Less than half of scientific papers support Gorebal Warming?

POSTED BY: BarnStormer
UPDATED: Friday, September 21, 2007 16:50
VIEWED: 5676
PAGE 1 of 1

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:25 PM

I thought there was supposed to be a consensus.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scient
ists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:53 PM

I'm not sure I'd support Gorebal warming (sic) either.

In any case, I thought I'd add a comment about the "1934 is warmest year on record". I looked at the corrected NASA, and there are a few honest things I can say about it:

1) 1934 WAS the warmest year, but not by much.

2) If you look at trends, no below-average years (with three exceptions) occurred after 1985, and no below-average 5-year average occurred after 1983 (no exceptions).

3) Plotting the data on an x-y graph and doing a linear regression still shows a clear upward trend, no matter that 1934 spiked high. So an honest discussion of the corrected data would not dispute the upward trend.

I suspect one of the climate drivers is soot particles from coal, charcoal and dung fires, jungle clearing (by fire) and forest fires and diesel soot
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:06 PM

"However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.""

I've read enough papers to know what the 'neutral' category looks like. They're not "refusing" to address the cause. They're not addressing it, as that's considered a given. They're addressing effects. Here are some:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702145431.htm
Death Rates Will Rise Because Of Global Warming, Researchers Warn

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm
Global Warming Means More Snow For Great Lakes Region

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050507094531.htm
Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030714091843.htm
UC Riverside Researcher Says Global Warming May Threaten Endangered Species

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050805175531.htm
Global Warming's Effects Extend To World's Smallest Butterfly

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030314071607.htm
Global Warming Could Trigger Cascade Of Climatic Changes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050922015634.htm
Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
I thought there was supposed to be a consensus.

There was...just not one we all agree on.

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:24 PM

Well, Hero's got his head in the sand as usual. The only good evidence is evidence he agrees with. Rush to judgement and all that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.""

I've read enough papers to know what the 'neutral' category looks like. They're not "refusing" to address the cause. They're not addressing it, as that's considered a given.

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%."

Seems pretty clear from this part of the quote, which you somehow managed to leave out, that the "implicit" endorsement segment Dr. Schulte refers to should cover the papers, such as the ones you cited, which consider global warming as a given.

So do you know specifically which papers Dr. Schulte classified as 'neutral' should be in the 'implicit endorsement' category? Or ar you just calling him a liar based on supposition?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, Hero's got his head in the sand as usual. The only good evidence is evidence he agrees with. Rush to judgement and all that.

There's no rush to judgement. I don't claim to be a climatologist. All I know is there's no consensus. I think we should all agree on that, but you wont even acknowledge that there is disagreement over whether or not there is a disagreement. My head might be in the sand, but most liberals have there's stuck somewhere I bit darker and less pleasant.

I've noticed lately since the dire predictions seem to be falling flat (hurricanes, record heat, rising tides, tsunamis, even fracking earthquakes), that the new term is climate change. That way if it rains, doesn't rain, snows, doesn't snow, warm, cold, hurricane, no hurricane, earthquake, locust, bee sting, bird crap, whatever happens its all CLIMATE CHANGE...and the solution is ending American industry, high taxes, and strict control of every aspect of a your life.

H

RUE

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:38 PM

Geezer

"accepting the consensus without explicit statement"

No, I didn't ignore that statement at all. AS I SAID BEFORE (you gotta learn how to read, boy) there are many papers that simply don't address the issue in any way.

There were many examples of explicit agreement that said - human-caused global warming through CO2 emissions. There were many examples of implicit agreement I found (and didn't include) that went like this - to reduce global warming humans need to reduce CO2 output/ find CO2 sinks. They didn't explicitly say "human CO2 emission causes global warming", but their tenor made the assumption obvious.

OTOH there are MANY papers that simply leave the issue unaddressed - like the ones I cited, above.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

OLDENGLANDDRY

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:10 PM

I have'nt looked into this so may be wrong but a friend reminded me yesterday that the Ice-caps on Mars have also been receeding in recent years.
Is Mars experiencing Global warming? If so it's unlikely to be being caused by humans so what's the reason?
Coincidence? or,as I suspect, The Sun.

LEADB

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:23 PM

You forget: Mars global warming occurred -only after- Earth vehicles were sent there; clearly, that's the cause! Ok, just kidding, couldn't resist.

Link of interest: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
Caution, quick look suggests the site is biased against global warming (could be wrong). Interesting read in any case.

RUE

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:50 PM

Sigh ...

The Mars southern cap is receding, the northern one is stable. Some planets and moons are undergoing apparent warming, others, significant cooling.

The sun's output is estimated to be causing 3% (maximum) global warming, not 30% like the article says.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 AM

I just thought I'd stick this here -

Homer's Ithaca Possibly Found Thanks To New Geologic Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181034.htm

Wait a minute ! Those science types don't know nothin' ! Homer's from Springfield ... wait a minute ...

