I suggest that it maybe the global warming consensus that is late to the dance. The EPA was created by agreement between environmental groups, politicians, and business groups, then came regulations. Think of the clean air and water acts and the fact that they are continually updated. In 1979 we had the Montreal protocol, more consensus between the 3 groups mentioned. Think also of the early OPEC oil embargo. Politicians started mandating higher fuel standards in the 70's, Collage campuses in the early 80's began programs of energy conservation along with all levels of gov't bureaucrats doing the same. today energy star ratings are part of every appliance you can purchase. Your local grocery sells high efficient light bulbs. Your local do it yourself stores are full of energy saving products for you to purchase. Without calling it such, we have been heavily invested in global warming mitigation for decades. Technologically advanced countries have be in consensus for sometime working for a better environment for all. The label Global Warming is just Politically Correct Packaging on something we all have already been working on, in most cases without even knowing it.

You make a good point Taylor. But there's no doubt we could do far better than we are. We are the top user of oil and one of the top producers of CO2. The end on effect result is the same.

We are also the unequivocal leader of the world. I'm not saying that justifies gluttony but as the saying goes "you can't make a good omelet" Something I wanted to add toward the groupthink aspect is, the idea of group no-think where as those among us who are participating in all quarters, clueless to what is there part in life.

As to being able to do more toward oil consumption and Co2 production: your right we must but we can't break the bank either, If industry and technology are the trigger and man has indeed squeezed it, than it is no doubt going to take what we have already seen and that's time, but I am certain we will get there, a general panic has rarely produced a net positive result, I think finally I would add that one major holdback to any program of conservation is a charismatic champion for the cause, find that person and you have found a leader. OK so I'll add something else, The U.S. at this time does lack some of the infrastructure needed to implement some mitigation toward as example vehicle fuel consumption and resultant Co2, the switch to electric cars is hamstrung by the fact that our power grid could not handle the electric draw if the ideal of 25% of U.S. cars were switched to electric and all plugged in on Sunday evening in prep for Mondays commute to work, Our electric utilities just don't produce enough power at this time and there isn't an overall plan to add more cogeneration plants in the future to accommodate this potential demand power. As to electric utilities there again we can't break the bank, as new cogen plants come on line there is with each new one very tough emission standards, as I said mitigation toward climate change has been back doored for decades and I see no reason to panic now because we will get there. I think this way because I study energy accounting which is an area of engineering that I think a lay person can glom onto.

Taylor wrote:As to being able to do more toward oil consumption and Co2 production: your right we must but we can't break the bank either,

And this is just what I think must happen... though I'd rather not be around if it does. Would it would be some Hell! Well, it was an interesting post, and I don't disagree with all of it but I'd like to focus on the parts I do.

a general panic has rarely produced a net positive result,

I haven't seen anything resembling a general panic over climate change... but of course perceptions vary. Are there any examples of this panic you can reference?

[...]if the ideal of 25% of U.S. cars were switched to electric and all plugged in on Sunday evening in prep for Mondays commute to work, Our electric utilities just don't produce enough power at this time

The ideal should be for fewer vehicles on the road, and through crook or nook, tax credit or fine - to unclog the roads! But no, everyone has to go to work, at the same time no less, in their own private vehicle. bah. There's your lack of vision, not that there aren't enough plants to handle a ridiculously high number of vehicles needlessly on the roads.

OK so maybe "general panic" is an over statement, but I did watch An Inconvenient Truth I would say the Al Gore movie does purvey a level of panic I think was unnecessary to motivate people to respond to something we've already been mitigating. Well if you think there's a lot of vehicle traffic now just wait a few years and I'm fairly certain you'll see a hell of a lot more, but I do agree that better methods of mass human transport need to be developed as long as it doesn't break the bank, any solution must have economic appeal, I wont be forced into a cattle car to satisfy some other persons idea of ease.

To give an alternative and genuinely skeptical view of what we see as being the popular scientific consensus regarding global warming, ive presented the concept of groupthink and have asked for counter examples in which a consensus was wrong.

Here is an interesting article about obedience and secrecy ultimately led to faulty science.

Here's the primary point of the article followed by a link to it:

"The skeptics who had doubted Anversa's claims all along may now feel vindicated, but this is not the time to gloat. Instead, the discipline of cardiovascular stem cell biology is now undergoing a process of soul-searching. How was it possible that some of the most widely read and cited papers were based on heavily flawed observations and assumptions? Why did it take more than a decade since the first refutation was published in 2004 for scientists to finally accept that the near-magical regenerative power of the heart turned out to be a pipe dream.

