Global Warming.. Real?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

1. Show me where you found 928 peer-reviewed papers that had not a single person questioned global warming.

From the link above ^

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

2. Proove that peer-reviewed papers are more credible that non-peer-reviewed papers. And don't use the BS answer of common sense. Proove to me that there is no corruption or filtering or deception in data in peer-reviewed jornals.

Oh, look over there ->>>


See, I can distract, too

I can search on the internet and find TONS of credible scientists and groups that say that global warming is BS.

Start listing them.

But wait...we should just dismiss them without even listening to them because of their political affiliation differs from my own. Instead, I should listen to those who's political agendas are the same as my own.

Peer reviewed jornals are BS anyway. Remember the cloning fiasco that the Korean guy went through? That was all peer-reviewed and no one had a problem with it. How could that be?

You are manipulating what the report is saying. You said, "928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist." You are using this paper as evidence that global warming is a fact, when this only proves that there are 928 papers available in the world that deal with those 6 issues and did not disagree with the consensus position. This doesn't mean that they concluded that global warming is a fact. In fact, if you read further, they put in a disclaimer that some of the researchers could actually believe that this is a natural thing, however, none of them argued that point. Why would they put that in there if global warming is a fact? How many papers out there, if you don't sift through them, show that global warming may be natural? Hmmm....They didn't cover that.


Articles against global warming?
Well, let's start with someone who has actually done some actual research on the subject (unlike most of you) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

What does this one say?
More than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997.
UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually number less than 2000, and only a small fraction -- who were never polled -- can claim to be climate scientists. Many of those are known to be critical of the IPCC report and have now become signers of the Petition.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=50

I found this one on the same site that you gave, but I had to sign up to see it. A quick good search found the article.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/letter_to_science_GW.htm


Can't quantify this factor over a long period of time, so let's just ignore it.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html


This was after a quick google search. What? There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming??? That's just fear mongering.

I'll repeat what I said at the end of my first post for those of you who are full of hate and want to crucify me.
"What do I think? I think we should act as if global warming is occuring and try to do something about it, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions and start declaring the end of the world if something isn't done right now. Again, the bottom line is that we really don't know. "

One of your links, your "Capitalism Magazine" link (Capitalism Magazine???? :roll: ), points to a bunch of dead links and focuses on the Kyoto Treaty, not the science of global warming. It also points to CO2 being helpful in that living organisms take in the increased CO2. But, that completely ignores the harmful effect of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which is that it causes a warming of the planet.


Another link has this in the first paragraph:

the overwhelming balance of evidence shows NO appreciable warming trend in the past 60 years, hence it is unlikely to be significant in future.

That completely flies in the face of ALL evidence! That's an INSANE stance!

Again, I provide this chart:
http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg

 

[Enig101]

If you do not accept global warming as fact, you are a moron (you probably don't believe in evolution either).

The overwhelming body of evidence supports climate change as fact, and it there is a very strong relationship between human activity and the shift in climate. Make no mistake, you can deny it all you want (a common course of action in humans), but it is real and we have to deal with it some time. It will work out much better for everyone if it is sooner rather than later.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

That's a straight-up, unadultered lie.

And you have proof that refutes a FACT?

Yeah...right.

:roll:

I guess anything is fact when it agrees with your position. Too bad you believe everything you're told without question.

The 928 peer-reviewed paper concept has been shot down numerous times since it came about back in 2004. Naomi Oreskes, the researcher who compiled the study and published the results, has even admitted since then that her study was flawed. Many reputable scientists have come forth to dispute her findings. Attempts to reproduce her study using the method she outlined has come up with very different results.

Prof. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University attempted to replicate her study using the exact same guidelines and methodology. Here is a rundown of what he found.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the consensus position.
7. natural factors of global climate change
8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

* Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
* Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
* 67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
* 87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
* 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
* 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
* 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

So conjur, you have proof that refutes this FACT?

None of that disproves the findings. You're really reaching now.

Global warming is a fact that all scientists (except those funded by creationist-related wacko groups) agree upon. Some may dispute whether it's natural or accelerated by humans but they all agree that global warming is a fact which is the point I made earlier.

The *point* that you were pushing, based on your quotings from the website which say that 75% of these papers agree with the concensus, is that there is little to no debate that humans are the cause of global warming. Subsequent research showed that the "928 peer-reviewed papers" theory is irreplicable and flawed, and the results are wrong. If you're not arguing the point that there is no dissention among scientists who believe that we are the cause of GW, don't use that study.

 

[conjur]

You haven't posted anything to dispute it other than some cut-n-paste job from who-knows-where.

You also are completely dismissing the IPCC's findings. Not the wisest move, imo.

