Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 2

message: I added a link to a more recent study of the opinions of environmental professionals.  These are accredited professionals that conduct research, perform analysis, and deal with environmental issues on a daily basis.  I think their opinion just as valid, if not more so, than pure scientists (who, while experts in a particular fields, those fields may not be specifically environment-related).  Take the results for what you will, but they are the facts.
My own personal opinion is that these results clearly indicate a lack of "consensus" on the issue of climate change.  Examine the merits of greenhouse theory as an explanation for global warming, but don't pretend that there aren't differing theories.  I have read studies that indicated strong correlation between warming and solar output, changes in the sun's magnetic field (this affects the amount of cosmic radiation that strikes particles in the atmosphere, whose impacts are seeds around which clouds form), solar flares and el nino (increased water vapor, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere).  Temperature readings have shown that increased carbon dioxide follows warming, indicating the causality is flipped.  The data from prior to the past century could have major variations from the "hockey stick" graph (which doesn't portray the statistical probability of measurements...hmm wonder why?), due to the error that is present in the methods used to determine historical temperature.  These are just a few of the issues that have yet to be adequately factored into the hype.
Zoomwsu 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NREP Study 

message: Why are these included here?  How are these relevant?  I don't follow.  Guettarda 18:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been here historically. Probably they should go. William M. Connolley 19:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I could see them being here as part of a historical analysis of how scientific opinion has changed over the last 20 years as the science has developed...hey, that would make really interesting reading, to tell you the truth.  It would also actually be a good context for the "opponents of..." page, since they people listed there disagree with different things.  William?  Are you old enough for that? ;) (Yeah, I know, it would be original research).  Has anyone written a retrospective of how this has changed - might make an interesting case-study for the development of scientific thought... Yeah, I'm rambling.  Guettarda 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not old enough, sadly. As part of a hist analysis, they could be useful. It may be in Spencer Wearts stuff, and if so wouldn't be OR. William M. Connolley 20:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The original phrasing was awkward to search on.  I did find what looks like one contemporaneous source.  (SEWilco 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1991 Gallup Poll, 1990 and 1992 reports 

message: On removing Yuri I's statment, I did it because he was an individual (and not just because he is a nutter on GW...). But then I noticed we had Peter Barrett in there too, so I took him out as well. And removed the "and individuals" tag line.
This on the basis that there are probably too many individuals who can be considered to have "made a statement" (if we include YI) and the cut-off for "is too marginal to be worth including" would be too much trouble to try to make.
William M. Connolley 22:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individuals 

message: I cut this from global warming:
: according to a leading Britigh medical journal, The Lancet (Reuters, February 9, 2006, archived here), although some scientists have expressed doubt.
Maybe it belongs here. Not sure. Haven't read the original. William M. Connolley 22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet; from GW 

message: I think a distinction is necessary between the scientific actuality (or otherwise) of global warming and scientific theory regarding the causes of global warming (ie anthroprogentic or otherwise). Just because a scientist identifies with evidence of Global warming (GW) it does not mean they have demonstrated or believe in anthroprogentic global warming (AGW). Although of course it is clearly possibe to believe in both.
: The warming of the earth is essentially non-controversial: only a tiny minority dispute that (even prez Bush accepts it). The dispute, such as it is, is over attribution, which this article concentrates on. global warming and links therefrom discusses the more basic evidence for warming. William M. Connolley 11:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out the other aspect of the dispute, which is whether it's significant. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ? What do you mean? In what sense? William M. Connolley 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if that means if it's insignificant if it's GW v. AGW, or insignificant as to the warming itself.  (or both)  It would be nice to have it clarified.  --Sln3412 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   On second thought, I'm pretty sure it means if the amount of warming is significant, perhaps even regardless of the cause.  I'm not saying it's not insignificant, and I know the views on it, and the reasons to believe it is of significance.  But I have said before, when you compress the ice core data etc over a period of time as long as they show , any 50 or 100 or 200 etc year period of thermometer readings may tend to get "swamped" in the "blizzard" of the long time-line of the proxies.  Not that I'm saying it has, just that it's possible.  Sln3412 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW verses AGW 

message: The global scientific body on climate change is expected to report soon that emissions from humankind are the only explanation for major changes on Earth.
Count Iblis 13:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid repeat discussion, see Talk:Global warming William M. Connolley 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking News 

message: What part of this is so bad that it must be reverted to your previous version, doc?
:The scientific opinion on climate change has changed considerably since the 1970s, when most discussion focused on natural global cooling. Since the early to mid 1990s, prominent climatologists and scientific bodies have asserted that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. ["The evidence became more and more compelling—it wasn't a coincidence that the scientific community reached a consensus on the issue in the mid-1990s.... By the late 90s, what skepticism remained generally amounted to misleading arguments that may have made for good sound bites on Crossfire but which didn't stand up to any bit of scientific scrutiny."  --Michael Mann, climatologist, University of Virginia]
Your buddy MM says that it wasn't untly the mid-1990s that "the scientific community reached a consensus on the issue". Surely you don't abjure his word? --Uncle Ed 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm baffled. Why have you started a new section to discuss *exactly the same thing* as the section above? The answer to your Q is in the section above. William M. Connolley 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted again per William's reasoning above. I don't see how that version is an improvement, particularly the part that implies a consensus 180 from cooling to warming, where the former had relatively no certainty at all. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro reversion 

