Slashdot Mirror
97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
An anonymous reader writes "A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global warming. The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results. In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so that anybody can check their results. From the article: '... a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from U.S. Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance," the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.'"
Too bad the scientific method is no match for the stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-yell-la-la-la-la-la method.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There are shenannigans here. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html
But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.
Are written by quack pseudo science climate DENIERS! They should have their credentials revoked. They're not practicing science, they're practicing DOGMA! Everyone KNOWS that climate change is 100% man-made! Data from billions of years ago proves it!
Agreed: that's subtle, but that's a wise distinction to make.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Without regard to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real: Which papers get published are largely a function of who's on the editorial board of each publication. If those boards are stacked with people holding a particular position, they tend to publish only papers which agree with that position.
That's an extremely biased viewpoint.
I know for a fact that 11,500 of those so-called "peer-reviewed papers" were paid for by Big Tree.
Because nature will solve the problem in her own way, whether we like it or not.
2-3% of Climate Science Papers seemed to only talk about how awesome the pretty doggy clouds looked.
So from reading the article and the other links, the "meta" study (i.e., not a study, but kinda like a study) finds that many of these reports are similar in which they all believe (not prove) that global warming is man made...
100% of people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it for the longest time too.
I am not commenting on Global warming.
I am wondering if the bias in publications plays any role in these numbers. Any idea how hard it is to publish something that goes against standard scientific thought in any field?
Have no mod points, you would get one.
I think they mean 97% of scientists agree that some amount of global warming is caused by mankind.The amount that is caused by humans may be some or even most, but I don't think anyone could argue that it is ALL caused by mankind.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
and scientists are not exclucded from this statistic
Already saw the documents about new strategies for when the North Pole defrosts, quite some nations working on it....
They might all agree but I read this climatescienceskeptic blog which gives a whole bunch of really obvious ideas about why its natural or not happening at all like the solar output or volcanos which I'm pretty sure that all the scientists are too dumb to have realised happen so I'm going to go with the blog.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.
I think we're just fucked.
The answer is some combination of US government funding sources i.e. EPA, NSF, pick your favorite three letter acronym. these funding bodies already "believe" in man made climate change. The real bias is not the publications, it's the funding and the publish or perish nature of academic research. No on is willing to bite the hand that feeds them.
A potential environmental catastrophe is impending. Why concentrate on who's guilty? The interesting question is, what are we going to do about it?
Whatever now shut the heck up and quit polluting
> Most scientists believed the earth was flat. In the mid 1800's 99% of leading scientists did not
> believe in microbes. Louis Pasteur did. Consensus is meaningless.
Not true. By the 1490s, it had already been pretty well established that the earth was round. It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.
So while it may not have been en vogue to say the earth was round, privately, amongst those who did study the issue, it was allready known.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I'd read through the papers of the 97% and the 3% before I would say that 97% of the papers does not validate it.
...that reject AGW than there are that blame humans for most (>50%) of agw.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
"The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it."
Boy, warmists are really bad at math!
You are full of shit. Scientists have known that the earth is not flat since antiquity. The even got the diameter approximately right. Columbus miscalculated the diameter and thought that he sailed to India.
Learn a bit of history, before making ignorant posts.
As others have pointed out, this is could just be indicative of funding and publication bias.
They can publish until they're blue in the face... The tree hugging AGW crowd are missing one very key element. Starving people don't care. They want food. If burning back a forest and running a tractor over the cleared land feeds their kids. They're going to do it.
If you go against the consensus you are anti-science!
I respect people with degrees and PHDs about a topic more than say, politicians or 'youtubers'. But isn't that then an appeal to authority?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
However, any paper that suggests otherwise, is a complete career killer for its author.
It is a very chilling time in Science.
And looking for some citations on this in wiki...it seems I may have confused the geocentric/heliocentric world with the flat earth, even the church talked about the roun earth. Thomas Aquinas (who died in the 1200s) said:
"The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Indeed. Proof is everything, the rest are just words spoken by people who have no clue either way.
... whatever
Do those 97% of papers all predict the same effects of the man-made global warming?
And are those predicted effects of man-made global warming actually observed in real data that occurred *after* the predictions were made?
Once again, we go back to the standard process of: Weather event X occurs. (where, for example, X is a cool and wet spring that just happened in the midwest).
X is either:
1. PREDICTED BY GLOBAL WARMING MODELS!*
* Which model? There are so many to choose from and "global warming" can mean everything from "it will never snow in Europe again! We will have malaria and jungle diseases covering Norway!" to "Europe will be covered in glaciers because the Atlantic currents will fail!"
OR:
2. SO WHAT IF IT WASN'T PREDICTED! THAT'S JUST LOCAL WEATHER NOT THE CLIMATE!*
* But don't worry, if it gets hot this summer or if there's a mild winter somewhere, that will be proof of global warming and not "just the weather". You see, it's a one-way street where global warming is always right.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
What you say is definitively true. But that is not the point of the article, the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made. Yet everybody you talk to tends to say to "experts are still debating". Well, with these numbers they are not still debating, they are pretty much convinced.
Yet, they might be wrong. But policies have to be made based on experts opinion. And that opinion is not properly represented in the media.
Strawman argument: no one is saying the studies are valid because there's a consensus about it. They're valid based on the science IN those studies. What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it. Perhaps it would have been foolish to start heavily taxing coal and oil back in the 70's or 80's, as climate change may have proven to be a false hypothesis, but now it's foolish not to. Or at least extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted.
More scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/17/latest-97-consensus-study-goes-belly-up-study-found-more-scientific-publications-whose-abstracts-reject-global-warming-than-say-humans-are-primarily-to-blame-for-it/
Actually according to them, only 32.6% "of climate science papers agree on it":
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. source
Right, you can never validate a hypothesis in science. You can only fail to falsify it. In other words, no one can seem to come up with another good explanation for the warming we've observed, so we've failed to falsify the idea that it's due to carbon dioxide emissions, a hypothesis first proposed in 1896. That doesn't mean it's the truth, but I sure know which way I'd bet!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It really doesn't matter whether people believe its happening or not in the end. Once everyone figures out how much they will need to give up in comfort to lower CO2 it will just never happen. For example, smaller living spaces, much less climate control (cooling/heating), walking verses driving, major cuts to air travel, less meat, less stuff, etc.... Live like people did 150+ years ago. It's just not going to happen.
The only way C02 will get lowered is if we figure out a safe cheap fusion tech to fuel our modern life style.
I find it awesome that when the position disagrees with them, certain will complain about a bias in scientific research. but they are willing to accept a position which was generated by only a few scientific researches which are 100 percent biased through their payments by big business. Some of these researchers being the same people who said that smoking doesnt cause lung cancer.
"Appeal to authority" isn't always a problem. It can be a problem when the "authorities" aren't actually subject matter experts, and it's a fallacy when applied in deductive reasoning (not inductive, however).
Cleverly crafted propaganda will overwhelm objective scientific studies every time.
Now that we can agree it's our fault we can fix it right?
Who am I kidding. Instead of cursing an indifferent god and suffering our inevitable fate we'll instead curse each other and suffer our inevitable fate. We'll bicker over the politics and the science as the ice caps melt, the weather goes bananas and vast swathes of humanity starve to death. It doesn't matter if we caused it, it only matters if we're doing something about it.
So whatever the majority of scientists say is canon, and if you go against it, you're being heretical. If you're being heretical, then you float, which means you're made of wood, and therefore, are a witch. BURN the witch!!
Even though it is true that a significant majority of scientists who study climate change agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will cause warming, the real debate still rages on in regards to the feedback effect that CO2 actually has in influencing the rate of warming. When you frame the question on the issue of 'does CO2 cause global warming', the answer is a unanimous 'yes'. When you frame the question in terms of the actual issue- 'will CO2 warming cause a feedback effect that will lead to the destruction of life on earth', the answer is anything but unanimous.
I will buy old Slashdot accounts. For 2-3 digits you can get hundreds of dollars. Contact me at buy@chammy.info !
... and for those who do not know you sold have your reputation tarnished by blatant shill posts
100 billion trillion flies cannot be wrong.
Of course there are sheningans abound. To start with, I'm pretty sure that at least 97% of all scientific papers aren't about global warming, greenhouse gases, or atmospheric science at all.
Like the cat food advert, this should probably say " 97% of all scientific papers which expressed a preference..."
And yet, the planet seem to persistently refuse to get warmer...
I, too, agree with the science behind it. However, I have to ask this question, since the wording of the article isn't clear:
It says "97% of publications that take a stand on AGW," but does "we can't tell for sure" count as "taking a stand"?
If all we're being told is that, of the people who say yes or no, 97% say yes and 3% say no, while some other unspecified number of papers say "inconclusive", that's a far less headline-grabbing result. But it's the result that matters.
For those not of the scientific persuasion, 97% agree with the methodology, data aquisition, and conclusions that arrive at the answer that climate is man made. They're not just saying "I agree with this paper". They're saying, "I've studied the science behind this paper and the science is legit. Therefore the paper is legit." That's a big freaking difference.
Most Americans have a shaky understanding of cause and effect, courtesy of years of public education where feelings trump facts, opinions trump research, ineptitude trumps ability, and equal outcomes trump equal opportunity. As a result, other than saying "stop global warming", nobody really cares - they assume that "someone" will fix it, and that someone is probably "the government". You'll hear things like "global warming is bad, but I need a minivan to drive my 4 kids (which I _chose_ to have) to soccer" or "they should just tax rich people" or "blame China". Nobody wants to be the guy who actually sacrifies anything.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
People could agree with you on the cause, but disagree that taxes - in any form - are the solution. Don't confuse a scientific proof with a political action.
Only on
Let's not kid ourselves, we are not naive here. The whole point of this article is to tell people that the experts are not debating and are in fact in a consensus on this issue (check the reply above you http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43752173 ). My point is, I wouldn't care if it was the opposite, I would still believe it because it is based on sound science.
the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made.
Is entirely man-made or man contributed to it? Those are two very different statements. If we only contribute that suggests that it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable. Given the history of the planet, I think this is the more likely scenario and we would be better off spending our energy figuring out how, as a species, to survive it when it inevitably happens.
That's because journalists, as a class, are simply not very intelligent people.
They're children of rich kids who are too stupid to do something more socially useful -- and being rich -- they gravitate towards people who wield power, and are usually the most irresponsible when it comes to wielding their own power. Only rich kids can afford to become journalists, since only people whose parents can pay them to do wage-free internships and cadetships can make it through.
There's nothing wrong with the science. They're something wrong with the privileged, clueless swine who purport to be the gatekeepers of our democracy.
Here's the way I see it. Scientists are like any other professionals. The ones that are doing top level research are the elites of their field. Some deniers will say that it is just everyone just covering each other when you get 97% consensus. At their level, you don't win grants and Nobel prizes by proving something everyone else has proven. You get them by discovering something no one else has found before. Scientists are arrogant and opinionated as much as your professional athlete, top notch lawyer, whatever. If you've ever attended meetings, discussions can delve into nasty fights reminiscent of British parliament debates. If 97% of them agree on something, then the science is probably sound.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think that attitude is actually kind of the problem. You see, there are a whole lot of people who think the same way, only they come to the conclusion that it isn't sound science. The problem is that most of them (and possibly you as well) have a tiny fraction of the knowledge of climate science that the scientists writing the papers do. I know I don't have the background to make an informed decision. I'd like to think that I have the wherewithal to spot obvious quackery by examining things like data gathering methodology, but I am not confident at all that I personally could spot more subtle errors, malicious or otherwise.
There's a reason that when these scientists go to get peer reviewed, I'm not doing the reviewing. There is a lot to be said for keeping an eye on our mechanisms for funding and reviewing scientific research, but healthy skepticism of our processes would at most cause somebody to be less sure about the conclusion. The actual problem we have is a bunch of people who are sure that man-made global warming isn't real, and that requires that they take the same attitude that you are: that their individual assessment of the data is more important that the work of scientists who study climate professionally.
The notion purported by skeptics/deniers that climate isn't changing is fucking absurd. The climate is clearly changeABLE (ref: ice ages,) and we humans number in the billions, and not only respire ourselves, but burn tremendous amounts of fossil fuels, spew various chemicals into the environment that have previously been bound up into less reactive forms, or have never existed on Earth before, etc. The very idea that we have no effect is like imagining that one object can strike another and have no effect on it whatsoever. The effect might not be easily noticed, but by the laws of physics, it WILL have SOME effect, and our impact is NOT negligible. Before the human race, how many tons of chlorofluorocarbons were in the atmosphere? How much DDT was there in the water? How many tons of plastic trash was there floating around in the oceans? I'm not screaming hysterically that all human activity is bad... Whether or not anyone wants to agree, we are the products of nature, and are natural ourselves, so even all our artificial crap is in a sense, natural.
But we, as a species, have been collectively shitting where we eat for a while, and our meals are increasingly tasting, (unsurprisingly) like shit. I think deniers of climate change fall into two basic categories: the first is people who are easily mislead, bamboozled, or are just credulous and will believe whatever the idiots they're listening to tell them, and the second group is people who fervently believe that The End is at hand anyway, because an archaic collection of lies and myths says it is, and that he who dies with the most toys wins. The second group thinks they can disregard the health of the Earth because their Imaginary Friend, (whom they call "God" or "the Lord",) is about to call all the "believers" "home" "soon" anyway, so they might as well live it up. After all, any misbehavior they commit is forgiven, and there are no longterm consequences when your "god" is about to press the great Reset button in the sky, anyway. They have a vested interest in not letting people who are convinced the world is going to continue right on a-spinnin' around the sun for the duration dictate that they can't have their fun and do whatever the hell they want to the planet whose air we all must breathe, and whose water we all must drink. They don't want to be told that they have to help pay for the clean-up.
It's like this: it's a great big party, and the house is getting trashed. These people believe that because there was once a stoned and/or crazy guy who said that at midnight, the house is going to burn down, and a new one will be built in its place by magic, instantly by the New House Fairy. So they drink, and snort coke, and eat shrooms, and drop acid and do X and H, etc., etc., etc. They totally trash the place, and when someone says "hey, guys... the house is getting really trashed, let's all stop with the recreational drugs, and pitch in and help clean it up," some of the people say "no, we don't have to! It's in the house's nature to be trashed," because they believe any minute now, the house will be magically replaced. Other people believe the house doesn't need to be cleaned because of the fervor with which the other guys say it doesn't have to be cleaned.
(This is the danger of letting people who exhibit magical thinking (see the DSM IV) which is what religion is, really... have a voice in national policy.)
So there are basically three kinds of people: Lying assholes, stupid deluded assholes, and the rest of us who realize that it is PAST HIGH TIME to clean this fucking mess up. One could argue there's a fourth kind, who just don't give a shit, but since they are functionally indistinguishable from the first two groups, in that we can't count on them to help clean-up, and they CAN generally be relied upon to continue to make a mess, so except as they add to the count of the first two groups, they're not really relevant to the discussion.
Even if the changes in global climate have not been significantly the resul
Actually it does. That's how science works, general consensus based on peer review of the evidence.
Man-made Global Warming is more scientifically valid than the use of Aspirin to prevent a heart attack and save your life.
It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.
Which means to say that the majority of published scientific findings said what? I would guess the safe, untrue thing that would keep said scientist(s) alive and free. This does not help the argument.
Sorry, no edit feature. the last quasi sentence should read " Or the ones which arent paid by big business and who say there is global warming."
"Appeal to authority" isn't always a problem. It can be a problem when the "authorities" aren't actually subject matter experts
Precisely
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
that's *man made*
NOT *made up*
Perhaps they should rename it into "man-made acceleration of global warming/climate change", that might calm down the "climate change is always natural"-crowd a little bit down.
The question isn't any more if global warming is true or even if it's man made, the question is rather what is the best thing 'man' can do to keep a comfortable climate, before it is is getting too uncomfortable for us. Life on earth will adapt, if it's not entirely wiped out, but the time frame and the outcome of this adaptation most likely won't suit humanity as it is now. Stop the current perversion of our consumer market and all the pollution which is caused by it, would be the obvious start.
Even though I'm still a sceptic on various degrees of human contribution that doesn't mean at all that I welcome the climate change at all. I still encourage people to pollute less, try and buy longer lasting products that don't have to be replaced after few years, even though those are more expensive, and to gradually become vegetarians for various reasons. Burning more and more fossil fuels and holding back on alternative and regenerative energy sources will lead to problems in the future anyway, even if we could reverse the changes to our climate.
It can't be good to cut down more and more forests, especially rain forests, even though the mayor part of biological CO2 reduction is done by algae. It also can't be good to consume as much meat as we do, build more and more cattle farms and provide food and water for these, where also a lot of fossil fuels are wastes for logistics.
Even climate change deniers have to realize that this will cause problems in the future.
Get with the program. We call it climate change now, since the global temperature hasn't risen in over 16 yrs and is lower than the 2sigma range of the models.
So sick of this shit. Climate change (pro or con) is fucking faith at this point.
Let's see what this summary is... by appeal to authority
Argument by ad populum
Argument by verbosity
Begging the question (media assertion)
And fucking misleading -- a paper indicating humans are a contributing cause does not in any common use of the english language therefore suggest that climate change is man made, any more than I can state that because a mouse nest contains some cotton from a sock it dragged in that the nest is also man made.
