costly policies" that would be necessary if this danger were real (ideological prejudice). It makes a number of truly outlandish claims, such as:

It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism.

He further claims that the marginalization of his viewpoint is due to systematic policies of journal editors (#34 of Baez' http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" ; +40 points!):

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.

Then there are the usual straw-man arguments critcizing the "models", that since the "models" fail at so-and-so, all other science must be thrown out as well (an argument which has been around for quite a while, by the way):

It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

 

[Evo]

Well, that's what I get for reading only the first few sentences.

I happen to like Baez's crackpot index.

Damn, I need to get this other guy to come here, but he bounces laser beams off tropical forests to get CO2 levels from satelites (at least that is my warped understanding) he is in forest ecology. Well, it's a bit more involved than that, but I'll let him explain if he will come here.

 

[Rach3]

He didn't just make the Baez index - he hit one of the 40-pointers on the nose!

 

[twisting_edge]

Then there are the usual straw-man arguments critcizing the "models", that since the "models" fail at so-and-so, all other science must be thrown out as well (an argument which has been around for quite a while, by the way)

No, that is not his point. I am not aware of anyone seriously claiming the increase in hurricanes is the result of global warming. The NOAA has a very specific Q&A on the matter (it's not true), and I have quite an amount of personal experience with it dating back to 1988.

That claim is one of three he lists in the very first paragraph of his article as being made by the press. I don't believe ANY of the models support any of those three claims.

He's not attacking a straw man, there, he is being very specific. In order to accept those three claims (and lots of others regularly made in the popular press that he did not list), you have to reject the currently accepted models and adopt something even more extreme.

 

[Gokul43201]

Damn, I need to get this other guy to come here, but he bounces laser beams off tropical forests...

Guess that explains all the fires!

 

[Rach3]

No, that is not his point. I am not aware of anyone seriously claiming the increase in hurricanes is the result of global warming.

Nor am I. Yet Lindzen's very first sentence took on that straw-man:

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change.

The DEFINITION of straw-man is to attack something that is not seriously claimed, or is claimed by non-serious sources. Unless he does know of a serious claim, in which case he should reference it without delay. (edited)

 

[Evo]

Guess that explains all the fires!

Heh, he's cool. Help me persuade him to come here. But he's busy with pesky grad students.

 

[Skyhunter]

Only the first category is an "explicit" endorsement; the "implicit" endorsements of categories 2, 3 are equally easily argued to be inferences based on topics by the AAAP study authors --- the "political winds" blow research money over the fence into my study area, who am I to argue? There is NOTHING "remarkable" in the fact that no papers asserted that there is "no global warming;" that's part of the scientific method --- the possibility of constructing perpetual motion machines of the first or second kind is still formally acknowledged, or alternatively, it is a formal concession in scientific arguments that the first and second laws of thermodynamics may be violated (don't bet any money on it). So, we have some fraction, about 1/3, of AAAP's "75%" who explicitly endorse the climate change argument. We have AAAP overstating the results of the study. We have a member of a history department lecturing the scientific community and general public on what steps to take.

Violating "formal scientific principles," there is NO CONSENSUS!

Good points.

However you are understating the results.

Since you assumed that the first 3 categories are equally divided into 1/3 of 3/4, or 25%, for the sake of argument let's continue that assumption.

You seem to be suggesting that only 25% of the abstracts endorse the scientific consensus 50% were were written for money, and the other 25% are neutral.

Perhaps I have a better opinion of the scientific community, but I would think the number of disingenuous scientists is probably very low. However, for the sake of argument let us assume it is 10% of category 2 and 3 or 20%.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the neutral abstracts are divided evenly.

With these assumptions, 32.5% of the abstract papers do not endorse the consensus position.

67% endorse the consensus opinion.

0% dispute the consensus opinion.

[edit]
This is what I get for doing math in my head.

10% of 50% is 5%

Which makes the ratios:

17.5% do not endorse
82.5% Endorse
0% dispute
[/edit

Which leads us to twisting_edge's link the the WSJ OP/ED.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

Is there a conspiracy in the scientific community to terrorize and frighten the people of the world with lies about climate change. .

If so, then to what purpose?