Again, I'll post the link:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, that is not the point and the article I posted doesn't state that. That's just you're fantastic imagination at work.

I guess we know that you don't read what you post.

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities

...

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: jrenz
The *point* that you were pushing, based on your quotings from the website which say that 75% of these papers agree with the concensus, is that there is little to no debate that humans are the cause of global warming. Subsequent research showed that the "928 peer-reviewed papers" theory is irreplicable and flawed, and the results are wrong. If you're not arguing the point that there is no dissention among scientists who believe that we are the cause of GW, don't use that study.

So you are saying that there is a significant portion of scientists who do not think that humans are a major cause behind global climate change? I'd like to know where you get your insight.

I can not understand why people argue so strongly against human involvement in global warming. Even if your conscience can't accept it or whatever, what is the harm in being on the safe side?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: jrenz
The *point* that you were pushing, based on your quotings from the website which say that 75% of these papers agree with the concensus, is that there is little to no debate that humans are the cause of global warming. Subsequent research showed that the "928 peer-reviewed papers" theory is irreplicable and flawed, and the results are wrong. If you're not arguing the point that there is no dissention among scientists who believe that we are the cause of GW, don't use that study.

So you are saying that there is a significant portion of scientists who do not think that humans are a major cause behind global climate change? I'd like to know where you get your insight.

I can not understand why people argue so strongly against human involvement in global warming. Even if your conscience can't accept it or whatever, what is the harm in being on the safe side?

I never said what I believe. My problem comes from people using facts and figures from bogus studies to push their point, and refusing to accept that they are wrong, because Al Gore told them it was the truth.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
And you have proof that refutes a FACT?

Yeah...right.

:roll:

I guess anything is fact when it agrees with your position. Too bad you believe everything you're told without question.

The 928 peer-reviewed paper concept has been shot down numerous times since it came about back in 2004. Naomi Oreskes, the researcher who compiled the study and published the results, has even admitted since then that her study was flawed. Many reputable scientists have come forth to dispute her findings. Attempts to reproduce her study using the method she outlined has come up with very different results.

Prof. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University attempted to replicate her study using the exact same guidelines and methodology. Here is a rundown of what he found.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the consensus position.
7. natural factors of global climate change
8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

* Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
* Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
* 67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
* 87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
* 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
* 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
* 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

So conjur, you have proof that refutes this FACT?

Let's see what Naomi says about your claims, shall we?


Global Warming - Signed, Sealed and Delivered
By Naomi Oreskes
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 24 July 2006

Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the principal cause.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/072406EA.shtml

An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal - the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Since the 1950s, scientists have understood that greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels could have serious effects on Earth's climate. When the 1980s proved to be the hottest decade on record, and as predictions of climate models started to come true, scientists increasingly saw global warming as cause for concern.

In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions - global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it - have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide. Even the Bush administration accepts the fundamental findings. As President Bush's science advisor, John Marburger III, said last year in a speech: "The climate is changing; the Earth is warming."

To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.

Earth scientists long believed that humans were insignificant in comparison with the vastness of geological time and the power of geophysical forces. For this reason, many were reluctant to accept that humans had become a force of nature, and it took decades for the present understanding to be achieved. Those few who refuse to accept it are not ignorant, but they are stubborn. They are not unintelligent, but they are stuck on details that cloud the larger issue. Scientific communities include tortoises and hares, mavericks and mules.

A historical example will help to make the point. In the 1920s, the distinguished Cambridge geophysicist Harold Jeffreys rejected the idea of continental drift on the grounds of physical impossibility. In the 1950s, geologists and geophysicists began to accumulate overwhelming evidence of the reality of continental motion, even though the physics of it was poorly understood. By the late 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics was on the road to near-universal acceptance.

Yet Jeffreys, by then Sir Harold, stubbornly refused to accept the new evidence, repeating his old arguments about the impossibility of the thing. He was a great man, but he had become a scientific mule. For a while, journals continued to publish Jeffreys' arguments, but after a while he had nothing new to say. He died denying plate tectonics. The scientific debate was over.

So it is with climate change today. As American geologist Harry Hess said in the 1960s about plate tectonics, one can quibble about the details, but the overall picture is clear.

Yet some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we don't yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But "perhaps" is not evidence.

The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, warned against this tendency more than three centuries ago. Writing in "Principia Mathematica" in 1687, he noted that once scientists had successfully drawn conclusions by "general induction from phenomena," then those conclusions had to be held as "accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined...."

Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor "the general induction from the phenomena."