There's a big difference between beeing a contributing cause and a dominant cause.
Dear AGW proponents -- fuck your faith-based pseudo-science by proxy. Much of the science is good, some of it is fraudulent. Most of the 'therefore we should ...' conclusions on it are little more than reactionary zeal.
Dear AGW denialists -- fuck your stupid. You're still not as bad as the proponents though, who having had the benefit of education should be held to a higher standard of logic.
Dear "let's not overreact crowd" -- The clock's quite likely ticking.
This is why nobody trusts scientists or science reporting anymore.
In fact, fuck everyone.
Um, yes. We have had satellites in space for I've for decades now. You can measure the amount of energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere and going out, as well as that absorbed at the ground. The net differences are explained via absorption of LW radiation by the atmosphere.
That is true, and scientists, philosophers, and the educated lay person know this, but for most of the population appeals to authority are major determinants of their beliefs. The whole point of this study is to harness this simple psychological fact to push through the FUD spread by people like the republicans mentioned in the summary. That's why it's published in an open access journal, and that's why everything has been made as transparent as possible. Of course, actual marketing and the involvement of the relevant Justin Bieber for every demographic would be more effective still, but this is a good start.
Of course they are going to agree on it. The scientists involved want to keep the grant money flowing. If you haven't noticed, the ones that don't agree are retired or secure funding that is not related to climate change research. When I worked for the Feds in the early 1990s, the word came down from the bigwigs in Reston that all research projects had to be tied to "Global Climate Change", whether they really had anything to do with it or not. The only ones that didn't toe the party line were the ones with DoD or international funding.
Secondly, they don't all believe in the same god.
Thirdly, they don't have any evidence of their god being real.
Indeed in all ways noted, the deniers (such as yourself) are more like the priests.
97% of deniers believe AGW is a fraud.
They don't believe in the same reason for that being true. And they have no evidence of their personal belief in their stated reason for it being a fraud.
"They also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results."
This must be some kind of joke (or a poor summary). "self-evaluate own studies .. identical results" is an in-effect tautology.
Consensus!
Science doesn't have a way to deal with the idea that a large number of scientist agree on something that is wrong either. As a scientist working in a different field, I assure you it is very hard to publish anything on the unpopular view point. No matter how much data you have.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Taxes in certain locations can inspire business to action in order to find a better solution... but it inspires corporations to buy out more politicians to keep our government deadlocked.
Unfortunately, voting is not science. 99% of scientist used to say that "the Earth was flat", that "the Earth was the center of the Universe", that... All proved wrong.
I'm not arguing one way or the other on global warming but rather that having agreement is not a good metric.
By the way, I'm not a global warming skeptic. In fact, I'm pro-warming, it's better than the alternative of global cooling!
By that logic, we should abandon all medical research because all humans die; "it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable."
Given the history of humanity, I think we would be better off spending all our resources on a massive hedonistic lifestyle so that we can die in an orgy of pleasure when death inevitably happens.
And why don't more people on this thread realize this? Everyone is saying "97% of scientists agree" when really, 2/3 of scientists didn't even take a position!
In other news, only a minority of physics papers agree that conservation of energy is real. The rest don't even mention it.
I find your lack of understanding of the philosophy and method of science disturbing.
In science, one can very rarely, if ever, "prove it irrefutably". One makes hypotheses to explain observations. The hypotheses must make testable predictions. The longer an hypothesis stands against scrutiny, and the more its predictions are verified, and the more new evidence is discovered which fits into the hypothesis, the more accepted it is considered.
Also, you say "else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down". My ignorant friend, this is exactly what science is. Exactly. If this were not the case it would not be science. At some point an accepted hypothesis becomes Theory, which is to say that if some contradictory observation were to be verified, it would necessitate a world-view-changing paradigm shift. Think, for example, of the revolution from Newtonian physics to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; an important thing to note is that the previous Theory was not even disproved - only its boundaries of accurate description of reality more rigorously defined.
That 97% of the body of published climate science finds in favour of the man-made global warming hypothesis, but none of the 3% against has yet managed to present verified disproof means it is only those ignorant of science that would disagree simply on the grounds of personal comfort.
(Probably for fear of having their research censored and funding cut for expressing a view counter to the establishment.)
That's absolute poppycock. Anyone who knows geometry (I assume all competent scientists do) and investigates the situation will quickly determine the Earth is round.
The Pythaogoreans speculated the Earth was round in the 6th century BC, and Eratosthenes proved it and came up with a pretty accurate measure of it's diameter in the 3rd century BC. He even devised a system of longtitude and latitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
WHAT DO THEY TEACH IN SCHOOL THESE DAYS?
The idea that scientists though the Earth was flat in the 1800s is the most ridiculous thing I have read on slashdot, I have a 5 digit ID!!!
On the other hand if 97% of climate science papers would agree on climate change NOT happening, this would be it. Case closed. Nobody would ever talk about it again.
But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.
The article does not say that. What it says is that 97% that take a stance, take a pro-human-cause stance. But nowhere does it say what percentage take a stance.
Never let the truth get in the way of a clickbait headline.
The jury is still out, though the preponderance of evidence points to AGW being real.
The folks arguing against it are doing so because they are resisting change. They don't want to change in their lifestyle or perceive action taken to address AGW as a threat to their livelihood. Certainly the oil lobby does opposes it because their profits are potentially impacted.
The folks arguing for it are doing so because they want change or are scared what might happen if they don't change. These are businesses who think they'll benefit from the changes and regular folks who perceive a threat to the globe.
For myself, I don't know. However, I think we should use this as an opportunity to live more sustainably and impact the environment less. Instead of dominating the Earth with an iron fist, instead be caretakers of all species and environments.
is the republican party, right?
... there's really no scientific consensus about this. It's entirely irresponsible to report this as though it were an unchallenged fact. We need a more "fair and balanced" approach to the topic. We really need to hear from experts from the Flat Earth Society to provide a counter point.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/
No, but that's not the point. The thousands and thousands of scientific studies validate it. The 97% figure invalidates the talking point that there's significant disagreement among scientists that global warming is real and manmade. If one study concludes that temperatures will rise 1 degree in the next decade and another study concludes that they will rise 1.2 degrees, skeptics call that "disagreement" and dismiss both conclusions completely.
No argument that the Republican party took an interest in not seeing the "climate change / global warming" thing becoming a top concern with the majority of citizens. They receive too much funding attached to the big oil companies and other groups (automotive industry, etc.) who benefit if they're not forced to drastically change their business models.
But counting percentages of researchers claiming it's "man made" vs. ones who don't really misses the important points, IMO.
For starters, you can't tell me many researchers out there aren't influenced by the opinions of their peers. If you're a scientist and your good friends and co-workers are also scientists, and those people start arguing the "man made" theory, you're more inclined to accept it yourself at some point. So I'm sure you get this 97% figure at least partially because you've reached a "critical mass" of folks subscribing to that belief in the field .... It's a strong influencer on the rest.
Regardless .... My whole take on the climate change thing is, we sure do want to throw a TON of money at the problem, pretending we can "solve" it if we'd only start accepting it's real. However, we're talking about a society that hasn't even figured out how to do a decent job predicting the weather for the next few days (even though that's something EVERYONE takes enough interest in that we incorporate it into every single news program in the nation). Every time I turn around, I read where at least one specific aspect of the climate change thing surprised some researchers when it was examined more closely. (There was just an article the other day where scientists were surprised to learn that the carbon buried in the arctic ice wouldn't suddenly be released if the ice melted, because plant life growing where the ice melted developed deeper root systems that kept it anchored in the soil.)
And climate change, for all the negatives, could bring quite a few positives. For example, it would finally open up a number of new shipping lanes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/climate-change-will-open-up-surprising-new-arctic-shipping-routes/
I guess in the end, I'm saying I might care that science figures out, definitively, what's going on in the world around us. But I cease caring when politicians start dictating how we must change our preferred lifestyles or how much money we must be taxed, to "fix" things. I'm pretty sure that even if we do nothing about this issue, mankind will survive and adapt to the changes it brings about. I'm FAR less sure that we can reverse the whole thing in a short enough time frame to avoid the negatives they keep harping about.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html
Hahahaha!
Some of you are so clueless I find comfort in the fact that my potential demise because of global climate change probably means your demise aswell.
Even those of you who are astroturfers ought to be able to see through the noise of FOX Entertainmet Network and all your religious entrepeneurs. I'll dumb it down for the one person of you with enough cognitive ability to get it:
If your car is broken down you go to a car mechanic.
If your teeth hurt you go to a dentist.
If you feel very ill you go to a medical doctor.
If you want to learn about climate science you go to a climate scientist.
Because they are the human beings with the most knowledge about climate science. If there is an overwhelming consensus among them then you are plain stupid to ignore it.
" appeal to authority"
So you ask your hairdresser how to fill in your tax forms???
"Argument by ad populum"
So because everyone thinks that the USA is a nice place to live, THEY MUST BE WRONG???
"Argument by verbosity"
WTF????
So you'd accept it if the IPCC said "It's happening, shut the fuck up about it"? No.
"Begging the question (media assertion)"
WHAT QUESTION?????????
We're begging you to SAY SOMETHING YOU VAPID IGNORANT TWAT!
"a paper indicating humans are a contributing cause does not in any common use of the english language therefore suggest that climate change is man made"
So you never read the fucking thing, huh? THEY DID NOT DO THAT. If a paper said "50% or less human caused" then it was counted as AGAINST the proposition. I.e. one of the 3%.
Can't you fucking read what you complain about FIRST rather than just launch straight into a pack of frigging BULLSHIT because you're a rabid ignorant cunt?
"Dear AGW proponents -- fuck your faith-based pseudo-science by proxy"
Dear shit-for-brains, since you have demonstrably MADE UP what the paper contains rather than READ THE FUCKING THING, your assertions must be ENTIRELY faith-based, since you must be merely BELIEVING that it must be saying what you think it does.
DO SOME FUCKING SCIENCE YOU FUCKWIT.
Where to start with this?
Firstly, an "appeal to authority" is a very logically sound step to make. In itself is does not prove position. What it does is admit humility that the experts you defer to are more learned and experienced, and have far deeper, sounder understanding of the subject matter. It is illogical to go against this without better evidence. And how do you know your evidence is better if you are ignorant in the subject under discussion? I'll state it again: an appeal to authority is a logical, intellectually honest position to take. It doesn't prove the argument, but it does admit that the people on both sides of the specific discussion are unequipped to reach any meaningful conclusions of their own.
yet the whole warming thing STALLED 17 years ago
See my previous point about requiring better evidence. Your evidence is a misquote of a misrepresentation of a misunderstanding of the actual science. You have unwittingly, by means of your own ignorant statements, given another example of the importance of appealing to authority on matters one does not understand.
Don't have time to read all the articles linked in the summary but I do recall a few inconvenient facts about global warming. I recall that the global temperature peaked in 1998 and has not broken that record since. I also recall that CO2 levels have reached a new peak. I recall that the temperature reached in 1998 was lower than that of 1934. There seems to be a certain difficulty to create a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
The bigger problem I have is all the government regulation based on this claim of man made global warming. The fact that the correlation has not yet been proven is only a small part. The problem is that the government is keeps getting bigger to supposedly fight global warming but they do nothing in their direct power to do something about it.
Just one example, federal buildings in DC are heated by one of the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the federation. If they were serious about global warming then I would expect them to do something about this first before telling me what kind of heat I can use in my own home.
I'll take global warming seriously once the federal government does.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
What about a situation in which 97.1% of people studying something come to a particular conclusion, while the 2.9% don't actually produce any evidence but merely claim that the evidence of the 97.1% is insufficient, while many of them just happen to be on the payroll of people who have a major financial interest in the conclusion in question not being true?
Because this is basically what the conversation looks like right now:
97.1%: "Foo points to this conclusion."
2.9%: "No, that's not enough evidence. What about Bar?"
97.1%: "We spent a couple of years looking at Bar, and that points to the same conclusion."
2.9%: "Well, but what about Foobar?"
97.1%: "After another couple of years of study, we know that Foobar points to the same conclusion."
2.9%: "Well, but what about Baz?"
This will continue until the consequences of the conclusion cause major disruptions to the status quo.
And I should point out that there's no real relationship between the beliefs of scientists and the beliefs of the general public, while there is a relationship between the beliefs of scientists and actually proven scientific truth. For instance, approximately 100% of biologists believe that the Theory of Evolution is basically right, while only 54% of the American public agrees with them.
I am officially gone from
Has our burning of fossil fuels helped? no. But we certainly haven't caused this. If anything we just gave nature a jump start.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
Good for you, but I have to say that while it's kinda an argument from authority, it's a good case of an argument from authority. If 97% of people who are expert in something have an opinion that contradicts mine on a specific issue, then it's at least reason to review what I believe and really confirm I know something that the world's experts seemingly do not.
And this is especially the case when I genuinely don't know as much as they do on the subject.
So it's a useful fact to know. And it's a useful fact to use.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It doesn't matter either way because this simply is not how valid science works or is done.
Averaging anything does not substantiate or support anything it only gives you an average.
The "story" is nothing but the normal disgusting combination of statistics together with cherry-picked fallacies, it doesn't give you causality, reproduction, empiricism, or verifiability. It is puerile propaganda without merit, i.e. noise.
The ancient greeks knew that the earth was round. They even had a pretty good estimate of its radius, and the distance to the sun.
All it says is that 97% of climate science papers are sponsored by grants from global warmists.
> The idea that scientists though the Earth was flat in the 1800s is the most ridiculous thing I have read on slashdot, I have a 5 digit ID!!!
In the poster's defence, he actually said that this was the opinion in 1490, not the 1800s. Still incorrect but, is a more understandable point of confusion since it was before the general public really had had it shown and explained to them. His point about the 1800s was about the existence of germs.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Why is it MAN made? Why not WOMAN made?
I see more women driving the largest SUV possible. MY wife spends far more time in the bathroom running tons of electrical devices.
Help fight the Sexism in climate science!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I wasn't. The taxes were an example of what would have been rash in the 70's given what we knew then. How I wrote it did perhaps suggest that I thought taxes were the only solution now, but that was a mistake, I didn't mean to suggest those were the only solution, nor did I mean to imply that science was telling us taxes were the only solution.
I think given the scale of the problem and how long we've procrastinated, it will take more than one act. I do think fossil fuel taxes are an essential part of any real solution. Government doesn't do much well besides tax, fine, and jail people. Making alternative energy solutions economically viable is pretty much the only thing the government can do, anything else is just a PR move to avoid real change. Additionally, fossil fuels have always had most of their costs externalized, making people pay for the carbon they are emitting from fossil fuels, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Conversely, discounting the majority of scientific finding because it does not match what a particular group wants does not mean they are right. It does however mean that they have to provide better models then the majority.
Put another way, in science, the majority usually IS right, and there is a well established method for showing otherwise. Thus using majority opinion as an indicator of correctness, while not infallible, is generally pretty good. If nothing else the probability of 3% allowing political belief to influence their conclusions is greater then 97% doing so.
I believe you misunderstand the fallacy. Credentials are important for a reason: for the same reason we don't let just anyone set out a shingle and perform surgery, having a means of identifying people with specific knowledge is helpful in deciding whether that person is likely to be providing information of value. No one says that means the person in question cannot be wrong, and anyone who uses credentialism to deny the possibility of error is indeed committing a fallacy. But simply saying that someone is more likely to know what they're talking about because they have the background to demonstrate knowledge of a certain field is NOT a fallacy. Ironically, you yourself prove why listening to people who are not subject matter experts is potentially a bad idea by citing incorrect information about global warming, which I suspect you garnered by refusing to listen to those who know what they're talking about.
Kythe
This. Delete the summary and start again. And the title.
The core samples alone disprove this, this shit has been happening since before humans even existed as a sub-branch of our ancestors ancestors.
It has been happening since well before Jurassic ages in the days where reptiles ruled the Earth too.
It isn't abnormal, life causes global warming in general, but only indirectly. The balance between plants and animals loses out to animals in the end, which has shown to always kickstart the exact same processes which are happening now.
And as more large life forms come about, they chomp on more grass and plants until there are dangerously low amounts of vegetation to get rid of many of the gases that heat the damn place up.
In the case of the dinos, they basically reinforced their position as champions of Earth BY killing off plants in mass quantities. It killed off other large creatures that very specifically weren't reptilian. (since they have a high tolerance for heat)
Then those reptiles then also adapted even more to these rapid changes and have, for the lack of a better phrase, remained the leading champions of Earth even now.
Those pesky Lizards are probably the toughest creatures around, in strength, survival, stealth and general bad-assery.
Then this either fuels a massive volcanic eruption due to making the grounds easier to move or stay hot (see the rapids, those things destroyed so many dinos for years before the asteroid)
Then plants rule once more after millions of years of evolution has been wiped clean.
The cycle hasn't changed once since it started, besides maybe being off by a few million years.
Humans have their part in it, but they didn't cause it. Without humans it would have likely happened far sooner, in fact.
Despite our massive destruction of plants all around the place, we also planted massive amounts of them and farmed the landscape.
We have culled and controlled the expansion of wildlife too. Massively so. That has kept the ratios of animals to vegetation much lower than it would have normally been.
