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...
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.
On this planet cultural ideology is the rule that all must obey.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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
No worries, the ice age is still on, in 3-10 thousand years (I think, it's been a while since I read the papers about it).
That will offer some nice relief from the warming that we're dealing with in the next 0-300 years.
So, both are true, And since you mocked both of them, that makes you twice an idiot. And sadly, I bet you vote.
"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....
You've got it exactly backwards. If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government.
And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.
If only. I'm an environmentalist because I know more about what's actually going on, from both a physical-scientific and sociological perspective, and it scares the shit out of me.
"Environmentalist" is also the wrong term, because it implies we are only concerned when it is going to affect us.
"Eco-system integrity advocate" would be a better term.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I 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.
What? Seriously, what?
I live in western PA, the land of strip mining, acid rain, and the Smoky City. Much of the countryside around here is still trying to recover from your idiotic companies who "aren't dicks to their neighbors". Guess what: when money is involved, many people are dicks to their neighbors, their workers, and their own children. Not everyone, but many people, And guess what; those people are the ones most likely to rise, scheme, and backstab their way into running large companies or other positions of power.
Things were getting better (not because of the EPA, sadly, but because it was no longer economical for big industry to exploit this land), but now the frackers are destroying the water table that most people outside of cities in this area use for drinking water.
Seriously, how can you look at history and believe that people are not dicks to their neighbors? We're humans. We don't care about far away people, but we HATE our neighbors. Have you read any history at all? We invented government specifically because it was the only way we could advance beyond tribes of 20-ish people trying to kill our neighbors. You think people can live well without government? Prove it; move to someplace with no effective government (Somalia is nice this time of year) and prove to us all how well they all get along.
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?
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.
We have found a consensus!
You are welcome on my lawn.
How can you consider these to have already failed if they were not predicted to happen until 25-50 years from now?
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Oh now I see...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
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.
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.
You are young? The global cooling scenario was in news in the 1970s.
It exists since the 70s so yes officially we are changing the climate of the planet as a business model.
Do you get all your climate science from a blogger with a bachelor's degree in geology?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Exactly. In the news. Not in peer reviewed scientific papers.
You know what else was in the news? UFOs. Bigfoot. Lassie.
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.
My Senator, Jim Inhofe, says this. He quotes the Bible to "back himself up", because since it says "As long as the earth remains, There will be springtime and harvest, Cold and heat, winter and summer.” (Genesis 8:22) therefor nothing humans can do can ever change this. I'm assuming he's also a huge proponent of global thermonuclear war, since per his logic even if we set off every nuke on the planet nothing humans can do can possibly change the environment.
Or maybe note your American Exceptionalist ass uses 30 times the resources of some poor shlub in a developing country. Or that the United States produces a quarter of the world's pollution while having 4% of the worlds population - and that's not including all the coal plants in China producing cheap crap in offshored factories for sale in Wal-Mart.
Oh noes! All those jobs lost in the manufacture of asbestos, lead paint, and DDT! Will no one think of the poor beleaguered capitalist cock!
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.
"Global cooling" did receive coverage in the popular press in the 1970s but it was far from a scientific consensus. A simple google of "global cooling 1970s" brings up many references to show this, including:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
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.
No worries, the ice age is still on, in 3-10 thousand years (I think, it's been a while since I read the papers about it).
Only if the atmospheric CO2 level drops well below 300 ppm. Until that happens there will be no more glaciations (ice ages).
When you claim things like this you are telling everyone you get your scientific information from the popular press and not scientific literature. If you expect people to take you seriously after such an admission, well, that speaks more of you than it does anything else.
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?
Why do you believe that?
(The science is still out as to what triggers re-glaciation from an interglacial)
it's in my head
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).
Lassie?
What does an animal actor have to do with unsubstantiated things like UFOs and Bigfoot?
And as an AC neither are you. (real, that is)
On the contrary a leading theory of how reglaciation happens is because of ice melt in the arctic due to warm water influx. The Eemian had a "warm pulse" just before it plunged back into full glaciation.
See Late Eemian warming in the Nordic Seas as seen in proxy data and climate models (Born, Nisancioglu. Risebrobakken)
it's in my head
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.
The reality called 'The united States prior to the EPA' is calling.
It would like you actually learn some history.
We -DIDNT- have clean water.
We -DIDNT- have clean air.
Add in history prior to the FDA and food safety inspections and you also learn that we -DIDNT- have clean/safe food.
80% of the surface waters in the US were unfit for consumption, were polluted from unregulated dumping of manufacturing waste.
It's -WHY- the Clean Water Act happened, and now you take that clean water for granted.
