It is a claim made by those familiar with the science in question and also with the way science works.

Please do not waste any time referring me to any material on global warming that is not from a peer-reviewed source, such as Nature, Science, or journals specifically related to climate science. I would not on many scientific issues be this tight-assed, but global warming is highly politicized and nothing outside genuine scientific publications is to be trusted.

That emphatically includes the material you referenced.

The APS (Am. Phys. Soc.) just announced that it is open.

I've attended ACS (Am. Chem. Soc.) meetings where it is open. I'll look for those abstracts when I get back to work. I imagine the ACS will soon announce it's open rather than dead, soon too.

For quite some time, many of the pure sciences have been cringing at the tactics the climate scientists have resorted to using. When the IPCC showed it's lack of integrity, that pretty much settled it for many of us. The question is open.

[edit] "It" = the "fact" that man-made CO2 is the major cause of warming; it is possible but needs more study. I forgot an antecedent. [/edit]

No they didn't.

http://www.aps.org/

It states right on their front page:

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

What 'tactics' are you referring to? How did the IPCC reveal it's 'lack of integrity'.

It will always need more study. But that should not stop us from acting appropriately and with caution when it comes to our very real impacts on the earth. I would actually affirm your statement above but for the opposite reason: "It" does need more study. We have been acting incredibly irresponsibly without fully understanding the long term implications. We should slow down, study the problem more, and then act appropriately when it comes to resource exploitation and landbase destruction.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Also on their site is a statement saying they accept warming, however the cause is open to further study.

The fact that either of us can cherry pick statemnts to be on one "side", says much. I am not on any side, rather I am on the side of scientifc integrity and open discussion of the current science. The APS is not on any "side" either. They support more study and there is no consensus among the pure scientists.
One addresses both supporting and dissnting infgormation when one is a scientist and addresses both openly. They did not.
You'll be hard-pressed to find me disagreeing with individuals acting responsibly toward the environment. You will find me speaking against Kyoto; it needs reform.

I can't imagine something of this importance being not open to further study.

But as a collective, their official position is that AGW is a real cause of current warming.

I did not cherry pick anything. There was a false report that the APS had changed their opinion on global warming. The quote i provided was directly a response to that misinformation.

Im also on the side of scientific integrity and the science at this point in time on this is overwhelmingly concluding that AGW is a real phenomenon. There is a very strong consensus amongst climate scientists on this issue.


The dissenting information has been fully and thoroughly debated by climate scientists from the IPCC and outside the IPCC. The reports by the IPCC that comes out every four years are put together by politicians and policy makers, not by the scientists. The IPCC is deliberately set-up to forge a consensus for the specific reason that policy makers are meant to act on these reports. The IPCC is not a pure scientific organization, nor is it meant to be.

But the scientists that are a part of that organization have the same integrity of scientists in any other field. I have seen nothing to indicate the contrary.


I agree. Never was a fan of Kyoto myself.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

What exactly is enough of "overwhelming" for a non-scientist to be convinced that something is a fact in the sciences? Shall we decide with a poll? Why continue to study a scientific question that already has a definitive answer?

My apologies in advance, but this is not an argument that makes one believe there is more thinking than emotion involved.

All good questions Si Modo. For a non-scientist who wants to take the issue seriously and responsibly it is worth it to read as much info and as much of the scientific studies as is possible. After doing this one discovers that almost all active climate scientists are producing papers that conclude that AGW is indeed a fact. On top of that almost all of the major scientific institutions spanning the globe likewise produce statements for publication that affirm that AGW is a fact. (i know you hate the term affirm when it comes to a scientific proposition, but those are the words chosen by the scientists, not me. I think in this highly politicized issue they often feel the need to 'affirm' on this issue because of all confusion and misinformation in the mainstream media on this issue.

In regard to the question as to "why continue studying this"... i would argue that is is because the there are still lots of unknowns. The issue of feedback loops is one of the most pressing unknowns as well as the issue of climatge sensitivity. There is still a lack of understanding of exactly what the long term consequences will be, but the issue of whether or not anthropogenic GHG emissions are having an effect is not so much debated in the field of climate science these days.

No apologies necessary. I am emotional on the ideological side of this issue. I can't understand how people can be dispassionate when it come to the earth. But i do try to stick to the science only on this specific issue....

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

One must be dispassionate when doing any scientific studies. I realize that you are quite passionate about the environment. And you are well informed about the science. You have impressed me in this matter. However, I believe you do your cause much disservice with your use of hyperbole at times. That is something that is worthy of consideration for all arguing an issue about which they are passionate.

I agree. I sometimes have some passionate polemics over the general state of civilization and its behavior towards the earth. I also agree that those polemics can often do a disservice to the pure science, which is traditionally dispassionate as a rule. Its just that sometimes science crosses over into sensitive political, philosophical, and cultural issues and emotion becomes difficult to avoid.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

yeah, I heard forrests in Greenland don't set on fire by themselves too! Just a thought.

