What, no link?
Sorry, I see it now.
So. 45% of papers either explicitly or implicitly favored the global warming theory while 6% rejected it. You think this is shocking news? The 48% left over that are referred to as "neutral" presumably are methodological in nature and do not deal with questions about global warming theory per se.
None of this seems so unusual or surprising to me.
The number of experts who believe in the whole man made portion of this declines greatly, and you are not surprised?
Could have fooled me in listening to you cling to your precious consensus.
Here is a fact Scott, this science is not nearly as settled as you would like to think it is.
The number of experts who believe in the whole man made portion of this declines greatly, and you are not surprised?
What is not said is what methodology was used in Schulte's analysis and how that relates to the methodology used by Oreskes. As presented, it looks like an overwhelming scientific consensus agreeing with the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. As scott points out, one can write an article about one's research dealing with climate change without chiming in on its anthropogenic sources. Alot of scientists are working on small bits of climate change cause and impact - those measuring the impact would not necessarily have any basis to talk about cause in a peer-reviewed paper.
BTW, if you want to cite something on Senator Inhofe's web page regarding science, you're going to get laughed at. He seems to think Michael Crichton, opinion pieces, and things he just plain makes up are science.
We kind of feel that way about Al Gore
Yet when scientist are asked about Gore's movie they say he got the science right. How many scientists can you find to back up Inhofe? Not many, I would think.
Of course, the scientists agree with Al Gore. If you want to reject science because you don't like how it conflicts with your world view or religion, just let us know and we can save ourselves alot of trouble. If you do not reject science, you need to accept that it may tell you things you don't want to hear. You also need to understand that discussions of science need to be backed up with rigorous study, not just opinion. We don't see the details of the analysis you cite, but as-is it can only strongly support the widespread acceptance of anthropogenic climate change.
The number of experts who believe in the whole man made portion of this declines greatly
I don't see where you're getting "declines greatly" from this data. In fact, I don't see where you can conclude "declines," let alone "greatly."
Hmmm, as usual, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GAIA AND GORE brom Scott and CAPo!
I just read a letter written by 60 climatologists to the Government of Canada, in which they deny anthropomorphic global warming. But of course, they don't count, right?
And here is a site by Dr. John T. Everett who appeared before a congressional hearing on climate change on April 17, 2007. I suppose he doesn't count either. Take a took at his well thought-out site, IF YOU DARE.
One of the comments he makes, and which I have mentioned in the past (obviously ignored or not recalled for convenience) is the simple fact that in a lot of the global warming balderdash being spouted, neither astronomers nor geologists are given a forum, and those are two of the important groups that not only reveal the history of the earth's climate and the cycles, but also have insight into what is happening with other planets. But I guess they don't count either in the "global warming religious fervor".
Anyhow, for a balanced view, take a took at what Dr. Everett testified before congress:
http://www.climatechangefacts.in...o/
#RealityCheck
Of course, we already know that nothing anyone says will change minds since the global warming fundamentalists are determined to enjoy their fear mongering. Sometimes I swear I do believe they invent problems just so they can always be on edge. It's sort of like being addicted to an adrenaline rush.
roseindigo, where should I start with the link you offer. It's definitely got a split personality. By the author's own admission, he doesn't know much about the causes, and he does indeed make some unsubstantiated claims which are easily refuted:
"It is also known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent of the total amount."??? We can measure this and we know we are contributing quite significantly to atmospheric CO2. Farther down, he points out the increase in CO2 during the industrial age.
His assertions about coal are absolutely bizarre and ungrounded in reality. He seems to think coal production will peak in 10 years and there will be shortages, in spite of rapidly increasing world coal production. The U.S. has hundreds of years worth of coal if we want to burn it.
His comparison between consensus scientists and skeptics have many things easily refuted - definitely a weak part of the website and really not worth my time to analyze in detail. It's all stuff we've debunked on this site many times before.
I can't figure out if he is saying we shouldn't do anything because we aren't the cause or if we shouldn't do anything because we'll run out of fossil fuels anyway, but in either case he can't keep his facts straight.
He's more reasonable when talking about impacts and response. His main point is that projected impacts are smaller than climate changes in Earth's history. That's true, but we aren't nomadic hunter / gatherers anymore - it's really expensive to pick up civilization and move it if sea levels rise or if the land can no longer provide enough food and water.
Then he goes on to recommend reasonable things to do, like renewable energy, efficiency, etc. even though he seems to claim humans aren't responsible for the problem? Good ideas for how we should respond, but he has a confounding and contradictory reasoning process.
