It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the AGW Dogma is Losing the Faithful

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
This is not intended to start a debate over "Climategate" or the legitimacy of "deniers."

However, any time someone takes the position that "the science is settled," they are setting themselves up for failure.

Even today, Einstein and Newton are being tested and their respective theories questioned by legitimate scientists and polemicists.

That said, there are significant facts that should be taken into account before anyone takes the stand that AGW science and models are "absolute," "confirmed," or even that a "consensus" exists among those (climatologists, economists, engineers, geophycists and geologists included) who are motivated or 'entitled' to voice an opinion.

The IPCC, the U.N., the N.A.S. and other political as well as scientific organizations have recognized that the AR4 (and even its predecessors) was the result of a flawed process and imperfect "science."

Any legitimate scientific theory must be open to scrutiny, subject to replication, capable of refutation and robust enough to withstand contradiction.

As it turns out, AGW theories and models ar far from this ideal.

There is no "denying" that basic observation.

This month's "Weekly Standard" contains a focused examination of the state of the "Global Warming consensus." Both (global warming and consensus), it turns out, are subject to question.

Steven Hayward, notes that, starting from the 2007 AR4 and the recent "Climategate" revelations, we've seen that current "climate science" is far from settled and certainly open to deeper investigation:

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more.

The body blows to the climate campaign did not end with the Climategate emails. The IPCC … has issued several embarrassing retractions from its most recent 2007 report, starting with the claim that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of melting as soon as 2035

The Himalayan retraction has touched off a cascade of further retractions and corrections … sotto voce, hoping the media won’t take notice. …. The Daily Telegraph identified 20 more claims of ruin in the IPCC’s 2007 report that are based on reports from advocacy groups such as Greenpeace rather than peer-reviewed research, including claims that African agricultural production would be cut in half, estimates of coral reef degradation, and the scale of glacier melt in the Alps and the Andes. Numerous other claims were sourced to unpublished student papers and dissertations, or to misstated or distorted research.

Denial: The meltdown of the climate campaign

Hayward, a libertarian and conservative writer, further notes that even within the AGW "community," there is significant division over what, exactly, the state of the science really is:


The rout has opened up serious divisions within the formerly closed ranks of the climate campaign. Before Climategate, expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming typically got the hefty IPCC report thrown in your face along with the mantra that “2,500 of the world’s top scientists all agree” about climate change.

The climate campaign is a movement unable to hide its decline. Skeptics and critics of climate alarmism have long been called “deniers,” with the comparison to Holocaust denial made explicit, but the denier label now more accurately fits the climate campaigners. Their first line of defense was that the acknowledged errors amount to a few isolated and inconsequential points in the report of the IPCC’s Working Group II, which studies the effects of global warming, and not the more important report of the IPCC’s Working Group I, which is about the science of global warming. … [T]he 2007 Working Group I report uses the terms “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in its 987 pages, including what it identified as 54 “key uncertainties” limiting our mastery of climate prediction.


Still consider the "science settled," or the "consensus" united in their views?

Hayward goes on the show that even the leading lights of AGW dogma deny any scientific consensus:

This central pillar of the climate campaign is unlikely to survive much longer, and each repetition of the “science-is-settled” mantra inflicts more damage on the credibility of the climate science community. The scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal at East Anglia University, Phil (“hide the decline”) Jones dealt the science-is-settled narrative a huge blow with his candid admission in a BBC interview that his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated, that the medieval warm period may have been as warm as today, and that he agrees that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years—all three points that climate campaigners have been bitterly contesting.

And Jones specifically disavowed the “science-is-settled” slogan:


BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” what exactly do they mean, and what don’t they mean?

Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well [emphasis added].


Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and one of the few scientists convinced of the potential for catastrophic global warming who is willing to engage skeptics seriously, wrote February 24: “No one really believes that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘the debate is over.’ Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”


So, if even two of the leading advocates for AGW agree that there is no consensus, or the that science is anything but "settled" (and that only "advocates" say otherwise), where does that leave AGW science?

Even though the scienceleaders acknowledge room for argument and discussion, it appears that the political leaders (read: advocates) are steadfast in their refusal to even acknowledge disparate views from thosae of their own or those of their public and private funding sources:

Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases? Two recently published studies funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, one by Brookhaven Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz in the Journal of Geophysical Research, and one by MIT’s Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi in Geophysical Research Letters, both argue for vastly lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

Last March, John Christy sent a proposal to the 140 authors of IPCC Working Group I asking “that the IPCC allow for well-credentialed climate scientists to craft a chapter on an alternative view presenting evidence for lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases than has been the IPCC’s recent message—all based on published information. .  .  . An alternative view is necessary, one that is not censured for the so-called purpose of consensus. This will present to our policymakers an honest picture of scientific discourse and process.” Christy received no response.


