Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
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!

Ya, I have done. But that doesn't give me access to the article

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:33 -0400, 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.

I don't know why you would say that. I never made any claims about
GW, the reality of it, the cause of it if real, or any potential
solutions. Simply said its existence and cause is not a consensus
among those who are in the field, at least not in the way I (and
Websters) would define the word in its primary sense.

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.

That's the sticking point, it is not undeniable. Semantics I believe.
However, those who misuse the term do themselves no good, only damages
their credibility with people like me who have worked extensivly in
areas requiring consensus; no how hard it is to obtain; and would look
with mistrust to anyone who would use that term instead of the equally
effective overwhelming or vast majority, if, of course that can be
proven.

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.

No. Those who are using the term are attempting to confuse. There is
no relation between "consensus" and "absolute certainty". If you are
telling me that each of those individuals who make up the "vast
majority" holding that opinion are also "absolutly certain" with no
probability, no matter how small, assigned to an alternative
possibility, then I'm even more concerned about the state of science.
I can be part of a majority, a minority, or consensus agreement
without being absolutly certain I'm right.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/4/2007 4:23 PM:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:33 -0400, 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.

I don't know why you would say that.

Say what? If you talking about my opinion, then you definitely have a
closed mind, because I've said almost nothing about my opinion on GW.

I never made any claims about
GW, the reality of it, the cause of it if real, or any potential
solutions. Simply said its existence and cause is not a consensus
among those who are in the field, at least not in the way I (and
Websters) would define the word in its primary sense.

Then you really have to get the real "Websters," which, in my version
(Random house computer version 1999; or from Dictionary.com, Random
House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006) has:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they
should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

I admit that you could find references that prefer the second definition.

As for how many climatologists believe in GW, that seems to be almost
all; as to how many believe that man is a major contributor, that is a
vast majority.

Perhaps you didn't bother to read the reference I gave before. It was
a study of ten years worth of papers by climatologists about Global
Climate Change. There were roughly 1000 papers in peer reviewed
journals on the topic. Absolutely ZERO of them attempted to refute
that man is a significant cause of GW. About 75% implicitly or
explicitly agreed, the rest were agnostic and discussed other issues.
As I mentioned, even the skeptic who originally tried to discredit
the study admitted that it was substantially correct and that
anthropogenic climate change is the "consensus view."

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

Even the recent claim that Cosmic Rays may be a significant cause of
climate change doesn't discount anthropogenic sources. (And this is
from an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.)



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.

That's the sticking point, it is not undeniable. Semantics I believe.

The cause, or even the existence of GW may not be undeniable. What is
undeniable is that there is a consensus. When even the skeptics refer
to the "consensus view" you have to admit there is a consensus.

However, those who misuse the term do themselves no good, only damages
their credibility with people like me who have worked extensivly in
areas requiring consensus; no how hard it is to obtain; and would look
with mistrust to anyone who would use that term instead of the equally
effective overwhelming or vast majority, if, of course that can be
proven.

I think the meaning of consensus in political areas is a bit different
from its meaning is scientific circles. Scientists don't have a great
need to "obtain" a consensus, they only want the truth. A consensus
does not mean "truth," it only means a large majority. There are many
areas of science where there is a strong consensus, but in almost
every case there are some skeptics.



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.

No. Those who are using the term are attempting to confuse. There is
no relation between "consensus" and "absolute certainty". If you are
telling me that each of those individuals who make up the "vast
majority" holding that opinion are also "absolutly certain" with no
probability, no matter how small, assigned to an alternative
possibility, then I'm even more concerned about the state of science.

I'm saying just the opposite. I'm beginning to think you have some
difficulty in comprehension. I'm sure that many of the "consensus"
are still a bit skeptical. I'm sure that most are open to the
possibility that the consensus view is wrong. My point simply is that
there is a consensus view. There is a large majority of
climatologists that believe it very likely true that there is Global
Climate Change, and that man is a substantial cause of it.

I can be part of a majority, a minority, or consensus agreement
without being absolutly certain I'm right.

Of course. I've never said any different. However, you can be part
of a political consensus even knowing you're wrong on that topic if it
furthers some other goal. However, in scientific circles, that's know
as "playing politics."

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."

The "concensus view" in science changes almost faster than peer-reviewed
papers can be published. I see no reason to believe that the concensus view
regarding Global Climate Change will be carved in stone any time soon.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."

The "concensus view" in science changes almost faster than peer-reviewed
papers can be published. I see no reason to believe that the concensus view
regarding Global Climate Change will be carved in stone any time soon.



GW won't go away in the same was as the earlier theories about the
"decline" of dinosaurs. People weren't making millions of $$ on the
disappearance of dinosaurs.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 7:10 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."

No. That's a cute story, but fantasy. Although there were much
speculation as to what might have caused the extinctions, there was
certainly no consensus on the topic. To quote the Encyclopedia
Britannica from 1973:

"What caused this sudden extinction? The answer is not at all clear.
Temperature changes, epidemics, eating of dinosaur eggs by early
mammals, have all been suggested but are far from satisfactory."

