Measuring scientific consensus regarding man made global warming by counting the number of abstracts is hardly a legitimate method of evaluation. by James Luko
(centrist)
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Man-made Global Warming Theory (AGW)
Man-made Co2's are an increase in green house gases, above and beyond naturally produced greenhouse gases and thus causing temperatures to go up above and beyond natural causes. Rising temperatures are NOT good for man-kind.
This is man-made global warming theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW) and global warmers contend that there is "scientific consensus" backed by scores of evidence.
First, there is no such thing as a natural global temperature- there are thousands of variances across the globe, altitudes, weather related phenomenon, and thus a "global temperature" is just a statistical averaging of moving targets. Second, "measured and observed" changes in temperatures over the past century, " IF " you wish to believe those measurements- are NOT, according to the most cited source of global warmers- "global" but regional. (see below)
( see below) FAQ #3
" The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century "[link edited for length]
If "warming" has NOT been globally uniform- how do we call it "global warming" ? This statement or concept does not bear out according to the most cited source of global warmers. (NOAA cited above)
The author, Naomi Oreskes wrote a summary of her latest book entitled " The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change; How do we know we're not wrong." Her books and writings are often cited by global warmers and also Al Gore. (link to her paper below)
The strongest evidence she offers is that the majority of peer reviewed scientific papers agree explicitly or implicitly that man-made global warming theory is real and that there are NO dissenting papers.
That constitutes proof of nothing. Man-made global warming theory is a hypothesis which is unproven and involves many variables, estimates and guesses thus far.
Regarding the scientific papers published, the climate gate scandal clearly revealed to the general public that there was an effort NOT to publish dissenting papers, therefore, of course, when you tally up the published peer-reviewed works one would not find dissenting papers that opposed man-made global warming theory.
Second, obviously, as we all know, funds numbering in the billions flows to those who advocate man-made global warming because it implies- that- "global warming" can be stopped. All we need to do is spend more money to study it further and then stop and reverse it. If your paper opposes man-made global warming theory obviously then the scientist is theorizing that natural causes resulting in warming- to whatever degree, and therefore not much can be done about it- therefore, why spend money on it ? Resources and funds should pour into mitigation and adjustment studies. So is there any question as to why the majority of peer reviewed published papers do not oppose global warming ?
On page 72 of Naomi Oreskes summary paper, she writes ( in her evaluation of the over 900 papers she refers to)
" The authors evidently accept the premise that climate change is real " (meaning man-made causes) First, saying "evidently" does not constitute "explicit" agreement with man-made global warming. Second, I can only assume that she read all 928 abstracts to come up with her numbers.
If global warming is such a proven fact, why do we need to fund 50,000 scientists to read temperatures and continue research to prove something already proven ?
Ms. Oreskes admits on page 72 (last paragraph) " perhaps some of these authors are in fact skeptical of the current consensus " The author admits this- however, she does not classify those papers as "dissenting" ? That's amazing.
As Ms. Oreskes much cited paper admits on page 73, ONLY " 20 percent of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position" and she further writes that this mere 20 percent constitutes the following conclusion " The basic reality of anthropogenic global climate change is no longer a subject of scientific debate. " So, a mere 20 percent translates into ending the scientific debate ? And if the scientific debate is over, why do we have 50,000 scientists studying the subject ? Is it perhaps to ride the gravy train until funding dries up ?
The often cited paper of Ms. Oreskes also states on page 73 " some of the changes that are now occurring are clearly deleterious to both human communities and ecosystems (Arctic Council 2004). Because of global warming, humans are losing their homes and hunting grounds and plants and animals are losing their habitats ( e.g. Kolbert 2006; Flannery 2006)."
Which humans are losing their communities? What about the positive effects of rising Co2 levels ? Many communities and organizations around the world are coming out of the woodwork citing "deleterious" effects on them from global warming and thus asking for compensation funds. Of course they are doing that because there are billions of dollars to be had by merely attributing problems you had before to now attributing them to global warming. Case in point, the island of Maldives is asking for massive compensation funds, stating that their island is being overwhelmed by rising ocean levels- poppycock ! The Maldives is " sinking " or "not experiencing any permanent rise in ocean levels". There are several known reasons for ocean level changes in the Pacific islands. The Maldives is a prime example of how often cited authors such as Ms. Oreskes " because of global warming- HUMANS are losing their homes" can be extremely misleading.
In the case of Maldives- If it were true that anthropogenic global warming was causing rising ocean levels- thereby slowly inundating the Maldives, then, the Maldives has a strong case for global assistance- especially from the guilty parties- the West, and for some compensation certainly from the G5, EU and UN. IF, however, the cause is natural (assuming there is a problem where there might not be), as would be the likely cause- typical of the Pacific Islands, that tectonic movements which slides the island into the ocean over time, magma displacements- very typical in that region, and or soil compression of that atoll. These natural causes are already known to us and there is no mystery here. Ocean level rise is debatable and even if true- certainly rising ocean levels are NOT, nor does anyone claim, to be uniform across the globe. Therefore the likelihood that the Maldives is being topped by rising ocean levels is highly unlikely- but stating the SPECTACULAR reason being global warming results in attention and potential funding. If we accept the much more likely natural causes, then no one is to blame and thus from whom does the Maldives get money from ?
If rising ocean levels are the cause of the soon to be flooded Maldives- what about neighboring islands ? In this case, the Maldives is a miracle- GLOBAL rising ocean levels would mean that ALL islands across the globe with the same elevation should have the exact same problem- so ? Are they ? There are a few similar examples of Maldives- but clearly- they have been identified to be sinking- due to the earlier reasons cited and NOT so-called rising ocean levels. If it's just the case of Maldives- then how does global warming melt a piece of ice in the Antarctic (cause it can't be the Arctic- water displacement has already occurred since the Arctic sits on the Ocean) melt and cause a rising ocean level ONLY in the area of the Maldives thousands of kilometers away ? Does that make sense ?
Cliff Ollier, Univ. Western Australia 2009 "Sea Level in the SouthWest Pacific is Stable"
There is an array of data and scientists who contend that the Maldives is simply not experiencing a rise in ocean levels
See: (Nils-Axel Mrner, A former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mrner was head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005.)
Google the subject and you will find scientific reasons for the claims the Maldives is making other than a fictional pseudo-science of "global" rising ocean levels.
Ms. Oreskes further writes, " the vast majority of materials denying the reality of global warming do not pass the MOST basic test for what it takes to be counted as scientific- namely, being published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Well, would we agree that a large part of the reason for dissenting papers not being published in peer-reviewed journals is because there was a "concerted" effort NOT to publish such papers ? Clearly a plethora of emails revealed in climate gate exposed the efforts of the so-called "scientific" community to block dissenting papers from being published in peer-reviewed journals.
Leaked email:
Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
Sounds very much like "objective" open-minded scientists !
Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's non-alarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
As we all know, there are emails from so-called "objective" scientists which pressure editors of peer-reviewed journals to boycott the publishing of dissenting papers- therefore, is the analysis of over 900 abstracts in peer-reviewed journals objective in determining a scientific consensus based on such a method ? It would hardly be a fair analysis when we now know that editors and journals were pressured to keep dissenting abstracts from seeing the light of day. It's a question of protecting billions in funding, and therefore, anything goes in the scientific world.
Ms. Oreskes furthermore writes that "contrarians" are "well-financed" but records indicate a handful of millions spent by the oil industry and lobby, compared to " BILLIONS" handed out by the UN, NASA, NSF, governments and private groups to keep the AGW hoax going. Its' comparing apples and oranges in terms of funding levels. The U.S. Government alone spent over NINE (9) billion dollars last year on global warming studies in the U.S. (according to the US Budget Office USG) Does one think that Exxon and other energy companies are funding dissenting scientists on that magnitude ?
She continues to say that global warming advocates "real" work is just for the sake of knowledge- ah, so, these scientists who need jobs, funding, resources and sell books- are complete "altruists" who think nothing of money and publishing fame, who never think of strategies for obtaining more funding ? Anyone in academia knows this to be complete hogwash. Often, scientists spend all too much precious time chasing funding and developing strategies for that. Change my request for funding to study frogs to studying global warming effects on frogs and I've got my funding- and hence, there is another abstract' to be published which has joined the global warming bandwagon.
