Maybe Science itself is not about consensus, but the science community often is. "Understanding the way the universe works" takes a lot more than can be learned in any university. I agree that consensus does not equal truth, but finding absolute truths about what may or may not happen in the future isn't possible until those events occur. It seems that in theoretical science, consensus sometimes is the closest thing to an answer.
Science is very much about consensus. We come up with theories, we test them, and we have lots of people interpret the results. There is a very rigorous process that involves the writing, reviewing and publication of papers regarding the interpretation of those results and the meaning of the outcome of those tests. There will always be dissent and different interpretations of the same data. But the scientific community will generally accept an idea when a large consensus of opinion supports it. Science is also ALWAYS up for review, and open to any new data that contradicts previous conclusions. This does not mean that they are uncertain, it only means that they are open to further input. This often leads people not in the sciences to believe that scientists "don't know" or "are uncertain" about their conclusions, but they are not.
When those conclusions are reached, we go forward and make plans, write books, create policy and take action based on those conclusions. Newton's laws break down at certain points, but that didn't stop the flow of research while we looked for better models and kept trying new theories.
Science never claims truth (although some scientists may). It only claims that it's the best we know at this time. And at this time, on this subject it is pretty damn clear.
What we should do about it is still pretty muddy, but I'd rather be in the take action set rather than the "let's study more" section. Oddly, many of those who often accuse the .gov of "studying problems to death" are now wanting to stop any action in favor of more study.
Additional skepticism arose last week when it was revealed by Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton warned that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an "unimaginable scale," and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.
The London Guardian states things a bit more strongly, reporting;
"The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank."
So it now appears that this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, as originally sold , but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.
This has all the appearances of being the funding mechanism of a World Government run by Banks - not elected and not accountable to anyone.
Perhaps none of us should be surprised. Bankers do claim they are doing "god's work", don't they?
Worthy of another bump. I am sure everyone is going to chip in with noooooooo problem at all. China and Russia will be all to willing to pay a global transaction tax, and how about what's his nuts in Zimbabwe ? And Iran ? And, and... Just who is gonna audit the auditor ? A new world slush fund ? Will Pakistan nuke India because they didn't pay their far share ? Hell the EU won't even stand together and admit they are the second most poluting economic organization, way ahead of China. Europe is a bunch of independent countries on this one because its convenient.
A global tax. Taxation without representation, I smell a global teaparty on a scale never imagined.
And science is not about consensus. That's just argument by authority with an exit poll. Science is about understanding the way the universe works, and the universe doesn't care how many people believe in it. If you can prove it it's true, regardless of how many hands go up in a survey. This eventually becomes the consensus, but the consensus doesn't make the truth. The truth was there all along.
Maybe Science itself is not about consensus, but the science community often is. "Understanding the way the universe works" takes a lot more than can be learned in any university. I agree that consensus does not equal truth, but finding absolute truths about what may or may not happen in the future isn't possible until those events occur. It seems that in theoretical science, consensus sometimes is the closest thing to an answer.
Stossel and many others in the fraud/conspiracy camp have a history of distorting facts to fit their view (as do others on the the pro side, which equally discredtis them). In the end, science is about consensus of opinion, not unanimity. And the consensus is currently very much on the side of humans interfering with the natural environment and causing change.
Even if this is completely wrong (unlikely), and our actions have zero impact (again - wrong), there are a whole host of other facts from health, to pollution, to economy, to national security, to global sustainability... that all point toward a time in our near future that it will benefit us to decouple our lifestyle from Fossil fuels.
Yes, there are many entrenched interest who will profit from this move. Do you really think that there are not entrenched interests trying to wring the last few nickles out of their established system? The point is the sooner we start the sooner we find a SET of alternative solutions that will work. And if we get started, we are likely to be the innovators who profit the most from it, rather than having to buy it from others who are already working on it.
Make not mistake, it is about profit. Some one will make out well here. I just think it should be us, and it would be cool if we could sustain a lifestyle on our terms at the same time.
Again, this shouldn't be about who said it, it should be about how true it is. If Michael Moore has something useful to say about this let's hear it. I won't hold my breath, but hey.
It also shouldn't be about who gets to sell what. I know there are entrenched interests (the IPCC among them) and I don't care. They don't get to change how nature works.
And science is not about consensus. That's just argument by authority with an exit poll. Science is about understanding the way the universe works, and the universe doesn't care how many people believe in it. If you can prove it it's true, regardless of how many hands go up in a survey. This eventually becomes the consensus, but the consensus doesn't make the truth. The truth was there all along.
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.
What about the rest of the material?
The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?
And now we see the IPCC for what it is.
Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)
This is not a Battle of Celebrities.
Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.
He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.
Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.
CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.
None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Nopenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.
What about the rest of the material?
The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?
And now we see the IPCC for what it is.
Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)
This is not a Battle of Celebrities.
Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.
He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.
Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.
CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.
None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Copenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.
Strong agreement here with a couple of caveats:
Stossel and many others in the fraud/conspiracy camp have a history of distorting facts to fit their view (as do others on the the pro side, which equally discredtis them). In the end, science is about consensus of opinion, not unanimity. And the consensus is currently very much on the side of humans interfering with the natural environment and causing change.
Even if this is completely wrong (unlikely), and our actions have zero impact (again - wrong), there are a whole host of other facts from health, to pollution, to economy, to national security, to global sustainability... that all point toward a time in our near future that it will benefit us to decouple our lifestyle from Fossil fuels.
