In article ,
"Vendicar Decarian" wrote:

"K Isham" wrote

snip

Another nut case for the kill file.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...tickFAQ.html#4

5. How much does our understanding of global warming depend on the
hockey stick graph?

The short answer is "very little." The hockey stick graph constitutes
only one among literally thousands of pieces of evidence that have
contributed to the present scientific consensus on the human influence
on global warming. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) concluded in its authoritative third assessment report
that "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
As one climate expert observed: The IPCC report Climate Change 2001:
The Scientific Basis is 881 pages in length. It weighs 5.5 pounds and
contains over 200 figures and 80 tables. It would be absurd to think
that the weight of its conclusions rests on any one figure or table;
rather it paints a convincing picture in the totality of its science,
as noted succinctly in its title."¹

We are now observing real changes due to higher temperatures. Here are
some examples:

* The Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier, which has survived the past 11,000
years, is currently at risk of disappearing by 2020 if present rates
of melting continue;


* Enormous tracts of Siberian peatlands, with vast stores of
carbon, are beginning to thaw and release carbon dioxide and methane
into the atmosphere;


* The Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica has lost volume as large
chunks (some as large as the state of Rhode Island) have recently
broken free and melted;


* The annual surface area of Arctic sea ice has declined eight
percent over the past several decades;


* Large-scale increases in ocean temperatures have been detected
over the past 45 years; and


* Plants and animals are changing their habitation ranges,
sometimes dramatically, such as robins and mosquitoes in the Arctic
that were previously unknown there.



On Apr 23, 7:10 am, wrote:
Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming;

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11216

On Apr 22, 10:37 pm, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Words mean something, Cato.

in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?

Cato wrote:
It's All A Lie.
The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a
while and then come back with something new to scare us with.
And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this
very list as we can see.
I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be
a fool.

Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be
natural, with little or no help from us.

...snip

Truth? Try a little scientific consensus:
===========

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Scientific consensus?? Scientific Consensus is
NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". But when the scientific expertise
to judge a scientific position is lacking,
they're going to rely on the Consensus. Consensus is a collective
opinion. "Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific
evidence.
Consensus can change. It has in the past.
But what happens with these Global Warming Prophets of Doom, is
that they are True Believers in this new faith. and that is exactly
what it is. They are believing this whole thing on faith, with no
solid scientific evidence that mankind, (oops.... humankind), is
responsible. Except of course for the ones that know it is all a Big
Lie but are using it to further their Socialist political goals. They
are grasping at straw, and when people argue against them, they use
the weapons of the left, such as name-calling and nitpicking apart the
other sides argument. Mud-slinging is a favourite weapon of theirs.
Laugh at the opposition, call them a lot of names, do your best to
make them look stupid. Take advantage of any mistake they make. Fight
dirty if you have to.
Consensus is the OPINION of a groups of people. It is not hard
evidence of anything.
Consensus can change over time.
Consensus is not something that I would want to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars, or trillions of dollars on over a few degress of
warming that has a good chance of being natural, and not man made.
You want to bankrupt the western nations?
Because that is what it would take. And even then, the way Kyoto
is set up, it won't amount to a hill of beans as far as stopping
Global Warming.
Socialists! God they never quit in their quest to place more
and more control over our lives, and gain political control for
themselves. They will use anything and everything to further their
goals.
Cato

Those ''scientist'' who get U.S.fed govt funding,those ''scientist''
have to kiss up and say what U.S.fed govt TELLS them to say and print.If
those ''scientist'' dont,they get Kicked Out.It is similar to the
U.S.''news media'' (U.S.''news media'',,, U.S.Ministry of Propaganda)
too.Look at what happened to Dan Rather.
cuhulin

"Cato" wrote
Scientific consensus??

Yup...


"Cato" wrote
Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

No, it's synonymous of virtually certain truth.

Scientific revolution is exceptionally rare


"Cato" wrote
But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is
lacking,
they're going to rely on the Consensus.

Wrong again. ****Licker.

Scientific Consensus applies all the way down to the most base facts such
as 1+1=2.

The consensus view that 1+1=2 is still not proven in any absolute sense.


"Cato" wrote
Consensus is a collective opinion.

Correct. And collective opinions hold far, far more weight than the vapid
assertions of Carbon Industry Shills, paid warming denialists, and
uneducated fools.


"Cato" wrote
"Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific evidence.

No, but the consensus view is based on scientific evidence. And yes it
can be wrong, but very rarely so.

Now which to believe? The collective wisdom, and best opinion by the vast
majority of the worlds scientists? Or the constantly shifting, grasp at any
straw, pronouncements of a small band of industry shills?

Hmmmm Gee... I wonder.... Science or snake oil.

Who knows. Maybe the snake oil really is a cure all.

Right?

On May 21, 4:48 pm, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:
"Cato" wrote

Scientific consensus??

Yup...

"Cato" wrote

Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

No, it's synonymous of virtually certain truth.

Scientific revolution is exceptionally rare

"Cato" wrote

But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is
lacking,
they're going to rely on the Consensus.

Wrong again. ****Licker.

Scientific Consensus applies all the way down to the most base facts such
as 1+1=2.

The consensus view that 1+1=2 is still not proven in any absolute sense.

"Cato" wrote

Consensus is a collective opinion.

Correct. And collective opinions hold far, far more weight than the vapid
assertions of Carbon Industry Shills, paid warming denialists, and
uneducated fools.

"Cato" wrote

"Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific evidence.

No, but the consensus view is based on scientific evidence. And yes it
can be wrong, but very rarely so.

Now which to believe? The collective wisdom, and best opinion by the vast
majority of the worlds scientists? Or the constantly shifting, grasp at any
straw, pronouncements of a small band of industry shills?