It is interesting, but like the other Scott, I don't see how a bunch of neutral papers leads to the conclusion that "The number of experts who believe in the whole man made portion of this declines greatly,"
First, these are studies, not a poll of scientists. A scientist who believes either way could publish a neutral study. Second, it is hard to know what it means without a look at the studies included or even the numbers from the original study. I'm not saying it doesn't suggest there are differing opinions on man causing global warming. I am saying that it is a rather vague study that is hard to draw conclusions from based on the information Inhofe's site provides.
The fallacy in the blog post is this: Just because a scientist writes a paper about global warming that is neutral regarding anthropogenic causes or significant consequences, doesn't mean that scientist "doesn't endorse" those ideas. Those topics could just simply be outside of the topic of a particular paper, or the scientist could feel that certain topics are settled science and don't really need to be rehashed.
The only way to find out what a scientist "endorses" is to ask him or her. I'm not personally aware of any recent polling data, but I'm sure it exists...
CAPo, maybe this will make it less complex for you. Same man in a short interview:
http://
www.climatechangefacts.in...EverettEN.htm#3
I think what amazes me the most is that "global warming" nuts believe an Algore or a Michael Moore, and refuse to believe someone like this man who was ASKED to testify before Congress and has the necessary background to speak intelligently on the subject.
Actually, you and I could probably sit down and go through his previous article paragraph by paragraph and I could show you where you are drawing incorrect conclusions from what he said.
Just one example: "Then he goes on to recommend reasonable things to do, like renewable energy, efficiency, etc. even though he seems to claim humans aren't responsible for the problem? Good ideas for how we should respond, but he has a confounding and contradictory reasoning process."
There is nothing confounding or contradictory about his reasoning process. What he is saying is that good housekeeping is important no matter what the climate does, but that global warming is an INEXACT SCIENCE with many unknown factors involved and that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, even though each side is sincere.
That's not too hard for people like you to understand is it? So what some of us are saying is that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS and the jury is still out on the subject, and therefore no reason to make any sort of legislation and take away hard-earned freedoms on "iffy" evidence.
I understand that all you lefties would like nothing better than to take away our personal freedoms (at least a whole lot of them), and so the snow job about global warming is going full steam. It's called PROPAGANDA!!!
Both sides: please read http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/
pub...eatCapacity.pdf
I'm sorry; I hit return too quick. It's the study that Inhofe's referenced, referenced blog references.
Oh well, another study, another article that states that not all scientists agree with the myth that man causes global warming. I also heard that of all the articles, only 1 paper said there would be catastropic results.
But facts don't mean any thing to the global warming nuts. Faulty reports, misplaced sensors, unanswered questions and more have shed enough evidence that man has very little, if anything to do with "global warming", or least the .1 degree that the temp has gone up in the last few decades.
I'm still waiting for the 110 degree weather that some scientists predicted for Chicago this summer.
The point is the "Consensus" is no where near as big as some would have us believe.
As I have said before this science is far from being settled.
roseindigo, being asked to speak on climate change by Senator Inhofe (who I assume invited him) would not add to his credentials in the slightest. Senator Inhofe doesn't care the least bit about science - he just wants people to confirm his preconceived notions.
Fred, your point is, if anything, only refuted by your own article. Science is never truly "settled" on anything, but that doesn't mean we don't have a good understanding of what is going on if we are willing to open our eyes.
It's settled then. We are all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, there is consensus on that as far as I know.
roseindigo, the scientific consensus isn't very exciting when it comes to the consequences of climate change, because on the conservative end of the possibilities the change would be largely manageable, if costly. It's about ecosystem changes, some land becoming ill-suited for present uses, and sea level rise affecting low lying areas. While scientists have presented catastrophic scenarios like destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland, the consensus has not concluded that these things will happen. Al Gore does not say these things will happen, only that they are possibilities. The longer we promote climate change, the chance of unmanageable or catastrophic scenarios will only increase. Regardless, you're the only one saying "we are all gonna die".
The important question is, should we try to prevent climate change for economic, environmental, moral, or national security reasons? Should we try to keep the chance of catastrophic events at say 2% or are we willing to take our chances against higher probabilities?
I don't think we need to do anything at all, since it's already been proven that the earth has been through other climate changes and mankind has survived just fine. As for it costing money, what doesn't cost money??? But ultimately, is your life and the lives of your children worth whatever cost we might have to pay? I would say it is. It happens to be a matter of priorities, and I learned about those on a first-hand basis during and right after WWII.
And to do anything premature such as tamper with the natural cycles of the earth is pure idociy. Talk about bringing on catastrophe!!!!!