message: This survey is a joke. An industry-funded right wing think tank asks under 50 hand-picked (i.e., not randomly selected) scientists a set of incredibly leading questions and presents the results as objective. Here are some examples:
1. 58% of the climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with...Clinton what does "somewhat disagreed" mean?
2. Eighty-nine percent...agreed that 'current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors'" no-one is seriously suggesting global temperatures are affected only by anthropogenic sources. This is a straw man argument.
3. As for the suggestion in the next paragraph that reductions of X amount won't stop temperature increases, that statement is implying that if CO2 reductions don't cause a drop in temperature global warming isn't caused my man-made CO2. That does not follow logically.
4. Finally more climatologists agreed evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period again, it does not follow logically that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, though that's clearly what is being implied. The ice age and global warming are 2 completely different processes that are unrelated to one another. Excused the tortured metaphor, but it's like if a person were driving a car towards a cliff (cliff=ice age), but a large tree (global warming) was in the car's path. The tree doesn't stop existing because "X number of scientists agree the car is heading towards a cliff"
I would like to remove this survey entirely from the article. I don't throw phrases like this around casually, but the survey is the height of intellectual dishonesty and has no business being here. Discuss. --Osbojos 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey is sufficiently well known and remarked upon that a brief discussion of it belongs in the article. If you can find independent analysis of the survey that raises the points you bring up, then of course those can be included as well. I couldn't find any sources along those lines although this article touches on state climatologists and global warming. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lexisnexis search turns up very little on the topic, mostly wire stories basically plagiarizing the CSE press release; however, I did find this: Citizens for a Sound Economy asserts that "the vast majority" of "state climatologists, who are the real experts," believe that "reducing carbon dioxide levels to 1990 standards will not prevent warmer temperatures on earth." True enough, but entirely misleading. The limits agreed to at Kyoto are intended to slow, but not reverse, global warming. [John B. Judis Global Warming and the Big Shill The American Prospect January, 1999 - February, 1999]--Osbojos 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutrality tag should be removed and the study should stay.  You can challenge the neutrality of the study if you wish, but, unless you believe that the summary is misleading, the neutrality tag doesn't belong.  The study is published and fits every definition of a reputable source.  If you can find a reputable source that disputes it, by all means include it.  But the study has to stay. Oren0 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey of US state climatologists section should be deleted 

message: I think it might be helpful (well, actually I think it's essential) if the pages centering around climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect and water vapor and so on were to be consistent in classifying or mentioning Water Vapor (WV) as being a (natural) greenhouse gas because it is part of the greenhouse effect, but not being a (persistent) greenhouse gas because it's passive/minimally-forcing/easily-absorbable (etc) and so therefore is not a large part of (anthropogenic) global warming.  That would also include not using just "greenhouse gas" to explain both the type where WV is the main one and where CO2 is the main one.  It would also include being consistent in describing forcing vs feedback vs influences vs degree. Probably be best served by the same person or group crafting it.  Here are the pages/sections:
:GW - summary: "The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect." (WV not considered a GHG here)
:GW - Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere: "Greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun. However, they absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted as black body radiation from the Earth, making it more difficult for the Earth to cool. How much they warm the world by is shown in their global warming potential." (WV is considered one here)
:CC - Greenhouse gasses:  "Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming. Greenhouse gases are also important in understanding Earth's climate history. According to these studies, the greenhouse effect, which is the warming produced as greenhouse gases trap heat, plays a key role in regulating Earth's temperature." (Both considered and not considered)
:CC - Interplay of factors:  "Water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide can also act as significant positive feedbacks, their levels rising in response to a warming trend, thereby accelerating that trend. Water vapor acts strictly as a feedback (excepting small amounts in the stratosphere), unlike the other major greenhouse gases, which can also act as forcings."  (Includes, then defines, but now we add "major" to GHG, feedback defines how it's not like the other major ghgs which can cause forcing, rather opaque way to say it, better to use active voice as to what it is, not by what it's not)
:GHG page:  "Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Like the glass of a greenhouse, greenhouse gases are transparent only to some wavelengths of light. ... It is the downward part of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere that comprises the "greenhouse effect." The term is something of a misnomer...  The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes between 3-7%. Note that it is not really possible to assert that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[1] [2]" (Includes WV, but now we add "natural" to GHG, no mention of forcings, etc)
:WV page: "Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Most of it is contained in the troposphere. Besides accounting for most of Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which warms the planet, gaseous water also condenses to form clouds, which may act to warm or cool, depending on the circumstances. In general terms, atmospheric water strongly influences, and is strongly influenced by weather, and weather is modified by climate."  (ditto)
Sln3412 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems as if nobody much is interested in making pages like those match each other in terminology and focus as to what GHG are, as a basis of understanding or for some other reason, like, oh, I don't know, making things clear.  Normally I'd just be very skeptical and confrontational about it, but I believe everyone's acting in good faith, along with having a totally balanced neutrality to everything in all points of view, and verifiable reliable well-sourced references to every claim made.  So I wouldn't say anything like "Maybe everyone is having more fun with endless edit wars and pointless arguments about side subjects or minutiae, and are not really concerned in making the articles give something cohesive and understandable and consistent." or anything like "Perhaps some would rather attribute to everyone else a POV while at the same time changing the subject, ignoring, or removing things that don't match their own view, instead of trying to make all viewpoints unemotionally reflect the relative merits of other arguments, even those that might be contrary to their own ideas or worldviews."  So I just suppose I'll just myself try and make them all match, since I'm fairly sure everyone totally respects my views, methods, ideas, and writing skills, as well as my neutrality, motives, and ability to balance things.  Sln3412 06:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Water Vapor, greenhouse gas, greenhouse effect et al