Si modo, again, no one has to break a law in order to be indicted. If they did, you wouldn't need a judicial power, only the legislative and executive power.

No they don't. But calling for an indictment based on Hansen's comments - the subject of the thread, that is - is a frightening attitude.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Sorry, I wasn't clear that I was speaking hypothetically about any theory in general, didn't mean to hit a nerve (even if without research I think I'm pretty close among the true scientific community actively doing the research, but let's not get into that).

Taking it out of the context of any specific debate, I think I still have a legitimate question. Are "you guys" saying consensus is not a valid term, or just saying it doesn't apply here?

__________________
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black. -Johnny Cash

I can offer a supporting link. This site:

http://skepticalscience.com/global-w...-consensus.htm

According to that site, there have been two studies of peer reviewed papers that deal with climate.

First we have the Oreskes study which claims that a survey of peer reviewed papers dealing with climate science over the period of 1993 to 2003 showed that 75% agreed that AGW was real, while 25% made no mention either way.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686#

The second study by Klaus-Martin Schulte for the period 2004 to 2007 claims that 6% of papers reject the consensus.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00002/art00006

Either way, the consensus itself is not science. But there is indeed a healthy scientific consensus with respect to AGW. I think it is worth noting at the very least.

If the review of papers does not really do it for you though there is also this list at the link i provided of all the scientific organizations around the globe that endorse the theory of AGW.

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Thanks, for the information. 75% is certainly no consensus. And, consensus is an inappropriate term to use with respect to AGW and conclusions based on it.

As 25% of those doing research in this area have not found found the data strong enough to definitively state AGW is major cause of climate change, I must conclude that the state of the science is not advanced enough to conclude one way or the other. I suspect one thing, but have not seen the science as strong enough to go beyond suspicion. Scientific conclusions are not based on suspicions or gut-feels. With respect to the second review of papers, they found 6% reject APW but it is important to note that they also found 32% also did not make any definitive conclusion on AGW.

Also, it is completely inaccurate to state that NASA/NOAA/EPA or any other US federal granting agency "endorses" anything. NO federal granting agency endorses anything; endorsement of anything is against regulations and against rules of ethics.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'll speak for myself on this one. Consensus is a fine term. It does not apply here, though. As there is still enough valid research where no support of AGW exists even with AGW as part of the original hypothesis, I must conclude that the state of the science has not reached the point to provide a definitve conclusion about it. However, I do believe that the science will develop to the point to be able to have AGW accepted as fact (like a the round Earth so many are willing to marginalize others by using it as an anaolgy) or not.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

You misread the article.
in the 1st survey mentioned of 928 papers, 75% accepted Global Warming, 25% did not mention it as they dealt with something where global warming was irrelevant, like paleolithic global warming, and none rejected the theory.
In another survey, this taken later 6% of the works rejected AGW.

There are always fringe works, but over time consensus seems to build on one theory as superior to others.
Evolution v Creation.
Spacetime v ether
Chemistry v Alchemy
Antibiotics v The power of prayer to heal

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Didn't misread it at all. Yet, you did misread my comment.

And, thanks for the opportunity to again state that the second review found that percentage to be 32% (6% who concluded that APW can be rejected).

Your attempts to marginalize by using analogies to alchemy, etc. is equivalent to my comment about the round Earth analogies and reinforces my view that politics needs to stay away from science.

It is sad that the partisan nature of politics has so soiled a science, but dilettantes often drastically overestimate their abilities and some even choose hyperbole for a transparent disguise. Hyperbole is often a red flag for incompetence or lack of confidence in conclusions.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

The neutral papers don't indicate the authors have not found the data strong enough. They are papers that didn't wade in on the subject so nothing can be determined from the paper. The author could very much accept AGW.

It is possible. It is also a fact that there is no consensus.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

The 25% of the papers do not reject or affirm AGW, they are mainly papers dealing with issues in the paleoclimate record. So what we have is in the Oreskes a minimum of 75% of papers affirming AGW, with the other 25% just not rejecting it or affirming it. The point is that not one single paper rejected AGW theory.

Its quite fair to say the consensus is rather larger than 75% given the second study was at 94% affirmation of AGW.

I have no idea what a consensus is defined as, other than it would be a strong majority. The point is that, by far, most climate scientists accept the view of AGW. This either means that there is enough evidence to support the view, or that there is a vast global conspiracy of scientists to bring down the global economy. You don't strike me as the tin-foil hat type person Si Modo.


That is just semantics. The NOAA publishes articles prominently on their website like this one:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...atereport.html

Which state things like the following:

"Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this time period and continued changes are projected for this century."

Whether you use the term 'endorse', or whatever term. They don't reject the theory of AGW and in fact produce literature that affirms it.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

WTH is this supposed to mean? Hyperbole much? That attitude is highly dismissable.

If one wants to talk about tin foil or conspiracies, let's examine your well-known desire that the evil human beings need to catch some deadly virus or some other sort of disaster needs to occur so that the trees and roaches can live without human interference. Dangerous and insane attitude, so perhaps around you one would need some shielding.

Don't go there unless prepared - there is plenty of information in the arsenal.

For God's sake - semantics deal with the meaning of a term. NO federal granting agency ENDORSES ANYTHING. They fund research and do their own research. To endorse anything is a violation of regulations and ethics. ANYONE endorsing anything at an agency will rapidly lose their job - not an easy thing for an FTE to do.

They do not endorse a thing, and they do not reject a thing. The do fund fesearch investigating valid science to answer valid scientific questions.

Disingenous post, Andrewl - very.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Guess i hit a nerve. I have never even remotely said anything like the above, nor did i accuse you of anything. Your reaction speaks volumes though.

Such an angry post Si Modo, very unlike you. Simply put, their research backs up the AGW theory and their published reports reflect that. The term endorsement is perhaps the wrong term - big deal. The point remains though.

BTW, your faith in the politica

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

You never said what I quoted you saying? That's rich.

Ah, make personal attacks then accuse the response as being angry. Rich again. You've just lost any credibilty in your agrument. You've taken the low road because there is nothing left.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition