Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

How can anyone disagree? Why do all the incinerators and fossil fuel plants in this country monitor stack emissions? Continuous Emissions Monitoring ( CEMS) for short. They monitor Co2, Co,NOX & SOX. If those companies exceed the limits allowed to exit the stacks they get fined and the person who allowed that to happen can go to jail for it. So if does't exist why should someone go to jail for it or a company get fined? :shrug::shrug::shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That and the rest - including the thread title, which was BS.

Nothing in the article supported a claim that half of all climate scientists published in the past year were in disagreement with the general claim that the recent global temp increase was probably and predominantly caused by the recent anthropogenic CO2 boost.

The opinions and judgments of published climate scientists were not even addressed, in the OP link.

The title of the thread is what I found misleading.

I have no opinion on the study, lacking data (especially the criteria for "support" or "non-support").

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

funny thing - steppelike Oklahoma is flooded all spring, summer and it's not over yet. The interstates are frequently flooded and closed,sometimes water rush was washing trucks off the (major) roads. OKlahoma had way more rain than fell on the forested East and South East. Indeed business as usual. Nothing happens. Don't worry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Global warming is a myth, just ask Raptor Jesus

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A few of you (particularly Cat2only) seem to have missed the point of the article entirely. It says:

Any posts on whether climate change is happening, as well as discussion on SoX and NoX emissions are off topic.

The question is 'does this study show whether a consensus has been reached?' I'm doubtful of this. How is it measuring 'consensus'?

So 45% endorse a theory of anthropogenic global warming (though I'm interested to know how an 'implicit' endorsement is defined) and 6% reject outright. The neutral category is interesting though. Why might a paper not accept or reject anthropogenic climate change? Yes there may be many papers there by climate scientists who are legitimately uncertain, but the category could also include papers which observe or model a phenomenon without hypothesising as to its cause. It may also have papers in which it is irrelevant or by people without the expertise to comment, for example an ecological study on the effects of climate change. An ecologist may acknowledge that they may not be in any position to comment, or may not even see the need as their paper deals with the effects rather than the cause. I realise that papers of that nature may also make it in to the other categories however.

I guess we will have to wait and see if the paper is published before we can see how valid the study really is.

 

How can anyone disagree? Why do all the incinerators and fossil fuel plants in this country monitor stack emissions? Continuous Emissions Monitoring ( CEMS) for short. They monitor Co2, Co,NOX & SOX. If those companies exceed the limits allowed to exit the stacks they get fined and the person who allowed that to happen can go to jail for it. So if does't exist why should someone go to jail for it or a company get fined? :shrug::shrug:

 

They used to burn people for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Why would they burn people if the earth wasn't the centre of the solar system? also see my comment in my above post.

 

The figure has risen because of systematic efforts by PR firms and industry-funded junk science. They have a LOT of money, and a few scientists want a chunk of it.

The implicit endorsement is 45%.

I'm pretty sure that Big Oil's agenda is to take over climate science, and to conquer science publications and publishers. They have the willpower and money to do it. I sure hope they don't succeed.

 

If they did this is the first list they would get rid of!

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1569408&pageindex=3

 

Why is it that some people insist the minority opinion, even when such obviously skewed and biased "surveys" such as these are presented?

45% support, implicit/explicit. The true figure is more likely 50-70%.
7% dissent, of which most are either untrue in the following ways:

-the study was funded by special interests;
-the search query had flawed and inconsistent terms to include such items;
-the study itself does not contradict the IPCC consensus but was misinterpreted;
-the study was not peer-reviewed or replicated;
-the study was not conducted in a statistically sound manner.

Who thinks a medical researcher can interpret climate science as well as atmospheric scientists? I certainly don't. This "medical researcher" obviously has an agenda.

 

You don't think it funny that a paper attacking the consensus is leaked and braodcast widely over the internet, before it is actually published? Why do you think that would be done?

The main reason a paper would be apparently "neutral" is the same reason that very few chemistry papers today will refer to atomic theory. It is taken for granted that we have these atoms, with certain properties. This was not of course the case 200 years ago, but now it is known and accepted, hence chemistry papers don't mention atomic theory. Same with climate change- many papers will take it for granted that it is occuring and is our fault, and will instead be looking at a narrow area such as the effects of rising temperature upon X.

 

ARCTIC REGIONAL SEA ICE TO DECLINE 40 PERCENT BEFORE 2050

September 6, 2007 — A new study by NOAA scientists shows that areal sea-ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean will decline by more than 40 percent before the summer of 2050, compared to a 1979-1999 base period. (Click NOAA image for larger view of polar bear on artic sea ice. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”)

The work was done by James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, and Muyin Wang, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington in Seattle. It will be published Sept. 8 in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

These findings are based upon a study of national and international computer models that closely match the observed sea-ice extent over the 20-year baseline period of 1979-1999, and then project forward in time to determine any changes.

