Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!

Consensus? On What? If it's on 'humans CAUSING "Global Warming"' then such statements are FALSE. False on the notion of consensus on humans CAUSING Climate Change, and false that humans are CAUSING Climate Change.

There is consensus that the climate has been warming overall for the past 30 or so years, but that's a far cry from humans CAUSING it or the majority of it.

Anything or anyone that claims that humans are the CAUSE of it is clearly wrong. This shows that they're absolutely biased, even in many cases where speakers of such don't fully understand the issue. Those who do understand the issue have no way out other than being directly involved in spreading disinfo to support some type of agenda, whether it be tied to emotional or economic or political interests.

Types of Consensus
1: The Earth's climate isn't warming.
2: The Earth's climate has been warming.
A: Humans aren't contributing to the warming.
B: Humans can & are contributing, but we don't understand how much so.
C: Human's are causing it.

As you can see, Types 1, and A&C, are irrational and absurdly flawed. Type B, by its very nature as a third variable, contains within it a spectrum, where-as the binary Types A & C are irrational polar Absolutes.

The usage of these Types can function as a gauge as to whether or not an entity involved in the issue has vested interests involved.

A look into what Consensuses exist, and who has interests:
Most of the following can be found in the Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change page.

Types 1&A: (Non-trustworthy)

None.
Types 1&A SCORE: 0


Type B: (Trustworthy)

American Meteorological Society: A source doesn't equate to a cause:Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

American Geophysical Union: Their language includes potentially powerful wording, but it still leaves it open in terms of whether or not humans are causing all or the majority of warming:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

American Institute of Physics: Echos the AGU's precise statements above.

American Astronomical Society: Same as above, and they even further elaborate on my language contexts:

In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

American Association of State Climatologists:

The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system.

Geological Society of America:

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.

Institution of Engineers Australia: No direct mention of cause & effect:

"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."

Type B-t SCORE: 7


Type B: (Questionable)

American Association of Petroleum Geologists: Being petro-related lands them in here by default, however the statement isn't very questionable as there should be disagreement over the effects as humans simply don't fully understand them:

"the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases

American Chemical Society: They flip flop considerably in their statement, ending in supporting abrupt measures:

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses. (...) The greatest challenges facing the global community include understanding how the global climate system works and how our own activities may be influencing it, as well as undertaking responsible actions to protect that system for our children. (...) The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue."

Federal Climate Change Science Program: Bush's panel. I'm not a fan of Bush or the government, so they get placed under Questionable by default the same as if the IPCC didn't already fall under Type C:

Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London: They ride the razors edge in their language:

"We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."

U.S. National Research Council:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... 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

Type B-q SCORE: 5

Type C: (Non-trustworthy)

The IPCC:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

G-8 Joint Sciences Academy:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

Furthermore:

"We recognize the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

US National Academy of Science:

"In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

Type C SCORE: 4

CONCLUSION: No Consensus on Man CAUSED warming.

continued...

[edit on 15-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

The Consensus of Economists

Economists, including Nobel Prize winners, agree that, following "rational prioritization", the costs vs. benefits of combating “Global Warming” make it unfeasible compared to spending on bigger global societal that are directly affecting millions if not billions of people today. Additionally, combating global poverty can the most dramatic effects on the improvement of the environment, as impoverished areas produced the worst environmental conditions.
en.wikipedia.org...

Google Video Link

Al Gore on Economic Consensus:

And more than anything else, that requires accurate measurements of the real consequences –positive & negative- of all the important economic choices we make.
An Inconvenient Truth, page 270.

What is a “Consensus” anyways?
Now, on the matter of consensus, shouldn't there be an overwhelming majority who explicitly promote the idea of "human caused" (since that's the language everyone wants to use) Anthropogenic Global Warming, for there to be a "consensus"?? Or rather, shouldn't all the 'members' agree to the 'decision' "because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time"?

What is Consensus?
...
The root of consensus is the word consent, which means to give permission to. When you consent to a decision, you are giving your permission to the group to go ahead with the decision. You may disagree with the decision, but based on listening to everyone else’s input, all the individuals agree to let the decision go forward, because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time.

Or perhaps before we go any further shouldn't we all acknowledge that "consensus" isn't "unanimous agreement" as those who employ "global warming consensus" seem to imply?

What consensus is not
It is not unanimous agreement. Participants may consent to an decision they disagree with, but recognize meets the needs of the group and therefore give permission to.

Taking a closer look at "consensus", it almost seems to suggest that the sources at the 'top of the pyramid' who propagate such rhetoric are trying to reach for some sort of subconscious subjective underpinnings beyond what most would make note of from the usual 'unanimous agreement' context.


IIB et. al.:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And one last thing: Just because most scientists might agree that humans are or can be contributing to it doesn't mean that they support the Al Gore apocalyptic doomsday prophecies. To determine that after seeing that most scientists would agree to said contributions is heavily laden with logical fallacy, and this would especially go for Al Gore and his religious convictions (he actually said "It's a spiritual matter" on Larry King).
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 15-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Amazing that after TWO years not one single Alarmist has ever responded to this.

And now the consensus is against AGW?
31,000 Scientists Sign Petition Against AGW

Some updates. My list above was as it was found on wikipedia in 2007.Many new entries on the current list. Since "Scientific Consensus" is now basically all that stands in favor of the Alarmists, in this update I'd also like to add context (i.e. is it a funding request?) to each entry.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:

Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Get real. First off they're IPCC, whose credibility is completely imploding right now. Second, they're claiming CO2 in ice has shown to rise temps, despite this being long ago debunked that temp increses increse CO2. Third, part of their argument is that there is "Scientific consensus", which isnt evidence or even a valid arguemtn in a listing of claims of SC.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. [10]

Note the usage of the words "LIKELY", that even they indented. Problem is there's conflicting data on the scenarios they cite. The quote is from a policy paper requesting more funding in propaganda campaigns including Live Earth.

InterAcademy Council:
As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[11][12] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14]

BS. They say we're at "risk", in their argument for more government funding in renewable energy, but dont expressly state that humans are causing global climate change. I call that a play on words.

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[15]:

As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

Nope! They cite the IPCC as their basis for more funding.

Joint science academies' statements

No doubt about it here, no play on words, they outright scream "CAUSING". Wikipedia lists several statements. Take a look. Each one basically cites the IPCC, and endorses taking action (which means funding for them and global government for us).

Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.
The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[21]

Their argument: that there is consensus, and its based on the IPCC. And it also appears that they're requesting funding from the entire world:

We acknowledge, however, that Africa will need help from
the developed world if it is to successfully address the
challenges it faces and we are convinced of the vital roles
that the G8 governments and the international scientific
community can play in the promotion of science, technology
and innovation in Africa.

Royal Society of New Zealand
Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in 2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":

The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

In their statement they mention increasing surface temperatures, which can be explained by urban heat island effect as even admitted int eh Climategate emails. Hmm. They also list a bunch of other things, some true some debatable. Then they cite IPCC projections based on manipulated data fed into flawed computer modeling software. The report doesnt use words that would be considered a call for more funding (into them), but it does advocate spending on more efficient use of energy, and so on.

Polish Academy of Sciences
In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and states:

it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.
Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.

PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.

Their report is in Polish so I cant look it over. But appealing using the IPCC argument is weak, and the statement on wikipedia looks like a call for more funding.

National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... 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[24].

"likely mostly". They dont cite the IPCC, they agree with them. They should, as James Hansen is a leading author for both. The report expresses to not recommend policy, which would sound like it isnt requesting more funding. But I don't know how a science group even could put out a report endorsing without assuming they're get more funding for new project.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Dude, no offense, but how many threads do you need to start saying the same thing over and over again?

The frenetic pace and repetitive nature of your posting is a real turn off.

