Global Warming

[fisheyeview]

and went to the moon.

And said Global Warming was man made.

 

[Thalassamania]

And said Global Warming was man made.

It is, and that's the scientific, empirically determined and accepted (except by people who have no understanding of science) fact.

 

[fisheyeview]

It is, and that's the scientific, empirically determined and accepted (except by people who have no understanding of science) fact.

There are lots of scientists who do not agree that global warming is man made. Some of the scientists currently stating that global warming is man made were predicting a new ice age back in 71. They seem to have been wrong with that one too.

 

[Thalassamania]

There are lots of scientists who do not agree that global warming is man made. Some of the scientists currently stating that global warming is man made were predicting a new ice age back in 71. They seem to have been wrong with that one too.

Name two who are not on the payroll of industry or the Republican National Committee (same thing I think).

 

[fisheyeview]

Name two who are not on the payroll of industry or the Republican National Committee (same thing I think).

So, from your view point anyone who does not fully accept the idea that global warming is man made must be on the payroll of the RNC.


DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 200711:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

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

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

 

[fweber]

After a quick search, I could not find a single paper published this past year that denies that the earth is FLAT. Therefore, there is the very real possibility that scientist may be coming to the realization that they were mistaken in their earlier claims that it was round.

 

[Thalassamania]

So, from your view point anyone who does not fully accept the idea that global warming is man made must be on the payroll of the RNC.

No. But that the way it always seems to turn out.
Get it right, get it straight. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte is not a scientist, not a climatologist, not a historian.

"Energy and Environment" is an English journal edited by Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.

It is "not what was of interest to me" and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post). (Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte's work "peer-reviewed" is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - a British peer.)

Boehmer-Christiansen's actual interest was in what she calls Schulte's "research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'." The good doctor (Schulte is an endocrinologist) has been quoted saying that his interest was sparked because some of his young patients are growing increasingly frightened by the public conversation about the potential effects of climate change. This, of course, demonstrates that Schulte's patients are intelligent and well-informed.

If he actually has any valid research (beyond the realm of the anecdotal hunch), it will be interesting to see it. I just hope that we get to read it in a legitimate journal - after an appropriate scientific review - rather than having it foisted upon us, once again, by the legion of public relations people (Monckton, Morano, et al ) whose goal is to obfuscate the science and confuse the public on behalf of their oily benefactors.

For your information, I have informed Dr.Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'. His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new, as you point out. it was not what was of interest to me; nothing has been published.

What you know about the publication of Schulte's "research" seems on a par with what you know about climate change.​

 

[Thalassamania]

Thread moved link no longer needed

 

[Rockhound76]

This is neither the forum nor the thread for this discussion. To be honest, from what I read in the link, no one is going to change their minds.

On impulse, I'll give my two cents worth, writing as a geologist/geophysicist: Climate changes. It always has and always will. These cycles can be dramatic and globally synchronized. They can, and frequently are, represented by cataclysmic signatures in the geologic record. Such changes can come with complexly convolved frequency and are most often driven by forces beyond our control. These include orbital precession (Milankovich cyclicity), vulcanism, solar output and even tectonism (low order episodic events).

The consensus is that these cycles may be influenced in the near term by anthropogenic interaction, but the absolute contribution is widely debated. Even the models themselves are subject to unacceptable error bars, particulary when they are used to "look back" at historical data. If a global climatic model can't be used in the inverse condition, then how can it be acceptable as a projection?

Am I saying that anthropogenic contributions to CO2 are good and do know harm? No. I do doubt the objectivity of some of the science out there. I also think some of it has merit. I'd rather come to my own decision, instead of letting politicians and talking heads lead me to their proscribed conclusions.

IMO, the jury is out. But, there is nothing wrong with being a good steward. Ride a bike. Recycle. Try to INTELLIGENTLY reduce harmful or potentially harmful emissions (that doesnt mean, "use 10,000 btu of petroleum and petroleum products to make 8000 btu of politically correct and subsidized "green" energy, along with a pound or two of environmentally harmful excess bi-products.)

I'll post no more on this....

 

[Guba]

Rockhound, you might not, but I'll pick up the axe... (but only for a few swings, then I'll get out of the woodpile, too).

Speaking as an earth scienctist, I'll agree with the previous post. To say that global warming is "man-made" is a mistake. A better term would be that it is "man-influenced". The earth has been warming (and cooling) ever since the crust solidified. There are many causes of this, just as Rockhound has already partially listed, and man has had very little effect on virtually none of those. The true question is whether or not the current warming (and thawing) of our world has been SIGNIFICANTLY impacted by human activity, and that is the only thing that is truly debatable. Earth is warming, and that is not up for argument. Can we do something about it? In the bard's words, "THAT is the question!"

Now, I'll stop joining in on the thread hijacking. Back to the topic!