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

[trenchfoot]

i'm going to side with the naysayers for once: everyone, repeat after me - "all those hydrocarbons we've been pumping into the environment since the start of the industrial age has nothing - repeat - nothing to do with accellerating global warming".

sorry, after reading the above i just changed my mind back.

to those that say we shouldn't do anything about it until the situation reaches critical mass and then shrug and say "well, so what; it was gonna do that anyway" i say move off to another planet and screw things up there. i like it the way it was without dangerous levels of mercury in the rivers, lakes and oceans, smog alerts and administration officials turning their backs on current laws to increase profits for polluting industries.

and yes, i have solar panels generating electricity and hot water on my roof. i now drive a toyota hybrid and will acquire the next gen technology that proves to be more environmentally friendly than that, if only the auto industries and their buddies in the oil business quit stifling technology in this sector for fear of losing profits.

the technology already exists to make an impact on pollution levels. laws are already on the books to curtail future pollution levels if only there was enough concern to turn the tide back against the ignorance and greed that is preventing a turnaround from happening.

 

[Lemon law]

The real question is what does it all mean. Basically its a statement that global warming is far more complex than previously thought and little else more.

In terms of saying we should do nothing about increased greenhouse gases or that the lack of consensus really means much of anything, and once again we are seeing a PJ mental masturbation waste of forum space.

Unlike some forum trolls here, scientific types prefer to have firm and factual basis to reach conclusions on and the definitive science needs more work. That does not mean hypotheses can't be advanced, it just means a supported consensus theory that well describes exactly what we are now seeing is years of further work away. It also does not mean that greenhouse gases are in any way desirable or even climate neutral. And more importantly does not support the conclusion that we should do nothing at present to reduce greenhouse gases.

And the other thing worth noting, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and not the only man man factor driving GW. Just because something is no longer as definitive a yes does not then mean the later more correct answer will be found to be a definite no.

 

[Comanche]

I was just wondering. If things were the other way around, if there was a worry that earth was getting cooler, would there be people out there that would say that people are the cause of that?

If we were to say that Mars is getting warmer, and Jupiter and Triton and Pluto, would that change the mind of anyone out there who believes in GW?

There is so much data out there on both sides of this arguement that it is difficult to determine what is correct; glaciers shrinking, glaciers growing, sea levels rising, sea levels falling.

To me, the person who says that GW is real, has his head stuck in the sand. Every point made for GW can be refuted.

Nasa, who believes in GW has things on their website that say that it is not true. Check it out.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

just as i predicted..

As if you were the king of unpredictability. At least I know I'm an asshole and not above my own discourtesies. That kind of makes you a special. :beer:

 

[LegendKiller]

You're telling me that not every human being believes Gore? *GASP*

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
What's that word for a clever argument for a false premise? Sophjohn should know.

talk about being in denial...probably didn`y even read the OP`s threads....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The real question is what does it all mean. Basically its a statement that global warming is far more complex than previously thought and little else more.

In terms of saying we should do nothing about increased greenhouse gases or that the lack of consensus really means much of anything, and once again we are seeing a PJ mental masturbation waste of forum space.

Unlike some forum trolls here, scientific types prefer to have firm and factual basis to reach conclusions on and the definitive science needs more work. That does not mean hypotheses can't be advanced, it just means a supported consensus theory that well describes exactly what we are now seeing is years of further work away. It also does not mean that greenhouse gases are in any way desirable or even climate neutral. And more importantly does not support the conclusion that we should do nothing at present to reduce greenhouse gases.

And the other thing worth noting, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and not the only man man factor driving GW. Just because something is no longer as definitive a yes does not then mean the later more correct answer will be found to be a definite no.

Damn and I was going to say the same about you.....and once again we are seeing a LL mental masturbation waste of forum space.

 

[randym431]

I refused to take a driving vacation this year. Didn?t want to fall off the edge of the earth.
And btw, why is it when I drop my pen, it goes down and not up? I see no logical reason for this. If I cant see it, then it caint be so. (baffling, just baffling)

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

Nice spin. You think there's a consensus in favor of MMGW when 48% say that they can't determine one way or the other? You simply dismiss them?

How about this: The consensus is, "We don't know"

Nice spin yourself. 48% do not say that they can't determine one way or the other. 48% of the papers do not take a position.

Your semantics are meaningless, because it is the exact same methodology as the original study, which claimed that there was an overwhelming consensus in favor of MMGW, which is clearly not the case here.

If you discount this study, you must also discount the original, which is so often cited by pro-MMGW pundits.

Wrong, This study showed that there may not be a consensus. The last study showed their was. Often the same methodology to prove something is true is worthless in proving it false. There are many reasons why a paper would not talk about whether global warming is man made and not believing it is only one of the reasons.

 

[MonkeyK]

semantic? You simply created a conclusion that is not supported by the research presented. That is to say that you "spun" a conclusion.

Here are a couple of critical reading cliff notes:
"However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category 48% are neutral papers" , 48% of what? published papers, not scientists. So the first thing to realize is that papers don't reach a consensus, people do.
"48% are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis." Doesn't say that they could not determine, only that they neither accept nor reject the hypothesis.


comparing the studies cliff notes:
The first study was created by Naomi Oreskes in 2004.
The first study claimed that nobody submitted a paper rejecting man's role in climate change, and could therefore draw the conclusion that no scientist were willing or able to publish a paper in that vein. As long as the criteria for paper inclusion is broad enough and number of publishing scientists is fairly large, it is probably correct to use the term consensus.

The first study came up with 75% support, 25% no position, and 0% rejection. I find the first study's numbers somewhat in question since it divided papers into the categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
evaluation of impacts,
mitigation proposals,
methods,
paleoclimate analysis,
rejection of the consensus position.

It then claimed that 75% of the papers reviewed fell into the first three categories and 25% fell into the fifth category. Personally, I find it very doubtful that no papers objectively fell into the "methods" category. When I used to read scientific papers in school, the majority of them were on methods. Based on the categorization, it would be possible to be a methods paper and still explicitly endorse the consensus position, however a good review would suggest removing such language.

 

[mfs378]

Have you guys ever written a scientific paper? Have you even read one?

When you write a paper, it is tightly focused on the subject you are treating. You don't go off on tangents that are peripherally related to your work. I imagine that the majority of these papers did not set out to address whether global warming is man-made, but rather to analyze one piece of the puzzle. As a result, there is no position taken on the bigger issue of global warming.

As others have said, what is written in a paper does not necessarily represent the entirety of the views of the authors. Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus. But you may continue to believe it if you like.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Have you guys ever written a scientific paper? Have you even read one?

When you write a paper, it is tightly focused on the subject you are treating. You don't go off on tangents that are peripherally related to your work. I imagine that the majority of these papers did not set out to address whether global warming is man-made, but rather to analyze one piece of the puzzle. As a result, there is no position taken on the bigger issue of global warming.

As others have said, what is written in a paper does not necessarily represent the entirety of the views of the authors. Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus. But you may continue to believe it if you like.

Oddly enough, I was going to post something almost exactly like this, but I figured it was a waste of time. For too many people, this has clearly become a political debate, and when the actual scientific debate does not look like the political debate, they feel free to conclude whatever they like. If a scientist writing a paper about the climate change doesn't support the idea of man-made global warming exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly argues against it, well then it must be because the scientist doesn't really believe man-made global warming exists, right? I suppose this is an inevitable problem when it's scientists on one side and political folks on the other...in many ways they aren't even in the same debate.

And before anyone gets all uppity about papers on climate change HAVING to address whether or not it's man-made, that's clearly ridiculous to anyone who has read a scientific paper (I'm guessing that's me and mfs378, but whatever). Contrary to what outsiders might think, most scientific topics are much broader than they appear on the surface...papers aren't about "climate change", they are about the changes in size of a particular iceberg in the North Atlantic over the last 10 years. Not only is a discussion of the CAUSES of climate change outside of the scope of such a paper, addressing the issue would be unscientific. The fact that many papers don't address the causes of climate change isn't because the writers are unsure, it's because the topics of the paper don't include it. A much more interesting statistic is how many papers that DO address the causes support the idea of man-made global warming.

On a more obvious note, I really like this thread title...it's yet another example of conservatives twisting the truth when it suits their needs. This article is about scientific PAPERS, not the scientists themselves. Which in itself shows pretty significant bias...clearly the truth, scientific or otherwise, is not what ProfJohn is after here. If a scientist writes 10 papers not about the causes of global warming, and 1 paper supporting the idea of man-made global warming, well then the "methodology" of this article suggests that's a lot of evidence against global warming. I find it pretty amusing that anyone would take this seriously.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: mfs378
Have you guys ever written a scientific paper? Have you even read one?

