Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:55:41 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:22 PM:
Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular
population.

That is only one definition, if you check a modern dictionary you'll
probably find "majority" listed as the first definition.

I did, it's not. General agreement, Unanimity (means unanimous).
Not sure what "modern" has to do with it.

My only point with the post was to point out that a more accurate term
would be majority or vast majority if you can support the claim,
however, it ain't a consensus.

However, if you want to continue to argue sematics, feel free, I'm
through.

Usually obtained by compromise.



That might be the way of politics, not science. That would be like
saying that if half people believe in evolution, and half believe in
creationism, then the consensus is intelligent design.

No, it would mean that there is no consensus. By compromise, it means
that if the issue is the sky is falling, while all agree that the sky
is falling, the rate at which it is falling might be subject to
differing opinions, thefore the compromise is to eliminate the rate or
expand the rate range so that there can be a consensus on the falling
of the sky.

After serving on a number of committees in which consensus was
required I know how hard it is to achieve.

In your case it would simply mean that there are supporters of
evolution and supporters of creationism and one or the other might be
a majority. I don't recall there being a compromise reached consensus
in the population of those with an educated opinion on the matter.

Some members may not
fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the
consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion.

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.



No. That is exactly what we have in the scientific community. While
there a a few high profile skeptics, as there should be, they are
often not experts in climate. Further, they have published very
little "denials" in the academic world. Here's what one survey had to
say:

It might mean that a majority of climatologist support the the thesis,
if there are climatologists who do not agree, then there is no
consensus, only a majority opinion. Are you saying that 100% of
climatologists agree with the thesis, there are no climatologists that
disagree?

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the
ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

There is one reviewer, Benny Peiser, was skeptical and tried to
reproduce this study. At first, it appeared that he had found major
flaws, but after going around for a few years, he conceded:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of
global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of
climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due
to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

and, to be fair, he concludes with

"Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long
as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public
is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these
scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the
health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and
scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons."

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:12:23 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:34:02 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

I think the paper by this physicist has been published in the last few
weeks.


Some scientists reject current global warming theory

February 02, 2007 AD

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists,

snip
Best to use his correct name when googling..
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar


I'll will talk to 'The Weather Supremos(uk)' on Monday about doing the
relevant measurements. We have one of the cleanest lidar-available
chunks of maritime air.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA.....9560K


You're right, there's a misunderstanding of how he prefers to spell his
name. I was quoting the article.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/31/2007 4:49 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:55:41 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:22 PM:
Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular
population.
That is only one definition, if you check a modern dictionary you'll
probably find "majority" listed as the first definition.

I did, it's not. General agreement, Unanimity (means unanimous).
Not sure what "modern" has to do with it.

The reason for "modern" is that the primary definition has shifted
from unanimity to majority. See the Webster's dictionary.


My only point with the post was to point out that a more accurate term
would be majority or vast majority if you can support the claim,
however, it ain't a consensus.

But in fact, there is a vast majority, and therefor a consensus,
however you define it.

In your case it would simply mean that there are supporters of
evolution and supporters of creationism and one or the other might be
a majority. I don't recall there being a compromise reached consensus
in the population of those with an educated opinion on the matter.
Some members may not
fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the
consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion.

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.


No. That is exactly what we have in the scientific community. While
there a a few high profile skeptics, as there should be, they are
often not experts in climate. Further, they have published very
little "denials" in the academic world. Here's what one survey had to
say:

It might mean that a majority of climatologist support the the thesis,
if there are climatologists who do not agree, then there is no
consensus, only a majority opinion. Are you saying that 100% of
climatologists agree with the thesis, there are no climatologists that
disagree?

There are not 100% of "experts" that agree on any topic. By your
definition, there can never be a "consensus" on any topic, and thus
the concept would be worthless. There is a large majority opinion on
this topic. In fact, it is so large that the person who originally
argued that the study showing that it was an overwhelming opinion
changed his position and now refers to it as the "consensus position"
as I quoted below. Doesn't that sort of shoot down your claim?




"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the
ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

There is one reviewer, Benny Peiser, was skeptical and tried to
reproduce this study. At first, it appeared that he had found major
flaws, but after going around for a few years, he conceded:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of
global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of
climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due
to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

and, to be fair, he concludes with

"Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long
as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public
is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these
scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the
health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and
scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons."

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:00:17 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/31/2007 4:49 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:55:41 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:22 PM:
Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular
population.
That is only one definition, if you check a modern dictionary you'll
probably find "majority" listed as the first definition.

I did, it's not. General agreement, Unanimity (means unanimous).
Not sure what "modern" has to do with it.

The reason for "modern" is that the primary definition has shifted
from unanimity to majority. See the Webster's dictionary.


My only point with the post was to point out that a more accurate term
would be majority or vast majority if you can support the claim,
however, it ain't a consensus.

But in fact, there is a vast majority, and therefor a consensus,
however you define it.

In your case it would simply mean that there are supporters of
evolution and supporters of creationism and one or the other might be
a majority. I don't recall there being a compromise reached consensus
in the population of those with an educated opinion on the matter.
Some members may not
fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the
consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion.

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.


No. That is exactly what we have in the scientific community. While
there a a few high profile skeptics, as there should be, they are
often not experts in climate. Further, they have published very
little "denials" in the academic world. Here's what one survey had to
say:

It might mean that a majority of climatologist support the the thesis,
if there are climatologists who do not agree, then there is no
consensus, only a majority opinion. Are you saying that 100% of
climatologists agree with the thesis, there are no climatologists that
disagree?

There are not 100% of "experts" that agree on any topic. By your
definition, there can never be a "consensus" on any topic, and thus
the concept would be worthless. There is a large majority opinion on
this topic. In fact, it is so large that the person who originally
argued that the study showing that it was an overwhelming opinion
changed his position and now refers to it as the "consensus position"
as I quoted below. Doesn't that sort of shoot down your claim?

Why? IF that individual misuses a term and you repeat it does it make
it so? Think not, but I'm through. I've been down this road with you
before. This might never end if I don't ignore it. And quite frankly
it is semantics.

I'm a lay person who is certainly skeptical of anyone who claims a
consensus given the history and facts of climate change over the
years. I have an open mind on the issue. Sounds like you've made
yours up. good for you, there must be some comfort in that.





"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the
ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

There is one reviewer, Benny Peiser, was skeptical and tried to
reproduce this study. At first, it appeared that he had found major
flaws, but after going around for a few years, he conceded:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of
global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of
climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due
to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

and, to be fair, he concludes with

"Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long
as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public
is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these
scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the
health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and
scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons."

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/3/2007 9:04 PM:
There are not 100% of "experts" that agree on any topic. By your
definition, there can never be a "consensus" on any topic, and thus
the concept would be worthless. There is a large majority opinion on
this topic. In fact, it is so large that the person who originally
argued that the study showing that it was an overwhelming opinion
changed his position and now refers to it as the "consensus position"
as I quoted below. Doesn't that sort of shoot down your claim?

Why? IF that individual misuses a term and you repeat it does it make
it so? Think not, but I'm through. I've been down this road with you
before. This might never end if I don't ignore it. And quite frankly
it is semantics.

I'm a lay person who is certainly skeptical of anyone who claims a
consensus given the history and facts of climate change over the
years. I have an open mind on the issue. Sounds like you've made
yours up. good for you, there must be some comfort in that.


I don't know why you would say that. It seems to me that you have a
rather closed mind about my opinion. I don't know to what extent
Global Warming is caused by man, or to what extent we can slow it
down. We may well be in for a few surprises, and there will certainly
be some embarrassment.

However, it is an undeniable truth that it is the consensus of
climatologists today that Global Warming is largely caused by man.
This need not be a 100% to be a "consensus." There are a few
skeptics, though curiously very few are climatologists. Also, there
are virtually no formal, peer reviewed papers that refute GW.

You seem to be confusing the concept of "consensus" with "absolute
certainty." The consensus is real, it isn't 100% but it is real.
Whether or not the consensus is correct remains to be seen.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Jeff wrote:
* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/3/2007 9:04 PM:
There are not 100% of "experts" that agree on any topic. By your
definition, there can never be a "consensus" on any topic, and thus
the concept would be worthless. There is a large majority opinion on
this topic. In fact, it is so large that the person who originally
argued that the study showing that it was an overwhelming opinion
changed his position and now refers to it as the "consensus position"
as I quoted below. Doesn't that sort of shoot down your claim?

Why? IF that individual misuses a term and you repeat it does it make
it so? Think not, but I'm through. I've been down this road with you
before. This might never end if I don't ignore it. And quite frankly
it is semantics.

I'm a lay person who is certainly skeptical of anyone who claims a
consensus given the history and facts of climate change over the
years. I have an open mind on the issue. Sounds like you've made
yours up. good for you, there must be some comfort in that.


I don't know why you would say that. It seems to me that you have a
rather closed mind about my opinion. I don't know to what extent Global
Warming is caused by man, or to what extent we can slow it down. We may
well be in for a few surprises, and there will certainly be some
embarrassment.

However, it is an undeniable truth that it is the consensus of
climatologists today that Global Warming is largely caused by man. This
need not be a 100% to be a "consensus." There are a few skeptics,
though curiously very few are climatologists. Also, there are virtually
no formal, peer reviewed papers that refute GW.

You seem to be confusing the concept of "consensus" with "absolute
certainty." The consensus is real, it isn't 100% but it is real.
Whether or not the consensus is correct remains to be seen.

You're absolutely right. Why should anyone question global warming from
a logical perspective when we can just settle on the speculation that
its all man-made?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:33 -0400, Jeff said:

However, it is an undeniable truth that it is the consensus of
climatologists today that Global Warming is largely caused by man.

Let me recommend reading Holman Jenkins, Jr.'s piece entitled "Climate of
Opinion" in today's Journal.

An excerpt: "Mr. Gore's method is the equivalent of trying to prove that
Jack killed Jane by going on and on about how awful it was that Jane was
killed."

I know this might be hard to believe, but not all of us subscribe to the
Wall Street Journal.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:08:09 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:33 -0400, Jeff said:

However, it is an undeniable truth that it is the consensus of
climatologists today that Global Warming is largely caused by man.

Let me recommend reading Holman Jenkins, Jr.'s piece entitled "Climate of
Opinion" in today's Journal.

An excerpt: "Mr. Gore's method is the equivalent of trying to prove that
Jack killed Jane by going on and on about how awful it was that Jane was
killed."

I know this might be hard to believe, but not all of us subscribe to the
Wall Street Journal.


Especially in Wales, Blodwen.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:33 -0400, Jeff said:

However, it is an undeniable truth that it is the consensus of
climatologists today that Global Warming is largely caused by man.

Let me recommend reading Holman Jenkins, Jr.'s piece entitled "Climate of
Opinion" in today's Journal.

An excerpt: "Mr. Gore's method is the equivalent of trying to prove that
Jack killed Jane by going on and on about how awful it was that Jane was
killed."

Gore's just taking up this cause to help him stand out as a politician.
The "issue" keeps him in the press. Its just more politics wrapping
around a non-event.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:08:09 -0500, "KLC Lewis" said:

I know this might be hard to believe, but not all of us subscribe to the
Wall Street Journal.

Available wherever quality newspapers are sold g.

Google him!