wrote
Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare of the '70's

I do remember;
there was ONE very cold winter; Long Island Sound
in New York State was frozen over.

- But take a look at the sources you quote; Universally journalists.

Yep . This is no coincedence.

Journalists make a living by getting their work
published.. they entertain that's their job. As they say; No one ever
gets a story published by saying " nothings going to happen"

Yep. And I do NOT remember a "cooling scare." And I was taking
Geology at the time. (Climate is HUGE in Geology!)
It was a non-issue at the time.
Sure, some journalists apperently found some climate
stuff to write about, but it was mostly a non-issue, an
unknown to people at the time. I never heard of it.

On 22 Apr 2007, Cato wrote:

And just where were these journalists getting their
info from? Are you saying that Science Digest, Science Magazine, The
Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, Science News, etc. etc. including, yes, teachers in
the schools, were all pulling a "fast one" on everybody back then? It
was all lies?

No, it was a neat little theory without much
evidence that nobody paid much attention to.
....a neat little theory -- not an issue.

Your attempt (ok, not yours, but global warming denialists')
to equate the two is sad at best, but actually it's
more a popular years-old propaganda lie used by Big Oil
et al. But to be fair, your source is the best researched
I've seen in ~15 years. Most only name one or two magazines.
You are also the first to claim academia was in on it.

Hard core anti-intellectualism, huh? Historically, stuff of
genocidal dictators.

Anyway, to quote from the George Will article you plagerized:
=========
Google results about 108 for "Science Digest (February
1973) reported that "the world’s climatologists are agreed""
=========
"Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism."
--George Will April 3, 2006

Yer ****in up the wrong tree, Cato. At least Geo Will has
some intellectual honesty.

A conspiracy put together by those publications?

Actually it is *YOU* (Geo Will) who patched together a handful
of articles over 20? years to make it sound like
a grand movement. ...and if false, a conspiracy.

Pretty slick, Cato, you get it both ways.

Are
these publications no better then the Weekly World News rag??

If they were all proved to be liars, then they would have been
raked over the coals, their reputations destroyed, and relegated to
the level of cheap supermarket tabloids.

Liars !?
Laugh. Good jounalism often discovers obscure info and
presents it to the public. Now you are bordering on shrill.
Everybody here knows the difference between a pocket full
of magazine articles and actual scientific consensus...thousands
of scientists. Don't push yer luck.

Never happened.

And now we know why, don't we?


Do you realize they were getting there info from.. wait for it...
scientists?

Yes??? Yer point?
could it be....
Uhm....individual scientists are human? Make errors?
And reporters may overstate or rush the hypothesis?

Do you remember this?.....
Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the
American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger.

"As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists
have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,".... Fortune Magazine,
February, 1974.

"a number??" "a number of leading climatologists" ????

You do understand the concept of "scientific consensus,"
right? As in it's HUGE, -- and "a number of" is almost meaningless?

You do understand that the concept of "scientific consensus"
is the backbone of science itself, right? ...the mortar
which joins all the difference sciences into; "Science?"


That's right..... The American Institute of Physics,
(Scientists), awarded Fortune magazine for what??

Uhm...I'm guessing...now just a wild guess mind you,
but....uhm...?...GOOD SCIENCE ???? grin


Telling us all a
lie?? As if they were not better then the Weekly World News rag???

Sounds to me like you need to learn a little philosophy
and method of science. Good science does not mean
"Word of God," Truth, nor even "scientific consensus."
The award may have been for good inquiry, discovery,
method, or whatever. Learn up on it.

I notice those who distrust science most, understand
it least. (Such as Limbaugh or "Creation Scientists.")

Next, your words come directly from a technique overused
(and invented?)
by Rush Limbaugh for 20 years on every "environmental"
issue from smoking, to ozone, catalytic converter, to
come down the pike. What!? No job loss? Jack booted
environmentalists aint gunna steal yer job, yer house,
yer wife, yer kids, yer freedom, and increase taxes!?

"Environmentalism is funded by the Commies!" -Rush Limbaugh

Global warming proponents are accepting a good financial
income from the global warming scare and have become global warming
propagandists to promote their interests. These include some
researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental
organisations who need donations. They are making a living by
promoting fear of man-made global warming. They have a vested interest
in pulling this scam. And not just because of the money involved, but
also because many of them have political goals that depend on the Man-
Made Global Warming Scare.

