Free Markets, Free People

Group still claims “scientific consensus” on AGW

Here’s their opening statement (last revised in March of this year):

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus. 

Of course it is the “Union of Concerned Scientists”, so you have to understand that this is coming from an advocacy group which cloaks itself in science, but was originally formed in the late ‘60s at MIT to oppose the Vietnam war.  Their political agenda is well known.  And, after viewing what can only be considered a rather interesting statement (for supposed “scientists”) you get to their links – the links which supposedly support their statement.

Except they’re mostly ancient statements, some dating back to 2003.  In fact, the most recent I can find is October of 2009 when the scandal of “hide the decline” was still a month away.  The American Meteorological Society’s statement is from 2007.  The US National Academy of Science statement is from 2005.

Seems to me, in light of what happened since 2005, it might be appropriate to ask the USNAS if it still holds those beliefs – because since 2005 the whole hoax has fallen apart.

Apparently the UCS dropped out of the fact finding part of this a few years ago and has just decided to adamantly maintain that AGW is the problem, Al Gore said it, they believe him and that ends the discussion (why, that sounds like a religion, doesn’t it?).

Heh … “scientists”.   Imagine “scientists” talking about consensus rather than proof.  Imagine “scientists” ignoring contrary facts.

They ought to change their name – see if “Union of Concerned Propagandists” is taken.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

73 Responses to Group still claims “scientific consensus” on AGW

  • The politicizing of Global Warming Theory is unfortunate, but we have to be careful that we do not use it as an excuse to ignore our duty to reasonably maintain our environment and our natural resources for our children and grandchildren.
     
    Naturally, it is not acceptable to inhibit economies so that a herd of caribou don’t have to move a mile or two in one direction or the other, and it is preposterous to inhibit job creation just because a few birds will have to move slightly to the left during their migration.  That being said, it is equally irrational to blow through our natural resources with reckless abandon or to destroy our landscape for a quick, unsustainable profit.
     
    I worry that attempts to counter what I readily admit is irresponsible government regulation of the environment often lead to political stigma placed on independent attempts to be good stewards and discourages investigation into more environmentally friendly technologies.

    • It’s improved since I was a kid from what I can tell – it’s not like we’re totally irresponsible, the air quality is better, the water quality is better, and we’re more alert to environmental issues.
       
      I hope the disposable society I grew up watching expand can be made to retract – I find it entertaining people think ‘recycle’ is some modern term attached only to a modern idea.  The history of ‘recycle’ and reuse is older than the country, faded out during my youth, and has returned, not quite enough to my way of thinking, we are still pretty wasteful.
       
       

    • I don’t think anyone here would argue against good stewardship. That’s not the complaint of the AGW crowd.

      • I understand.  I’m just concerned that hostility towards irresponsible “scientists” pushing things like AGW so that they may sell us Carbon Credits is often projected onto the basic concept of conservation and “good” science.
        I’m not accusing you or anyone here of this, merely warning against it.

        • It’s not the scientists I’m hostile to, by themselves they’re fairly powerless.  It’s the politicians looking to capitalize on the unwarranted and unprovable fear.

        • I’m of the mind that we let science speak, what we don’t let it do is propagandize. Scientists have no business being advocates or activists if they also want to be considered scientists. Too many temptations to make the data fit the agenda (and frankly, that’s precisely what we’ve seen emerge as AGW has been taken apart).

          In this case, “good science” rests with the skeptics and more and more comes out every day that disputes or refutes the AGW claims. Given that and the fact that most here agree with them doesn’t seem to me to have anyone projecting what you’re worrying about. And there isn’t a single person here who doesn’t want clean air, clean water, etc.

          • ” And there isn’t a single person here who doesn’t want clean air, clean water, etc.”
             
            Oh I don’t, I’m the model for the character “Lootin Plunder” from Captain Planet (pays to have kids so you can be aware).  My goal is not to make a profit, or even to build a bigger, better, faster, whatsis…no, my goal, specifically, is to pillage the earth and destroy as much of it as I can before Ted Turner, Captain Planet and the Planeteers show up to stop me in the next exciting episode.
             
