Moe
Lv 6
Moe asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

Where does this come from? NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL.?

"Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models. To be predictive, any model of future climate should also accurately model known climate and greenhouse gas variations recorded in the geologic history of the past 200,000 years."

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.p...

I think this is key to the problem many have with liberals, a basic inability to come to a rational conclusion.

Please tell me how you conclude that NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL. based on the AAPG statement?

Update:

Trevor - Is it really necessary for me to elaborate on why this statement is false? NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL. Non-commital is not agreeing, with AGW and global warming is not the same thing AGW. Those are the facts you may not like them and your liking them isn't required. If you need further elaboration we will have to sit down so I can draw you pictures. You need to elaborate your stand; is non-commital agreeing, or are they not reputable? Also please elaborate why it is unreasonable or irrelevent to expect a model used to predict future climate should be able to accurately model past climate which is specifically used as evidence of an unprecedented change in climate and temperature for the planet.

Update 2:

Trevor - Is it really necessary for me to elaborate on why this statement is false? NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL. Non-commital is not agreeing, with AGW and global warming is not the same thing AGW. Those are the facts you may not like them and your liking them isn't required. If you need further elaboration we will have to sit down so I can draw you pictures. You need to elaborate your stand; is non-commital agreeing, or are they not reputable? Also please elaborate why it is unreasonable or irrelevent to expect a model used to predict future climate should be able to accurately model past climate which is specifically used as evidence of an unprecedented change in climate and temperature for the planet.

Update 3:

Trevor - Is it really necessary for me to elaborate on why this statement is false? NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL. Non-commital is not agreeing, with AGW and global warming is not the same thing AGW. Those are the facts you may not like them and your liking them isn't required. If you need further elaboration we will have to sit down so I can draw you pictures. You need to elaborate your stand; is non-commital agreeing, or are they not reputable? Also please elaborate why it is unreasonable or irrelevent to expect a model used to predict future climate should be able to accurately model past climate which is specifically used as evidence of an unprecedented change in climate and temperature for the planet.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I wonder what "AGW IS NOT REAL" means. Does it mean that no human activity (like altering the albedo of a city by planting trees) affects the environment? http://www.academicjournals.org/Jhf/PDF/pdf2011/Ju...

    Does it mean that AGW is

    - a significant driver of climate change? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0...

    - a major driver of climate change? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl#Causes

    - the main driver of climate change? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:...

    - the only important driver of climate change like many of the computer models from the IPCC assume?

    http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2007/06-07-07/It...

    (page 4)

    I suspect that some people who make that claim do not know themselves, and would prefer not to get into it.

    I also wonder what is meant by "REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION". Does it mean that the organization

    - supports what they consider to be the "consensus" opinion?

    - does not make statements against against the "consensus" opinion?

    - does not attempt to settle scientific questions by voting?

    - is at least partly a government organization? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Nationa...

    Any of the above definitions of "REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION" would make the statement true.

    The purpose of the 200 000 year comparison is a reference to the problem that CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temperature rather than a leading indicator.

    Edit @jyushchy:

    Actually, the way consensus works is that when there is wide agreement on a scientific issue, no organization claiming to be a science organization has any desire to make any position statement on the subject anymore.

    "... someone would have manipulated such models to provide a summary saying that the Sun ..."

    Yes, but there is no reason to think that such a model would preform any better than the AGW based models do, and they do not. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsZqL...

    "Cave men were not driving SUVs 200,000 years ago."

    I missed the point. Is it that CO2 is only important for climate change if it comes out of a tail pipe?

    Edit @Alida Shepard:

    Those biological models often make good engineering calculations, become scientific gospel among biologists, but then, are found to be useful, but wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelis%E2%80%93Men...

    So far, AGW models have yet to even be useful. http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1286008226.PDF

  • Noah H
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    An amazing amount of good information. Let me simplify. Burning anything creates CO2 gas. The more you burn, the more gas is created. The Earth's atmosphere is paper thin...there's only X amount of volume...what goes into the atmosphere stays there. The more CO2 and other gases there are, the more heat will be retained. That's as basic as it gets. That's the science and the physics. The US Navy is convinced as are ALL the other navies in the world. All the insurance companies in the world are convinced. All the ocean shipping companies in the world are convinced and all of the above are putting a considerable amount of their money on this thing we call climate change. Actually it;s more than just 'climate change'....this is historical change no less then the invention of fire, agriculture, the manufacture of iron, and the discovery of the New World. Human societies from the top to the bottom, economics, religion, food production, the meaning of wealth and the fate of nations is on the cusp of change so profound that nothing in human history since the rise of the first nation states 10,000 years ago can compare. This is it. A new world order. Believe the data or not, change is happening as we speak!