Yes, there are many entrenched interest who will profit from this move. Do you really think that there are not entrenched interests trying to wring the last few nickles out of their established system? The point is the sooner we start the sooner we find a SET of alternative solutions that will work. And if we get started, we are likely to be the innovators who profit the most from it, rather than having to buy it from others who are already working on it.
Make not mistake, it is about profit. Some one will make out well here. I just think it should be us, and it would be cool if we could sustain a lifestyle on our terms at the same time.
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.
What about the rest of the material?
The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?
And now we see the IPCC for what it is.
Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)
This is not a Battle of Celebrities.
Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.
He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.
Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.
CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.
None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Copenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.
ABC News free-market evangelist John Stossel is no stranger to distorting facts and attacking environmentalists for their "earth worship" (4/28/00), so it's no surprise that he would be among the corporate media's most outspoken global warming deniers.
Stossel's 2001 special Tampering With Nature (6/29/01) tried to argue that climate skeptics are excluded from media discussions of the issue despite their impressive scientific credentials-not to mention their sheer numbers. In contrast to environmentalist "preachers of doom and gloom," Stossel portrayed the marginal skeptics' movement as the majority: "You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of ‘devastating consequences,'" Stossel reported. "But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's ‘no convincing evidence' that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate."
While the implication is impressive-10 times as many scientists question global warming-what Stossel didn't tell ABC viewers were the significant qualitative differences between the two petitions. The first petition was circulated by the well-respected Union of Concerned Scientists and signed by 110 Nobel laureates; the second petition was a response organized by industry-affiliated groups that included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatology; the only alleged requirement for signing on was a bachelor's degree in science. For a time, the screening process was so lax that the list included a number of gag names, like Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox, added by environmentalists (AP, 5/1/98).
A photo gallery from the Daily Telegraph illustrating some of the countries most at threat from climate change. I woud have to say that the Bangladesh one is the one I have chosen to copy below as it is a classic example of a low lying country with a densely settled and poor population which will be massively affected by the projected changes. Is anyone going to offer settlement for 30m Bangladeshis in their countries? Some of the examples in the gallery are being used for visual purposes rather than because they are the best examples however it does help to remind ouselves about the actual impact rather than saying "well the world has experienced large temperature shifts before and coped"- that was a very different world. The impact this time on marginal populations will be terrible.
"The largest part of the world's oil consumption is spent on cooling, and not heating, which is a common misconception" Have you heard about "smart windows" ?
it is cool, especially because of what you said. it annoys me though that they spent so much time saying :
"In reverse, it's an advantage to be able to choose to let in the sun light and heat on cold days." .... as if there was some kind of new technology presented for this. they don't mean more heat will be let in, they just mean the windows adjust. i guess it is more the writers fault. not the technology. i guess i am in a mood, being up at 5:30 in the morning, maybe that is why i can't sleep.
"The largest part of the world's oil consumption is spent on cooling, and not heating, which is a common misconception" Have you heard about "smart windows" ?
"The largest part of the world's oil consumption is spent on cooling, and not heating, which is a common misconception" Have you heard about "smart windows" ?
I didn't say I liked the IMF or World Bank. At all. They're a band aid to make the western neo-liberal economies look as if they care, and a sharp stick to prod developing nations in the "right" direction, ie here's some money, now open your markets to these nice corporations, they'll look after your best interests. And don't you worry your pretty heads about these natural mineral, agricultural and fuel resources, we'll pay you with this nice little bag of money, take away those muddy old diamonds, ores and coffee beans and do the nasty old business of transforming their value through a little bit of processing ourselves.
Sheesh, sorry. Must've got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Time for bed.
Hey I'm ok, if you're ok.
We're just having a conversation, that's all.
All I'm saying is that the way this deal is setup the WB will be scamming all involved.
I didn't say I liked the IMF or World Bank. At all. They're a band aid to make the western neo-liberal economies look as if they care, and a sharp stick to prod developing nations in the "right" direction, ie here's some money, now open your markets to these nice corporations, they'll look after your best interests. And don't you worry your pretty heads about these natural mineral, agricultural and fuel resources, we'll pay you with this nice little bag of money, take away those muddy old diamonds, ores and coffee beans and do the nasty old business of transforming their value through a little bit of processing ourselves.
Sheesh, sorry. Must've got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Time for bed.
Oh good grief. On one hand you've got Lord (hereditary - all he had to do to get called "Lord" was to survive child-birth) Monckton spouting his swivel-eyed Hitler lunacies and on the other the Guardian pointing out that there are suggestions that responsibility for climate control should be moved from the UN to that hot-bed of Marxist-Leninism The World Bank.
The figure of 2% is, I understand, to be the higher estimated cost to global turnover (ie all of us) of beating climate change, which, compared to the projected costs of carrying on regardless sounds quite reasonable.
The Tobin tax - the tax that may be levied on internatonal financial transactions, not industrial or trade, is the earth shatteringly punitative rate of 0.05%. The fact that such a low rate could generate such huge incomes also highlights the insane amounts of electronic cash being shovelled around the system by the banks for very little social benefit yet generating colossal amounts of comission - you can bet your arse that each time a dealer passes on the dough a shitload more than 0.05% sticks on his fingers. Use this to fund research and development into carbon reducing technologies and you're nuturing and expanding a huge new industry, saving the planet and getting the pinstriped wankers on Wall Street and in the City of London to a) atone for getting us into this horrible financial mess after having money shovelled down their throats for the last thirty years and b) start paying their way in society from now on.
*edit* Well, at least that made me feel better.
These people are criminal.
I'd simply suggest that you and others investigate the World Bank and IMF.
If after you have done that and still put your blessing on them, I'd be surprised.
Cool, being the operative word here ! 
I'm still too scared to respond.