Maggie's Farm

Bird Dog: Scientists: Chill on global warming

The usual.

Not climate scientists:
Claude Allegre,
J. Scott Armstrong,
Jan Breslow,
Roger Cohen,
Edward David,
William Happer,
Michael Kelly,
James McGrath,
Rodney Nichols,
Burt Rutan,
Harrison H. Schmitt,
Nir Shaviv,
Antonio Zichichi,

Climate scientists:
Nir Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;

None of this is news, as these three scientists have already made their views known.

-----------

While appeals to authority can't be considered definitive, as the appeal was made, then this should be relevant.

Meanwhile, these scientific organizations have said that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

----------

A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

----------

JKB: Otherwise, I would submit to you, "fomites". Once the darling of the scientific community to explain the spread of smallpox.

Smallpox can be transmitted by fomites. You're probably thinking of yellow fever.

JKB: In any case, science, real science, doesn't rest on authority or opinion polls. It rests on data, on skeptical questioning and rebuttal.

That's right. And there are virtually no data or studies that contradict theories of anthropogenic climate change. The minimalist skeptic arguments concern either tangential issues, or are simply not supported by the evidence.

Zachriel: here are virtually no data or studies that contradict theories of anthropogenic climate change. The minimalist skeptic arguments concern either tangential issues, or are simply not supported by the evidence.

Marianne Matthews: Yes there are, a very healthy number of contradictions of AGW are already on record, some of them by actual climate scientists, like S. Fred Singer.

We didn't say there were no studies. If you want to point to a particular paper from a major scientific journal, please do.

That's why real scientists, like Albert Einstein, dub their investigations as theories, not "settled science." That's why real scientists, like Albert Einstein, dub their investigations as theories, not "settled science." [/i]

Um, no. It's not called a theory because it is not "settled science". Theories are analytical models that explain and predict observations.

Marianne Matthews: As far as AGW is concerned, the original computer projections of data were flawed. The original computer program left out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age in its computations.

There are many models of climate change, and they are used to crosscheck one another. Some models deal with paleoclimatic events, others concentrate on modern climate. As with all such models, they have to be reasonably consistent with one another and with observation.

Marianne Matthews: A year or two later, after further research, the medical community had to admit that they had been mistaken, and ulcers were indeed caused by a bacterium.

Notice how the skeptics collected data, and then used the data to convince their colleagues. Yes, scientific theories bend to the evidence. The only outstanding debate about climate change is political and social. There are virtually no current studies that call into question the basics of anthropogenic climate change, though certainly it is possible such information will become available with further study.

Marianne Matthews: Too bad the AGW folks didn't take the same course, instead of massaging the data, and covering up that which did not support their "settled science."

The problem with such a position is that the evidence crosses multiple fields of study, not just climatology, but paleoclimatology, geology, Earth sciences, even physics.