Perhaps in your school system the teachers made up fairy tales; that
could explain a lot.



The "concensus view" in science changes almost faster than peer-reviewed
papers can be published. I see no reason to believe that the concensus view
regarding Global Climate Change will be carved in stone any time soon.


I don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a
consensus view.

Actually, I have trouble thinking of a case of physical science that
got totally reversed in recent years. I'm sure that folks will come
up with a few, but even such radical theories as Relativity didn't
overthrow the previous science, they just augment it in certain domains.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 7:10 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."

No. That's a cute story, but fantasy. Although there were much
speculation as to what might have caused the extinctions, there was
certainly no consensus on the topic. To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica
from 1973:

"What caused this sudden extinction? The answer is not at all clear.
Temperature changes, epidemics, eating of dinosaur eggs by early mammals,
have all been suggested but are far from satisfactory."

Perhaps in your school system the teachers made up fairy tales; that could
explain a lot.

The Denver Public School System, in the 60's, was rated very highly. And
regardless what the Encyclopedia Britannica would say in the next decade,
the story I related was accurate.



The "concensus view" in science changes almost faster than peer-reviewed
papers can be published. I see no reason to believe that the concensus
view regarding Global Climate Change will be carved in stone any time
soon.

I don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a consensus
view.

And a concensus view does not mean that they are correct. The concensus view
of the medical community some twenty years ago was that ulcers were caused
by stress.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:10:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis" said:

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."

And wasn't there a "consensus view" that we were about to enter a new ice
age around 1970?

[short answer]

Yes. At least up until the late 80s / early 90s when the earth returned
to the warming trend that had been going for 15,000 years.


The earth had been in a minor global cooling trend that started in the
early 40s and continued during the massive industrialization of the late
40s through the early 70s. During this time, industrial pollution was
massive. The EPS was just starting to get some very-much-needed
workable standards and controls in place. But also during this time,
the earth was in a cooling trend. Solar flare activity was low. This
is typical of the earth's climate variations and has occurred many times
during the current warming trend and during prior climate cycles.

Environmentalists were claiming that man was forcing the earth into an
ice age. There were studies showing the cooling and blaming the
industrialization for the "problem".

But then, as the cooling trend reversed, these same environmentalists
concluded that man was causing the warming of the earth.



So where can I get funding for my latest idea: the hyper atmospheric
de-carbonization processor? I only need a few million a year for about
5 years (with extensions as necessary).

In addition to this funding, I'll need two Grand Banks 53s (new, built
to specs) as research vessels. One based in Houston and one on Whidbey
Island.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:10:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
said:

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I
was older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was
that there was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus,"
who lived in marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus
view that this critter, and those like him, died out because they
"got too big."

And wasn't there a "consensus view" that we were about to enter a new ice
age around 1970?

[short answer]

Yes. At least up until the late 80s / early 90s when the earth returned
to the warming trend that had been going for 15,000 years.


[longer answer]

The earth had been in a minor global cooling trend that started in the
early 40s and continued during the massive industrialization of the late
40s through the late 80s / early 90s. During this time, industrial pollution was
massive. The EPS was just starting to get some very-much-needed
workable standards and controls in place. But also during this time,
the earth was in a cooling trend. Solar flare activity was low. This
is typical of the earth's climate variations and has occurred many times
during the current warming trend and during prior climate cycles.

Environmentalists were claiming that man was forcing the earth into an
ice age. There were studies showing the cooling and blaming the
industrialization for the "problem".

But then, as the cooling trend reversed, these same environmentalists
concluded that man was causing the warming of the earth.



So where can I get funding for my latest idea: the hyper atmospheric
de-carbonization processor? I only need a few million a year for about
5 years (with extensions as necessary).

In addition to this funding, I'll need two Grand Banks 53s (new, built
to specs) as research vessels. One based in Houston and one on Whidbey
Island.


Made a couple of typos and fixed them.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 9:11 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 7:10 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."
No. That's a cute story, but fantasy. Although there were much
speculation as to what might have caused the extinctions, there was
certainly no consensus on the topic. To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica
from 1973:

"What caused this sudden extinction? The answer is not at all clear.
Temperature changes, epidemics, eating of dinosaur eggs by early mammals,
have all been suggested but are far from satisfactory."

Perhaps in your school system the teachers made up fairy tales; that could
explain a lot.

The Denver Public School System, in the 60's, was rated very highly. And
regardless what the Encyclopedia Britannica would say in the next decade,
the story I related was accurate.

I guess I'll have to find an older reference. Mañana .

However, if the school system was so good, it might have taught you
how to spell consensus.



The "concensus view" in science changes almost faster than peer-reviewed
papers can be published. I see no reason to believe that the concensus
view regarding Global Climate Change will be carved in stone any time
soon.
I don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a consensus
view.

And a concensus view does not mean that they are correct. The concensus view
of the medical community some twenty years ago was that ulcers were caused
by stress.

How many times do I have to say that the consensus may not be correct?
I've said that over and over; my point is simply that there IS a
consensus.