Why is climate science political?

[westwall]

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence. What should that tell a thinking person?

That should tell any thinking person that you have misunderstood the question. You seriously think you know more about physics than the American Society of Phycisists.....in the name of God, man, get a grip on your ego!!!

I have a choice between believing you - and believing the opinion of almost every major scientific body in the world.

It is not a difficult choice.

I notice you conveniently ignore the Nobel Prize winning physicist who RESIGNED from that organisation because of their position on AGW. Which he decried as a fraud.

 

[Saigon]

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change

Yeah, some role. So what? How much should we spend to ameliorate that role?

How much we spend - and what on - is a decision to be made by whatever politician you chose to vote for - and is ideally made on the basis of the best available scientific information.

Given most conservative parties agree with the positions listed here by those 50 scientific bodies - that should be possible.

 

[Saigon]

I notice you conveniently ignore the Nobel Prize winning physicist who RESIGNED from that organisation because of their position on AGW. Which he decried as a fraud.

I'm aware of the case, and thought it made interesting reading when it came out.

I admire his integrity in doing what he believed, and I welcomed the debate it created.

I don't doubt he is not the only scientist to be a sceptic - but I think we all realise that is a miniscule minority amongst the wider scientific community.

 

[westwall]

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence. What should that tell a thinking person?

That should tell any thinking person that you have misunderstood the question. You seriously think you know more about physics than the American Society of Phycisists.....in the name of God, man, get a grip on your ego!!!

I have a choice between believing you - and believing the opinion of almost every major scientific body in the world.

It is not a difficult choice.

Yes, a thinking person would look at the PROPAGANDA spewed out by these organisations, and their complete lack of evidence to support what they say. Take a look at some of the real evidence on some of the sceptic sites and when you actually have a more balanced viewpoint feel free to come back. Right now you are a one trick pony.

You really have to ask yourself if what those organisations are saying is so powerful why then are they reduced to falsifying what data they do have and trying to prevent any opposing views from being published. That is a direct affront to the scientific method.

A supposedly "thinking person" would ask those questions. On the other hand, a non thinker, blindly follows what his high priests tell him to believe. Faith works that way.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I think we all get it now.

The American Society of Physics does not get physics.

You get physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change

Yeah, some role. So what? How much should we spend to ameliorate that role?

How much we spend - and what on - is a decision to be made by whatever politician you chose to vote for - and is ideally made on the basis of the best available scientific information.

Given most conservative parties agree with the positions listed here by those 50 scientific bodies - that should be possible.

What does your wife suggest we spend?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Your posting is definitely at its best when you don't even go through the motions of discussing the topic.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Because they are aluminum hat wearing nutters.


...with nice websites.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

WTF does THAT bullshit even mean?

The "opposite" of saying that the CLAIM of MAN MADE global warming is a "left wing conspiracy" would be the claim that it's a right wing conspiracy.

So your contention is that, around the world except in the U.S., conservatives blame the false claim of AGW on a RIGHT wing conspiracy?

 

[Saigon]

Liability -

Many posters have claimed that climate change science is a left wing conspracy.

However, around the world most conservative parties are stating that climate change is NOT a left wing conspiracy, and is, in fact, scientific fact.

How do you explain this?

 

[Oddball]

Because they're politicians who see a nice tax scam.

Is understanding the political class really that tough?

 

[Old Rocks]

Most of these nutters here cannot explain anything that has to do with real science. Some, like ol' Bent, are fruitloops with their own version of reality from some alternate universe. Others, like Code, have an agenda, and know and understand the science, but are amoral enough to ignore it.

And some are just a bit senile, like Walleyes.

When I started posting on this board, I posted as if I were addressing peers. However, as I found the conversation dominated by a few that used only invectutive and lies in discussion, I found it best to reply in terms that they could understand. The same terms I used for communication when I worked in sawmills.

 

[Liability]

Liability -

Many posters have claimed that climate change science is a left wing conspracy.

However, around the world most conservative parties are stating that climate change is NOT a left wing conspiracy, and is, in fact, scientific fact.

How do you explain this?

First, that's not the same thing as what you wrote. You said "opposite."

I merely noted how inaccurate you were.

Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."

Is there some global climate change? Apparently. Yes.

Is there ANY true proof or even particularly compelling scientific EVIDENCE that it is caused Anthropogenically? No.

This is so for a variety of reasons. One of the BIG tells is that we had ice ages and warmings BEFORE human kind ever lit so much as a whole lot of campfires.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because they're politicians who see a nice tax scam.

Is understanding the political class really that tough?

Is understanding a lying fool that hard, Oddie? I fully understand you. Anti-science, and anti-sense. All opinion and no evidence or facts backing any of it.

 

[Oddball]

Because they're politicians who see a nice tax scam.

Is understanding the political class really that tough?

Is understanding a lying fool that hard, Oddie?....

We understand you just fine, despite your lies and foolishness.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

In 2007 there were lot of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice and in 2011 there were even more

Exceptional melt pond occurrence in the years 2007 and 2011 on the Arctic sea ice revealed from MODIS satellite data – Rösel & Kaleschke (2012)

Abstract: “Melt ponds contribute to the ice-albedo feedback as they reduce the surface albedo of sea ice, and hence accelerate the decay of Arctic sea ice. Here, we analyze the melt pond fraction, retrieved from the MODIS sensor for the years 2000–2011 to characterize the spatial and temporal evolution. A significant anomaly of the relative melt pond fraction at the beginning of the melt season in June 2007 is documented. This is followed by above-average values throughout the entire summer. In contrast, the increase of the relative melt pond fraction at the beginning of June 2011 is within average values, but from mid-June, relative melt pond fraction exhibits values up to two standard deviations above the mean values of 30 ± 1.2% which are even higher than in Summer 2007.”

Citation: Rösel, A., and L. Kaleschke (2012), Exceptional melt pond occurrence in the years 2007 and 2011 on the Arctic sea ice revealed from MODIS satellite data, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C05018, doi:10.1029/2011JC007869.

 

[Saigon]

Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."

.

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

Signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century

Observed 21st century temperatures further constrain likely rates of future warming – Stott & Jones (2012)

Abstract: “We carry out a detection and attribution analysis of observed near-surface temperatures to 2010 and demonstrate that the signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century. As a result, we show that global warming is set to continue, with the second decade of the 21st century predicted to be very likely warmer than the first. Estimates of future warming rates consistent with observations of past climate change are now better constrained than they were a decade ago. The highest rates of warming previously consistent with past warming now appear to be unlikely.”

Citation: Peter A. Stott, Gareth S. Jones, Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.383.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

Yet another analysis suggests that greenhouse gases and aerosols controlled temperature after 1950

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium – van Hateren (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: “A climate response function is introduced that consists of six exponential (low-pass) filters with weights depending as a power law on their e-folding times. The response of this two-parameter function to the combined forcings of solar irradiance, greenhouse gases, and SO2-related aerosols is fitted simultaneously to reconstructed temperatures of the past millennium, the response to solar cycles, the response to the 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption, and the modern 1850–2010 temperature trend. Assuming strong long-term modulation of solar irradiance, the quite adequate fit produces a climate response function with a millennium-scale response to doubled CO2 concentration of 2.0 ± 0.3 °C (mean ± standard error), of which about 50 % is realized with e-folding times of 0.5 and 2 years, about 30 % with e-folding times of 8 and 32 years, and about 20 % with e-folding times of 128 and 512 years. The transient climate response (response after 70 years of 1 % yearly rise of CO2 concentration) is 1.5 ± 0.2 °C. The temperature rise from 1820 to 1950 can be attributed for about 70 % to increased solar irradiance, while the temperature changes after 1950 are almost completely produced by the interplay of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols. The SO2-related forcing produces a small temperature drop in the years 1950–1970 and an inflection of the temperature curve around the year 2000. Fitting with a tenfold smaller modulation of solar irradiance produces a less adequate fit with millennium-scale and transient climate responses of 2.5 ± 0.4 and 1.9 ± 0.3 °C, respectively.”

Citation: J. H. van Hateren, Climate Dynamics, 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1375-3.

 

[Liability]

Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."

.

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Even some scientists can get bamboozled.

But there is no rigorous scientific proof of the A part of AGW.

What they endorse is a political statement and a statement of BELIEF and supposition. They are entitled to have those silly opinions. But as scientists, they are obliged to prove it. They haven't. Science is not defined by "consensus."