__________________
Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad.

-- Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna

I'm on the extremist passionate side when it comes to the climate crisis.

Of course it should be studied further. But the idea that as a collective we ought to do nothing baffles me.

I was at a funeral recently and we ended up going back to the house for awhile of the deceased for some drinks and the old fucker who passed away smoked like a chimney. The walls of their house were discolored as a result. When I think about the way that humans have contributed to "smoking" up the atmosphere, my common sense tells me that that just can't be good. It can't be doing "nothing".

Maybe it is just part of a cycle that the polar ice cap in the north is now melting even faster than what was predicted just a few years ago, but it seems like we're helping that cycle along.

And even if we aren't, by some twist of fate, it makes better business sense it the Earth converts entirely to renewable sources of energy. People will live cleaner, their energy costs will go down significantly, and in terms of "Moral Values", we'll be able to say we've good stewards of God's green earth.

As Andrew pointed out, this was a false announcement. They did no such thing.

I might believe that; however -- no offense intended -- chemistry is pretty far from climatology. I would give this about the same weight as I would a society of experimental psychologists questioning the periodic table.

I have seen no evidence of this "cringing."

Here's what I have seen. In peer-reviewed journals that are either devoted to climate science or else general-science in scope, in recent years NO articles WHATSOEVER have been published questioning the idea of AGW. I am highly skeptical of any assertions that the IPCC has corrupted such august publications as Nature and Science and I believe you should be as well. This is what I mean by saying it's a dead question.

Strictly speaking, there are of course no dead questions in science. New evidence could come to light calling anything in scientific theory into question at any time. But as a practical matter, there are some questions in science that are no longer questions, such as the conservation of energy, the validity of quantum mechanics, or the conservation of mass in non-nuclear chemistry. AGW is only slightly more "open" than these questions -- that is, if evidence refuting it were to arise, probably that evidence would receive somewhat less entrenched skepticism than evidence that energy isn't conserved after all. But the fact remains, currently it isn't being questioned, at least not in print, and that means there isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to question it in a way that passes peer review. And this means, within the discipline, we have a scientific consensus.

Which admittedly does not mean the consensus is correct; there are plenty of examples to the contrary in the history of science. But it does mean that an argument against AGW based on the assertion that the question is still up in the air and there is a raging controversy in science over it is a false argument.

Then you are not giving chemistry its due weight w.r.t the atmosphere. First of all, the compounds (those would be chemicals) leading to the infrared absorption and emmission (radiant heat) are due to the electrons of the compounds going between various vibrational energy levels/states in the molecule. Thus the fundamental properties of these gases are absolutely chemistry - vibrational spectroscopy is a fundamental skill of all chemists and it's pretty hard not to get more chemistry oriented.

The rate of difussion of gases is studied as part of an undergraduate's physical chemistry year.

There are constant reactions occurring in the atmosphere, most photolytic. These involve radicals. Radical reactions are chemistry, radical chemistry to be exact.

Shall I continue? I can go all night, but laypersons' eyes tend to glaze over after a while.

I suppose one would have to be a pure scientist to notice it regularly.

Let's do an initial clarification of something: Climate science is by no means a pure science. It is a multidisciplinary field. One must have knowledge in, at least, chemistry and physics, to do the field any justice. And, as they say, jack of all, master of none. In no way do I mean to marginalize climate scientists, however, when it comes to knowing their physics or chemistry, the physicists and chemists will run circles around them, to say the least.

That simply isn't true. I have found many, and when I have access to them on Monday, I will be more than pleased to provide their abstracts and/or conclusions to you upon your request.

Strawman.
Yet, it is still a very open question in the scientific community.

There is no consensus in the scientific community w.r.t. the causation of climate change, yet another dilittante insists there is one while tossing all of us a subtle marginalization with his lumping AGW with quantum mechanics, conservation of mass, etc. Sir, you marginalize those principles by including AGW in with these masterpieces; you marginalize yourself as well.

I do not mean this in a demeaning sense, as I encourage all to be intersted in the sciences, however a fundametal knowledge of scientific integrity is a necessary first to "getting" science.

Actually it is the claim of a politican, not someone knowledgeable about science.

Spoken like a good closed minded mind. The same type of rhetoric and excuses were used against those who denied the wisdom of eugenics. Have the courage to be challenged. MichaelCrichton.com | The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming and MichaelCrichton.com | Complexity Theory and Environmental Management

Yes, I know these are not peer-reviewed, but neither am I presenting them as sources. Read them and argue against what Crichton has to say. If you refuse to read it you will be no better than the Church Fathers who refused to even look through Galileo's telescope. If you lack the courage to defend your position, its pretty obvious why.

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

Well, the chemistry of AGW is not in dispute, is it? I was given to understand that such controversy as existed had to do with to what extent natural causes account for the warming effect measured.

I would be interested in seeing those articles, and where they appeared.

I shall not dignify the rest of your post with a response, frankly.