Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Jeff wrote:


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.



So you're saying that just because some theory has consensus support, it
means little?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:34:01 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* 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.

Then explain your use of the comparison between absolute certainty and
consensus. You're the one who used it and claimed that I might be
confusing the terms. How might that be? You, as ususal, are very quick
to negate others ability to think clearly (confusing the terms...,
lack comprehension..., You have a rather closed mind...,). I notice
you drop a minor insult or two in every response. Not sure why, I
haven't questioned anything except the appropriate use of the term
consensus. And said that you seem to be comfortable with it as
completely appropriate. It seems to bother you that I and others
might think that the term is inconsistent with what we have in this
case. But so be it.


I think you're right, I do have a difficulty in comprehension because
I don't agree with you. That must be 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
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 9:11 PM:

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


And if yours was any good at all, it might have taught you that there are
two correct ways to spell it.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:15:42 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


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

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


And if yours was any good at all, it might have taught you that there are
two correct ways to spell it.



There are two ways to spell it - correctly and incorrectly. You
probably think that it stems from "census", but it does not. It stems
from "sentiment"

CWM

I stand corrected -- perhaps. Apparently it is one of the most commonly
misspelled words in the English language. Even NOAA scientists use
"concensus," and the online Dictionary I use simply redirects to "consensus"
without stating that "concensus" is wrong.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/5/2007 8:42 AM:

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.

Then explain your use of the comparison between absolute certainty and
consensus.

I would have thought these were fairly well understood terms.
"Absolute certainty" means that 100% of the observers are 100% sure.
This is, of course, never remotely achievable in the "soft" sciences,
but is also rare in the physical sciences.

As I've said, the modern definition of "consensus" lists majority
first. This is (sort of) a switch from previous definitions, which
list the second definition first - refer to the 9th Collegiate and the
newer 10th. Unfortunately, though, even Merriam-Websters has two
different definitions online now.

Be that as it may, in scientific matters consensus does not mean
unanimity. There can be a number of skeptics, and a number of
concerns on various points, and that does not mean there is no
consensus. Since this occurs on virtually every topic, insisting that
a consensus does not exist if there is one skeptic renders the term
meaningless.

You're the one who used it and claimed that I might be
confusing the terms. How might that be?

Sorry, its not my place to explain the inner workings of your mind.

But lets look at the sequence:
Trepani wrote "There is no clear consensus," to which I responded that
there is a vast majority, which is enough to call it a consensus, even
if there are skeptics. You then claimed that "consensus" means
general agreement and that it is only a "consensus" if the skeptics
agree not to present an opposing opinion. I said that might work in
politics, but clearly does not apply to science; therefore we must use
other definitions offered in the dictionary.

At this point I even gave a reference to a study that shows that the
vast majority of papers support the position which even the skeptics
refer to as the "majority consensus."

You countered that this is not true, that if there is one dissenter,
it is not a consensus. I repeated that this is not necessarily the
dictionary definition, nor is it meaningful in scientific matters.

You, as ususal, are very quick
to negate others ability to think clearly (confusing the terms...,
lack comprehension..., You have a rather closed mind...,).

At this point, you (not me!) turned to insult. First, you used the
"if one person misuses the term ..." argument, ignoring the fact that
there are several definitions, and implying that I'm misusing term.

And then you said, "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." In fact, at no time have I stated my opinion on global
warming, only that there is a large enough majority to be considered a
consensus.

Since you, not me, insisted on taking it this level, I responded in
kind, that you seem to "have a rather closed mind about my opinion."

As to the question of you being confused, I still think that might is
true. You were quite insistent and explicit that for there to be a
consensus, even the skeptics must agree to remain quiet. This is
simply not the the only definition, and it is not appropriate in
scientific matters. Are you seriously saying that on scientific
matters skeptics should agree to silence their objections for the sake
of a consensus? You have to be kidding!

I notice
you drop a minor insult or two in every response.

Oh really, I didn't notice any until you started do it. Or do you
consider it insulting that I disagree with you?