 

[twisting_edge]

The DEFINITION of straw-man is to attack something that is not seriously claimed,

The mainstream media seems to have made those claims very strongly indeed. You might not feel that is a serious claim, but the usual folks watching the TV news do. That is the primary target he is attacking, and he's very clear about that. The bulk of his article, and if you read it again you'll see this is true, addresses the policy issues arising from global warming. The bit on the end about "article not in the general interest" is another argument for another day.

If you'd like to start a thread on that, you go right ahead, but here's a warning: there will be no peer reviewed articles on the matter, neither pro nor con. You're going to have to live with an awful lot of mere opinion and reasoning once you open that can of worms.

 

[Evo]

Is there a conspiracy in the scientific community to terrorize and frighten the people of the world with lies about climate change. .

If so, then to what purpose?

No, I believe that was referring to scientists that are NOT alarmists, but non-alarmists don't get the publicity alarmists do.

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear"

 

[Rach3]

Is there a conspiracy in the scientific community to terrorize and frighten the people of the world with lies about climate change. .

If so, then to what purpose?

This is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS and irresponsible! In light of the repeated, brazen, REAL CENSORSHIP of climatologists by this anti-science administration -

NYT: Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (1/29)

and the CENSORING of official climate reports by ideological hacks -

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/24/politics/main564873.shtml
"W. House Guts Global Warming Study"

and the ideological litmus-tests on scientific positions, leading to political hacks like Marburger

Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur.

"There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021_pf.html

in light of this very obvious and serious situation of injecting ideology into science, it is OUTRAGEOUS to be claiming the exact opposite - that the repeatedly-censored scientists are in fact the censors.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not at all! An essay reviewing a scientific consensus is not a "scientific study" and should not be advertised as such.

I did not represent it as such. I was referring to the 928 abstracts when I said peer reviewed as opposed to OP/ED.

 

[Skyhunter]

in light of this very obvious and serious situation of injecting ideology into science, it is OUTRAGEOUS to be claiming the exact opposite - that the repeatedly-censored scientists are in fact the censors.

That is good, we have enough problems with terror, don't need the scientific community adding to it.

 

[twisting_edge]

That is good, we have enough problems with terror, don't need the scientific community adding to it.

Then in the interests of maintianing the public calm, you are suggesting we ought to discourage the nightly news from publicizing the terrors of global warming? I thought that was what the Bush admninistration (whom I can't stand, BTW) was already trying to do.

I still think its a completely immoral tactic, even though you would seem to be endorsing it.

P.S.: Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as sarcasm. It can be subtle at times, I know, but you need to keep track of it nonetheless.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have yet to see many articles claiming it is even harder to find grant money to prove anthropogenic global warming exists, but I suppose there must be some fringe authors who would assert that.

The reason you have not found articles saying that's it's harder to prove AGW exists is probably because that's not how scientists write grant proposals, and that's not how science is done. You do not do an experiment/measurement to prove some predetermined endpoint. If you did, it wouldn't be called scientific research. You can't write a proposal to a funding agency and say "I intend to prove [xyz]...give me money". In fact, ironically, anyone that did just that would find it exceptionally hard to get that grant.

 

[Skyhunter]

Then in the interests of maintianing the public calm, you are suggesting we ought to discourage the nightly news from publicizing the terrors of global warming? I thought that was what the Bush admninistration (whom I can't stand, BTW) was already trying to do.

I still think its a completely immoral tactic, even though you would seem to be endorsing it.

P.S.: Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as sarcasm. It can be subtle at times, I know, but you need to keep track of it nonetheless.

Only when they are just sensationalizing which I agree does happen. And like the boy who cried wolf, that creates a credibility problem when the wolf is really there.

 

[twisting_edge]

The reason you have not found articles saying that's it's harder to prove AGW exists is probably because that's not how scientists write grant proposals, and that's not how science is done.

This is utterly disingenious. If you do not know in advance approximately what the impact of your investigation will be, how do you write the proposal? A part of every proposal is the significance of the anticipated results. There is usually a reason to evaluate any given aspect of a given phenomenon. No experiment happens in a vacuum (except literally).

My professors would have had me over a barrel as a "knob twiddler" hoping to be the "next monkey to type Shakespeare" if I had ever gone into a lab without a sound theoretical basis for what I was hoping to prove (or wound up disproving, as the case may be).

It's almost always one-way ratchet at the best of times: either your hypothesis is correct and you get the expected results, or it is wrong, and you get nothing. It's very rare for an experiment to prove the opposite (not just the absence) of what it set out to demonstrate.

 

[twisting_edge]

I've made no claims about censorship in the grant process

Then you are attacking a straw man yourself, since that is precisely Mr. Lindzen's point. Try reading his article again. He is very, very clear on the matter.

I agree that any sort of analysis of the acceptance grant proposals would be self-defeating. If the data for such studies were collected, people would file garbage proposals specifically so they could claim censorship.

A similar argument applies to Mr. Lindzen's other point about the journals declining articles as "not in the general interest". Acceptance rates would be equally meaningless.

If you wish to address Mr. Lindzen's points, you're going to need an opinion or two. There is no way around that. Opinions can be supported, however. They are not meaningless in and of themselves. They are, ultimately, the basis for all decisions ever made.

 

[dimensionless]

Where is the disinformation coming from and why?

Congress

text to fill the minimum character requirement

 

[Bystander]

Good points.

However you are understating the results.

Since you assumed that the first 3 categories are equally divided into 1/3 of 3/4, or 25%, for the sake of argument let's continue that assumption.

You seem to be suggesting that only 25% of the abstracts endorse the scientific consensus 50% were were written for money, and the other 25% are neutral.

I don't "seem to be suggesting" any such thing; given that the AAAS report a zero population for gp. 6 (contrary endorsements), and do not identify any other groups as having a zero population, I am stating flatly that the percentage endorsing GW is less than the 75% the AAAS claims. The fact that explicit endorsements are lumped with inferred endorsements further suggests that there may have been an embarrassingly low population in gp.1.

Perhaps I have a better opinion of the scientific community, but I would think the number of disingenuous scientists is probably very low. However, for the sake of argument let us assume it is 10% of category 2 and 3 or 20%.

"I'll fight a scrubwoman if they pay me enough," attributed to Muhammed Ali/Cassius Clay. House and car payments, groceries, utility bills, alimony, college tuition for kids all contribute to a very pragmatic approach to research choices; if IGT and GPA run RFPs for atmospheric CO₂ remediation, people run to their file drawers of stock proposals that haven't been funded and are, however remotely, related to CO₂, rewrite the opening and closing paragraphs, update salary and equipment costs, double the overhead, run off a new cover letter and send 'em in. They get funded, the abstract, key words, intro, and conclusion get a few words about GHG, climate change, and whatever buzz-words are popular, and that's that. It "DON'T MEAN NUTHIN' " about the opinions, beliefs, or "endorsements" of the investigator. It does mean the bills get paid for one to three years, and that maybe, once in a while, someone gets to work on something that interests them --- just as long as they can "paint it up" with the right buzz-words to sell it to someone else.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the neutral abstracts are divided evenly.

With these assumptions, 32.5% of the abstract papers do not endorse the consensus position.

67% endorse the consensus opinion.

0% dispute the consensus opinion.

Counting the assumption we've both made implicitly that AAAS did use a proper statistical design in picking their 900 and some papers, this is too many "if-levels" down the logic tree to mean anything.

Which leads us to twisting_edge's link the the WSJ OP/ED.


Is there a conspiracy in the scientific community to terrorize and frighten the people of the world with lies about climate change. .

If so, then to what purpose?

Nope. Little more "junk science" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" type peer review than is ideal, but you ain't going to get two members of the scientific community to agree on much of anything of a political or social/cultural nature, let alone a few million on scamming the public.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . he bounces laser beams off tropical forests to get CO2 levels from satelites . . . he is in forest ecology. Well, it's a bit more involved than that, but I'll let him explain if he will come here.

This is an example of remote sensing. (e.g. A Remote Sensing Approach for Estimating Regional Grassland Carbon Dioxide Flux) Satellite instruments monitor various frequencies in IR, as well as visual and radio/radar. Some frequencies are sensitive to CO₂ and H₂O. Active systems can simply shine light from a CO₂ laser on a forest and record the absorption (reduction in reflected intensity) which is a function of the CO₂ concentration.

Similar approach - http://www.cabq.gov/aircare/rst.html