backtop


Print 101 comment(s) - last by Swedishelk.. on Jul 5 at 1:30 PM


  (Source: Smart Power)
Study says skeptics are not well-informed on the topic

Stanford University recently conducted a study that shows a minimal number of scientists who do not accept that human beings have contributed to the Earth's climate change have "far less expertise and prominence in climate research" than scientists who do believe climate change has been affected by humans. 

The university came to these conclusions by analyzing the number of research papers published "by more than 900 climate researchers" and the number of times these researchers' works were cited by other scientists. The expertise was evaluated by citing the number of research papers written by scientists (with the minimum number for inclusion being 20).

Prominence was analyzed by finding the four most popular climate change and non-climate change papers published by scientists, and "tallying" the number of times these papers were cited. According to the results, approximately 64 percent of papers by climate researchers convinced of human contribution were cited more often than those who are unconvinced. 

"These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions," said William Anderegg, lead author of a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists who participated in the study were also involved in creating the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which compiled and "assessed the evidence for and against human involvement in climate change, as well as any climate researchers who signed a major public statement disagreeing with the findings of the panel's report."

In addition, the university's team of scientists decided on who the top 100 climate researchers are by determining the "total number of climate-related publications each had." According to Anderegg, 97 percent of those in the top 100 agree with and/or endorse the IPCC's assessment. He also says that this result has been "borne out" by other studies that use different methodology.  

"We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion," said Anderegg. "We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of the public that 'the scientists disagree' about whether human activity is contributing to climate change."

The scientists at Stanford have mentioned that they are ready to take some heat from doubters of anthropogenic, or human-affected, climate change who "object to their data." But according to Stephen Schneider, a professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team "took pains to avoid any sort of prejudice or skewed data in their analysis." When selecting researchers for the study who either disagreed with statements of the IPCC or signed the petitions, the Stanford team was sure to stay completely neutral in the study by omitting "those who had no published papers in the climate literature."

Schneider says that despite the careful analysis of this study, skeptics of human-affected climate change will "claim foul" anyway, and will say that climate researchers who are onboard with the idea of anthropogenic climate change are "just trying to deny publication of the doubters' opinion," but he challenges them to "go out and do a study to prove it -- it is of course not true."

"I think the most typical criticism of a paper like this -- not necessarily in academic discourse, but in the broader context -- is going to be that we haven't addressed these sorts of differences could be due to some clique or, at the extreme, a conspiracy of the researchers who are convinced of climate change," Anderegg said. 

"When you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really drives these patterns and it could really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty laughable," he said. "All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite."

This Stanford study is the first of its kind to address the issue of scientists' opinions of human-affected climate change, and what their level of expertise and prominence in the field is. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Of course its part of a clique
By michal1980 on 6/28/2010 12:07:29 PM , Rating: 4
Just look at what came out last year about these scientists and there carefull peer review process.

Plus follow the money, goverments are spending billions 'proving' global warming, hench the number of papers supporting that would naturally increase.

Finally what kind of proof is this:

Volume? Oh looky we repeated the same lies 1 million times more then the other guys, we are right.




RE: Of course its part of a clique
By alanore on 6/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Jonh68 on 6/28/2010 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 1
They why is more government control.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Jonh68 on 6/28/2010 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
Or THE why..


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By alanore on 6/28/2010 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Really, a global conspiracy of global warming is a pretty elaborate trick to pull off just to increase their control over their citizens. There is many other ways to do that, which is both cheaper, and/or more difficult to disprove.



RE: Of course its part of a clique
By invidious on 6/28/2010 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 3
If global warming were easy to disprove we would have done it by now. Disproving global warming is like disproving a fortune teller. You can't disprove what they think is going to happen any more than they can prove it.

All you can do is ignore them and not give them any of our money. I suggest you apply the same to Al Gore and all of his cultists.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2010 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Good point.

I would argue that a theory that can't be proved is no more valid that one that can't be disproved. And vice versa.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By NullSubroutine on 6/28/2010 2:36:49 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that all Global Warming/Climate Change models predicated on a principle that Earth's temperature is stagnant. Meaning, within a certain time frame, temp is supposed to remain steady and even.

So if you say it isn't normal that Earth's temps vary not only every 100, but every 50, 10, or even a single year...any time there is a variation, they can go out and find data that shows how the temp is varying. This data then "proves" the temp is not normal (because they say temp must remain the same) therefor climate change exists. The principle they hold is that Earth's temp only changes (one way or the other) after catastrophic events or over thousands/millions of years.

Rather than changing the premise of the model (that it is normal for temps to vary), they instead use it as "evidence" how the climate is changing and humans are the fault of it. Then you have people arguing about whether or not humans are responsible and claim people who say the temp is not changing "loonies", because the temp does change/vary.

It is part of the Hegelian Dialectic to create two view points with a narrow view and use them to argue the existence of the other. This allows you to trap people in the box, and not looking looking at a larger (truer) picture.

Simply accept the fact that Earth's temp does in fact change constantly and quickly, with or without the interference of human beings and you have the entire global warming/climate change issue mute. But they don't ever want to bring it up because they have their own agenda to push, they want to keep the argument inside a box, a box they can control and win with.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By gamerk2 on 6/28/2010 2:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that all Global Warming/Climate Change models predicated on a principle that Earth's temperature is stagnant. Meaning, within a certain time frame, temp is supposed to remain steady and even.


Where do people get this stuff? Yes, the planets temperature changes. NO ONE IS ARGUING OTHERWISE!

Its all about trendlines; if the line starts to skew in one direction, is that a varience, or a new trend? And over the past century, the trend has been a steady linaer increase in temperature [which indicates that in the short term, we should expect a continuing linear trend].

