The Truth About Denial?

Question

"Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

How can anyone use this pretense to show one's point as being conclusive?

600 scientist from 40 countries = 15 scientist per country.
15 per country from gvmt, academia, green groups, and business = >4 per group per country.

How hard is it to find 4 people who either believe or profit in some way from the threat of global warming?

And why would anyone use a political committee to show scientific proof?

Kenny - You believe because you hear what you already perceive to be true.

"NOAA: Greenhouse Gases Likely Cause of Near-record U.S. Warmth Last Year"

I wonder if the FAA came out with a statement saying that the new Airbus was likely to be a safe plane, would you let your family get on that plane?

Probably not because "likely" is far from scientific reality, it’s just an opinion.

Rollo - That Exxon story is a myth, a falsehood, untrue.

"NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/2/

Now will you have the courage to stop making statements you know now as untrue, or will you keep telling this bogus story because it fits better with what you believe?

Answer 1

is it truth about denial?


or is it denial of the truth?

the lie is coming unraveled. the more GW is investigated, the more flaws are showing.

Answer 2

Here's the "truth" about the joint statement given by all these national science institutions.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
After you get past the demand that the governments of the world "acknowledge the threat of climate change" as real and serious (smacks of an extremist terrorist group or the Spanish Inquisition) what you have left is this:

· Launch an international study5 to explore scientifically informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
· Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

Other than the second request, all of these say one thing: pour money into science and technology. Specifically, OUR (ie climatology) science and technology. This is little different than the often shameless money-grubbing that individual scientists or research groups do in the process of soliciting grants/funding. Even the second request is open-ended enough to be interpreted as shelling out more cash to the researchers.

The real truth - if you accept what the consensus says is causing GW - is that we don't NEED science to solve the problem anymore. It's ENERGY CONSUMPTION. We are consuming it at an ever increasing rate - and ironically, TECHNOLOGY is the chief consumer. If we abandoned post-1875 technology, then our problems are solved. But they KNOW there is no way we could or would ever do this; hence, science and technology will have to become our saviors from a problem created by science and technology and that can only be identified by science and technology.

They want to couch this problem as one in which they hold ALL the cards, and are counting on the ignorance of the masses to write them that blank check...

Answer 3

First, your question title was misleading. Your question really doesn't have anything to do with denial. So I'm disappointed.

Anyway, while the IPCC report's main authorship may consist of a group of only about 600 climate scientists (they would be the "political committee" you refer to), there were also a couple thousand reviewers (or commenters) on the report as well. These professional reviewers were mostly scientists, although some were government officials.

Also, the IPCC doesn't represent every scientist who agrees with the theory. You may be interested to know that every single academic or scientific institution on the planet currently endorses the IPCC's conclusions.

Lastly, the 600 main authors of the report didn't do any original research themselves (although they've undoubtedly independently done a great deal of research relevant to the subject). They simply compiled all the data currently available on climate change into their report.

Answer 4

Mr. Jello -

It's not just individual scientists, it's whole organizations of scientists, such as the National Academy.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

It is quite a remarkable thing to get a scientific organization to endorse a particular scientific idea---it's like herding cats; scientists are naturally perverse and inclined to doubt. They generally shy away from any political proposition (aside from "More funding for science!"). An actual official statement from a scientific organization generally requires a good deal more than majority support, and is always very conservative, taking into account the views of all serious dissenters. The fact that so many scientific organizations have endorsed the idea of AGW is really unprecedented.

This does not, of course, ensure that the idea is correct. But to claim there's no consensus is absurd.

Answer 5

ExxonMobil has been offering lots of money to any scientists who can come up with data showing that the increase in CO2 caused by human activity is not contributing to global warming. So there is plenty of incentive for scientists to publish studies showing that this phenomenon is not occurring. But there are no reputable studies questioning the scientific consensus. This is not a matter of opinion at all. Any scientific theory is subject to testing by experiment. If someone had a valid experiment showing that the increase in CO2 and other gases caused by human activity is not contributing to global warming you would hear about it. But they don't.

Answer 6

Jello:

Denial is just your forte. Is NOAA in denial too?

NOAA: Greenhouse Gases Likely Cause of Near-record U.S. Warmth Last Year

Greenhouse gases likely accounted for over half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States in 2006, according to a new study that will be published Sept. 5 in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

Last year's average temperature was the second highest since recordkeeping began in 1895. The team found that it was very unlikely that the 2006 El Nino played any role, though other natural factors likely contributed to the near-record warmth.

When average annual temperature in the United States broke records in 1998, a powerful El Niño (a warming of the surface of the east tropical Pacific Ocean) was affecting climate around the globe. Scientists widely attributed the unusual warmth in the United States to the influence of the ongoing El Niño.

The research team, led by Martin Hoerling at the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo., also found that greenhouse gas increases in Earth's atmosphere enhanced the probability of U.S. temperatures breaking a record in 2006 by approximately 15-fold compared to pre-industrial times. The authors also estimate that there is a 16 percent chance that 2007 will bring record-breaking warmth.

"We wanted to find out whether it was pure coincidence that the two warmest years on record both coincided with El Niño events," Hoerling said. "We decided to quantify the impact of El Niño and compare it to the human influence on temperatures through greenhouse gases."

Preliminary data available in January 2006 led NOAA to place that year as the warmest on record. In May 2007, NOAA revised the 2006 ranking to second warmest after updated statistics showed the year was .08 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than 1998. The annual average temperature in 2006 was 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th Century average and marked the ninth consecutive year of above-normal U.S. temperatures. Each of the contiguous 48 states reported above-normal annual temperatures, and for the majority of states, 2006 ranked among the 10 hottest years since 1895.

Using data from 10 past El Niño events observed since 1965, the authors examined the impact of El Niño on average annual U.S. surface temperatures. They found a slight cooling across the country. To overcome uncertainties inherent in the data analysis, the team also studied the El Nino influence using two atmospheric climate models. The scientists conducted two sets of 50-year simulations of U.S. climate, with and without the influence of El Niño sea-surface warming. They again found a slight cooling across the nation when El Niño was present.

To assess the role of greenhouse gases in the 2006 warmth, the researchers analyzed 42 simulations of Earth's climate from 18 climate models provided for the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The models included greenhouse gas emissions and airborne particles in Earth's atmosphere since the late 19th century and computed their influence on average temperatures through 2006. The results of the analysis showed that greenhouse gases produced warmth over the entire United States in the model projections, much like the warming pattern that was observed last year across the country.

For a final check, the scientists compared the observed 2006 pattern of abnormal surface temperatures to the projected effects of greenhouse-gas warming and El Niño temperature responses. The U.S. temperature pattern of widespread warming was completely inconsistent with the pattern expected from El Niño, but it closely matched the expected effects of greenhouse warming.

"That attribution was not confirmed at the time," Hoerling said. "Now we have the capability, on the spatial scale of the United States, to better distinguish natural climate variations from climate changes caused by humans."

Martin Hoerling: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/martin.hoerling

Answer 7

isn't denial a big river in Egypt?

Answer 8

Jello, you need to get a life or at least expand your interests.

Answer 9

Eventually the tax scam called global warming will be exposed and so will it's pundits-hopefully before we are taxed and banned into oblivion.