The four witnesses are: John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke Jr.
Stacked 3-1 against the consensus. Perhaps 2.5-1.5 at best.
I believe all four witnesses accept the consensus that man's emission of greenhouse gas is causing the planet to warm.
a) Christy didn't (see my latest post).b) that is insufficient.
0.5 from Roger.
DiC, Judith Curry referred to it as "the so-called consensus". She doesn't even acknowledge that there is a consensus, let alone accept it.
Layzej -- I can't speak for Dr. Curry, but I find the word "consensus" ambiguous. First of all, the word can mean widespread agreement or majority of opinion. Presumably, when discussing climate the former definition is the one being used.More important is the uncertainty or vagueness of just what the consensus opinion consists of. As I understand it, there is a consensus of scientific opinion that the planet is warming, that man's emission of greenhouse gases contributes to the warming, and that the warming will eventually do harm if it continues long enough. OTOH I believe there is not widespread agreement as to -- the value of climate sensitivity, -- whether and how global warming has affected natural catastrophes, such as windstorms, floods, and droughts, and how it will affect them in the future-- which model best forecasts future warming, -- the amount of harm that will be caused by a given amount of warming-- the amount of benefit produced by global warming-- the degree of effectiveness of various proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.IMHO the word "consensus" goes along with the phrase "settled science". Yes, the science is settled and there is a consensus, but only for a few of the key questions. BTW it's my understanding that Dr. Curry believes that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, but that there's a lot of uncertainty in many of the details. I wonder why that view is considered not to be in agreement with the consensus.
David wrote:"BTW it's my understanding that Dr. Curry believes that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, but that there's a lot of uncertainty in many of the details. I wonder why that view is considered not to be in agreement with the consensus."Because it's wrong.The great irony of this "debate" is that the radiative forcing of the GHGs is the *well-known* part of the science, because it's the most amenable to treatment by well-known physical laws. They Planck Law is firmly established, as is the molecular spectra of CO2 and other GHGs.The uncertainties and difficulties lie in the response of the carbon cycle. It is less understood and much harder to model, both in time and space, and that's where the unknowns and difficulties are.But the properties and forcings of the GHGs? Understood decades ago. That makes the "debate" highly ironic -- deniers are so concerned about CO2, without realizing the doubts are elsewhere. They seem to think enough of their denial will get CO2 off the hook so we can freely burn fossil fuels again without worry, but it just shows they don't understanding the physics. CO2 will never be innocent again.
It's proper to criticize those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but where are the serious proposals to deal with the CO2 problem? The Paris Agreement and Kyoto Agreement are more symbolic than real. USA Today reported an opinion by Bjorn Lomborg a couple of days ago:The Paris Agreement is not the way to solve global warming.Even if every nation fulfilled everything promised — including Obama’s undertakings — it would get us nowhere near achieving the treaty’s much-hyped, unrealistic promise to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees Celsius.The U.N. itself has estimated that even if every country lived up to every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030, emissions would be cut by just one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2 C.My analysis, similar to findings by scientists at MIT, shows that even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then they'd only reduce temperature rises about 0.3 degrees F by 2100.Moreover, many poor nations signed up to the treaty largely because of a promise of $100 billion a year of "climate aid" from rich nations, starting from 2020. Over the past five years, rich countries have managed to come up with only a 10th of one year’s promise.It is only a matter of time before taxpayers from wealthy nations balk at the bill waiting for them. That will make many developing countries back out of the whole process.This climate approach rehashes a failed policyhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/29/trump-order-paris-treaty-emissions-bjorn-lomborg-column/99737238/To use a metaphor, deniers say the Titanic isn't sinking. Skeptics say, it's sinking but we don't know what to do, so let's do nothing until we figure out a proper response. The Consensus says we should all start bailing with teacups.
David in Cal said..."It's proper to criticize those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but where are the serious proposals to deal with the CO2 problem?"Sures, as if the deniers' problems with CO2 is that the proposed solutions are not drastic enough.
Hi DiC,If you are uncertain about what the consensus is, read the latest IPCC report.
Post a Comment