None of this is to say that there are no uncertainties left - there are always uncertainties in any live science. Agreeing about the reality and causes of current global warming is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future. There is continuing debate in the scientific community over the likely rate of future change: not "whether" but "how much" and "how soon." And this is precisely why we need to act today: because the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become, and the harder it will be to solve.

Gee...an op/ed in the WSJ (whose op/ed page is pretty much owned by neocons and far-right whackos) was incorrect in its claims. The same incorrect claim you just made. I think Naomi knows a bit more about her study, eh?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur
[Gee...an op/ed in the WSJ (whose op/ed page is pretty much owned by neocons and far-right whackos) was incorrect in its claims. The same incorrect claim you just made. I think Naomi knows a bit more about her study, eh?

Nothing she said even addressed any of the flaws in her study which were brought up (The WSJ editorial was not the only source of challenge. My post reflects a study done 2 years ago.) It basically says "I am right... now let's talk about something else".

Educate yourself a little bit and you'll see how wrong her study was.

From the man who did the original study (which refuted Naomi's)

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

Edited for length

 

[conjur]

Too bad Peiser made mistakes in his attempt to rebut Oreskes
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

But as i stated before, we dont know to what degree it is human action vs natural action and what the long term results will be.

And then we have a bigger group of deniars that want to ignore the obvious solution to the problem. If you want to do something about global warming, we need to be building nuke plants.

The degree doesn't matter at this point, we need too change.

Nuclear Power is a Red Herring. Especially the way you use it, as a way to discredit the people(you assume are the same people) warning about GW and the dangers of ignoring it.

Nuclear power is not a red herring, but is a way in which we could reduced out co2 by say 50% in less than decade without it causing big problems. If global warming is the problrm, nuclear power is the answer. No other technology comes anywhere close to cost effective and practical as nuclear.

Like I said, the way you use the Nuclear Power issue is what is the Red Herring.

I still dont follow why it is a red herring. It is the solution to the problem. Wind and solar are not going to acheive the results you want for the next couple of decades. Conservation is not going to do it either.

 

[slash196]

I've worked with all manner of scientists in the past few years, not all of them were climatologists but not one had anything but affirmation for the human-cause theory.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

But as i stated before, we dont know to what degree it is human action vs natural action and what the long term results will be.

And then we have a bigger group of deniars that want to ignore the obvious solution to the problem. If you want to do something about global warming, we need to be building nuke plants.

The degree doesn't matter at this point, we need too change.

Nuclear Power is a Red Herring. Especially the way you use it, as a way to discredit the people(you assume are the same people) warning about GW and the dangers of ignoring it.

Nuclear power is not a red herring, but is a way in which we could reduced out co2 by say 50% in less than decade without it causing big problems. If global warming is the problrm, nuclear power is the answer. No other technology comes anywhere close to cost effective and practical as nuclear.

Like I said, the way you use the Nuclear Power issue is what is the Red Herring.

I still dont follow why it is a red herring. It is the solution to the problem. Wind and solar are not going to acheive the results you want for the next couple of decades. Conservation is not going to do it either.

I have no objection to the idea that it's a part of the solution, I just object at your using it to discredit Environmentalists with it at the same time. Especially when you paint the them as the same people warning about Global Warming. Environmentalism is a very large group of people, I think you'll find that those concerned with GW are not also the same as those opposed to Nuclear Power. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the main opposition to Nuclear Power these days are the NIMBY who are primarily concerned with their own lives than with the Environment.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Too bad Peiser made mistakes in his attempt to rebut Oreskes
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php

Good going trying to edit your post to cover up the fact that you don't even read what you post.

In response to your latest: He conducted an interview dated several months after the date your blog post was made (Blog posts count now?) which addressed that fact.

It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found
that "reject or doubt the view that human activities
are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years"
may not have been included in the 928 articles
randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

 

[conjur]

Wow...just....wow.

That guy is really reaching to try and disprove her and only makes himself look like an idiot (as well anyone using him to rebut her analysis).

His statement that only 2% "explicitly" endorse the 'consensus view' is meaningless and does nothing to further his argument considering Oreskes' argument was NOT based solely upon article "explicitly" endorsing the 'consensus view'.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no objection to the idea that it's a part of the solution, I just object at your using it to discredit Environmentalists with it at the same time. Especially when you paint the them as the same people warning about Global Warming. Environmentalism is a very large group of people, I think you'll find that those concerned with GW are not also the same as those opposed to Nuclear Power. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the main opposition to Nuclear Power these days are the NIMBY who are primarily concerned with their own lives than with the Environment.

There is without a doubt a large chunk of environmentalist that do not want nuclear power under any circumstance. If this was a fringe group, I would treat it as such, but it is not.

