They Call this a Consensus

This forum is for the discussion of topics of political nature that affect the duning community.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

Post Reply
Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

They Call this a Consensus

Post by Jerry Seaver »

They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
Al Gore's views have credible dissenters
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver »

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 03 June 2007
Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.

Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

In yesterday's clashes, masked protesters hurled flagpoles, stones and bottles and attacked with sticks forcing police to retreat. The police said they were suffering "massive assaults" and that the situation was "very chaotic". They put the size of the demonstration at 25,000; organisers said it was 80,000.

User avatar
Sandcock
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:09 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Avacado Capital of the World

Post by Sandcock »

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American
BLAME game on the good ole US of A. I would say that the fox is in the chicken house in regards to China, i.e. they wouldn't let the IPCC or any other greenie into their country to conduct a study of carbon dioxide emissions, they will conduct their on study to their favor.
Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.


Nothing new here. It always amazes me that the peaceniks greenies most always resort to violence or are obnoxiuos when their point of veiw is objected to. Simple and narrow minded people I guess :roll: Will they ever change :?:

Isn't life grand for those of us that can look at all the facts and respond with a reasonable solution.

The only one that I know of that can foresee the future is the Creator :D We need to be good stewards and use the knowledge, wisdom and common since He gaves us.

scotty <><
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite. Thomas Sowell

crash
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 3915
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 7:31 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by crash »

The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!.........

User avatar
MR. PETE
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:52 am

Post by MR. PETE »

What's falling is our freedoms.

GLOBAL WARMING: The only place where Atheists, Agnostics, Liberal “Christians”, Mother Earth worshippers, Pacifists, Socialists, Social Activists, Pro-Abortionists, the Media and Liberals in general demand the confluence of politics and religion.

If they gain enough political power they will make everyone bow at the feet of their gods.
_______________________
Peter

User avatar
Papa Perry
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 1:53 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Post by Papa Perry »

As an athiest, I don't belong to the above group.

Also, wasn't it Pat Ronertsons Moral Majority demanding the confluence of politics and religion also?

I'm with crash on this one.

User avatar
MR. PETE
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:52 am

Post by MR. PETE »

Papa Perry wrote:
As an athiest, I don't belong to the above group.
I did not intend to offend you or infer that all atheists are in this camp.

Many religious and non-religious people have a “live and let live” pluralistic attitude and, like me are rightly upset when there is an attempt to force a religious belief system on us through some force of government.

The intent was to state that in general, the leadership of these types of groups has set the public political agenda, which in my view is determined to eradicate all acknowledgement of God and faith from the government and political discourse.

Therefore, I find it an intriguing juxtaposition that these same strict separations types seem all too eager to forcefully impose their religion on the rest of us via political means.

Papa Perry wrote:
Also, wasn't it Pat Ronertsons Moral Majority demanding the confluence of politics and religion also?
Although I cannot defend the certain methods and beliefs of the Pat Robertson’s of this world, it is my understanding however, that groups like the Moral Majority are only seeking to defend and preserve the Judeo-Christian heritage that is foundational to the rights and principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 -10). Of course, some will disagree with their position and endeavor.

Finally, I am not suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with the confluence of politics and religion. Many people today believe that our nation with its freedoms, rights and privileges are the product of a particular confluence of politics and religion laid down over two centuries ago. Others view that same confluence as outdated, perhaps as an ignorant view of the contemporary world and therefore seek to replace it with their own political/religious soup du jour.

Global Warming just happens to be on the current menu.

.02
______________
Peter

Post Reply

Return to “Political Discussions Only”