This planet doesn't know how lucky it is to have created life this great. It will stop another disastrous destruction of life from an ice age or heat age if we do things right. We certainly aren't the best at preventing this, but we sure are trying now.
Unfortunately, a lot of beach areas and other low-laying structures are probably going to be demolished by rising seas this century, it has went too far.
It is already giving a hard time to some areas now, and the few other areas with horrible weather, such as the many floods in the past decade.
We won't be able to reverse it quickly without some seriously massive organization between countries to do so. And geo-engineering is dodgy at best.
The butterfly effect is very well known in weather, making one place better will be hectic for another place, almost guaranteed.
The best method would be to make more greenery on our landscapes, this more so because they create their own weather systems due to containing so much heat. Deal with escaping gases better since they are usually a very good energy source too.
Burying CO2 in to the ground in a liquid form will let it sit around for future generations to use and abuse when we finally nuke ourselves to death and lose everything.
So in summary: humans have helped slow down climate change considerably, and will continue to in to the future. (unless we go cold war 2)
Although I guess if you look at it, we have caused climate change, but for the better.
From the first Guardian article cited:
"The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear."
7,994 of the papers were disregarded because they did not take a solid stance on AGW. The fact that nearly two thirds of scientific papers published on climate change do not directly support the idea of AGW speaks volumes about the spin factor being put on the papers that did take a stance. The HONEST headline would be:
97% of the 33% of scientists citing a cause for climate change include manmade sources, ranging from negligible influence to the primary influence.
Classic science fiction:
Jerks ignore the expert scientists, causing big disasters and at the climax it's all resolved by finally utilizing science... Often by some dumb jock / pretty boy that is wise enough to listen to the science and save the day. The jerks are usually put in their place as well. Sadly, in the real world it plays out similarly but the jerks get rich and the story is boring slow and drawn out - so nobody watches.
Educated guesses by EXPERTS are the best thing we can possibly have and when they agree so highly it should be followed. Hindsight is 20/20 but the ACTUAL scientific proof won't come until AFTERWARDS... when it is too late. Science can't predict the future; it can only test the past!
EXPERTS make the best educated guesses mankind has at any moment in time - their error rate after the fact is irrelevant, the best you have beforehand are the people who make the best guesses based upon known FACT. not beliefs/dogma/opinions.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
Slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that's obvious.
You're right that educated people have known that the earth wasn't flat for a long time.
However, you need to learn some history too: there were no scientists in antiquity or the middle ages.
So the article title is extremely misleading.
If RIGHT, can you do anything about it with 7 billion people in the world, most of which don't care!
“nearly flat trend” is missing error bars.
Indeed, the problem that all such idiots have with “the trend is flat” or “no statistically significant warming” is that neither disprove the IPCC or AGW, since the models assert that the trend should be around 1.7C per century, and that if they want to PROVE that wrong, they have to PROVE that the trend calculated PRECLUDES a trend of 1.7C per century.
Saying “nearly flat trend” doesn’t do that.
Both logic fail and statistics fail.
Not taking a stand in the abstract, means that the paper is not concerned with this issue.
It doesn't mean that the author has no opinion on the subject.
I don't think many scientists spends much time on the question, as there's clearly a consensus that global warming is man made, so papers are more likely trying to predict and/or document effects.
Some skeptics like Richard Muller didn't dispute the climate change's basic premise. He just didn't think there was enough evidence to draw a conclusion. With more evidence (including some he gathered himself), he has reversed his position.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
All arguments about complex topics require appeals to authority. For instance, if I argue that F=ma for ordinary-sized objects, I'm going to appeal to authority and cite Isaac Newton and numerous physicists since then, rather than stop my argument and prove that point by re-doing Isaac Newton's much more competent work on the subject.
Appeals to authority are fine when:
1. The authority is legitimately an expert in the field in question.
2. What that authority is saying matches what other authorities say (if they don't agree, then you have to dive into the details of why they say what they say in order to legitimately use their opinion).
The same person can be both an authority and not an authority. For instance, if we're discussing linguistics, Noam Chomsky is a qualified authority who's views are pretty widely accepted in the field. If we're discussing international law, he's not, and if you want to argue his viewpoint you need to cite the better-qualified authorities that Chomsky references to argue his point.
I am officially gone from
What about a situation where a decade earlier anyone who didn't support the arguments for anthropomorphic global warming had trouble getting grants, lost government positions or were otherwise forced out? What if those who remained had trouble finding journals willing to publish their 'controversial papers' for reasons other than faulty scientific or statistical methods. Wouldn't that impact the percentage of journals opposing the popular theory? I'm not saying that climate change isn't influenced by humans and their pollution. I'm saying that our ability to judge the severity and impact is hindered by this stupid 'silence the opposition' attitude.
97.1% of the abstracts that take a stance on AGW endorse it. Abstracts that don't take a stance either way don't provide any relevant data here.
97% of roman catholic clerics also believe that God exists and that the pope is infallible. According the Vatican, those who don't believe, just haven't evaluated the evidence presented by the catholic church properly. Remember, only a roman catholic cleric in good standing with the church is qualified to evaluate the truth of catholic theology. Don't pay attention to anyone who has left the catholic church. The very fact they have left shows that they are obviously very disreputable people who are clearly ignorant about catholic theology otherwise they would have never left. Film at 11.
Skeptics don't believe scientists are split. We already knew that there was near unanimity. We believe that the source of the consensus is peer pressure, not reason. Express anything other than the consensus, get strange looks, don't get invited to parties, fall out of step with the hierarchy, don't get tenure, etc.
Furthermore the GP's example of "A hundred authors against Einstein" is such a ridiculous and unapplicable example, I wonder if he understood the first thing about it.
Firstly, this list was extremely thin and tenuous - just read the fucking wikipedia link he posted. It should require no explanation from me. Most of the disagreement was from before any experimental verifications and independant observations of the theory. Even if ten thousand scientists had voiced disagreement in unison in a letter, it would be worth SHIT without EVIDENCE to contradict the existing verifications and observations.
We have a completely inverted version of this regarding the publications of climate science above: we have almost all the experts and scientists publishing work after work of verification, validation, experimentation, observation, all in favour of the reality of man-made global warming. Jesus, Penguinisto, what a fucking stupid comment.
Thank goodness someone took the time to read the article and make some sense here. Numbers can always be twisted to whatever agenda you want.
I think the word you're lookinh for is Anthropogenic, Anthropomorphism is something else entirely. The rest of your point isn't even worth refuting. If you want a massive grant to prove global warming isn't real, pop into your nearest Shell or BP office, you'll come out with stuffed with cash!
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Validation comes form evidence, not consensus.
BUT consensus also comes from evidence.
If you are an expert in a field, which means that you have personal experience doing research in that area, and have been following the literature for several years, you base your judgment on the evidence.
But if you are not an expert in the field, you do not have the background knowledge to correctly evaluate the evidence.
In this case, your best proxy for the evidence is the consensus of the people who are experts.
"But the consensus can be wrong!" you reply.
Yes, it can. But as the saying goes, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong—but that's the way to bet."
The reason that people who successfully challenge the consensus become famous is because it is so rare. Everybody always cites the same handful of examples—Galileo, plate tectonics, germ theory, relativity. They do so because there really aren't that many clear examples of a broad scientific consensus being completely overturned.
The consensus is not infallible, but most of the time, it turns out to be right, or very nearly so. This is particularly true in a mature field like climate science, where the consensus is the result of the work of many scientists over many decades.
I still think this "global warming" is nothing more than a natural event.
This planet has been around for billions of years that we know and we know that over that billion years the earth has had world wide fires, world wide floods, total tectonic plate movement, reversal of the poles, bombarded by all kinds of cosmic storms, gigantic fuckoff storms, the ice age, the entire planet super heated and so on. Yet man believe in the very short time we have been involved in heavy industry that we have managed to upset this planet and causing it to get warm? That's laughable.
The earth is not static, it does not stay the same constantly. This is just another phase shift of the planet and in a 100 years from now it will probably get colder or even hotter or stay the same. Why? Because we don't know, we have no control over the planet and we cant say for any certainty that we know exactly what will happen with it because it has been doing its thing for billions of years before us and billions of years after us.
Not to mention what was it in the 80's when every single scientist proved and believed without a doubt we were heading to another ice age? What happened to that? I mean scientists used their super science and knew for a fact nuclear energy was plunging earth into an ice age.
97% of scientists agree that global warming has the best and strongest proof. Now what?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yes, a lot of climatologists agree that there is a modest increase in global temperatures.
That in no way qualifies them to make statements or predictions about economics, agriculture, land use, or politics, and they certainly have no right to dictate to the rest of us how we make tradeoffs between current and future consumption.
*Hiding* in semantics? Contradiction of your understanding of something by means of explicit definition and clarification is *hiding*?
97% of all published science bolsters a specific theory. How exactly are you missing the fact that this makes it the best and strongest proof?
Anecdotes that you read someplace on the interwebs do not qualify as evidence.
there was no situation like that. The people who didn't get published had no facts to support them, and then whined that there was some sort of conspiracy against them.
You know what? they also won't run critiques saying gravity isn't real either.
" I'm saying that our ability to judge the severity and impact is hindered by this stupid 'silence the opposition' attitude."
And you are wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Thank you. Also known as appeal to belief. 98% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, God must exist.
Now, let's all play 'Call me a denier for asking a question.' (AKA Appeal to ridicule) Let's assume for a moment that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to man. Let's assume our current atmospheric CO2 is close to 400ppm. If 400ppm CO2 is causing global warming, then can someone please explain to me how the Earth's climate was cooler during the late Ordovician period when CO2 was about 4400ppm?
On what issue? That global average temperatures have been going up, to some (perhaps modest) degree due to human activity? Sure. But that agreement doesn't translate into anything meaningful conclusion.
Trouble is that AGW activists falsely portray this minor point of agreement as if there was widespread agreement on their predictions, scenarios, or proposed actions.
Actually, one scientist already destroyed this whole 'overwhelming numbers agree' argument
That doesn't count. We're talking about two competing scientific theories having a fair fight, not about a hopeless whiny reaction of angsty sciolists to a piece of new knowledge they found uncomfortable.
Ezekiel 23:20
I really thought oil companies were funding more than a mere 3% of climate science papers.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
...climate change. It's the solutions that are the issue. our very standard of living across the globe is dependent on how we create and use energy. Enviro-nuts will not have any recourse to global warming without a direct impact on how we ought to reverse course on how we do things, rather than initiate any kind of innovation to continue mkaing life better for everyone. i recall one group of climatologists suggested dropping microscopic silver particles into the stratosphere is order to reflect light and heat back in to space. It was rejected on it's face because it does not conform to the ideas that we have o stop producing carbon emmissions. It's all a very rigid orthodoxy.
and you would be stupid for doing so since the summary is incorrect.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
All those rogue scientist came with evidence to the table, whereas those rejecting the theory were hand waving.
In the case of AGW, the majority come up with data, the denier side come up with hand waving.
The article does say, the summary is misleading.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
yes. this is how change happens. slavery, womens' rights, child labor laws, environmental laws. take that last one further, and we MIGHT be able to enable our existence for a while longer
I think you might be on to something. For example, it's basically impossible for those studying the Stork Theory of Reproduction to gain any government funding. Same problem with those looking into the Green Cheese Theory of The Moon. Obviously this mere fact invalidates biology and cosmology.
Mr. Bush, is that you?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Are becoming increasingly desperate. Now it's "consensus is not science". While the truth may not be determined by consensus, science itself does rely on consensus with respect to data and expertise. Pointing out the few cases where a radical theory was presented as the exception to the rule, does not invalidate the scientific method. The fact that the current view of quantum mechanics cannot fully describe black holes doesn't invalidate the success of quantum mechanics. The Galileo argument is not pertinent - this was disavowed for religious reasons, not scientific reasons.
And what will you do when you agree they are right?
You'll see a consensus.
Won't you.
Consensus is the result of lots of people looking into something and agreeing what the facts are.
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
Mathematics as a scholarly field has no way to deal with the fact that idiots exist in this world either. Should we abolish logic and proofs, and just prove by consensus?
Like, "Euler thought this statement was true... who dares opine against him?"
You know what, this kind of thinking held back scientific progress for a while, when they thought Aristotle (and the community consensus) was infallible.
Don't quote me on this.
Who gives a single shit whether it is man made or not? That is completely irrelevant. It doesn't affect anything. If global warming is going to cause problems we should try to stop it, and if it isn't then we shouldn't. Whether it's man made or not matters exactly zero in this analysis.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
It's a pretty old item, why is this news? Slashdot comment trolling, or something?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Most scientists after 500 BC believed the earth was spherical based on empirical evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece
"After the 5th century BC, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round."
Hell, Eratosthenes, in 240BC, got the diameter approximately right at ~25,000 miles.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Read the actual paper. It doesn't say that 97% of scientists agree on something. The article misinterpreted it the paper, and the Slashdot summary followed the article.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it.
Wait, what?
Let's assume it is unquestionably true that AGW is true. Why does it follow that we should invest in trying to avoid it?
I'm not saying it's unequivocally a bad idea to do so, but given that you're using the term "invest", you probably know you have the cost of investment and the expected payout. How could you intelligently invest in something if you don't even have these figured out?
I haven't heard of any solid data suggesting what the actual cost and benefits are, beyond the "sky is falling" arguments, which I don't think is what the 97% consensus is about. Besides, the point of "you're not a climate research scientist" goes both ways. On what grounds are scientists credible in making economic and policy changes without consulting actual economists and policy makers?
Don't quote me on this.
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.
Reality defeated by ideology is new for the U.S.? U.S. morals are governed by puritan ideology, espousing the virtues of virginity and purity. As a result, the U.S. abortion rates are among the highest in the world. Contrast this with the licentious morals of, say, the Netherlands, where abortion is not only not a crime but rather easily accessible and sex is considered a much more normal part of life (perversions like "purity balls" would be unthinkable there). Result? Some of the lowest abortion rate anywhere in the civilized world.
Heard an Australian state that he was thanking God daily on his knees that the British shipped the Puritans off to America and the criminals to Australia.
I don't believe you at all.
I've seen to many unpopular studies get published. Maybe your data is crap? or your methodology? or the science you do? no no, it's a giant conspiracy to get YOU.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Man Made Clmiate Change AKA 'global warming'* is man made. That's what it mean in context. An increased in energy trapped in the lower atmosphere do you have more CO2 in the air.
Are their 'pre-human'** cycles? yes. This is an impact outside those bounds.
*AS a refresher the warming in global warming means an increase in energy. Personally I hate that name becasue it fails to show the whole picture. Hotter summers in some areas, wetter winters in others.
** I called them pre-human for brevity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
human contribution to total CO2 is only 3.4% and the full amount of CO2 is only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases. So the human contribution to greenhouse gases is 0.034 x 0.0362 ~ 0.1% of all green house gases! So I'm not worried and I believe a "wait and see" attitude is appropriate.
And science is not a popularity contest. Neither voting nor popularity are part of the scientific method.
Anthropomorphic global warming. Hee hee.
"Oh yeah, baby. I'm going to warm you up real good. I'm getting all up in your temperate climates and turning them into deserts. Yeah, you like that? Let me put on some Barry White. Now let's melt those glaciers off your top."
Taxes out how we pay for civilization.
If we want wide scale action, then taxes will be part of it, if for nothing else then as an incentive.
Taxes are not good or bad, no matter what people say. They are how we pay for things. We can discuss if the things we pay for have merit..sadly most people aren't really qualified to have the discussion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A lot of global warming is probably man-made. I won't argue against that. But this particular statistic (97.1% of papers) is meaningless. I sincerely doubt that all 12,000 papers are primary research. Most likely a lot of them simply reference each other. It's the equivalent to Idiocracy's, "it has electrolytes".
Proverbs 21:19
Oh those statistics, they can be so helpful for getting a big picture view of the matter..
If man had something to do with it, and our activity is essentially increasing exponentially with new humans being born all the time (and China kicking industrial action into high gear), then wouldn't the impact on climate also be exponential?
No, actually. CO2 concentrations increase temperature logarithmicly, so while population is increasing at a decreasing exponential rate (expected to hit 0% growth this century), the higher the concentration of CO2 goes, the less warming each addition ppm actualy contributes.
Human activity has been increasing, yet the whole warming thing STALLED 17 years ago.
You math is off, the warming trend is flat if (and only if) you take start from the fall of 1997, and that's 16 years currently. However, that's a cherry-picked start date and there are problems with choosing your data to make a particular point. more generally,you can always draw flat trend lines on noisy data regardless of whether the overall trend is up, down or constant.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Actually, one scientist already destroyed this whole 'overwhelming numbers agree' argument.
Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down.
DENIER!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Spot the guy not doing science. Just cus crap gets through (that backs up the popular view points) doesn't mean that good stuff doesn't. And I never said anything about a conspiracy. I am talking about people. For some reason everyone seems to forget that we (scientist) are just people.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Yup, "The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions".
You remind me of a discussion I've been having with a co-worker the last couple days. He strongly denies that climate change even exists. One of the points he was making yesterday was the familiar "its only a theory" argument. I invited him to the roof to test another "theory", he refused to join me.
Some skeptics like Richard Muller didn't dispute the climate change's basic premise. He just didn't think there was enough evidence to draw a conclusion. With more evidence (including some he gathered himself), he has reversed his position.