... what's that you're saying ?

... A different Homer ?

DOH !

***************************************************************

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

"accepting the consensus without explicit statement"

No, I didn't ignore that statement at all. AS I SAID BEFORE ... there are many papers that simply don't address the issue in any way.

There were many examples of explicit agreement that said - human-caused global warming through CO2 emissions. There were many examples of implicit agreement I found (and didn't include) that went like this - to reduce global warming humans need to reduce CO2 output/ find CO2 sinks. They didn't explicitly say "human CO2 emission causes global warming", but their tenor made the assumption obvious.

OTOH there are MANY papers that simply leave the issue unaddressed - like the ones I cited, above.

You mean these?

-Death Rates Will Rise Because Of Global Warming, Researchers Warn
-Global Warming Means More Snow For Great Lakes Region
-Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend
-UC Riverside Researcher Says Global Warming May Threaten Endangered Species
-Global Warming's Effects Extend To World's Smallest Butterfly
-Global Warming Could Trigger Cascade Of Climatic Changes
-Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated

So according to your understanding, papers which state "Global Warming is going to cause X disaster." don't implicitly accept the 'consensus' that Global Warming is real?

Remember that according to the article, "Not only does it (consensus) not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming."

Actually, without seeing Dr.Schulte's actual data we can't be sure, but it seems to me that an article which states:
"The latest issue of Conservation Biology examines the viability of the Sinai baton blue and the results of human population pressures. The study predicts that in the absence of global warming, grazing, and plant collection (three activities directly linked to humans) the world's smallest butterfly would persist for at least 200 years." pretty much takes GLobal Warming as a given.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:40 AM

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+
Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change""

The question isn't 'does it exist' it's 'are humans causing it'. Geezer smacks forehead DOH !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just thought I'd stick this here -
Homer's Ithaca Possibly Found Thanks To New Geologic Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181034.htm
Wait a minute ! Those science types don't know nothin' ! Homer's from Springfield ... wait a minute ...
... what's that you're saying ?
... A different Homer ?
DOH !

These can't be the same type of scientists as the Global Warming supporters. They talk about "possibly found" and "evidence to support their hypothesis". Nothing in there about "consensus" or "settled science" or "no doubt".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:53 AM

First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change""

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change"

Which is reported in the Daily Tech article as Dr. Oreskes' criteria in her earlier search. Dr. Schulte's criteria for consensus is reported as believing humans are a cause of Global Warming, even if not the 'primary' cause.

Quote:
The question isn't 'does it exist' it's 'are humans causing it'.

When one of the studies you cite as 'neutral' states "The study predicts that in the absence of global warming, grazing, and plant collection (three activities directly linked to humans) the world's smallest butterfly would persist for at least 200 years." I can't avoid the feeling that they believe 'humans are causing it'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

OLDENGLANDDRY

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sigh ...

The Mars southern cap is receding, the northern one is stable. Some planets and moons are undergoing apparent warming, others, significant cooling.

The sun's output is estimated to be causing 3% (maximum) global warming, not 30% like the article says.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Sigh.....

And there I was thinking that the smoke signals of the little-green-men were causing greenhouse gasses.

Oh well.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:44 PM

The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
1) Dumb & Dumber, fill my head with your thoughts & lead me types
2) Desperately seeking relevence in the world types
3) Saavy capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
...
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick

Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
...
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick

Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

No...can't say that I did.
I posted that in reference to the current flood of advertising that hawks a particular product, and then closes with..." and it's good for the environment."

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:48 PM

Quote:
I've noticed lately since the dire predictions seem to be falling flat (hurricanes, record heat, rising tides, tsunamis, even fracking earthquakes), that the new term is climate change.

Well, I don't know who predicted earthquakes. THAT certainly isn't a scientific "consensus"! In fact, so many people here in CA talk about "earthquake weather" that scientific papers have been pubslished specifically addressing this issue, and what they say is There Is No Such Thing As Earthquake Weather

So aside from earthquakes... the models predict that the AVERAGE temperature will rise but in some areas (the polar regions) it will rise by a whole boatload (that's a scientific term!), in other areas (the equator) you will hardly notice the difference, and other areas (notably Europe, if the Gulf Stream slows down) it may get colder. So far, the polar regions ARE warming a LOT more than other areas. I'm in touch with someone in Alaska... they had MUD and rain in November... unheard of before.