American air quality was then similar to China's problems now.
It's -WHY- the Clean Air Act happened, and now you take the dramatically cleaner air for granted.
People died from contaminated foods regularly.
It's -WHY- they started requiring the food supply chain to be inspected at nearly all stages, and now it's a big deal if someone gets sickened by an E Coli outbreak, yet the actual toll is usually minor, a handful of people, a tiny tiny fraction of what it was like prior to those evil regulations putting a stop to what used to be a common occurrence.
Your magical thinking that it all sorts itself out is blatantly ignorant of reality and our own nation's history.
You are a fool.
(also you apparently are ignorant of the definition of 'communist')
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Feel free to add citations to your claims. The Eemian was warmer than our current interglacial.
it's in my head
the USSR was a totalitarian oligarchy, unanswerable to its people.
And it's worth noting here that most developed world spending does nothing to help the environment.
its worth noting that the status of our environment now compared to 4 decades ago or so shows that you don't know what your talking about.
Finally, what's wrong with the environmental regulation of the past 40 years? Well, aside from being a job-killing morass that is. If you want to change environmental regulation, do so in a way that helps businesses rather than just encourages the ongoing shift of power to China and elsewhere.
Not job killing. Just more false BS from you.
its not the environmental regulations that causes the shift of manufacturing to china.
and given that it was the businesses that were the cause of the pollution that was the problem, the notion of helping them rather than stopping them is completely idiotic. like you.
now go collect your shill check.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
...in some alternate universe where Soviet bureaucrats had an enormous and direct incentive to cut corners, the way capitalists do. There isn't only one way to cut corners. The near destruction of the Aral Sea didn't happen because someone wanted to make a quick buck.
Or maybe note your American Exceptionalist ass uses 30 times the resources of some poor shlub in a developing country.
So what? Even if that were true, there's plenty of resources to go around even at seven billion people.
Or that the United States produces a quarter of the world's pollution while having 4% of the worlds population
Even if that were true, (and it's not because you are counting mass of CO2 as equivalent to mass of mercury,particulate soot, etc, which is ridiculously dishonest), that's still only a factor of six which isn't that bad.
and that's not including all the coal plants in China producing cheap crap in offshored factories for sale in Wal-Mart.
Which is a smart consideration since that is Chinese pollution not US pollution!
Oh noes! All those jobs lost in the manufacture of asbestos, lead paint, and DDT! Will no one think of the poor beleaguered capitalist cock!
Again, my point is not to completely eliminate regulation but to make it so that it isn't a society-destroying burden. And let's face it, if your false dichotomy were actually true that the US would have to forgo regulation altogether or continue with the current suicidal regime, then the US would be face with increasing pollution at some point. The real variation would be whether they were a vassal of China at the time.
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...
Ahh, the famous peer reviewed articles that assert truth. Fairly sure nothing like this could ever happen.
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)."
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)
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...
Governments weren't spending billions generating that consensus in the 1970's.
The increase in radiative forcing from the additional CO2 is greater than the reduction in radiative forcing from Milankovitch Cycles as they trend to cooler conditions that would initiate a new glaciation.
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!
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...
And maybe you wouldn't be able to spew your hate if American computing technology wasn't powering this and all internet discussion boards.
And it's NOT that the EPA (or any other government agency) is bad, what is BAD is that increasingly there is NO OVERSIGHT of these departments. I think EVERYONE would agree that clean water and air is vital but in too many instances the power of government departments is unchecked and being used as an all purpose weapon against the people who are on the fecal roster of those in power. Unfortunately few-to-no humans work in any other manner other than "I want to kill my enemies."
Arrogant, butthurt American Exceptionalist is butthurt, and arrogant.
...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?
That was an excellent pout. I put it as 9 of 12.
Wrong. A handful of peer reviewed papers did indeed predict cooling, though most did not.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
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.
Infinite resources only exists in the minds of conservatives, randians, and fools. I apologize for the redundancy of that statement.
The only losers are stockholders in coal, oil, and the military-industrial-complex.
Ridiculous American Exceptionalism. If scientists could only invent a power plant to run off that sense of entitlement.
It is when it's producing your shit. Co-ownership at it's finest.
Exactly, society destroying regulations, like those that banned asbestos, lead paint, and DDT.
Look, this isn't hard. Wind and solar are already cost-competitive with coal, and that's if you let coal externalize much of its costs. Hybrids take less gas - and maintenance - than cars driven only by combustion engines. Mass transit is cheaper, and leads to less gridlock, than highways.
Take away the real subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, spend it on mitigating climate change....and you'll have the biggest economic boom since WWII.