Wrong, it was not a "reversal". His position never really changed.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Who is going around modding facts "Overrated"?
We need UID in the score summaries to find these trolls.
tests. they teach tests.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You've made a mistake, it was two thirds of the scientific papers that didn't take a position on climate change. Most often, I think, because they weren't about climate change or a strongly related topic.
There are several other polls that showed that 97% of climate scientists agree that it's occurring, and 80-90% of scientists in related fields also think so.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Except it's not 97%, read the actual paper instead of the summary. And the others are producing evidence, and aren't on the payroll of major financial interests.
Other than that, it's just like what you said.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
RE: Anthropomorphism. Yeah, my bad. That's what I get for trying to do too many things while multi-tasking. It's almost poetic that anthropomorphism in zoology is another topic where you were taught never to question man's superiority over 'animals'... that even suggesting that animals were capable of reason, self awareness, compassion.... was enough to get you ridiculed. So other than that word swap, you've chosen to say that everything else I said isn't even worth commenting on. How typically arrogant of you and 'your kind' to ignore what I was actually saying in an attempt to keep science trending towards another dark age. Silencing the opposition does not make you nearly as 'right' as encouraging them to prove you wrong and exposing the flaws in their arguments.
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yeah. The Heritage Foundation. A well known, far-right wing crackpot organization that shovels the bullshit tea party republitard agenda around. I'm surprised they're not claiming that the Earth is actually headed for an ice age. Oh wait, they are.
Being unrefuted over such a time scale means slightly less in this case than it would in others, given our inability to directly experiment on the Earth's climate and to isolate independent variables. This is similar to the problem faced by economics. I would bet the same way as you, though.
This should be included in TFS FFS! Almost every comment would be rendered moot by this.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There's no such thing as a proof strong enough that someone who disagrees can't just say "I don't think that's convincing". They don't even have to be telling the truth; they can just lie.
The proof is plenty solid, no one's found "better" proof to the contrary.
People dispute climate change for the same reason they dispute evolution; because there's a lot of money to be made selling doubt to people who want to doubt.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
97% of pornography contains pictures of naked humans
Gravity is not the best example. The reason is that we really DON'T understand gravity very well. We know that there is a force that we call gravity that causes objects to attract. However we don't have a solid idea how it actually works. We can't get it to unify with the other forces, there are indications that our best theory on it (general relativity) is incomplete and so on.
The FACT of gravity, that objects attract or on a more human scale that shit falls down. We observe this all the time, there's not really a question that there is this force. However the THEORY of gravity, meaning the explanation for what it is and how it works, is something that is not solid.
Now one can of course argue this to global warming as well. There is the fact that average global temperature has been rising, outside of known cycles. There is then the theory as to why, in particular that the primary or exclusive cause is increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human emissions. One can accept the fact but argue the theory.
Just saying, maybe pick a better example.
The core problem remains that the key question of whether doing X about global warming is better than doing Y is not science. It's politics.
Title should be clear.
1.Propaganda
2. Control
3. Profit (Power).
You only need a "vocal" ten percent of the population to guide the rest to the great unknown. It works for the fish, so it must work for humans as well.
Again I'll ask you guys for confirmation (no one has said "no, you're wrong" the previous times I've asked): what I've understood all along about AGW is that man-made greenhouse gas contributions are increasing the _rate_ of warming.
To be clear, that seems to be pretty well agreed on. But "the increasing rate of global warming is man-made" is not the same thing as "global warming is man-made". We could be reducing the rate of warming, and we'd still frequently be having record high global average temperatures, because the trend in this interglacial period that predates our industrialized influence has been _warming_.
Can we still ask for accurate science reporting without being tarred and feathered as "denialists"? Or is that not allowed?
... isn't run by consensus. I'm sure most documents back in the time of Galileo also stated the earth as the center of the universe.
... let me know when someone comes up with a theory that actually predicts something with accuracy better than psychics can. (i.e. stop making claims so nebulous they are always right no matter what happens.)
Yawn
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I tend to be skeptical about "everything". Since "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) seems to have made it into the headlines about the same time as "Medical Marijuana" and because of stupid comments such as "the planet has a fever", I am especially skeptical of AGW.
So, AGW advocates, convince me. What are some null hypotheses that are being used by scientists in support of AGW?
In all seriousness:
That is not true there were 12,000 papers and not all of them took a position FTA: "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming."
just over 4,000 is not %97.1 percent of 12,000, in fact the majority took no position cause they were not studying it directly or did not know the cause.
On another note that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move to better cleaner solutions just because we should always move to better cleaner solutions when viable.
There is another consensus working here. The consensus is that You are crazy and ignorant. And to balance things out,You are completely misguided. If I want to read freeper like junk, I'll go looking specifically for it.
It's almost like gathering a bunch of people in a room with no power or authority to produce some facts and try to change the world accomplishes nothing.
I'm shocked that nagging and writing papers fails to change things. I think they just need to nag harder and write more papers THEN the world will listen.
sigh
The title could have easily stated 97% of Bible readers believe the Bible is true. Not sure what this proves other than 97% of the articles written were by people encamped in the man-made global warming camp.
Except that all of the "11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 [match] the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
You think wrong. If you bothered to read the source, it says all of the abstracts included in the study matched "the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
No, in 1490 the Church knew the Earth was round. The fact is that any educated person from the 3rd century BC on in Europe knew the Earth was round. In 1477 the Vatican commissioned two globes for the new Vatican library.
Oh slashdot, no one can hear you scream...or at least they really do not know who you are.
Ah, we're finally here: the day wherein scientific fact is established by consensus.
Not true. By the 1490s, it had already been pretty well established that the earth was round. It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.
This is untrue on many many levels:
1. The Earth was established quite conclusively as round and had been measured to within about 1000km by about 250 BCE. The Flat Earth Theory was not even considered remotely seriously by the 1490's.
2. The church dogma and common knowledge at the time was not that the Earth was flat, but that the spherical Earth was the center of the universe, and that the moon, planets, sun, and stars moved around it (the church dogma was that God made them move the way they appeared to move). That's what Galileo got in trouble for challenging, not the Flat Earth Theory.
3. The reason you're thinking that some people thought the world was flat in the 1490's is that Washington Irving made up the story over 300 years later to make Christopher Columbus seem more heroic than he really was, and history textbooks have been repeating the lie ever since. The real story is that the Earth was known to be much larger than Columbus was claiming in his sales pitch, so when smart monarchs consulted their scholars (or their own learning) they had every reason to believe Columbus was either a charlatan or an idiot, and turned him down. The only reason Columbus discovered anything was the fairly weak Spanish monarchy's desperation for a way around the Middle East and sheer dumb luck.
I am officially gone from
At this point there is clearly no way global warming will be stopped; they really need to start planning for what will happen and how to best mitigate the effects (as bad as they might be).
The longer they spend trying to convince the public the less time they'll be preparing for what will inevitably happen.
The people in power DON'T CARE, get over your bargaining phase and start accepting what is coming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model
I think it can be easily demonstrated that this is a ridiculously biased study:
From the paper:
Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based
system to raters with only the title and abstract visible.
All other information such as author names and afïliations,
journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was
categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. A team
of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings
So 12 people did all the work on 11,944 papers, sorting them according to how much they agreed with the idea that "Humans are the cause of Global Warming". We are given no indication of who these 12 people were, how much time was spent going through each paper, how quickly they came to their determinations, or what their own personal biases happened to be, but we can get an indication of the results of their sorting based on the examples included with the criteria they were measuring abstracts against.
And what were their criteria? Let's take a looksee:
Table 2. Deïnitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.
Key: Level of endorsement, Description, Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantiïcation
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause
of recent global warming
Example: "The global warming during the 20th century is
caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas
concentration especially since the late 1980s"
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantiïcation
Explicitly states humans are causing global
warming or refers to anthropogenic global
warming/climate change as a known fact
Example: "Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases
of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate
change"
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming.
E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions
cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
Example: ". . . carbon sequestration in soil is important
for mitigating global climate change"
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming.
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that humanâ(TM)s role on
recent global warming is uncertain/undeïned
Example: "While the extent of human-induced global
warming is inconclusive. . . "
(5) Implicit rejection
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on
global warming without saying so explicitly E.g.,
proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of
global warming
Example: ". . . anywhere from a major portion to all of
the warming of the 20th century could plausibly
result from natural causes according to these
results"
(6) Explicit rejection without quantiïcation
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are
causing global warming
Example: ". . . the global temperature record provides
little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect"
(7) Explicit rejection with quantiïcation
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than
half of global warming
Example: "The human contribution to the CO2 content in
the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is
negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission"
Wow. There's huge bias built right into the criteria! Just look at point number 2 for instance:
Example: "Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases
of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change"
Think of it this way. Say you're a scientist studying volcano emissions. Or methane levels over the last million years. Or have decided that automotive emissions cannot reasonably be discounted from the overall equation despite their contributing a neg
This paper is part of a bait and switch. Look at these three statements:
(A) Hardly controversial, even to climate skeptics: "The average planet temperature is higher today than 100 years ago, and the difference is at least partly due to human-released CO2".
(B) Only slightly controversial, even among (thoughtful) climate skeptics: "The influence of humans on the climate via CO2 will probably cause a noticeable increase in human suffering, at least somewhere on the planet, sooner or later, and that suffering is one reason to reduce CO2 emissions (a reason which we should weigh against other considerations)."
(C) Quite controversial among climate scientists: "The influence of humans on the climate via CO2 has already caused significant human suffering and environmental devastation in most areas of the world, and within 10-20 years the suffering and devastation will be much much worse."
It's a bait and switch to publish papers and press releases that go on and on about how uncontroversial the claim (A) is, and then pretend that this bears on policy debates. The important thing in policy debates is the vast spectrum between (B) and (C), and where is the truth along that spectrum.
When (thoughtful) climate skeptics say "the science is uncertain" and "there is no consensus", they mean that the answer is uncertain to questions like "What are the chances that X ppm of CO2 will cause ABC catastrophic consequences?" That's not just rhetoric: There is really no consensus among experts about what is the answer to these types of questions.
Sure, there are loads of climate skeptics who are not (thoughtful) climate skeptics, and who will disagree even with (A). But opinions of the (thoughtful) climate scientists trickle down, through think-tank articles, blogs, editorial pages, etc. Misleading articles like this will aggravate and harden the (thoughtful) climate skeptics and help nothing. It would be a better use of time to address the (thoughtful) climate skeptics by responding to their best arguments.
Are their 'pre-human'** cycles? yes. This is an impact outside those bounds.
How can that be when we're not warmer than during large parts of the Holocene (yet)? If anything, the fact that the coldest period in the whole Holocene was just a few hundred years ago, isn't there more support for saying that the _cold_ was outside pre-human cycles?
it's in my head
The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming.
This always troubles me. Science doesn't actually work on consensus. A consensus will tend to be formed when data consistently supports a particular model but the mere fact that a majority of papers supports a particular theory is utterly meaningless by itself. The data either proves a model right or wrong, not whether most people agree with the model. While the consensus argument is easy to make and can be useful for political ends, it ultimately weakens the credibility of those making the consensus argument because it implies that science is something where we can vote our opinions regarding validity of a theory.
The much more interesting question is whether any of the remaining 2.9% of the papers disproves some aspect of climate change. It reminds me of the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein) which was a compilation of criticisms of the theory of relativity. Einstein replied "If I were wrong, one would have been enough".
Just wrong.
And Obama's new Administration In Meltdown keyword: Nope.
"Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably,..."
The word you're looking for is 'dogma' and it has nothing to do with science.
"You know what? they also won't run critiques saying gravity isn't real either."
They'll do if you'll jump out the window.
100% of scientists believe that periods of global warming that occurred from 4.6B years ago through 5000 years ago were NOT caused by humans.
Chammy.info is an alias for mailinator.com, everybody can read those without any password by going to the site.
So read the mails and outbid the fucker if a low id blows up your ego.
Yes, let's take this attitude toward getting beaned by an asteroid. "Wot?" you say. "But..but...given enough lead time, there is something we can do about it...y'know...rockets, colored paint, solar sails, nuclear weapons." Oh, you wish to rely on human ingenuity. Yep, I agree. Let's rely on human ingenuity to reduce our contribution to the problem and reverse the problem should those naughty volcanoes start spewing CO2, political theories (another cause of global warming), etc.
That remind me of a story that got out pointing out that more than 400 million was given to various right wing entities devoted to deny the Green house effect since 1999 .
Thats 6 time more money than the visible opnent to the oil industry got.
That might explain some forum warrior zealots trying to spread FUD on the 97% concensus.
Here is the link to the said story.
Sorry, was in a french business paper, not use to be tree hugger propaganda.
http://www.lesaffaires.com/secteurs-d-activite/environnement/400-m-pour-nier-le-rechauffement-climatique/554686?fb_action_ids=10200274752063040&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
You are right that it does not matter how many agree. However, unless you are going to do some real research yourself you have to decide based on something. Siding with 97% of scientist seems reasonably better than just making up your own opinion because your gut tells you that many scientist are wrong. And BTW, nothing is proven irrefutably in science. Every theory (not proof) can be bested by a better one. Proofs are in math where we've made the rules.
All this particular meta-research is doing is showing that scientist are not in disagreement about it the way opposing views try to paint it. The strategy against climate change acknowledgement seems to be very similar to the arguments against evolution. Instead of addressing evidence, one side is purely political. The other side might also be political but they at least address the evidence.
Which argument is it today? There's no warming. Well there's warming but scientist don't agree it's caused by man. Well scientist agree it's caused by man but agreement doesn't prove anything. Well, even if it is caused by man it won't really cause any problems.
CO2 isn't even a 'greenhouse gas'. All the so-called 'scientists who support this 'global warming' nonsense get PAID for coming up with the 'correct' results - i.e. that there is a 'problem', and we must PAY them more, for the rest of their sad lives, to 'save' us from it.
The following page explains why the 97% is a joke:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
FTA: "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause."
So all we can say is that in 12,000 papers less than half of the papers took a position on the cause of global warming.
Now in order to get a realistic statistic the papers should all start with their intent is to find the cause of global warming, then we can see how many are inconclusive vs human-caused vs natural caused.
Given you state you have found it very hard to publish via traditional methods. I find it strange you haven't at least self published online and linked your publication in your post.
This good sir.
Actually what the post says is "an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. " So my question would be ...what percentage of all articles took a stance on the cause of global warming? If the percentage of articles that took a stance on the cause of global warming is less than 100% then the 97.1% statistic is misleading ... exactly how misleading is determined by the actual percentage of published articles that didn't take any stand.
eg: if 50% of published articles took no stand then the actual number of agree-ers is 48.5% ...
So ... I will go on believing that the cause of current climate change is not primarily anthropocentric until someone without a political agenda, can provide me with a model of climate change that takes all contributing factors into account, not just the easily measured ones.
Saying that we did this to ourselves is nothing but assigning blame, and doesn't particularly do anything to solve the problem, assuming that it can be.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
*Hiding* in semantics? Contradiction of your understanding of something by means of explicit definition and clarification is *hiding*?
97% of all published science bolsters a specific theory. How exactly are you missing the fact that this makes it the best and strongest proof?
From the very fact that it doesn't. It just means that 97% of papers are making the same assumption, and 3% are not.
It's either:
1. It's settled
2. There's an overwhelming majority wanting it to be settled a certain way and only publishing papers making that assumption.
#1 is only done through absolute proof that the assumption (that it is man-made) is accurate; otherwise it's #2. And there is by no means absolute proof that the assumption is accurate.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Interesting link. The Relativity Deniers in that article sound an awful lot like the Global Warming Deniers of today, not so much like the authors of the abstracts evaluated by the study in TFA.
However the conclusions broadcast by TFS and TFA have too much spin. They throw out those that did not take a stance one way or the other on the reality of global warming, and then took the "percentage" agreeing from only the remaining.
Nobody is making an argument for anthropomorphic global warming - that is, global warming with human-like characteristics.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Naw, you'd still have people talking about it, just like you have people talking about cell phone tower radiation and water fluoridation.
So they took in to account all the papers that were proven, by SCIENCE, to have inaccurate models and flawed data? Yup that's proof! Give them another billion in funding without looking in to it any farther. Even if someone did, I'm sure the "climate change" crowd would shout them down if the results were not what they liked.
Conversely, discounting the majority of scientific finding because it does not match what a particular group wants does not mean they are right. It does however mean that they have to provide better models then the majority. Put another way, in science, the majority usually IS right, and there is a well established method for showing otherwise. Thus using majority opinion as an indicator of correctness, while not infallible, is generally pretty good. If nothing else the probability of 3% allowing political belief to influence their conclusions is greater then 97% doing so.
TFA is not talking about majority opinion. It's talking about the majority of published papers. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Also note that TFA surveyed 1200 authors of the paper to see how their views related to what they published, so it is no surprise the authors thought the same as what they published.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
it says just over 4,000 out of 12,000 which would leave us with less than half
You are correct, I misunderstood what the two-thirds number was about. Two-thirds of the papers didn't take a position on whether humans were causing global warming and it's likely that the reason is because they weren't about the causes of climate change or a topic strongly related to that.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Finally. Someone understands the issue. What I dislike is that the media does this bullshit counter side argument to make everything "balanced". They would have people defending terrorists if they could.
