Yes folks, the global warming debate is over... a whopping 7% agree! How's that for a "consensus"?
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7% ) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45% . However, while only 32 papers (6% ) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48% ) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Originally posted by SpastiGovGlobal warming denial is the new pseudo-intellectual fad. Goes to show what happens when rabid conservatives actually try to be skeptics.
Yes folks, the global warming debate is over... a whopping 7% agree! How's that for a "consensus"?
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environm ...[text shortened]... f+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Originally posted by telerionA fundamentally silly statement! It's like saying 'darkness' is an entity in itself rather than merely the absence of light or that 'cold' is a physical essence rather than simply the absence of heat.
Global warming denial is the new pseudo-intellectual fad. Goes to show what happens when rabid conservatives actually try to be skeptics.
How can skepticism of a dubious theory that is itself a fashionable fad for the whimsically-inclined, also be a fad? That's why so many are skeptical in the first place you ninny!
Originally posted by SpastiGovWith all the propaganda papers out there, a simple count of papers is useless. They should be weighted by the publication in where they were published.
Yes folks, the global warming debate is over... a whopping 7% agree! How's that for a "consensus"?
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environm f+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Edit - the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
Leading scientific journals are a drop of water in that database. They should be given much more weight than smaller journals who are more likely to have an agenda or accept low quality papers.
Originally posted by knightwestRight on knightwest!
Before we see a natural disaster that has never occured before I don't know how we can say for sure that global warming or climate change or whatever is "man-made"
Truth is no one can say it's "man-made", despite the lunatic rantings of a motley assortment of washed-up rock stars, actors and failed politicians like Al Gore, Bono & co. Climate change is fundamentally a natural phenomenon and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. There have been countless warm and cool periods in earth's long history so there's nothing unusual about it as any climate historian will tell you. The sun is the culptrit, that huge firery orb in the sky that the alarmist nut jobs seem to have forgotten about, not some patheticly small amount of industrial CO2! How stupid the whole thing is! Eventually even the most hard-boiled and hysterical alarmists will be forced to admit it, but it'll just take time for the current mania to be corroded by public indifference, as always happens to such fads.
Originally posted by SpastiGovIn other words they might have been papers about some totally unrelated topic thrown in to help make the stats look better.
the largest category (48% ) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
Essentially it breaks down to
48% think global warming is factual
6% think it isn't
the rest have nothing to do with it.
And you summarize that with "7% agree"
There are:
Lies,
Damn lies,
Statistics,
people who lie with statistics,
and then you. (Someone who lies about the statistics).
Originally posted by SpastiGov"Since the dawn of time man has wanted to destroy the sun"
Right on knightwest!
Truth is no one can say it's "man-made", despite the lunatic rantings of a motley assortment of washed-up rock stars, actors and failed politicians like Al Gore, Bono & co. Climate change is fundamentally a natural phenomenon and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. There have been countless warm and cool periods in ea ...[text shortened]... the current mania to be corroded by public indifference, as always happens to such fads.
Montgomery Burns
Well naturally it could be a coincidence... the earth warming, more of us roaming the planet, pollution and CO2 on the increase, more cars than ever before, less forest than ever before, more desert than ever before...
Of course it could be a coincidence... but COMMON SENSE (so...that disallows ANYONE who still believes in gods, fairies and Mr. Hanky the Xmas poo and ANYONE who thinks that Iraq was a good idea) sort of does suggest there is a correlation.
Yes, you're right, Spastic. You always were, you always will be.
I'm just a left-winged hippy-ninny who enjoys jumping on a completely outrageous fashionable trend because the big, scary left-winged media told me to.
Global warming is a myth, derived from other hippy-ninny scientists who only constitute a minority in the scientific community, and who accept money from the government to post flawed papers.
Researching alternative energy sources is a silly idea, just like saving money by recycling or power conservation (there's that hippy-ninny in me again).
You're always right, Spastic. I'm a left-winged coward, trembling in my pants for an imagined future.
Originally posted by SpastiGovYour problem is that you don't understand statistics. There is no need for a disaster to prove anything. All you need is a lot of data, identification, and a good variance decomposition.
Right on knightwest!
Truth is no one can say it's "man-made", despite the lunatic rantings of a motley assortment of washed-up rock stars, actors and failed politicians like Al Gore, Bono & co. Climate change is fundamentally a natural phenomenon and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. There have been countless warm and cool periods in ea the current mania to be corroded by public indifference, as always happens to such fads.
But really don't bother with actually learning anything. You've picked your political allegiance as one would a sports team. You're a simpleton and a hack; and I don't feel the least bit sorry for you.
Originally posted by SpastiGovYour "medical" researcher posted his article in Energy and Environment Magazine.
Yes folks, the global warming debate is over... a whopping 7% agree! How's that for a "consensus"?
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environm ...[text shortened]... f+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Um, that's the magazine put out by the Coal industry. Those guys are a definte credible source to be quoting from. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Originally posted by knightwestBecause single events are simply weather. Stroms of the century have always occurred, no one denies that. What Global warming theory says (which is a theory accepted even by the skeptics) is that "weather" sucha s that will get more frequent with increasing global average temperature. The only point of contention is whther man is the cause or not.
Before we see a natural disaster that has never occured before I don't know how we can say for sure that global warming or climate change or whatever is "man-made"
Now, I've posted the link at the bottom of my post many many times. Once more, it seems that no one amongst the skeptics has read it or even glanced through it because the precise issue of caliming there is no consensus was satisfactorily dealt with there (and never challenged by anyone on this site) As well as every other myth the skeptics have mentioned so far.
If you want to simply post an opinion without looking at anyones evidence or being willing to consider the evidence which opposes your view (which on two seperate occasions I did in great detail, without either of my reviews being criticised once incidentally) then you should be posting in the spirituality forum, not here int he debates forum. The reason being that you're not debating spasti, you're preaching.
Oh, and before you come out with your predictable tripe of "it's the global warming nincompoops who are preaching", I ask you to consider once more that on two seperate occasions I went into great detail while studying the evidence provided by yourself on the first occasion, and mcswain on the second occasion. My analysis not being questioned by either of you. Yet, I have not seen one reference, not an argument, but not even a reference to any of the mythbusting contained in the link below, so yes, I read your links while you never leave the safety of this forum and your propoganda pages. That's groundless faith if ever I heard of it, so off to the spirituality forum with you Spasti. Unless of course you can come up with an argument not already dealt with in this link...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462