            I love mindless villains who’s sole purpose and motivation is villainy.
             
            I’m also FOR war, and against peace, happiness and harmony.

          • “Except they’re mostly ancient statements, some dating back to 2003.  In fact, the most recent I can find is October of 2009 when the scandal of “hide the decline” was still a month away.  The American Meteorological Society’s statement is from 2007.  The US National Academy of Science statement is from 2005.”

            If these scientific organizations reaffirmed that nothing has changed their view “there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it,” would you reevaluate your view that it’s all a hoax to any extent or simply assume these organizations are in on the hoax too?

      • There is nothing, IMNHO, more dangerous than junk science.
        This is especially so when we consider that Collectivist ideology was SUPPOSED to be based on “science” and rationality.
        We all know how many people Collectivism has killed, and some of us have at least an inkling of how  many people junk science has killed.

  • Of course, you political idiots don’t agree with the clear consensus. It was formed quite a while back, and had held up admirably, and if you don’t agree, you’re an inbred, sterile Nazi who wants to harm my children.

    You should be held accountable for such heresy deception. We wise leftists understand that climate change is simultaneously the biggest threat to the future of humanity and a complete justification for giving complete power to we wise leftists. Just think – not only will we solve this crisis, but our green energy projects, our gender-neutral indoctrination education of our children, and the social justice that comes from less consumption by you political idiots will all take us further down the path to leftist utopia. You’ll see.

    And if you know what’s good for you, you’ll stop with the charts and graphs and continuously pointing out such out-of-context phrases as “hide the decline.” You really ought to stop talking about the whole water vaporator thing too, as if you grunt engineer types were qualified to judge serious scientific models created by the best minds in academia. Only other academicians are qualified to do that. Just like all the people here in the faculty lounge who agree with me completely on this.

    Yes, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll just shut up, before we… do something. We’re still in the process of figuring out how to hold you accountable, but the guys over in the history department who specialize in 20th century Europe say they have some good ideas.

    Once Obama is re-elected, which is a virtual certainty by the way, and shut up about the 2010 elections, just shut up about those… where was I? Oh, yes, once Obama is re-elected, we will start ensuring that your gas-guzzling SUVs are reserved for our important public servants no longer available to you proles so that you are forced to cut back your carbon emissions.

    We’ll also get all those wonderful rail projects, which are guaranteed to reduce traffic and emissions, and will certainly be a great investment. I’ve seen the studies which say so. And I’m totally qualified to pronounce them completely correct, so don’t even start about how I don’t know any engineering or accounting, and I’m just a paper-shuffling, low-paid professor at a mediocre, third rate college in Outer Mooseville, Maine. I’m smart, and capable, and darn it, people like me, and besides, I also understand quantum physics. Especially the spiritual, non-mathy parts. So there.

    • Sooo…  You too are a ‘climatologist’…?!?!?  Some of the best and brightest of the AGW crowd have scientific credentials little more impressive than yours.

      • “Some of the best and brightest of the AGW crowd have scientific credentials little more impressive than yours.”
         
        “Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have! But they have one thing you haven’t got – a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatus Committeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th. D…that’s Doctor of Thinkology.”

  • “Except they’re mostly ancient statements, some dating back to 2003.”
    You should see how stale the ones on the earth not being 6000 years old are.

    • Why? It’s all argument by assertion, argument by authority, and similar claptrap. There’s no there there.

      As a professional software developer for over thirty years, I examined the leaked FORTRAN code used to produce East Anglia’s research results. Anyone relying on that so-called analysis is engaging in propaganda, not science. Hardcoding adjustment numbers into the code with zero supporting research for why the numbers were chosen, plus losing the original raw data, adds up to academic malfeasance, and no whitewashing by other academics trying to protect their own will change that. (Notice that the page you referenced doesn’t seem to want to discuss that particular issue of the “magic numbers” FORTRAN program, at least not anywhere that it’s obvious.)

