Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[BaconIsGood4You]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

 

[AJ Rimmer]

It's a myth! Further study is needed!
*gets punched for not standing up for his beliefs*

 

[Nemesis6]

You're lucky you aren't a scientist, Bacon. If you were, you would be ousted by your colleagues, and would receive death threats.

 

[No Limit]

First lets start simple.

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. This is no "consensus."

The article seems to say there is no "consensus". Maybe the author should look up what scientific consensus is and how it is established, good old wikipedia has all the information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[1][2] or climate change[3][4].

Which consensus is the author talking about specifically? Is he disputing any of these large studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I count 15 large and independent reports on there that pretty much say the same thing, that global warming is real and we probably contribute to it.

Why do you people fall for these oil lobby talking points? Are you trying to be dishonest so you can dumb down this debate or are you that naive that you think you know better than thousands of scientists that study this every day because of something you read on a blog.

In addition the author seems to be completely misrepresenting what the study actually found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Oreskes.2C_2004

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[10] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view

I'm going to go bang my head in to a wall now, see ya.

 

[No Limit]

You're lucky you aren't a scientist, Bacon. If you were, you would be ousted by your colleagues, and would receive death threats.

Examples?

Yeah, didn't think so.:angel:

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Oreskes.2C_2004

You misread. The survey you link to was of papers published from 1993 to 2003 while the author is citing a new survey.

"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. 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. This is no "consensus."

Also, how does the author not understand consensus? Like Wikipedia says, it is through publication and peer review that scientific consensus is determined and this study is of conclusions of such publications.

And I wouldn't so quickly dismiss this. This isn't from some crazy right wing blog, this is the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If anything its in their interest to be in agreement of global warming (like many European governments) as it increases the scope of their powers and importance.

 

[No Limit]

And I wouldn't so quickly dismiss this. This isn't from some crazy right wing blog, this is the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If anything its in their interest to be in agreement of global warming (like many European governments) as it increases the scope of their powers and importance.

You mean the same senate that is in office thanks to donations from the oil and energy lobbies?

I'll get back to you on the other stuff, I'm out of here.

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

You mean the same senate that is in office thanks to donations from the oil and energy lobbies?

I'll get back to you on the other stuff, I'm out of here.

The senate is currently controlled by the Democrats. I don't deny that politicians get RIDICULOUS donations from energy lobbies. I'm probably almost as suspicious as you about 'em. But they're not the only ones lobbing. One that comes to mind is the corn industry (which wants ethanol to become the new gasoline). I'm guessing between all the lobby groups its more in favor of intervention (but thats just an assumption, I'm not gonna' hold it dearly).

 

[kirovman]

You're lucky you aren't a scientist, Bacon. If you were, you would be ousted by your colleagues, and would receive death threats.

WTF?

I believe you are referring to men of religion, politicians and lawyers, not scientists.

Scientists, in my experience are the most rational, truth-seeking, selfless and least threatening, biased or prejudiced people of society. And possibly the most valuable in the long run.

Of course I'm not just saying that because I chose to follow a scientific career. I'm saying that because it's mostly inherently true by definition.

 

[No Limit]

WTF?

I believe you are referring to men of religion, politicians and lawyers, not scientists.

Scientists, in my experience are the most rational, truth-seeking, selfless and least threatening, biased or prejudiced people of society. And possibly the most valuable in the long run.

Of course I'm not just saying that because I chose to follow a scientific career. I'm saying that because it's mostly inherently true by definition.

He's being Nemesis.

$100 says he's talking about this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

What nemesis won't tell you is that the guy said all he got was a threatning email. Wow, he must be terrified. Someone on the internet being a jackass? How could it be?

The "scientist" that makes this claim about the "death threat" is on the energy lobbies payroll and most of his "science" has been debunked.

The senate is currently controlled by the Democrats.

Most democrats are just as guilty as republicans. If I recall correctly it was Hillary Clinton that just a few weeks back defended money from lobbists, saying they represent the people. /me pukes

I will reread the link you originally posted since you say I misread it, maybe I did. But it seems to me like most of this crap about there not being a scientific concensus is total bullshit that is usually provided by wings of the various energy lobbies, I doubt it will be any different in this case, I'll get back to you when I have more time.

 

[clarky003]

WTF?

I believe you are referring to men of religion, politicians and lawyers, not scientists.

Scientists, in my experience are the most rational, truth-seeking, selfless and least threatening, biased or prejudiced people of society. And possibly the most valuable in the long run.

Of course I'm not just saying that because I chose to follow a scientific career. I'm saying that because it's mostly inherently true by definition.

Idealistically yes that's my viewpoint too, but in reality scientists are still human beings often with beliefs themselves. Aswell as scientific pursuits in their field and in conjunction, monitary persuits, which can compromise any scientists honest work depending on the compliance of the benefactor of their research. Using the proffessional term of scientist doesn't disclude corrupt scientists, or scientists using their title to convey unbiased scientific analysis as a guise to their assumptions or beliefs.

I agree there needs to be better research into the warming before anyone can properly say we are making a significant impact on that change.

 

[kirovman]

Idealistically yes that's my viewpoint too, but in reality scientists are still human beings often with beliefs themselves. Aswell as scientific pursuits in their field and in conjunction, monitary persuits, which can compromise any scientists honest work depending on the compliance of the benefactor of their research. Using the proffessional term of scientist doesn't disclude corrupt scientists, or scientists using their title to convey unbiased scientific analysis as a guise to their assumptions or beliefs.

I agree there needs to be better research into the warming before anyone can properly say we are making a significant impact on that change.

Of course they are human, and susceptible to corruption, but I would say the very nature of the job and qualifications eliminate a large number of those people who would be.
And that's why there's the peer review process. If you make a claim or theory or anything, it has to stand up to scrutiny by an independent panel. Much like a juror system. Scientific method realises the biases and prejudices of normal people and sets a framework for minimising this.

Compare this with the bullshit politicians spout, which tends to be unsubstantiated claims.

So it's pretty hard to make false claims and not be found out. If false claims are made, then scientific progress suffers and the nation and world suffer technologically.
And businesses that falsify research tend to evaporate pretty quickly.
"I have invented the flying car!"
"So when can we expect to see it in shops?"
"Umm, I need a large sum of money for my plane ticket to Dubai... eeerrr for manufacturing"

Businesses can tell you what to research, but they can't tell you what the result is. Scientists spend businesses money all the time, and then come back and say "Sorry, i spent all your margin this year just to find that this research area is fruitless"

I believe China's science suffers from rampant plagiarism and falsified results, and so they are trying to introduce legislation to tackle this. Because they recognise what harm bad science does to nations.
The media portray scientists as a single mass of collectively thinking people.

It's not true, they all have individual minds and hold very different views. That is why they argue constructively with each other.

 

[Stigmata]

There's always the problem of the media being bought out by lobbyists and only reporting on studies that support the lobbyists' industries.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Does it really matter weather D) Global warming is true? We should swich from gas and oil because we need to be rid of our dependancy BEFORE 2030, when the easy oil will be gone.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Examples?

http://www.alternativescience.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Not extensive, but many of the greatest scientists have received death threats or other random ridicule to sway them from continuing a pursuit of they're work.

 

[kirovman]

Examples?

http://www.alternativescience.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Not extensive, but many of the greatest scientists have received death threats or other random ridicule to sway them from continuing a pursuit of they're work.

He's already discussed the link you provided.

He's being Nemesis.

$100 says he's talking about this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml

What nemesis won't tell you is that the guy said all he got was a threatning email. Wow, he must be terrified. Someone on the internet being a jackass? How could it be?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I wanted to provide an example of both where in the past this has happened and where, in our modern eras, it has also happened.

That type of contrast I believed was nessecary to understand the problem as a whole.