Makes sense.. 3% are people who invest heavily in Oil companies and the owners of course.
I admit I just skimmed the article but it looked to me that of the 12,000 articles just over 1/3 (4,000+) actually took a stance and of that ~1/3 only 97% agreed that is was man made. So to say that 97% feels that GW is man made might not be all that accurate. I also realize this very point was most likely already made.
In a related story, it was discovered that 100% of meta-studies on man-made climate change were done to obtain or maintain government funding. Imagine that.
And there lies your denialism in shreds. It's not about the science. Conservatism is the politics of fear, and you fear what the consequences of the science being correct are, in economics and politics.
ahh right... so this is why mars has melting ice...
It's only man made if man created the sun. Most compelling scientific evidence I have seen links solar radiation cycles with global warming. This includes the recent downturn in temperatures.
Uh, I'm no Buddhist, but I can clap with one hand. It's easy: just bend your fingers so that your fingertips slap your palm. The faster you do it, the louder it gets. It's not as loud as two-hand clapping, but it's definitely louder than snapping your fingers.
So looking at the numbers 11994 papers reviewed of which 4000 took a stance on the cause of global warming of which 97.1% agreed it was anthropocentric. Do the math .... { 97.1% of ((4000-83)/11994) } = 31.7% ... that's pretty low for overwhelming scientific consensus in my book!!!
Also from the article "Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October." ... so by the very numbers presented in the article a higher percentage of Americans believe that AGW is real (42 % vs. 31.7% ) than the percentage of scientific papers reviewed in the "meta-study"... seems the AGW propaganda machine is working ...
Copernicus was less than 1%.
We already know from the "climate gate" (ug, hate the "gate" thing, but that's how many people refer to it) e-mails that the pro-AGW guys rigged the whole peer-review and paper publishing system. The only papers that were allowed through the process were papers that agreed with the AGW proponents or that, at least, did not disagree with AGW.
In any scientific papers publishing activity, if you make sure that the only papers that get published are the papers Joe Shmoe likes, it is hardly a surprise that 97% of the published papers share the viewpoint of Joe Shmoe (the remaining 3% are either so weak they were let through as phony non-threatening "balance" or perhaps were not relevent to any disagreement)
Typical misleading headline. If one bothers to read the actual synopsis, it says 97% of all reviewed climate papers which take a position on AGW support it. Of course the majority of the reviewed papers (66.4%) took no position on it at all.
The article does not say that.
Surprisingly, the article does say that, it says it three times before the end of the first sentence (once in the title, once in the subtitle, and once in the first sentence). You are right however, that the paper itself does not support the article's assertion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There would be much more reasonable discourse if the "solutions" weren't all Malthusian human-hating bullshit or crony capitalist business schemes.
The people who push AGW seem to often be a bunch of totalitarian douches.
The idea that scientists though the Earth was flat in the 1800s is the most ridiculous thing I have read on slashdot,
Yours is the only post where that idea showed up
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...or the rest didn't include evidence that revealed anything about the cause of AGW, maybe just on the effects of AGW and therefore actually had nothing to base an opinion on...
But you weren't looking for possibilities that didn't push your agenda were you?
Well... it could easily be said that if those 7 billion continue to not care there won't be 7 billion for much longer. Maybe the problem is self correcting?
Remember to maintain your supply of
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
And the more popular the views, the higher the probability that a study will be false. The reason is a combination of not publishing negative results, so that we can't evaluate how probable a published p .05 result actually is, and after-the-fact selection of tests for that probability, so that we can't evaluate ditto.
This applies to peer-reviewed studies in major journals. There is no reason to suspect that medicine is worse than any other field. All that is required is that the data be complex enough that a selection of tests can be done looking for something worth publishing.
It's getting boring you know?
"Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down."
I should remind you what your position for last 4 years have been about GW?
"There are lot of scientists (almost half) who disagree with this notion that this is global climate change is somehow related to man actions, so suck it, we won't change our life style."
So this is now invalidated.
For actual truth - you *don't* care. Because you have already made up your mind. You have to justify arguing against it, therefore you look to find more and more even laughable arguments against it. For me - I can accept that we can discover that situation is much more complex than we thought. Man made gases sure make impact, but how it plays out in atmosphere - we don't know fully.
And there's problem. For such large scale things you can't get full 100% understanding of things - or you can, when it's already too late to change anything. You have to make a chance. Now, you can do it solely on the faith like you guys like to do it. It rarely ends up right, but people tend to do that, so I can relate with that. People don't like idea that their current way of living can cause serious backslash. Because hey, living good is great, right? In fact, no scientist, no environmentalist are saying wishing to have good life is bad. However it really depends what that means. Can we do better with power waste? Yes, we can. Power resources? There's tons of them, and some of them are much cleaner than fossil fuels. Why avoid unpleasant truth?
You know that even Fox News pundits have admitted that global climate change could be caused by humans? They have this "But what we can do about it? China, Inda, etc." line, but still, they at least out of denial line. That's start - for changing things and attitude.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
You've confused the total with the excess. The total amount in the atmosphere, oceans, and biogeochemical cycles doesn't vary much, or very fast -- except for the last century during which there's been an extremely rapid rate of increase from fossil fuel burning. See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
As he says there:
"If you want basic facts about climate change, or detailed current technical information, you might do better using the links page. But if you want to use history to really understand it all..." -- read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Among other things you learn why logic and common sense didn't solve the puzzles in the detail needed; computers made it possible.
We should do a Slashdot survey and see if the proportion is roughly the same on here as it is in TFA.
I've often been quite interested to learn if it's just a few loud people or just a lot of people on either side of this argument, since it seems to come up so frequently on here.
I think it is funny that a bunch of ants are still trying to get together and yell "the humans are doing it the humans are doing it!!!! Face it we are all ants!!! The reason many do nothing is because it does not pass the smell test or any amount of common sense. Rainforest deforestation and pesticides and such that eventually end up in the ocean yeah most likely, but humans responsible for global warming when volcanos and oceans spew many order of magnitude more co2 in the atmosphere than humans? Nope sorry.
I think that very few people disagree that climate change is happening. The only real question, for most people, is whether or not it's caused by humanity, the reason being, if we caused it we can stop it. I say that is hubris. Thinking we did it without conclusive proof is hubris and thinking we can fix it if we didn't cause it is really hubris. In addition ... a massive die off of humanity could only improve the species. I guess that makes me some variety of asshole.
Yes, far easier for you in your comfy life to dictate the lives of your grand children and future generations. Because hey, they aren't here to fight back yet! amirite?
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
This is just a variation on the file drawer effect. Look how long it took to publish null efsects in response to Ben's Feeling the Future travesty.
"God-given" brain ? I thought evolution produced the human brain ... clearly you are a religious nut.
However that does not invalidate your premise ... tho there are folks on here that will seize on it like it's relevant.
What you say is true however this study covers papers from the past 22 years since 1991. Given the controversy around the subject the fact that no one has been able to come up with a serious challenge to the dominant paradigm in climate science in all that time is telling. Any scientist who was able to come up with something that overturned current climate science would certainly cement their reputation in the annals of history.
97% of used car dealers agree this is a honey of a deal, and 97% of those would gladly take credit.
Self-interest creates a bias factor.
Futurist Traditionalism
The key works in the summary of the results are "The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers THAT TOOK A STANCE endorsed human-cause global warming." (emphasis added). The authors report that of the nearly 12 thousand papers they reviewed, in 4 thousand of them the authors took a position on the topic. So of those approximately 33% who took a stance, 97% believe global warming is man made. That means roughly 68% of the papers did not take a stance claiming that Global Warming (or Climate Change as it has come to be know during the last decade and a half of zero warming).
The dichotomy is not between those who believe firmly one way or the other, but between those who want to declare it as a fact or fiction, and those who reasonably suggest that there simply is not enough if any evidence of man made global warming to make any declaration at all.
And the evidence (this study included) backs that clear 68% majority.
It does say which percentage takes a stance. Of the nearly 12 thousand papers reviewed, only 4 thousand took a stance (~33%).
So, 97% of 33% -- or 32% -- take a stance supporting the notion.
That leads us to assume that the vast majority, 68% take the reasonable position that there isn't enough evidence to support such a declaration.
Economists didn't give us good "costs and benefits" to changing taxation policies with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation of the economy. We got vague platitudes about things like 17% annual growth, and creation of 4 million jobs per quarter (which was later, quietly revised down to something like 100,000).
These policy changes never achieved anything near that, and, in fact, collapsed the fucking economy.
And yet, nobody holds "Austrian" Economists to this same high standard of proof for their whack-a-doodle theories. And when it comes to the idea that investing in sound management of industrial emissions and natural resources - we hear the same claims from these fortune-tellers, that doing so will "ruin the economy". IMNSHO - that's evidence that we should do exactly the opposite of what the Economists say.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Here is where massaging statistics comes in
Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientic consensus.
The issue is that only 33.3% of the papers had AGW positions. What were the other climate change papers about? Of all climate change papers 32.6% endorsed AWG. That is far from a consensus.
. . . well, to be fair, the same contingent of "geniuses" took us to war in Iraq based on a "1% chance" that Saddam Hussein had WMD. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... no one is researching a way to control the planet's climate in any meaningful way. Since we've already tipped the scales into climate change, and there's no way the human race will stop consuming cheap fossil fuel energy for the foreseeable future, research needs to direct itself to figuring out how the human race can survive climate change, not analyzing it.
nor do they really have the power to do jack didlysquat about it if they DID care. Really.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Undoing bad mod
... and not their quality?
I could fund 99 research papers in to proving that black is white. If one scientist funds his own to say something to the contrary... do you believe the 99% or the 1%?
Just because most people appear think it's one way does not make it so.
Except it's not 97%, read the actual paper instead of the summary. And the others are producing evidence, and aren't on the payroll of major financial interests.
Other than that, it's just like what you said.
The "science" behind this ridiculous "97% of all non-corrupt, progressive scientists agree" paper is even worse than the "science" arguing for AGW in the first place:
Note this excerpt from Anthony Wattts' blog on Cook's more-than-a-little-suspect claims:
Now, Cook has upped the ante, allowing the average person to help participate in the lie and make it their own, as Brandon Schollenberger observes, Cook has launched a new “Consensus project” to make even more certain the public gets his message:
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
It’s gobsmacking. But, I see this as a good thing, because like the lies of presidential politics, eventually this will all come tumbling down.
(Emphasis added by /. poster)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
99.9% of scientists believed in geocentricity at one point too.
Appeal to Consensus is not good science
A lot of nuclear engineers agree that fission exists.
That in no way qualifies them to make statements or predictions about economics, agriculture, land use, or politics, and they certainly have no right to dictate to the rest of us how we make tradeoffs between current and future consumption.
However, if 97% of nuclear engineers agree that a nuclear powerplant is being operated recklessly and is likely to suffer a meltdown that spews radioacive waste across half the state, we should probably listen to them and try to come up with ways to reduce the risks. We might even want to ask those same engineers for suggestions as to what we could do to prevent it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
One thing that the study didn't look into is the number of unique authors of the papers. If one author who writes ten papers with opinions towards AGW does it outweigh the author who writes one paper against?
Another point is that by separating into four broad categories the study maskes many of the results. For example, a study that concluded that man is contributing to global warming but only small portion would probably go into the "endorse AWG category". There is a big difference between contributing to and causing.
"Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
Yup, the politics of fear is our problem.
Let's start with Arrhenius over 100 years ago. The falsifiable claim is that burning fossil fuels will raise the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and cause warming. We have observed the warming. Had we not, it would have falsified the hypothesis. Surely you've been following this over the years and this is all old news.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Well, you are technically correct, however, I went to two of the articles linked and both of them mentioned how many total articles they found in a search for "global climate change" or "global warming" and then they mention a number of those articles which take a specific stance...
For example, the THIRD sentence of one of the articles reads...
"The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers."
Unless one factors all causes and distillls to define the contribution of each, one is not scientific. Even if one is a Scientist, by profession.
The sun is in a warming cycle at the present time. This warming cycle is contributing to global warming on Terra (and other radiation recipients in Sol's range).
The cumulate calories above a definable mean range that human activity is producing, such as from deliberate burnings of fuels for human activity applications, do each contribute to global warming. They exacerbate the current solar-cycle warming, increasing temperatures above what would be naturally occurring.
Thus, to say the present global warming is "man-made" is not scientific and not true. Global warming, and cooling, are natural cyclical phenomena. Man is increasing the warming in the warming cycles, and decreasing the levels of decrease in the cooling cycles. Man is not causing anything, however important he may think himself to be.
The paper shows cites 97% of papers. It isn't a one to one correlation but the gist is that there is consensus among scientists. If you need to actually cite the number of scientists, this paper is more direct in counting scientists.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You fail to understand many things.
Most importantly, you fail to understand the idea of "increased variance." The predictions of global warming period is not that it will get hotter all the time; or that it will get cooler all the time; but that there will be an increased frequency of oscillations between cooling and warming at rates not previously observed. It is this oscillation, this switching back and forth between heating and cooling too rapidly, that is the evidence for the global warming hypothesis (same goes for tornado strength). This is called "scatter."
Second, you fail to understand that "testable predictions" means reproducing past events. Global climate models cannot reproduce the temperature record for the past without including man-made heating during the industrial revolution. These same models, when run into the future, predict increased scatter and increasing mean temperature, with a scatter level that's high and a mean increase that's slow.
These two points continually have been mis-explained to the public, and the advocates for policy change to reverse climate change have failed miserably at getting these points through to the public---hence your post.
Should say that 97% of climate scientist agree climate change, global warming is NOT man made. About the only reason you hear this garbage is because those same 97% are nothing more than paid idiots, who's grants, funding, research are dependent on government money, so they will back the government(s) so they can keep their lazy a** cushy jobs. In the 70's we worried about a new ice age, then when owlgore came along, it was global warming and we had to drastically curb our lifestyle to prevent the world from burning up (even though owlgore lives in a house and uses the energy for ONE house, that would take a city block to use up, flies around in a private jet, uses limo after limo in a car detail, leaving engines running all the time). Now, it's been proven that the earth really isn't warming up, and hasn't been for about 10 years or so, which, just happens to parallel the solar cycles, #11 which we are currently in. In other words, as the sun output increases or decreases, over time, our planet heats up or cools off accordingly. Also, the "man made" part of it is just another way for the atheists to say humans are totally responsible on earth for everything, and not the Lord, who designed and created the heavens and the earth.
Please include any time when they stated a falsifiable claim.
They claim that global warming is man-made. This is a falsifiable claim: with enough understanding of the climate you can either find an alternative mechanism which is the cause of the heating or you can understand the man-made mechanism in enough detail that there is no room for doubt. This is not at all easy but there is no requirement that things be easily falsifiable.
So, if it gets hotter, it's global warming, if it gets colder, it's global warming. In the end, there's no way to prove it wrong. By your own definition, that's not science.
The climate is a complex beast and disturbing it can easily cause local cooling even if the overall global trend is to warm up. For example if the melting Greenland ice cap dumps enough fresh water into the Atlantic to disrupt the Gulf Stream then northern Europe will get a LOT colder. If there are reasonable, verifiable mechanisms for local then it is not unreasonable to have local cooling caused by global heating.
If you want to attack this survey then there are far better way to do it: which journals did they use and are they reputable? were the search criteria biased in any way and were control samples using a random selection of articles without the initial selection bias checked for a consistent result? Even if the survey was completely unbiased in every way can you really draw any sensible conclusions from numbers of papers?
As a scientist what I truly find really objectionable though is that this is science! You should make up your mind based on evidence not on what other people's opinions are: this is not some popularity contest! Personally I think the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and it is highly likely that humans are some or all of the reason behind it but don't believe me: I could easily be wrong! Listen to what the evidence is and make up your own mind.
Ok not quite true. But it has been hijacked.
Notice the article description brings up the Republican party, with a conspiracy about them manipulating public opinion. Huh. Nothing about any other political parties? Sure, they don't believe in global warming. But there's more here. Media presenting two opposing viewpoints? Oh no! Balance! And the other side disagrees with me! So it's not balanced! It's a conspiracy against my worldview!
Ever wonder why too few suggest the solution to global warming should be technological? Nope, the solution is government regulation and a carbon taxe.How is giving more money to the government going to help an environmental issue? What's the ag, mining, forestry and trucking industries going to do? Switch to solar powered tractors? Hydrogen powered trucks? Oh that's right there are NONE ON THE FRICKIN MARKET. I'm in the ag industry myself and I can tell you, there are no non-fossil fuel tractors available. New Holland is working on one (look it up on youtube) but there are none. Do you really think we can farm with thousands of farmhands armed with hoes? The cost in paychecks would be astronomical.
Does diesel cost money? Is the cost of say farming going up? Yes. Do we want alternative energy sources so we're not slaves to the oil industry? Yeppers. Do we have the technology available? Nope.
Ever notice how when global warming comes up, there isn't enough SCIENTIFIC debate? Instead, we whine about right-wing parties ignoring us and we talk about industry regulation/slowing the economy down, attacking corporations, whining about capitalism (possibly on trendy smart phones), corporate greed... We'll just change our narrative from "right wing capitalism greed evil destroy society" to "right wing capitalism greed evil destroy environment".
Why not try "we need to replace our existing technologies" and "the government should provide funding for research into new technologies" instead of "oh noes capitalism" and "taxes and regulations".
Socialists are people who will only accept an outcome as fair if it caters to their worldview. To remain relevent, they hijacked environmental issues to "sneak" their idealogy into public policy.
Your fossil fuels are ruining the planet's climate. Your post proved that itself. Extreme heats and extreme colds all caused by it. How much harder could you be in denial?
The paper shows cites 97% of papers.
Actually it doesn't, read the paper again, it's in the abstract.
Here is a link to the paper for you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take."
The church dogma wasn't about whether the earth was round ot not, but about whether the sun revolved around the earth or the other way around.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
" I don't think anyone could argue that it is ALL caused by mankind."
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know human activity is increasing CO2 concentration. We know the planet is warming. We don't know to what extent human activity is responsible for the warming, but it's certainly possible that it is all due to human activity. It's even possible that the earth would be cooling if it weren't for human-generated CO2. I'm happy to agree that no one can PROVE that it's all due to human activity, as there are too many variables and unknowns to be that precise. But it's just as plausible an argument as saying 75 percent of warming is due to human activity. it's really immaterial. If we agree that warming is happening and it's not desirable, then we should be able to agree that pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad idea, and we should try to mitigate that. Sadly, it doesn't seem that we can. The next few decades should be interesting.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
How true.
On another angle:
Take a look at where the land masses are on a globe. Given the vast frozen tundras that are going be opened up with a little more warming, and how comparatively little land will be made into a desert, or flooded, I'd say that global warming would be the best thing to happen in 10,000 years.
Perhaps the words mean something different to you. The abstracts that expressed no position were papers on other aspects of climate science, therefore were not counted. Global warming is only one aspect of climate science, and not every paper on climate science deals with global warming.
Of the remaining 33.6% of papers that did express a position on global warming, 32.6% agreed with the theory, .7% disagreed with the theory, and .3% were uncertain. That's where the 97% number comes from.
~X~
"One side looks at that stance as foolish. But they go to far and reject global warming completely in an effort to distance themselves from their political opponents. And then when shown results that contradict their position, they say that it isn't manmade."
This isn't correct. The reason why it is not correct is because of the Global Carbon Credits Exchanges being setup in secret and in public, trying to get monetary flow into a one world governing body from all countries.
This use to be a secret, but the globalists lead by the IMF and Federal Reserve goons don't even try to hide it anymore. They just assume they are going to get away with it and that everyone will submit.
What I think turns off everyone is that the fact of the matter is, if we want earth to be a nice home for all, we have to stop 3 things and none of the research treats these three things seriously:
1) Stop using science to build iShit, and start using it to build technology and science that address the human condition of health, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all human beings on the planet which obviously includes food production and shelter/education.
2) Dismantle all western institutions in science and research, and reconstruct the educational system around individual accomplishment and contribution by leveling the playing field and putting the internet to use and start educating people.
Remove the entire Federal Reserve system from the educational and society apparatus. Just unplug it. The new currency is contribution for education.
In my opinion you do not deserve a degree of any recognition until you solve a problem published by your community in what I call the big 3. (Clean water, clean energy, food production).
3) Dismantle centralized governments to prevent interests from destroying the ability of smaller communities to look at applications of science and technology in a uncorrupted environment which means patenting is illegal of any technology and so is the secrecy that surrounds the really important stuff we are not allowed to see, yet fund in todays society.
Most people on this forum think the technology and invention process happens in University Labs. That is true, for about 3% of what makes the world go around. The REAL innovation is carried out by private corporations, or 97% of it because giant amounts of capital are needed to make anything useful. Therefore, most of the technology in use today is not taught, invented or implemented at _ANY_ University.
This has to stop, as most of it is being driven by a military industrial complex.
This means dismantling the military industrial complex. How we would do that is something I do not have an answer for. But if it is not done, and done soon, we won't have to worry about the who is right about global warming or what percentage.
There isn't going to be a human being alive to actually find out how much of global warming really is man made.
I personally feel humans don't fully understand the planetary biospehere yet to even begin to do research on the subject, let alone draw any conclusions about it. The earth is just too complex for our primitive technology to make heads or tails of about how and why.
Ultimately though, my biggest reason for making the determination that the whole man made carbon production is a scam is because we do not have a space program.
Ultimately, we have to be able to go into space, and create worlds of our own. Fully sustainable habitats with complete understanding of biological processes from top to bottom. We can't even do that on earth yet, let alone in space.
So to proclaim that scientists have a firm enough grasp of the consequences of the Earths biosphere at any CO2 concentration level on human beings is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.
I mean, if we DID HAVE fully self sustaining communities in space and on the ground that produce their own air, power and CO2 and people lived long healthy and productive lives I would proba
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
So 2.9% of the reports says it's wrong. As we all know, it only takes one counterexample to falsify a theory. It's called sience, not politics. All this is just noise.
Some the concerns raised here were addressed in the survey. Check out this quote from this Arstechnica article.
I see it as pretty clear that the scientific consesus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. There is not considerable disagreement among climate scientists.
Are you really this ignorant on the topic, trolling or just wanting to spread hate and ignorance?
It is well known that that the Christian church considered the earth round. You can even see the oldest Christian artwork of God holding the earth in his hand, and the earth is spherical.
a) Its not possible to have a negative proof. Case in point, prove that I don't own a invisible pink unicorn.
Its not actually possible.
b) This study shows consensus however that still doesn't mean anything in science.
There isn't a hypothesis that 97% of scientists agree on, it is purely American Idol style popularity contest of the idea.
From the original press release accompanying the paper:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Someone then decided to sex the numbers up by ignoring the 66.4% "no position on AGW" papers to get 32.6%/ (32.6% + 0.7%) = 97% "consensus".
A sign of increasing desperation on the part of the alarmists.
This assertion in and of itself is pretty demonstrative of the kind of science we can frequently see out of climatologists
I will demonstrate what I know of science. If I look at why the 97% are wrong in the past it is almost exclusively because of the observations at the time. Things like telescopes, harnessing electricity and the plethora of devices we have made for observing have shifted the center of the universe and changed our understanding of space and time.
There were people long before Copernicus that hypothesized that the earth was round and that it might revolve around the sun. However, in day to day life, there would be little reason for you to even entertain the idea that the earth moved around the sun. Every observation would indicate that you feel motion. If we orbited around the sun we should feel the motion. It took a build up of observations to shift the idea.
In similar fashion Newton's physics described motion and gravity well for us. He gave us Calculus. It worked well for the observations at the time. As our capability to observe particles and the stars increased, Newton's physics stopped working. Quantum Theory and Relativity better describe nature at wider scales.
We work with the best theory we have until an observation overturns it. Even then we tend to continue using it until a better theory comes along. The thing is there really isn't a right and wrong to any of it. Even when they turn out to be wrong they are typically useful.
I can observe with my eyes that the sun and stars revolve around the earth and observe that when certain stars are in certain areas of the sky it is time to plant crops. I can even call those stars gods over the seasons. My theory allows me to predict when to plant crops. We change our theories we have more observations that yield better and ever expanding theories.
When Copernicus suggested his helio-centric model it did not fit predictions as well as the earth-centric model. The earth-centric model had centuries of tweaking the math and making circles upon circles to fit the observations. And though Copernicus had a fundamentally simpler system, It took better geometry and observations made by Galileo to really solidify the helio-centric model.
I don't think anything ever tells us whether a theory is right or wrong. Observations either support or refute them. And until you have a better hypothesis to challenge the existing theory there is little benefit from just denying a theory.
That 97% think that man is causing climate change does not mean that it is right. It simply means it is the best theory that fits the observations. Observations include a great many things that cause the earth to absorb and release energy. When we add up all of those observations, 97% of those looking into it think that man is causing the Earth to absorb a little more than it otherwise would. We study the quantity of different gases, their spectral and physical behavior.
We measure the heat of the sun constantly from a variety of sensors. The albedo of the Earth is measured on a variety of spectrum. The height of the oceans is measured from space. There is currently no competing theory that fits what we know. Feel free to come up with something better. Make it explain something that's currently unexplained but still fits everything else.
I want to repeat that I am not saying the theory is right. Only that it is currently our best explanation for what we are capable of observing.
Nothing is ever 'settled'. There is no such thing as absolute proof. Theories are models. They're just explanations. If you don't like the explanation support a better one that fits observations.
That absolutely is a classic denier position, because it sounds sensible on the surface (just give me some more proof), but in practice the goalposts move, so that there is never enough proof. The whole argument is set up that way -- science can never "prove it irrefutably" because that wouldn't be science.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Most people who talk about taxes being neither good nor bad, usually mean taxes paid with other people's money.
Yo dawg, I heard you like pie charts. So we ran some statistics on your statistics so you can bar graph while you plot points.
"Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
Conservatives also are prone to making quotes and statistics up, rather than dealing in facts. And to think hyperbole is an actual argument.
They're really not very rational people.
OF the 97% of the scientists who wrote papers in favour of anthropogenic global warming, what percentage of them were told that if their research didn't support AGW they would find their funding pulled?
money and freedom grab. Has anyone considered plants would increase their growing and CO2 consumption with increased levels? And werent the CO2 levels many time larger than present? How did the levels go down? Tax dollars? CU Sales? More laws? More C02/food -> more plants (longer seasons) ->.natural reduction of C02. If there were more elk there would be more lions to reduce the number of elk.
AGW is a religion - a proponent only believes they can benefit financially or spirtitually (religion) or politically (socialist/communist/facist) who think government is God.
You've confused the total with the excess.
I'm not confusing anything, the parent is. He wrote "the world's CO2 emissions" (which implies the total), not "the world's excess CO2 emissions" or "human CO2 emissions." Given all the emotion and hyperbole around this issue, I think it's important for language to be accurate.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Whether conservatives deal with more with facts isn't the point here. The point is that "progressives" and "liberal" political positions are based on spreading fear and scare tactics: fear of environmental disaster, fear of financial ruin, fear of being out of work without support, fear of getting sick without health insurance, fear of losing one's home, etc. That's not hyperbole, it's fact.
The core of conservative and libertarian political positions (you know, Heritage Foundation, Koch brothers, etc., all the people Democrats love to hate) is that if you give people economic and individual liberties, things will work out fine by themselves.
It says 97% of relevant published papers make that claim, with 2% making the counter claim and 1% undecided.
Did you read my link at all? The entire point is there is consensus among scientists. Are you going to dispute that?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Again with the confusing 'scientists' and 'papers'. 2/3 of the *papers* did not take a position, presumably because what they were researching did not actually cast any light on the question, not it would be absurd for them to 'take a position'. Of the papers in the study whose subjects actually implied one conclusion or other about AGW, 97% implied the conclusion that AGW is occurring.
The study authors were just being properly careful in explaining that they took a large corpus of papers which *might possibly* imply one or the other conclusion about AGW, then found the ones which *actually did*, and compared how many of those implied one conclusion and how many implied the other. The fact that it happens to be 1/3 of the papers they looked at which fit into this group is not particularly interesting, but if that information hadn't been included, _someone_ would've complained about it.
"are still split about what's causing global warming"
wait I thought scientists were wondering why the rate of warming has slowed considerably over the last decade. Sooo, what's causing global warming when the warming hasn't been keeping up with C02 emissions? Is that why they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change"?
I don't think you've been listening hard if you haven't heard of the Sterm Review. It's 700 pages long and doesn't refer to the sky falling at all. I keep seeing references to "sky is falling" arguments, but I haven't heard of any. Could you point me to one?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.
97% of scientific articles having a particular conclusion or accepting a proposition as proven by previous articles, is indirectly telling you what 97% of the EVIDENCE supports. And science is all about assessing the evidence and accepting the evidence no matter where it points.
Self selection?
Seems that the only fact demonstrated is that the "sticking fingers in the ears" crowd is the peer reviewers doing a damn good job of blocking any conflicting evidence.
However, if you consider the rest of your post more important, I'll happily discuss that instead.
I'll respond by quoting what Richard Lindzen (a respected climatologist and climate 'skeptic') says about this topic, which is related and I think reasonable:
the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact. But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming.
(In addition it is somewhat disconcerting to me that the paper speaks in terms of 'tenets,' which is a synonym for dogma. Science should rise above dogma).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
So, the real story is that less than a third actually agreed with each other that man (women not included obvioulsy) is the EVIL source of all climate change, the rest are smart enough, in my not-so-humble opinion to recognize arrogant condescention when they read it.
At their level, you don't win grants and Nobel prizes by proving something everyone else has proven.
When it comes to climate science, you get grants for predicting disasters or otherwise confirming global warming. The field is completely political. You only need look at Climategate for confirmation.
I'm pretty sure women had something to do with it too.
That would have all been interesting, if it had happened. Too bad for the fossil fuel industry that it really didn't.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
What about Anthropic Global Warming?
Global warming was made for us, specifically?
My primary problem with Apocalyptic Global Warming has always been in the premise that, because we can't figure out another reason for the apparent warming, it must be solely due to man-made CO2; then even the scientists admit that CO2 alone is inadequate to produce apocalyptic levels of warming and needs amplification from water vapour. That has always struck me as a position of excess hubris, I think Occam's razor applies here as the simplest explanation is the Earth's Climate is so complicated your puny models aren't good enough to even be wrong.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
To be on the side of consensus. AMS ran a whole article on its front page clearly endorsing AGW in the abstract. The problem is that it didn't offer any justification for its endorsement in the article itself. All it did was list the mathematical physics that can be used to talk about the physics of climate. People are declaring allegiance to the subject because there is money in such allegiance. The worst of people join the party in power because they are the worst of people. It has always been this way. It will always be this way.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It's Interesting that the heliocentric model is actually much older than people believe.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Maybe they will start to care when the journalists and certain political parties stop lying to them about what's actually happening.
c++;
Sometimes I really REALLY doubt the effectiveness of the slashdot moderation system, and this is one of those times.
I'd really like to hear a good argument for why the parent post is either overrated or is flamebait.
In fact, I really think slashdot should get rid of the "overrated" option from the moderation system, because when I myself moderate, I haven't seen any good use for it. Anybody care to argue why the overrated option should be there in the first place?
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
The Bible uses the same sorts of phrases people have long used elsewhere (like the "corners of the earth" to mean something like "far and wide" or "the limits of the known world") but it only explicitly describes the shape of the Earth in one specific verse... and it says the Earth is round.
Neither the Old Testament (which Christians and Jews sort of share) nor the New Testament (which Christians particularly focus on) declares that the Earth is flat or that the Sun goes around the Earth... the Catholic church is the only christian church to take the wrong position on these matters. You might want to claim the Bible says these things when it talks about the sun "rising" and "setting", etc., but then you'd have to say that 99% of the human race is in error since even modern astronomers and astronauts use these phrases. It's popular on Slashdot to hate all Christians and/or Christian churches and pretend that they are all flat-Earther or earth-centered-universe clubs, but that is only a position the critics take out of extreme ignorance. I get it... many young and/or left-wing people don't like anybody who disapproves of their sex/drugs/rock-n-roll lifestyle choices.... and that's fine.... but at least try to be honest, informed, and civil in your criticism and learn to accept that others might disagree with your positions just as you demand that they accept that you disagree with theirs; there's no need to make things up to hate.
Further point of clarity: Even the Catholic church did not actually persecute Galileo for proving they were wrong; they actually agreed with his observations but wanted him to shut up about it both because they wanted to maintain their position in society as an authority (they wanted to slowly change their teaching on the matters) AND they feared the idea that the individual could be empowered to interpret nature (and scriptures) ... a fight they lost anyway when one of their Monks (Martin Luther) nailed a list of theological and logical arguments on their door and then started encouraging the people the READ the Bible for themselves. Galileo's real crime in the eyes of the Pope was in publicizing his results and making the Pope look WRONG something the leadership of the Catholic church of the time (which operated almost as a government) was unwilling to tolerate.
Who gives a shit what 97% of anybody says? Saying "oh, almost all of these smarty pants people agree, so should you! Now get in line and do what you're told!" won't win anybody any favors. How about this?
Try breathing by sticking your mouth around your car's talepipe. Wasn't so good, was it? Well if it's not good for you to breathe, it's probably not good for other things too so we should try to put as little of that stuff in the air as possible.
Wow you really need to work on your reading comprehension. Richard Lindzen was one of the authors disputing that 97% consensus based on "surveys contained trivial polling questions". The link I supplied has nothing to do with surveys or polling. Lindzen was referring to another study. Please read first. By the way, it's ironic that you mention Lindzen because he agrees with the basic premise of climate change: 1) it's happening and 2) humans are a likely cause:
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Lindzen however thinks that warming isn't a problem because the clouds would save us in a controversial "iris" theory which he admits had serious flaws.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data.
Thanks for playing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Richard Lindzen was one of the authors disputing that 97% consensus based on "surveys contained trivial polling questions".
He said he agrees with that consensus......what exactly is your point?
Lindzen because he agrees with the basic premise of climate change [nytimes.com]: 1) it's happening and 2) humans are a likely cause
Who doesn't agree with that?