    Source(s): I'm not a scientist though I did serve as a meteologist in the US Navy for ten years. Since then I also worked as a history professor at a pretty good university. I keep in touch with both.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Let's see. I do not see any examples of any organizations in your question which "CLAIM THAT AGW IS NOT REAL."

    Taking no stand at all about AGW is not "CLAIMING THAT AGW IS NOT REAL." Taking a neutral stand about AGW is not "CLAIMING THAT AGW IS NOT REAL"

    Ranger

    <maybe cause data models are manipulated by entries that humans put in to provide a summary of what outcome they were looking for.>

    Regarding the Math error

    If that were true, if it were possible to manipulate models to produce the outcome they were looking for, then by now, someone would have manipulated such models to provide a summary saying that the Sun or some other natural factor is driving global warming.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-onl...

    <And the hockey stick graph was confirmed to be a fraud.>

    It was? I guess I missed that. I must have been busy reading about science.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stic...

    Portland

    <I also wonder what is meant by "REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION". Does it mean that the organization

    <- supports what they consider to be the "consensus" opinion?

    <- does not make statements against against the "consensus" opinion?

    <- does not attempt to settle scientific questions by voting?

    <- is at least partly a government organization?>

    That is not how science works. Scientific consensus happens when the evidence is so compelling, that even most scientists agree that the evidence is compelling. Scientific organizations do not become reputable by conforming. They do so by making contributions which advances science.

    <The purpose of the 200 000 year comparison is a reference to the problem that CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temperature rather than a leading indicator.>

    Please do not be dishonest. CO2 WAS a lagging indicator of global temperature. Cave men were not driving SUVs 200,000 years ago.

  • 9 years ago

    Where does the statement come from? Well, it's pretty self-evident--take a look all the reputable scientific organizations.

    You should understand that the statement you quote from AAPG is not in conflict with the assertion in your question. If you don't realize that then you need to re-read both of them, and understand what is really being said. I get the impression from AAPG's statement that they are trying to be as non-committal as they can while not denying global warming. Since there is a pretty obvious conflict of interest between their employment and AGW, I think they're trying to walk a fine line between admitting that it's real or appearing to be fools. Of course AAPG are neither known as experts in climate nor in the physics of the Earth-Atmosphere system, so they're not who I'd look to for an expert opinion on climate anyway.

    Ranger, as Trevor points out, the number you give is laughably incorrect. The actual number should have been more like 0.000003%, but that's not really important. What do investment commercials always give as a qualifier at the end? "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." The same is true about climate. We don't know the details of the pre-Cambrian climate like we do the climate of today, and we never will. However we make the assumption (not that radical) that the laws of physics ARE the same. That allows to understand and forecast the near future without having known what the conditions were like one billion years ago. And if you expect to have a "control" Earth to run experiments on, you have some sort of delusions of grandeur--that's never going to happen. What we can do, though, is run NUMERICAL experiments with control Earths to get some idea what's going to happen as we change the composition of the atmosphere--that's where the warming predictions come from. To understand the workings of the numerical climate models requires a knowledge of physics and mathematics, though. Given your absurdly wrong estimate for the fraction of the Earth's history that we have been studying climate, I suspect you need to brush up on both.

    EDIT for Portland Joe: Here are organizations I would say are NOT reputable scientific organizations: Greenpeace, Heartland Institute, OISM, Union of Concerned Scientists

    They are clearly not intended as organizations of professional scientists, but are advocacy groups.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    The problem Trevor seems to be trying to communicate to you is that you haven't properly negated the statement "such-and-such organization claims AGW is not real." The negation is not "such-and-such organization claims AGW is real," it's "such-and-such organization does not claim AGW is not real."

    The operative action here is "claims," so an organization can only claim, not claim, not not claim, not not not claim, so on.

    If we start by assuming this conditional:

    "If it's a scientific organization, then it does not claim AGW is false"

    or, P --> Q

    then it is false if the contradiction is true, P --> ~Q.

    Q is a negation of another proposition (NOT "says AGW is false"), so:

    Q <=> ~A

    P --> ~A is our conditional. Let's solve for the contradiction to see this from another point of view, and if it's true, then we know the conditional is false:

    P --> ~(~A)

    ~P v ~(~A)

    ~(P ^ ~A)

    Each of those statements must have the same truth value, so let's evaluate the last statement:

    1) Is the AAPG a scientific organization? Yes, true.

    2) Did it say AGW was false? No (A is false).

    ~(T ^ ~F)

    ~(T ^ T)

    ~T

    F

    If the contradiction is false, the conditional is true.

  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Your question is basically asking “where does a fact come from”.

    There isn’t a single national or international scientific organisation on the planet that refutes that humans are influencing the climate. That’s a fact, it’s how the world is, you might not like it but that doesn’t alter reality.