Secondly, opponents to Climate Change have yet to put forth any theory of their own to explain away that trend; arguing against GW with an opposing theory is one thing, but arguing against it without another explanation of the data is another one entirely.

Temperature changes for a reason; be it a decrease in solar output, to the moon steadily moving away from the planet, to GW affecting the atmosphere as a whole.

And before people bring up the Global Cooling debate of the mid-70's, the thought at the time was that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmoshphere would block out more heat then would be trapped, cooling the planet. This theory was thrown out after probes from Venus [mainly done by the USSR] started to measure Venus' surface temperatures, and people realised the opposite effect is true.

Heck, Venus is a pretty good example all by itself: A thick CO2 covering traps in heat [hence why Venus is warmer then even Mercury at the surface, despite significantly less Solar output]. Heck, CO2 is KNOWN beyond any reasonable doubt to trap heat. The only real argument is whether enough of it is being dumped to have an effect on Earth.


By shin0bi272 on 6/28/2010 3:20:36 PM , Rating: 5
no the entire concept of global warming is that oh no its hotter by 1 degree now than it was 200 years ago we are all about to die!

The problem with the trend lines is the "scientists" all have different ones! Ive seen trend lines from an MIT scientist/professor that shows trend lines going down slightly over time since 1990. But then you look at the ones from the now discredited east anglia and they are all going up. You cant trust the data most of the time and the way they calculate the global average temperature is so convoluted that their own model doesnt compile (seriously some computer scientist tried to get their data to compile and he couldnt because several portions of it were hard coded to a certain value that was then tied to a variable that was supposed to be input by the user). I know we use satellite data but how hard is it to come up with a simple average for the data points where the satellites acquire their temp data?

The opponents of man made global warming dont have to put forth a theory to prove that the man made global warming supporters are mathematically wrong.

You do know that a lot of the temp data that the global warming scientists are using for temps earlier in time is from 3 (not 30 or 300 or 3000...just 3) trees cherry picked for their large rings out of Siberia. That's what they are pinning their older temps on... 3 tree's rings from 1 location in Russia.

Since you brought up the global cooling debate I will say that that was just as ludicrous.

If our atmosphere was so thick that you couldnt see the ground from space (like venus) then yeah there would be some global warming due to the particulate and/or gasses in the atmosphere... but its not and that's why there's no life on venus (shocker I know).

Lastly you do know that 95% of the greenhouse gasses is water vapor right? The entire atmosphere contains 0.0390% co2 (venus is 96.5% CO2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#C...


By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2010 4:09:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Where do people get this stuff? Yes, the planets temperature changes. NO ONE IS ARGUING OTHERWISE!


Well they DO use that to make their case. If it's a hot summer we hear news stories about it being proof of Global Warming. Cold Winters? Proof of that too. Bad hurricane season? Yup you guessed it, proof of global warming.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By JediJeb on 6/28/2010 4:16:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Heck, Venus is a pretty good example all by itself: A thick CO2 covering traps in heat [hence why Venus is warmer then even Mercury at the surface, despite significantly less Solar output]. Heck, CO2 is KNOWN beyond any reasonable doubt to trap heat. The only real argument is whether enough of it is being dumped to have an effect on Earth.


Actually Venus is not the best example to prove CO2 is what is warming the Earth. The Earth does not have large amounts of Sulfuric Acid in the atmosphere, nor does it have tiny amounts of Water Vapor. That is like saying an Apple is an Orange because they are both spherical. Mercury is not as hot as Venus because there is no atmosphere at all to keep the dark side warm, just like the Moon there is an extreme temperature differential from light to dark because of lack of atmosphere. The Earth or Venus would be the same without atmosphere, and even if the atmosphere were 100% Nitrogen you would still have the effect of stabilizing the temperature differential to some degree. There are 100s of variables to consider when talking about climate, to reduce it to one (like CO2)and claim it is the total driving force is laughable.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-CFcs-stron...

This study shows there are many other chemicals that are much stronger at causing a greenhouse effect. It also states that they could become factors in warming that are manmade but are not yet at concentrations high enough to have much of an effect. The article also shows that until last November noone had actually done a spectroscopic study of gasses to see what their greenhouse potential really is, it is interesting how much stronger freon is than CO2. But on top of all this, you have to consider how well the gasses migrate into the upper atmosphere where they can actually cause the greenhouse effect. If they tend to stay near the ground as most heavier molecules do, then the effect is negated by their placement.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By shin0bi272 on 6/28/2010 3:00:58 PM , Rating: 3
Also their models are based on the supposition that co2 is what's causing the warming. That was confessed on a PBS special by someone who worked to develop the model back in 82 I think it was. It worked for a while as long as the amount of co2 produced increased and the average temperature increased... but the temps have gone down in the past decade while co2 production has increased!

We just had the coldest summer on record a couple of years ago but you dont see that in the media because it doesnt fit the headline that the prophet Algore was right and we are killing mother earth. We are being lied to by the 60's and 70's hippies who are now grown up and put on a suit and ran for congress. As someone else said earlier the reason they are pushing for the cap and trade is power.

When you have a global government dictating how much co2 you can produce what's to stop them from limiting you to 1 hybrid car per household? Why stop there why not just say only x number of cars can be sold in each country? Then we have cap and trade for car purchases and the global government can claim that "this will go a long way to curbing global warming" when in reality all it will do is price the poor people out of the car market and jack up prices of everything all over the world.

Central planning is one of the tenants of a totalitarian regime and if the central planners can rally around a "moral issue" such as global warming then anyone who opposes their controls and caps is the enemy or immoral.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By JediJeb on 6/29/2010 10:28:20 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Central planning is one of the tenants of a totalitarian regime and if the central planners can rally around a "moral issue" such as global warming then anyone who opposes their controls and caps is the enemy or immoral.


