The same people who decry the scientific "consensus" of AGW theory now tout the "consensus" from Inhofe.

Question

Make no mistake, the report came out of Senator Inhofe's office, not the Senate commitee itself, as a "consensus" amoung scientists that are skeptics of AGW.

This is a guy who recieved the “Lifetime Service Award” from the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association.

Do you think he is biased? And, do you think he cherry-picked information to make the argument fit his beliefs and values?

Dr Jello - I'm not upset, although I'm glad you assume I am. My point is to show the hypocracy.

Please answer the questions.

Answer 1

It's because the skeptics don't understand what "consensus" means in terms of the IPCC. It is not a bunch of scientists taking a vote and the most votes determines the conclusions. It is a bunch of scientists gathering all relevant observations and facts, comparing them to the predictions of theories, and making an objective determination as to which theories fit the available facts. They then provide the probabilities that the theories providing the best match to the data are in fact correct. So the consensus opinion, as far as climate change is concerned, is that as of 2007, there is over a 90% chance that the theory that CO2 produced by man is altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere, which is causing a warming of the planet and affecting global climate, is correct. However, understanding that is too complicated for most skeptics, they would rather believe in the vote thing and why they think if they just could count enough votes to the contrary, it would negate the huge body of objective evidence weighed by the IPCC.

Answer 2

Richard, what "consensus" from Inhofe? That does not even make any sense.

Inhofe's office released this informative report because it brings together a lot of information about the changing views of scientists around the world. Whether you know it or not, a great deal of peer-reviewed science was published in 2007 showing that AGW will not be catstrophic. That is what is changing the minds of these scientists. Inhofe does not claim any "consensus" at all. He is claiming that the number of skeptics is growing and the Washington Post agrees. Did you read the news release?

Answer 3

There is absolutely no question that Inhofe is biased. His blog is full of scientific papers which he misinterprets and miscontrues, concluding that they undermine the AGW theory. His life goal is to disprove or at least create sufficient doubt in the AGW theory enough to slow or prevent action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Regarding the supposed skeptics consensus, here is what Inhofe's blog claims:

"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Many of those fields have little to do with climate science. They might contribute to a climate science paper, but the scientists themselves would not be climate science experts.

This smells of the Oregon Petition hoax to me. Besides which, 400 scientists is a small number in comparison to the total number of scientists in all those fields. We're talking about less than 1%.

Besides which, what is their supposed consensus? That the AGW theory is wrong? What's their alternative?

Apparently they can agree that AGW is flawed, yet they can't agree on an alternative theory, and they can't explain the basic scientific facts which they AGW theory explains such as:

*Greater warming at night than during the day.
*Cooling of the upper atmosphere + Warming of the lower atmosphere.
*Solar output decreasing.
*In a cooling portion of the Milankovitch cycles.
*Warming 20 times faster than when the planet naturally comes out of an ice age.
*Atmospheric CO2 increasing to a level above where it's been for ~20 million years.

These scientists who are mostly not climate science experts can pick small holes in the AGW theory, but they cannot explain these scientific observations. The AGW theory can.

However, it's very ironic that suddenly a "consensus" is valid when it's a skeptical consensus. Typical cherrypicking.

Answer 4

The point is that there isn't a consensus. Your attempt to smear Inhofe is typical and doesn't change the fact that he demonstrated there is no consensus. In fact the skeptical voices are being silenced time and again by the political hacks in various organizations
For example Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Here is another good quote:
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”


Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.

Answer 5

If "consensus" is the gold standard, if science accepts consensus as the definitive proof, then why are you upset when it's used to challenge your position?

You questioning the use of "consensus" science shows that you think this idea is bunk. But if it helps you with your political views, then you're all for it.

Answer 6

I think the point is that there is no consensus.
He is biased against CO2 and the AGW crowd is biased toward CO2.
Cherry-picking goes both ways.

Answer 7

There is no empirical proof on either side....yet.
Anything with consensus and science in the same sentence should be taken with a grain of salt-especially when mixed with political motivation like the UN's agenda.