Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

...
Here is a link to the American Meteorological Society's statement on global warming.

Quote:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council on 1 February 2007) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 8
...
This statement is considered in force until February 2012 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007

Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006

Brown wrote on December 13, 2006

de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006

Leroux wrote a 2005 book

You must have missed the part where most of the scientists in the series of posts Ican has been presenting are people who were once AGW advocates but who are now on the skeptic side.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm guessing that most meteorologists have considerably more expertise on the climate than any one of us posting on this thread. At least most can articulate a rationale for their opinion rather than flippantly dismissing a concept just because it doesn't fit the position they have adopted.

Just guessing but probably a good guess, many meteorologists probably do not study in depth climate science and the whole scenario of the so-called greenhouse effect, however many probably have to some degree, probably a much higher percentage than the general public, and with more ability to understand it, pro or con.

And I would argue that anyone in the general public that has any common sense can assess the arguments and opinions surrounding the issue. A large component of the issue is political, and that lends itself to anyone being qualified to have a legitimate opinion. Anyone with common sense can look at the arguments and judge whether the correlations with actual evidence are good or not.

And those of us that have studied and practiced in other scientific fields can also be qualified by having experience with how science is done, and how much of science is just basic logic, and also how wrong science can be at times. Good science is sound, but faulty interpretations of data and therefore faulty conclusions can be commonplace. The liklihood of such is multiplied exponentially when politics is injected into the science, and that is what has happened.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Foxfyre wrote:

You must have missed the part where most of the scientists in the series of posts Ican has been presenting are people who were once AGW advocates but who are now on the skeptic side.

I must have missed that part. "Most" you say? Out of the 400 on ican's list could you tell me how many that is? Be prepared to provide evidence in support of the claim. Remember many of those on his list signed the letter a number of years ago. That would probably put them in the never been an advocate group.

Calling meteorologists and mathematical researchers "scientists" kind of defeats ican's argument that it is the "majority of scientists". Are you saying that "most" of the meteorologists disagree with the statement by their society? Do you have any evidence to support that? Do you have evidence that there are less than 300 meteorologists in the society?

As meteorology is grounded in physics and geography--both were considered sciences when I was in college--I think it can safely be classified as a science.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

121.
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of CO2 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR Science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seems now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Quote:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

In 2007.. What does that mean to you Foxfyre?
Is 2005 in 2007?
Is 2006 in 2007?

I find it interesting that with a title like that, the list of people that disputed it in 2007 is forced to use quotes from 2005 and 2006. Does that mean they didn't publish their opinions in 2007? If they didn't publish their opinion in 2007 how can they be counted in the 400 that disputed it in 2007. It seems a little odd to me especially in light of ican's claim that Feb of 2007 is too old to consider when it comes to a statement by the AMS. Let's see if you can be intellectually honest on this question Fox. Do you think ican should be listing people's quotes from 2005 and 2006 when he claims they disputed AGW in 2007 while at the same time he dismisses a statement by the AMS from 2007?

Absolutely. Meteorologists are weather scientists; not climate scientists. In fact the huge majority of all those 'scientists' that signed onto the IPCC statement and have been so widely touted as a 'consensus' were not climate scientists either. Further, it appears that the models most often cited were developed by computer statistician geeks rather than climatologists--they probably know little or nothing about climate but depend on what the computer regurgitates from various data fed into it.

And, one fact that several of us have pointed out several times now but is still ignored by the AGW religionists is that those same computer models can't use KNOWN data, much less guessed at data, and produce today's climate. Yet we should consider them sacrosanct and use them as a basis for life changing decisions and mandatory policy affecting billions?

I don't think so.

Foxfyre wrote:

As meteorology is grounded in physics and geography--both were considered sciences when I was in college--I think it can safely be classified as a science.

Meteorology is a science - it's even in its name.

Not so, Walter - pls consult your ancient Greek dictionary.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As meteorology is grounded in physics and geography--both were considered sciences when I was in college--I think it can safely be classified as a science.

Meteorology is a science - it's even in its name.

Not so, Walter - pls consult your ancient Greek dictionary. Meteor- (what is up in the air) and Logos (no translation needed there for you, but others may like to know "logos" means "reason" aka in Latin "ratio", as in "logarithm" aka the ratio of 2 numbers).

Science can't be said to exist in the absence of....
THE
REPEATABLE
EXPERIMENT

Any meteorologist can prove repeatable experiments in his forecasts is hereby assured the Swedish Academy of Sciences is mailing his Nobel Prize in Physics TODAY

38,000 feet....5,000 feet at most is my bet