The official blog of University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics
You know you wanna like this.
My name is Maggie. I am not a holocaust denier. You probably aren’t either. That’s good. This post is about Global Warming (GW). We’ll get to the Holocaust though, don’t you worry.
A nice young man (NYM) asserted that there was no consensus among scientists as to humans’ contribution to GW. I provided him with this study. He then asserted that there was still no consensus and that scientists who did think humans contributed to GW were motivated by money. Here’s how the conversation went:
“Maggie [Hey that’s me!], a consensus is a general agreement or unanimity. To demonstrate that there is NOT a consensus, one needs merely to provide several examples of those within the group who disagree. I showed several prominent scientists in the field who disagreed, and then a site of scientists (not necessarily related to the field) who also disagree.
Here is an article from the US Senate Committee on Environment… http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
In it you will find:
French geophysicist, Claude Allegre, who was a prominent global warming advocate, accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
Senator Inhofe stated, “The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows.”
To Read all of Senator Inhofe’s Speeches on global warming go to: http://epw.senate.gov/speeches.cfm?party=rep
And of course, the biggest mouthpiece of the movement stands to make the most money – Al Gore http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
Gore would have made billions of dollars if cap and trade had passed http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607 Follow the money http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
Also in the US Senate article you will find regarding the science of global warming:
“Inhofe Correct On Global Warming,” by David Deming geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org), and an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264537
In 2006, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 YOU SHOULD READ THIS ARTICLE AS WELL–FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THER E NOT A CONSENSUS. Plus, I should remind you that “science” is not based on consensus of opinion.
In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/op
According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.” See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/jul06/noaa06-065.html
In a September, 2006 article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/
The “Hockey Stick” temperature graph’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
Question: What caused the earth to warm after the ice age if man wasn’t driving SUVs and raising cattle for McDonalds (cow farts are a larger contributor to greenhouse gasses)?”
Okay, now, I know what you’re thinking. You wanted to read something about the Holocaust, right? Well it gets mentioned in my response to NYM.
“[NYM], thank you for the very in-depth response.
Rather than try to refute everything you posted, I’ll just be criticizing the analysis and relevance of the things you’ve posted.
Beginning with the definition from Merriam-Webster, it seems you are wrong in your analysis of what is needed to defeat a consensus. If a consensus is a general agreement or unanimity, then to show that there is not a consensus, you would have to show there is neither a general agreement nor unanimity. You have only showed there is not unanimity. General agreement is present among scientists. There is a large majority of scientists in agreement. This is what I take to mean by “general agreement” and this analysis is furthered if you just read the second definition in the dictionary. Because over 80% of scientists agree that humans contributed to GW, just showing examples of the other 18% doesn’t defeat the consensus. Under your analysis, even if 99% of scientists agreed GW was affected by humans, this still would not be a consensus because you could give several examples of scientists who disagreed.
Next, you’ve given me an article published by US Senate Committee on Environment, followed by some Senator Inhofe quotes/speeches. I guess this is irony. You are using this article to show that scientists may have other motivations besides science. Yet, Senator Inhofe is a man who personally rejects GW, argues that its proponents are motivated by money and, of course, was the head of the committee that published this article. And he had to go all the way to France to find a scientist who would give him the quote he wanted. How convenient that a man who personally rejects GW and claims GW proponents are motivated by money happened to find the one scientist who agrees with him…
And what about Inhofe’s bachelor’s degree in economics gives him any standing to make claims about science?
But, I’ll ignore the irony and address the Frenchman. It seems that you’re saying that because one French scientist accused scientists of being motivated by money, that means that you get to throw around this accusation as if it were a fact? What a terrible world this would be if that’s how accusations were treated.
Al Gore is not a scientist. He is not at issue as to the consensus of scientists. His possible motivations say nothing of motivations of scientists.
As for David Deming, how incredibly convenient. Senator Inhofe found another scientist who agreed with him and again published the story under the committee he headed!! That Senator Inhofe probably is just posting these articles because he’s not trying to further his own agenda. Right?
For all of the examples you give of scientists refuting GW, I’m just going to lump them into the 10-18% of scientists who don’t accept GW. This does nothing to affect the 82-90% of scientists who do accept it.
Similarly, I could give you quotes from historians who deny the holocaust. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a consensus among historians that the holocaust did in fact happen.
Furthermore, I never stated that science was a consensus. I don’t know why you felt the need to remind me of something I hadn’t forgotten. The sole issue that has been in debate is whether there is a consensus among scientists. However, I would like to address why a consensus is important. You see Christian, I am not a scientist. I have had no formal training in climatology, earth sciences, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. While I have taken a few undergraduate classes in science, I don’t think this in any way makes me qualified to analyze or interpret scientific data. So, instead of looking at studies and quotes from scientists and thinking I can analyze them myself, I generally rely on the consensus of the scientific community. So whether or not there is a consensus is important to me, and probably to many people. Of course, this doesn’t mean that I think a consensus=science.
I’m going to assume that you made an innocent mistake when you said “a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming.”
In fact, the study said “The sun might have contributed up to 50%…” (emphasis added)
As for your question: “What caused the earth to warm after the ice age if man wasn’t driving SUVs and raising cattle for McDonalds…?”
You are clearly mistaken as to what it means for humans to have contributed to the current GW. There have been several ice ages, so I cannot answer your question without knowing which one you are referring to. Instead, I’d like to point out the flaw in your understanding here.
You seem to be suggesting that if humans contributed to the current GW, then humans are always a necessary component of GW. You can easily defeat this argument by pointing out that humans could not have been a component for at least most ice ages ending. Therefore humans could not have contributed to the current GW. The problem with this is that scientists aren’t arguing human contribution is a necessary component of GW.
Let’s say that smallpox reappears in the US. I give the hypothesis: the US government released smallpox. Your response would be something like: Well, there was no US government when smallpox first appeared, so if they didn’t release it then, they couldn’t have released it now.
Do you see the problem in this understanding of my hypothesis?”
Sorry these were long. If you stayed for the whole thing, here is your reward: