News What if AGW is Wrong? Implications & Possible Consequences

[Jimmy Snyder]

What happened to that whole renaisance thing? The complaint that the scholastics never took their nose out of their books to look at the real world.

 

[chemisttree]

Next up: Who really killed Kennedy?

It was Johnson, the CIA, the Cubans and the Mob. And they also caused AGW, BTW, AFAIK.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And they also caused AGW, BTW, AFAIK.

Just wait till I get my hands on the frick and frack that caused LOL, ROLF, OMG and leetspeek in general.

 

[Count Iblis]

There actually exists a real world analogy of Vanesh's "CO2 stored in tanks" analogy: I've read that low levels of radioactivity are much less dangerous than was previously thought. Models based on observatons after the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasai had suggested that exposing large numbers of people to very low levels of radioactivity would cause significant number of cancer cases. However, after the Chernobyl disaster this turned out not to be the case. See here for details:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5173310.stm

So, we could now think about dumping low level radioactive waste in our backyards as the scientific consensus about its danger has been overturned.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

the scientific consensus about its danger has been overturned.

It's one thing to have measurements that are defective, or misinterpretted, and another to have no measurements at all.

 

[xxChrisxx]

There is no consensus, but the insistence on consensus is a typical central factor of groupthink.

I've been looking into this list for a bit.

I've been googling names now for quite a bit now (which I realize is the best method of finding these people) but almost 100% of the names I've found and succesfully linked to the petition (i.e. I am pretty sure it is them) aren't even climate scientists.
Note: I took a random selection of about 100 of the PhD scientists only, I tried to google non PhD scientists but it was too hard to track them down reliably and find there area by looking for published papers.

I've also searched into how you sign up for this petition. It requires precisely ZERO evidence to back up who you acutally are. You just fill it in and send it off, it does not ask for proof of qualifications, or proof of identification.EDIT: No wonder I couldn't find any relvent people with a random selection. See below.

The petition acutally states they they don't have to be climate scientists.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

Truncated list as it's too big: orig list http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Out of the 31000 people who 'signed' this petition. 39 listed themselves as Climatologists. Expanging this to include all atmospheric sciences gives a total of 579.

So the total amount of people with degrees directly related to climate comes to 0.01% of the list.
Even if you extended this to include environmental sciences it still only comes to 5% of the list.
Including all Earth, environ and Atmospheric (so anyone remotely relevnt in the field) comes to approx 12%

There are twice as many 'food scientists' listed as Climatologists.

There are also more credible links that say hte opposite: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

I will fully concede that there is not 100% agreement even between climate scientists on whether,
a: this is happening at all
b: we are the cause

However for there to be a consensus, you don't have to have unanimous agreement. As there appears to be a high correlation that if you are a climate scientist you tend to be a proponent of agw, i'd say that counts.
Conclusion: The linked petition can be regarded as dubious at best, and utter ******** at worst.

 

[mheslep]

I've been looking into this list for a bit.

I've been googling names now for quite a bit now (which I realize is the best method of finding these people) but almost 100% of the names I've found and succesfully linked to the petition (i.e. I am pretty sure it is them) aren't even climate scientists.

Neither is the head of the IPCC, Pachauri.

The petition acutally states they they don't have to be climate scientists.

What was the point of your exercise? The petition clearly states is was "signed by over 31,000 American scientists", period. It makes no other claim about field. Did you find any names in your sample that do not qualify as scientists in any field?

 

[Andre]

And who exactly are "climate scientist"? Computer programmers? Dendrologists? Statisticians?

Maybe it's an idea to search for the climatologists pure sang, i.e. Meteolorogists, specialized on the average weather > 30 years, preferably with at least a physics Bsc

Maybe a few here http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64

I think there are a few hits for climatologists

What is the significance of numbers anyway? Or is it merely to show that the claimed consensed is dubious at best and utter ********** at worst

 

[sylas]

Neither is the head of the IPCC, Pachauri.

An interesting point, that.

Pachauri was elected to the position in 2002, replacing Bob Watson, who certainly was a climate scientist. The political in-fighting over this was most interesting. The then US administration, under George W. Bush, was strongly lobbying to replace Watson, and there was persistent speculation at the time that industry lobbyists -- ExxonMobil in particular -- were significantly involved.

You can see some of how the election of Pachauri to replace a climate scientist was perceived at the time, in three articles from April 2002 at "heatisonline". Basically, Pachauri was widely perceived as more likely to be industry friendly than the climate scientist he replaced.

As it turns out, it is the science that counts rather than who happens to be chairman.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[xxChrisxx]

What was the point of your exercise? The petition clearly states is was "signed by over 31,000 American scientists", period. It makes no other claim about field. Did you find any names in your sample that do not qualify as scientists in any field?

The point is that the link to the peition was used to disprove whether there is a general agreement about agw. Surely it's more relevant to ask someone active in the field of research, if you want the most informed opinion.

In the link I gave it showed that the closer you got to a climate scientist who's last 50% of publications were on the topic of climate change (basically the more informed you were) showed a 97% agreement about warming and contribution of humans.Asking anyone with a degree is largely pointless, as most would not be informed anough to truly give a decent answer.

You could ask me, I'm educated to masters level in engieering and I have a decent in depth interest in this, and read papers every now and again. I would not consider my opinion informed enough to be included.

 

[xxChrisxx]

And who exactly are "climate scientist"? Computer programmers? Dendrologists? Statisticians?

A 'climate scientist' is anyone who primarily studies the climate...I would trust their opinion on something climate realted more than someone who has studied food science or botany.

Just as if I had a food related question, I would go to a food scientist, not an astronomer or someone with a PhD in maths or w/e.

 

[Al68]

Leaving aside the actual specifics of the argument pro and anti agw, i was wondering how face will be saved (by politcians and scientists) in the event that agw is falsified or shown to have been highly exagerrated?

They would do exactly what they're doing now, and exactly the same way. That's why it's hard for any layperson to know whether that's currently the situation or not.

 

[Integral]

chris,
Thanks much for that bit of research. I have been wondering about that and you have confirmed my suspicions. It does make a difference to me if the "scientist" stating a position on AGW is a climatologist or not. The opinion of those outside the field simply do not carry the same weight. We need to listen to and be guided by the experts in the field. Unfortunately it seems that may lay persons have come to see the experts in a field as "biased" and therefore not a reliable source of policy. Sad and frighting.

 

[Andre]

So you trust it when http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 ?

 

[xxChrisxx]

So you trust it when http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 ?

I never said the science was settled, as that has connotations of we know 100% what is happening, which is of course absurd.

Polls of climate scientists who are active in the field all tend to show an agreement that the Earth seems to be warming and that humans are a contributing factor.

There is no consensus as to the extent of our involvement, nor whether there will be a long term impact. I never claimed there was. I merely said it makes sense to take the path of minimal risk.

 

[Andre]

Polls of climate scientists who are active in the field all tend to show an agreement that the Earth seems to be warming and that humans are a contributing factor.

Make that the climate scientists who make it to the limelight, because they tell what the media want to sell and what the public wants to hear.

I merely said it makes sense to take the path of minimal risk.

And thus risk the existence of the tropical rainforests, to be sacrified for biofuels to fight off global warming.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Make that the climate scientists who make it to the limelight, because they tell what the media want to sell and what the public wants to hear.

Oh.
So it's a conspiricy then.
Ok.

And thus risk the existence of the tropical rainforests, to be sacrified for biofuels to fight off global warming.

Get with the times. 2nd gen bio fuels don't require extensive removal of space for crops like 1st gen, as they are made from biomass. Meaning we are extracting fuel from crop waste, it effectively increases the useful yield from current crops. It's still expensive though,.

 

[Sorry!]

Make that the climate scientists who make it to the limelight, because they tell what the media want to sell and what the public wants to hear.

Not true Andre, recent polls show that upwards of 95% of climate scientists support AGW. The group with least support is phyicists (I'm pretty sure) Only 45% of phyicists polled do believe in AGW. Unless of course you are trying to say that all climate scientists love the limelight.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Get with the times. 2nd gen bio fuels don't require extensive removal of space for crops like 1st gen, as they are made from biomass. Meaning we are extracting fuel from crop waste, it effectively increases the useful yield from current crops. It's still expensive though,.

Yeah, it's not like anybody needs topsoil.

 

[Andre]

Not true Andre, recent polls show that upwards of 95% of climate scientists support AGW.

Okay, given http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 please provide the list of 2820 experts well qualified in climate science who support AGW.

 

[mheslep]

I never said the science was settled, as that has connotations of we know 100% what is happening, which is of course absurd.

Polls of climate scientists who are active in the field all tend to show an agreement that the Earth seems to be warming and that humans are a contributing factor.

There is no consensus as to the extent of our involvement, nor whether there will be a long term impact. I never claimed there was. I merely said it makes sense to take the path of minimal risk.

The petition statement referenced up thread doesn't say very much different from that. Key sentence here: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, ... is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.. No denial there about a warming trend, nor of some level of human contribution.

 

[Andre]

Get with the times. 2nd gen bio fuels don't require extensive removal of space for crops like 1st gen, as they are made from biomass. Meaning we are extracting fuel from crop waste, it effectively increases the useful yield from current crops. It's still expensive though,.

And how will that undo the damage done in the name of climate? And the damage still to be done for the same reason?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Okay, given http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 please provide the list of 2820 experts well qualified in climate science who support AGW.

You are being utterly rediculous now. That is by no means a logical responce.
There have been links showing the 95%+ Agreement on surveys done.

Yet you are saying the point is those are not valid unless Sorry! find severy single one of them and lists their names.
It's clearly not feasible to expect that of him to name ALL scientists.

And how will that undo the damage done in the name of climate? And the damage still to be done for the same reason?

It won't. It's just that you don't need to clear forests with 2nd gen fuels, like you do with 1st gen.

 

[Andre]

You are being utterly rediculous now. That is by no means a logical responce.
There have been links showing the 95%+ on surveys done.

Yet you are saying the point is those are not valid unless Sorry! find severy single on of them and lists their names.

Hey I provided a list with existing individuals, which is falsifiable, you can go over each and everyone to verify the claim. So what value is that 95% claim if you can't stand behind it?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Hey I provided a list with existing individuals, which is falsifiable, you can go over each and everyone to verify the claim. So what value is that 95% claim if you can't stand behind it?

We can easily make a list of climate scientits who are proponents of AGW. But to expect someone to come up with a list of EVERY SINGLE one up to a total of 2820 is totally unfeasible and you know it.

It could be done, but it would require a huge amount of time and effort.

 

[Andre]

Go ahead and do it.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Go ahead and do it.

And if I don't I lose?

I need Dave to tell me the logical fallicy right there.

I'll begin making a list, but there is NO WAY I am trying to find 2820 names. I've got a life.

 

[Andre]

No you made a statement. I invited you to stand behind it.

 

[Integral]

I have split off the side disussion concerning trusting experts to https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=362254".

Please continue that discussion there.

 

[xxChrisxx]

No you made a statement. I invited you to stand behind it.

A claim that was backed up by links to REAL polls done on REAL climate scientists. Showing an agreement level similar to that stated by Sorry!