|
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:08:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Charlie Morgan" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:55:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Charlie, as the originator of this particular thread, I rule that Cessna's posts have been entirely on-topic. Your most recent contributions are slightly off-topic, but I find them sufficiently entertaining that they might as well be considered on-topic also. Carry on. Your original post was completely off topic for this newsgroup. That's just another FACT that you choose to ignore. If this is the way you want this newsgroup to evolve, I will be more than happy to start lots of off topic threads to assist you in your endeavors. I may even cross post them to gain more impact for your project. Maybe others can also join in and start off topic threads. That would be GREAT! CWM Aw, c'mon, Charlie. You need to go sailing as badly as I do. Unfortunately, that option isn't open to me for another few weeks. The most I can hope to do until then is work on the boat when weather allows. But I have to disagree that the topic is is off-topic for this newsgroup, as the outcome of the debate could very well impact our ability to engage in this activity. Tough luck. I have been sailing all winter at 52N. It has been very pleasant between gales. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
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.... |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
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 |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* 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. 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. 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: "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
Charlie Morgan wrote:
I keep looking, but I can't seem to detect a point to all this quibbling. Forget trying to disparage your opponent. Either make your case independently on it's own merits, or shut the **** up. game, set and match |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
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 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
the_bmac wrote:
Charlie Morgan wrote: I keep looking, but I can't seem to detect a point to all this quibbling. Forget trying to disparage your opponent. Either make your case independently on it's own merits, or shut the **** up. game, set and match This is a newsgroup about boating. You have completely missed the boat. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Cessna 310 wrote in news:bZbPh.23$EN4.18
@newsfe12.lga: The current cycle is no different than previous cycles. And there is absolutely NO irrefutable proof that man has caused this warming. I think all this relates to man's religious need to be to blame for everything that happens to everything else. From a child's first trip to whatever religious institution its parents drag it to, it is force fed GUILT. Guilt is what all religion depends on for its subsistence. "You're going to hell if you....." the boys in the robes tell them, staring down on them to coerce compliance. So, in any endeavour or encounter where something bad happens, it is that same child, now any age up to his death, who is GUILTY of causing whatever bad has happened. He is, obviously, guilty of some nebulous sin, having started his car, turned up the thermostat when he was cold. It HAS to be HIM, because all his life he's been TAUGHT it was him. This "control" mechanism, taught by religion, is used by governments to get compliance with governments' wishes. Crime and punishment, association by guilt. They, too, stare down on him from their robes and high benches for the same effect. So, when humans, any humans so indoctrinated their entire lives, is told what bad is happening is NOT their fault and is beyond the control of those who have set themselves up to force the rest of us to do their bidding, promising us protection they now cannot deliver with their military, science, laws and religion, the indoctrinees refuse to believe it. They go on blaming themselves for something, like Global Warming, they didn't cause or can do nothing about. A smarter class of blood suckers, living off the indoctrinees by force, feed this guilt, which produces some very heavy grant money for themselves and their pets. Faced with irrefutable evidence it's out of control, indoctrinees pray, as the building collapses around them. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
|
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Stephen Trapani wrote in news:BiePh.96$7_3.49
@newsfe02.lga: Bias is a very important issue in all of science, so much so that any experiments or reasoning *must* address bias and correct for it. "HIV causes AIDS." A whole industry depends on it. Unfortunately, all AIDS patients don't have HIV. In fact, the HIV infection rates in AIDS and non-AIDS patients is almost the same. HIV is millions of years old, unlike AIDS. Millions of humans have HIV that never get AIDS. It doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner to deduce from these simple facts that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But, now committed with big money and reputation on the line, HIV has GOT to cause AIDS, even if it doesn't. The same bias applies to all government-funded "science" research, which it's not. Noone dares to find out what causes AIDS, now. He'd never live to see tomorrow's sun rise! Can you blame them? We cannot afford to find a cure for any human disease producing massive fortunes for doctors and the medical research professions....no more than plumbers can afford to find a permanent cure for stopped up drains. |
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! |
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. |
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com