Some might actually consider more carefully what you write, if you consolidated your material in ONE or even two threads and didn't sound so desperate.

Just my $0.02 of constructive criticism...

reply to post by loam


Maybe he is just showing you facts, and just trying to be like the key in the plaster cine, that needs to be reinforced.

Al gore is a con man, and has had the world over, with his scam.

The op is showing you that there is considerable evidence out there, against agw. The geezer could start a thousand threads with different facts showing it is false.


[edit on 11/29/2009 by andy1033]

reply to post by andy1033


I also see a lot of conclusory statements no better than the ones apparently arrived at with little merit from the AGW proponents.

I suppose, FACTS are something that have been missing for a very long time on both sides of the debate.

The science is so damned muddled, we really have no clue what is going on.

I assume this is by design. from both sides.

I don't think I'm the only one who is sick of it.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by loam]

Besides the fact that we are in a cooling period, NO, man does not cause the climate to change in any way, shape, or form. (Weather modification projects excluded)

However, that doesn't mean that pollution is a good thing!

American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

We're for the advancement of science and its time to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. My words.

Well. They've added a lot of academeies ans societies etc since 2 years ago. It's almost like they sprung up over this issue. But why wouldnt they if they can make a buck? I really dont have time to quote and format all 53 groups, majority of which base their consensus on the IPCC based consensus, and stand to gain financially from it all.

Its interesting seeing some of those on the list, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics who state:

Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups.

What is the point of them to make a statement and then to express likely overblown estimates? In any case there are 7 human health groups as part of this 'consensus', as if they're competant on climate matters.

Why are these listed?

Alarmist dismiss any dissenting scientists not affiliated with the IPCC, but why do they list these groups as part of the consensus?

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
Australian Coral Reef Society
American Society for Microbiology
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Health Organization
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

But yeah, most of the valid groups support the IPCC driven consensus. If only the IPCC was credible:

From: Keith Briffa
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: quick note on TAR
Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007

Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole
process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often
wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these
kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not
always the same.

LINK

Originally posted by loam
Dude, no offense, but how many threads do you need to start saying the same thing over and over again?

The frenetic pace and repetitive nature of your posting is a real turn off.

Dude, this thread is 2 years old. I was trying to bring it up to date. My other THREE threads of recent were on different points. One was asking what it would take to admit man isnt CAUSING all the warming, and the other 2 were on 2 different recent revelations. Threads go out of context after a couple pages, so new and distinct issues get buried. I start new threads to try and keep important issues in focus, so that could be a turnoff to anyone wanting it all drowned out in obscurity.

Originally posted by loam
The frenetic pace and repetitive nature of your posting is a real turn off.

If he/she had posted this thread in 2 months time would you still have the same opinion? or would you see he/she as dedicated person with a mission to prove that AL BORE and his BORITES are a bunch of power hungry scaremongering gimps? keep up the good work IgnoranceIsntBlisss we need people like you S & F

reply to post by altered_states

Originally posted by altered_states
If he/she had posted this thread in 2 months time would you still have the same opinion? or would you see he/she as dedicated person with a mission to prove...

Yes. I actually regret that post. He's entitled to approach this how he chooses.

My apologies to IgnoranceIsntBlisss.

I guess part of my problem with this thread, and others like it, is the tone....

Take, for example, your post:

Originally posted by altered_states
...that AL BORE and his BORITES are a bunch of power hungry scaremongering gimps...

Again, no offense intended because I really get how easy it is to get all wrapped up in an emotional issue, but that TONE just seems so juvenile to me.

What will it take to depoliticize this debate? Why can't we discuss the science, and avoid the sweeping conclusions, one way or the other, that the debate is over, when it very clear to me and everyone else that the science community has their collective heads up their asses.

Obviously, if either side get's it wrong, but succeeds to make it the prevailing view, the consequences could be devastating and very long range.

Am I wrong here?

[edit on 29-11-2009 by loam]