On page 78, Ms. Oreskes writes of global warming dissenters; " These organizations have successfully garnered a great deal of media attention for the tiny number of scientists who disagree with the mainstream view " TINY number ? Clearly it's unfair to characterize dissenters as a "TINY" number. There are almost 6 million scientists in the world, there are almost 100,000 studying issues related to the earth, and Ms. Oreskes will claim that TWENTY (20%) percent of 928 abstracts she studied- which translates to 184 abstracts which "explicitly" supports AGW becomes the MAJORITY view ? By what measurement then do dissenters make a TINY number ? By the measurement of 184 abstracts ?
On page 79; Ms. Oreskes writes:
" Might the consensus on climate change be wrong ? Yes, it could be, and if scientific research continues, it is almost certain that some aspects of the current understanding will be modified, perhaps in significant ways. This possibility cannot be denied."
If this is so, then why the great campaign against dissent ? Why the certainty in saying that the science of AGW is NO LONGER OPEN FOR DEBATE ? It's a gigantic contradiction.
On page 86, regarding "climate models" Ms. Oreskes writes:
"One way in which modelers address the fact that a model can't be proved right or wrong is to make lots of different models that explore diverse possible outcomes- what modelers call ensembles."
Exactly, there is a model to fit all needs, and one would think, with funding applications in mind, that a scientist- with his ensembles' of models will publish or advertise his model which indicated no rise in temperatures or a very small rise- or will he cherry-pick results and publicize the models which show the largest rises in temperatures (the so-called doomsday scenarios) ?
Importantly on page 88, Naomi Oreskes writes:
" Is it possible that all these model runs are wrong ? Yes, because they are variations on a theme."
And what is that theme- obviously, global warming, thus by her own admission, models are run to find global warming; inputs and assumptions are prejudiced with a pre-set expectation of finding or running models which indicate temperature increases not a neutral unbiased model run. When on page 87 there are illustrations of thousands of model runs, in fact, many show little to no temperature increases, yet those do not fit the "theme" of global warming and are thus discarded- those models never make it into the peer-reviewed journals because they can't be the catalyst for future funding and selling books.
Keep in mind, ALL conclusions in AGW theories depend on " assumptions " NOT established and provable science.
When it was clear that the lagging of CO2 isotope spikes was not a causation of warming, the AGW gang came up with positive feedback. Clearly Co2 changes are a reaction to something else, usually, warming weather and NOT the cause of it. Lags which exist over a thousand years can hardly be explained by positive feedback, it's wishful thinking to link C02 changes as the catalyst to warming temperatures.
In addition, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Dr. James Hansen (one of the most cited AGW advocates) himself writes that Co2's are NOT the NET prime reason for global warming but that non-C02 greenhouse gases are.
This is due to global dimming, (reduction in direct irradiance at the Earth's surface) has counteracted global warming for the past 50 years. This dimming is caused by aerosols produced by volcanoes and other pollutants. This cooling effect has offset global warming caused by C02s and thus NET global warming is ACTUALLY caused by non-C02 greenhouse gases. So why aren't these scientists focusing on other greenhouse gases like methane or water vapor ? None other than Dr. Hansen, NASA GISS Director himself postulates that Co2's are NOT the NET cause of current global warming.
The scientific debate is NOT over, and this is proven by continued and ongoing research. Most serious reports on this subject do not offer proof, but themselves use terminology such as, " likely to be" "might be" " a possible cause" etc. etc.
That is not established science.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Luko only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Luko is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: March 3, 2011 06:49:48 AM
James, It is too bad that an article such as this is even still necessary. The taxpayer sustained compilation of non-sense from a shrinking number of climate scientist, hopefully will someday come to and end. Years ago I asked a question of a climatologist as to why they gave water vapor so little weight in the modeling process? His response was that AGW was established science and he wouldn't argue about it. Not to be deterred I ask him if he had spent any time in the tropics, if so then had he spent any time in the desert? If he had did he happen to notice the difference in night time temps? His response was that the water vapor cycle or function was not well understood and to draw conclusions without that understanding would be unscientific, "read inconvenient".