Same with rainfall... more intense bursts and less snowpack. Basically more extreme weather events. Over the past decade, the number of category 4 -5 hurricanes has increased. This year, not so much. But just as 1934 was the warmest year, we are due a few quiet years even under global warming. It sure would be nice if you educated yourself a bit on the topic. But I suppose that would be too much to expect!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:04 PM

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:05 PM

Quote:
Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

Well, you know what they say: It's an ill wind that blows no one any good. Like I said in the "News from Iraq" thread, which turned into a loooong discussion on vehicle fuel economy... there's actually long-term money to be made in environmentally-friendly products. So when the braver capitalists take advantage of that, you guys.... the pro-capitalists... suddenly find that it's a bad thing? Hmmm... NOPE. No double standard here!

Do you know which sector has been quietly shitting its pants for the last decade over climate change? ... The insurance sector. Why don't you go snoop around in there for a while, see if you can find anything to smear environmentalists with?

BTW GEEZER- I know that the Republicans pushed mightily for the "energy deregulation" that made Enron possible, so what was Enron's effect on Clinton... if any? Or do you just prefer to leave things at the "smear by implication" stage?

You know, someone with a name a lot like yours posts long and loud about not implicating Bush until the trial is over. Innocent until proven guilty. Let the system work and all that. That wouldn't be you, would it? Someone as intelligent and rational as you wouldn't have a big ole double standard hanging like a huge wart on the end of their nose, would they? Nah...... Couldn't be!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
That's right, you tell him! If he doesn't agree with the rest of us, he's just a plain moron!

Oh wait, that's right, all the same charges could be levelled against you. But you happen to enjoy the position of being in the majority on these boards, and that means that those standards don't apply to you, right? Sorry, I forgot!

If you don't know anything about me by now, you should have realized that I'm willing to bird-dog down a topic to the bitter end. I generally like to stay on a point until it's resolved, without bringing in extraneous points or name-calling. And I have on occasion even admitted to being wrong. But sometimes I just don't have time for along, well-researched post. I'll get back to Hero later with more detail. Consider that post to be the exception rather than the rule.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:23 PM

Damn, I didn't erase that in time. Sorry.

Granted, you do know what you're talking about most times. But what I find troublesome isn't anybody's ability to back up their position with a good argument, but the way people approach those who disagree with them.

I guess my frustration is this: if you hold a minority view on these boards (whether you're a social conservative, a Republican, a philosophical theist, a Christian, or practically any other non-majority outlook), there are very few people who will actually talk with you. Most will simply mock you and tell you you're a moron. Now, I'll readily admit that some of those who hold the minority opinions do so in loud and obnoxious ways, but hey--so do some of those in the majority (and I'll not name any names). I'll even go so far as to admit that some of the minority folks hold some truly nutty positions--but again, some of the majority folks take the majority views to ridiculous extremes. Unfortunately, though, very little tolerance is extended to those of us with beliefs/acceptances/worldviews that deviate from what is the norm on FFF.net boards. I actually saw a post where one of our own (a frequent poster, no less) talked about how he'd enjoy seeing Christians burned at the stake. I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So when the braver capitalists take advantage of that, you guys.... the pro-capitalists... suddenly find that it's a bad thing? Hmmm... NOPE. No double standard here!

Did I say it was a bad thing? Just responding to Jongstraw's comment about businesses taking advantage of the furor with an example.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Damn, I didn't erase that in time. Sorry.

Granted, you do know what you're talking about most times. But what I find troublesome isn't anybody's ability to back up their position with a good argument, but the way people approach those who disagree with them.

I guess my frustration is this: if you hold a minority view on these boards (whether you're a social conservative, a Republican, a philosophical theist, a Christian, or practically any other non-majority outlook), there are very few people who will actually talk with you. Most will simply mock you and tell you you're a moron. Now, I'll readily admit that some of those who hold the minority opinions do so in loud and obnoxious ways, but hey--so do some of those in the majority (and I'll not name any names). I'll even go so far as to admit that some of the minority folks hold some truly nutty positions--but again, some of the majority folks take the majority views to ridiculous extremes. Unfortunately, though, very little tolerance is extended to those of us with beliefs/acceptances/worldviews that deviate from what is the norm on FFF.net boards. I actually saw a post where one of our own (a frequent poster, no less) talked about how he'd enjoy seeing Christians burned at the stake. I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.

I know how you feel Causal, but do not let them get to you. The ones that use insulting names or worse, shit... just ignore them. Some of them are civil, most are not. Just about all my posts are bird-dogged by some pompous punks here with nothing better to do in their pathetic lives than mock and hurl insults...screeeeeewww them! Your posts are great...let the little rude bitches get their jollies off if that's what makes 'em happy. Don't leave these boards!

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:13 PM

"I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it ..."

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:42 PM

Well, since this is a discussion board, don't come here looking for acceptance because you prolly won't find it! But it should be possible to have a discussion w/o having to wade thru the kinds of rhetorical shit that a lot of people bring to the board. Sometimes I have to try very very very hard to keep my snark to a minimum when ppl post cr*p. Like... little rude bitches

Quote:
Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered

Well, that's because you're a terrorist-loving liberal faggot who hates america and really should either go live with those stinky cheese-eaters or be in Gitmo to be non-tortured by waterboarding doncha know!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:51 PM

When you think about it, statements like these from people like Jongstraw certainly don't fit into the pointless insult category:

"The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
1) Dumb & Dumber, fill my head with your thoughts & lead me types
2) Desperately seeking relevance in the world types
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick"

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:54 PM

No, that's just fact-based assessment.

Anyway, Jongsstraw et al... I think I've made my point. I personally don't care to hear "who started it" but it seems to me that some of the folks who cry long and loud about how "unfairly" they're treated haven't looked in a mirror lately. That goes across the board no matter on which side of the ideaological divide you may happen to land.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:14 PM

Quote:
Did I say it was a bad thing? Just responding to Jongstraw's comment about businesses taking advantage of the furor with an example

And your little dig at Clinton was just a little dig at Clinton. THAT shit is still stuck to your shoe. I'll be sure to bring up "innocent until proven guilty" at every oppty from now on. And maybe now we can get back to the topic at-hand? What was written was this:

Quote:
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

First of all, I find it interesting that the exact same release is repeated across all of the sites. I have one question that won't be able to be answered until the actual paper comes out.

Altho Klaus-Martin this researcher used the same "database" and "search terms" as Orsekes, there is no indication that he used the same method of categorizing the papers' general viewpoints. Furthermore, there is no real definition of what he means by "neutral". Until the paper is actually published and people get to compare some of the actual papers with HIS characterization of them and with Oreskes' there's no way to figure out if this is an apples-to-apples comparison. I wouldn't be doubtful except that I've seen plenty of misleading claims (1934 was the warmest year!) to make me look rather closely at all claims on the topic. Also, if you look at some of the other posts on that site (“German Scientists Declare Speed of Light Broken”) they seem to lean towards tabloid sensationalism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.

That is sad. You are one of the few sane, rational people I enjoy reading on this board.

Unfortunately, I know what you mean. The happy times I post on this board now are the ones when no one responds. When I get that email that someone has responded to my post, I get that sick knot of dread in my stomach, in anticipation of the negativity and deprecation I am likely to find when I click on the link. Why do I still come? I don't know.

Back to the thread, I thought I would share a quote from my husband's boss (also a phd scientist) at the Dept of Energy on global warming:

"Anyone who says that the data conclusively shows that human activities cause global warming is not a scientist.
Anyone who says the data conclusively shows that human activities cannot be the cause of global warming is also not a scientist."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
That is sad. You are one of the few sane, rational people I enjoy reading on this board.

CTS- I repeat my reponse. This is a discussion board. If you come here looking for support or agreement you'll be disappointed. What you SHOULD be able to find is emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact-based conversation even if it disagrees with your viewpoint. If that kind of discussion should happen to make hash of your viewpoint... would that still bother you? I guess what I'm wondering is... is it the tone or the content that you find distressing?

Quote:
Unfortunately, I know what you mean. The happy times I post on this board now are the ones when no one responds. When I get that email that someone has responded to my post, I get that sick knot of dread in my stomach, in anticipation of the negativity and deprecation I am likely to find when I click on the link. Why do I still come? I don't know.

Possibly for the few sane voices like mine??

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:54 PM

Wow!! Look how quick a thread can become a tissue to cry into. Pathetic......

CAUSAL

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it ..."

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered.

Then I would expect that you, of all people, would treat those in the minority with respect, given that you've been on the receiving end.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What you SHOULD be able to find is emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact-based conversation even if it disagrees with your viewpoint.

In my view, emotionally neutral is as rare on this board as snow in Alabama. Not unheard of, but noteworthy when it happens. I am not afraid of disagreement; in fact, as a divergent thinker, I thrive on it.

Quote:
is it the tone or the content that you find distressing?

Tone, of course. I don't agree with Causal on a great deal of things. But he is one of the few who can discuss disagreeable content in an emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact based conversation.

Quote:
Possibly for the few sane voices like mine??

And you too, of course.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:52 PM

"Then I would expect that you, of all people, would treat those in the minority with respect, given that you've been on the receiving end."

And I do - till they slag me personally or start defaming whole groups of people. Then they get it back - majority or minority.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:03 PM

RUE

Quote:
Then they get it back - majority or minority

Eh... don't slag 'em back.

CTS

Quote:
Possibly for the few sane voices like mine?? - Signy
And you too, of course.-CTS

Why thanks! *bats eyelashes*

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And your little dig at Clinton was just a little dig at Clinton. THAT shit is still stuck to your shoe.

Ken Lay did lobby the Clinton White House in favor of the Kyoto Accords. Probably because Clinton was the President at the time it came up. Why so touchy?