Not sure why, I
haven't questioned anything except the appropriate use of the term
consensus. And said that you seem to be comfortable with it as
completely appropriate. It seems to bother you that I and others
might think that the term is inconsistent with what we have in this
case. But so be it.

There is a reason why this is an important topic. By claiming there
is "no consensus" you make it sound like there are a large number of
scientists who disagree completely with the concept of Global Warming.
If fact, it is just the opposite: virtually all climatologists agree
that there is Global Warming, and the vast majority believe man is a
significant contributor. If you look at the skeptics closely, many
are objecting on specific issues, such as attributing severe weather
to GW, or they think that the worst case scenarios are overstated, or
they think that there are other causes that are more important than
man. There are some that object just on the general principles, that
if so many people agree there must be something wrong.

I'll repeat a third time, in a study of all of the papers published
from 1993 to 2003 that refer to "global climate change" not a single
one tries to refute the anthropogenic cause of climate change. I
really don't see how you can claim there is no consensus.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:31:38 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/5/2007 8:42 AM:

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.

Then explain your use of the comparison between absolute certainty and
consensus.

I would have thought these were fairly well understood terms.
"Absolute certainty" means that 100% of the observers are 100% sure.
This is, of course, never remotely achievable in the "soft" sciences,
but is also rare in the physical sciences.

As I've said, the modern definition of "consensus" lists majority
first. This is (sort of) a switch from previous definitions, which
list the second definition first - refer to the 9th Collegiate and the
newer 10th. Unfortunately, though, even Merriam-Websters has two
different definitions online now.

Be that as it may, in scientific matters consensus does not mean
unanimity. There can be a number of skeptics, and a number of
concerns on various points, and that does not mean there is no
consensus. Since this occurs on virtually every topic, insisting that
a consensus does not exist if there is one skeptic renders the term
meaningless.

You're the one who used it and claimed that I might be
confusing the terms. How might that be?

Sorry, its not my place to explain the inner workings of your mind.

But lets look at the sequence:
Trepani wrote "There is no clear consensus," to which I responded that
there is a vast majority, which is enough to call it a consensus, even
if there are skeptics. You then claimed that "consensus" means
general agreement and that it is only a "consensus" if the skeptics
agree not to present an opposing opinion. I said that might work in
politics, but clearly does not apply to science; therefore we must use
other definitions offered in the dictionary.

At this point I even gave a reference to a study that shows that the
vast majority of papers support the position which even the skeptics
refer to as the "majority consensus."

You countered that this is not true, that if there is one dissenter,
it is not a consensus. I repeated that this is not necessarily the
dictionary definition, nor is it meaningful in scientific matters.

You, as ususal, are very quick
to negate others ability to think clearly (confusing the terms...,
lack comprehension..., You have a rather closed mind...,).

At this point, you (not me!) turned to insult. First, you used the
"if one person misuses the term ..." argument, ignoring the fact that
there are several definitions, and implying that I'm misusing term.

You took that as an insult?? That was the premise of my first post to
this thread. I just restated it when you said that an "expert" used
the term so, you passed it on, so, I must be wrong in questioning its
use in this case.

And then you said, "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." In fact, at no time have I stated my opinion on global
warming, only that there is a large enough majority to be considered a
consensus.

And that is exactly what i was talking about. You have made up your
mind that it is so. An insult? You stated it.

I certainly would not think that you would have comfort in the fact of
GW if you believe it so. Would any sane person?

Since you, not me, insisted on taking it this level, I responded in
kind, that you seem to "have a rather closed mind about my opinion."



As to the question of you being confused, I still think that might is
true. You were quite insistent and explicit that for there to be a
consensus, even the skeptics must agree to remain quiet. This is
simply not the the only definition, and it is not appropriate in
scientific matters. Are you seriously saying that on scientific
matters skeptics should agree to silence their objections for the sake
of a consensus? You have to be kidding!

