When confronted with global warming facts do you believe in science or spin?
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
61% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
5% | |||
|
23 votes
|
|
35% | |||
Michael E. Mann, creator of the "hockey stick" graph that illustrates
recent rapid rises in global temperatures, is to publish a book next
month detailing the "disingenuous and cynical" methods used by those who
have tried to disprove his findings. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is a startling depiction of a scientist persecuted for trying to tell the truth.
Among
the tactics used against Mann were the theft and publication, in 2009,
of emails he had exchanged with climate scientist Professor Phil Jones
of East Anglia University. Selected, distorted versions of these emails
were then published on the internet in order to undermine UN climate
talks due to begin in Copenhagen a few weeks later. These negotiations
ended in failure. The use of those emails to kill off the climate talks
was "a crime against humanity, a crime against the planet," says Mann, a
scientist at Penn State University.
In his book, Mann warns that
"public discourse has been polluted now for decades by corporate-funded
disinformation – not just with climate change but with a host of health,
environmental and societal threats." The implications for the planet
are grim, he adds.
Mann became a target of climate deniers' hate
because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost
1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented "during at least
the last 1,000 years" and which has been linked to rising emissions of
carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies
have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still
reject his conclusions.
Mann's research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing
denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told the Observer,
he only entered this research field by accident. "I was interested in
variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But
there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures:
coral growth, ice cores and tree rings."
By studying these he
could trace temperature fluctuations over the past 1,000 years, he
realised. The result was a graph that showed small oscillations in
temperature over that period until, about 150 years ago, there was a
sudden jump, a clear indication that human activities were likely to be
involved. A colleague suggested the graph looked like a hockey stick and
the name stuck. The results of the study were published in Nature in 1998. Mann's life changed for ever.
"The
trouble is that the hockey stick graph become an icon and deniers
reckoned if they could smash the icon, the whole concept of global
warming would be destroyed with it. Bring down Mike Mann and we can
bring down the IPCC, they reckoned. It is a classic technique for the
deniers' movement, I have discovered, and I don't mean only those who
reject the idea of global warming but those who insist that smoking
doesn't cause cancer or that industrial pollution isn't linked to acid
rain."
A barrage of intimidation was generated by "a Potemkin
village" of policy foundations, as Mann puts it. These groups were set
up by privately-funded groups that included Koch Industries and Scaife
Foundations and bore names such as the Cato Institute, Americans for
Prosperity and the Heartland Institute. These groups bombarded Mann with
freedom of information requests while the scientist was served with a
subpoena by Republican congressman Joe Barton to provide access to his
correspondence. The purported aim was to clarify issues. The real aim
was to intimidate Mann.
In addition, Mann has been attacked by Ken
Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general of Virginia who has
campaigned to have the scientist stripped of academic credentials.
Several committees of inquiry have investigated Mann's work. All have
exonerated him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-cl...
Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty,
holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and
Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He
is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
He received his undergraduate degrees in physics and applied math from
the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in physics from
Yale University, and a Ph.D. in geology and geophysics from Yale
University. He also received an outstanding publication award from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and, in 2002, was named
one of fifty leading visionaries in science and technology by Scientific American.
He was awarded the 2012 Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences
Union, and in the same year was inducted as a Fellow of the American
Geophysical Union. With Lee Kump, he coauthored the book Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming,
and is a cofounder and avid contributor to the award-winning science
website, www.RealClimate.org. Along with other scientists who
participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he
jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15254-9/the-hockey-sti...
It's widely documented that climate change is causing the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets to shrink. Air temperatures in many parts of the
polar regions have increased and waters that surround parts of the ice
sheets have warmed up. What most do not know is that until just six
years ago, we had no real way of measuring whether the ice sheets were
shrinking or growing, or at what rate.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/greenl...
All the data is available from NASA at
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...
&
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus on Climate Change
A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
[END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...
The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...
Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...
European Science Foundation:
American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...
World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...
American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...
American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...
NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...
4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:
[QUOTE]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
Good post.
cartoon.jpg#list%20of%20scien...
I chose real science rather than Al Gore's theory.
Exactly, which is why you shouldn't listen to the people in that clip - they're the same crowd of crooks who told you that smoking isn't bad for you.
If you want to know the truth, you have to do the research. There are no shortcuts.
I think this says it best:
Meehl et al - natural vs anthropogenic forcings:
Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate - Meehl et al 2004: http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff...
IPCC AR4 - natural vs natural anthropogenic forcings - global, continental, oceans etc:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus position.
11 countries have signed a joi...
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus position.
11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
And of course every country on the planet (except two) has endorsed the IPCC's conclusions that warming is unequivocal and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations". Even so-called 'skeptics' like Lindzen and Christy agree with this.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding ...
&
&
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
The following is the testimony of Dr. David Deming, a geologist and geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, which details the treatment he received from the media and "climate scientists" after he published a peer-reviewed article on bore-hole temperature data in Science, but refused to attribute the 1 degree C. temperature increase he found over a 100-150 year period to human activity.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment
& Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006
Statement of Dr. David Deming
University
of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate
Change and the Media
_____________________________...
"Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to
testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's
degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics
from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics
is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my
studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I
published a short paper in the academic journal Science.
In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a
warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last
100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a
reporter for National Public Radio.
He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that
the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he
hung up on me.
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in
Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major
researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We
have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
"The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm
weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period
known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th
century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity,
knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.
"The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific
literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those
maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had
to be "gotten rid of."
"In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that
scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not
hesitate to "warp the whole course of nature." In
1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues (with the UN's IPCC) published
a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply
vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey
stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.
"Normally in science, when you have a
novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to
demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann
and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though
it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other
researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was
both warm and global in its extent.
"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the
issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has
bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that
occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or
impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly
misinformed on this and other environmental issues.
""Earth's climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do
know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been
associated with more stable climates and increased human health and
prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic
instability, famine, and increased human mortality.
"The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past
150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is
unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future
climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does
warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful.
In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy
policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria