4 ms·

> 3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming; That's just flat out wrong. There is a

by justsee 14y ago

> 3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming; That's just flat out wrong. There is a scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. To elaborate: "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." [0] This is based on models that have been refined over decades, and data and analysis from multiple separate scientific disciplines that agree with each other. Your resignation that we don't 'know' (which alludes to an unscientific requirement for 100% certainty), and that climate science is 'still very much a work in progress' betrays a lack of knowledge about scientific models in general. It is worth reading this section on climate models to understand their purpose, value, and reliability [1]. [0] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co... [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate....

run4yourlives 14y ago
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_scienc... Sorry, but there is a significant minority that in my mind prevents a consensus from existing. Majority is 84%, consensus is in the high 90s for me. Take away vocal proponents, and you can clearly see that there is still room for debate here.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ghshephard 14y ago
  There is also a bit of echo chamber, the high numbers are for "Most Published" authors - and, in theory, it's a lot easier to publish something supporting Global Warming right now. I'd agree- significant majority, but not a consensus right now.
- justsee 14y ago
  This is a tired, erroneous argument which surprisingly still gets dragged out, and was commented on back in 2004 [0]: "The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with “there is no consensus”. That’s wrong, and they usually retreat from it to “but consensus science is meaningless”, and/or “consensus has nothing to do with science”. The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn’t do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn’t prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media." [0] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-w...
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    There are five seperate studies on the image, and most of them show no more than 85% give or take. If you have something that shows otherwise (aside from ad hominem) I'd love to see it.
    - justsee 14y ago
      An uploaded image to Wikipedia is a very weak source to assert an opinion not held by the scientific community (that there is no scientific consensus). Also, I've been discussing the arguments all along, not sure what the reference to 'ad hominem' is about. Here's the actual Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... It mentions: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position." Maybe the American Association of Petroleum Geologists made that image you reference before changing their position. I don't know, it's completely out of context.
will_brown 14y ago
In terms of its contribution to global warming Methane is 26 times more destructive than CO2. Believe it or not on a daily basis an average Cow emits the same amount of green house pollutants that contribute to Global Warming as an average car. US Food and Agricultural Organization expects methane emissions to increase 60% by 2030. I understand the logic but I find it counter-intuitive that pollutants emitted from Cows (burps and farts), are contributed to human behavior. Specifically, Agriculture accounts for 14% of Green House Gas, and a majority of it is from Methane emission. Similar to our trying to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, humans are trying to reduce Methane emissions from Cows including genetic modifications and harvesting the Methane to power the farms. So I personally think the idea of measuring "human contribution" is complex, especially when Cow farts and burbs are contributed to human activity. That said whether or not there is consensus that Human activity is responsible for global warming it does not matter, there is certainly consensus that Human's are the only ones who have a chance at addressing global warming, unless unknown to us the Cows are currently convening in secrete meetings to discuss how they might better regulate their own emissions of Methane and Ammonia because their contribution to global warming is weighing so heavy on their conscience.
- khuey 14y ago
  The vast majority of cows exist only to feed humans. Saying that pollutants emitted from cows shouldn't be attributed to human behavior is like saying that pollutants emitted from cars shouldn't be attributed to human behavior: complete nonsense.
  - diminoten 14y ago
    It's not complete nonsense, as cows aren't human, and cows produce methane, therefore cows are nonhuman sources of methane. I agree with you that cow methane is our doing ultimately, but to say it's 'complete nonsense' is dishonest.
    - grannyg00se 14y ago
      A coal plant isn't human, and coal plants produce CO2, therefore coal plants are nonhuman sources of CO2.
ekianjo 14y ago
> This is based on models that have been refined over decades, and data and analysis from multiple separate scientific disciplines that agree with each other. Models on decades when considering climate change are meaningless: we are talking about extrapolation, going into a warmer world for which we have no models working so far. Beyond that point it's just supposition. > climate science is 'still very much a work in progress' It is very much a work in progress, since there are clear setbacks from the reality vs what has been predicted so far. See this - do you see a huge global warming effect? http://h16free.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png http://h16free.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_mo... The recent CERN CLOUD experiments results show that many climate scientists seem to forget that there's a huge fireball in the skies that may also have an impact on our climate. It's not all about CO2.

by justsee 14y ago

run4yourlives 14y ago

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_scienc... Sorry, but there is a significant minority that in my mind prevents a consensus from existing. Majority is 84%, consensus is in the high 90s for me. Take away vocal proponents, and you can clearly see that there is still room for debate here.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ghshephard 14y ago
There is also a bit of echo chamber, the high numbers are for "Most Published" authors - and, in theory, it's a lot easier to publish something supporting Global Warming right now. I'd agree- significant majority, but not a consensus right now.
justsee 14y ago
This is a tired, erroneous argument which surprisingly still gets dragged out, and was commented on back in 2004 [0]: "The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with “there is no consensus”. That’s wrong, and they usually retreat from it to “but consensus science is meaningless”, and/or “consensus has nothing to do with science”. The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn’t do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn’t prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media." [0] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-w...
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  There are five seperate studies on the image, and most of them show no more than 85% give or take. If you have something that shows otherwise (aside from ad hominem) I'd love to see it.
  - justsee 14y ago
    An uploaded image to Wikipedia is a very weak source to assert an opinion not held by the scientific community (that there is no scientific consensus). Also, I've been discussing the arguments all along, not sure what the reference to 'ad hominem' is about. Here's the actual Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... It mentions: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position." Maybe the American Association of Petroleum Geologists made that image you reference before changing their position. I don't know, it's completely out of context.

will_brown 14y ago

In terms of its contribution to global warming Methane is 26 times more destructive than CO2. Believe it or not on a daily basis an average Cow emits the same amount of green house pollutants that contribute to Global Warming as an average car. US Food and Agricultural Organization expects methane emissions to increase 60% by 2030. I understand the logic but I find it counter-intuitive that pollutants emitted from Cows (burps and farts), are contributed to human behavior. Specifically, Agriculture accounts for 14% of Green House Gas, and a majority of it is from Methane emission. Similar to our trying to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, humans are trying to reduce Methane emissions from Cows including genetic modifications and harvesting the Methane to power the farms. So I personally think the idea of measuring "human contribution" is complex, especially when Cow farts and burbs are contributed to human activity. That said whether or not there is consensus that Human activity is responsible for global warming it does not matter, there is certainly consensus that Human's are the only ones who have a chance at addressing global warming, unless unknown to us the Cows are currently convening in secrete meetings to discuss how they might better regulate their own emissions of Methane and Ammonia because their contribution to global warming is weighing so heavy on their conscience.

khuey 14y ago
The vast majority of cows exist only to feed humans. Saying that pollutants emitted from cows shouldn't be attributed to human behavior is like saying that pollutants emitted from cars shouldn't be attributed to human behavior: complete nonsense.
- diminoten 14y ago
  It's not complete nonsense, as cows aren't human, and cows produce methane, therefore cows are nonhuman sources of methane. I agree with you that cow methane is our doing ultimately, but to say it's 'complete nonsense' is dishonest.
  - grannyg00se 14y ago
    A coal plant isn't human, and coal plants produce CO2, therefore coal plants are nonhuman sources of CO2.

ekianjo 14y ago

> This is based on models that have been refined over decades, and data and analysis from multiple separate scientific disciplines that agree with each other. Models on decades when considering climate change are meaningless: we are talking about extrapolation, going into a warmer world for which we have no models working so far. Beyond that point it's just supposition. > climate science is 'still very much a work in progress' It is very much a work in progress, since there are clear setbacks from the reality vs what has been predicted so far. See this - do you see a huge global warming effect? http://h16free.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png http://h16free.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_mo... The recent CERN CLOUD experiments results show that many climate scientists seem to forget that there's a huge fireball in the skies that may also have an impact on our climate. It's not all about CO2.