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data
A scientist who admits his mistakes is respectable. Lindzen corrected them and resubmitted the paper in 2011.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
97.1% of papers/authors didn't come to a conclusion supporting AGW
32.6% did
66.4% had no stated position
Thus 32.6/33.6 gives 97.1%
32.6% doesn't seem quite so overwhelming as 97.1%
Cook gets around this little difficulty quite deftly.
He states in essence that all sensible people know that human activities are the principal cause of global warming [if, in fact the planet is still warming] so that does not need to be affirmed.
Therefore the 66.4% of no stated position actually support the AGW proposition.
Clever !
That really is NOT the case. The fact is, that a MINORITY of Americans think that climate change has some doubt.
The problem is NOT that, though republicans use it as a crutch.
The REAL problem is that the Liberals are making a HORRIBLE mistake with this and refuse to come up with NEW ideas on how to solve this. And CO2 and other GHG will continue. Heck, even Europe is backing off because they have found that they can NOT compete against other nations that are NOT taking the economic hit.
Assume that USA takes the economic hit. Then what will happen is that China, India, Russia, South Africa, etc. will build up coal plants WITHOUT pollution control as quickly as possibly. Why? To capture more manufacturing and other items from USA.
So, what is a REAL SOLUTION? Involve ALL nations (and states ) at the same time.
For America, we need 2 things ASAP:
1) require all new buildings under 4 stories to have unsubsidized on-site AE to provide energy equal to 95% or more of their HVAC. Why do this? Because it will encourage builders to NOT put up loads of solar, but to instead, look for alternatives such as better insulation, aerogel windows, geo-thermal HVAC, etc.
2) put a tax on ALL goods based on which nations/state they come from and the CO2 emissions. But several things about this:
a) none of this guess work. We need it based on OCO2, which will measure directly. Greenies are in for a REAL shocker. Their beliefs about America's emissions are probably close since we do direct measurements, but China is way too low. In addition, it does not matter the source. Just co2(out) - co2(in).
b) this needs to be normalized, but not based on per capita. It needs to be on tonnes / $ of actual GDP (not GDP-ppp). The truth is, that the vast majority of emissions is not tied to ppl, but to business.
c) it needs to start low and increase. If you want your product to be an exception to the tax, then you will say where components come from and then the tax is lowered based on the location being more efficient. As such, goods from China would have the max tax on it.
America's own goods would then have average tax, but dropping.
Likewise, goods from Sweden would have a low tax.
Here is some data for the later:
This is wiki, but it is based on 2006 data.
Here is 2009 data, but it is ppp GDP (which rewards nations for manipulating their money against the dollar; hence why it has to be real $GDP ).
With the above approaches, it would put ALL nations/states on the same footing. If they want to sell here without a tax, they need to drop their emissions. And by spending a bit of money cleaning up, it rewards a nation by paying lower taxes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
He said he agrees with that consensus......what exactly is your point?
That you don't know what the hell you're talking about because you didn't bother to read the link that I supplied. Instead you answered with an unrelated link.
A scientist who admits his mistakes is respectable. Lindzen corrected them and resubmitted the paper in 2011.
And it was rejected. The first rejection was due to reviewers. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences felt that one reviewer wasn't qualified enough to review the work and the second reviewer had worked with Lindzen previously. The PNAS suggested four other reviewers. Lindzen protested he hasn't worked the second reviewer in 8 years. Lindzen rejected all but one of suggested reviewers. After some back and forth, Lindzen got two reviewers that he wanted and two others were picked by PNAS. All four rejected his work on a number of factors agreeing that the quality was not suitable and the conclusions were not justified. They all agreed the topic was of interest, but they disagreed as to whether the paper was clearly written or that the procedures were described in detail.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't believe you at all. Maybe your data is crap? or your methodology? or the science you do?
Way to stay classy, Geekoid.
That you don't know what the hell you're talking about because you didn't bother to read the link that I supplied. Instead you answered with an unrelated link.
The link you supplied considers a similarly narrow question. It avoids such interesting questions as, "should we do anything about global warming? If we don't do something, will there be a disaster as Hansen claims?"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I was totally with you until you said:
--snip--
That 97% think that man is causing climate change does not mean that it is right. It simply means it is the best theory that fits the observations
--snip--
This is only a statistic about published papers. The statistic might say more about which models are most considered for publication than which models best fit the observations.
A better study might look at the scrutiny applied to these 97% vs the *rejected* papers that disagreed with the 97%.
Again, all we have here is a statistic about paper publishing.
They might as well have scanned over the "common" media (TV, newspapers, etc) and generated similar statistics.
You cannot do these type of studies and from these data conclude what the "best" theory is. You can only say what is the most popular. Well, most popular *published*.
I am not sure the assertion is based on sound science, and using proofs such as this one, "97% of climate science papers agree" is not helping me to join the believers.
Quality counts. Freeman Dyson is quality. Richard Lindzen is quality Ivar Giaever is quality. Roger Pielke Sr. is quality.
Actually in the study cited here, about 32% of the papers supported the consensus. The authors threw out most of the papers by not counting those without an opinion. A real opinion suvey conducted by Hans von Storch et al in 2010 found a majority does believe in AGW--it's about 80%, not 97%. But those dissenting were not chopped liver. They were real, credentialed, respected scientists with a body of work and credible justifications for their dissent.
The debate is not over.
Great study you have there. Let's completely ignore that the IPCC Charter (1) defines Climate Change as human-induced influences over and above natural climate variability and (2) cannot accept for review or publication any papers that do not show human-induced effects on climate. Under those conditions of course 97% of papers are going to show humans cause global warming. Dickheads.
Actually, thanks to relativity, the people who said the Sun moved round the Earth are right.
Dilbert RSS feed
You want measurable evidence to tear down the CAGW hypothesis?
How about the lack of a tropospheric hotspot?
Regards,
David Smith
The point is that "progressives" and "liberal" political positions are based on spreading fear and scare tactics: fear of environmental disaster, fear of financial ruin, fear of being out of work without support, fear of getting sick without health insurance, fear of losing one's home, etc. That's not hyperbole, it's fact.
It's not fact. There's not a mainstream leftwing party in the world that's running of the platform "Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
What you do see, especially here on Slashdot, is left-wingers supporting the science.
What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain.
Please. Anybody that's looked seriously at the "hide the decline" issue and doesn't see scientific misconduct for political reasons is completely biased. I actually used to be a "warmist", not a "denier", until Climategate. Not that I was really a "warmist", as I knew trying to model the temperature of the Earth at best was always going to be somewhat uncertain, but I at least gave the scientists the benefit of the doubt.
And if "hide the decline" isn't enough for you, then there was the explicit email requesting others to erase email to avoid freedom of information acts. That's a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Where was the prosecution?
Or how about, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Or how about this, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Do you know what the common thread is among all that? Phil Jones. That they couldn't at least fire that clown shows just how much they circled the wagons.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
That's called a whitewash, as tends to happen in political fields.
Yes, it is a fact; those are positions of mainstream Democrats. You just keep denying it because you don't want to face the reality that Democrats (and other left-wing parties) run campaigns based on spreading irrational fear.
Wrong. This "study" is explicitly talking about the consensus of the papers written. It doesn't validate or invalidate the actual content of the papers.
So 97% of people publishing these papers agree GW is man-made. How many of those papers were commissioned and paid for by liberal institutions with a vested interest in establishing human-caused global warming? How many are associated with environmentalist causes? Are any of the Universities involved exceptionally liberal? (That's a trick question, they are all exceptionally liberal). In short, who's grinding their axes in these papers? What is their actual agenda? Even the most cursory look at some of the author's names make the answers clear. The conclusion shows conclusively what the political affiliations of this paper's authors lie.
This "study" tells us nothing about science but it does tell us a lot about politics - and how often politics trumps science.
Please. Anybody that's looked seriously at the "hide the decline" issue and doesn't see scientific misconduct for political reasons is completely biased. I actually used to be a "warmist", not a "denier", until Climategate. Not that I was really a "warmist", as I knew trying to model the temperature of the Earth at best was always going to be somewhat uncertain, but I at least gave the scientists the benefit of the doubt.
Anybody who looked seriously at content of the emails saw the conversations were taken out of context. From wikipedia.
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.
Basically, tree-ring data was removed because it showed a decline. That sounds ominous until it is known that after 1960 tree-ring data for high-latitude locations showed a known problem.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
This known unreliable data was removed. All the data has been published. Please find the discrepancies.
And if "hide the decline" isn't enough for you, then there was the explicit email requesting others to erase email to avoid freedom of information acts. That's a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Where was the prosecution?
Freedom of information act does mean that anyone and everyone can harass you because you are a climate scientist. If you were conducting science for a small university and all the sudden your university gets deluged with FOIA requests (some for data not even processed yet), what would be your response? How would you like it if people you didn't know sent mass emails to you at work asking for your incomplete work? Especially if you knew these people were against you politically only because they didn't like your work. I imagine you would be defensive and a bit frustrated at times because you want to do your work and not deal with things outside of your job. The House committee noted this:
The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.
Or how about this, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
If your colleague at work wants to see your work, you'd likely show it to him. If he is your enemy at work, would you let them? Especially if they are asking for your incomplete work so that they can show your boss how incompetent you are. You might protest that the work was in
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
> Because this is basically what the conversation looks like right now:
> 97.1%: "Foo points to this conclusion."
> 2.9%: "No, that's not enough evidence. What about Bar?"
> 97.1%: "We spent a couple of years looking at Bar, and that points to the same conclusion."
> 2.9%: "Well, but what about Foobar?"
> 97.1%: "After another couple of years of study, we know that Foobar points to the same conclusion."
> 2.9%: "Well, but what about Baz?"
No. This is what the global warming argument goes:
97.1% Foo points to this conclusion
2.9% the data contradicts this conclusion
97.1% That is erroneous because of Foo.
2.9% Foo is an unjustiified conclusion, the data doesn't support it.
97.1% Now it does!
2.9% You added a bunch of numbers without the slightest justification!
97.1% Yes, but we've proven Foo.
2.9% You've done nothing of the sort, you corrupted your own database, we have the emails that prove it.
97.1% You're a bunch of conservative bastards and we're going to sic the IRS on your asses.
media The 2.9% are a bunch of conservative bastards and the IRS should audit them.
97.1% There see? Nyaah! We we're right all along.
2.9% This isn't science it's politics! You've proven nothing but that you're willing to lie and cover up.
97.1% Yes, because Foo is right and we must do something about it.
2.9% You're wasting trillions of dollars, pushing our next generation into a bankruptcy they will never recover from, and you're diverting resources from solving real problems!
97.1% You're a bunch of conservative bastards and we're going to sic the IRS on your asses!
media The 2.9% are a bunch of conservative bastards and the IRS should audit them!
media The 2.9% are a bunch of conservative bastards and the IRS should audit them!
97.1 % You're bad, you're evil, you want to eat babies, this is all your fault!
media You're bad, you're evil, you want to eat babies, this is all your fault!
media You're bad, you're evil, you want to eat babies, this is all your fault!
media You're bad, you're evil, you want to eat babies, this is all your fault!
media You're bad, you're evil, you want to eat babies, this is all your fault!
media You're bad, you're evil, you want to eat babies, this is all your fault!
97.1% See? That's a consensus! Go die you rich, racist bastard!
Soc-ial-Just-us!
Soc-ial-Just-us!
Soc-ial-Just-us!
2.9% What does ANY of this have to do with Earth's verified, recorded temperature readings?
97.1% LIAR!
THAT's the kind of science we are talking about here. The only one's claiming global warming are the ones making money off it -
and most of THEM are rich bastards >coughcough...
This is a red herring. My original point was about consensus. The other questions you have not previously posted in this thread thus I could not answer the questions in your head.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
8 out of 10 prefer Whiskers
Does that explain Cats?
My questions in that post were not directed at you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Anybody who looked seriously at content of the emails saw the conversations were taken out of context.
I've looked at the context before, and while not nearly as bad as the reinterpreted "oh my God global warming is a hoax", what was done was rotten science, and the deeper I dug the more rot I saw.
Basically, tree-ring data was removed because it showed a decline. [skepticalscience.com]
It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit:
"There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead."
Yes, Mann's plot, which they then so "helpfully" show, is clearly labeled. However, that's not the plot Jones created when he applied the "trick", and it is not clearly labeled, and the instrumental record has been spliced in. Why the subterfuge in "Skeptical Science"?
"Skeptical Science" is about legit as "Ministry of Truth", as the site is anything but skeptical and goes out of its way to put the most positive spin on AGW climate science. This makes for some interesting reading: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.
Freedom of information act does mean that anyone and everyone can harass you because you are a climate scientist.
I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question about an explicit request to delete email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Oh, it doesn't, you're just parroting the usual lame excuses without even thinking about it.
You're talking about work paid for with public money, done for a process that is supposed to guide world leaders, and you think it's ok to delete the email because you are being "harassed" by skeptics that want transparency? If this came out from a corporate exec or despised politician, would you be here making these lame excuses?
If your colleague at work wants to see your work, you'd likely show it to him. If he is your enemy at work, would you let them?
Instead of making flimsy analogies, let's talk about reality. If I'm a scientist and unwilling to defend my work publicly and transparently, then I'm a bad scientist. You don't divide science between friends and enemies. Release the data, show your work, and defend it (and even more importantly, admit mistakes!).
Especially if they are asking for your incomplete work so that they can show your boss how incompetent you are.
I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?
the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could
"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to any
What's published is biased by the editorial bias of the media (print or otherwise).
It would have been good to round out the study with the publication biases including third party backing. For example, review the vision/mission statements of the publications, the editorial boards, the funding history of the research of those board members, and the affiliation of the published authors with the editorial board. An author may be published as he was an admired student of a board member and happens to agree with the board member's POV which was heavily influenced by financial backing from institutions seeking to profit from anthropogenic climate change.
Remember: anthropogenic means humans caused climate change and 'they' would have you believe that by extension, humans can correct it: profit!
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
isn't this the paper that lumped the 66.4% of the papers which were neutral in with the 1/3 of the AGW advocacy papers to get 97%???? LOL, Lysenkoism is alive and well. Confusing this crap with actual science is quite disturbing.
My god man. Give it up with the "man-made global warming". That's old. Gore has already been indicted by the UK courts for fraud. Scientists have been proven to have authored peer reviews in support of the fraud because they were afraid of being blacklisted. AGW is bullshit and you know it. Man has next to NOTHING to do with the increase in CO2. Man IS guilty of massively polluting, but that is separate from CO2 (plant food). Are you aware that the volcano Mt. Pinatubo, in just 3 hours, put out more CO2 than mankind could fix if we cut everything out for 400 years? Soros and his lackies are just going to have to piss off.
See: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/05/18/cooking-consensus-on-climate-change
You link is more appropriately related to the whole "It's not warming, it never was warming, it was warming but it stopped, it's cooling, it was warming but now it's cooling, scientists said it was cooling now they say it's warming, the warming is cyclic, the warming is natural, the warming is the sun, mars is warming too, the science is not there, consensus is not there, consensus means nothing, it's a fraud, it's a plot, Al Gore has a big house, Al Gore flies in airplanes, Al Gore is fat, it's cosmic rays, it's volcanos, it's urban heat islands, warming is good for plants, it can't be warming because january was cold in my state, CO2 is not a poison, there is only a tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere and the manmade portion is even tinier, the CO2 in the atmosphere already absorbs all the IR, IR emissions have nothing to do with the earth's temp, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't absorb IR like it does in the lab, it's all computer models, computer models will predict whatever you want them to, computer models can't even predict current climate, water is a more significant greenhouse gas, when the temperature rises the clouds will reflect the heat, the antarctic sea ice is growing, the warming will be minimal, the warming is too expensive to fight, we are better off adapting to the warming, it's too late to do anything about the warming, AGW is a plot against third world development, AGW steals money from charitable works, the earth is warming but it's only a couple of degrees, it was warmer in the middle ages, it was warmer millions of years ago, warming causes CO2 to rise not the other way around, you have no proof, it needs more study, why would you risk disaster proved by economists' calculations over the remote risk of scientific predictions, what about Climategate?" community than working climatologists.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I've suggested to them that they watch a pot of water that's heating up on a stove and imagine that's the atmosphere, but they never come back and say "Now I get it". I fear "getting these points through to the public" is a bit like getting them through to our pets.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
When are you people going to get it? I'm not denying anything. I. Just. Don't. Care.
Apathy is the problem; APATHY!!! We don't fix shit we don't give a shit about.
Would you like me to work the Navier-Stokes equations for you to show convective heat transfer in a fluid body? I'm quite aware of what heating does, and I'm also quite aware that you have no concept of the numbers being talked about here. You talk about adding thousands of watts per square meter to a liquid forcing a transition to a gaseous (and often turbulent) state. The difference the math talked about here is 1.3 watts per square meter, out fo 1365 watts per square meter. And spread that over a 30 kilometer high column of gas. The overall increase is down in the third to fourth decimal place. Climate scientists know that, and they posit that there are dozens of "positive feedback" methods that will drive temperatures higher and higher. They believe the climate is in a unstable dynamic equilibrium, rather than a stable dynamic equilibrium -- think the difference between being on a roller-coaster poised at the top of the hill, or one at the bottom of a valley.