As for algore, just today I read in the WSJ that his movie lied, lied, lied, about all sorts of things, including a scnene where supposedly a polar bear is frantically trying to find an ice floe on which to land and rest. A polar bear expert contradicted that scene by saying polar bears have had warmer climate beofre and lived through it just like human beings did, by making adjustments, and no polar bear he knows of would be out in the middle of the water looking for an ice floe. They know better. That was just one of the criticisms of the movie by an expert.
Oh, but the beat goes on, and on and on and on and on.. . . . What a joke and what a stupid mind game!!!
And to do anything premature such as tamper with the natural cycles of the earth is pure idociy. Talk about bringing on catastrophe!!!!!
EXACTLY! That's why we should stop messing with the climate with our CO2 emissions!
CPJ, tell me seriously.
How do you know that our climate now is ideal?
Tell have you ever heard of the ice age?
How did that occur without man screwing around with CO2?
How does that flaming orange ball in the sky that actually heats us play into all of this?
What stubborn critters you lefties are!
Let me repeat again, cleaning up the environment is like good housekeeping, but has nothing to do with global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A person can have a pretty messy house before it becomes a health hazard, but it's not a pleasant place to live in. Same with the earth. And as far as I'm concerned the minute amount of CO2 that humans have pumped into the atmosphere have NOT contributed to a health hazard or the sort of silly panic that the algores of this world claim it is.
How do you know that our climate now is ideal?
That's a fair question, since you have to live through Wisconsin winters. As the climate changes, there will be winners and losers. Though just about everywhere it will get warmer, some places will get more precipitation and some will get less. More precipitation will generally be a good thing, as it is a limiting factor for growing food.
Of course, more precipitation will be needed just to break even on the water balance, since higher temperatures produce more evaporation of water from the ground. We can also expect more extreme weather events such as flooding. On balance, then, we can expect a small negative effect just from warming and a neutral shift in what areas get more or less precipitation.
Where it starts getting uglier is with humans setting our civilization in concrete. Where we live is tied closely to natural resources and climate. Here in California, water is a limited resource which is fundamental to our economy. Right now, we don't really have enough water to go around even in an average year. The first to lose out are the fish, followed by agriculture, then cities and industry. We get essentially zero precipitation for half the year, but the melting snowpack in the Sierra Nevada acts as a massive reservoir and provides water for almost the whole year. As the climate gets warmer, we will need more precipitation just to make up for the additional evaporation from the ground and break even in terms of fresh water available. However, more of our precipitation will be rain instead of snow, so it will run off in winter when we can't use it instead of getting tied up in the snowpack and released throughout the summer. More and more agricultural land will be taken out of production for lack of water.
California is just one example. Low lying coastal areas will suffer with even small sea level rises as they lose protection from strong storms and are gradually inundated. The Maldives in the Indian Ocean are a tiny example of what is to come here - they have had to build a new island well above sea level so the residents can evacuate their native islands as each becomes uninhabitable from sea level rise. The flooding of New Orleans was caused primarily by land subsidance and not climate change, but the process by which a large city is abandoned has begun there. It will become progressively more difficult and more expensive to keep out the Gulf of Mexico as sea level rises until it eventually becomes impractical altogether. Many areas around the world will face their own slow motion dramas as the effect of storms push civilization inland.
The invisible lines we've drawn all around the world to separate different peoples from each other mean that one country which loses essential resources to climate change will be forced to try to get those resources from another country. Sometimes that process is peaceful; sometimes it is not.
Tell have you e
Tell have you ever heard of the ice age?
There is a good synopsis of the causes of the glacial cycles here. Basically, there are three cycles affecting the Earth and each cycle takes tens of thousands of years to complete. First is the wobble in the Earth's axis relative to its plane of rotation. This affects how high the sun is in the sky and the length of daylight in summer and winter, which in turn affects the amount of solar energy received by different parts of the Earth per unit area. The second cycle is the orientation of the Earth's tilted axis relative to its elliptical orbit. Right now, the Earth is closest to the sun in early January when the southern hemisphere is pointed most directly toward the sun. The third cycle is the change in the shape of the Earth's orbit, which at times is more circular and at other times more elliptical. So it really doesn't have anything to do with the big orange ball of flame in the sky, whose output is relatively constant while the Earth does a slow and funky dance around it.
What stubborn critters you lefties are!
We are, aren't we? I know it's annoying to you that we keep trying to learn things through scientific observation.
Let me repeat again, cleaning up the environment is like good housekeeping, but has nothing to do with global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So why not do the right thing and reduce our use of fossil fuels, if only to reduce air and water pollution, improve our economy, and improve our national security?
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
