There IS NO consensus

[Alpha1]

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.

http://tinyurl.com/ynoggu

 

[DeadCanDance]

all you've done is post a blog, from a senator's website. A senator who is well known for promoting anti-global warming crackpot stuff.

There's no link to the actual study, and the study hasn't even yet been published in a credible peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Alpha1]

all you've done is post a blog, from a senator's website. A senator who is well known for promoting anti-global warming crackpot stuff.

There's no link to the actual study, and the study hasn't even yet been published in a credible peer-reviewed journal.

Yeah...we know all that....its mentioned in the article...

"Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states"...etc.

So after its release, will the results change?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Yeah...we know all that....its mentioned in the article...

"Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states"...etc.

So after its release, will the results change?

Right, all were hearing is some allegations from someone's blog.

And I just googled the magazine "Energy and Environment". Its not a top tier, and not even credible, peer reviewed scientific journal. Its a magazine run by a dude who's a global warming skeptic, and who himself has no formal training in climate science.

 

[Gunny]

Right, all were hearing is some allegations from someone's blog.

And I just googled the magazine "Energy and Environment". Its not a top tier, and not even credible, peer reviewed scientific journal. Its a magazine run by a dude who's a global warming skeptic, and who himself has no formal training in climate science.

Oh, you mean just like allegations that global warming is man-made, or man can do something to stop it?

As far as his source goes, what do YOU have? Some pro, let's overreact and implement changes cuz it's all man's fault knucklehead?

 

[Larkinn]

As far as his source goes, what do YOU have? Some pro, let's overreact and implement changes cuz it's all man's fault knucklehead?

According to the source posted...the source he has is 45% of ALL scientists who publish information on this topic...

 

[DeadCanDance]

Oh, you mean just like allegations that global warming is man-made, or man can do something to stop it?

As far as his source goes, what do YOU have? Some pro, let's overreact and implement changes cuz it's all man's fault knucklehead?

"As far as his source goes, what do YOU have?"

Here ya go:

1) All of the major scientific bodies and organizations on the entire Planet, who have expertise in climate science, agree that human activities contributing to global warming/global climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United States National Academy of Science
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

plus, The National Science Academies of:

Canada,
France,
Germany,
Italy,
Japan,
Russia,
United Kingdom
Australia,
Belgium
Brazil
the Carribean,
India,
Indonesia,
Ireland,
Malaysia,
New Zealand,
Sweden,


2) Peer Reviewed Scientific Research.

One of America’s most respected scientific journals (Science Magazine), conducted a huge survey of the peer reviewed scientific literature pertaining to global warming.

Their survey found that since 1993, there have been no (zero) peer-reviewed published research papers that has disagreed with, or debunked, the consensus position on anthropogenic global climate change.*

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


3) All the major world political leaders on the planet - including George Bush - agree than human activities and human greenhouse emissions, are impacting climate change. And that human emissions need to be curtailed, or reduced.

 

[Gunny]

"As far as his source goes, what do YOU have?"

Here ya go:

First off, I believe "all the world leaders" and "President Bush" about as much as I would Ted Bundy where this topic is concerned. Since the PC crowd has assumed the mantle of pushing man-made climate change, these politicians are saying what they think everyone wants to hear.

I don't doubt global climate change a bit. I do however disagree with reacting to a problem before identifying what specifically caused it.

Sure, man probably does have some impact on the climate. The climate change itself can however be cyclical, and nothing we can do about it. All I see is a bunch of guesswork and posturing with no concrete evidence.

 

[Angel Heart]

First off, I believe "all the world leaders" and "President Bush" about as much as I would Ted Bundy where this topic is concerned. Since the PC crowd has assumed the mantle of pushing man-made climate change, these politicians are saying what they think everyone wants to hear.

I don't doubt global climate change a bit. I do however disagree with reacting to a problem before identifying what specifically caused it.

Sure, man probably does have some impact on the climate. The climate change itself can however be cyclical, and nothing we can do about it. All I see is a bunch of guesswork and posturing with no concrete evidence.

The globe has always been in a state of change. They act like that's something new. That it was stable and constant up until man. What a bunch of hogwash.

 

[Diuretic]

Just this morning I was listening to a radio report which featured the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Norway heading up into Norway's north, Arctic Circle area. They were going to see the ice receding and were discussing, among other things, the oil and mineral deposits that were being made available by the melting ice.

It's winter here. Yesterday it was 30.4c.

No human-influenced climate change, of course not.

Luckily some politicians who have a clue have recognised it and are doing somthing about it other than shoving their heads up their arses and declaring everything to be dark. The naysayers are in the minority now. Try coming up with denialist bullshit when you live in a country where the drought is now so severe that the big political issue at all levels is water.

 

[Bern80]

The globe has always been in a state of change. They act like that's something new. That it was stable and constant up until man. What a bunch of hogwash.

As far as human existance is concerned, it is fairly new. Yes the climate does change in cycles pretty much like everything in the universe. From trough to peak it happens once ever 1500 years or so. Ice ages every 4-5k and mini ups and downs in between. According to said cycle we should be in a warming trend. Also according to said trend even if man had nothing to do with the climate change the temperature should still go up if the cycle holds and should do so for the next 400 years or so.

I think a major dose of perspective is needed when dealing with this issue. Worst case scenario according to some research talked about warler was 4-5 kelvin change in temp. every unit increase in kelvin is 1.8 degrees Farenheit to work in something most can understand. So worst case scenario for man made global warming is about 9 degrees farenhiet warmer. That's worst case so I think we can reasonably expect it will be less than that. Plus we don't really know how much of that has already happened.

another thing that boggles my mind is how worried people are that it's getting warmer. If the tourism industry is any indication most people seem to like going where its warm. Not to mention, think of the alternative. What if it was gonna get colder? If this is the state of panic people are in now over warming, i can't wait to see what happens when it gets colder. Because as far as things humans really need to worry about, getting colder would be it. Warming will bring longer growing seasons for one. But if/when it gets colder that's when you will see the starvation and the death toll really go up. Heck where I'm sitting used to be under a mile of ice. Imagine that and the ramifications of that type of climate change on our society New York, Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, everything north of say Oklahoma lattitude wise under a mile of ice. That comapred to something less than an expected 9 degree farhenhiet increase. Come on.

 

[DeadCanDance]

DeadCanDance:

all you've done is post a blog, from a senator's website. A senator who is well known for promoting anti-global warming crackpot stuff.

There's no link to the actual study, and the study hasn't even yet been published in a credible peer-reviewed journal.

Yeah...we know all that....its mentioned in the article...

"Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states"...etc.

So after its release, will the results change?

The article you were anxiously waiting to be published in a reputable peer reviewed technical journal, and would debunk the consensus on global warming, was just rejected for publication and dubbed the work of a total hack.

Anti-climate change paper rejected by journal

A “paper claiming to show that the scientific consensus on climate change is not in fact a consensus has been rejected by the journal Energy & Environment.” The journal is run by a “climate change skeptic” and “known for publishing work that denies a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.” Brandon Keim at Wired writes, “So if Energy and Environment wouldn’t take it, the paper…really is hot air.”

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/controversial-a.html