      East Anglia was the turning point in this effort to “prove” global warming by any means necessary, and the information from East Anglia was clearly leaked by an insider who was fed up with exactly the problems that came to light. After years of stonewalling freedom of information requests (which is abundantly supported by the leaked emails, in which the researchers even discuss deleting the information rather than satisfying the request), it appeared that someone inside has a conscious and decide to expose the corruption and deception of that research group.

      • As you spot so many errors, perhaps you could correct their code and submit your insights to a peer reviewed journal that has published work by CRU authors, such as Nature or The Journal of Geophysical Research.  I await the journal’s correction/retraction of their prior work proving your insights correct.

        • It’s already been done but several systems pros.
          Sycophants like you just choose to ignore that and all other inputs that spoils your preconceived notions.

          • Then please point me to the corrections/retractions.

          • The corrections are out there – it’s the retractions that are lacking. Retractions end the grant gravytrain.

          • Well, if you were not just a troll, you could start here or here or here.

            But then, it’s not hard to find these things. Unless you have some special version of Google that only points to leftist sites.

          • If scientific journals have not seen enough merit to publish any of these claims, that’s an indication either that a) there’s little merit to them, or b) scientific journals (including Science, Nature, and the other most reputable journals) are all colluding to hide the truth.

          • Colluding to hide the truth.
             
            Yes, that could never happen in an organization run for profit and/or controlled by people with an agenda.
             
             

          • You understate the quality of people like Roy Spencer.  Not only has he disproved all climate science published in journals like Science and Nature, he’s disproved evolution: http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html

          • Yeah, and Ted Kozinski is a psychopathic whackjob. Therefore that means all his environmental positions are wrong, by your standards, no? Or were you just trying to change the subject to something irrelevant, thereby demonstrating trolling technique #47?

          • >Yeah, and Ted Kozinski is a psychopathic whackjob. Therefore that means all his environmental positions are wrong, by your standards, no?

            No.  My standard is: I would not alter my environmental positions because of any of the Unabomber’s claims unless they receive very strong backing (such as publication in a prominent academic journal like Science or Nature, and surviving subsequent challenges by other researchers in the field).  Do you agree that we should treat Spencer’s work on environmental issues in this way?

          • Given that I have training in physics, higher math including statistics, and software development, *my* standard is whether something makes sense, using my own judgment instead of delegating it to others. Also being familiar with the history of science, I know the science community has gotten plenty of things wrong.

            Also being quite familiar with public choice economic theory (which apparently you are not), I realize that objectivity is difficult to achieve when one has a vested interest in the outcome. This describes much of the peer-reviewed work in climate science – almost all the people involved have self interest in seeing a certain outcome. Therefore relying solely on peer-reviewed work is suspect. Especially since some of those peer reviewed scientists have recently changed their mind about the whole thing.

            Now are you through trying to BS your way through this issue? You asked for links which you didn’t read, and you’ve ignored anything anyone had to say about actual science in favor of waving some flag about peer review as your one-trick schtick. It’s getting pretty tiresome. We’ve been discussing this issue for years (both sides of it – one of the original front page bloggers here was an AGW advocate), so if you think you’re raising anything we have not looked at before, that’s not very likely. Instead, you’re exposing yourself as an unserious, trollish commenter.

        • As long as we have old developers chiming in – numbers dropped into code – HARD CODED no freaking less, are hardly ‘variables’ – it’s called a constant, and if it’s isn’t say, the constant for gravity, it better have some seriously hard science behnd it if it’s being plugged into formulas that produce forcasts of the future, otherwise it’s exactly what he said it was, a bullshit number used to fudge the results of data input streams that didn’t produce output the way they liked it.

          If you’re having to plug in numbers to get results you want, you’re not practicing science. you’re practicing marketing, and you may as well just skip the whole calculcation thing and just print the results you want from the get go.