One reason for this lag time is pretty straightforward: It takes a tremendous amount of time to refute papers. Funding to conduct the experiments is difficult to obtainbecause grant funding agencies are not easily convinced to invest in studies replicating or challenging existing research. For a refutation to be accepted by the scientific community, it has to be at least as rigorous as the original, but in practice, refutations are subject to even greater scrutiny. Scientists trying to disprove another group's claim may be asked to develop even better research tools and technologies so that their results can be seen as more definitive than those of the original group. Instead of relying on antibodies to identify c-kit cells, the 2014 refutation developed a transgenic mouse in which all c-kit cells could be genetically traced to yield more definitive results - but developing models takes years."

- See more at: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdail ... .html#more


The comparison im making with the general consensus of global warming is clear.

The studies that differ with the consensus are often held back for several reasons.
There is much more to it than the overly simplistic reasoning that because there is a general consensus, the consensus should not be questioned. If it is, you are anti science or support those that stand to benefit financially.

It takes a considerable amount of time to give alternative studies the time they deserve.
Obedience to the consensus means continued funding. When that's at risk, we often hear stories of coverups and secrets kept air tight. Thats precisely what has already taken place once with global warming

What are some of the assumption s that have been made in some of the global warming studies?
Does anyone here know what the data is from counter studies that refute any global warming assumptions?

It is much more complex than how non experts frame the issue.
And there is historical evidence that indicates it is.

Anyone over simplifying a complex issue should be cross examined accordingly.

As to being able to do more toward oil consumption and Co2 production: your right we must but we can't break the bank either, If industry and technology are the trigger and man has indeed squeezed it, than it is no doubt going to take what we have already seen and that's time,

The main impediment isn't that we'd break the bank. It's that lobbyists wield power to stop green policies. The coal industry wants to continue polluting. Rather than spend millions on lobbyists, why don't they put those millions into recapturing their pollution?

The U.S. at this time does lack some of the infrastructure needed to implement some mitigation toward as example vehicle fuel consumption and resultant Co2

This is a matter of priority. Rather than invest heavily in the infrastructure you mention, we invest heavily in foreign wars to keep the oil flowing. Hindsight is 20/20, I understand we have a priveleged vantage point to criticize from.

Here is an interesting article with quotes from climate scientists. It's worth reading the quotes alone.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... nge-debate

Interbane wrote:Here is an interesting article with quotes from climate scientists. It's worth reading the quotes alone.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... nge-debate

Thanks, I read through it.

Did you read mine? It was an actual case study about how studies that go against the "general consensus" find it notoriously difficult to survive in a groupthink (my words, not the article) scientific community hive that enables each other for years on end.

The article you've provided is from an environmental activist that collected a bunch of quotes from members of the general consensus to re-affirm his confirmation bias, and yours, no doubt.
Did it work?

My point was to dispute your claim that people who are skeptical of anthropocentric global warming are anti science because they question the consensus.


Here are some quotes from the experts this environmental activist chose:

I want engineers to build bridges; I want a trained surgeon to operate on hearts and I want some of our decision-makers and commentators to either shut up, or familiarise themselves with climate science well enough to talk sense

This can apply to you as well. Are you familiar enough with climate science or are you simply appealing to authority?
Aren't your comments made public here?
Do you think you are taking sense when you accuse certain individuals as being anti science because they are not on board with the consensus?

Professor Andrew J. Pitman who is alleged to have said this is exhibiting a rather elitist attitude by essentially telling people if they're not experts, then they should just shut the fuck up.
How might an elitist mentality stultify OPEN SCIENCE?
Pitman sounds like he's being a dick here.

There are uncertainties in model projections of future climate change. However, these uncertainties cut both ways, and in many cases it appears that model projections have underestimated the rate and magnitude of the climate changes resulting from our burning of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The rapid lost of Arctic sea ice is one such example.

Rather than being cause for inaction, uncertainty is a reason to act all the sooner.

- Professor Michael Mann

This is much more reasonable. And I have said that I personally take the "better safe than sorry" position.

I also would like to see continued support of research that indicates the models to date may have been in error and that there is evidence to support it. Much of the studies apparently have been suppressed. The article I posted gave a fine example of what I've said before is a reality of the scientific community. I support OPEN SCIENCE, what about you?
It doesn't seem like it when you accuse people of being anti science if they aren't on board with the consensus.

I noticed after skimming through the rest that Dr Andrew Glikson's PhD is in crustal evolution.
Crustal evolution has more to do with plate tectonics than climatology. He's not a climate expert.
So, according to Professor Pitman, Dr. Glikson should just shut up. I'm certain you'd agree with Pitman.