A group consenting does not a truth make. It's equally possible to have a consensus about a lie. 
Posted on 05/16/2005 5:20:53 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
I've had a letter from Sir David Wallace, CBE, FRS. In his capacity as treasurer and vice-president of the Royal Society, he writes: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support."
Gosh! The V-P of the Royal Society! How could anyone not support such an eminent body, especially as Sir David warns: "There are some individuals on the fringes, sometimes with financial support from the oil industry, who have been attempting to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change."
I say! A conspiracy as well. Definitely time to rally round, chaps, and repel fringe individuals. To help us do so, there's a "guide to facts and fictions about climate change written in a non-technical style" that even non-members of the Royal Society can grasp.
There's no doubt that this is a difficult subject that arouses strong emotions and which, if the more pessimistic projections turn out to be anywhere near the truth, will cause mankind some serious problems in the coming decades. Yet I fear I am going to be a great disappointment to Sir David.
However vigilant we may be against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence, he cannot count on my support, and it's not merely because of my instinctive leaning towards individuals on the fringe.
In his helpful, non-technical guide, he refers to a survey of 928 papers (count 'em) on climate change published between 1993 and 2003, which found that three quarters of them accepted the view that man's activities (anthropogenic, in the jargon) have had a major impact on the climate.
Amazingly, not a single one rejected it. Never mind that this is probably a greater consensus than can be found for the theory of evolution, the lack of a single dissenting voice smacks of the sort of result Nicolae Ceausescu used to get in his Romanian elections. So just what was this survey?
It is by one Naomi Oreskes, and was published in Nature last December, and it has surprised those whom Sir David might describe as fringe individuals. Among them are eminent researchers who have discovered periods in history when the Earth was hotter, even with lower levels of carbon dioxide than in today's atmosphere, and other scientists who believe that solar activity is the biggest cause of recent climate change.
These people are not nutcases, nor are they in thrall to the oil companies (even if they were, does anyone seriously believe that Big Oil wants to destroy the planet?). They are just as capable of doing serious science as those who take it as an article of faith that global warming is all our fault.
Six such individuals have just published a paper* arguing that cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving recent climate change. They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting some modest cooling over the next couple of years, as cosmic ray activity increases cloud cover. Since the conventional - sorry, consensus - wisdom says we are on a rising temperature curve to disaster, a couple of cool years would deal a serious blow to the anthropogenists.
There is much more in Sir David's briefing paper that other experts could challenge. One of the more terrifying aspects of global warming is the threat of rising sea levels as the polar ice melts, and the oceans expand through rising temperatures, threatening the millions of people who live in places only a few feet above sea level.
Dramatic pictures of receding ice shelves in Antarctica seem to back this up, but a report in February to the Earth Observation summit in Brussels found that the ice masses there seem to be growing. Sea level does not appear to be rising; satellites can't detect any change, and low-lying islands such as Tuvalu are refusing to disappear beneath the waves.
As I said, this is a difficult subject, and it would be foolish to assume that everything will turn out fine, whatever we do. But that hardly justifies Draconian measures that will make us poorer, unless the scientific evidence is overwhelming. This was what the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to do, and its findings form the basis for the Kyoto treaty. Yet a closer examination of the scientific case shows that what are now considered by the doomsayers to be firm forecasts of temperature rises are actually "scenarios" of what might happen on different assumptions.
There is a huge margin for error here, certainly enough to justify America's refusal to sign up to the treaty. It's fashionable to claim that George W. Bush has rejected Kyoto because he's too stupid to see the problem (and, of course, he's in thrall to Big Oil), but he can just as plausibly argue that the treaty is based on bad science.
Climate change is an important, perhaps vital, debate, but it remains just that. Warning of disaster has become a global industry, and the livelihoods of thousands of scientists depend on our being sufficiently spooked to keep funding the research. The worry is that many of these researchers have stopped being scientists and become campaigners instead. I do hope that the vice-president of the Royal Society is not one of them.
LMAO!!
Deep dark secret...
Outside of their narrow field of expertise, "scientists" seem to have a greater percentage of nut-cases than the general population.
Fortunately, I have lived long enough to see it first hand.
Also... follow the money.
The foulest word in my universe, where science and truth are concerned is...
'Grant'
"...other scientists who believe that solar activity is the biggest cause of recent climate change."
Count me among these...it's a big "duh"...what's the heat source? There is ample data showing the direct correlation.
In fact, the real scientists in the panel were livid, when they discovered that the clowns who put the summary together left out all the 'speculative' caveats on which the findings were based:
"In the early 1990s Lindzen was asked to contribute to the IPCC's 1995 report. At the time, he held (and still does) that untangling human influences from the natural variation of the global climate is next to impossible. When the report's summary came out, he was dismayed to read its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." "That struck me as bizarre," he says. "Because without saying how much the effect was, the statement had no meaning. If it was discernible and very small, for instance, it would be no problem." Environmentalist Bill McKibbon referred to this phrase in an article in The Atlantic in May 1998: "The panel's 2,000 scientists, from every corner of the globe, summed up their findings in this dry but historic bit of understatement." In an angry letter, Lindzen wrote that the full report "takes great pains to point out that the statement has no implications for the magnitude of the effect, is dependent on the [dubious] assumption that natural variability obtained from [computer] models is the same as that in nature, and, even with these caveats, is largely a subjective matter."
A group consenting does not a truth make. It's equally possible to have a consensus about a lie.
...and speaking of grant, anyone know the total yearly grant outlay of federal/public/loose tax dollars/money out of your pocket and mine/for dubious and not so dubious stuff? Huh? I'm sure it is a mere pittance compared to the whole budget, but every little bit counts, like the millions put into making Ellsworth AFB look good to the BRAC. Why it looked so good it was selected to be on the closure list. I believe 15 Million was the low total for moving a freeway exit one half mile, to put three businesses out of business so as not to have them under the flight path to the active runway. That sort of grant.
No evidence is required.
We all MUST believe in Global Warming, but anyone who thinks Jonah got eaten by a big fish is frikkin' idiot. I see.
40 degrees in Ct and raining. I know its anecdotal and I 'know' that global warming is the cause of local cooling but this weather sucks.
But of course. As much rain and cold as we have had this spring, I have been utterly surprised at the lack of coverage of "Global Warming" up here in the NE. But I can wait, the first day the temp hits 90, global warming will be all the rage once again.
The article that is referenced is
Advances in Space Research, May 2005
"The IPCC was a UN document. Amazing that these guys could virtually steal Iraqi oil with one hand and then gripe about the effects of burning it on the other."
Isn't it though! An organization(representing corrupt governmemts from around the globe)with such "good intentions" as the UN being corrupt, who'd o' thunk it?
The Global Warming mantra survives because everywhere eventually has warm weather. And everywhere has days that are hotter than other days. Even winters have their warm days of unseasonable weather.
No wonder Global Cooling never caught on. It is always warm somewhere during the winter.
I'm a non-scientist, but I recall hearing that Mars is also warming. Is that accurate? If so, why are there not discussions about this?
When these scientists explain global warming and global cooling...they have to tell me what caused the ice age and how many SUVs and factories caused it to reverse itself into the "warmth" we enjoy today.
Amen, Sacajaweau. But, if this is "warmth", please give me more...we're experiencing one of the coldest springs on record this year...after a cold year last year, too.
FYI...the new H3 hits the dealer lots beginning today. Be the first on your block to own one...and keep the globe warm, and help out the American economy at the same time!
I'm in NY and it's freezing today....or it seems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.