        • I believe in many cases, such submissions have been made, peer reviewed and published. But you have to be willing to look at work done after 2005.

  • McQ = tackling the propaganda that none of us want to sift through.
    Seriously, thanks for leaving a perpetual retort to the baseless claptrap that the AGW crowd keeps foisting on us.  In 20 years or so, your posts will provide endless amusement to those unraveling how “consensus” was ever deemed scientific.

  • originally formed in the late ‘60s at MIT to oppose the Vietnam war.  Their political agenda is well known. 

     
    They were correct then and they are correct now.

  • <blockquote>However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it…</blockquote>
    The spokesperson for the Union of Concerned Scientists continued:<blockquote>A decade ago, consensus stood at around 95%, but with recent developments that consensus is now at 120%.  Science has clearly spoken!</blockquote>

    • This goes well with …
      One German organic farm has killed twice as many people as the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf Oil spill combined.

  • I suppose there’s some solace in knowing that, if they have to keep doubling down like this, they are losing and they know it.

  • Repeat a lie, over and over, louder and louder, and maybe people will think it is true.

  • What defines a scientific consensus?  Isn’t that where we start this discussion?

    • Sure, it ought to be. But with today’s post-modern left, they insist on retaining the privilege of re-defining terms to suit the needs of their rhetoric. So you can’t pin them down on any definition that both (1) makes sense and reflects reality, and (2) they’ll stick with when it’s inconvenient to their ideological position.

    • There is no such notion in the scientific method as “consensus”.  The very idea is, by definition, ANTI-science.

      • I’m not sure I understand that one.  If an idea can be tested by the scientific method, and replicated results are achieved by various experimenters, isn’t that what a consensus is?
         
        But more to the point, isn’t there at least a debate to be had here?  How did this turn into shouting down the other side from every direction?
         
         

        • If an idea can be tested by the scientific method, and replicated results are achieved by various experimenters, isn’t that what a consensus is?
          No.  That is called “data”.  It may VALIDATE a hypothesis.  The emphasis is on OBJECTIVE criteria.
          Consensus is a harmony of opinion.  If you look up the definitions, they all imply subjective criteria.
          In that context, a “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.
          In this particular discussion, any test is not only NOT encouraged, it is said to be irresponsible, since the consequences of the assumptions (religion) of AGW are so catastrophic.

        • No, science presents proof, not consensus.
           
          If the consensus is that the earth was flat (and it was), that wouldn’t make it so.
           
          If the consensus was that ‘bad air’ (hence malaria) from the swamp caused the disease known as Malaria and it wasn’t mosquito’s from the swamp transmitting a germ, that didn’t make it so.
           
          Science can demonstrate despite all consensus to the contrary that the earth is NOT flat, it can demonstrate that malaria is caused by disease germs from a mosquito bite.  All the consensus in the world that contradicts these provable facts will not alter that.
           
          Where is the proof of global warming that, like the spherical earth and the malaria germ be proven?
           
          They have latched on to CO2 as the consummate cause, when past data indicates it’s a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator, of warming.  Yet now for their convenience (and because it can be taxed, controlled, etc) it’s a LEADING indicator of warming.   The convenience of this solution should trouble you.  NOTHING is that simple in a for real global climate model.
          Come on, one thing? will make all the magic difference?
           
          Also too, If I promise you that I can, 40 years from now, give you back a 50% return on your cash investment of $20,000 today, exactly how likely are you to let me have that $20,000?  Yet many people are prepared to do precisely that today to ‘stop global warming!”.   As Barnum observed, one born every minute and 2 to catch them.
           

        • ” How did this turn into shouting down the other side from every direction?”
          The side that wants to use ‘consensus’ as the be all, end all argument, when that term is shouted as the ‘be quiet’ argument for anyone who disagrees and wants to see proof….
           
          When people who believe an AGW think a commercial showing people who don’t believe in AGW being blown up, when they propose punishments for those who don’t believe in AGW, when they propose tattoos to mark them into the future, when they propose to fine them for failing to believe?
           