Most environmentalist are pro solar/wind and anti-nuke.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no objection to the idea that it's a part of the solution, I just object at your using it to discredit Environmentalists with it at the same time. Especially when you paint the them as the same people warning about Global Warming. Environmentalism is a very large group of people, I think you'll find that those concerned with GW are not also the same as those opposed to Nuclear Power. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the main opposition to Nuclear Power these days are the NIMBY who are primarily concerned with their own lives than with the Environment.

There is without a doubt a large chunk of environmentalist that do not want nuclear power under any circumstance. If this was a fringe group, I would treat it as such, but it is not.

Most environmentalist are pro solar/wind and anti-nuke.

Upon what set of data do you base your conclusion?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow...just....wow.

That guy is really reaching to try and disprove her and only makes himself look like an idiot (as well anyone using him to rebut her analysis).

Yeah, I guess there is no room for peer-reviews in your truthy world.

His statement that only 2% "explicitly" endorse the 'consensus view' is meaningless and does nothing to further his argument considering Oreskes' argument was NOT based solely upon article "explicitly" endorsing the 'consensus view'.

It's not significant? What world do you live in? When somebody makes a claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with something, and then only 2% of a sample group explicitly agree, I would call that significant. Coupled with the fact that she ignored a few papers which explicitly disagreed with her, I would say it is very significant.

Not as significant though as the part which you chose to ignore, referencing the fact that he vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. Wouldn't you say that's significant?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no objection to the idea that it's a part of the solution, I just object at your using it to discredit Environmentalists with it at the same time. Especially when you paint the them as the same people warning about Global Warming. Environmentalism is a very large group of people, I think you'll find that those concerned with GW are not also the same as those opposed to Nuclear Power. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the main opposition to Nuclear Power these days are the NIMBY who are primarily concerned with their own lives than with the Environment.

There is without a doubt a large chunk of environmentalist that do not want nuclear power under any circumstance. If this was a fringe group, I would treat it as such, but it is not.

Most environmentalist are pro solar/wind and anti-nuke.

Upon what set of data do you base your conclusion?

Just read what environmentalist have to say. It is not hard to come to this conclusion. There is significant resistance to nuclear power in mainstream environmentalism.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow...just....wow.

That guy is really reaching to try and disprove her and only makes himself look like an idiot (as well anyone using him to rebut her analysis).

Yeah, I guess there is no room for peer-reviews in your truthy world.

His statement that only 2% "explicitly" endorse the 'consensus view' is meaningless and does nothing to further his argument considering Oreskes' argument was NOT based solely upon article "explicitly" endorsing the 'consensus view'.

It's not significant? What world do you live in? When somebody makes a claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with something, and then only 2% of a sample group explicitly agree, I would call that significant. Coupled with the fact that she ignored a few papers which explicitly disagreed with her, I would say it is very significant.

Naomi's claims were that many were explicit and implicit.

Not as significant though as the part which you chose to ignore, referencing the fact that he vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. Wouldn't you say that's significant?

No, because your boy seems to want to engage in logical fallacies.

 

[Vaktathi]

Global Warming is a fact, There is no way around that. The planet is warming, rapidly.

If you doubt it, look at orbital pictures of the North Pole 30 years ago and the north pole now, half the Ice sheet is gone, and global sea levels are rising.


The question before us is this: how much is the human race contributing? It is indisputable that the earth is doing much of this on its own, but what is the impact of the human race on accelerating or perhaps even increasing the total effect.

At this point it cannot be denied that the human race is contributing, but it is debateable how much we may be able to influence it at this point, that is, if anything the Human race does at this point will make a difference.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Vaktathi
Global Warming is a fact, There is no way around that. The planet is warming, rapidly.

If you doubt it, look at orbital pictures of the North Pole 30 years ago and the north pole now, half the Ice sheet is gone, and global sea levels are rising.


The question before us is this: how much is the human race contributing? It is indisputable that the earth is doing much of this on its own, but what is the impact of the human race on accelerating or perhaps even increasing the total effect.

At this point it cannot be denied that the human race is contributing, but it is debateable how much we may be able to influence it at this point, that is, if anything the Human race does at this point will make a difference.

Which is why we should be doing absolutely everything we possibly can. I would really rather be safe than sorry. And oh how we will be sorry.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's happening, we might be helping it along, but it would happen regardless of if we exist or not. So I vote yes/no.

In the earth's history there have been times where the poles have been barren of ice. This will happen again and it may be sooner than we like.

 

[judasmachine]

No "I don't know" option under are we responsible question?

 

[openwheelformula1]

Global Warming? There is nothing to "believe". It's a matter of acknoledgement.