How can you remain faithful to a dogma that ignores its own leaders when they divert from the "message?"

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 14-3-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Excellent post Sir S+F - one I thoroughly agree with in theory.

There's far too much bickering over 100% proof here, there and everywhere.

We'll find out one day, when it's all over and done with with this planet, if anyone's around to see it.

Edit:
Rambling thoughts.

[edit on 14/3/1010 by jokei]



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jokei
 


Rambling thoughts.


Mine, too. Lately I've read several posts in which ATS members steadfastly claim that anyone questioning "the AGW consensus" is either a moron or a liar.

Funny that Phil Jones and Judith Curry, leaders of the AGW movement, 1st say that there is no consensus, and 2nd say that the science is far from "settled."

Does this make them morons (or 'Morans' as some would have it) or liars? Of course not.

More rambling thoughts.

s4u

jw



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Heretic! You know you are! You should be burned at the stake!


Quit being so damn sensible!

AGW is fact and I can prove it, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, ASK ME!



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


AGW is fact and I can prove it, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, ASK ME!


(Is audas using your computer today? Next, you'll have mel over for tea and crumpets.)

It is truly enlightening to see how many strike out in terror at having their faith questioned and their 'gods' shown to be mortal or fallible.

I clearly lean away from the AGW agenda, but I am willing to consider reasoned analysis.

One thing I've been concerned about is the apparent relatively immediate effect of volcanic emissions as compared to man-made production of similar GHGs. I have a real question about relative volumes, saturation and feedback; but those are for a different thread/forum.

(Change your passwords, just in case, though.)

jw



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Yeah, im with you on that one, im not too sure whats going on with the whole climate change gimick. Now there are 2 simple possibilities, 1 its just natural and part of a cycle, 2 someone is increasing the natural process or tampering with nature through chemicals and other biological weapons to increase it in order to create proof for the so call Al Gore climate change bull. I strongly believe the powers are doing it to create fear so we can trust the government. They are playing their own games.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PoisonUmbrella
 


I strongly believe the powers are doing it to create fear so we can trust the government. They are playing their own games.

All of our "leaders" depend on crises, real, manufactured or imagined, to enable their intrusions into our lives and welfare.

Government and institutional funding of AGW scare-mongers plays into a vicious circle:

more funding = more "outrage" and "studies = more funding

that serves no purpose other than self-perpetuation.

AGW advocates complain about "corporate" or "big oil" funding of research that is DWARFED by the amount of money government and other institutions funnel to them (other people's money, by the way!).

Ironically, the longer and more intensely the AGW predicates are examined, the less the government is to be trusted in their pronouncements on the issue.

jw



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The consensus - that human activity is causing climate change (including, but limited to, global warming) is supported by almost all scientists who are sceptical of the IPCC and various claims/predictions about the effects of carbon emissions. In fact I'm unaware of any outside of certain fundamentalist persuasions, who disagree.

There is doubt about whether human activity is causing climate change in the same way there is doubt about whether the Earth is flat and how many elephants it sits on.

Now, whether the IPCC reports are accurate and properly represent all current scientific understanding on the subject is a wholly different matter


But the only dogma is amongst those who refuse to accept that human activity can affect climate because they refuse to accept the human activity can affect climate



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 
In truth, the reality is exactly the opposite. Those convinced of human influence are the dogmatics here.

Even Phil Jones of the CRU admits that man' s influence is a sort of default "cause," because the solar and volcanic theories do not support observed warming.


"If it's not solar or volcanic, it must be man," is hardly a scientific conclusion, much less "the consensus."

This, of course, ignores facts and basic science.

In truth, the science is NOT settled:



BBC - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

Jones - It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Dr. Judith Curry (Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
Georgia Institute of Technology), and a definite AGW proponent, is very explicit about this as well:


No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.

On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II:Towards Rebuilding Trust

The 'mass' is ended, now go in peace and share the word of your lords.

Deny ignorance.

jw

(p.s.: You (and all AGW faithful) should read Curry's statement, and the unprecedented "blog conference" she has created)
jw







 
6

log in

join