          All I asked for is proof, I didn’t demand anyone not believe, I didn’t suggest they be marked, harmed or coerced in any way.   And you wonder why we might be inclined to ‘shout’ now and again?
           
          Proof, scientifically provable, is all we ask for, and no mumbling about consensus.  Science that can be proven by AGW skeptic and AGW adherent, data that either side can plug in, to equations available to anyone.  The same way it can be proven that the earth is NOT flat or that force of gravity on earth is, on average, 32 feet per second per second.

          • To those who know they are wrong, being calmly asked to support their assertions is often depicted as “screaming” or trying to “shout them down”.
            Or even a personal insult.

          • The number of natural phenomenon that we do not understand, and can only theorize about always amazes me – for example the creation of fossil fuels as an example of materials we use every day, but do not completely understand.  We can analyze it, list it’s components, etc, but how it actually comes to be?  Not so much, still theory.
             
            So too with climate, yet here we are, prepared to turn modern society upside down based on what for all intent and purpose is superstitious theory with a sugar coating of science for flavor.
             
            Since those of us who are skeptics are labeled ‘deniers’ allow me to label those who believe  ‘the faithful’.
             
            The faithful never seem to trouble themselves to wonder while the ‘west’ is busy savaging their economic structures to save the world, what the undeveloped countries are going to do to stop global warming.  Nor are they troubled by the effective time scale proposed to see any evidence that the solution was viable, nor how the entire proposal amounts to nothing more than a global scheme for redistribution of wealth.   
            Perfectly prepared to throw money at the problem, without any evidence their solution will do anything to fix it, and yet we deniers are labeled ‘unscientific’ for questioning the validity of consensus.
             

          • Don’t we have to concede that burning fossil fuels that took millions of years’ worth of biological processes to create within a span of 100 years ought to cause us to at least question things?  That’s where I get hung up.  I am unconvinced by the future model data, but one would intuitively suspect that throwing a boatload of carbon in the air over a short period of time will have some consequence.  It is what consequence, if any, that should cause the study.

          • By the logic of your post, we should not be using steel, lithium, or any other thing.  All are finite.
            Where do you get your claim regarding 100 years of use?
            You are aware that “known reserves” keep growing, right?

          • “within a span of 100 years ought to cause us to at least question things? ”
             
            Prior to this we burned, unfiltered, coal and wood in massive quantities, with considerably less efficiency as you go further back in time.  Let me point out that one volcanic eruption, Krakatoa, in 1883 (along with all the coal, wood, and petroleum effluent of the late Victorian age) spewed enough ash and volcanic gas into the atmosphere to cause the subsequent summer to, essentially, fail to exist.
             
            “In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[10]
             
            Note, the earth cooled…
             
            Do I have the answers?  clearly not.   This isn’t the start of this argument however, we have already failed to materialize any number of the dire predictions they made when they started claiming we were in crisis – global temperature has leveled or declined, the oceans have failed to overwhelm the low lying areas, etc.  Where is the evidence of the disasters they predicted would occur if we didn’t implement the Kyoto protocols?
             
            Perhaps you had to be around during the 70′s to appreciate the irony that 20 years prior to the global warming scare they proposed in the 90′s they were claiming we were headed, as a result of our emissions, for an ice age in the 70′s (in addition of course to predicting we would have completely and thoroughly sucked out the last possible drop of petroleum by 1985).

          • I am not making a finite vs. renewal argument.  I am saying that it took millions of years to produce the high-carbon oil we refine now, and that we have burned off much of those reserves in the past 100 years.  Yes, they keep growing, but I doubt you are suggesting they are growing at anywhere near the rate we are using them.  All of that carbon converted from liquid to gas has to go somewhere, which we know is into the atmosphere.  One would surmise it has an effect on the environment around it, no matter how small the actual effect may be.  An attempt to measure this effect is admirable.  Taking it to any extreme by suggesting, for example, that the world is going to catastrophically end in 2100, is irresponsible.  But equally irresponsible is to turn into Baghdad Bob and claim there’s nothing to see here, so we should stop looking.