We have heard words like "tipping point" or "past the point of no return" which are all associated with an unstable equilibrium. Yet the climate of the Earth is no such thing. Yes, we may be able to push the roller coaster a little way up the hill, but when we release it, it will roll back down to the bottom again. The climate is the same way. It must be, or over the 4.6 billion year long life of this planet, some event (the Siberian Traps for instance -- look it up) would have long since sent the planet spiraling into catastrophe.
Anything -- ANYTHING -- we humans can do is temporary. To believe otherwise is the most blatant of arrogance on our part. The fact is, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be having some effect on temperatures. But so what? We live in every biosphere. No one is going to die from it. It could be good. Things will change. So what -- they've changed before. We'll adapt. Some things won't. They'll die. There's this thing out there called evolution. It's been doing that for nearly 4 billion years.
So, your boiling pot of water, while a wonderful visual, is totally wrong. To get a more accurate model, turn your burner up to full, and when you've got a nice rolling boil, light a match and add it. See if you can spot the difference. That's the real model.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
So, the fact that both Tornadic activity in the United States and Cyclonic Activity globally are at 50 year lows all point to this "increased activity". Somewhere you have failed to notice that your claims must be backed up with data. Also, you have failed to explain why the actual global temperatures over the last 30 years have come in below the lowest predicted warming of all the models used by the IPCC, yet they continue to increase the predicted response. The last IPCC report posited a 3.0 degreeC/century rise in temperature, while actual data points at 1.2 degrees C/century or lower.
I work in computer science, and there's a name for a model which cannot predict, it's called "broken" or "incomplete". The fact that you now wish to make multi-trillion dollar, economy-wrecking, and real-life endangering decisions based on computer models that still can't agree with each other, much less the facts, is frightening beyond belief.
The amazing thing to me is that the same crowd that doesn't trust a banana with an extra gene inserted through a science evolved through 60 years of study, or grown with a fertilizer used for 80 years without a downside, are completely willing to take steps that will result in starvation, civil wars, and economic catastrophe over an increase of 0.012% of a particularly harmless gas in the atmosphere, which is required for life on Earth. A gas which, during the most life-bearing phase of the earth's history, was almost 20 times as abundant. All of which is based on computer programs developed by non-computer programmer programmers, over the course of a few months, which are less than accurate in the short term, and whose predictions are wildly inaccurate over the long term.
Not to mention, if tree-rings are such great thermometers, why has the dendrochronological record not been updated since the 1980's? Surely in the billions being funneled to climate research, someone can pay some grad students $10 an hour to go get some tree cores with a hand-drill every weekend?
Most of these climate scientists wouldn't know the climate it if rained on them.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Arrhenius stated only that CO2 acted to absorb heat (long-wave infra-red radiation for the nitpickers). He posited that if you added CO2 to the atmosphere the heat would increase. What Arrhenius didn't know, or didn't fully grasp, is that at 280ppm, the atmospheric CO2 already absorbs 97% of all incoming long-wave infra-red radiation. Doubling the CO2 to 560ppm, would not make it absorb 194% of the radiation, it would make it absorb about 99% of the incoming radiation. Since CO2 accounts for approximately 4-7 degrees C of the Earth's warming (there's arguments on the exact figure) that would be an increase of about 0.08 to 0.14 degrees C. Now, there are some factors that add to that (re-radiation, tropospheric concentration and re-reflection of albedo infra-red, etc) that could make that as much as 1 degree C of surface warming. But that's it.
Adding twice the CO2 doesn't mean twice the temperature. And the feedback mechanisms are neutral to negative. They must be, or the 7000ppm CO2 of the carboniferous period would have resulted in Earth looking like a ball of molten rock.
Now, let's get back to the real point.
Climate scientists continue to make statements like, "We can expect more Katrina's every year!" Yet the U.S. is now in its longest cycle without a major hurricane landing since records began being kept in the 1930's. "We can expect more tornados to ravage cities across the U.S.!", yet tornadic activity across the U.S. is at a 50 year low. Total thunderstorms are average at best, and while there is some evidence of slightly stronger convection cells, there's a certain bias in the fact that we never before had satellites capable of sampling and quantifying such activity in seconds rather than days.
In short, the evidence all points the other way.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no shill for gas or oil or coal. I'd rather see all of it go away. Give me clean, safe, cheap, plentiful nuclear power every day of the week over all of that. Preferably LFTR designs spread out like candy all over the country. I'd love fusion too, but like my Grandfather who was promised to see it "within his lifetime" and died in 1988, I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Solar power is a joke, with its rare earths and sulfur-hexafluoride washes doing a dozen times more damage to the environment then they'll ever recover in a lifetime. We've already tapped 95% or more of the hydropower on Earth, and I doubt the birds will live through putting up enough windmills to power a typical city, much less the planet. Not to mention, that has it's own problems. Wind Power Potential Overestimated
Your point, "We've seen warming" ignores the one great thing about climate change -- the climate is a complex system -- it is always changing. It is a vast, living, breathing system taking in all life on earth, all changes in the sun, all chemistry in the oceans, every wave, every sunbeam, every butterfly flapping its wings. It must be constantly changing. We are looking at a tiny sliver of it and saying, "Oh no, we're all doomed!" We act as if we want the climate never to change, not one iota, not one jot.
The climate never changes on Venus, on Mercury, on Mars... They all have one thing in common. They're dead worlds.
Give me a changing climate any day over that.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
We all care, we just want everyone else to make the sacrifices to halt global warming. (Almost) everyone agrees unless we do something drastic and soon we wont be able to do anything to stop it. What that something is no one is willing to say. The first out the gate will be pilloried by the special interest. Who is going to bell the cat?
How much government funding has gone into studies of non-human causes of climate change? Would it be somewhere around 3%?
That's every grad student, postdoc, or junior faculty member's nightmare; that no matter what you present, some big shot who disagrees can always shake his head and go "No, not convincing enough yet, needs more evidence". Obviously, you can always say that, no matter how much evidence is presented. Of course, this means that this sort of "criticism" is meaningless. There are not only people out there who need more evidence that smoking is bad for you, there are people out there who need more evidence that we landed on the moon, that they can't control the lotto results with their mind, that microorganisms exist... everything.
Every time I see something like that in the AGW field, I ask the "skeptic" for a more precise suggestion re what is missing, what kind of experiment needs to be done, and/or what kind of evidence might convince them (as good scientific practice would suggest; you frame a question and decide a priori what the possible results would mean, then do the experiment. You are not entitled to just wait until the results come in, then decide what you would find positive and what negative after seeing them.) and not once have I gotten any result more specific than "More evidence" or "Something convincing". I do get a few replies like "Nothing would ever convince me!" apparently with no self-consciousness or understanding of how that makes them a faith-based denialist. At least it's honest, though more than intended no doubt, and probably describes the folks who don't respond also.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
yeah, that's the "skeptic" position alright;
1) I have here a ton of studies which disprove AGW
2) studies which disprove AGW are not funded or published
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Kinda like what's happening with the 2% of homosexuals in America. Whereas we are made to believe that lifestyle is far more pervasive. In other news.
The C02 in our atmosphere has risen in the last 100 years from 280 ppm to 380 ppm, but it hasn't cause global warming, according to a NOVA show, because coal fired electrical plants have acted like Volcano and put so much coal dust in our atmosphere that it blocks a certain amount of sunlight. Rule One: If there was global warming, it would be warmer instead the winters have been colder. A couple of winters ago over a million stock animals of the Mongols were killed by the brutal winter. Most of the C02 comes from bio-mass decay (dead plants and dead plankton). We are destroying the Earth, polluting the oceans but it's from overpopulation... more people more pollution and the worst is agricultural runoff (insecticides and nitrates). So the Earth is doomed to a mass extinction... but as long as we promote the population explosion by talking about such vague and irrelevant aspects of overpopulation as "global warming"... we act like dumb bunnies full of rationalizations. mensunion org
A better study might look at the scrutiny applied to these 97% vs the *rejected* papers that disagreed with the 97%.
That would be an interesting study, but I don't think it would practical to do so. I doubt most journals archive copies of articles they don't print. Of course, someone should give it a try. I expect the result will be far from what you would expect. According to the information available to me, it looks like the majority of rejected papers that deal with the source of global warming, also support the human-cause hypothesis. I am aware that at various times the people who promote the idea that alternate viewpoints are being excluded from publication have been challenged to provide proof. So far they have been unable to find any papers that were being excluded from publication on any grounds other than poor methodology (which has directly led to unreliable conclusions). In fact, there is real evidence to show that some scientists who are opposed to the human-cause hypothesis were actually given preferential treatment in one journal. There's no evidence of the opposite happening.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
People could agree with you on the cause, but disagree that taxes - in any form - are the solution. Don't confuse a scientific proof with a political action.
This is a legitimate observation. But what is not legitimate is to deny the science because you don't like the political implications. Our understanding of the climate system is not perfect, but it is plenty good enough to understand that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, that that increase leads to a significant warming of the ocean/atmosphere system, and that this warming will have, on average, significant negative effects on established eco-systems and, in the medium term, coastlines. If you don't like to handle this via "taxes", find some other way. Or convince people to live with it as the price of progress. But denying it is not a valid choice.
Stephan
It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit
It seems you've stumbled upon something that shouldn't been allowed . . . yet no one in the field has a problem with that. Now what is your background again? Oh, you're not a climate scientists but somehow you know more than any of them.
There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.
So you would leave data that you KNOW isn't accurate in your results? What kind of scientist are you? The reason has been explained if you cared to look.
Phil Jones was actually admonished in one report regarding the WMO "hide the decline" graph (passing it off as a labeling/description issue), and also admonished for not releasing data, but yes, it was generally whitewashed. I'll believe what I can independently verify for myself over whitewash committee reports.
The data has been released. Please find something wrong with it. You can't can you?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It seems you've stumbled upon something that shouldn't been allowed . . . yet no one in the field has a problem with that. Now what is your background again? Oh, you're not a climate scientists but somehow you know more than any of them.
Oh, what's that? You responded with an ad hominem attack and argument by authority instead of addressing the argument? This from somebody who references a site by a professional cartoonist and "web programmer"?
You haven't addressed why Mann's plot was being shown when Jones was talking about what he did with his plot. It doesn't take a climate scientist to figure it out. Maybe if you got off your ass and did some research outside of "Skeptical Science" you could understand the subterfuge employed by "Skeptical Science".
So you would leave data that you KNOW isn't accurate in your results? What kind of scientist are you?
I don't arbitrarily chop off data that doesn't "fit" my hockey stick and then claim the last 1,000 years doesn't match my hockey stick high, either. I also don't splice in real temps to three separate proxy graphs, giving the illusion of certainty when there is none. And there are professional scientists who have come out against this bullshit, though anybody with a basic science education can see the inherent problem.
Of course, if you're so entrenched in your position, you won't see it because you won't even look or think critically.
The reason has been explained if you cared to look.
You mean you read some blurbs on "Skeptical Science" or from Mann or Jones giving press interviews. How about instead you cite the science that says it is ok to chop off data without a valid explanation for what is causing the "divergence problem".
The data has been released. Please find something wrong with it. You can't can you?
Funny, I just told you what was wrong with it (Jones' graph in particular is what we're talking about, in case you still haven't figured that out), and even told you a report admonished Jones for his graph, but this is what you come back with?
No further comments on deleting email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Do you admit that was a very wrong thing to do, both ethically and legally?
No further comments about showing your data and work, friend or "enemy"? Do you agree that's what a good scientist should do?
No citation about "incomplete work"? Do you admit you have none? Do you acknowledge what Jones said, "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years."?
Do you acknowledge that this is a farce: "the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could"? Do you acknowledge one report directly contradicts this statement?
Do you acknowledge that Phil Jones isn't the "scapegoat" you made him out to be, and that his own actions put him in the spotlight?
Do you acknowledge your original statement, "What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain." is completely inadequate, and completely glosses over serious ethical lapses?
A better study might look at the scrutiny applied to these 97% vs the *rejected* papers that disagreed with the 97%.
But papers have not been rejected because they "disagreed" with the 97%. The reason papers get rejected is because they are crud.
Given that the unfortunate reviewers already had to work through all that chaff, what possible motivation (apart from feeding some reality-denying ideological position) could there be for revisiting that crud? And why exclude the (presumably far more common) rejected papers that didn't "disagree" with the 97%? Are you actually paranoid enough to believe that papers were excluded from publication on the basis of their conclusions rather than for their methodological failings. And if you are, do you really think any amount of studies or evidence will cure you?
If RIGHT, can you do anything about it with 7 billion people in the world, most of which don't care!
Most of whom don't care. Goodness, if we are all to perish in the global climate conflagration, let's at least maintain a level of correctness in our grammar.
Thank you. Also known as appeal to belief. [nizkor.org] 98% of Americans believe in God. [gallup.com] Therefore, God must exist.
However, what is being said here is not that 97% of any group of people believe in any particular proposition. What is being said here is the 97% of studies in a field, based on empirical evidence and the application of the orthodox tools of science arrive at the same conclusion.
You cannot overcome this merely with an appeal to well-known logical fallacies, or any other rhetorical attack. You would need to look at the published work, show how the data that was missed, the data that ought not to have been incorporated, misapplied statistical methods etc, etc. In short, it is open to you to refute the orthodox position. But not by piss-farting around with rhetoric, or displaying your ignorance of the science of any particular previous climatic period like your common-or-garden variety denier (there I did as you asked)... all you have to do is show us the maths.
And might I add, I wish you every success in that endeavour. I live in hope that one day the IPCC will announce, "sorry folks we were all wrong, the Earth has some feedback mechanism we were not aware of and your great-grandchildren are safe." Anyway must run, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket ...
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
To get their heads straightened out by all the ideologically-motivated armchair experts who know more about everything than anyone. The beauty of conspiracies is that all evidence against your position is part of the conspiracy. It's truly enlightening to see the wonderfully complex rationalisation required to comfortably believe what you want to believe.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
If man-made GW is real and a threat, does it make sense to give Al Gore money so he can run his mansions and mega-houseboats, at over 20X normal (high) American consumption levels?.... all while totally ignoring massive emissions from India and especially China, and even Africa where they are rapidly using "legacy" carbon locked in their hardwood forests for 20yrs worth of cooking charcoal? Anyone remember just couple decades ago and before that the one main environmental topic was OVER POPULATION. At least 1/2 dozen Star Treks had it as central theme, and we had movies like "Soylent Green". Just a few years ago the Sierra Club was against "immigration" for obvious reasons, then some "deep pocket" took them over and now they dropped all that. Of the 97% who are promoting GW as something Western Nation are supposed to address, I'm guessing 97% of them will go along with "More immigrants will make the USA better", and "We can't deport illlegal aliens because they are integrated into our economy (because everyone knows our economy depends on blowing leaves and mowing lawns)." No 3rd world people are going to be interested in "fixing" their lifestyle, much less reducing family size, as long as it is easy to immigrant to USA or other Western nation. If man made GW is something to worry about, creating schemes were Western economies pay Al Gore for "carbon credits" wont do any good. Reducing high birth rates in 3rd world and fixing their low-tech, high-carbon lifestyles IN PLACE is the only hope.
Thank you /.! I flagged this entry for follow-up solely to get a gauge on how tenaciously otherwise open-minded, intelligent people will stand on their rationalized belief-systems. This is a brilliant display of that tenacity and I applaud you for it. Bravo!
The point is not that it is true since 97% agree but that the public doesn't realize 97% agree and thinks the scientific community is split 50/50 on the issue.
It is a -fact- that even if we completely cut global CO2 emissions to zero, it would take at least 1,000 years for CO2 to revert to pre-industrial levels. So, yes, while the right wing is looney, they are right on one key point - within our lifetimes, massive CO2 cutbacks will not accomplish anything, other than to make more people poorer.
This is my sig.
Thanks for the link - no surprise there. This is what I find maddening about the climate debate: it is full of people who are willing misrepresent or omit data to support their preconceived bias. As an outsider to the field this makes it impossible to tell which articles contain real science and which contained the cherry-picked data to support the author's viewpoint.
When did i say i find it hard to publish. What i said was its very hard to publish against popular views. I pick/work in areas where such established facts are less of an issue.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Breaking News "Canada opens up Investor Immigrant Program"
Canada opens its Immigrant Investor Program based on following qualifying criteria: - . Two years management/business experience in the last five years . Net-worth of $1.6 million . One time cost of $180,000 If interested, please contact us immediately, as very few applications will be accepted under this program with a submission deadline. You can email us at info@sunenterprises.ca or visit our website
www.sunenterprises.ca
97% of scientists used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They also disputed that the Missoula floods shaped the Washington and Oregon landscapes. Unfortunately, 97% of scientists are lazy and think that consensus is a good substitute for an inquiring mind.
While the effects of space and time might be relative there is nothing I have read in relativity that would indicate that the Sun moves around the Earth in any sense. Things can still orbit each. Actually, they orbit the center of mass for the system. In this case, the center of mass is within the sun and so we can safely say that the earth orbits the sun. Similar to the Earth and the Moon.
97% of the papers say that man is to blame for climate change.
If these papers 85% was authored by a woman.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
and so is its twin sister, Climate Change. the activities of Man cannot affect the world wide climate at all. Please read more about the money trail behind "climate science". Where is the Ice Age these same morons predicted 20 years ago ?