Scientific Consensus?

[Harold7]

Thanks for the link Beemer, it looks like a fascinating read, I'm leaving an an hour so I'll get to it next week... I apologize BTW if my questions seem to make me an annoying pest, but I've learned over the years to ask questions that someone smarter and more well informed can explain understandably.

[Gomer]

Have a fun safe holiday weekend Harold.

[Beemer]

Valid questions are good. I don't consider you a pest. I learn more every time I try to answer a question posted. Selfish of me I know but I can't help it.

Have a good weekend where ever you are heading.

[Sarah L]

Quote:

There’s a new global warming consensus in town.
It’s too bad the once-level-headed but now chicken-hearted Bush administration already has skedaddled, perhaps leaving our standard of living at the mercy of Barack Obama and his high regard for the international hate-America crowd.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..."
Eminent theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson is among the many distinguished signatories.
The OISM petition represents a direct challenge to the Al Gore-touted notion that a consensus of scientists has determined that catastrophic manmade global warming is real and that any debate over the science is pointless.

And the beat goes on.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Global Warming's New 'Consensus' - Opinion

[MTAtech]

Ahh, science by poll. "1450 A.D. Poll: 32,000 scientists agree the Earth is flat, contradicting Galileo myth of round Earth."

Who is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?
"The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences."

What's astounding is all of the petition signators that I have seen aren't in any field that would give them more authority on this issue than anyone else. A mathematician isn't any more credible than a layman.

[Beemer]

As for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and their Oregon Petition goes, you can put your name on the list too if you want. All of us can.

The statement these people are signing is:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
So they weren’t saying that it was a lie or wasn’t happening, just that there wasn’t good evidence that it would be a catastrophe.

I'd sign it too!

Tipping Points (previously posted in post #40)

Quote:

For components of the Earth system that are at least sub-continental in scale (~1000km), they are a tipping element if: The parameters controlling the system can be transparently combined into a single control, and there exists a critical value of this control from which a small perturbation leads to a qualitative change in a crucial feature of the system, after some observation time (a full formalisation of this is given in Lenton et al., submitted). This definition is deliberately broad and inclusive. It includes ‘abrupt climate change’ defined as occurring when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. However, it goes beyond this because we wish to include: (i) non-climatic variables, (ii) cases where the transition is slower than the forcing causing it, (iii) cases where there is no abruptness, but a slight change in control still makes a qualitative impact in the future (which can be thought of as analogous to passing the points on a railway track). The definition encompasses equilibrium properties with threshold behaviour, including all orders of phase transition and the most common bifurcations found in nature (saddle-node and Hopf bifurcations). Qualitative change may occur immediately after the cause or much later, and the transition may be reversible or irreversible. Thus far there is nothing specific to human activities in the definition. Critical conditions may be reached without human interference and a qualitative change may be triggered by natural variability. Thus in its general form the definition may be applied to any time in Earth history (or future).

Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

I'll get to Dyson after work. Faux news? I'm dizzy just reading the little bit you quoted.

P.S.
A few posts down in post #58 Tim Ball is cited and is said to be a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. This is a lie propagated around the web for the last few years. His thoughts on the subject of climate change have been debunked thoroughly as well as his non existent credentials.

[MTAtech]

Of course, we must evaluate risk and reward. If the global warming hypothesis is correct and we do nothing, we end up with hundreds of millions dead and cities underwater.

If the global warning cynics end up being correct and global warming is wrong, we end up taking steps to reduce polution and implement renewable energy technology -- two things that are good to do for other reasons.

[Harold7]

So if what these people are saying : The statement these people are signing :

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
So they weren’t saying that it was a lie or wasn’t happening, just that there wasn’t good evidence that it would be a catastrophe. i

is essentially true, where's the controversy?

Boy it's great to back, I really picked the wrong weekend to go to a family reunion, dodging tornadoes is not my idea of fun.

I have a niece and nephew who live in Parkersburg, IA and luckily they live on the north side of the small town, the twister missed their houses by about 4 blocks, but the winds played havoc with their trees... at my other niece's house near Dunkerton where it also caused damage, they were about 1/2 mile from it as it passed.. it took down a lot of their trees, and put a branch through the roof, bit thankfully, no injuries.... we had the family reunion there on Sat. due to forecasts of rain for the original date and with 50 people attending, finding safe shelter would have made things dangerous for that many to find safe shelter. had it hit a day earlier.

I was visiting a sister about 20 mi. north on Sun.and watching the nasty weather to the south when the twister hit... tense times waiting to get word from relatives in the path of this monster that everyone was OK.

I finally got a chance to read the full article you posted the link for Beemer, and thoroughly enjoyed it, but what conclusion can you reach from the reading other than the scientists saying "we don't know", just read the quote you just posted and describe any definitive conclusion you can derive from the reading other than uncertainty.

The whole concept of "tipping points" in the article is so broad and general that unless you can accurately and narrowly define the nature of some future, human caused tipping point and can provide conclusive scientific evidence to support that narrow definition, making any claim of a human caused tipping point is meaningless.

What was really frightening last week was seeing Maxine Waters, D-Calif. threatening oil company executives with government takeover of their companies... certainly a surprising public admission from the progressive, socialist leadership of the House... I wonder if that's on the agenda when Obama wins in Nov., I wonder what other industries they have plans to nationalize... maybe the socialist leadership in the Democrat Party are so full of themselves and confident of their future power that they no longer care if anyone knows what they plan for America... someone please accuse me again of being paranoid or on drugs... you aren't paranoid if the really are out to get you.

[MTAtech]

Hey Harold, setting up a government authority to drill on public lands, instead of the oil cos, sounds like a good idea. At least we'd know they weren't cheaping us out of royalties.

But if you equate the Democratic Party with Socialism you might as well be on drugs. Most Senators and Congressfolk are millionaires that wouldn't want to give up their property to the government. Besides Republicans making the accusation, you never hear the Dems talking about it.

[Harold7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Of course, we must evaluate risk and reward. If the global warming hypothesis is correct and we do nothing, we end up with hundreds of millions dead and cities underwater.

If the global warning cynics end up being correct and global warming is wrong, we end up taking steps to reduce polution (sic) and implement renewable energy technology -- two things that are good to do for other reasons.

Market forces are doing exactly what you say you want MTA, high gas prices are forcing a reduction in driving, people choosing to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars instead of SUV's and pickups already, however, since most renewable energy technology other than wind is still a long way from efficient and affordable application, the only way to get where you want to go in the interim is an increase of domestic oil production to mitigate the crippling gas price increases if we don't... can our economy survive if crude hits $200 a barrel or more, we can start converting coal to fuel for transportation on a large scale as well.... what are we going to do when the truckers can't afford to drive anymore?

I don't see how a massive application of new government energy bureaucracies, and taxation is going to do anything other than create 1933 all over again, but then maybe that's the intent...,allowing Obama to be the next FDR so he can implement what the Left has always wanted, FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

There is no short term transition from a hydrocarbon based economy to a Green energy system, the costs and logistics of such a change are insupportable unless you plan on creating a dictatorial, socialists system where the government can impose change through force.

The real solution is for the government to let market forces work, get the government out of the subsidy business for all of our economy, any government research money that goes to energy companies is only going to end up in the stock options and bonuses the executives give themselves, it's not their money so why should efficiency mean anything , the longer they drag it out, the more money the government will give to them... if they're forced to use their own corporate funds for energy research they have to answer to the stockholders for inefficiency and incompetence, the profit motive will drive innovation some thing government bureaucracy has never excelled at doing... you just have to have a business friendly tax environment to make it work.