          • Yes, they keep growing, but I doubt you are suggesting they are growing at anywhere near the rate we are using them.
            Don’t.  Our known reserves are multiples of what they were, and several times were predicted to have run out by now.  What does that tell you?
            Markets will tell us when petroleum is becoming more scarce, and we will simply make very gradual, rational adjustments in how we use it.
            Nobody has ever explained why there was no massive change in climate as a result of Mt. Pinatubo, or other immense releases of CO2 in the past few decades.
            But nobody here is suggesting that climate and all its variables should not be studied.  Quite the contrary.  We INSIST that it be studied SCIENTIFICALLY, which is often NOT the case.

          • I think Pinatubo provides an apples-oranges comparison.  Rather than short, unsustained bursts of carbon, the burning of carbon-based fuels provides a steady, sustained stream of emissions over an extended (relative term, I know) period of time.  So a more valid comparison would require Pinatubo to erupt year over year for a longer period of time, with a resulting study on its effect.  By definition, Pinatubo would be a meteorological assessment as opposed to a climatological assessment.  Presumably, the earth could absorb short bursts and recover.  The theory on global warming is that we are dumping too much to be absorbed, and that the earth has no period in which it can catch up because our emissions continue unabated.
            Again, I’m not saying that carbon burning = sustained global warming.  I am saying you can see where the result might be reached, climate models aside.  (Which is a whole different topic.  I can’t understand why anyone in climatology is trying to use computer models.  Climatology as a science evades modeling by its very nature, I would think.)

          • “One would surmise it has an effect on the environment around it, no matter how small the actual effect may be.”
             
            I don’t think from posting here over time that anyone denies that climate will change.  I can safely say most of those who post and read here believe it does that, naturally, over time without or without our assistance.   In fact, most of us agree the climate is changing.  But we expect it do to that all by itself, even if we all give up driving SUV’s and burning AGW believers in effigy every night.
             
            The question comes down to proving that MAN is having enough of an effect to justify degrading the industrial and societal infrastructure of the ‘westernized’ countries to the benefit of the currently less developed nations (China and India as examples) and having the western countries foot the bill for their own downgrade.  We find that a bit suspect. especially based on the climate failing to fulfill the dire predictions of the preceding decade about ever worsening hurricanes, ocean levels rising and flooding, say, Holland or New York City, and the global temperatures increasing.
             
            The second part is a desire to see that the proposals to fix the problem are actually something more than a proposal to sell us snake oil.
             
            We ask for proof, the models should be able to take known data, for known periods of known climate and demonstrate that. for example, given 1960′s data, they can accurately mimic what occurred in the 1970′s, and so on into the current time – they have the data, they know what happened – show they can model what happened accurately.  If they can’t do that they logically CANNOT reliably predict the future.
             
            and anyone….ANY ONE….should then be able to take the data from, say, 1910 thru 1920, plug it into the model and see the results mimic the world climate of 1930, and so on, and so on.
            There should be no tweaking, no adding weights, no taking out weights, no screwing with variables other than the data feeds of whatever data is needed to drive the model in making it’s predictions.
             
            Furthermore – there is a tendency by the AGW crowd to attribute; cold spells, heat spells, droughts, floods, sunny skies, cloudy skies, rain, snow, sleet, and hail, volcanic eruptions, tectonic shifts (or as the President would say, Teutonic shifts) subsequent tsunami’s, tornadoes, or what have you,  in effect, ANY weather that doesn’t meet a pleasant 60-75 degree blue sky day at the lake, to Anthropogenic Global Warming.   Logically if it gets colder one would think that would disprove warming, but nay, far from it, the claim will be that it is merely FURTHER PROOF of warming.
             
