Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Testimony: A Surprising Consensus On Climate
Lasrick writes: Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change. Researchers recently assessed the content of congressional testimony related to either global warming or climate change from 1969 to 2007. For each piece of testimony, they recorded several characteristics about how the testimony discussed climate. For instance, noting whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources. The results: Testimony to Congress—even under Republican reign—reflects the scientific consensus that humans are changing our planet's climate.
Sadly there is no scientific consensus on whether this method of determining a consensus works or not.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The easiest way to find out if anything is actually true is to check if large companies are mentioning it in their SEC filings (which for global warming they are). Billionaires and other folks who actually matter read those and make decisions on those so you can actually be punished for real if you lie or omit information.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A majority, according to the subjective reading of the testimony by this group, but not a consensus. And given the group's public position on the topic it shouldn't be a surprise that their interpretation of the testimony supports their "scientific consensus".
I don't see how the statistics they've presented don't support them finding a consensus...
Everyone says the same thing except the ones who are obviously lying.
Even 'journalists' milking the sensationalism of the fake controversy are having trouble keeping a straight face.
So bored with all this poppycock.
Can't we just get on with the ice age of the 1970's - that was a lot of fun. We'd all be playing in the snow, not swimming in the rising shark-infested waters.
The real problem is deforestation, methane discharge (largely natural), and water table reduction.
Deforestation and water table reduction is from human action. Methane discharge is from melting calthrate fields, largely off the north coast of Russia. Send a CNG collection machine there.
JJ
It's easy. Congress, in general, doesn't believe what scientists say; scientists have no credibility among members of Congress. So it doesn't matter if there is a scientific consensus or not.
The whole reason science in general works is because there are no leaders. Consensus means nothing. The only problem is that science can never discover the "Truth" (tm). The best it can do is come up with a model that has yet to be disproven. If there is no way to disprove it is faith not science.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Let's see, we have a congressional hearing on whether or not there should be more government to regulate our lives. What do we get? SURPRISE! A large number of people called before congress say we need more government.
I've come across these kind of people before, and I've seen them called "watermelons". Why are they called that? Because they are green environmentalists on the outside but red communists on the inside. These people want more government and will use any excuse to get it. Right now the popular reason is the environment.
I'm not saying we should be allowed to pollute as we wish. I say that even if we had half of the government we have now we'd still have clean water, fresh air, clear skies, safe and nutritious food, and warm houses. How can I say that? Because generally people aren't dicks to their neighbors and tend to care about their children growing up to have children of their own. There are ways to deal with the outliers that don't require the government telling me what kind of light bulbs I can use.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
On this planet cultural ideology is the rule that all must obey.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What does Al Gore have to do with science?
You are unhinged.
Learn the difference between changing the climate and global warming as only caused by humans and a major problem.
Who is saying that humans are not changing the climate,after all if you exhale in the Philippine Arena you are changing the climate and is totally different from the comments of the people who flew to the latest global warming conference in their private plans with the primary purpose of seeking more money.
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
"scientists have no credibility among members of Congress"
So, to sum up what you've said, members of congress, in general, are idiots, at least when it comes to topics such as, for example, actual knowledge.
So now we just have to find out why people keep electing idiots.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1) There is no such thing as climate change
2) Climate change exists, but it isn't happening now.
3) The climate is changing, but it isn't being caused by humans
4) The climate is being changed by humans, but we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it.
5) We could have averted climate change, but it is too late now.
Apparently, we've just passed step 3. With step 4, expect a deluge of reports about how we shouldn't try messing with the climate because we just don't understand it well enough and probably will make things worse, or because any benefits from changes WE make will be lost because THEY following suit (for various values of "they", but most likely China or India) or because the potential loss of revenue to a few entitled mega-corporations is far too important to risk by imposing ecologically-responsible regulations. In short, the arguments will be that since we can't make everything 100% better, why should we make any attempt at all?
Climate change deniers will continue to be wrong until we reach step 5, when they will suddenly - and to all our misfortune - be right. We can only hope that the ecological mess they cause in the name of short-term profits won't be so catastrophic for the rest of us.
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
Here's a few things I picked up while following the climate change debate. Windmills and solar panels are expensive and unreliable means to produce electricity. Because they are unreliable we need something reliable to back them up. Right now, with current technology and politics, that means natural gas turbines.
While natural gas turbines are cheap and reliable they are not particularly efficient. So when we mix wind, solar, and natural gas together we get expensive electricity and no real carbon savings over having just burned that natural gas in a steam boiler for electricity.
People that believe we should reduce carbon output and also believe that nuclear power will kill us all are rejecting science twice over. I'll give on the global warming shit so long as we get nuclear power out of it. If the answer is not nuclear power then I will fight anyone that claims fossil fuels will be the end of us all.
It's fossil fuels, nuclear power, or the lights go out. A true scientist would admit we know very little about the environment. Anyone that says they've solved the equation is either delusional or trying to sell something. I'm not buying.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change.
