I've read time and again conservative yokels saying that many scientists claim up and down a pole how GCS doesn't exist, it's a hoax, etc. I honestly do not know from where these statistics crop up, but I decided to do a little research myself, and I found the following:
A panel entitled the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that it is very likely that humans have caused and expounded upon global climate shift trends (very likely being 90% agreement). Now, you may say, who is this suspicious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They sound like a bunch of leftist partisan hacks!
Well, not so fast. It is actually an internationally funded and supported group created from organizations within the United Nations: the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme; neither of which are based out of the United States, and both of which contain a charter which is riddled with some of the most prominent names in Meteorological sciences and, more broadly, environmental sciences.
Now, if you do a little research you will see that the IPCC doesn't do any of its own research, and you may say "AHA! See! Just a bunch of speculation!!"
Well, that's not so true. They put out reports speculating on the possibility of human influence on Climate Shift, based off of scientific reports from all around the world (inside and outside of partisan lines).
A brief synopsis of their 4th report, which was released last year, states as follows (just a few bullet points, the report can be read in full; I will post a few links after this)
# Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
# Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
# Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).
# The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
Now, again, you're saying they're cherry-picking research, and not doing it comprehensively. Well, IPCC just so happens to list their contributors, who number over 250 (contributors means scientific researchers, teams of scientists, and individual institutions); and their nationalities are very diverse, ranging from America to Zimbabwe; each one of the scientist and/or team of scientists being very prominent in their own countries and their own rights.
So, I guess the scientists you are listening to aren't necessarily the scientists to whom you should listen. The Bush administration has been caught pressuring scientists to disavow Global Warming. Now even the people who didn't acknowledge global climate change for many years (much like how the catholic church bashed and subsequently punished those who believed the sun was the center of our solar system, and not the earth [and then didn't apologize for their actions for 400 years]) have actually recanted their original position; back-striding to say, essentially "We fucked up, here, we should fix this."
To so as imply that there are a lot of scientist that don't believe climate shift is possible is just as stupid as saying the Earth is flat, or the sun revolves around Earth. Sure, there are scientists who are the dissident population, but they do not represent a majority, or even a spatial culmination of "a lot." Maybe, a lot means in relation to the size of their IQs, or possibly a lot in relation to the amount of african-americans in the commonwealth of Wasilla (At last census count, 7). But a lot doesn't constitute 8 in a population of 10,000+.
I honestly hope you got something from this, but you probably didn't.
Anyway, here are some sources you all can cite if you want (by the way, this response took me some time, so I'm not this environment nut, or somebody who was able to rattle these stats off the top of his head... just a few long-winded google-searches).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/index_en.html
http://www.unep.org/
Contributors to the IPCC Report:
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/final_pdfs_ar4/Annex-III.pdf
Actual Report:
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus
That should get you started...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dr. Ross,
You are considerably behind the curve on this topic if you are now just pointing out the IPCC's published conclusions.
Even some of the people responsible for this report have criticized its conclusions - conclusions which were reached with considerable political influence and disrespect for actual science.
I suggest you greatly broaden your horizons on this issue and read outside of your comfort zone (both academic and political). It appears your anti-conservative bias is preventing you from being fully informed. Hardly what I'd expect from a scholar.
I'm sorry to not give you specific references to read but I'm short on time and don't have them handy.
But seriously, look for the more serious (not bloggers) critiques of global warming research, models, and conclusions and put your political blinders on.
David Andersen
I am really curious to hear from these critics of the IPCC.
Yet, rather than cite any sources (being short on time, but having enough to post a long winded, semi-insulting response), Analyticsdude chose to refer to my sources and research as that of "bloggers critique." That's fine. I did a bit of research on the IPCC's specific critics.
AD mentioned that people are critical over the IPCC's report. It is a vague claim, and generally true. However, here is what has been deemed critical:
"In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He published an open letter explaining why he was resigning and to "bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process"[9]. The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that the process of producing the Fourth Assessment Report is "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound". Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author." "
The argument in question was whether or not Climate Shift was man-caused. However, this argument, or (more accurately) criticism doesn't even address the issue of who or what caused/is causing GCS.
With that being the only listed criticism of the IPCC's report by Mr. AD, I believe it would be wise for me to left off the gas here.
The blog above is not about politics, nor is it looking through the lens of anti-conservatism. Rather, the blog (and listed sources) are posted to show that thorough scientific consensus on the existence of GCS and man's affect on it are both factual, and not "political spin."
Hugh.
Post a Comment