“We wanted to assess how much confidence we can have in regional projections of sea ice from the 20 computer models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report,” said Overland. “Our purpose was to first ensure that our models could replicate observations of the baseline conditions during the 1979-1999 period before considering 21st century projections. Our results present a consistent picture: there is a substantial loss of sea ice for most models by 2050.”

Projections in the IPCC report show summer sea ice loss throughout the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska, Canada and Asia. Sea ice loss is also seen during winter in the seasonal ice zones of the more southern Bering and Barent seas, and the Sea of Okhotsk. The models show no ice loss in the Baffin Bay region, west of Greenland.

“These seasonal ice zones have large variability on annual and decadal time scales,” said Wang. ”Projections of sea ice are important as there will be impacts on humans and other ecosystem components.”

The authors note that loss of ice has major impacts on marine ecosystems, transportation, and feedbacks to the larger climate system. For example, the light-colored ice reflects the sun’s warming rays; the dark water absorbs that heat. Less ice to reflect the heat means more water to absorb the warmth.

NOAA conducts research in the Arctic and the Antarctic and is a participant in the International Polar Year, a large scientific program involving thousands of scientists from 60 nations from March 2007 to March 2009.

NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200 years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the 1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA.

NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 70 countries and the European Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2915.htm

 

The entire thread is an argument from popularity. It would be better to dissect a few studies, if we had any climatologists.

 

OK. That's completely true.

However, what club do the global warming alarmists constantly beat us over the head with? "Consensus".

"The scientific community has reached a consensus that the world will catch on fire if we don't ban SUV'S". We hear it over and over again. The study this thread is about attempts to pop that particular bubble.

So while this may be "argument from popularity", it is really nothing but a refutation of someone else's popularity argument.

Of course, global warming alarmists always follow up their popularity argument with an adhom. As in, "Well, that study must have been funded by an oil company or some evil Republican."

I never see anyone jumping all over their ass about that. Why not?

 

Some popularity arguments are better than others.

The good ones measure actual endorsement by scads of knowledgeable, honest, independent people. The bad ones use inferences of non-endorsement from lack of mention in only tangentially related documents as evidence of endorsement of an opposing view.

 

I thought that this would have come under their 'implicit endorsement' category.
Like I said, we'll see how valid it is if it is published.

 

They had no category for "implicit non - nonendorsement".

So you would be completely dependent on their willingness to present their findings in a manner slanted toward the view they opposed, unless you checked each paper yourself with such a slant in mind.

That's too much work to evaluate such a dubious representation of the alleged opinion content of scientific papers. Why not demand an actual poll of the scientists involved, wherein they answer the question of "endorsement" directly?

 

Man it's been unusally hot over the past couple of weeks in the Midwest -- and tremendously dry. I'm waiting for some buffalo to roam and eat my dry wheatfield of a lawn and cause a dust storm.

There's my two cents towards any epidemiological peer reviewed study. How's it out there in Alaska? Can ya grow corn & soybean crops yet?

Plus, who funded the study is not truly Ad Hominem. Bias is relevant and logical in interpreting data.

 

Sure it is.

In science, the standard is peer review and repeatability. Not who wrote the check. If the science if flawed, that fact will be made clear on further study.

That said, I have noticed, that when a rep from some company comes to present me with data from some study they've done lately; the study always seems to favor their product.

Does this mean the results are false? Of course not. The study was real, they just wouldn't be sending a rep around bragging about the results if it didn't make them look good.

Then some other rep comes in and shows me his study, showing why his product is the best. Note that the second rep's study doesn't dispute anything in the first rep's. It simply studies some other aspect of the issue that makes them look good. At most, it might interpret the data differently.

So you look at the data and decide which interpretation is the most logical, the most in keeping with the facts. You don't just say, "All studies by company X are crap!".

 

Well, logically speaking, it sounds your argument is more like a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that Ad Hom. Because the study may be peer reviewed, it therefore is Ad Hom. Bias in acquiring data, including those who fund the study, is a logical argument, not an attack on the person. Big tobacco funded a lot (and I mean A LOT) of studies that downplayed the role of cigarettes in lung disorders. Accordingly, they made the shoe fit within the scientific community for A LONG TIME. Their bias, however, must be considered. To say who paid for the study is not a factor in determining credibility is to remain blind to vested interests.

A true Ad Hominem, would be, "You are black (or gay, or muslim), therefore you do not know what you are talking about."