In other words, "science can not be trusted."
Truth is unknowable. (So may as well go for simple feelsgoodisms.)
How Mao and Stalin of you guys.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said in written

Vaclav Klaus !!!! LAUGHINGGGGGGG!!!!!!

testimony that global warming has turned into a religion that has
replaced the ideology of communism and threatens basic freedoms. Mr.
Klaus said the push to curb greenhouse gases would hurt poorer nations
that can't afford modern technology. He compares radical
environmentalists to Marxists, and says initiatives such as the Kyoto
Protocol require enormous costs without any realistic prospect for
success.
Cato

Ah, I knew "sky is falling" had to come sooner or later.
Does anybody actually BUY this crap yer pitching?



--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.


"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Words mean something, Cato.



in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Cato wrote:

It's All A Lie.
The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a
while and then come back with something new to scare us with.
And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this
very list as we can see.
I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be
a fool.

Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be
natural, with little or no help from us.
....snip

Truth? Try a little scientific consensus:
===========


Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
.... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618


The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:







--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.


"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming;

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11216

"That document - which follows an IPCC study in February that
concluded with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are
responsible for Earth's recent warming - provides a more detailed look
at how emissions from automobiles, industry and other sources are
affecting life around the world. "

There is also the cheery thought that the folks who gave us " The War
In Iraq", based on Cherry picked ( or totally faked) facts;
- may have an interest in funding " Global Warming is Hooey Research"

In both films on the internet saying " no Such Animal" as Global
Warming, Huge

truck sized holes are trotted out in the research in the films, like
no one will notice..

- and, I do wonder if we are looking at " Forged Documents" or slick
editing as we saw four years ago .





On Apr 23, 1:37 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Words mean something, Cato.

in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?

Cato wrote:
It's All A Lie.
The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a
while and then come back with something new to scare us with.
And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this
very list as we can see.
I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be
a fool.

Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be
natural, with little or no help from us.

...snip

Truth? Try a little scientific consensus:
===========

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

wrote:

Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming;

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11216

"That document - which follows an IPCC study in February that
concluded with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are
responsible for Earth's recent warming - provides a more detailed look
at how emissions from automobiles, industry and other sources are
affecting life around the world. "

There is also the cheery thought that the folks who gave us " The War
In Iraq", based on Cherry picked ( or totally faked) facts;
- may have an interest in funding " Global Warming is Hooey Research"

In both films on the internet saying " no Such Animal" as Global
Warming, Huge

truck sized holes are trotted out in the research in the films, like
no one will notice..

- and, I do wonder if we are looking at " Forged Documents" or slick
editing as we saw four years ago .





On Apr 23, 1:37 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Words mean something, Cato.

in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?

Cato wrote:
It's All A Lie.
The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a
while and then come back with something new to scare us with.
And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this
very list as we can see.
I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be
a fool.
Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be
natural, with little or no help from us.
...snip

Truth? Try a little scientific consensus:
===========

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776


I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution?
I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized
his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to
electrify his home.

Ken I

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:32:03 -0700, K Isham said about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?


wrote:

Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming;

big snip.

I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized
his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to
electrify his home.

Al Gore supposedly bought extremely clean electricity,
possibly solar. Unlike most Carbon credits, this was
less "market force", and more green-force driven.
That is, that power would not have been on the grid
without greenies to pay extra for it. (I am guessing here.)
Thus, this was not typical useage of the Carbon credit system,
which is mainstream market driven.

I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution?

"Air pollution" here, means CO2. (clue: *carbon* credit)

It's a "market solution," it's advantage is
flexibility, it's less harsh on big polluters
such as coal-fired electric generators
than say, inflexible local pollution cap regulations.
And it pays generators for being extra clean.
Thus, it is less harsh on the industry as a whole.

The goal here is *total pollution reduction,* not
punishment of bad boys. This theory has some validity
since CO2 is not a local problem, it is a global
(total output) problem.

Roughly, it works like this.
An industry such as coal-fired electric generators
is given an overall pollution cap. (This is good,
since this cap either freezes or reduces total global
pollution.) Next, each generator is assigned
a fraction of (his share) of the total cap, based
on say, amount (his share) of electricity produced.
This share is converted into pollution credits.
The clean generators are rewarded for being
or getting clean, since they can sell their unused
pollution credits to the dirty generators that need
all the pollution credits they can get to stay legal.
Buying expensive pollution credits is punishment for
the dirty bad boys.

Typically the pollution caps reduce over time.

This system has largely failed in the EU because
the pollution credits were too cheap. Buying
credits became a cost of doing business, rather
than encouraging clean-up. The proper *value*
assignments are absolutly critical for it to work.