And this:
For instance, we noted whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources.
There is an enormous chasm between these two ideas. Yes there is a broad concensus that we are changing the composition of our atmosphere and this should cause the planet to warm to some extent. *Alot* of sceptics agree with this. But there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests or the planet or that an urgent mitigation based policy framework is needed. There is an enormous amount of disagreement here, scientific disagreement, as there should be because honest truth is we do not know what impacts are likely to be and there are plenty of competing points of view, in literature on this.
Climate science discussion is so slippery, constantly confusing, conflating and switching in utterly different subjects of discussion. The most generous critique I can muster is that this is at very best, chronic intellectual sloppiness/laziness. And people wring their hands and lament on the lack of trust....
If people wouldn't always attach solutions with their decree of a problem, people would be much less likely to claim that there isn't a problem. Every environmentalist I have ever encountered has presented a single-minded solution to every problem, and therefore I am not an environmentalist. I am willing to bet that the majority of the backlash against global warming comes from people who disagree with the specific solutions presented more than the statement that there is a problem to begin with. Only a complete idiot (I will not even allow for ignorance on this one) doesn't see that there are global-scale man-made environmental changes.
So I take it that you, as a paid corporate shill. are not going to be joining our post-industrial revolution.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
n/t
> If there is no way to disprove it is faith not science.
How could you disprove that statement?
Science is the study of what is and why. It starts with a formulation
of a question; in this case, "Is man made CO2 causing a change to the
climate." Next, a hypothesis is made based off the evidence already
available. The next step is to make a prediction based off of the
hypothesis; in this case, world wide temperatures is going to increase,
aka climate temperature models. After which, the scientific community
test the predictions; in this case, comparing actual temperature models
against the predicted. Lastly, there is an analysis of the predictions
against the actual findings. If the predictions do not line up with the
actual findings the hypothesis is deemed to be wrong. In this case, the
actual temperatures greatly deviate from the models and indicate that
global cooling is occuring, As such, the theory of man made climate
change is a failed theory...
Some of the failed predictions include, but not limited to:
1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006
****
2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.
****
3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter Climate models over 20
times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country
do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They
should form the basis for political planning Temperatures in the
wintertime will rise the most there will be less cold air coming to
Central Europe from the eastIn the Alps winters will be 2C warmer
already between 2021 and 2050.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.
****
4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007
****
5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations.
Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of
CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4C, in the Alps by up
to 5C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.
****
6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a
complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase
in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer
and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.
****
7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another
extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. The
global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007
****
8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the
wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder
temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010
9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months
were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier,
but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to
get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010
****
10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 Ap
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
However we have no way of getting to know those rules except through a social process in which scientists read and argue about each others' research.
Trust me, if the majority of scientists hadn't agreed on Newton's laws of motions you'd never have heard of him. Of course then we wouldn't be having this technology-mediated conversation; we'd probably be throwing rocks at each other instead.
People that believe we should reduce carbon output and also believe that nuclear power will kill us all are rejecting science twice over.
Disproof by counterexample: me. I think we should reduce carbon output and I think nuclear power could be useful, provided that plant developers post a bond to cover the decommissioning costs. I won't bother to address your point about wind power, but I do recommend you take the the drive from Los Angeles to Palm Springs sometime. You might find it enlightening.
A true scientist would admit we know very little about the environment. Anyone that says they've solved the equation is either delusional or trying to sell something. I'm not buying.
And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Just because scientists don't know *everything* doesn't mean they know *nothing*, or that they don't know enough to have a more informed opinion than a layman.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The scientific consensus is that overpopulation and climate change are killing the planet. The legislators will choose the problem that can generate more taxes and ignore the other problem until it is too late.
We have found a consensus!
You are welcome on my lawn.
And within the next decade when temperatures begin to plummet, we will all forget these inane discussions on man's effect on the world's climate.
I didn't say that, nor did I mean that. The members of Congress live in a different world, one in which science is largely meaningless. In the same way, scientists live in a world in which the techniques needed to win elections and to be relatively successful afterwards are completely incomprehensible. Scientists clearly don't understand or appreciated politics any better than politicians understand or appreciate science. And neither of them understand religion, philosophy, athletics, literature, engineering, etc. So many separate, isolated realities...
Any theory that has no way to falsified is not science. The level conflict of interest is too damn high with climate "scientists". It's nothing but a bunch of collectivists trying to push their top down authoritarian government down everyone's throat - AS ALWAYS - and this is just another means to that end. Don't believe it? Here's a simple litmus test.
1) Does it actually help the problem in a meaningful way, or does it simply grow the top down authoritarian government?
For each proposed "solution", if the answer to the above question is "yes", and it most certainly is so far, what other conclusion can be reached? The goal of AGW "science" is to grow government, period.