When you write a paper, it is tightly focused on the subject you are treating. You don't go off on tangents that are peripherally related to your work. I imagine that the majority of these papers did not set out to address whether global warming is man-made, but rather to analyze one piece of the puzzle. As a result, there is no position taken on the bigger issue of global warming.

As others have said, what is written in a paper does not necessarily represent the entirety of the views of the authors. Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus. But you may continue to believe it if you like.

Oddly enough, I was going to post something almost exactly like this, but I figured it was a waste of time. For too many people, this has clearly become a political debate, and when the actual scientific debate does not look like the political debate, they feel free to conclude whatever they like. If a scientist writing a paper about the climate change doesn't support the idea of man-made global warming exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly argues against it, well then it must be because the scientist doesn't really believe man-made global warming exists, right? I suppose this is an inevitable problem when it's scientists on one side and political folks on the other...in many ways they aren't even in the same debate.

And before anyone gets all uppity about papers on climate change HAVING to address whether or not it's man-made, that's clearly ridiculous to anyone who has read a scientific paper (I'm guessing that's me and mfs378, but whatever). Contrary to what outsiders might think, most scientific topics are much broader than they appear on the surface...papers aren't about "climate change", they are about the changes in size of a particular iceberg in the North Atlantic over the last 10 years. Not only is a discussion of the CAUSES of climate change outside of the scope of such a paper, addressing the issue would be unscientific. The fact that many papers don't address the causes of climate change isn't because the writers are unsure, it's because the topics of the paper don't include it. A much more interesting statistic is how many papers that DO address the causes support the idea of man-made global warming.

On a more obvious note, I really like this thread title...it's yet another example of conservatives twisting the truth when it suits their needs. This article is about scientific PAPERS, not the scientists themselves. Which in itself shows pretty significant bias...clearly the truth, scientific or otherwise, is not what ProfJohn is after here. If a scientist writes 10 papers not about the causes of global warming, and 1 paper supporting the idea of man-made global warming, well then the "methodology" of this article suggests that's a lot of evidence against global warming. I find it pretty amusing that anyone would take this seriously.

yep reason away the facts that profJohn presents...rofl

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
yep reason away the facts that profjogm presents...rofl

Sarcasm? Rainsford's post does not contend with any facts, only their interpretation.

In response to Rainsford and mfs378, I suspect that quite a few of the posters on this thread have read scientific papers (HeartSurgeon says he has written them). We are all just more prone to losing objectivity when something seems to point to our preconcieved notions (whether it actually does so or not).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i'm going to side with the naysayers for once: everyone, repeat after me - "all those hydrocarbons we've been pumping into the environment since the start of the industrial age has nothing - repeat - nothing to do with accellerating global warming".

ummm you do know that between the 1930s and the 1970s there was a global DROP in temperatures?

Now I?ll have to consult my history books, but I am rather sure that the 1930s was AFTER the industrial age began.

It is very likely that what we are seeing now is just part of the natural cycle. The earth warms up for 30-40 years then the earth cools down. There are already a couple of rather famous and well known scientists already on record as say they expect to see the temperatures to start dropping again in the next five years? In fact I believe our current world temp is lower than it was a few years ago? hmmmm

 

[heartsurgeon]

what I want to know is how we have caused Global Warming on MARS

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: mfs378
Have you guys ever written a scientific paper? Have you even read one?

When you write a paper, it is tightly focused on the subject you are treating. You don't go off on tangents that are peripherally related to your work. I imagine that the majority of these papers did not set out to address whether global warming is man-made, but rather to analyze one piece of the puzzle. As a result, there is no position taken on the bigger issue of global warming.

As others have said, what is written in a paper does not necessarily represent the entirety of the views of the authors. Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus. But you may continue to believe it if you like.

Oddly enough, I was going to post something almost exactly like this, but I figured it was a waste of time. For too many people, this has clearly become a political debate, and when the actual scientific debate does not look like the political debate, they feel free to conclude whatever they like. If a scientist writing a paper about the climate change doesn't support the idea of man-made global warming exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly argues against it, well then it must be because the scientist doesn't really believe man-made global warming exists, right? I suppose this is an inevitable problem when it's scientists on one side and political folks on the other...in many ways they aren't even in the same debate.

And before anyone gets all uppity about papers on climate change HAVING to address whether or not it's man-made, that's clearly ridiculous to anyone who has read a scientific paper (I'm guessing that's me and mfs378, but whatever). Contrary to what outsiders might think, most scientific topics are much broader than they appear on the surface...papers aren't about "climate change", they are about the changes in size of a particular iceberg in the North Atlantic over the last 10 years. Not only is a discussion of the CAUSES of climate change outside of the scope of such a paper, addressing the issue would be unscientific. The fact that many papers don't address the causes of climate change isn't because the writers are unsure, it's because the topics of the paper don't include it. A much more interesting statistic is how many papers that DO address the causes support the idea of man-made global warming.

On a more obvious note, I really like this thread title...it's yet another example of conservatives twisting the truth when it suits their needs. This article is about scientific PAPERS, not the scientists themselves. Which in itself shows pretty significant bias...clearly the truth, scientific or otherwise, is not what ProfJohn is after here. If a scientist writes 10 papers not about the causes of global warming, and 1 paper supporting the idea of man-made global warming, well then the "methodology" of this article suggests that's a lot of evidence against global warming. I find it pretty amusing that anyone would take this seriously.

yep reason away the facts that profJohn presents...rofl

Uh, yeah, that's how science works, Jethro. Facts very rarely stand on their own, it's all about the interpretation of those facts. I am not disagreeing with the facts presenting in the article, I'm simply suggesting that ProJo is, intentionally or not, drawing the wrong conclusions from them. For folks like you, interpretation seems to be a foreign idea, you guys just throw some facts at the wall and waggle your eyebrows suggestively, secure in the knowledge that people who already agree with you will draw the intended conclusions.

But to the rest of us, you just look like idiots. If you think your facts support a particular conclusion, make the argument. Now I could be wrong in the argument I made, but at least I made one...not a single one of you jokers has made any effort to support the link between the content of climate change related papers and the correctness of the theory that man-made factors significantly impact climate change.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
yep reason away the facts that profjogm presents...rofl

Sarcasm? Rainsford's post does not contend with any facts, only their interpretation.

In response to Rainsford and mfs378, I suspect that quite a few of the posters on this thread have read scientific papers (HeartSurgeon says he has written them). We are all just more prone to losing objectivity when something seems to point to our preconcieved notions (whether it actually does so or not).

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Intelligent people should not be drawing conclusions about ANYTHING from "preconceived" notions, they should be drawing their conclusions from the science. It's hardly the fault of science that it disagrees with ideas people formed by listening to Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
what I want to know is how we have caused Global Warming on MARS

Just so I understand your argument; you're saying that if an event occurs because of one cause, ALL similar events must occur from the same cause? That's just great work...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
what I want to know is how we have caused Global Warming on MARS

If you read up on solar variation theory you would see that variable output in the Sun's energy is in fact responsible for some of the climate change on earth. Unfortunately, (or fortunately as we can do something about it?) it appears that when compared to the historic record it cannot account for the vast majority of warming here on Earth. It can however account for the vast majority of the warming on Mars.

Next question?

 

[Lemon law]

I agree that the Earths climate is going to be far more complex than Mars because climate is some what a function of how solar energy is is distributed. And Mars lacks much of an atmosphere, there are no oceans, and hence no Ocean currents to cycle heat from the equator to the poles. And on Earth, the presence of particulate matter in the atmosphere associated with pollution causes a huge damping effect on greenhouse gases labeled under the broad category of global dimming.

But if you read the provided link, the first page reveals the relevant conclusion----Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

So, you can see the Science guys can't even agree with the simpler climate system seen on Mars as the link goes on to suggest that wobbles in the orbit of Mars and not a slight increase in solar radiation may be the cause for what we are seeing on Mars. And then our bigger orbit stabilizing moon becomes a factor as well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
what I want to know is how we have caused Global Warming on MARS

If you read up on solar variation theory you would see that variable output in the Sun's energy is in fact responsible for some of the climate change on earth. Unfortunately, (or fortunately as we can do something about it?) it appears that when compared to the historic record it cannot account for the vast majority of warming here on Earth. It can however account for the vast majority of the warming on Mars.