            And honestly, did you not notice the goal posts were moved?  It started out as global warming, now….it’s called Climate change.  Don’t you find that a bit suspect?

          • A graph is just a model – using past data to project the future.   What are they using to predict the future?  Computer models are just paper equations put into the machine.  If it can’t be demonstrated with data and some sort of equations, it’s just intuition.
             
            We’re doing it now – it ‘seems’ to us that something must be so because we know enough about the idea of smoke, soot, clouds, dust, and greenhouses to guess it MUST HAVE SOME EFFECT.
             
             
             
             

          • Enjoyed it TW, thank you
             
            Cheers!
             

          • I think Pinatubo provides an apples-oranges comparison.  Rather than short, unsustained bursts of carbon, the burning of carbon-based fuels provides a steady, sustained stream of emissions over an extended (relative term, I know) period of time.

            Wow, you really don’t get a lot of science, do you?
            First, what EXACTLY makes you assume that a huge amount of carbon blown into the atmosphere in a short period of time is DIFFERENT somehow than a smaller (actually REALLLLLY small) contribution to net carbon over many decades?  You seem to assume it goes away.  WHERE?  (And it does not, except by all the mechanisms that use carbon on our planet)
            Second, you seem to assume that volcanic carbon gets “down” to be used somehow very quickly.  The reverse is true.  As we know from MUCH heavier particulates, volcanic stuff stays in the atmosphere for extended periods.
            Third, in these events, some multiple of total human carbon contributions to the atmosphere are released.  And total human contributions are estimated at a few percent of total carbon, if memory serves.  Why do we see no CLIMATE changes that the models would predict?

          • Ragspierre, why are you incapable of having a rational discussion without resorting to personal insults?  If you have a position, state it.  Stop the sanctimonious condescension for a while.  I thought we were having a nice discussion, then you say something like:
            “Wow, you really don’t get a lot of science, do you?”
            If you have some sort of background that you think contributes to the discussion, state what it is.  You know nothing of mine.
            In fact, your statement is somewhat ironic.  The Pinatubo comparison is irrelevant for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that you haven’t taken on the isotopic comparison that forms the basis of the global warming theory.  If you are going to play a card that suggests you are a scientific know-it-all, I would expect you to do that.  Of course, I’m sure Google works just as well.
            I feel compelled to reiterate that I don’t necessarily subscribe to any particular climate theory.  But I do think there are those who would just deny anything and everything no matter what.  I truly expect someone to at some point deny that the burning of fossil fuels makes Los Angeles smoggy.  My position is that the burning of organic carbon has a known effect.  What effect it has in the aggregate on the overall environment, if any, is yet to be seen.
             
             
             

          • Sorry I hurt your feelings, TW.  But I see you didn’t make any kind of effort to address my several substantial points.
            Well, except for that ‘isotopic’ BS…which sounds really ‘sciencey’ an’ stuff.
            Gawd.

    • Looking for a consensus has often proven to be wrong.
      Remember that international consensus of the intelligence community that was “sure Iraq had WMD”

      • >sarc< No, Bush lied so he could punish the sweet guy who mistakenly tried to assassinate his daddy, that’s all that was Neo, you know that >off sarc<

      • Well we did find 550 metric tons of yellow cake, you know the stuff nucs are made from. And we found 500 artillary shells with seran gas. While not massive they are all WMDs. So ya, we found the stuff.

        • Whether or not the world is a better place without Saddam and his Ba’athist Regime or that we found yellowcake insufficient to even make dirty bombs without enrichment, the Iraq War has been a costly distraction.

          President Bush has himself admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, nor did it have any connections to 9/11. Even if Iraq was working on enriching Uranium, the alleged facilities were not much different from ones in Iran and Syria and older facilities in Iraq that we have simply destroyed with bombing runs, often executed by the Israelis.  There was simply no need to deploy hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers and spend nearly $1 trillion in Iraq.
           