This is the basis behind the non-scientific political agenda that is entangled with the debate on global warming. There are scientist on both sides that have valid arguments, but the side that gives the politicians power is the one that will be promoted the most in public. And even if you don't believe in the more sinister prospect of governments wanting total control of the people, there is the more benign fact that government leaders feel threatened when faced with something that is beyond their control. It makes them look weak to their citizens.

If mankind is the driving force behind global warming, then governments have some control over it. If it is a totally natural occurrence then governments really have no control over global warming and they become powerless to stop it and thus look weak. If you want a good example of this just look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The government can blame BP and make a show of doing something by punishing them for it. Had it been a natural blowout in the sea floor and they were as powerless to control it as they have been so far, they would be ridiculed as totally incompetent and impotent as the government was after Katrina. Even in Katrina the governments did not want to start out saying "OK we have work to do" they just wanted to be able to blame someone for what was an act of nature beyond anyone's control.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Jonh68 on 6/28/2010 1:47:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yet citizens from around the world are willing to give the govt more control to fight global warming so it would appear to be working if it is a conspiracy. Govt's need bad guys and carbon producing industries are the global warming bad guys.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Schrag4 on 6/28/2010 2:10:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is many other ways to do that, which is both cheaper, and/or more difficult to disprove


...And you don't think they're trying those too?


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By SPOOFE on 6/28/2010 5:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really, a global conspiracy of global warming is a pretty elaborate trick to pull off just to increase their control over their citizens.

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Politicians naturally want to direct the emotional energy of their constituents. Spotting a hot-button issue and running with it is part and parcel to the whole political game.

You're talking about a group of people - diehard environmentalists - that have been pushing "man is killing Earth" line for decades. They obviously have a vested interest in the issue, and there's obviously huge piles of money involved (at least one very prominent party involved has made half a billion dollars already). It is not at all elaborate to essentially offer money to people to get them to agree with an agenda, which is the state of global climate research.


By Patchouli on 6/29/2010 3:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
Saying it's for control, I think, is a little paranoid and baseless. It's more likely an economic thing. Think about how big the green industry is, and what would all the people be doing without global warming? The lay man doesn't understand/care about conservation for reasons other than "saving the environment," or so the idea goes.


By kyleb2112 on 7/3/2010 4:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
OK, let's hear a few of these "easier ways".
Global Warming is the perfect drug--a secular religion that grants all believers instant moral superiority and condemns all skeptics as enemies to both SCIENCE and BABY SEALS. Jaded intellectual or little girl in a room full of pony posters, Global Warming has something for YOU! Even while I detest the deception, I have to admire the subtlety of the tactics.

It's so perfect that even after East Anglia screamed FRAUD to all the world, they won't abandon it.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By CZroe on 6/29/2010 4:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Because it promotes alternative energy for an economy that is less reliant on volatile sources that give more power to unstable countries.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By just4U on 6/29/2010 5:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
Alternative energy? Current alternatives seem to be either a big black hole (money pit), Not ready for prime time, or heavily lobbied against (in the case of nuclear)


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2010 1:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is the problem I have with Global Warming. When the theory came out, I was actually leaning toward buying into it. And then when it started to be questioned, the scientists supporting started uttering things like "well WE all agree" and "you just don't understand".

That's not science, and those are not the answers to hard questions that scientists are supposed to come up with. "Shut up, we're smarter than you" isn't science, it's a belief.


By invidious on 6/28/2010 1:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
How else are you supposed to get to never land if you don't believe? Didn't you learn anything from Peter Pan?


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Stoanhart on 6/28/2010 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the thing is they do mostly agree and you probably wouldn't understand. Unless you are particularly well versed in partial differential equations, physics, and statistical analysis then you can't even begin to analyze the evidence yourself to any meaningful degree. The experts have to summarize it in layman's terms, and when they do, the doubters just claim they're lying. I can see how that would get pretty frustrating, to the point where you just want to tell them "Shut up, what do you know?!"


By Shining Arcanine on 6/28/2010 3:59:49 PM , Rating: 3
The thing with partial differential equations is that you can make them say whatever you want them to say when you are the one defining the ones that are used. They likely derived their partial differential equations from their own ideas of how the world works (i.e. we are ruining it by producing carbon dioxide) rather than from any realistic model of the world.

There are plenty of flaws in their work, especially when you question the statistical confidence levels for the data that they do have. They need millions of years of climate data to draw conclusions with any reasonable confidence level (e.g. 95%), yet they are working with climate data from only a few hundred years. Then they are quick to point to CO2 concentrations in Antarctic for the past hundred thousand years or so years, but those have no relationship to the planet's actual climate. They also say little about atmospheric concentrations of water vapor during that time, which are a far larger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That is why it feels hot when it is humid and cool otherwise.

In short, all of their data is meaningless and they are making fabricating their conclusions. It is logically impossible to draw conclusions from the data that they do have and also logically impossible to expand that collection to fix that. It is irrational to think otherwise. The only legitimate work in their field that I have seen so far suggests that the popular ideas they have are all wrong. One paper showed that Mars was exhibiting global warming to the same extent the Earth exhibited it. Another paper suggested that small changes in solar radiation was responsible for recent observations. Yet another paper showed that water vapor levels drop as carbon dioxide levels increase.

Considering the relatively small changes in solar radiation that occur during the winter and summer seasons, I am inclined to agree with the paper that correlates recent temperatures to changes in solar activity. Also, considering the fact that it feels warmer when it is humid and cooler when it is not, I would also agree with the paper that shows water vapor levels as playing a role. The ideas that solar radiation and water vapor levels determine the climate seem more plausible than the idea that carbon dioxide is the determining factor.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Suntan on 6/28/2010 5:20:17 PM , Rating: 5
Meh, I’ll just put this out there.

I’m a degreed mechanical engineer specializing in thermodynamics and heat transfer. Back a few years ago (when Al was just starting to get rolling on his war path) I worked for a company that made advanced refrigeration equipment. Due to the fact that they would be very much impacted by any legislation that would further curtail the types of refrigerants available to use (R404a has a GWP that is over 3 thousand time higher than carbon dioxide) I spent the better part of a week digging online for information. (Lest you think I was motivated to believe AGW was false out of some sense of fear for my job, I can tell you that the best thing for an engineer is to have the government outlaw their current designs. It insures a healthy future for engineers when they have to completely redesign all the current products to meet a new government mandate.)

Most of the stuff available then, as now, was just warmed over opinion based on a few actual source reports available at the time. (You can usually tell the difference between a source report and an article of supposition just by asking yourself “where did they come up with that information” as you read the claims, if they don’t have direct explanation of the base data, you know it is just supposition.) Anyway, after a good few days of searching, I found a couple of places that had the actual compiled test data. One was a NOAA report of about 150 pages. The one that most of the papers that started exploding into the public were based on at the time. Looking through it (the base data of the various tests and observation sites around the world) and taking time to make sure I understood the data that was contained within it, for a few days, I finally came away with the belief that no person with a strong foundation in science would actually be convinced that the climate community knew enough to make a thumbs up or down judgment on the topic.

Now I don’t mean to imply that I am an expert on the topic of climate, I certainly wouldn’t know what to investigate to clarify the debate myself, but I do understand how hot bits and cold bit interact with each other better than the average person, and more importantly, I understand how to interpret data and how to vet other people’s conclusions of a set of data. Many of the articles that I then read (one that based their opinions on the NOAA data) just didn’t make sense, by that I mean I could not understand how they formed the conclusions they came to based on the data they referenced. It often didn’t add up, or there was conflicting data that flat out was not evaluated in their reports (even though the conflicting data came from the same massive NOAA report that they got their supportive data from.)

To add on to this, it was right around that time that researchers off the coast of one of the northern islands of Alaska confirmed that they found liquid water vapor within cloud formations where the air temperature was -60°F. Prior to this, “common belief among the climatologists around the world” said that there was no possible way that cloud formations would have liquid water vapor in clouds at temperatures that low. Now if you know something about how differently the sun’s energy reacts to water vapor, as it does to crystalline ice particles in the sky, you would know that this is something that climatologists should have under their belts *before* proclaiming to the world that they know how the model of our Earth heats and cools.

Lastly, this was also the spring/summer after Katrina. Back then, all the climatologists were predicting that the following hurricane season was going to be even worse than the one before (the one that spawned Katrina) and that it was likely that the Gulf area would see at least 12 or 13 hurricanes that season. Guess what, that following season the gulf saw no hurricanes make landfall. Climatologists couldn’t use their computer models to make an accurate prediction out 4 months, yet they expect us to believe they can accurate model events out 20 30 years?

Taking these three separate issues (vast numbers of sensationalist reports that didn’t measure up to the base data, the fact that climatologists still don’t even understand the full workings of the atmosphere, and the fact that their models have been proven to be wrong every instance where time has caught up to their forward looking projections) that is why I disagree with the notion that “the scientific community at large knows AGW is true.” Not because I watch Fox News (I don’t) or because I dislike Keith Oberman (I do) but because I took enough time to make an informed decision on the topic myself. I suggest you all do the same.

Since then I’ve looked into it a few other times, not as deeply, but enough to come away once again that nothing has changed since may initial judgment on the debate (that climatologists still don’t have a foggy clue that actually happens in up in the air around us.)

-Suntan


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By knutjb on 6/28/2010 7:06:40 PM , Rating: 3
How true. Many in the self rarefied air of science want to believe that they are the only group on the planet who have the capacity to comprehend such thought and are bolstered in their belief by the groupies who follow them blindly. Some enjoy producing rather than pure research even though they do have the capacity for research.

I have read many of the IPCC reports and BTW the head guy is just a railroad engineer. I found the IPCC used group A who used group B's data who used group C's data who used group A's data. The now discredited UK group was a prime source. They all had a commonality that is dangerous in the scientific world, unquestioning belief of the conclusion. This is far too complex issue for such an overly simple answer.

Discourse forces ideas to be refined and improved or discredited. Global Warming, Climate Change (an oxymoron label) pushers want that consensus label so they can push an agenda of power for them. Discourse prevents this from happening. So prevent rational discourse.

I don't buy into the "consensus" view, both on historical grounds and distrust of those pushing the consensus idea. (Look how long Newton was considered infallible and how entrenched his ideas were before Einstein) Taking one sole product, CO2, and creating it into the bad guy when there are many other components that are excluded, partly because they are beyond our control and don't contribute to the ideology. Do we impact our environment, of course. Are we the sole cause of all thing bad in the environment, no.

To label those who dare question the data as heretics is simply ludicrous and disingenuous. If your argument has serious holes but you want to believe so bad that you have to resort to ridiculing doubters you will eventually lose the argument, like the global cooling crowd of the 70s.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By William Gaatjes on 6/29/2010 4:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. You just summed up exactly the same reasons why i have my doubts as well about Man made global warming.

But i have no doubt about man made global pollution. And that is something humanity should be worried about.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Suntan on 6/30/2010 12:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Define “global pollution.”

Is the house you live in “pollution?” I bet it was probably a nice clean grass land at one time.

Is the teaddy bear your child huges closely while going to sleep “pollution?” It’s probably made of the same materials you think you have issues with.

Is the substance you burn to keep your family warm in the winter “pollution?”

I bet to the birds and squirrels living around you think that everything you own and have ever done is just pollution. Feel free to dig in and eliminate as much of it as you want. Or maybe it is a little more complicated than just labeling it something catchy like “man made global pollution.”

-Suntan


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By just4U on 6/29/2010 5:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
I had the same problem as you did Reclaimer but I will take it a step further... It seemed to me that debate was being marginalized or ridiculed.. and media manipulation on the topic was at all time high.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Fracture on 6/29/2010 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Glad to see you got this right, Reclaimer. I love their proof:
quote:
analyzing the number of research papers published "by more than 900 climate researchers" and the number of times these researchers' works were cited by other scientists

Circular logic at its finest. I'm going to publish nonsense so other people can point to my nonsense and publish their nonsense, so that others can reference all our works!

And if anyone cares, negating the couple short 2-3 year heating cycles we've seen in the past decade, the globe has been cooling over the course of the last 50 years. Just check the sea surface temps (you have to dig to get 50 years worth) http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/


By milkyway4me on 6/28/2010 1:31:14 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly my take. The "global warming" field is flooded by government money and the scientists depend on it for their very lives. They are biased to the core and then right when we thought DailyTech would only have 1 "writer" who believes that concensus is truth, we get this tiffany too. This place is going down the drain, just post tech articles and leave this garbage out.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By walk2k on 6/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Of course its part of a clique
By Nfarce on 6/28/2010 5:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
Keep your rotten to the core junk science out of my economy and my life. We have enough government lies being used as excuses to further erode our individual liberties and freedom and capitalist enterprise. We don't need you mealy mouthed PMSNBC watching and New York Slimes reading moonbats telling us that we're flat earthers just because you believe in something that is NOT proven and ONLY attempted to be proven on cherry picked data (like temp sensors in the middle of freaking PARKING LOTS) and computer modeling

Thanks.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By SPOOFE on 6/28/2010 5:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People who still deny global warming are only "informed" by Faux News and other mouthpieces of the oil and petroleum industry.

Don't watch Fox, and I get no money from Big Oil.

The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is the result of poor research at best, outright dishonesty at worst, and I know I can debate this issue with any of the "best informed" "scientists" out there.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By raddude9 on 6/28/2010 2:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
What came out last year exactly, are you referring to the so-called "climategate" scandal. If so, then have a look at:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/2...


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By fatedtodie on 6/29/2010 6:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
That article is so loaded with BS it is laughable.

The "investigation" that cleared the UK scientist was a sham, they did nothing more than look at a few articles and agree with them. They didn't look into his emails or his personal computer or even question the guy.

Please before you use ANOTHER half-truth to backup the climate sham please get all the facts.

ALSO you left out Al Gore's role in "climate-gate". His information he provided in the movie that got him an Oscar AND a nobel prize WAS FALSE. The scientist he quoted denied saying what Al Gore quote and thought the mere idea of making a prediction so exact was silly and reckless.

Sucks when the facts don't fit your faith huh?


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By raddude9 on 6/29/2010 9:07:36 AM , Rating: 1
Yea, that article is a bit thin on detail, but it does have links to a number of not-well-known-about newspaper retractions. These are retractions to articles that anti-climate change types continue to use in an attempt to disprove" AGW.

quote:
The "investigation" that cleared the UK scientist was a sham, they did nothing more than look at a few articles and agree with them. They didn't look into his emails or his personal computer or even question the guy.

Um yea, that's what science is, looking into scientific articles and seeing if there are any errors.
quote:
They didn't look into his emails or his personal computer or even question the guy.

Are we on Oprah or something, why does science need personal interviews

And just because Al Gore got a fact or two wrong does not disprove AGW. That's just basic reasoning. With complicated scientific issues like this (as with other complicated scientific issues like evolution), the entire picture has to be viewed in order for a consensus of opinion to be formed.

quote:
Sucks when the facts don't fit your faith huh?

My so-called faith has not been shaken, because you did not present me with any facts. Perhaps you are confused because you think that the lack of a fact is the same thing as a fact! It's not.

I'll do what you did not and I will present you with 2 real facts:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. Human activity has in the past and continues to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

To me the question is not if we are going to change the climate, but how much.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By fatedtodie on 6/30/2010 6:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
So emails where he is plotting and planning about faking data and discrediting opposing views aren't relevant to an accusation of.... faking evidence and hiding opposing views?

Wow.

"I'll do what you did not and I will present you with 2 real facts:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas."
Yes it is, but carbon levels have continued to rise and the temps... have gone up... and down and leveled off, then back up and back down.

Ever wonder why it became "climate change" rather than "global warming"? Because their "facts" that carbon magically makes all temps rise was proven false by their own research.

FYI you do know volcanos spew more carbon in the the atmosphere in ONE eruption than all of humanity combined? huh kinda should shake your faith a bit.

"2. Human activity has in the past and continues to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

See above.

Plz deposit your foil hat in the trashcan on your way out.

(Beware of Man-Bear-Pig, I'm Super Serial!)

People like you seriously make me laugh.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By raddude9 on 6/30/2010 8:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So emails where he is plotting and planning about faking data and discrediting opposing views aren't relevant to an accusation of.... faking evidence and hiding opposing views?

So, there happen to be a (probably very) few climate scientists who are willing to plot and scheme and some are disreputable. Shocker. This does not prove or disprove climate change. However, The articles that these scientists wrote and published were found to contain good science after careful review. And a scientists published work is the most important thing, not their personal behavior.

quote:
FYI you do know volcanoes spew more carbon in the the atmosphere in ONE eruption than all of humanity combined? huh kinda should shake your faith a bit.


Wow, just Wow. You're accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat when you come out with that long discredited rubbish. That is so far from being true that it's not even funny anymore:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-glob...
http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-c...

This is typical anti-climate-change anti-science, you keep trotting out the same arguments oblivious to the fact that they have long been discredited. Do you believe everything that some idiot posts on the internet? I like to have facts to back up what I say, you do not seem to share that hindrance.


RE: Of course its part of a clique
By xNIBx on 6/28/2010 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because we all know how private companies never bribe scientists(*cough*tabacco industry*cough*) but even if they did, the oil/coal industry would never do such a thing.

All the scientists are conspiring against the society so they get all the government money. You are so ignorant and delusional, it isnt even funny.


By Lazarus Dark on 6/28/2010 9:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately this "study" is likely to be cited all over, but as best I can tell from the article, this study was basically a collection of the most-published global warming proponents, correct? Because due to bias, dissenters are published less... and so, therefore, their opinion is less valid because people refuse to listen to them? What utter, utter BS.


How about...
By tigz1218 on 6/28/2010 12:09:15 PM , Rating: 5
..."he challenges them to "go out and do a study to prove it -- it is of course not true."

...You go out and do a study that PROVES global warming? And correlation does not mean causation, so put your silly hockey stick charts away.

On a side note I'm all for cleaner energy. I just don't like this fear mongering propaganda. Going green should not mean going back to live like cavemen. We are human beings, we have been gifted with the ability to think and innovate. How about we go green and we also improve the standard of living at the same time? We should always be striving to improve and go forward, not backwards. End Rant.




RE: How about...
By nmrahde on 6/28/2010 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta agree with you there. Regardless of humanity's contribution toward planetary global warming we should still be looking at cleaner (or at the very least more efficient) power sources.


RE: How about...
By Earthmonger on 6/28/2010 12:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
Give me a study based on research papers that excludes any and all papers written after the year 2000; papers written before everyone jumped on the climate change bandwagon.


RE: How about...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: How about...
By OUits on 6/28/2010 1:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't "Go Green" and have a higher standard of living at the same time.


You can't buy CFL light bulbs that cost less in the long run (last longer, use less energy), therefore saving money (increasing your standard of living) and saving energy (going green).

I bet you could try harder.


RE: How about...
By Smilin on 6/29/2010 2:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
"You can't "Go Green" and have a higher standard of living at the same time."

Bullcrap. I put solar powered vents on top of my attic, radiant barriers, insulation in the garage, and caulk out the yang. The cost was trivial. I just got my power bill for the peak summer month and it was 30% lower than last year. If we have a hot summer it will pay off this year. Otherwise it will be middle of next.

Once it's paid off then what? I guess my standard of living will diminish since I have an added burden of decision making...decisions about what to do with the extra $300 I'll have this summer...and next, and next..

What about my mower? I picked it up at some earth day "trade in". It's a battery powered electric. Has my standard of living now dropped because I push around mower that weighs less? I'm not all about trying to save the earth but pushing around a lightweight mower on a hot day is sure nicer than a heavy one. Not fussing with gas is nice too.

Going green doesn't mean starting a community farm and riding a bicycle to work you know.


RE: How about...
By invidious on 6/28/2010 1:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about we go green and we also improve the standard of living at the same time?
You sound like Obama. If you dont understand what it takes to accomplish something then dont go around assuming that it is easily accomplished.


RE: How about...
By Schrag4 on 6/28/2010 2:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, Obama has been very open about our standard of living declining sharply in order to go green. He has said that electricity rates would 'necessarily skyrocket' in response to legislation he wants in order to reduce emissions, with the idea that coal power plants would be forced out of business. That and he's also implied that we Americans use too much energy by comparing the per-capita energy usage rate to the rest of the world.

No, what's being suggested here is that green tech not leave the lab until they've figured out how to make it cheap enough to both reduce energy usage AND increase standard of living. The CFL example is actually a pretty good example (long term they save money).


RE: How about...
By hyvonen on 6/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: How about...
By Schrag4 on 6/28/2010 5:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
As the climate changes gradually, we'll adapt. I actually suspect that if the earth warms a few degrees and doubles, quadruples, or whatever, the CO2 PPM then our standard of living will actually get better. I'm just basing that on what scientists have told us about the earth's past, when CO2 was ten times what it is today and the earth was REALLY green (in comparison to today).

That doesn't really address your point though. There are plenty of ways that I could die today. I could be ambushed and killed by ninjas. Does that mean I should focus 100% of my energy on learning to combat ninjas? No. Mainly because although it's a possibility, I really, REALLY don't think I'll be ambushed by ninjas today (or any day for that matter). Likewise, I don't think a little CO2 being re-introduced (not introduced) into the atmosphere is going to spell the end of life on earth as we know it.


Regardless...
By Hydrofirex on 6/28/2010 12:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is all just Theory and speculation until someone can accurately model climate change. Until then we are not really sure if this is just the cyclical changes the planet experiences, or if man is driving the changes. It could very well be that a large portion of the change is directly from us, or it could be that the vast majority of the change has nothing to do with us. (Our activities are certainly more than negligible.)

This doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to look into renewable and clean technology with all possible haste, it just means that Science is a process by which theories and conclusions can be predictably modeled. Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Compare Results.

Is anyone else more concerned with damage to the oceans than Emissions?? We pretty much KNOW we are killing the oceans, and we also know that the they play a large role in processing emissions out of the air and providing breathable atmosphere...

HfX




RE: Regardless...
By SRHelicity on 6/28/2010 12:35:27 PM , Rating: 3
We DO know that this is not "just the cyclical changes that planet experiences". The Milenkovitch forcing is not enough to explain the observed climate change effects (not just increased mean global surface temp, but also changes in Arctic ice coverage, sea level, etc.), as several studies have shown. This is a very complicated system, and there is evidence that "supports" both sides, but, if you are weighing the evidence on either side, it is very, very uneven (tipped heavily in the direction of "there is a significant anthropogenic contribution to the observed climate change"). Sure, many folks could be wrong, but it's looking likely that humans are having at least some impact on the climate.


