Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Science is politicized by those who don't understand the concepts of how science works.

Climate is a hugely complex system. No ones knows completely how it works, not even scientists do. But climate scientists know much more than your average republican. Yet, Republicans try to make policy on concepts they don't understand and thus refuse.

There are things we know for certain. The average temperature has been slowly rising over the last century. Taking into account thermodynamics, this requires a huge amount of energy.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, have grown significantly since the beginning of human industrialization.

As we are able to capture more data and create more complex climate models, are understanding of climate systems, and our effect on it will only become clearer. Many scientists, who have taken a netrual view in their research now, might take a more favorable view once they get better data.

Scientists make reports based observations and data. Republicans with press releases (and to hell with the scientific method).

But, Dan...you have to really dig beneath that argument to the heart of their real argument - which is...they are against changing public policy based on science. It is the ongoing theme that the market is God and everything else should submit to that god.

[HannahP 119]

I know that's why you're vehemently against global warming, because you resent public policy being shaped by science. Are we not stewards of this earth or is it merely here to be pillaged and used to our discretion even if the end result can have detrimental effects on our quality of life? On a small scale, Gary - would it be okay if your neighbor pours toxic waste into his backyard?

Wow, you've managed to make me ####### my pants. People like this exist?!

Edited September 5, 2007 by HannahP

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I know that's why you're vehemently against global warming, because you resent public policy being shaped by science. Are we not stewards of this earth or is it merely here to be pillaged and used to our discretion even if the end result can have detrimental effects on our quality of life? On a small scale, Gary - would it be okay if your neighbor pours toxic waste into his backyard?

Wow, you've managed to make me ####### my pants. People like this exist?!

Yes and sorry to make you soil your pants. Free market capitalists believe in the almighty market...nothing else should ever stand in the way.

[Dan J 277]

Daily Tech? Nice try, Gary.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. 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" (9).

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.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This is the same publication that several years ago said there was a consensus. It's been held up by the GW nuts as proof that everyone agreed in human GW. Now that the new data is out you want to marginalize it.

Nice try but the consensus now is that there is no consensus. People are wising up finally!!

Gary, you're splitting hairs here. There have been NO scientific publications that refute global warming. While there may be room for scientific discussion over 'how much' of an impact the use of fossil fuels have had on global warming, the fact remains the climate is changing. The question is whether it's worth looking into alternative forms of energy that have less of an impact on not only our climate, but also the environment in general.

I know that's why you're vehemently against global warming, because you resent public policy being shaped by science. Are we not stewards of this earth or is it merely here to be pillaged and used to our discretion even if the end result can have detrimental effects on our quality of life? On a small scale, Gary - would it be okay if your neighbor pours toxic waste into his backyard?

I still get the feeling that you react to the title and not read the words. To refresh your memory:

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 figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

The doom and gloom that AlGore and others try to spread is not supported by the scientific community. (something I have been saying all along) This isn't a scientific study done by a fringe group with a political ax to grind. This is a survey of ALL the GW papers done by EVERYONE. The facts are the facts. At best 7% give outright endorsment of man made GW. The rest are not making that claim. Spin that Steven.

If your looking for a conscenus, then you were obviously asleep in your high school science classes. Or you went to a school that never really taught science. Science is a process of discovery and rediscovery. Science done my many early scientists has been disproven, not because they were wrong per say, but because we have gained a better understanding of science.

You can ignore science as much as you want, but it doest make what you believe true. Just like you don't make financial descions because you believe that you will win the lottery, means public policy on scientific issues should not be made simply on belief.

Science is politicized by those who don't understand the concepts of how science works.

Climate is a hugely complex system. No ones knows completely how it works, not even scientists do. But climate scientists know much more than your average republican. Yet, Republicans try to make policy on concepts they don't understand and thus refuse.

There are things we know for certain. The average temperature has been slowly rising over the last century. Taking into account thermodynamics, this requires a huge amount of energy.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, have grown significantly since the beginning of human industrialization.

As we are able to capture more data and create more complex climate models, are understanding of climate systems, and our effect on it will only become clearer. Many scientists, who have taken a netrual view in their research now, might take a more favorable view once they get better data.

Scientists make reports based observations and data. Republicans with press releases (and to hell with the scientific method).

But, Dan...you have to really dig beneath that argument to the heart of their real argument - which is...they are against changing public policy based on science. It is the ongoing theme that the market is God and everything else should submit to that god.

There is that too.

[Dan J 277]

I know that's why you're vehemently against global warming, because you resent public policy being shaped by science. Are we not stewards of this earth or is it merely here to be pillaged and used to our discretion even if the end result can have detrimental effects on our quality of life? On a small scale, Gary - would it be okay if your neighbor pours toxic waste into his backyard?

Wow, you've managed to make me ####### my pants. People like this exist?!

You should hear the stories of the surgeon general under Bush.

He was invited to a meeting about global warming by the Bush administration. And after he explained the science behind it, he was never invited back.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is that too.

Actually, that's really the only way to silence them. Otherwise, these threads go on and on and on, ad nauseum. Please lets try to take this one into uncharted waters or my head is going to explode.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

There is that too.

Actually, that's really the only way to silence them. Otherwise, these threads go on and on and on, ad nauseum. Please lets try to take this one into uncharted waters or my head is going to explode.

now that could cause global warming

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is that too.

Actually, that's really the only way to silence them. Otherwise, these threads go on and on and on, ad nauseum. Please lets try to take this one into uncharted waters or my head is going to explode.

now that could cause global warming

I would cause a chain reaction that would destroy all life as we know it.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Now that's gotta be the best post of the day!

[HannahP 119]

There is that too.

Actually, that's really the only way to silence them. Otherwise, these threads go on and on and on, ad nauseum. Please lets try to take this one into uncharted waters or my head is going to explode.

now that could cause global warming

I would cause a chain reaction that would destroy all life as we know it.

The cockroaches would survive.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is that too.

Actually, that's really the only way to silence them. Otherwise, these threads go on and on and on, ad nauseum. Please lets try to take this one into uncharted waters or my head is going to explode.

now that could cause global warming

I would cause a chain reaction that would destroy all life as we know it.

The cockroaches would survive.

They'd probably eat what was left of my brains.

[GaryC 7]

Science is politicized by those who don't understand the concepts of how science works.

Climate is a hugely complex system. No ones knows completely how it works, not even scientists do. But climate scientists know much more than your average republican. Yet, Republicans try to make policy on concepts they don't understand and thus refuse.

There are things we know for certain. The average temperature has been slowly rising over the last century. Taking into account thermodynamics, this requires a huge amount of energy.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, have grown significantly since the beginning of human industrialization.

As we are able to capture more data and create more complex climate models, are understanding of climate systems, and our effect on it will only become clearer. Many scientists, who have taken a neutral view in their research now, might take a more favorable view once they get better data.

Scientists make reports based observations and data. Republicans with press releases (and to hell with the scientific method).

Uh Dan, you got that backwards. It's dems that are trying to make policy on science they don't understand. That is the whole rub with me. They are taking half truths and outright lies and try to make sweeping policy changes based on that. The climate is changing, it's been doing that since the beginning. Instead of trying to stop something we didn't start and cannot possibly change we need to spend time getting ready for the change. In effect the man-made GW nuts are making things worse. They are trying to tell us that we are to blame and that by changing our behaviour we can avert the change. That is a huge lie. The climate is going to change whether we are here or not. We need to prepare for the change rather than trying to affix blame and prescribing draconian measures to avert the unavoidable. When we get the change it will be people like Steven that are to blame for the deaths and misery for distracting us from what we should be doing, getting ready for the natural changes that this earth always has gone through.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We need to prepare for the change rather than trying to affix blame and prescribing draconian measures to avert the unavoidable.

Come on, Gary...answer at least a couple of the questions I presented to you:

What responsiblity do we (humans) have with regard to planet earth and all of its inhabitants?

...

(a new one)

Would you support raising fuel efficiency standards?

[GaryC 7]

We need to prepare for the change rather than trying to affix blame and prescribing draconian measures to avert the unavoidable.

Come on, Gary...answer at least a couple of the questions I presented to you:

What responsiblity do we (humans) have with regard to planet earth and all of its inhabitants?

This has nothing to do with GW. Your lumping pollution in with the fantasy of CO2 causing GW. One has nothing to do with the other. If you ask me should we avoid pollution then the answer is yes.

...

(a new one)

Would you support raising fuel efficiency standards?

Manditory? No. Make more fuel efficent cars that give the people what they want and then the free market will make it successful.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This has nothing to do with GW. Your lumping pollution in with the fantasy of CO2 causing GW. One has nothing to do with the other. If you ask me should we avoid pollution then the answer is yes.

Ok, phew...we're getting somewhere. So when should the government step in and set limits or regulations on the market, in terms of pollution?