USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

There doesn't need to be, I'd say. There are lots of topics in science where no consensus (yet?) exists. Some things we just have no frickin idea about, and people are casting about for clues. I'd say "consensus happens" sometimes, but it isn't something that you've got to rush right out and get.

It did make it easier to argue that there was no global warming consensus, since you say that global warming does meet all three of Tucker's criteria for consensus.

No, you are absolutely right. We shouldn't be talking about it as fact.

Not from what you quoted, because all it says is the effects are less than previously thought. It doesn't say the effects are zero or negligible.

I thought of that also, and I think you are correct. Some of them do get fat and lazy.

barfo

 

Criticism of Barfo: when there is no true consensus (the Sun is 93M miles away), there are conflicting theories and we're just not sure that any one of them is right.

The one person needs to be published is all. This is how science eventually gets things right.

I offer the first americans and the Clovis-first theory as an example.

The consensus for the longest time was that asians crossed a land bridge in the Bering Straights to Alaska and migrated southward, something like 11,000 years ago. Then Tom Dillehay of the University of Kentucky dug in a cave in south america where there was a fire pit of ancient origin. As he dug deeper, he passed the 11,000 years and kept digging. He found evidence of humans back to over 12,000 years. When he presented his findings, he was greeted with death threats, ridicule, etc.

So he was there, outside the consensus, and the system fought the truth to maintain the status quo. Then the body of a Caucasian was found in Washington State, carbon dated to 10,000 years ago. It was in the news a lot, actually. The scientists wanted to study the body, the native americans wanted to claim the remains and bury the body. It went to court and the native americans won.

Even more evidence that the first americans were here more than 9,000 years ago came to light and eventually science came around.

The issue is that it isn't about consensus at all. It's about finding remains (real evidence) and the carbon dating being undeniable factual data.

Nearly every account of how this Truth came about includes something like this:

http://history.howstuffworks.com/native-american-history/clovis1.htm

For decades, archaeologists and anthropologists who subscribed to the Clovis-First theory so ardently believed that this early culture was the first to settle the Americas that they jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" [source: Rose] shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" [source: UNL] discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.

 

And for Minstrel:

sci⋅ence –noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

I chose to capitalize the word for THAT meaning.

 

Not to go wildly OT, but I have to wonder if the Big Bang Theory might someday be in jeopardy.

While it is a consensus view of the origin of the universe, there are leaps of faith involved that might be faulty.

For starters, it relies on our perception of things from our place in the universe. I have to wonder if we were a lot closer to the center of the universe if things might be perceived differently.

Then there's the whole "reverse the film" of the expansion we perceive and thus everything had to originate from a single point. I'm not sure we can do this with certainty. As an example, we have been measuring the distance of the moon from the earth using lasers bounced off of mirrors left by the Apollo astronauts. We find that the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches per year (at some point, it will leave orbit, many many years from now). If you reverse that film, the moon gets closer and closer to the earth and eventually they occupy the same space. I don't know any scientist who claims the moon magically appeared from the center of the earth and started a slow spiral orbit outward from it.

I'm not proposing an alternate theory here, just pointing out that the conclusions based on the observed evidence may simply be wrong.

If I were to propose an alternate theory, the universe may have originated from something the size of a breadbox. Or maybe as a massive black hole - larger than the singularity at its center. We observe there are massive black holes at the center of galaxies, why not the whole universe?

The point I want to make with this post is simply that the orthodoxy must continuously be challenged if Science is to continuously work. There are no settled theories or even laws.

Is the sun really 93M miles away? Maybe it's 92.9M some of the time and 93.1M some other part of the time. The answer isn't always so clear.

 

I agree completely. That's what I meant by 'convincing others'.

And, given that we now have the internets, everyone gets published. You don't even have to go thru peer review to get published these days. Absolutely nobody gets "squashed" anymore, no matter how different their views are from mainstream science.

So I'm not sure what you are so concerned with. If the current consensus (about anything, including global warming) is incorrect, eventually we'll figure that out. That's the way science has always worked, and if anything, it should work better now given that it is much easier to share data and theories.

The downside, of course, is the sort of mass hysteria that we've got with global warming, with two lay camps going at each other with pitchforks over science that they don't even understand.

barfo

 

What I meant is the consensus group think guys who were in effect flat-earthers, had no choice but give up their favorite and overly defended theories. Only after resisting with every fiber of their being (as opposed to scientific inquiry), and only after a mountain of evidence was already making them look like they have egg on their face.

Much like Al Gore ripping the hurricane claims from his award "winning" powerpoint presentation after his dire predictions failed to appear.

 

Go write your own dictionary. Maybe you can redefine blue to mean green while your at it.



But seriously, I am mocking the chicken little crowd because they proffer their "findings" as Truth. Literal truth. Undeniable. Opponents are deniers. The science is settled. There's conclusive proof. The evidence is overwhelming.

Hardly good science.

 

There is no "I" in "team" but there is an "I" in wIn.

It's routinely scientists. The letters to the editor in the ACS journal is the tip of the iceberg. The 60 scientists in the article papag posted are scientists - and that's just today's news.

My turn to define a word. "Squash." In this context, it means to:
1) Deny funding
2) Threaten funding
3) Refuse to publish
4) Refuse to take TV ads voicing a position
5) Peer pressure (ridicule)

 

I think you misread Minstrel's post. Or you've suddenly switched sides?

barfo

 

BTW:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Global Warming Petition

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [/FONT]

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.




​

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+2]Letter from Frederick Seitz [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+1]Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

[/SIZE][/FONT] Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

And the 12 page review:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm