Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

OK, cool. People are working through the abstracts already on deltoid.

Good old Lord Monckton already has an article that has some of the papers that this study includes, would expect these to be the strongest I guess. Monckton lists 7 important articles against the consensus.

Of the 7, 3 could be classified as rejecting the consensus. 1 was not in the abstract list, and the other 3 are not really against the consensus (e.g., one talks about how reducing CO2 would help cool climate)

One is a Lee Gerhard review paper in the AAPG journal (no surprise). Another is a Nir Shaviv article on cosmic rays. And the final one is a flaky study by Zhen-Shan & Xian.

If the rest of the study goes like this, it'll be eviscerated before monday.


[edit on 30-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib,

I will not allow you to re-write history. You can attempt it over and over and try to pull statements together that are totally unconnected, but you won't stand unchallenged. Yes, ONE MAN - not a horde of scientists, not an opposing view - other than the administration's. That is what happened.
.................

Excuse me?...

I am not trying to rewrite history in any way, or form...

The fact of the matter is that there have been several scientists, including U.S. scientists, who disagree/d with Dr. Camille Parmesan.

Originally posted by Muaddib


Excuse me?...

I am not trying to rewrite history in any way, or form...

The fact of the matter is that there have been several scientists, including U.S. scientists, who disagree/d with Dr. Camille Parmesan.

But that has NOTHING to do with what happened as recounted by Dr. Parmesan. Stop trying to mix these two points.

Originally posted by Valhall
.............

You are obfuscating...with almost every statement you make you are attempting to obfuscate.

Oh really?..... could you elaborate? i am really interested to find out why you would claim "I am trying to obfuscate the topic"...

Do tell us exactly what you are implying here.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, we finally found the "opinion". But it still doesn't have anything to do with this thread topic. More obfuscation.

Humm, i wonder....wasn't it you who brought up Dr. Carmille Parmesan's statements?.......oh and of course bringing out her blaming the current POTUS to this thread....

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, there you go - then the topic of this thread should be closed because you think the Kyoto Protocol measures are for nothing but lining pockets. Still can't find the connection to the thread topic.

So i guess according to you I can't state my opinion...


[edit on 30-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Valhall
..........
But that has NOTHING to do with what happened as recounted by Dr. Parmesan. Stop trying to mix these two points.

"As recounted by her", Valhall we know several prominent U.S. scientists disagree with her, so it wasn't "just the POTUS who disagreed".

[edit on 30-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

"As recounted by her", Valhall we know several prominent U.S. scientists disagree with her, so it wasn't "just the POTUS who disagreed".

[edit on 30-8-2007 by Muaddib]

You are an intentional manipulator of historical events.

[edit on 8-30-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall

You are an intentional manipulator of historical events.

Excuse me?....

Valhall, you are taking this way over the line.

But do tell us, why would I do what you claim I do?...

I am more than interested now to find out what you think...more so since it appears that you are generalizing this claim of yours..

admin edit:

We don't post personal, private information of fellow members here PERIOD, even if it's incorrect. You have been a member here way too long to not know better and you are post banned pending staff review.

Because after all several people in here, and now including you apparenlty think my previous employer has something to do with what I think about AGW...


[edit on 30-8-2007 by Muaddib]



[edit on 8-30-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Valhall

You are an intentional manipulator of historical events.

Excuse me?....

Valhall, you are taking this way over the line.

But do tell us, why would I do what you claim I do?...

You are doing it in this manner. I am sharing with you what happened. The White House commissioned an analysis and report on that analysis from a group of scientists on the global warming impact to the environment. The White House received that report and then CHANGED THE WORDING in OPPOSITION to the report they commissioned. That has nothing to do with how many people believe in global warming, disbelieve in global warming, don't care about global warming, or whether you want to accept global warming or not. That is a chain of events that occurred and which I have shared here. YOU continue to try to manipulate that chain of historical events by regurgitating your latest hook on which you hang your thread-bare hat. That is an intentional mixing of two subjects for the sake of muddying what happened. They are not connected, Muaddib. And I believe you know they aren't.

As for your attempt at a personal attack on me that is yet further evidence of your unscrupulous means by which you will bolster your own precarious position. While you know full well I could name the same type of private information on you - and it would cause you to be in the EXACT same position - I would NOT EVER go so far as to lie about the nature of your employment or your employer.

That was simply detestable.

Hopping in for just a sec during class break:

If you want to read the hot debates and angry rebuttals, the previously mentioned "Deltoid" is here at Scienceblogs.com:
scienceblogs.com...

The list of papers ... err... abstracts... that were reviewed for the article cited by Edsinger is here:
cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au...

Even on the small sample (where it looks like he spotted 3 of the 30+ articles rejecting human caused global warming) we can see that there are a total of 4 scientists who wrote these 3 papers. The single paper that says "yes, humans are causing it" has the names of 3 scientists. Two papers (5 scientists) are neutral, one paper is about how to do research (modeling methodology) on the topic and one is a sociological discussion of how the perception of global warming affects people.

So... strictly speaking in that small sample, the CORRECT ratio of "scientists saying we did it" to "scientists saying we didn't do it" is 3 to 5... not the 1 for, 3 against count that this piece of flim-flammery would have us believe.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by Byrd]

Ah the good ol' stats.

It's all on whether or not you want to define it as "this many people are with me" or "this many people are against you."

Say 10% of people like vanilla ice cream, 10% like chocolate, and the other 80% are neutral. So the vanilla guy/gal goes ... "Well, 90% of people like something other than you, Chocolate, so you must be wrong." And the chocolate guy/gal goes "Yea but 90% of people hate your blandness."

The reality is those middle 80% really might like Chocolate or Vanilla or neither or not like ice cream or be lactose intolerant etc. who knows.

If 6% of people think GW theory is true and 6% thinks it's not ... that's what we call a stalemate. Those other 78% are where all these campaigns on both sides are making their lunch money from.

I'm done with trying to figure out what's going on. I personally believe that the planet is gonna come to a figurative end well before the glaciers melt and -35 F wind chills cease to exist for me in Chitown Januaries.


[edit on 8/31/2007 by Fiverz]

At the risk of being tiresome, there's more analysis of the papers up today.

Here's the count:

Humans cause global warming: 18 scientists/7 papers
imply human causes: 36 scientists/11 papers
neutral/discussion/how to research change/about paleolithic climate change: 91 scientists/21 papers
Reject human causes: 4 scientists/3 papers

Many of those discussion papers could be classifited as implied human causes since they talk about things like "Will OPEC lose from the Kyoto Protocol" (their title, not mine) and "Multi-scale observation and cross-scale mechanistic modeling on terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle" (I'd have put that as "implied and not neutral"). None of the discussion papers are talking about "undoing the myth of global warming."


We have a pool of 151 scientists doing research, some of whom have weighed in on the topic before 2004.
61% present discussions, research methods, and historical evidence
12% say in their abstract that humans cause climate change
25% imply humans cause climate change
2% say "humans aren't affecting the climate"

Looking at the ones who are talking about global warming:
31% say humans definately cause it
62% imply humans are involved
7% say humans don't affect the climate.

Sorry, Ed... the piece you found was Promoting Ignorance, not Denying Ignorance. 93% of all scientists giving their opinion on global warming say humans are causing it... and I think the final tally will show that less than 1% of the scientists writing about global warming say that humans aren't causing it or that it isn't happening.

I think you should avoid citing that one unless you want to discuss how people falsify results to prove something they want proved.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Byrd]

If you did a similar study of palaeontological papers you could draw a similar conclusion that there is no consensus on evolution .......

It's just another disingenuous attempt to sidetrack the debate on the various ways and extent in which human activity affects the climate around the world.

Forgive me please everyone.

Facts speak... the FACT that there are very able scientists on both sides of this argument mean that there are few facts or as some suggest disingenuous scientists. I want to have more faith than that in scientists ( I am one) and people in general so I choose to believe that there are yet to be established facts in favour of AGW and vice versa.

At the moment, passions are high in both camps. I want to hear both arguments (factual) without all the emotion. If two people can or may interpret data differently then it is not incontrovertible and reproducible and therefore not a fact...

If we are aguing opinion then bring on the emotion as that is purely an emotional debate. I thought we were denying ignorance with facts.....

OK guys get to it rant over .....

sorry

Originally posted by Deharg
Forgive me please everyone.

I'm sorry, but I think you might be misunderstanding the intent of this thread. This thread is not an attempt to prove or disprove global warming. I'm sure there are threads here that have that intention...in fact, there's probably several.

This thread is a discussion about the claims made in the referenced paper in the first post. And I believe there has been a tremendous amount of work done by Byrd to bring facts to the discussion of the veracity of that paper.

So...I'm not getting the point of your rant. Did I misunderstand?

Wow - All I can say is that my intention was to point out that not all scientists believe in GW by man. The important part to me was that the majority are not convinced of that as being fact.

Now the research into the 'source' by BYRD was very interesting indeed and just maybe it is faulty.

I for one am not convinced enough to take drastic measures to reduce emissions unless the facts are real. We still have to yet to prove it as fact.

I will grant that we should study it and come to a conclusion but one that is not biased and one that looks at both sides of the story and until we can get that, it is moot.

Not all climatologists believe in AGW

But the vast majority of climatologists are - as they always have been - engaged in research other than to prove or disprove AGW.

Most papers have no reason to mention AGW, let alone specifically state support for the theory.

So the study proves nothing.

What a waste of time

Dear Valhal

Yes you did

I was making (obviously badly) the point that the argument has become about the argument not about facts which are irrefutable and so pointless to argue over.

This study suggests this

review of published works show etc

this scientists says this another scientist says that...

The whole thread ends up discussing the kinds of things I list above.(views suggestions etc .. NOT FACTS)

I also was tongue in cheek when I mentioned ranting as well.. Oh well back to the desk and some work now.....

And it is pointless as there are no facts there to be discussed.

reply to post by Deharg


Point well taken and thank you for taking the time to clarify!

First of all, there are more than 8,000 published papers on Global Warming. 529 is not a fair representation, by any means.

Secondly, it's on a govt web site; a govt which is heavily invested in oil.

Byrd, thanks for doing all the research, good job.

Originally posted by Byrd
Humans cause global warming: 18 scientists/7 papers
imply human causes: 36 scientists/11 papers
neutral/discussion/how to research change/about paleolithic climate change: 91 scientists/21 papers
Reject human causes: 4 scientists/3 papers

Many of those discussion papers could be classifited as implied human causes since they talk about things like "Will OPEC lose from the Kyoto Protocol"

We have a pool of 151 scientists doing research, some of whom have weighed in on the topic before 2004.
61% present discussions, research methods, and historical evidence
12% say in their abstract that humans cause climate change
25% imply humans cause climate change
2% say "humans aren't affecting the climate"

Looking at the ones who are talking about global warming:
31% say humans definately cause it
62% imply humans are involved
7% say humans don't affect the climate.

93% of all scientists giving their opinion on global warming say humans are causing it... and I think the final tally will show that less than 1% of the scientists writing about global warming say that humans aren't causing it or that it isn't happening.

Note the red: CAUSE / CAUSES / CAUSING / ETC

Anyone who talks like that is propagating ignorance. That's biased one-sided 'hegemonic-ideological-language'. Similar language can be found in the source 'study' article this thread is about and others who have parroted it. The study was obviously done by someone biased to the 'denier' view.

But in any case, the rhetoric of those who use strict terminology such as "HUMANS ARE CAUSING 'GLOBAL WARMING' ", regardless of their qualifications, should be completely ignored. Their strict data might still be worth pouring over, but their rhetoric and probably their conclusions and especially their predictions should be hardly even glanced over in order to spend our quality time on better things to subject our brains to. And the same goes for the opposite sides arguers and parrots, except when they say that humans aren't possibly contributing to it. There's very little difference in obvious irrational biases when this language is observed, although since there does seems to be a majority who say that humans are CAUSING it compared to those who reject any notion that humans are or could be contributing to it, I'd say we're in a world of trouble regardless of the true extent of human contributions.

This is madness. Step back for a minute and listen to yourselves, all who talk like this:
"HUMANS ARE CAUSING 'GLOBAL WARMING' "
and the rest from the other side who speak in the terms I mentioned above.

Step back into the world of rational free thought, learn thyself:
en.wikipedia.org...
pronoia.wordpress.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.google.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...




Now, on the matter of consensus, shouldn't there be an overwhelming majority who explicitly promote the idea of "human caused" (since that's the language everyone wants to use) Anthropogenic Global Warming, for there to be a "consensus"?? Or rather, shouldn't all the 'members' agree to the 'decision' "because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time"?

What is Consensus?
...
The root of consensus is the word consent, which means to give permission to. When you consent to a decision, you are giving your permission to the group to go ahead with the decision. You may disagree with the decision, but based on listening to everyone else’s input, all the individuals agree to let the decision go forward, because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time.

Or perhaps before we go any further shouldn't we all acknowledge that "consensus" isn't "unanimous agreement" as those who employ "global warming consensus" seem to imply?

What consensus is not
It is not unanimous agreement. Participants may consent to an decision they disagree with, but recognize meets the needs of the group and therefore give permission to.

Taking a closer look at "consensus", it almost seems to suggest that the sources at the 'top of the pyramid' who propagate such rhetoric are trying to reach for some sort of subconscious subjective underpinnings beyond what most would make note of from the usual 'unanimous agreement' context.


And one last thing: Just because most scientists might agree that humans are or can be contributing to it doesn't mean that they support the Al Gore apocalyptic doomsday prophecies. To determine that after seeing that most scientists would agree to said contributions is heavily laden with logical fallacy, and this would especially go for Al Gore and his religious convictions (he actually said "It's a spiritual matter" on Larry King).


[edit on 5-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]