    The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which is who you are quoting, does not dispute that global warming is real; for the last few years they have adopted a non-committal stance. For many years they claimed there was no such thing as global warming, nowadays they’re basically saying that they don’t know.

    I fail to see how their position detracts from the validity of the statement. Please elaborate.

    Here’s something to consider – why do you think they added the statement about 200,000 years of predictivity. Does it not strike you as being a truly idiotic and half-baked thing to say? If you know anything about the climate then it should.

    - - - - - - - - -

    RANGER – The planet is 1.44*10^17 seconds old, if your statistic were correct then we’ve been monitoring the climate for less then one millionth of a second. Whoever told you that figure is an out and out liar and clearly has to fabricate evidence to support their claims, if they have to make stuff up it means they have no real evidence to use.

    - - - - - - - - - - -

    RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

    The AAPG is NOT claiming that AGW is not real (nor are they claiming it is real), therefore the statement is correct. If the opinion of the AAPG was that global warming was not real then the statement would be falsified, but that is NOT their position; because they are non-committal the statement is correct. It shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

    As for the 200,000 years… It shouldn’t need explaining. What they’re introduced is the concept of natural fluxes consequent to changes within Earth’s orbital variations – absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with manmade global warming. It’s a complete red herring.

    We’re talking about warming on a scale of perhaps 2°C to 4°C over 100 years. If this level of warming persisted for 200,000 years then Earth would be hotter than the Sun.

    We know what the natural cycles are that the planet goes through, we know what influence they have on the climate. By introducing this fallacy they’re effectively showing their dishonesty, what thy conveniently forgot to mention was that we’re in a COOLING phase within the scheme of these long term natural cycles.

    The last ‘ice-age’ ended 10,000 years ago, we’re now heading toward the next one. For the last 10,000 years the planet has cooled, excepting any human influence then it will keep cooling for the next 80,000 years. We should be cooling down, not warming up at a rate many times faster than anything that could possibly be ascribed to nature and not to a level that makes this planet warmer now than at any time for the last 130,000 years.

    As a further humiliation for the AAPG, climate models can take natural variations into consideration. Run them for 200,000 years and they do show very significant temperature changes consequent to these cycles. And by hindcasting they accurately replicate historical variations such as ice-ages. Shame the AAPG didn’t have the honesty and integrity to admit this.

  • 9 years ago

    Read the AAPG statement again. Read it carefully. Remember that AAPG is not entirely a scientific organization but also a lobbyist for the oil industry and trade association for high salary geologists and engineers in the oil industry. Under enormous political pressure to deny global warming what do they say? Do they deny it? No. The say the data do not necessarily support the MAXIMUM case scenarios. That is in total agreement with other science organizations: the maximum scenarios are know to be less likely than then midpoint. The also say the current projections could fall within natural levels -- what that means is that statistically there is a 2% chance it could be natural; that too is known. There is as much statistical chance that the maximum scenarios happen as it turning out to be natural. There is a range of statistical uncertainty with the greatest likelihood being ongoing warming of about 2 degrees per century. They are in agreement.

    Even the petroleum geologists do not claim that AGW is not real. They claim that it is real. Seriously, read the statement. That's why it is there.

    Furthermore, the petroleum geologists SUPPORT:

    * REDUCING emissions from FOSSIL fuel use as a worthy goal.

    * the pursuit of economically viable technology to SEQUESTER CARBON DIOXIDE emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment

    * research to NARROW probabilistic RANGES on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.

    Each of those goals relates directly to AGW. Why do they support sequestering CO2 unless they are admitting that CO2 is harmful, since as we know other than it's warming effect CO2 is good for the environment?

    The AAPC is has made clear in their statement that AGW is real.

    NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL. Not one.

    Source(s): Who says there is no scientific organization that denies AGW? Moe just demonstrated the point very clearly.
  • 9 years ago

    <<Where does this come from? NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL.?>>

    No reputable scientific organization says that Man really walked on the Moon.

    Neil Armstrong on Fox News admitted that it was all a hoax and that Al Gore paid him to claim he was walking on the Moon, when in reality he and Buzz Aldrin were actually bowling in New Jersey at the time.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    It is too late to stop it now. The Lear Jet liberals are quietly building shelters for themselves and their families.

    Rich lefties like Al Gore will survive the coming climate apocalypse. That is why no one has seen him lately.

    You and I and the other ordinary people will die -- probably by the year 2019.

    Source(s): opinion
  • JOE
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    That's simply an irrefutable politician's definition of a Reputable Scientific Organisation .

    Ie. One that doesn't allow any questioning or dissent on the question if AGW. - such sycophantic behaviour is the very antitheses of science.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.