Next question?

I have a question.

Can you provide a link to studies that show that solar variation accounts for the "vast majority of warming on Mars" and that it is not primarily due to seasonal/orbital variations instead? There seems to be some contention on that issue.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
what I want to know is how we have caused Global Warming on MARS

If you read up on solar variation theory you would see that variable output in the Sun's energy is in fact responsible for some of the climate change on earth. Unfortunately, (or fortunately as we can do something about it?) it appears that when compared to the historic record it cannot account for the vast majority of warming here on Earth. It can however account for the vast majority of the warming on Mars.

Next question?

I have a question.

Can you provide a link to studies that show that solar variation accounts for the "vast majority of warming on Mars" and that it is not primarily due to seasonal/orbital variations instead? There seems to be some contention on that issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see heartsurgeon, there is good deal of contention on many issues on climate
change on both Mars and Earth. And rather than ask next question like anything is settled, maybe its time to ask what what questions have this thread answered or even raised other than wasting everyone's time.

The thread title references just CO2 which is just a part of the picture, even if we are just discussing man made green house gases.

And the burning question mankind now faces is in deciding if or if not the threat of global warming can be safely ignored or not. Please explain why this thread has given us any real answers to the only question worth asking now and based on what we know now.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: mfs378
Have you guys ever written a scientific paper? Have you even read one?

When you write a paper, it is tightly focused on the subject you are treating. You don't go off on tangents that are peripherally related to your work. I imagine that the majority of these papers did not set out to address whether global warming is man-made, but rather to analyze one piece of the puzzle. As a result, there is no position taken on the bigger issue of global warming.

As others have said, what is written in a paper does not necessarily represent the entirety of the views of the authors. Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus. But you may continue to believe it if you like.

Oddly enough, I was going to post something almost exactly like this, but I figured it was a waste of time. For too many people, this has clearly become a political debate, and when the actual scientific debate does not look like the political debate, they feel free to conclude whatever they like. If a scientist writing a paper about the climate change doesn't support the idea of man-made global warming exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly argues against it, well then it must be because the scientist doesn't really believe man-made global warming exists, right? I suppose this is an inevitable problem when it's scientists on one side and political folks on the other...in many ways they aren't even in the same debate.

And before anyone gets all uppity about papers on climate change HAVING to address whether or not it's man-made, that's clearly ridiculous to anyone who has read a scientific paper (I'm guessing that's me and mfs378, but whatever). Contrary to what outsiders might think, most scientific topics are much broader than they appear on the surface...papers aren't about "climate change", they are about the changes in size of a particular iceberg in the North Atlantic over the last 10 years. Not only is a discussion of the CAUSES of climate change outside of the scope of such a paper, addressing the issue would be unscientific. The fact that many papers don't address the causes of climate change isn't because the writers are unsure, it's because the topics of the paper don't include it. A much more interesting statistic is how many papers that DO address the causes support the idea of man-made global warming.

On a more obvious note, I really like this thread title...it's yet another example of conservatives twisting the truth when it suits their needs. This article is about scientific PAPERS, not the scientists themselves. Which in itself shows pretty significant bias...clearly the truth, scientific or otherwise, is not what ProfJohn is after here. If a scientist writes 10 papers not about the causes of global warming, and 1 paper supporting the idea of man-made global warming, well then the "methodology" of this article suggests that's a lot of evidence against global warming. I find it pretty amusing that anyone would take this seriously.

What I find even more intellectually dishonest about ProfJohn and his tools is that they're saying, "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! There's no consensus in support of anthropogenic climate change," pretending that whether or not a consensus exists bears intellectual weight with them.

But, in fact, they have no intellectual investment in whether such a consensus exists. That is, if there is no consensus, then they'll use that to argue against anthropogenic climate change. But if (as seems extremely likely), this "study" is just more right-wing propaganda and there IS an extremely strong consensus, they'll ignore it.

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: shira

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

You act as if it isn't exactly the same on the other side of the issue. Even from your own post your bias is painfully evident. Most people here seem to discount his posts as "right-wing propaganda" without actually even addressing anything related to the issue, simply because he takes an opposing view. I've seen it on multiple occasions, and each time the justification is similar.

The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from posters like yourself.