Absolutely not. if all agree with the basic preimise, but have room
for a probability in the other direction, it is a consensus. 100% of
those stating the cause and effect of GW can hold an alternative
possibility with varying degrees of probablility assigned and you
would still have a consensus. Has nothing to do with absolute
certainty and I never, ever said it did. You brought it up as an
excuse for your interuptation of my "confusion" on the issue of use of
the term.

I notice
you drop a minor insult or two in every response.

Oh really, I didn't notice any until you started do it. Or do you
consider it insulting that I disagree with you?

Not sure why, I
haven't questioned anything except the appropriate use of the term
consensus. And said that you seem to be comfortable with it as
completely appropriate. It seems to bother you that I and others
might think that the term is inconsistent with what we have in this
case. But so be it.

There is a reason why this is an important topic. By claiming there
is "no consensus" you make it sound like there are a large number of
scientists who disagree completely with the concept of Global Warming.

How can you possibly get to that conclusion. Where or when did I ever
say that or anything like that. Please quote it. I even used the
terms "vast majority" or "overwhelming majority" as appropriate if
they can be proven in place of consensus, which to me and many others
means "all who have entered opinions on the matter"

If fact, it is just the opposite: virtually all climatologists agree
that there is Global Warming, and the vast majority believe man is a
significant contributor. If you look at the skeptics closely, many
are objecting on specific issues, such as attributing severe weather
to GW, or they think that the worst case scenarios are overstated, or
they think that there are other causes that are more important than
man. There are some that object just on the general principles, that
if so many people agree there must be something wrong.

I'll repeat a third time, in a study of all of the papers published
from 1993 to 2003 that refer to "global climate change" not a single
one tries to refute the anthropogenic cause of climate change. I
really don't see how you can claim there is no consensus.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 30-Mar-2007, Cessna 310 wrote:

Charlie Morgan wrote:


You've been "advised" to stop.

CWM

Didn't know you were the undercover usenet cop. Since we will be on
water and the level of water is predicted to rise anywhere from 2" to 28
feet, this thread is completely on-topic.

You've been "advised" to use your own personal methods of thread
screening. You are completely free to read whatever you want.

Or change the channel.

Whatever....

Get it right, the prediction is for ZERO to 28 feet.
So far ZERO is correct.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

After working with others for years developing ANSI and ISO standards,
the meaning of consensus is fairly well understood. It basically means
that though everyone may not agree with the final document, all the
objections and negative votes have been addressed. The "final" standard
is one that everyone can live with.

Using this practical definition, there is no consensus agreement on
whether or not man is the cause of global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 4/5/2007 6:31 PM:

After working with others for years developing ANSI and ISO standards,
the meaning of consensus is fairly well understood. It basically means
that though everyone may not agree with the final document, all the
objections and negative votes have been addressed. The "final" standard
is one that everyone can live with.

Using this practical definition, there is no consensus agreement on
whether or not man is the cause of global warming.


That could be why this use of "consensus" is meaningless for
scientific issues. For standards, everyone has already agreed to the
concept that a 100% consensus that "everyone can live with" is more
important than having a "perfect" standard.

In the scientific world, a 100% consensus has no value, and in fact is
undesirable. Scientists look for the truth, not some compromise that
the most people can live with. The skeptics serve an important role
in the process. In this world, the meaning of "consensus" is quite
different.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 9:11 PM:
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 was at the local library today and wandered over to the "Dinosaur"
section. The books there were labeled with the publication date on
the spine, so it was easy to find the several books from the late
'50's through the '60's. For completeness, I also went up to the "old
reference" section and found an encyclopedia from 1967. Without
exception, they had the same information as the 1973 Britannica. For
example, "The Fossil Book," 1958, went on for several pages in a
section titled "The Puzzle of Extinction" with a discussion of the
various theories. They favored climate change triggered by some
unknown cause, but noted that no one had presented any complete theory
that fit the data. Without exception, every text presented this as a
mystery that maybe someday will be solved. This is how I remember the
subject being presented here in Boston, but secretly I favored the
egg-sucking mammal theory.

So the question now is, was the Denver School System incompetent back
then, or is KLC spinning a cute yarn?