RE: Regardless...
By gamerk2 on 6/28/2010 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is weather systems in particular do NOT play nice with Climate models. All weather systems are Chaotic; a .01% change in a starting condition can lead to significant changes in the result. As such, unless a global model is made 100% accurate for all possible situations [which is impossible unless you can control every single tree, building, etc, as they affect wind patterns], you can't come up with a perfect model.

We can come up with good ones based on our understanding of the situation. And they all say the exact same thing: the current warming trend is well outside of the normal varience you would expect over a century, and happens to be corrolated with global CO2 output. Farthermore, studies of Venus have basically proved CO2 and SO2 [and other combinations] in the atmosphere can trap heat. The logical conclusion is that if enough CO2 were dumped in our atmosphere, the same result would eventually occur.

So the GW argument comes down to the following questions:
1: Can CO2 in the atmosphere trap heat if added in large enough concentrations?
2: At what level would CO2 in the atmosphere have a detectable effect on the earths climate?

Very few people would argue against one, as even in small scale projects [greenhouses], it is known that CO2 traps heat. Which brings us to the second question: At what level does CO2 have an effect?


RE: Regardless...
By TSS on 6/28/2010 3:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
Well ofcourse humans have affected the climate. Just how many asphalt roads are there that retain heat pretty well heating up the surrounding enviroment more then it would've been if it was just grassy fields or forests?

We can even affect the planet on a global scale, and fix it on a global scale. Banned CFC's anybody?

The point of the whole debate in this case however, is that on the topic of global warming, not everybody belives humans are the cause of that. Maybe even not that their not willing to belive humans are the cause, they just don't belive it in the way the enviromentalists explain it currently. If we are the cause but CO2 isn't it, the various cap and trade schemes across the world will cost a giant load of money AND we'll have a overheating planet.

In light of that view, it's better to agree where the cause and do nothing about it, because then we can atleast use the money to build shelters. Instead of us all roasting while Al gore is laughing maniacly in his private space station.


RE: Regardless...
By SPOOFE on 6/28/2010 5:32:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We DO know that this is not "just the cyclical changes that planet experiences".

No, we DON'T know that, and we have indications that it is cyclical. Look at a history of our climate record going back 10,000+ years, and the past thousand doesn't look too spectacular.

quote:
This is a very complicated system, and there is evidence that "supports" both sides

But the burden of proof is only on ONE side, the side that is claiming "something is happening". To date, that side has yet to fully account for even major factors that would inherently affect their hypothesis (ask a Global Warming Researcher how water vapor is incorporated into their models, and if they're honest they'll straight up tell you that it's not, at all).


RE: Regardless...
By DominionSeraph on 6/28/2010 7:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the burden of proof is only on ONE side, the side that is claiming "something is happening".


Sorry, it is not valid to assume that a positive action has no consequences. This is not the same as in the absence of a cause assuming the absence of an effect.

Keep your positives and negatives straight.


Man vs Sun?
By nmrahde on 6/28/2010 12:17:05 PM , Rating: 3
Has anybody seen any research (papers, studies, shiny pie graphs, etc.)

That compare how much of the overall temperature increase is due to humanity's influence and how much is due to the sun continuing to increase in power?

I thought I read a while back that the sun is continuing to increase it's output (I don't remember exactly where as "a while back" = over a decade ago), but I could be wrong.




RE: Man vs Sun?
By SRHelicity on 6/28/2010 12:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
In general, changes in solar luminosity do affect global mean surface temperatures, but that affect has been much smaller than the anthropogenic forcing.

quote:
Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.


See: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness....

quote:
Warming by the Sun and other variations in natural systems cannot explain global warming... The simulations that include only natural variability, including changes in the Sun and eruptions of volcanoes, show that we should have seen a decrease in the global average temperature in the last several decades.

The simulations that most closely resemble the observed record are the ones that take the cooling effect of air pollution and the warming effect of greenhouse gases into account.

http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq

quote:
According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/


RE: Man vs Sun?
By jbartabas on 6/28/2010 12:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Man vs Sun?
By nmrahde on 6/28/2010 6:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the links!


It's all about funding
By corduroygt on 6/28/2010 12:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Less funding means less research, which means fewer papers. Those who fund AGW research have much to gain from "proving" it, whereas disproving it would not benefit any organization, only the general public would benefit from not having new BS taxes.
Oh well, that's why the 2nd amendment exists...




RE: It's all about funding
By CList on 6/28/2010 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
I keep seeing these kinds of arguments here, and I have a very hard time with them as they seem rather lop-sided.

Do you think it's AGW researchers vs. "The little guy"? Increased government regulation vs. "the little guy"?

Come on... if you follow the money it's very obvious that both the money, and public sentiment is on the side of *disproving* global warming.

I'm no expert in the debate, and would love to hear other opinions on this, but the way I see it is like so;

On the one hand we have some researcher who has $0 to spend on lobbying, working for a university that's also most-likely cash-strapped. If this guy can get a LOT of research funding, let's be generous and say maybe 200K will personally go in his pocket.

On the other side, we have a world full of man-on-the-street types who are incredibly change-averse, I mean I am too - I admit it. We also have huge corporations spending millions JUST on lobbying, not to mention what they pay their top executives. They also pay huge dividends, and so their top shareholders have a vast financial interest in seeing them maximize profits however they can. ...including funding their own studies that would probably pay the researchers involved a more handsome salary than they'd get from their university.

...So honestly how can anyone say that the funding for the research is going to cause bias away from the large corporate interest?

Note that I'm not trying to prove or dispute the global warming argument - I'm trying to dispute the argument that the greed of researchers or government regulatory agencies seeking more funding could possibly out-weight the greed - and means of financing - of the people on the other side of the argument. Honestly, the annual budget of the entire EPA is a tiny fraction of the annual revenue of, e.g. Exxon. -- in fact it's about the same as the annual *profit* of Exxon/Mobil, so really, who has more to gain/loose here.