Quote:
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007.

To check on this, first I went and looked for Dr. Oreskes' paper. What I found was actually an essay in Science Magazine based on an earlier lecture. Here's a link to the page. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
Note that it is just one page, and only about one column is actually devoted to her analysis. So it's really pretty hard to determine her methodology in identifying the papers she considered supportive, either explicitly or implicitly, of the consensus on 'global climate change' (Her actual search term, as noted in the erratum to his article, dated 21 Jan, 2005.)

Quote:
Altho Klaus-Martin this researcher used the same "database" and "search terms" as Orsekes, there is no indication that he used the same method of categorizing the papers' general viewpoints.

And unless Dr. Oreskes has revealed her methodology in another paper somewhere, we'll still not know after Dr. Schulte's paper is published.

BTW, do you know Dr. Schulte? Otherwise it might be considered as demeaning or denegrating to refer to him by just his first name and drop the honorific 'Doctor'. I know you wouldn't do something like that on purpose.

Quote:
Furthermore, there is no real definition of what he means by "neutral". Until the paper is actually published and people get to compare some of the actual papers with HIS characterization of them and with Oreskes' there's no way to figure out if this is an apples-to-apples comparison.

Based on the article, Dr. Schulte defined neutral as "refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis".

Dr. Oreskes' paper states:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position."

So she doesn't seem to have have a category for 'neutral' papers. This will make your comparison difficult indeed.

Looks like you haven't done the due diligence on Dr. Oreskes' original work that you want to do on Dr. Schulte's paper. Once his paper is through peer-review (A step Dr. Oreskes seems to have thought not necessary) and published we'll see if his methodology is a little more transparent.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:35 PM

Well of course, we will have to wait until the paper is published and then try to do a fair comparison. I think that was my point. I'm glad you agree. AFA "neutral" papers are concerned, does that mean the authors explicitly refuse, or is it something they just fail to address? Again, we will have to wait and see.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:04 PM

Tone. I can deal with people disagreeing with me. What I can't take is not being afforded basic dignity. Note that agreeing with me is not what I consider "basic dignity" (in spite of your implications to the contrary). What is basic dignity is respecting people's basic right to make decisions on their own--insteading of mocking their beliefs; like, for instance, accusing people of having their heads stuck in the sand. That may seem accurate from your point of view, but that can't possibly be the best way of putting it. Both sides are guilty of inflammatory language. It's ugly no matter who says it. The thing that drives me nuts is that those in the majority aren't called on it (at least not nearly as often) in spite of the fact that there are those on that side who are equally culpable. Maybe that's because being in the majority makes them feel above criticism?

Perhaps there's a reason why those with minority views continue to leave the boards other than the fact that they're in the minority.

But I'm sure that I'll be attacked merely for making these observations, so why do I bother?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:38 PM

Quote:
Both sides are guilty of inflammatory language. It's ugly no matter who says it.

I agree

Quote:
The thing that drives me nuts is that those in the majority aren't called on it (at least not nearly as often) in spite of the fact that there are those on that side who are equally culpable.

Not sure I agree on either count. In general I find MOST people "in the majority" are pretty reasonable people: HKCavalier {yes, HK) FredG, Soup, Fletch2, Mal4Prez, LeadB, SargeX, me (I try anyway). Yeah Rue "goes off" and shouldn't. I know Rue and have expressed myself off the board about that. But aside from you and Finn, most of conservatives here are downright trollish. So I think you're reacting to a very few posts and not really seeing the overall picture.

Quote:
But I'm sure that I'll be attacked merely for making these observations, so why do I bother?

Do you consider my reply an attack?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:41 PM

Meh. Maybe I'm just bitter today. I'm not too old to be so sensitive. I'm young to be so crotchety. That's what gets me through days, anyway!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well of course, we will have to wait until the paper is published and then try to do a fair comparison. I think that was my point. I'm glad you agree. AFA "neutral" papers are concerned, does that mean the authors explicitly refuse, or is it something they just fail to address? Again, we will have to wait and see.

Sorry, but you can't do a 'fair' comparison, because Dr. Oreskes' one page essay does not go into any depth about how she analyzed the papers relating to 'global climate change'. There's nothing in her paper to compare anything to. She just states conclusions without any information on how she arrived at them.

Dr. Oreskes also fails to include 'neutral' as a category. Does that mean that if a paper she reviewed didn't explicitly disagree with the 'consensus', she considered it an implicit agreement? She has no place in her methodology for papers which say "We don't know if the consensus is valid or not".

Once again, actually look at Dr. Oreskes' paper. Decide if you would accept such a piece of work, without any description of how results were obtained, as a valid report relating to the regulatory work you do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:46 PM

Back to the papers - usually they come with a list of key words/ search terms. No one could possible read though all those papers, or even skim through them. Not only that, but services/ programs that do literature searches don't search the papers - they test key word lists, or at best, abstracts.

It would be interesting to see exactly how each was done, but I suspect it was through literature search programs of key words and/ or abstracts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:49 PM

BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:53 PM

Quote:
BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back

AAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!! *tears hair out* Does that mean you have to have a tantrum at your kid when they're having a tantrum????

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:56 PM

Quote:
Sorry, but you can't do a 'fair' comparison, because Dr. Oreskes' one page essay does not go into any depth about how she analyzed the papers relating to 'global climate change'. There's nothing in her paper to compare anything to. She just states conclusions without any information on how she arrived at them. Dr. Oreskes also fails to include 'neutral' as a category. Does that mean that if a paper she reviewed didn't explicitly disagree with the 'consensus', she considered it an implicit agreement? She has no place in her methodology for papers which say "We don't know if the consensus is valid or not".

Once again, actually look at Dr. Oreskes' paper. Decide if you would accept such a piece of work, without any description of how results were obtained, as a valid report relating to the regulatory work you do.

I'm assuming that there is a substantive paper somewhere that will be ferreted out in time.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Back to the papers - usually they come with a list of key words/ search terms. No one could possible read though all those papers, or even skim through them. Not only that, but services/ programs that do literature searches don't search the papers - they test key word lists, or at best, abstracts.

It would be interesting to see exactly how each was done, but I suspect it was through literature search programs of key words and/ or abstracts.

Here's Dr. Oreskes' entire description of her methodology, and results, from the report cited in an earlier post.

Quote:
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
“climate change” (My note: later errata indicates the keywords used were actually"global climate change")
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts,
developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic
change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

We'll have to wait for Dr Schulte's paper to be published, but given that it has been submitted for peer-review, I'd have to suspect that his methodology is described in quite a bit more detail.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:15 PM

"Does that mean you have to have a tantrum at your kid when they're having a tantrum????"

No. That's just my personal reaction after being reasonable about it for so many years.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Friday, August 31, 2007 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm assuming that there is a substantive paper somewhere that will be ferreted out in time.

Might be fallacious assumption, given that the only article in the UCSD list of publications by Dr. Oreskes which relates to her 'consensus' analysis is the Science Magazine essay.

http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/publication.html

By the way, here's a series of letters between Dr. Benny Peiser and Science Magazine.

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

Dr. Peiser replicated Dr. Oreskes' analysis, based on her criteria in the previous Science Magazine article, and came up with quite different results.

Science first asked him to shorten his letter, and then decided not to publish it because, in their words, "the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet..."

Rather than post the whole exchange, I'd ask you to read mr. Peiser's transcript with an open mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, August 31, 2007 1:00 AM

What this author did was divide the db into eight categories:
1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the consensus position.
7. natural factors of global climate change
8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

What he found was

1117 abstracts
13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view'
10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

So one of the categories that should have been included the origial study was "irrelevant" (Perhaps the term "neutral" refers to this category. If that is the case, its a misleading label) Maybe it's like Google: 50% of what you pull up using keywords is crap? So if you eliminated the irrelevent, what would you get is ...

2% explicitly endorse humans as a driver
50% implicitly endorse this view
14% focus on mitigation
10% focus on methodology
13% deal with far distant past climate changes
5% reject or doubt that humans are the MAIN drivers
7% focus on natural factors of climate change

So according to this version 64% fall into the first three categories. Oreskes came up with 74%. Perhaps two people looking at the same abstract might interpret it differently and toss it into a different bin? I'm reminded of The Mismeasure of Man by Gould, in which the famous experiment of mesuring cranial sizes of racial groups using mustard seed was repeated and came up with very different results. Not only is it difficult to come up with relevant categories, it's even more difficult to make individual assignment. For example- what about papers that tackle more than one topic?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, August 31, 2007 1:24 AM

Sounds like something pretty damn close to consensus to me. Only 6% of all papers surveyed reject man's role in global warming outright?

Where's the controversy? If there were such a thing in the community, I'd expect far more push-back from scientists looking to debunk the claim. Instead you have very few.

45 percent either explicitly endorse the theory of man's role in global warming, or do so implicitly.

48 percent are not weighing in, which could be for a number of reasons. their papers could have very little to do with trying to determine what is causing global warming, in which case, they may have chosen not color it with an endorsement one way or another.

It seems to me, that not very many scientists feel the need to publish studies adressing the current consensus in a negative light.

It is the going theory. You'd think somebody would want to do some real, honest science on the subject with the intention of debunking it.

instead, all the naysayers are forced to cite at nauseum the same 2 or 3 papers that they have been citing for the last 5 years.

Now, just because it's the consensus, doesn't make it right. Maybe the 6 percenters all conveniently associated with the likes of exxon, are the true Copernicus's, and everybody else is wrong...

but don't pretend that's not a consensus.

On edit...

why no category for those who implicitly reject the claim of man made global warming?

SIGNYM

Friday, August 31, 2007 1:29 AM

If the "neutral" papers are indeed "irrelevant" then the stats change from this...

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

to this....
15% explicitly accept the consensus
79% implicitly endorse the consensus
13% reject the consensus explicitly

A lot depends on the specific definitions and methodology. It's still a case of wait and see.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Friday, August 31, 2007 1:46 AM

Hi Causal! always glad to see a post by you! Not much to add to your observation, it does seem amazing how quick discussions degenerate to name calling, put downs explicit and implied. Still sticking in myself...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Back to the thread, I thought I would share a quote from my husband's boss (also a phd scientist) at the Dept of Energy on global warming:

"Anyone who says that the data conclusively shows that human activities cause global warming is not a scientist.
Anyone who says the data conclusively shows that human activities cannot be the cause of global warming is also not a scientist."

I like that; and its a lot of the reason I tend to push for sane solutions that have multiple benefits:
1) Wind; renewable, decreases dependence on mid east oil.
2) Reduce; motivate folks to buy efficient vehicles, same.
etc. What's the worst that happens if we -eventually- get 80% of our electric from wind (assuming that's reasonable, I don't know) in a manner where it is deployed in a non-disruptive way; and folks start driving 'primarily electric' cars? We let the Saudis sit on their ugly oil. If it helps reduce green house gasses, all the better; if it ends up not mattering, then perhaps we -still- have a somewhat defused middle east.

LEADB

Friday, August 31, 2007 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In general I find MOST people "in the majority" are pretty reasonable people: HKCavalier {yes, HK) FredG, Soup, Fletch2, Mal4Prez, LeadB, SargeX, me

Woah. That almost slipped by... I'm in the majority? I thought I was the flaky deist, $5 / gallon fuel tax, give peace a chance, consider Ron Paul, nutty dude? This board is weirder than I thought! I mean, I've agreed with -Kaneman- on some topics!!!!!

GEEZER

Friday, August 31, 2007 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A lot depends on the specific definitions and methodology. It's still a case of wait and see.

Yet I note that this doesn't stop you from torturing logic and making unsupported assumptions in the posts above to try and advance your opinion.

You already got all of Dr. Oreskes' input. If a student turned in such a paper, without some sort of explanation of methodology and list of data reviewed, they'd flunk the course. You're perfectly willing to accept it with no supporting data at all, yet want to 'wait and see' and quibble over what's relevent when anyone disagrees with her unsupported claims.

Why not provide some information which would allow a better review of Dr. Oreskes' paper in the first place? If her paper is accurate, there should be something out there to verify it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, August 31, 2007 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If the "neutral" papers are indeed "irrelevant" then the stats change from this...

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

to this....
15% explicitly accept the consensus
79% implicitly endorse the consensus
13% reject the consensus explicitly

Or we could just cut to the chase and only accept 'explicit' opinions, where, per Peiser, 13 explicitly accept, and 34 explicitly reject, making it:

28% accept
72% reject

Consensus indeed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, August 31, 2007 2:26 AM

This was included in the "reject" pile:

Review and Impacts of Climate-change Uncertainties
Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW
Futures 25 (8): 850-863 Oct 1993
Abstract: This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult. Because of inadequacies in the knowledge and depiction of physical processes and limited computer technology, predictions from existing computer models vary widely, particularly on a regional basis, and are not accurate enough yet for use in policy decisions. The extent of all these uncertainties is such that moving beyond no-regrets measures such as conservation will take political courage and may be delayed until scientific uncertainties are reduced.

Personally, I would either call this a methodological paper or a neutral paper. It doesn't reject man-made global warming, it says it can't be distinguished.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, August 31, 2007 4:17 AM

Quote:
Yet I note that this doesn't stop you from torturing logic and making unsupported assumptions in the posts above to try and advance your opinion.

I'm not sure I'm trying to advance ANY opinion except to say that it's difficult to tell what the categories mean. Let me give you an example:

Global Warming's Next Victim: Wheat

Quote:
As a result of the supply squeeze, global inventories of wheat — which makes up one-fifth of the world's food intake — are expected to fall to their lowest level in 26 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.... And, if the world warms as expected over the coming decades, the terrible farming year of 2007 may be just the beginning. As temperatures rise, many studies predict that crop yields will decline, as the extreme droughts and floods that damaged this year's wheat crops become more common.... C02 is to plants what oxygen is to humans, and all things being equal, more CO2 should speed plant growth. Scientists believe a one-degree temperature increase might actually benefit agriculture. But if the planet warms by around three degrees — a distinct possibility before the end of the century, according to recent assessments by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1656570,00.html?cnn=yes The article doesn't say anything about "man made" global warming. But it DOES refer to increased carbon dioxide. So is it neutral? Mitigative? Implicit agreement? I can think of LOTS of articles on "global climate change" that have nothing to do with today's situation like Effect of global climate change on C12/C14 ratios of marine sediment that would pop up on a database search but could be termed either neutral or irrelevant, depending on how you want to think of it! When the official paper comes out and when I have time, I'll look at it more closely. For now it's going on the back pile because there's not enuf information to figure out if the headline is justified by the paper. (Example: 1934 was the warmest year!)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, August 31, 2007 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When the official paper comes out and when I have time, I'll look at it more closely.

That'll be fine, if you apply the same unbiased eye to Dr. Oreskes' paper. Or since it's already available, save some time and try that now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, August 31, 2007 1:50 PM

Quote:
if you apply the same unbiased eye to Dr. Oreskes' paper. Or since it's already available, save some time and try that now.

Somewhere back in my posts I already addressed Oreskes' paper: She (and all researchers) should have created an explicit category called "irrelevant". (Do a find on this page: "irrelevant". It'll pop up.) Without that category the final values aren't interpretable. In other words, though widely cited her essay isn't robust enough to be included on whether or not there is a consensus on man-assisted global warming. Peiser's re-study does include a category which does not include or cite this keyword subset: human activities, CO2, greenhouse gas emissions. That 42% is remarkably similar to the 48% "neutral" papers cited by Schulte. Unless we know what that rather large subset means, it's difficult to tell whether that subset is "irrelevant", "neutral", "implicit disagreement", a combination, or something else. Schulte's study- being a published paper- may have more definitive information.

-------------
Fortunately, we're not limited to these papers. The following scientific organizations explicitly support the consensus statement
Joint science academies’ statement 2007, 2005, 2001
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

There are two non-committal statements
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

There are no scientific organizational dissenting statements since the Petroleum Geologists re-wrote their statement.

The latest international SURVEY of working scientists
http://downloads.heartland.org/Bray%202.pdf indicates that they increasingly believe that global climate change will have a serious impact on some societies, and that mitigation- not adaptation- is the only way to proceed. (Mitigation assumes that human activity has enough of an effect on global climate to make a difference should it be implemented.)

The lack of robust dissent indicates a consensus.

----------------
Now, I know a lot of global-warming deniers are going to change tacks and sputter about suppression of dissent, the lure of research grants, the lemming-like behavior of scientists, the irrelevance of scientific consensus and so forth. I also tend not to look for scientific consensus myself, and prefer to stick to discussion of the science behind the consensus. As I mentioned before, there is another driver that I have a very scientific "gut feeling"

is important, and that is SOOT. Specifically, MAN-MADE SOOT. There is a significant decrease in incident visible light worldwide. In other words the world is getting significantly dimmer and it's NOT tied to solar output. www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-01.htm You don't hear too much about it- it's one of those quiet scientific anomalies. But researchers are just now beginning to look at the effect of soot on cloud reflectance (lower), rainfall (less), air temperature (higher), snow albedo (lower) and I suspect that when they track back that dimming and it's implications it's going to cause some anal puckering. I could be wrong of course.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RAZZA

Friday, August 31, 2007 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back.

And this is why so many have a problem with some of your posts Rue. You are allowing hate to beget hate. There is no end to that circle. Better to let it roll off your back or if unable to do that, take the higher ground and respond without the vitriol those hate spewers are hoping to elicit from you.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

SIGNYM

Friday, August 31, 2007 7:22 PM

Quote:
And this is why so many have a problem with some of your posts Rue.

I have problems with LOTS of people's posts and some of these people are just plain trolls... or Repuglican plants! But the answer to that IMHO is to either ignore it... nothing frosts a troll worse than not getting a rise!!... or to simply stick to the issue and NOT let the discussion get derailed. And the reaosn why I choose that is because the tactics that work for a campaign are not the same for a discussion board... especially one where people get to know each other over a long period of time. Can't say I've been entirely successful, but that's been my MO for about the past six months or so. So who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks???

So... whaddaya think about the SOOT hypothesis, eh? It's my very own!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Friday, August 31, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... whaddaya think about the SOOT hypothesis, eh? It's my very own!

It's a filthy, ugly... dirty! hypothesis. Sorry, couldn't resist. Sounds interesting; write up your proposal and see if you can get a grant.

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 2, 2007 2:30 PM

Quote:
It's a filthy, ugly... dirty! hypothesis.

HAHAHAH!!

You know.... maybe I will....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, September 8, 2007 12:56 AM

=

FREDGIBLET

Friday, September 21, 2007 4:50 PM

http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to
-be