Real survey of scientists about Global Warming

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right they aren't making boatloads, but they make just enough to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. All the more reason to have a bias and keep the funding flowing.

You're projecting your corruption onto honest scientists. They're not like you.

I guess we need to do a morality survey on the ~3,000 scientists too.

http://www.climatescienceinter...k=view&id=37&Itemid=54

You can start here,
here, or here.

Look, I can do that too! Real?, Fake?, Scam?.. What hockey stick?

Did you know there was a Global Cooling scare in the 1970's? OMG! Terror Alert, Code Blue! And maybe it's happening again! Brrrr

I am anti pollution and pro clean energy.

Sorry, you can't tell the difference between legitimate information and crap propaganda.

You did not 'do that too', and you can't, you can only post the crap you posted.

Why don't you say smoething about the clear facts I posted - in contrast to the things like the *opinion* piece from the abysmally dishonest right-wing WSJ Editorial pages?

Because you are not interested in the truty, you have made clear. I led you to the water, you chose not to drink it.

 

[Grabo]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I see the religious devout are in full force at P&N even though temperature has dropped since 1998.

It's all about the trend.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/im...alTempGraphicAnim3.gif

We'll see what happens in the coming ten or twenty or so years..I think the line will go up rather than down.

Edit. And isn't it surprising that you picked 1998? Why not 1997 or 1999?

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Why don't you say smoething about the clear facts I posted - in contrast to the things like the *opinion* piece from the abysmally dishonest right-wing WSJ Editorial pages?

Because you are not interested in the truty, you have made clear. I led you to the water, you chose not to drink it.

I don't want your tainted water. That opinion piece was written by - Mr. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Richard Lindzen. Instead of just reading the cover, try opening the book.

I read your links yet they do nothing to prove anthropogenic global warming. There is no science there. They all talk about the lobbying efforts on the anti-GW side. That in itself does not prove anthropogenic global warming.

A consensus does not make a truth. (aimed at original article)

More stuff -

650 Scientists against Global warming!?
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ceivideo/videos/7/
PDF file
Again, hockey stick?

Warning, may contain some scientific ideas.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Well you have Obama as President, a majority of the house and senate.. FIX IT!

What is with this "you" here? Congress is packed full of ignorant buffoons on both sides of the isle, and while Obama shows some hints of promise, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

I don't want your tainted water.

It's not tainted. If it were, you could show how, name false statements in it. You can't.

I read your links yet they do nothing to prove anthropogenic global warming.

They didn't prove OJ was guilty either. They weren't for that, or for proving global warming. You asked for info showing the deniers are 'tainted', and so I gave you a starting point to see that there is massive 'tainting' in the denier ranks, with a massive funding of dozens of groups with millions of dollars by Exxon. They did that.

You think we're going to resolve global warming by posting the accurate info and rebuttals with the well-funded propaganda on the other side? I don't think so.

You are going to think what you like - about the flatness of the world, the climate, evolution, whatever.

I pointed out that the attacks on the global warming scientists as 'selling out' are groundless, and provided evidence that the denier side has massive corruption.

You can learn from it as one part of the picture, or you can not.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Craig234

They didn't prove OJ was guilty either. They weren't for that, or for proving global warming. You asked for info showing the deniers are 'tainted', and so I gave you a starting point to see that there is massive 'tainting' in the denier ranks, with a massive funding of dozens of groups with millions of dollars by Exxon. They did that.

You think we're going to resolve global warming by posting the accurate info and rebuttals with the well-funded propaganda on the other side? I don't think so.

You are going to think what you like - about the flatness of the world, the climate, evolution, whatever.

I pointed out that the attacks on the global warming scientists as 'selling out' are groundless, and provided evidence that the denier side has massive corruption.

You can learn from it as one part of the picture, or you can not.

I never asked for information showing deniers were "tainted". There is propaganda and money on both sides of the argument.

James Hansen
Ted Turner is an environmentalist who is down with the horrors of global warming.
Here the G8 has to decide what to do with all their money.

Not to mention the support of the MSM which is owned by private corporations. Proponents for GW have much more influence and funds than its opponents.

I never wanted to argue the funding of either side of the GW debate. I was more concerned about the debate itself and this purported "consensus". If you look at just one of my links (and it seems you have only looked at one as far as I can tell), check this one out - http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...=Minority.SenateReport

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Proponents for GW have much more influence and funds than its opponents.

How the fuck did you total that?

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Proponents for GW have much more influence and funds than its opponents.

How the fuck did you total that?

My Sharp 334F 10 digit calculator.

It is an opinion based on the observation of the affect and influence of our MSM.

 

[kylebisme]

I'd love to see you try to make a rational argument to defend your claim.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: JS80
You're right they aren't making boatloads, but they make just enough to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. All the more reason to have a bias and keep the funding flowing.

Yup! It's a good thing that the truth is so easy to suppress. Like how the powers-that-be kept the fact that the earth was round from ever making it to the common masses. Or how the myth that nuclear power was 100% safe was never debunked, thanks to the millions of dollars of industry money that was poured into it. Or how Big Tobacco was able to use THEIR power, money, and influence to keep people convinced that cigarettes were safe!

It's very clear that biased viewpoints that aren't based on fact are the norm in science, and that the truth never makes it out!

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Did you know there was a Global Cooling scare in the 1970's? OMG! Terror Alert, Code Blue! And maybe it's happening again! Brrrr

While there may have been a global cooling scare, there wasn't much science behind that scare. Some tidbits from an American Meteorological Society paper:

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then." "One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/1977 winter in the eastern United States. 'Collectively,' the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey 'tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling'." "During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers." "The cooling papers received a total of 325 citations, neutral 424, and warming 2,043."

It looks the more things change, the more the stay the same. Back in the 70s you had a handful of fringe scientists for global cooling and the majority of climatologists in the know for global warming. 30 years later you've got a handful of fringe scientists against AGW and the vast majority of climatologists supporting it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I'd be most interested in hearing from the 3%. It's easy to agree with the majority opinion so what facts/theories do the 3% have that keeps them from joining the mob?

 

[Genx87]

Christ I think Sangalore hit some of this on the head. If you polled the people like me who dont buy into the man made global warming fear mongering you would probably get 90+% of us who acknlowedge man does contribute. Of course we do. The question is how significant? Which is the second part of the survey but doesnt define what "significant" is. There was a major study released in late 2006ish that suggested if we curtailed Co2 emissions by something like 30% we could lower the rise in tempterature by a fraction of a degree over the next 100 years. Is that considered significant or not? I think that is rather insignificant. Perhaps some of these scientists think differently. Either way the survey doesnt define what it is so it can mean anything for anybody.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: NeoV
Good line from one of the survey's authors "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more likely you're to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".

Do they have statistics that support that statement , as well?

Before any of you closet PHD's in climatology chime in - oops, that's right, NO ONE on AT P&N is one of those - these are people that know more about this stuff THAN ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

Good for them. It won't stop me from thinking for myself, though

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Concensus, yes. Science, no.

This doesn't mean the issue isn't open for debate, but it does mean that ANY of the psudo-science that the anti-gw crowd likes to pull out of their arses, like "it's a solar issue, the temp on Mars is increasing as well" - these scientists are pretty much giving you the finger, they know this stuff and have actual data and research behind their opinions, not talking points BS and outright lies.

No, they're making logical, rational, and thoughtful arguements that you happen to disagree with. In essece, it is you who is giving them the finger by brushing aside their arguements. It has been established that a number of AGW models do not include solar activity as a factor.

Put aside your hatred of all things Gore, and ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

I personally wouldn't care if Jesus Christ made manifest in the flesh was pushing an AGW agenda - the fact remains that the world is suffering from a massive economic crisis, which, in turn, creates a massive humanitarian crisis. It has been well established that the cost to begin curbing Carbon Emissions is economically prohibitive even in a favorable economic climate. Factor in all the opposing arguements, and it seems a bit prudent to take our time and let technology advance at its own pace and expense.

Call me when one of these guys creates a model that can accurately predict past and future events, and demonstrates that the benefits of their agenda outweigh the costs associated with it, and maybe I'll buy into it.

Until then, throwing around 'percentages of people who agree with me' just seems kinda desparate.

x2

I'll repost what was I posted in the locked repost of this topic....

Seriously OP?

If I ask 3000 religious people if BHO is the anti-christ, and the majority say "yes" does that mean he is? No. It's their opinion.

Man made global warming and global warming are not the same btw, and each provides a different answer. If the question said "Do you believe in global warming?", then they are just asking if you believe the Earth is warming which could be either natural (which happens) or man-made?

So all said and done.... This is a worthless survey and non-news...

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: NeoV
Good line from one of the survey's authors "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more likely you're to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".

Do they have statistics that support that statement , as well?

Before any of you closet PHD's in climatology chime in - oops, that's right, NO ONE on AT P&N is one of those - these are people that know more about this stuff THAN ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

Good for them. It won't stop me from thinking for myself, though

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Concensus, yes. Science, no.

This doesn't mean the issue isn't open for debate, but it does mean that ANY of the psudo-science that the anti-gw crowd likes to pull out of their arses, like "it's a solar issue, the temp on Mars is increasing as well" - these scientists are pretty much giving you the finger, they know this stuff and have actual data and research behind their opinions, not talking points BS and outright lies.

No, they're making logical, rational, and thoughtful arguements that you happen to disagree with. In essece, it is you who is giving them the finger by brushing aside their arguements. It has been established that a number of AGW models do not include solar activity as a factor.

Put aside your hatred of all things Gore, and ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

I personally wouldn't care if Jesus Christ made manifest in the flesh was pushing an AGW agenda - the fact remains that the world is suffering from a massive economic crisis, which, in turn, creates a massive humanitarian crisis. It has been well established that the cost to begin curbing Carbon Emissions is economically prohibitive even in a favorable economic climate. Factor in all the opposing arguements, and it seems a bit prudent to take our time and let technology advance at its own pace and expense.

Call me when one of these guys creates a model that can accurately predict past and future events, and demonstrates that the benefits of their agenda outweigh the costs associated with it, and maybe I'll buy into it.

Until then, throwing around 'percentages of people who agree with me' just seems kinda desparate.

x2

I'll repost what was I posted in the locked repost of this topic....

Seriously OP?

If I ask 3000 religious people if BHO is the anti-christ, and the majority say "yes" does that mean he is? No. It's their opinion.

Man made global warming and global warming are not the same btw, and each provides a different answer. If the question said "Do you believe in global warming?", then they are just asking if you believe the Earth is warming which could be either natural (which happens) or man-made?

So all said and done.... This is a worthless survey and non-news...

Except they did not ask 3000 weather people, they asked people that were experts in this field. If you ask 3000 experts in religion that have knowlegde of the anti-christ then that be different. But religion is a "faith" belief. Climate is based on science.

And it is not a worthless survey as so many nuts, dailyTrash anyone, keep trying to say there is no warming at all.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: NeoV
Good line from one of the survey's authors "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more likely you're to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".

Do they have statistics that support that statement , as well?

Before any of you closet PHD's in climatology chime in - oops, that's right, NO ONE on AT P&N is one of those - these are people that know more about this stuff THAN ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

Good for them. It won't stop me from thinking for myself, though

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Concensus, yes. Science, no.

This doesn't mean the issue isn't open for debate, but it does mean that ANY of the psudo-science that the anti-gw crowd likes to pull out of their arses, like "it's a solar issue, the temp on Mars is increasing as well" - these scientists are pretty much giving you the finger, they know this stuff and have actual data and research behind their opinions, not talking points BS and outright lies.

No, they're making logical, rational, and thoughtful arguements that you happen to disagree with. In essece, it is you who is giving them the finger by brushing aside their arguements. It has been established that a number of AGW models do not include solar activity as a factor.

Put aside your hatred of all things Gore, and ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

I personally wouldn't care if Jesus Christ made manifest in the flesh was pushing an AGW agenda - the fact remains that the world is suffering from a massive economic crisis, which, in turn, creates a massive humanitarian crisis. It has been well established that the cost to begin curbing Carbon Emissions is economically prohibitive even in a favorable economic climate. Factor in all the opposing arguements, and it seems a bit prudent to take our time and let technology advance at its own pace and expense.

Call me when one of these guys creates a model that can accurately predict past and future events, and demonstrates that the benefits of their agenda outweigh the costs associated with it, and maybe I'll buy into it.

Until then, throwing around 'percentages of people who agree with me' just seems kinda desparate.

x2

I'll repost what was I posted in the locked repost of this topic....

Seriously OP?

If I ask 3000 religious people if BHO is the anti-christ, and the majority say "yes" does that mean he is? No. It's their opinion.

Man made global warming and global warming are not the same btw, and each provides a different answer. If the question said "Do you believe in global warming?", then they are just asking if you believe the Earth is warming which could be either natural (which happens) or man-made?

So all said and done.... This is a worthless survey and non-news...

Except they did not ask 3000 weather people, they asked people that were experts in this field. If you ask 3000 experts in religion that have knowlegde of the anti-christ then that be different. But religion is a "faith" belief. Climate is based on science.

And it is not a worthless survey as so many nuts, dailyTrash anyone, keep trying to say there is no warming at all.

I disagree with you Marlin, but I thought I'd tell you I love the quote in your sig.

 

[Elias824]

I have a hard time believing 7 billion people do not make an impact on their environment. We should be asking to what extent do we make a difference, and how much can we do to curtail the difference without any major destruction of our society.

 

[fskimospy]

Only on ATPN when confronted with the idea that 97% of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about climate science accept man influenced global warming, do people find a way to ignore it as if it doesn't matter.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Elias824
I have a hard time believing 7 billion people do not make an impact on their environment. We should be asking to what extent do we make a difference, and how much can we do to curtail the difference without any major destruction of our society.

For me its not even about the title of global warming per say, but we can much better for ourselves. Can people not see the benefit of reducing pollution? Doing things such as solar, wind, etc? to help reduce our need for other energy sources?

Why fight over a title, just do the right thing and push for more clean options.

 

[NeoV]

from this point forward, any discussion on ATPN about global warming should be prefaced with eskimo's quote

"Only on ATPN when confronted with the idea that 97% of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about climate science accept man influenced global warming, do people find a way to ignore it as if it doesn't matter."

It is nothing short of mind-boggling - that the anti-GW crowd refuses to even consider the possibility that hundreds of millions of cars, and hundreds of thousands of factories - which have never before existed on this planet - could have a negative effect on the climate, that 97% of the people that study this stuff are off their rocker, and that it's all part of some natural cycle - even though nothing we are doing has been part of this 'cycle' before.

Debate the extent of the damage we are doing, debate the right ways to combat it, but to deny it exists at all? Even if GW is a bunch of baloney - what is bad about improving the air quality, and lessening our dependence on foreign oil?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Only on ATPN when confronted with the idea that 97% of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about climate science accept man influenced global warming, do people find a way to ignore it as if it doesn't matter.

That isnt what the article says though. The articles says they agree man contributes. Well no shit. I dont know many except the most rabid clueless nub that would say man doesnt contribute. Nobody is denying that. But they dont define what "significant" is.

from this point forward, any discussion on ATPN about global warming should be prefaced with eskimo's quote

"Only on ATPN when confronted with the idea that 97% of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about climate science accept man influenced global warming, do people find a way to ignore it as if it doesn't matter."

It is nothing short of mind-boggling - that the anti-GW crowd refuses to even consider the possibility that hundreds of millions of cars, and hundreds of thousands of factories - which have never before existed on this planet - could have a negative effect on the climate, that 97% of the people that study this stuff are off their rocker, and that it's all part of some natural cycle - even though nothing we are doing has been part of this 'cycle' before.

This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming man doesnt contribute? Some of us believe it isnt enough to warrant massive curtailings of our economy yet.

Debate the extent of the damage we are doing, debate the right ways to combat it, but to deny it exists at all? Even if GW is a bunch of baloney - what is bad about improving the air quality, and lessening our dependence on foreign oil?

A lot of us do but then are berated with the above strawman about us not believing man contributes at all. You dont want a legitimate discussion on the issue when you toss around the "denier" label.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: NeoV
Overall, 82% agreed that human activity has played a significant role in the increase of global mean temperatures (90% agreed with a rise in global mean temps).

Interesting that 97% of climatologists - people that actually study this stuff, agreed that humans are playing a role.

Only 64% of meteorologists, and 47% of Petroleum Geologists, agreed that humans are playing a role in this increase.

...

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what a "consensus" is.

Concensus
Climatology
Meteorology

What you are describing is a majority percentage of those polled. We need to know how many were polled from each field, and what the exact question was. We need a quantifiable range assigned to "significant" and need to find out if that was defined for the contributor to the poll or if it remained ambiguous.

So here we go:

- according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists
conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions

- The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments

- Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels,

- and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90% of total scientists said Yes to question 1. 82% said Yes to question 2.

Interesting that for question 1, 100% didn't say yes. It either did or didn't - this wasn't a question about opinion. This question is probably gaging the person's knowledge in the field.

And for question 2, they didn't define significant. This was purely a question of opinion. If we only consider 90% of the 82% (since obviously 10% didn't really know what they were talking about), then that leaves us with 73.8% who feel that mankind has been a significant factor in altering this average.

Questions that I don't see in the article or know if they asked would be - do you believe there would be any change in average temperature without human activity? Do you believe human activity will cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

This survey is full of fail.

In your spirit of critique, we should continue our analysis of question #1 further. It only asks about pre-1800 levels. I'm assuming the Climatologists taking the survey study various timeperiods throughout the history of the world.

The question simply wasn't specific enough. If I'm a Climatologist that studies the Cretaceous, am I giving an invalid answer when I say that mean global temperatures haven't increased since the pre-1800s? If the question had been more specific, such as "have mean global temperatures increased since 1700?" the answers may have been different.

This vagueness of the question combined with the diversity of research means that the 10% that answered no to the first question were not necessarily wrong.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: NeoV
It is nothing short of mind-boggling - that the anti-GW crowd refuses to even consider the possibility that hundreds of millions of cars, and hundreds of thousands of factories - which have never before existed on this planet - could have a negative effect on the climate, that 97% of the people that study this stuff are off their rocker, and that it's all part of some natural cycle - even though nothing we are doing has been part of this 'cycle' before.

This thread is worthless for debate. All you're doing is looking for people that agree with you, and ignoring the fact that what you are sourcing as some kind of grand evidence is equally worthless to support you argument.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The "survey" totally sucked...but hey if it concludes what you want to believe then go for it. I'm sure that if the conclusion of the survey was the opposite of what you wanted to believe...then maybe you'd probably be able to see how just screwed up the questions are.

Hmmm...I don't see any astrophysists listed...that's strange...lol, I guess their opinions don't count. :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The "survey" totally sucked...but hey if it concludes what you want to believe then go for it. I'm sure that if the conclusion of the survey was the opposite of what you wanted to believe...then maybe you'd probably be able to see how just screwed up the questions are.

Hmmm...I don't see any astrophysists listed...that's strange...lol, I guess their opinions don't count. :roll:

No, because people not dominated by ideology base their beliefs upon the best understanding of experts in the field. If 97% of climatologists thought that man wasn't significantly contributing to global warming, then I would stop caring tomorrow. I would LOVE for 97% of climatologists to tell me that this wasn't a problem. Unfortunately science sometimes tells us things we don't want to hear, I'm just not so blind as to ignore them.