Global Warming.. Real?

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
At this stage, only the most die-hard idiot would dispute global warming. Those who were in that camp and had vested interests in industries that contribute to global warming have since moved on to say that "okay, global warming is happening, but it's not caused by humans."

It's too bad that the launch of (What was the name of that satellite again? Discover?) the satellite that would have definitively answered some of the questions was scrapped. (probably due to influence from GWB's administration)

Regardless, scientific consensus is that humans are contributing.

I agree the evidence does point that humans are contributing, but there is still much debate about how much and what the effects will be. Let also remember that consensus is not proven fact either.


The answer to global warming is at hand, however most environmentalist reject the obvious solution. The answer to global warming is nuclear power. Wind and solar will play a small part, but at this point they are too expensive to be effective solutions.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DrPizza
At this stage, only the most die-hard idiot would dispute global warming. Those who were in that camp and had vested interests in industries that contribute to global warming have since moved on to say that "okay, global warming is happening, but it's not caused by humans."

It's too bad that the launch of (What was the name of that satellite again? Discover?) the satellite that would have definitively answered some of the questions was scrapped. (probably due to influence from GWB's administration)

Regardless, scientific consensus is that humans are contributing.

I agree the evidence does point that humans are contributing, but there is still much debate about how much and what the effects will be. Let also remember that consensus is not proven fact either.


The answer to global warming is at hand, however most environmentalist reject the obvious solution. The answer to global warming is nuclear power. Wind and solar will play a small part, but at this point they are too expensive to be effective solutions.

While it may be nice to blame liberals for all the world's ills, the answer is a little more involved.

A better answer would look something like this:
-replace all coal plants with nuclear and wind where possible (wind IS cost effective link)
-more research dollars for solar, especially solar built using environmentally friendly techniques (like these)
-mandate higher gas mileage for all vehicles
-subsidies and research dollars for alternative fuel vehicles.
-cap and trade system for industry.

Of course, this will cost more - a few cents more per kwh, a few hundred extra when buying a new car because it has a better engine, a few bucks more when buying products made using carbon-emitting processes etc - but none of these will ruin the economy or people's lives the way opponents would have everyone believe.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

That's a straight-up, unadultered lie.

And you have proof that refutes a FACT?

Yeah...right.


:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

1. Show me where you found 928 peer-reviewed papers that had not a single person questioned global warming.

From the link above ^

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

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. 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.

2. Proove that peer-reviewed papers are more credible that non-peer-reviewed papers. And don't use the BS answer of common sense. Proove to me that there is no corruption or filtering or deception in data in peer-reviewed jornals.

Oh, look over there ->>>


See, I can distract, too

I can search on the internet and find TONS of credible scientists and groups that say that global warming is BS.

Start listing them.

But wait...we should just dismiss them without even listening to them because of their political affiliation differs from my own. Instead, I should listen to those who's political agendas are the same as my own.

Peer reviewed jornals are BS anyway. Remember the cloning fiasco that the Korean guy went through? That was all peer-reviewed and no one had a problem with it. How could that be?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

1. Show me where you found 928 peer-reviewed papers that had not a single person questioned global warming.
2. Proove that peer-reviewed papers are more credible that non-peer-reviewed papers. And don't use the BS answer of common sense. Proove to me that there is no corruption or filtering or deception in data in peer-reviewed jornals.

I can search on the internet and find TONS of credible scientists and groups that say that global warming is BS.

But wait...we should just dismiss them without even listening to them because of their political affiliation differs from my own. Instead, I should listen to those who's political agendas are the same as my own.

Peer reviewed jornals are BS anyway. Remember the cloning fiasco that the Korean guy went through? That was all peer-reviewed and no one had a problem with it. How could that be?

Saying peer reviewed journals are BS is incredibly ignorant. And sorry, but it is just common sense. When someone's work is checked by independant third parties that are knowledgeable in the subject matter... of course that work is more credible. Is it foolproof? Of course not... you're always going to have things that slip though. Is peer reviewed research more credible then non-reviewed? Oh dear lord yes. Infinitely more credible.

When you ask people to prove there is no corruption, you are asking them to prove a negative. That's a classic logical fallacy.

Regardless, in the case of global warming the evidence is so overwhelming (honestly in the scientific community the debate has been over for quite some time), and the consequences so dire, it would be incredibly foolish to not treat global warming as a fact.

 

[conjur]

http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp

At the end of the movie, Gore presents some tips on how everyone can contribute, and points people to his web site, www.climatecrisis.net. However, I would recommend that people who want to get educated about climate change get their information from web sites not associated with a politician; perhaps the least politicized source of information is the latest scientific summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), a group of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries working under a mandate from the United Nations in the largest peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. It will only take you about 20 minutes to read through their conclusions, and it is something every citizen on the globe should educate themselves on.

Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meterologist for the Weather Underground

super-duper /thread


Graph of CO2 levels over 1000-year span

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

That's a straight-up, unadultered lie.

Except... its not a lie. You would know this if you bothered to read the links that people are posting.

 

[sandorski]

It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

But as i stated before, we dont know to what degree it is human action vs natural action and what the long term results will be.

And then we have a bigger group of deniars that want to ignore the obvious solution to the problem. If you want to do something about global warming, we need to be building nuke plants.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

1. Show me where you found 928 peer-reviewed papers that had not a single person questioned global warming.

From the link above ^

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

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. 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.

2. Proove that peer-reviewed papers are more credible that non-peer-reviewed papers. And don't use the BS answer of common sense. Proove to me that there is no corruption or filtering or deception in data in peer-reviewed jornals.

Oh, look over there ->>>


See, I can distract, too

I can search on the internet and find TONS of credible scientists and groups that say that global warming is BS.

Start listing them.

But wait...we should just dismiss them without even listening to them because of their political affiliation differs from my own. Instead, I should listen to those who's political agendas are the same as my own.

Peer reviewed jornals are BS anyway. Remember the cloning fiasco that the Korean guy went through? That was all peer-reviewed and no one had a problem with it. How could that be?

You are manipulating what the report is saying. You said, "928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist." You are using this paper as evidence that global warming is a fact, when this only proves that there are 928 papers available in the world that deal with those 6 issues and did not disagree with the consensus position. This doesn't mean that they concluded that global warming is a fact. In fact, if you read further, they put in a disclaimer that some of the researchers could actually believe that this is a natural thing, however, none of them argued that point. Why would they put that in there if global warming is a fact? How many papers out there, if you don't sift through them, show that global warming may be natural? Hmmm....They didn't cover that.


Articles against global warming?
Well, let's start with someone who has actually done some actual research on the subject (unlike most of you) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

What does this one say?
More than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997.
UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually number less than 2000, and only a small fraction -- who were never polled -- can claim to be climate scientists. Many of those are known to be critical of the IPCC report and have now become signers of the Petition.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=50

I found this one on the same site that you gave, but I had to sign up to see it. A quick good search found the article.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/letter_to_science_GW.htm


Can't quantify this factor over a long period of time, so let's just ignore it.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html


This was after a quick google search. What? There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming??? That's just fear mongering.

I'll repeat what I said at the end of my first post for those of you who are full of hate and want to crucify me.
"What do I think? I think we should act as if global warming is occuring and try to do something about it, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions and start declaring the end of the world if something isn't done right now. Again, the bottom line is that we really don't know. "

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

It is NOT Fact and only the most gullible believes that it is. It is a theory that we are trying to use to figure out what is going on with our planet. Sheesh. You can even read the article posted above, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and they will admit as much.
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

The climate always has and always will change, whether we are here or not. The question is what we should do about it, ie: do something, or do nothing.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

But as i stated before, we dont know to what degree it is human action vs natural action and what the long term results will be.

And then we have a bigger group of deniars that want to ignore the obvious solution to the problem. If you want to do something about global warming, we need to be building nuke plants.

The degree doesn't matter at this point, we need too change.

Nuclear Power is a Red Herring. Especially the way you use it, as a way to discredit the people(you assume are the same people) warning about GW and the dangers of ignoring it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

It is NOT Fact and only the most gullible believes that it is. It is a theory that we are trying to use to figure out what is going on with our planet. Sheesh. You can even read the article posted above, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and they will admit as much.
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

The climate always has and always will change, whether we are here or not. The question is what we should do about it, ie: do something, or do nothing.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

It is NOT Fact and only the most gullible believes that it is. It is a theory that we are trying to use to figure out what is going on with our planet. Sheesh. You can even read the article posted above, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and they will admit as much.
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

The climate always has and always will change, whether we are here or not. The question is what we should do about it, ie: do something, or do nothing.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

I'm wrong? I posted that and you say that I'm wrong? What part of that am I wrong about? Do you believe that we full understand the climate of our planet and that it never has and never will change? What part of this could you possible disagree with?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

It is NOT Fact and only the most gullible believes that it is. It is a theory that we are trying to use to figure out what is going on with our planet. Sheesh. You can even read the article posted above, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and they will admit as much.
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

The climate always has and always will change, whether we are here or not. The question is what we should do about it, ie: do something, or do nothing.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

I'm wrong? I posted that and you say that I'm wrong? What part of that am I wrong about? Do you believe that we full understand the climate of our planet and that it never has and never will change? What part of this could you possible disagree with?

The part you wrote.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Climate shifts have occurred throughout earth's history, but we are not helping to solve the problem by putting out so much greenhouse gasses.

That being said, shift happens.

 

[sandorski]

1 posible outcome of GW

As the article states GE Foods might be able to counter-act the effect, but GW is going to be costly whether we take action or not. I'd preferably take action now than to wait and see what the effects are.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

That's a straight-up, unadultered lie.

And you have proof that refutes a FACT?

Yeah...right.

:roll:

I guess anything is fact when it agrees with your position. Too bad you believe everything you're told without question.

The 928 peer-reviewed paper concept has been shot down numerous times since it came about back in 2004. Naomi Oreskes, the researcher who compiled the study and published the results, has even admitted since then that her study was flawed. Many reputable scientists have come forth to dispute her findings. Attempts to reproduce her study using the method she outlined has come up with very different results.

Prof. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University attempted to replicate her study using the exact same guidelines and methodology. Here is a rundown of what he found.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

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

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

* Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
* Less than 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.

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

So conjur, you have proof that refutes this FACT?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
In fact, if you read further, they put in a disclaimer that some of the researchers could actually believe that this is a natural thing, however, none of them argued that point.

Thats an important point. If there is so much scientific debate on it then there should be plenty of articles out there that argue both sides (blog posts don't count).

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why would they put that in there if global warming is a fact? How many papers out there, if you don't sift through them, show that global warming may be natural?

Well, if global warming is "natural" than it is still "a fact" right? I think you meant to say "Why would they put that in there if it is a fact that humans cause global warming".

Originally posted by: XZeroII
What? There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming??? That's just fear mongering.

I'm not sure who claimed that "There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming", however what was clearly meant is that there is a large consensus among scientists.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

But as i stated before, we dont know to what degree it is human action vs natural action and what the long term results will be.

And then we have a bigger group of deniars that want to ignore the obvious solution to the problem. If you want to do something about global warming, we need to be building nuke plants.

The degree doesn't matter at this point, we need too change.

Nuclear Power is a Red Herring. Especially the way you use it, as a way to discredit the people(you assume are the same people) warning about GW and the dangers of ignoring it.

Nuclear power is not a red herring, but is a way in which we could reduced out co2 by say 50% in less than decade without it causing big problems. If global warming is the problrm, nuclear power is the answer. No other technology comes anywhere close to cost effective and practical as nuclear.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

I'm not sure who claimed that "There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming", however what was clearly meant is that there is a large consensus among scientists.

Wrong. See my post above.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is Real and we are contributing to it. Both of those statements are Facts and only the most gullible denies them. The biggest deniers of both are the same people who used to argue that Cigarettes don't cause Cancer.

But as i stated before, we dont know to what degree it is human action vs natural action and what the long term results will be.

And then we have a bigger group of deniars that want to ignore the obvious solution to the problem. If you want to do something about global warming, we need to be building nuke plants.

The degree doesn't matter at this point, we need too change.

Nuclear Power is a Red Herring. Especially the way you use it, as a way to discredit the people(you assume are the same people) warning about GW and the dangers of ignoring it.

Nuclear power is not a red herring, but is a way in which we could reduced out co2 by say 50% in less than decade without it causing big problems. If global warming is the problrm, nuclear power is the answer. No other technology comes anywhere close to cost effective and practical as nuclear.

Like I said, the way you use the Nuclear Power issue is what is the Red Herring.

 

[blackangst1]

Well...we can look at it this way...GW probably wont affect us in OUR lifetime, so who cares? We'll be dead anyway...

:laugh:

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
In fact, if you read further, they put in a disclaimer that some of the researchers could actually believe that this is a natural thing, however, none of them argued that point.

Thats an important point. If there is so much scientific debate on it then there should be plenty of articles out there that argue both sides (blog posts don't count).

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why would they put that in there if global warming is a fact? How many papers out there, if you don't sift through them, show that global warming may be natural?

Well, if global warming is "natural" than it is still "a fact" right? I think you meant to say "Why would they put that in there if it is a fact that humans cause global warming".

Originally posted by: XZeroII
What? There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming??? That's just fear mongering.

I'm not sure who claimed that "There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts global warming", however what was clearly meant is that there is a large consensus among scientists.

Each number corresponds to a point above:

1. I posted a few links above from a quick google search. I found plenty of doubt.

2. You are right in what I meant to say.

3. I thought we were dealing with facts in this thread. If a scientist puts out a report that says that no rats got sick during testing, then there had better not be any rats that got sick. People are trying to win the arguement by claiming that there isn't even a debate on this issue, not that there is a debate but they are winning. There is a huge difference and is one of the reasons why I am so outraged. There most certainly is a debate.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

That's a straight-up, unadultered lie.

And you have proof that refutes a FACT?

Yeah...right.

:roll:

I guess anything is fact when it agrees with your position. Too bad you believe everything you're told without question.

The 928 peer-reviewed paper concept has been shot down numerous times since it came about back in 2004. Naomi Oreskes, the researcher who compiled the study and published the results, has even admitted since then that her study was flawed. Many reputable scientists have come forth to dispute her findings. Attempts to reproduce her study using the method she outlined has come up with very different results.

Prof. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University attempted to replicate her study using the exact same guidelines and methodology. Here is a rundown of what he found.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

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

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

* Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
* Less than 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.

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

So conjur, you have proof that refutes this FACT?

None of that disproves the findings. You're really reaching now.

Global warming is a fact that all scientists (except those funded by creationist-related wacko groups) agree upon. Some may dispute whether it's natural or accelerated by humans but they all agree that global warming is a fact which is the point I made earlier.