If I can't confirm it for myself, it isn't science. That limitation can be annoying to people who think they know everything, but nevertheless, that's what science is.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Doesn't change fable into fact. Humans have nothing to do with climate change. Carbon has nothing to do with climate change. All is fine in the world and will continue to be fine. Not worried one bit.
The climate and environment in general are a shared resource and nobody wants to be the one to hold back because they'll be the one stuck with the cost while everyone else reaps the benefits.
And unlike at the national level where a central government can FORCE you to pay for it collectively, the environment is a global resource and there is no way to enforce proper sharing of the resource.
I'll bet that for practical purposes you can't personally confirm general relativity, RNA to DNA reverse transcription, the role of the Coriolis effect in the formation of seasonal thermoclines in the ocean, or the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. It doesn't mean those things aren't science.
"I can't confirm it" isn't the same as "I am unable or unwilling to put the effort it would take."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In the 1970s many believed the opposite of global warming...
CIA report on global cooling:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/w...
I realize many of you were not around during this time, the link below shows many articles and videos that came out during that time:
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
They were wrong then, and I believe they are wrong now... Or perhaps intentionally misleading everyone...
In the search for power, leaders must find a hook to entice people to give up their rights, property and freedoms.
I know... Godwin's Law, so before anybody dismisses the following line, think about it...
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels
A fee for decommissioning is imposed on each kWh of electricity sent out by domestic nuclear plants. We're not exactly sure how much it should be, since most plants are still operating, but the mechanism is there.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
If I can't confirm it for myself, it isn't science.
*FACEPALM*
Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.
Can you personally confirm that electrons exist? Probably not, because you haven't actually seen one. But there is a great body of evidence that supports the existence of electrons. Therefore, I accept that they exist.
Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists? Probably not, because you haven't actually met him. But there is a great body of evidence that supports the existence of the Pope. Therefore, I accept that he exists.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Half will agree, half won't and all with legitimate insight.
The "consensus" of scientists was pretty clear on that whole phlogiston thing for a while, wasn't it... and then on the whole "caloric" thing that replaced it.
You've almost convinced them! Keep pushing that party line, Slashdot! Climate Change (TM) will be all everyone is talking about!
It exists since the 70s so yes officially we are changing the climate of the planet as a business model.
I welcome the United Nations to give the United States of America $150 Trillion dollars (US) for the construction of US Federal facilities for the extermination of human beings.
Ha ha
Not going to happen. UN got no balls.
But the current EU migrant crisis shows EU has balls to kill human beings by the boat-loads the good old fashion religion way, drowning.
Ha ha
http://davidappell.blogspot.ca... "Johnson's remarks arose from a 1965 report to his Administration, “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which had a chapter on CO2’s potential to cause warming.
I know you jest, but this is almost everybody. Thank you, Internet amd information on demand.
So all the testimony before congress was about anthropomorphic climate change.
Do you think it changed any congress critters minds?
The "consensus" of scientists was pretty clear on that whole phlogiston thing for a while, wasn't it... and then on the whole "caloric" thing that replaced it.
Right, but the astrologers have been consistent all along.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Science or consensus.
Remember, science is inherently falsifiable. To add my own twist, junk science doubly less.
Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.
And the obvious rebuttal is a whole lot of people can confirm their invisible sky gods.
Can you personally confirm that electrons exist?
[...] Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists?
The answer is that yes, he can do that.
Of course congress-folk don't listen to congressional testimony, it would cause cognitive dissonance with their belief system (well actually their top campaign contributors belief system), it's a human (and I use the term loosely in the context of congress-folk) failing that we all suffer. We don't listen to evidence that doesn't fit our world view.
FWIW in this case, sadly, the biggest lever we seem to have to control AGW is to create recessionary economic conditions (which is how the US achieved a net reduction in green-house gasses between 1997 and 2012). The question we need to ask ourselves is it worth causing recessionary conditions to achieve a reduction in green-house gasses and hope this keeps AGW at bay, or should we just batton-down-the-hatches and prepare for climate change as being inevitable.
I'm in the batton-down-the-hatches camp, but I can see arguments for the former, I just doubt it is achievable so we should just spend our limited resources and try to adapt. Unfortunately many folks see this position (i.e., they do you want to cause a recession position) and think you must be a denier, a classic false dichotomy fallacy. I don't deny anything about AGW, except that the premise of clamping down on greenhouse gasses to pre-industrial levels would be a productive exercise.
I have yet to see a policy/model scenario that predicts AGW from ever stopping (most simply attempt to make a reduction and hope for a miracle in future technology) and maybe it's time for us to simply embrace the future. All this gnashing over the minuscule amount of greenhouse gasses we can reduce w/o eliminating a few billion people and cows from our planet is really just self flagellation. If we really wanted to do that, we could release another spanish flu or black plague on the world, but I don't see too many people supporting that position.
Not at all. They do basically nothing useful, yet collect a paycheck bigger than most people in this country - and this without even getting into the whole selling your vote business. Meanwhile, we're funding said paychecks with our taxes. So, who are the idiots?
That my kids will never get to experience a real winter.
i farted! Did that affect the climate, you chicken little wienies?
Repeating Zombie Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar for repeating them.
Government has an overwhelming bias towards fossil fuel extraction. Solar City isn't raking in $40 billion each quarter in profits, Exxon is, and they hire lobbyists and former politicians. That's why Obama has opened far more land and sea for drilling than Bush, and spent years bragging that the U.S. is mining fossil fuels beyond it's capacity to transport them for processing or sale.
Anyone who repeats the "government-funded scientists are biased towards climate change" is a fool who hasn't thought about the issue for more than two seconds.
The cost of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
Troll tactic #2: pretend that climate change is some theoretical even that will happen in our future, as opposed to something having drastic costs right now.
Record storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, and heat waves are costing hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives right now.
IOW: "we don't really knooooow, so lets not do anything!" Standard climate troll approach, going back decades.
Most congressmen take a huge pay cut to enter office. Of course, that only counts official, legal income, and it ignores the huge payouts they get from the revolving door once leaving office.
Perhaps they do, but the point remains: most of them are getting paid for, at best, doing nothing, and at worst, engaging in blatantly harmful activity.
Science does not need consensus to find the right answer. Would we have waited for consensus about quantum mechanics and SRT before starting to use these theories, then we would just be starting to develop lasers, tunnel diodes and other things.
Sort the publications by the impact factor, and remove everything with impact 1 from your view. The you will remove the biased, paid for shit.
Humans are messing with our planet?? Aaaargh! We must eradicate that scum!
Consensus is not Science.
Science is testing and Ockhams Razor.
Seriously, when you've got ISIS and the Catholic Church banging on climate change, maybe you've got to re-examine whether or not what you think is science really is.
And it's even legal! So why you don't become a politican? You get paid for doing nothing, if you are good. And you can do worse, and you will even be paid more! You know how it works, why don't you turn your knowledge into a steady income?
... but only if the Pope DOES exist! I have been to many places, some of which have had Pope sightings reported. And of course, I have seem so-called news footage.
My wife claims she saw him in the 80s. But when I showed her so-called images of the Pope, she confirmed they looked nothing like the man she claims to have seen. See? I caught her out! No longer can she claim to be nothing to do with this odious conspiracy!
No, that was not a consensus, that was just one idea put forward and being contested for instance by Robert Boyle.
Because there's a very limited number of these golden tickets, and unless you're born into a politician claim, it's about as likely as winning a lottery (except you only have to buy a ticket to win a lottery, whereas getting elected generally requires doing a lot of sleazy things).
Just because scientists don't know *everything* doesn't mean they know *nothing*, or that they don't know enough to have a more informed opinion than a layman.
Tell that to all of the heart-disease-ridden Americans from the AHA's policies for the previous 60 years, which had reeling effects in agriculture and manufacturing (HFCS, Crisco, etc).
You can't blame the common person for having a bit of mistrust when it comes to science interpreted/applied by the government. It has sometimes had disastrous results, with the scientists simply shrugging their shoulders, and the common people being simply told "well guess you are just bad.".
I know math is hard, but you should try it sometime. According to the article, 86% of the scientists agreed that there is global warming, and 78% of those say humans contribute to it. That means .86 * .78 = .67, or roughly 2/3 believe that humans are contributing to warming. That is hardly a consensus. It's also a good illustration of how statistics can be presented in a way the deceives most readers (like you)..
Science is not a democracy
no one said it is, and to state such is to misrepresent what consensus means.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and stop pretending the choice is nukes or nothing.
you talk about ignorance while presenting one of the biggest examples of it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
that not an obvious rebuttal.
that's just moronic.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm not really understanding what seems to be a trend, though I have my suspicions. Studies such as this, lately, seem to be looking at political attitude and analyzing questioned studies for trend that are then treated as empirical. Fewer, seem to be studying the actual matter, weather and climate, preferring to nuance previous work.
I'm unclear on whether or not it is a religious/political bent that is causing this result, or if it is simply laziness. But, a study of trends of testimony to congress regarding climate change, seems very politically motivated to me. A groundswell of opinion has no bearing on actual climate change.
Besides, why would anyone testify against climate change, there's no need, unless some absurd bill/decision is at hand. There's no need to tyestify for/about the status quo. But, evangelists will surely testify for change.
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
However we have no way of getting to know those rules except through a social process in which scientists read and argue about each others' research.
Trust me, if the majority of scientists hadn't agreed on Newton's laws of motions you'd never have heard of him.
What everybody relying on 'consensus' seems to be missing is what parts scientists are well agreed upon:
1.The instrumental record, which spans about 100 years, shows a clear warming trend.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's concentration will increase heat storage.
3. CO2 concentrations as observed for about the last 60ish years have been increasing.
4. Humans have been steadily contributing CO2 to the atmosphere for about the last 100 years.
5. The above points clearly are strong evidence that the recent warming has been influenced by human behaviour.
That about encompasses the consensus. 90% of everything that everyone is talking about though does NOT have a broad consensus and is still being actively studied, things like:
1.What quantitative relationship do our CO2 emissions have to future temperature change?
2. What cost is there to us from future temperature change.
3. What cost is there to us for reducing our CO2 emissions by a set factor.
Climate models are one of the key parts to answering these questions, and they are getting better at helping us study our theories on how climate works. Regrettably, the reality is that climate models still do NOT accurately predict or model global Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. One of the key tuning processes in model development is still adjusting loosely bound or poorly understood parameters, like clouds, to force a reasonable behaviour of global TOA energy. I hate to have to point it out, but long term predictions of climate, are pretty much entirely driven by TOA energy imbalance as it IS the entirety of the greenhouse effect.
The cost of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
You are missing what parts scientists are well agreed upon:
1.The instrumental record, which spans about 100 years, shows a clear warming trend.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's concentration will increase heat storage.
3. CO2 concentrations as observed for about the last 60ish years have been increasing.
4. Humans have been steadily contributing CO2 to the atmosphere for about the last 100 years.
5. The above points clearly are strong evidence that the recent warming has been influenced by human behaviour.
That about encompasses the consensus. 90% of everything that everyone is talking about though does NOT have a broad consensus and is still being actively studied, things like:
1.What quantitative relationship do our CO2 emissions have to future temperature change?
2. What cost is there to us from future temperature change.
3. What cost is there to us for reducing our CO2 emissions by a set factor.
Climate models are one of the key parts to answering these questions, and they are getting better at helping us study our theories on how climate works. Regrettably, the reality is that climate models still do NOT accurately predict or model global Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. One of the key tuning processes in model development is still adjusting loosely bound or poorly understood parameters, like clouds, to force a reasonable behaviour of global TOA energy. I hate to have to point it out, but long term predictions of climate, are pretty much entirely driven by TOA energy imbalance as it IS the entirety of the greenhouse effect.
It's probably a skewed result because half of the testimonies will have been selected by republicans because they are reject the mainstream science. This makes the finding even more surprising. For a more balanced view you can look to the statements made by scientific organizations.
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
You are missing what parts scientists are well agreed upon:
1.The instrumental record, which spans about 100 years, shows a clear warming trend.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's concentration will increase heat storage.
3. CO2 concentrations as observed for about the last 60ish years have been increasing.
4. Humans have been steadily contributing CO2 to the atmosphere for about the last 100 years.
5. The above points clearly are strong evidence that the recent warming has been influenced by human behaviour.
That about encompasses the consensus. 90% of everything that everyone is talking about though does NOT have a broad consensus and is still being actively studied, things like:
1.What quantitative relationship do our CO2 emissions have to future temperature change?
2. What cost is there to us from future temperature change.
3. What cost is there to us for reducing our CO2 emissions by a set factor.
Climate models are one of the key parts to answering these questions, and they are getting better at helping us study our theories on how climate works. Regrettably, the reality is that climate models still do NOT accurately predict or model global Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. One of the key tuning processes in model development is still adjusting loosely bound or poorly understood parameters, like clouds, to force a reasonable behaviour of global TOA energy. I hate to have to point it out, but long term predictions of climate, are pretty much entirely driven by TOA energy imbalance as it IS the entirety of the greenhouse effect.
Fred mows the median in the streets in our neighborhood.
Fred is changing our neighborhood, no question about it.
Fred is destroying our neighborhood and people's home values will fall and some homes probably burn down.
How?, well, he mows the median in the streets in our neighborhood.
Climate Science Logic.
'Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change'
All legislators do that, and that's what the are payed to do. They are doing what's best for the economy. Where their to be a massive earthquake tomorrow I would have work, cleaning up and making new buildings. They are doing as we told them to do :)
You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
I wouldn't expect a science academy to make judgments on the economic impact. For that you could go to economists: "There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
Or you could go to Wall Street: "because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action (to slow CO2 emissions) scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action." - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
They know what is happening but the profits are higher when they let it happen(in the short term anyway). Its simple. Poor and/or underdeveloped countries will pay a lot of money for engineering projects and technology to stay afloat the the s***t hits the fan.
Never studied science? Co2 is a gas used in green houses, not to heat, but to help plants grow. Green houses also need heaters. Young plants grow best at certain temperatures. Not in ice. My problem, is, that the science is not to make this a better place, but to limit humans, to a servitude. That we have to spend our short lives in pain and misery, while a select few get to lie and cheat their ways to riches with no consequence. They let you see half of a story, and obscure the real story. Pollution bad, yes. But we have controls here, so ship the pollution somewhere there is no control? Did that solve the pollution problem, or just change where the pollution location, with its consequence to a unsuspecting place? Los angles clean, peking smoggy? It wasn't before? What is the real agenda?