Hmmmm Gee... I wonder.... Science or snake oil.

Who knows. Maybe the snake oil really is a cure all.

Right?

(OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood
To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card !
- - - Financed by US Tax Dollars -and-
at the Expense of the US Tax Payers

VD - So are you the un-official apologist for Al Gore ?
Or actually a Paid Agent of the Democrat Party of the USA ?

If you are so keen on Carbon Credits... Then Hold-your-Breath
until Al Gore is re-elected to something important.

-if- i sound rich and phony - it's cause . . .
i am trying to sound just like al gore ~ RHF

RHF ) writes:

Here's another clue bozo. If it's cross-posted, don't respond either.

That's in addition to not responding because it's off-topic.

You are now right up there with the village idiot in qualifying for
most damaging to rec.radio.shortwave

I hope you're happy, because I'm sick of it.

Michael

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 21, 4:48 pm, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:
"Cato" wrote

Scientific consensus??

Yup...

"Cato" wrote

Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

No, it's synonymous of virtually certain truth.

Scientific revolution is exceptionally rare

"Cato" wrote

But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is
lacking,
they're going to rely on the Consensus.

Wrong again. ****Licker.

Scientific Consensus applies all the way down to the most base facts
such
as 1+1=2.

The consensus view that 1+1=2 is still not proven in any absolute
sense.

"Cato" wrote

Consensus is a collective opinion.

Correct. And collective opinions hold far, far more weight than the
vapid
assertions of Carbon Industry Shills, paid warming denialists, and
uneducated fools.

"Cato" wrote

"Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific evidence.

No, but the consensus view is based on scientific evidence. And yes
it
can be wrong, but very rarely so.

Now which to believe? The collective wisdom, and best opinion by the
vast
majority of the worlds scientists? Or the constantly shifting, grasp at
any
straw, pronouncements of a small band of industry shills?

Hmmmm Gee... I wonder.... Science or snake oil.

Who knows. Maybe the snake oil really is a cure all.

Right?

(OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood
To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card !
- - - Financed by US Tax Dollars -and-
at the Expense of the US Tax Payers

VD - So are you the un-official apologist for Al Gore ?
Or actually a Paid Agent of the Democrat Party of the USA ?

If you are so keen on Carbon Credits... Then Hold-your-Breath
until Al Gore is re-elected to something important.

-if- i sound rich and phony - it's cause . . .
i am trying to sound just like al gore ~ RHF
.
.
. .
....and if you sound stupid and goofy, you're just being yourself.
You got a lock on that one, you have no competetion.
It's nice to see you join in destroying what could be a good group.
What an asshole.

"Cato" wrote
You want to bankrupt the western nations?

Listen to the economic chicken little crying that the sky will fall.

In reality, estimates of economic impact show a .2% decline in economic
output to solve this problem at worst to a 2% rise in economic output due to
increases in fuel consumptive efficiencies.


"Cato" wrote
Because that is what it would take. And even then, the way Kyoto
is set up, it won't amount to a hill of beans as far as stopping
Global Warming.

Correct, it is the first step of many that are needed to reduce global
emissions by around 70% and AmeriKKKan emisions around 85-95%

Can't live with that? Too bad. Your choice is live within your
constraints, or die.


"Cato" wrote
Socialists!

And now the cocksucker devolves into partisain politics. Science means
nothing to pieces of **** like Cato. Their KKKonservative Politics trumps
reality every time in their dung filled brains.


"Cato" wrote
God they never quit in their quest to place more
and more control over our lives, and gain political control for
themselves.

Capitulate or die Cato.. Capitulate or die.

On May 21, 4:54 pm, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:
"Cato" wrote

You want to bankrupt the western nations?

Listen to the economic chicken little crying that the sky will fall.

In reality, estimates of economic impact show a .2% decline in economic
output to solve this problem at worst to a 2% rise in economic output due to
increases in fuel consumptive efficiencies.

"Cato" wrote

Because that is what it would take. And even then, the way Kyoto
is set up, it won't amount to a hill of beans as far as stopping
Global Warming.

Correct, it is the first step of many that are needed to reduce global
emissions by around 70% and AmeriKKKan emisions around 85-95%

Can't live with that? Too bad. Your choice is live within your
constraints, or die.

"Cato" wrote

Socialists!

And now the cocksucker devolves into partisain politics. Science means
nothing to pieces of **** like Cato. Their KKKonservative Politics trumps
reality every time in their dung filled brains.

"Cato" wrote

God they never quit in their quest to place more
and more control over our lives, and gain political control for
themselves.

Capitulate or die Cato.. Capitulate or die.

(OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood
To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card !
- - - Financed by US Tax Dollars -and-
at the Expense of the US Tax Payers

VD - So are you the un-official apologist for Al Gore ?
Or actually a Paid Agent of the Democrat Party of the USA ?

VD - Most likely a Paid-in-Fool Agent of the
Democrat Party of the USA ? -cause-

# 1 - The Liberal {Northern} Democrats always like
to Spell the Words 'America' and 'American' with
the Capital Letters "KKK" instead of a 'c' as you
have done "AmeriKKKan".

# 2 - "KKKonservative" form of Race Baiting Coded Spelling
and Hate Speech use by the Liberal {Northern} Democrats.

VD - Like the use of the word "NAZI" in a Debate the
Letters "KKK" have the same import for Americans.
- - - YOU LOSE [.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

If you are so keen on Carbon Credits... Then Hold-your-Breath
until Al Gore is re-elected to something really important.

-if- i sound rich and phony - it's cause . . .
i am trying to sound just like al gore ~ RHF