          War is too often necessary for us to also suffer unnecessary wars.  Perhaps we should turn to an old Crisis to put our own contemporary crisis into perspective:

          Britain, for centuries past, has been nearly fifty years out of every hundred at war with some power or other. It certainly ought to be a conscientious as well political consideration with America, not to dip her hands in the bloody work of Europe. Our situation affords us a retreat from their cabals,… ~ Thomas Paine

        • Congress found 23 predicates for military action in Iraq.
          23
          Congress.  Found.

  • I am a scientist and I can tell you with absolute there is no such thing as “consensus”. We don’t do that. Provide me with the hard proof so I can independently verify or disprove your claim. Only politicians are dumb enough to rely on consensus.

    • Is there a consensus on the big bang theory?  You sure as hell can’t replicate that.

      • No.  There is a hot controversy on the “big bang theory”.
        Often, TW, you have to rely on demonstrating the effects of a cause.  See?

      • Ah, difference though – no one is proposing to alter western society and charge us because of the Big Bang theory.
         
        Theories that cost us nothing are wonderful things, we’re free to discuss is the world 6000 years old, or is it billions of years old – costs us nothing to do so (well, nowadays anyway).   Where does oil come from?  Costs us nothing to wonder if it’s abiotic or not or some combination of methods for creation.
         
        We’re talking about getting rid of power generation facilities, stopping use of a resource that provides Americans with jobs and, well, power, and taxing virtually everything that emits CO2 in a cocakamy trading scheme that will benefit government favorite entities to the detriment of other entities.  The US government, indeed, the world governments are eager to lay claim to all the CO2 – if they can tax how you use it, they effectively own it, it’s like them telling us they want to tax oxygen usage.
         
        They are, literally, inventing an entire economy from whole cloth with their trading schemes and are prepared to do so to the detriment of extent economies the world over, some of which may benefit, some will not, and THEY get to make the rules based on science they have reached consensus on, even if you may be able to demonstrate their science or their figures are false.
         
        So, it’s a bit different than arguing the Big Bang Theory.  It’s closer to telling everyone they need to move OUT of the State of Oregon because we think there really is a Sasquatch and we’re affecting his breeding grounds.   Might be fine with you if you live in Florida, if you live in Salem Oregon and have to find a new way of life, you might take exception to the idea and want to see a little more proof of the Sasquatch theory before you cut your sticks and grease your brogues for your trip to other climes.

      • One does not have to replicate the Big Bang. It is science, one merely has to devise a test or tests to falsify it. WHich is somewhat easier since the science the Big Bang is built upon, such as general relativity, quantum mechanics and so forth, are themselves built from the ground up and themselves tenable to analysis and disproof.

        “Climate change” on the other hand is not built from the ground up and has no such foundation. At best there are models based on thermodynamics but these do not allow one to disprove anything and really do not even work when applied to other problems (unlike quantum mechanics or relativity…). So the whole notion of “climate change” as a normal falsifiable science is pretty absurd when compared to cosmology. Which is why it always, always, comes back to argument from authority and the useless precautionary principle. It’s really no more than Pascal’s wager recast for the modern day self-flagellating sinner who doesn’t believe in God but would like to.

  • For the ironically named “Skeptic”, I invite you to go to Warren Meyer’s website http://www.climate-skeptic.com/.   In addition to the most recent posts, go to the “Past Favorites” section in the right-hand column.  Those items are some of the most concise criticisms of the alarmist catastrophic AGW position:
    Climate Video: Catastrophe Denied: A critique of catastrophic man-made global warming theory
    A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Man-Made Global Warming
    You can shove beans in your ears and repeat the “peer reviewed” mantra. Or, you can use your brain and make your own judgements.  The fact is that CO2 only explains about 1C in warming over the next century, while the alarmist predictions rely on positive feedbacks (which bear no resemblance to just about anything else in nature).  The computer models are flawed (and your impertinent call to “fix” them is ridiculously ignorant) and seem to be a case of, “What results do you want?”  Meyer sees aerosols as the most obvious suspect for the “plug variable”.