You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Thank you for confirming what I said. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment report is almost verbatim where my assessment of climate models came from. In Chapter 9, Box 9.1 the IPCC report states:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
You'll note that the assessment is backed with a wealth of references to papers confirming that climate models almost universally hand tune clouds to prevent unrealistic energy imbalances. That's not a confidence booster in the predictive power of climate models for telling us what to expect the energy imbalance to do in the future, which is ENTIRELY what the greenhouse effect is.
On of the referenced papers(Golaz et al) goes into more depths of the challenges still presented by this:
We have shown that there is sufficient ambiguity in the CM3 adjustable cloud parameters to construct alternate configurations (CM3w, CM3c) that achieve the desired radiation balance. These configurations exhibit only modest differences in their present-day climatology. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to select the “better” configuration solely based on present-day metrics such as those in Figure2. However, CM3w and CM3c differ significantly in the magnitude of their indirect effects. As a result, their predictions of the 20th century warming are strongly affected (Figures3 and 4).
CM3w predicts the most realistic 20th century warming. However, this is achieved with a small and less desirable threshold radius of 6.0 m for the onset of precipitation. Conversely, CM3c uses a more desirable value of 10.6 m but produces a very unrealistic 20th century temperature evolution.
All of which is to point out that the evidence is climate models still can't simulate the absolutely most fundamental and driving factor of future change, Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. But hey, don't let that stop you from lumping climate model results into the global consensus and claiming it as fact. I just ask you be more honest and start calling your belief religious consensus and not scientific.
I guess the computer you used to post that message works by magic, then.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Someone's confirmed (some) God's existence? Really? Do you have any links? What kind of test did they use? Is US opening an embassy in Heaven?
Honestly, you'd think confirming the existence of any supernatural being would be bigger news than Congress being morons... but I guess Slashdot will get to this story in a week or so.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'm glad we agree. The IPCC represents the best scientific knowledge of our time, but there are uncertainties. That's why the climate sensitivity is given by the IPCC as a range rather than a specific value. "global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (to a concentration of 560 ppmv), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than 1.5 C (2.7 F) and likely to lie in the range 2 to 4.5 C (4 to 8.1 F), with a most likely value of about 3 C (5 F)."
So much bullshit. Most congressmen who leave Congress will have eventually have increased their wealth by a rate which they had not ever been able to achieve previously. Yeah, the salary sucks, but somehow their stocks mysteriously perform much better than the average investor.
Please read Mark Stein's new book "A Disgrace to the Profession"
It outlines how scientists are bullied into submission on the climate issue
There is your "consensus"
Most scientists think the "science" behind the famous hockey stick graph
showing rising temperatures is pure garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I wish I got such a sucky salary for acting like an idiot.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's probably a skewed result because half of the testimonies will have been selected by republicans because they are reject the mainstream science. This makes the finding even more surprising. For a more balanced view you can look to the statements made by scientific organizations.
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
You are missing what parts scientists are well agreed upon: 1.The instrumental record, which spans about 100 years, shows a clear warming trend. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's concentration will increase heat storage. 3. CO2 concentrations as observed for about the last 60ish years have been increasing. 4. Humans have been steadily contributing CO2 to the atmosphere for about the last 100 years. 5. The above points clearly are strong evidence that the recent warming has been influenced by human behaviour.
That about encompasses the consensus. 90% of everything that everyone is talking about though does NOT have a broad consensus and is still being actively studied, things like: 1.What quantitative relationship do our CO2 emissions have to future temperature change? 2. What cost is there to us from future temperature change. 3. What cost is there to us for reducing our CO2 emissions by a set factor.
Climate models are one of the key parts to answering these questions, and they are getting better at helping us study our theories on how climate works. Regrettably, the reality is that climate models still do NOT accurately predict or model global Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. One of the key tuning processes in model development is still adjusting loosely bound or poorly understood parameters, like clouds, to force a reasonable behaviour of global TOA energy. I hate to have to point it out, but long term predictions of climate, are pretty much entirely driven by TOA energy imbalance as it IS the entirety of the greenhouse effect.
You missed one point of disagreement:
A. Is the 100 years of data (point #1 in the first list) a sufficient sample size to predict going forward?
B. Much of the 100 years of instrumental records (point #1 in the first list) is modified or untrusted due to instrument accuracy, land development, etc.
That is where most non-AGW people fall. They may agree that GW exists but don't necessitate that its AGW.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Lets put it in medical terms
Your doctor tells you the following:
have a specific kind of heart disease
your lifestyle is probably the cause for it
If you don't change drastically your lifestyle you will face a serious risk of death in the nest 5 years
Changing your lifestyle and diet is probably going to help but maybe its too late alreday.
You consult 100 doctors and 97 agree including the most prominent heart disease specialists in the world, while 3 say that they are not sure about the diagnosis and it may be hereditary or something along those lines.
My guess is that most non-suicidal people would just hit the gym and stop eating burgers the next day.
