What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

My association with academia includes having dealt with students aspiring to put down the holly-cows of science. And they're brutal! Most of them fail, of course, but I can't even conceive of a graduate student or a recently graduated scientist who just got their PhD and hasn't tried, to some degree. At that point, few of them (if any) even have a job in their fields. So they have nowhere to go but UP. But, for that, they need to be noticed. And what better way for an unemployed climatologist to get noticed than science publications, and maybe even newspapers mentioning them as having found a significant flaw in an IPCC report.

Not only does anybody who has had ANY contact whatsoever with scientific areas in Academia understand this. Most likely because they have LIVED it. But anybody with half a brain would realize the benefits of an unknown student suddenly gaining any sort of notoriety in their field.

Could you even BEGIN to imagine if a student suddenly revealed that for over 100 years scientists have been analyzing AGW, but NONE have ever thought of including in their calculation... solar flares... or volcanoes... or how much CO2 is produced in the oceans...? Or any of the nonsense the pages you cite CLAIM they, and they alone, have managed to "discover".

 

As I said, aspirational.

Abstract
Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and therefore prone to bias. Such bias may lead to consensus not based on evidence. While appealing to scientific consensus is a legitimate tool in public debate and regulatory decisions, such an appeal is illegitimate in scientific discussion itself. We provide examples of decades-long scientific consensus on erroneous hypotheses. For policy advice purposes, a scientific statement or model should be considered as the subject of proper scientific consensus only if shared by those who would directly benefit from proving it wrong. Otherwise, specialists from adjacent fields of science and technology should be consulted.

Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC6557026

by Y Socol · 2019 · Cited by 4 — Such bias may lead to consensus not based on evidence. While appealing to scientific consensus is a legitimate tool in public debate and ...
‎Consensus in Science · ‎Interests and Bias · ‎Scientific Consensus in Policy...

 

And, for this reason, we have a Scientific Method. So the bias, interests and other shortcomings of human beings interfere as little was possible with the acquisition of knowledge.

Looks like now you shift to openly attack science using the age-old method of attacking scientists. This is typical when the pseudoscience promoter runs out of arguments. But it does make it clear to all of us, in case anybody was wondering, that what you do is not attack AGW... or any particular scientific model.. It's to attack SCIENCE.

Thanks for proving my point...

 

Well, no. The paper I cited is itself part of the scientific process. Just let that sink in.
"Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist's position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress."
— Thomas S. Kuhn
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition (1970), 206.

 

Is it? Then let's take a closer look....

Looks like you just officially declared the scientific consensus about AGW

"Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

"Human activities have contributed to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. This must have some effect on the radiation balance which ultimately determines global climate" (Shell internal Analysis 1995)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411100-Document12.html#document/p2/a411448

"ExxonMobil supports the work of the Paris signatories, acknowledges the ambitious goals of this agreement and believes the company has a constructive role to play in developing solutions."
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Su...reement#Statementonagreemententeringintoforce

1991 4-minute clip from video by BPs Education service

(Full video at https://www.bpvideolibrary.com/record/463)

In their milestone declaration, the CEOs of the 10 companies that currently make up the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – confirmed that they¬ recognise the general ambition to limit global average temperature rise to 2 degrees centigrade and that the existing trend of the world’s net global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not consistent with this ambition.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corpor...jointly-declare-action-on-climate-change.html

Welcome to reality!

 

Not only did Exxon know about it, they published or shared all their research results.
The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared
2016 › 04 › 20 › the-exxon-climate-papers-show-what-exxon-and-climate-science

Meanwhile, you should not confuse public relations posturing with matters of conviction.

And:
‘There is No Climate Emergency’ (1,107 Signatories and Counting)
Guest Blogger
Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and…

 

Welcome to team "Environmental Alarmists"!

 

Eight Years or 78, What’s the Difference.



'Seems these dumb alarmists don’t know the difference between centuries and decades:'

'The record-breaking heat waves seen across much of the world in recent months will become increasingly common by the end of the decade, according to research.'

'The end of the decade, you say? Please continue:'

'By 2100, dangerous conditions will occur in western Europe, the US, China and Japan three to 10 times as often.'

And it's fake news. We don't have to guess what the tropics are like in warm earth conditions as the earth has spent the vast majority of its time in warm earth conditions, the tropics are about the same as now, what's different is that the poles are much warmer. And, little to no deserts. That's different.

 

The alarmists are those who falsely claimed Exxon hid their results, and used that false claim to stoke hysteria.

 

The "alarmists" are those who, like you have now proven, understand there is a scientific consensus for AGW.

We carry the title with pride...

 

As you wish.

 

I don't get why lefties think righties don't believe in man made global warming. Increased CO2 emissions (Of which humans cause a lot of) lead to green house effect leading to increased global warming
This science has been the same for years.
Why isn't the left doing anything about it? How is less oil production here going to help? That just means more oil production somewhere else (same amount of pollution) and less money in our pockets.
Come talk when you have some real solutions! As of now the left just cares about "global warming" as a political weapon and nothing more. Also very funny that the biggest offenders are the preachy ones like Kerry. Also, I find it hilarious the left does not hold the two biggest polluters, india and CHINA accountable.

Why is that?

 

This is what happens when consensus enforcement prevents peer review.
Systemic Error in Global Temperature Measurement
Guest Blogger
The result is a reduction of the temperature change between the decades 1880-1890 and 2010-2020 from 1.43°C to 0.83°C CI(95%) [0.46°C; 1.19°C]. . . .
I collected all the sources and wrote a paper about my findings: Correction of Systematic Error in Global Temperature Analysis Related to Aging Effects. I tried to publish this paper in four different peer reviewed journals, but it was always rejected with canned answers (“…our readers would not be interested…”) even before it was reviewed by a peer. . . .

 

No warming in Portugal.
Scientists Identify 3 More Regions That ‘Global’ Warming Has Not Touched Since The 1800s
By Kenneth Richard on 1. September 2022

Share this...
New studies identify sites in Portugal, southern Africa, and Arctic Svalbard that have not warmed in the last few centuries.
Daily temperature records in northern Portugal indicate no net warming from 1863-2004 (Nunes, 2022). Also, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 21st century at this location.



Image Source: Nunes, 2022

continued . . .

 

Or Madagascar.
A 334-year coral record from southernmost Africa (Madagascar) indicates there has been no obvious long-term net sea surface temperature trend since the 1800s (Zinke et al., 2022).



Image Source: Zinke et al., 2022

continued . . .

 

Or Svalbard.
Per another new study, a site in north Svalbard was 2-5°C warmer with much less sea ice cover than today throughout the first half of the Holocene, or from about 10,000 to 5000 years ago.

For the last 200 years (1800s to present) there has been no significant change in the temperature, increased sea ice, and glaciomarine conditions.

“Over the last 200 years, a relatively similar configuration to present-day conditions at the core site…[and an] increase of sea ice cover indicators…”


Image Source: Peral et al., 2022

 

Yes. Because the "G" in AGW stands for PortuGal, right?

There is nothing more ridiculous than somebody who doesn't understand science trying to attack science.

 

I'm not the one attacking science. I'm the one showing you science. It all seems new to you.

 

No you're not. When you try to push the idea that "Global" means specific arbitrary countries, you are showing pseudoscience.

"Global" means the whole world!

 

Note that the latest round included three widely spaced locations. "Global" is part of your claim, and therefore your burden of proof. Those three locations undermine your global claim.

 

"Global" is ALL my claim. It's in the name: Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. It means "everywhere". Not cherry-picking. It means the average temperature of the WHOLE planet.

Looks like you have given up on even so much of giving a semblance of being rational. That's what your big dive into pseudoscience ended up making of you.

Oh well...

 

Global temperature has been cooling since 2016.
UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2022: +0.28 deg. C
September 1st, 2022
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2022 was +0.28 deg. C, down from the July, 2022 value of +0.36 deg. C.



The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). . . .

 

Not really news anymore, but a good account. The "consensus" took a beating.
Report On Yesterday's Soho Forum Climate Change Debate
August 16, 2022/ Francis Menton

• 
  The Soho Forum “climate change” debate yesterday went off without a hitch at the Sheen Center on Bleecker Street in Lower Manhattan. The proposition debated was “Climate Science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University took the affirmative; Steven Koonin of NYU took the negative. Mrs. MC and I were among the sponsors of this debate. Daughter (and MC contributor) Jane Menton, who is Chief of Operations for the Soho Forum, was responsible for lining up the speakers and taking care of all the event details.
  
  
• Congratulations to the Soho Forum for succeeding in having Dessler actually show up and participate in this debate. Generally, the official position of the climate alarm movement is that no adherent should ever debate a skeptic who expresses doubt about any aspect of the orthodoxy. After the debate, I made a point of approaching Dessler, and thanking him personally for his willingness to participate. In our short conversation, he said that several of his colleagues had told him that he should not debate a “denier” like Koonin, but that he had decided that it was important to engage with the public. This willingness to engage publicly is much to Dessler’s credit.
  
  
• I was very much looking forward to hearing one of the marquee names of the climate movement give his best statement of the basis for the position that “greenhouse gas” emissions must be reduced. At the end, I was left thinking, “Could this really be all they’ve got?”
  

READ MORE

 

I firmly grasp it. Carbon is the basic molecule of life. Every molecule of life at some point existed as a molecule of Carbon Dioxide. Those that seek to limit Carbon Dioxide seek to limit life.

I seek the expansion of life, therefore, I welcome carbon dioxide level rising and life becoming more abundant.



The ancient native Americans credited the farting buffalo with the retreat of the deadly glaciers of North America. It's interesting to me that the little ice age finally retreated as the American beef herd approached 100 million head, which was roughly the size of the American Buffalo herd prior to it's rapid extinction in 1800's.

 

Actually, he's right. Truth is never established by the waving of hands, it's established by how well a proposition matches reality. Some of the Left struggles with this because they want their propaganda recognised as 'fact' even when it's falsified by reality.