How could you prove or disprove AGW without considering the the most abundant, by a overwhelming %, green house gas, water vapor? You are right it is not about science it is about MONEY.
Posted By: sciencemercenary
Date: March 3, 2011 09:47:26 AM
What a wonderful tour-de-force of ignorance. This article contains so many misconceptions and misrepresentations that it isn't even worth my time to rebut.
James, the laws of physics don't care about your so-called "centrist" ideology. Call the world flat all you want, that doesn't make it so.
Keep preaching to the choir while the world burns.
Posted By: sarasile
Date: March 3, 2011 03:41:47 PM
This is to sciencemercenary above. Your comments above clearly show you are the ignorant one. Mr. Luko brings up very specific examples of how AGW chicken-littles such as yourself manipulate and miss-represent the evidence to promote the AGW scam. Better get a new scam, because this one's about seen its last days.
Posted By: Educated1
Date: March 4, 2011 07:50:51 AM
First of all, "Global Warming" is a misnomer. What it shoud be called is "Global Climate Change". Though some areas may experience actual warming (the Antarctic ice shelf is disappearig at an alarming rate) other areas may experience much colder, much more severe weather patterns. The world is a big place. What happens on one side of the planet may not happen on the other side. This is basic science. Something the author apparently has little knowledge of. Thirty years ago the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.03% A miniscule amount to be sure but percentages can be misleading. A very tiny rise in atmospheric CO2 can and does have dramatic effects on the planet. The measured CO2 now is 0.045%. A whopping 50% increase in 30 years! CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. In other words, it reflects incoming sunlight and causes climate changes. Not since prehistoric times has the CO2 level been as high. And even then, it took eons (an eon is 1000 years) to change. The CO2 levels have increased in about 150 years. A very accelerated rate by any standard. It's unprecedented in nature. There is a lag time between the change and the effect. Conversely, if the CO2 levels were manipulated back down to their pre-industrial levels there would also be a lag time to bring the climate back to those levels. Climate change is real. Global Warming is a misnomer. Scientists on every continent know this. Core ice samples from the Arctic and Antarctic have shown variations in temperatures and climates globally and what they are saying is, right now, right here, the effect of increased CO2 so dramatically in sucha short span of time is alarming. Glacier National Park in Montana has seen 90% of its glaciers disappear in the last century. The Andes' ice caps are all but gone. Wet snow (unheard of 50 years ago) in Anchorage Alaska is now commonplace. In other words, people in Southern Alaska now have to use their windshield wipers in winter. Something they never had to do before... ever. Animals and plants have, over the past 20 or 30 years migrated north at an accelerated rate. There are now Texas Armadillos in the midwest; including Wichita, Kansas. Steven Rosile... you are the one that has his head in the sands of ignorance. The world is experiencing some very dramatic changes from pole to pole and from continent to continent. The severe winter of 2011 in the USA does not negate the science of Global Climate Change, it supports it. Everyone would be wise to get rid of the tag name "Global Warming" and go with the more correct Global Climate Change. That way, when the ice freezes on Lake Michigan those who will say, "See? it's cold still." will be looked upon as the ignorant, unread people they are. Don't go on any ocean cruises any time soon, you might fall off the ends of the earth.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: March 6, 2011 05:57:25 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think to attribute ALL global changes, to "man-made" C02 contributions is not solid science. Global climate change is a given and that can also mean that climate is cooling. C02 levels are rising but what percentage of that is man-made ? Those conclusions are estimates and guesses, not established scientific fact. Let's keep in mind, at some measurement points C02 is let's say, 381ppm, but when you step in your kitchen, it may be 500 and at your workplace- factory, it could be 1,000 ppm.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: March 7, 2011 11:03:02 PM
Laws of physics: 2nd law of Thermodynamics:
Am I “ignoring” physics or is it AGW advocates who are ignoring basic physics.
The second law of thermodynamics which states that a cooler element cannot warm a warmer element without compensation. Our dynamic biosphere creates a thermal equilibrium AND cooler greenhouse gases (colder because the upper atmosphere is colder) could hardly transfer heat to a warmer earth right ? Basic physics no ? Who is ignoring it ?
