Apologies if a repost:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

It looks very much like a consensus to me- It even has verifiable signatories

I wouldn't say so.

Of course you wouldn't- it doesn't fit within your heavily blinkered postion

Seeing as you are typically trying to muddy the waters as to what and which documents are worth acting on, tell me FD- what is the defining criteria of when consensus statement actually is and when it just looks like one?

I'm not the one trying to muddy the waters here.

Yes..you are

Seems like there is a fair few of PhD scientists there that don't meet your standards...Interesting how you totally dismiss them. Your bias clouds your judgement...how surprising 

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Co

I'm asking you as you're the one that has rejected it as a consensus statement without a reasonable argument

I don't know why I even bothered arguing this far.

Because you jump on anything that doesn't support your one eyed view??

Agree with you FD..not a concensus statement.

Great arguement

no

So you define a consensus as a view agreed to by those who agree to it? By that definition, any statement is a consensus statement. Obviously, the 'group as a whole' cannot consist merely of those who agree with the statement, otherwise you destroy any meaning of the word consensus.

To put it really simply:

Consensus: this is what our peers agree on.

'Minority report' (for want of a better term): We think our peers are wrong.

Which term do you think applies best to the linked statement?

So you agree it isn't a consensus statement?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007

INTRODUCTION:      

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK)  In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation.  It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote.

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Seems pretty clear to me

How many of these 400 scientists think humans are not contributing to climate change?

The question is, to what degree and can anything logical be done about it

The 'to what degree' question needs to be answered first.

Easy: green tax shift.

Whether this is logical is debateable

You haven't answered the 'to what degree' question yet...not to mention whether any action we take will make any difference short or long term.

Your 'Green Tax Shift' may or may not be a logical response

Unless you concede that humans are responsible for global warming there is not much point going into detail about how far we should go in responding and what effect it will have.


Unless you concede that you don't know if humans are responsible and to what degree they are responsible then you must also concede that response of a 'green tax shift' might not be logical.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 6:33pm:


You have said yourself there is no verifiable proof humans have had anything to do with global warming.  You know it is unprovable.  How can anyone concede that which can never be known?

Right - once you concede that we are probably responsible. As far as I know the IPCC acknowledges the degree of uncertainty.

Also, whatever degree of mitigation you decide to take, a green tax shift is the best way to achieve it, unless you want to ban GHG emissions completely, or close to it.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 6:58pm:


Do you concede that humans are responsible for global warming?

Just because the people who agree with it, agree with it?

deepthought wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2007 at 6:56pm:


Bump for a visually challenged freediver

[Jaws theme]Bump... bump    bump...bump   bumpbump bumpbump bumpbump [/jaws theme]

It's either one of two things- convenience or ignorance? Perhaps FD can answer if his non answer is for his convenience or his ignorance?

Do you concede that humans are responsible for global warming?

A simple yes or no will do it

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 25^th, 2007 at 8:31pm:


I'm curious why you use the word 'concede' IQ.

Uh oh...could be another couple of weeks before we can a simple answer.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2007 at 8:45pm:


So you do concede that humans are responsible for global warming?

I have not seen you say that outright is all.  You slither about it using words like 'probably', maybe' etc.  Why can't you answer simple questions with some civility?


Do you concede that humans are responsible for global warming?

I don't believe they are responsible at all for global warming.

I believe it is highly likely that global warming is real and that humans are primarily reponsible.

But anyway as you believe that it is highly likely, can you explain what caused global warming before humans were primarily reponsible?

Bump 

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 25^th, 2007 at 9:16pm:


DT, he said:

Quote:


Are you, DT, asserting that 'global warming' is occurring and that it was happening in a human less environment?

Aussie wrote on Dec 25^th, 2007 at 9:52pm:


I don't need to assert it - it is a fact.  Everyone knows about it (apart from you apparently though as the other thread about Little Kevvy attests you seem to have been in a coma for a while) - here check it out for yourself.  This rather nice graph shows the regularly occurring global warming and cooling cycles over the last (nearly) half a million years.  It has been warmer than today in fact.  And I have a fair idea that humans weren't generating a lot of electricity or roaring about in gas guzzling Ford Territories much before a hundred years ago.



Now I'm waiting for freediver to explain just why this period of global warming is different to all the others as humans are primarily responsible for this one according to him.  What happened before to cause it?  Could it all just be perfectly natural?  I'm inclined to believe so - as history is my guide.

freediver?  Your answer if you will.

This is a far too much of a stretch to be spending billion of dollars on for a solution that maybe non-existent

Far better to spend those trillions of dollars on proper solutions if need be.

For starters, you just need to change your taxation base.

An expense in itself and for what gain?

Which will achieve what when you consider global output?

How much reduction?

Say 100% reduction...what will that achieve for global warming?

Does the IPCC talk about a tax shift and the outcomes that are involved and the differences or are you just talking out your ars*e?

We all know the benefits of a trading system are negligible within the next 100+ years at a minimum...

[Kevin Rudd questionnaire to himself] does your magical tax-shift improve this to any extent? Not really[/Kevin Rudd questionnaire]

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:


So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming?  Only humans do now?  Why?  What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:


Bump Bump

Google must be down...

There are some big differences. The scientists who signed it claim it was a consensus statement and claim that it represents the views of the broader community and is based on the research and conclusions of their peers. The statement you provided is very different. It clearly implies that it is a minority view. If you asked any of the signatories, they would also tell you it is not a consensus statement. The 'essential features' you refer to omit the only truly essential feature - the consensus.

I'm not saying there has to be anything scientific about it. You could come up with a consensus among left handed baptist ministers and I would concede it is a consensus statement. The difference is that the group has to be defined by something else other than the fact that they agree with each other. It's the definition of consensus that is tripping you up.

As I pointed out earlier, if you accept as a consensus any statement agreed upon by those who agree with it, you destroy any meaning of the term. By that definition, all statements that more than one person agrees with are consensus statements. Obviously, you need an unrelated way to define the group to get any meaning. The 'group as a whole' in your definition cannot be defined by the subset of a group that agrees with the statement.

So how do you define the group then?  How many peopole have to sign it?  Out of how big a group?

The group definition can be totally arbitrary - like left handed baptist ministers. Just so long as it is not defined by those who agree with the statement. I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding what the term consensus really means.

So you still think it's a consensus statement? Do you think that any statement representing the views of those who agree with it is a consensus statement?

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:31pm:


Bumpity Bumtpity Bpumtitty Pumbitty Pump Bum.

Quote:


The moment he asks one I will be sure to oceans.

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 5:13pm:


As freediver continues to post while ignoring this it would be safe to assume he is wrong that humans cause global warming.  And as global warming and cooling has been cycling through the planet's existence it is sheer arrogance to assume we are that important to the globe that the tiny bit of fiddling about we do has any effect whatsoever on a system as complex as atmospheric conditions.

In fact if we are so powerful at altering the weather why don't we stop hurricanes?  Care to answer a simple question free?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 4:07pm:


Imagine how I feel!!!!!