If the ocean temperatures increase, the mean CO2 concentration will increase because of reduced CO2 solubility in water, it's very hard to say where the CO2 is coming from, anthropogenic sources or the ocean.
Posting anonymously because I work in the sciences and would like to keep my job.
I know math is hard, but you should try it sometime. According to the article, 86% of the scientists agreed that there is global warming, and 78% of those say humans contribute to it. That means .86 * .78 = .67, or roughly 2/3 believe that humans are contributing to warming. That is hardly a consensus. It's also a good illustration of how statistics can be presented in a way the deceives most readers (like you)..
Priceless. Start out arrogant and insulting, then be completely wrong yourself. The 78% that say humans contribute to it is *not* out of the 86% that agree there is global warming.
The 78% that says humans contribute to it is out of all the scientists’ testimonies with an identified stance on whether GWCC is anthropogenic. So out of 100% of testifying scientist that have expressed an opinion on this (pro or against) in their testimony, 78% says that humans contribute to it.
The atmosphere is currently gaining only about half of what we pump into it. How do we account for the missing CO2? We find some of that missing CO2 in the oceans. Measurements indicate that oceans are acidifying. That means the oceans are currently absorbing CO2. You are right that this may not continue to be the case in the future. Oceans could become a net source of CO2 rather than a net sync. - http://ocean.si.edu/sites/defa...
When climatologists appear before politicians to ask for more money, they all agree they need more money...shocking!
And the obvious rebuttal is a whole lot of people can confirm their invisible sky gods.
...except that there's not "a great body of evidence that supports the existence of" their invisible sky daddy. Kindly note the difference between having a great body of evidence but produced by others, and just simple belief of others.
Continuing with that analogy.
Of those 100 'doctors' you consult, 15 are podiatrists, 25 are ophthalmologists, 6 are audiologist, there's a handful of anesthesiologist there are also a large group of non-doctors who happened to have been using some hospital lab equipment at the time when you came in for a checkup and finally you have about 18 (including 2 of the nays) actual heart doctors. Of course those heart doctors all have different levels of training because in the country you live there is no formalized requirements for claiming to being a heart doctor (some may have not even gone to medical school).
So the consensus (for what that's worth) is you lifestyle is affecting your heart. So you ask, quite reasonably, what is the #1 thing you should do to help yourself in the future.
30 say - reduce your stress levels at work and home.
34 say - eat healthier (but they suggest 20 different incompatible diets)
26 say - get more exercise (but the suggested amount varies from taking a 30 minute walk every other day to doing a solid hour at the gym daily).
5 say - get more sleep
2 say - align your chakras (hey, who let those chiropractors in?)
the 3 say - genetics are the main cause of your issue but eating better and doing some exercise, while not harmful, is always a good idea in general.
Then you ask how much each change will affect your life expectancy and no 2 estimates are the same; ranging from very little to you'll become immortal (seriously, who let those chiropractors in?).
Finally, deep in thought trying to crunch all the numbers from all the 'experts' and their related costs, you walk out of the hospital and are immediately hit by the ambulance.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Can you please point me to the step in the scientific method where "consensus" is mentioned? Didn't think so because it ISN'T in there. Thanks for coming out. For those of you who are ignorant of the scientific method, which includes most /. and quite a lot of scientists surprisingly, here is an easy explanation for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
So the "ice age is coming" of the 1970s becomes "global warming" in the 1980s/90s and has now morphed into "climate change" because the warming stopped 14-18 years ago. "Climate Change" is so nice because they won't have to change their scam's name every time the climate does something they don't expect .... like CHANGE! For goodness sake climate is always changing and humans for all their arrogance have very little to do with it. Urban heat island is proven and CO2 might have a 1 to 1.66 degree C change for each doubling. Nothing to get worried about (IPCC says so).
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
The PDO is in its negative phase, the AMO has peaked and is on the way down and the sun is in its quietest phase in hundreds of years. So we have a great opportunity to do real science. If CO2 does control the climate then we should get warmer despite all those factors. If it doesn't then expect it to get much colder over the next several decades. So far the evidence of science is that CO2 does NOT control the climate.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
defn: science:
1) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
2) a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
The fact of the matter is, by your saying that scientists (the gatherers and interpreters of scientific knowledge) have no credibility with members of congress, you are implying that those members of congress don't understand nor care to understand the physical and natural world and how it works, and broader; don't care about the properties of systematically organized (and systematically verified) knowledge, no matter what the topic.
They are much more concerned with what they can convince people of by rhetoric and charm than with what is actually the case and what will actually work to improve things.
And that ny friend, while probably true, is fucking scary. Basically we have a bunch of people running the world who not only make up fairytales for a living but also have, themselves, no principled means of distinguishing fairytales from reality. What could possibly go wrong?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Perhaps you should have been more afraid when that guy was holding a gun to your head.
Because clearly you didn't take action, and they've removed some of your mental/emotional capability.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It's because organized, and particularly democratically organized groups of people seem generally socially incapable of acting on long-term, large-scale threats (threats which are abstract to most individual people.)
See "boiling frog" syndrome.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, you're moronic.
The whole point of science in the first place is that I don't need to trust anyone, I can personally confirm things for myself.
That's the whole point of the scientific method.
An assertion that isn't accompanied with a set of steps that I can use to confirm it for myself it just another myth.
Science is what allows one man alone to present an assertion that a rational actor could embrace even though there is a consensus that he is wrong.
Science is what allows one man alone to assert that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, and have people embrace this assertion and make choices that improve their chance to survive and thrive, despite there being consensus that he is wrong.
Anyone who thinks "scientific consensus" means anything is a grade a moron.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
...that's why The Big Lie technique is so effective. Repeat it over and over and over and drown out any nay-sayers or conflicting data and stay on message and you will carry the day. It worked for Hitler and it works for climate change. Of course, when we are shivering in the dark in our little American 3rd world ghetto looking at our Chinese and Russian Lords and Masters who put out more CO2 PER DAY than we have been able to stop in a decade of shutting down our economy, we might question the final price tag. Or YOU will. I'll be dead when the REALLY bad consequences hit...
...except that there's not "a great body of evidence that supports the existence of" their invisible sky daddy. Kindly note the difference between having a great body of evidence but produced by others, and just simple belief of others.
And you know this how?
Our species is Homo SAPIENS (i.e., INTELLIGENT man). We have been regularly solving HUGE problems. Like the CERTAIN famine we faced when Lord Kelvin pointed out that mankind did not have enough nitrogen fertilizer to feed the planet's ever growing population. Famine, he predicted, was just around the corner. And then, a man invented the Haber process to harvest nitrogen fertilizer from air. Problem solved. Famine averted.
The problem today is not global warming, it is global warming ALARMISM. I too am alarmed, but I am alarmed at the stupidity of those who want to legislate ineffective solutions that are way too expensive and way too ineffective at lowering atmospheric CO2. The only good thing you can say about these proposed "solutions" is that they will make some people very, very, very rich. See Al Gore, who has reportedly already made $100,000,000 off global warming alarmism, and stands to make a lot more if we legislate a carbon credit system. (Carbon credits, i.e., government license to "pollute.").
The earth has been A LOT hotter than the worse case global warming alarmist's predictions based on (garbage in, garbage out) computer climate models (which do not know how to predict and handle increased global albedo arising from increased cloud cover arising from increased evaporation arising from increased ocean surface temperatures). Check out the Ordovician, when the Earth was lush and life was abundant. Ordovician atmospheric CO2 was at 7000 ppm (its 400 ppm today, a LONG LONG way to go before we experience Ordovician CO2 levels). Of course, the Ordovician DID END in catastrophe, in the earth's second larges GLOBAL EXTINCTION event. But that extinction was caused by GLOBAL COOLING when CO2 levels FELL to 4400 ppm (still, more than 10 time's earth's present CO2 level).
The Earth has been A LOT colder that it is today. We were in an ice age, with New York City at the bottom of a MILE of ice, a mere 12,000 years ago. And, that was not anywhere near earth's coldest. During Snowball Earth the whole planet was frozen. Glaciers depositing huge bolder drop-stones in Namibia.
The Earth is far more capable than Mankind of increasing and decreasing its temperature and increasing and decreasing its atmospheric CO2 level, and by A LOT.
And, Mankind is capable of global engineering to increase or decrease the Earth's temperature by more than enough to avoid the alarmists' worst case "predictions." Injecting SO2 into the stratosphere (which volcanoes do) would cause a temporary (months or few years long) global cooling.
The best thing about an engineering solution is that it works, no matter what the cause. If the sun brightens by a little bit (which might be happening right now), then homo SAPIENS can evade the resulting global warming by engineering (i.e, SO2 injection or by other means we haven't figured out yet).
Lord Kelvin, you might have been VERY smart and a part of a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that man was heading for impending global starvation, but your prediction was still wrong. And, present day global warming alarmist may be smart, too, but they are not as smart as Lord Kelvin was. And, Lord kelvin was wrong.
The question from Congress really was:
"Is the sky falling, so that we can get money and power from the situation, and do you want some of the money and power? Just answer yes or no."
Answer from scientists:
"Well... sure!" 8-)
Under those conditions, it might be necessary to deny it even if it is true... 8-(
People in positions of US power, like 100% of the Republican members in Congress, are still denying your first 5 points that the rest of the world agrees is true.
And the models don't have to be 100% accurate for legislators to start taking into account the range of possibilities and doing a risk analysis.
If law makers were as practical about the issue as businesses like insurance agencies (who have long since taken climate scientists seriously when doing risk analysis), we would already have taken action to reduce or change emissions.
That's using the Troll Tactic of pretending that climate change is some hypothetical future event, rather than something happening right now with huge costs in both dollars and lives.