Also absolutlely critical is industry hands-off
of government in assigning value and in reducing caps.
Else, the above failure is likely. Thus, such a system
is likly to fail in bribery/fascist ridden nations
such as the USA. ...Uhm...I mean lobby-finance ridden.


** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point where
it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.
That in it's essence is fascism: ownership of the
government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private power."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, message to congress.


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.


"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

I have an old Popular Science magazine here which dates back to either
1960 or 1961 or 1962.On the cover of the magazine is a depiction/picture
of New York City solidly encapsulated in solid ICE,,,, and there is an
article about that in that there magazine too.
It's Global Coolin,y'all.
cuhulin

On Apr 22, 10:37 pm, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Words mean something, Cato.

in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?

Cato wrote:
It's All A Lie.
The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a
while and then come back with something new to scare us with.
And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this
very list as we can see.
I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be
a fool.

Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be
natural, with little or no help from us.

...snip

Truth? Try a little scientific consensus:
===========

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Scientific consensus?? Scientific Consensus is
NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". But when the scientific expertise
to judge a scientific position is lacking,
they're going to rely on the Consensus. Consensus is a collective
opinion. "Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific
evidence.
Consensus can change. It has in the past.
But what happens with these Global Warming Prophets of Doom, is
that they are True Believers in this new faith. and that is exactly
what it is. They are believing this whole thing on faith, with no
solid scientific evidence that mankind, (oops.... humankind), is
responsible. Except of course for the ones that know it is all a Big
Lie but are using it to further their Socialist political goals. They
are grasping at straw, and when people argue against them, they use
the weapons of the left, such as name-calling and nitpicking apart the
other sides argument. Mud-slinging is a favourite weapon of theirs.
Laugh at the opposition, call them a lot of names, do your best to
make them look stupid. Take advantage of any mistake they make. Fight
dirty if you have to.
Consensus is the OPINION of a groups of people. It is not hard
evidence of anything.
Consensus can change over time.
Consensus is not something that I would want to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars, or trillions of dollars on over a few degress of
warming that has a good chance of being natural, and not man made.
You want to bankrupt the western nations?
Because that is what it would take. And even then, the way Kyoto
is set up, it won't amount to a hill of beans as far as stopping
Global Warming.
Socialists! God they never quit in their quest to place more
and more control over our lives, and gain political control for
themselves. They will use anything and everything to further their
goals.
Cato

Those ''scientist'' who get U.S.fed govt funding,those ''scientist''
have to kiss up and say what U.S.fed govt TELLS them to say and print.If
those ''scientist'' dont,they get Kicked Out.It is similar to the
U.S.''news media'' (U.S.''news media'',,, U.S.Ministry of Propaganda)
too.Look at what happened to Dan Rather.
cuhulin

In article ,
(Doug Bashford) wrote:



wrote
Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare of the '70's

I do remember;
there was ONE very cold winter; Long Island Sound
in New York State was frozen over.

- But take a look at the sources you quote; Universally journalists.

Yep . This is no coincedence.

Journalists make a living by getting their work
published.. they entertain that's their job. As they say; No one ever
gets a story published by saying " nothings going to happen"

Yep. And I do NOT remember a "cooling scare." And I was taking
Geology at the time. (Climate is HUGE in Geology!)
It was a non-issue at the time.

Snip

You need to read up on it then. It was a BIG issue before global cooling
came along.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article 462c999c@kcnews01, K Isham wrote:

wrote:

Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming;

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11216

"That document - which follows an IPCC study in February that
concluded with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are
responsible for Earth's recent warming - provides a more detailed look
at how emissions from automobiles, industry and other sources are
affecting life around the world. "

There is also the cheery thought that the folks who gave us " The War
In Iraq", based on Cherry picked ( or totally faked) facts;
- may have an interest in funding " Global Warming is Hooey Research"

In both films on the internet saying " no Such Animal" as Global
Warming, Huge

truck sized holes are trotted out in the research in the films, like
no one will notice..

- and, I do wonder if we are looking at " Forged Documents" or slick
editing as we saw four years ago .





On Apr 23, 1:37 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Words mean something, Cato.

in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about:
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?

Cato wrote:
It's All A Lie.
The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a
while and then come back with something new to scare us with.
And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this
very list as we can see.
I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be
a fool.
Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be
natural, with little or no help from us.
...snip

Truth? Try a little scientific consensus:
===========

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776


I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution?
I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized
his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to
electrify his home.

Forget about Big AL, I'll sell you carbon credits at half his price.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California