4 ms·

I keep hearing people/journalists say scientists share a consensus, but a simple google query "global warming climatologist" gives you: 1. Climatologists (scie

I keep hearing people/journalists say scientists share a consensus, but a simple google query "global warming climatologist" gives you: 1. Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html (I know I picked quotes carefully, but that is irrelevant to my argument.) 2. Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution. I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm This evidence is enough to support this very simple statement: Not all climatologists share a consensus that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. Nevertheless, I am sorry to hear about the Crichton's loss. My dad had cancer and I can relate to the hardships.

DaniFong 18y ago
A consensus needn't have every single person on board. It need only have most, and the prevailing arguments. Has anyone mentioned what such 'major mechanisms' and global temperature trends Timothy Ball is talking about? It is at least fair to ask what physical effects or which models they're referring to. The climate models that, for example, the IPCC works with, are all out in the open. Here's what the radiative forcing factors are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg Crichton talks about the over-reliance on 'models' to understand the climate. What else are we supposed to do? Science relies on models, without which we can't predict anything. If we agree that high levels of global warming are bad, then prudence dictates that we look into seeing if it might actually happen, why, and how we might prevent it. It's too highly nonlinear to prove out analytically: computer models, carefully constructed, and verified piecemeal by experiment, are the best we can do. The physics is easy to understand: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, letting visible light in, and reflecting infrared back. This warms the earth. I haven't yet heard a single plausible possibility floated for why carbon dioxide wouldn't increase temperatures. It is only fair to ask these skeptics, who make bolder claims than we, that they argue using scientific tools that are as good, or better. Claiming that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science," and then pointing towards our over-reliance on computer models, simply won't do. Here are sourced statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball that Tim Ball has made. They are false claims! "Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes, that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds."[6] -- This is trivially shown to be false if you look at the climate models in use. "Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record."[7] -- meteorological surveys include regularly sampled far flung regions, and the weather on the entire planet is observed by satellites on the infrared spectrum.
- jfornear 18y ago
  I agree that a consensus needn't have every single person on board, however, the way people/journalists throw around that word in the context of Global Warming is as if every single person were on board. The verdict is far from unanimous from what I have gathered. Global Warming is a very controversial subject with very qualified climatologists on both sides. Let's be open-minded and reasonable before passing policy that will have very serious repercussions. ...I don't think this is Hacker News, unless we are talking CO2Stats. :)
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    Not passing policy is defacto policy, and there's a strong argument that not passing policy will have even more serious repercussions. The existence of a few qualified scientists saying that one thing either is or isn't true isn't enough to make it contested. Lord Kelvin believed heavier than air flight was impossible. The point is that the long-term predictions of our climate models can only be proven out at a time that may to too late to avoid widespread ecological disaster. One can't simply point at the gaps and say, well, you haven't proven anything. You need to show why an alternative is plausible. This is not done. It may not be Hacker News, but environmental factors are one of the prime motivations for my own startup. I hope that hackers are interested in discussions involving science, engineering, and startups. But I wasn't the one to bring up this topic.
    - yters 18y ago
      I agree with you that this topic can be hacker news. I think a lot of controversial subjects can if we approach them as an opportunities to grow in adult discussion with strong disagreement on either side. I consider this to be very important, since it always seems like the most important subjects are the most controversial, and consequently the least likely to be discussed well.
    - corentin 18y ago
      What kind of alternative policy to laisser faire do you have in mind?
yters 18y ago
Consensus based arguments worry me, especially if the consensing experts use them.
- jfornear 18y ago
  I'm not a fan of the consensus based argument either, but the reality is that it is used quite often to bully "skeptics". Related from today's news: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
  - yters 18y ago
    Yeah, it's really annoying when people expect me to just fall in line without any kind of convincing rationale. Is there a good way to respond to this sort of thing? It is very hard to constructively question heavily politicized issues since all actions are automatically considered to be driven by some kind of agenda instead of honest. While quite often the case, there is usually some honesty mixed in, and it is a shame that this is ignored.

DaniFong 18y ago

A consensus needn't have every single person on board. It need only have most, and the prevailing arguments. Has anyone mentioned what such 'major mechanisms' and global temperature trends Timothy Ball is talking about? It is at least fair to ask what physical effects or which models they're referring to. The climate models that, for example, the IPCC works with, are all out in the open. Here's what the radiative forcing factors are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg Crichton talks about the over-reliance on 'models' to understand the climate. What else are we supposed to do? Science relies on models, without which we can't predict anything. If we agree that high levels of global warming are bad, then prudence dictates that we look into seeing if it might actually happen, why, and how we might prevent it. It's too highly nonlinear to prove out analytically: computer models, carefully constructed, and verified piecemeal by experiment, are the best we can do. The physics is easy to understand: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, letting visible light in, and reflecting infrared back. This warms the earth. I haven't yet heard a single plausible possibility floated for why carbon dioxide wouldn't increase temperatures. It is only fair to ask these skeptics, who make bolder claims than we, that they argue using scientific tools that are as good, or better. Claiming that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science," and then pointing towards our over-reliance on computer models, simply won't do. Here are sourced statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball that Tim Ball has made. They are false claims! "Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes, that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds."[6] -- This is trivially shown to be false if you look at the climate models in use. "Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record."[7] -- meteorological surveys include regularly sampled far flung regions, and the weather on the entire planet is observed by satellites on the infrared spectrum.

jfornear 18y ago
I agree that a consensus needn't have every single person on board, however, the way people/journalists throw around that word in the context of Global Warming is as if every single person were on board. The verdict is far from unanimous from what I have gathered. Global Warming is a very controversial subject with very qualified climatologists on both sides. Let's be open-minded and reasonable before passing policy that will have very serious repercussions. ...I don't think this is Hacker News, unless we are talking CO2Stats. :)
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Not passing policy is defacto policy, and there's a strong argument that not passing policy will have even more serious repercussions. The existence of a few qualified scientists saying that one thing either is or isn't true isn't enough to make it contested. Lord Kelvin believed heavier than air flight was impossible. The point is that the long-term predictions of our climate models can only be proven out at a time that may to too late to avoid widespread ecological disaster. One can't simply point at the gaps and say, well, you haven't proven anything. You need to show why an alternative is plausible. This is not done. It may not be Hacker News, but environmental factors are one of the prime motivations for my own startup. I hope that hackers are interested in discussions involving science, engineering, and startups. But I wasn't the one to bring up this topic.
  - yters 18y ago
    I agree with you that this topic can be hacker news. I think a lot of controversial subjects can if we approach them as an opportunities to grow in adult discussion with strong disagreement on either side. I consider this to be very important, since it always seems like the most important subjects are the most controversial, and consequently the least likely to be discussed well.
  - corentin 18y ago
    What kind of alternative policy to laisser faire do you have in mind?

yters 18y ago

Consensus based arguments worry me, especially if the consensing experts use them.

jfornear 18y ago
I'm not a fan of the consensus based argument either, but the reality is that it is used quite often to bully "skeptics". Related from today's news: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
- yters 18y ago
  Yeah, it's really annoying when people expect me to just fall in line without any kind of convincing rationale. Is there a good way to respond to this sort of thing? It is very hard to constructively question heavily politicized issues since all actions are automatically considered to be driven by some kind of agenda instead of honest. While quite often the case, there is usually some honesty mixed in, and it is a shame that this is ignored.