Which is not to say that this research may not be driven by greed - maybe it is, but if the greed and resources on the other side of the argument is much greater, then why would you use that as your argument to discredit the researchers??

...and given that, who are you more likely to believe?

Cheers,
CList


RE: It's all about funding
By jbartabas on 6/28/2010 2:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm no expert in the debate, and would love to hear other opinions on this, but the way I see it is like so;


A few elements of response (disclaimer: from some limited experience that cannot cover all possible case ;) ):

About the 200K first. I don't know if you meant per year, but if that's a case, yes, you are very generous... the salary is more of the order of 100K - 130K in the US (although it can be more at the end of the career, or if you end up in managerial position ... and it varies with institutions) . In many areas in Europe, it is much less.

For many scientists, the salary is weakly correlated to grants. It is not: the more grants you get, the more "in your pocket". Salary is mostly determined by your career: usually the first two questions to determine you rank (hence, to a large part, your salary) is how many years since you got your PhD and how many publications (preferably as a first author). Some institutions (but not all) require you to fund some or all of your salary (through grants). They will probably look at your grant history before hiring you, just to make sure you can get some money in. They could also be a bit generous and put you in the higher end of your range in terms of salary, but it will still be pretty limited by your rank. In some European countries (from where many IPCC authors are from), scientists working for the gvt have a job for life, and the salary is guaranteed. The idea behind this was to grant them a relative independence and resilience from pressures. They apply to grants to fund experiments, hire students etc ... but their reliance on them is rather limited (especially for those who teach).

The main driver behind most scientists is ego (for the best and the worst ;) ). Those who chose to be scientists for the money made a critical career mistake ...


RE: It's all about funding
By SPOOFE on 6/28/2010 5:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you think it's AGW researchers vs. "The little guy"?

The study referenced in the article sure seems to indicate that it is.


Is this news?
By Exodite on 6/28/2010 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
Really?

It's big money doing their best to spread FUD and trying to discredit legitimate research because they have significant investments into maintaining our current lifestyle and consumption.

Again.

Call it lobbying, astroturfing, clever language-wrangling, outright bribery or whatever but in the end it's still FUD.

As mentioned before it's exactly the same thing that were happening regarding the tobacco industry and their claims that 'smoking hasn't been proven detrimental to your health'.

Of course man has made a severe impact on the environment, it may well be a cascade effect further exacerbated by our current position in the natural warming/cooling cycle but the idea that we have no blame in the climate changes we're currently seeing is ludicrous at best. It's also as much a localized US phenomenon as the denial of smoking hazards were.

More importantly perhaps is the fact that it's also FUD.

By fueling the argument about who's to blame the more important issue, namely what we're doing about it, keeps getting neatly circumvented.

It doesn't matter whether or not humans are directly responsible, indirectly responsible or not at all responsible for global warming or through which means it came to be.

The only thing that matters is that we combat the effect to the point where we can maintain comfortable habitat zones, doesn't crash our overly fragile and willful world economy and avoid killing of a significant amount of bio-diversity outside of our own species.

As for the argument how we can care for the environment and improve our standard of living that's a trivial exercise.

Dislike smog? Into fishing and would prefer there actually being fish in the lakes as opposed to an aquarium? Don't like the smell, or look, of the growing landfill? Want to combat obesity and health issues with better food? Or even cheap and safe drugs derived from the many undiscovered species of flora still out there?

In the end being alive to enjoy the fruits of our hard work towards reducing the negative impact on our environment, as opposed to enjoying doing nothing right now and being dead when it matters, is a damn compelling argument.

Sadly humanity needs to be confronted with a hard, immediate choice to wake up. Merely warning signs won't do.

To use the smoking analogy once again, my father were a pack-a-day smoker for close to 50 years despite generally failing health and lung problems acquired from working in heavy industry. He kept smoking until his physician gave him the choice of giving up smoking immediately or dying within 18 months.

I'm not here to argue the point with the nay-sayers, they're a lost cause and nothing can be served by arguing, but I'd suggest those who feel themselves targeted stop and ask themselves what it'd take to convince them, personally, that our lifestyle isn't sustainable and do something about it.

Anybody can change the world, all that's required is that you start with the person in the mirror.




RE: Is this news?
By Stacey Melissa on 6/28/2010 5:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As mentioned before it's exactly the same thing that were happening regarding the tobacco industry and their claims that 'smoking hasn't been proven detrimental to your health'.

It's also exactly the same game creationists play. See the Wedge strategy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

This Stanford study is great, but what climate scientists really need is their own Project Steve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

Ultimately, I think America will get past our AGW denial, unlike evolution denial, since AGW denial doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. The problem is that there are far more important and impending real life consequences to AGW denial than there are to evolution denial.


RE: Is this news?
By phxfreddy on 7/4/2010 12:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes poor dumb America will get past its climate denial. But not for the reason you think.

We're currently in / entering the first phase of an economic depression. Soon the entire issue will be wiped off the political map.

Where there is no global warming scam there is no global warming "denial". Or as technically talented and truthful people call it "calling a scam ....a scam"


RE: Is this news?
By Paj on 6/28/2010 5:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely.

It's clear to anyone that our current levels of consumption will exceed the planets capacity. Our entire economic system is predicated on unlimited growth. I'm all for standard of living, and have utmost faith in human ingenuity to solve the problems we face. But we do need to solve them, and we dont have unlimited time in which to do so.


By Spamalotnot on 6/28/2010 8:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Science is about evidence and measurement, nor headcounts of biased opinions (on either side). My favorite climate fraud exposure site is here:

http://joannenova.com.au/

Check out her REASONED arguments and tell me she isn't "informed". Note how she goes head to head with "well-informed" members of the fraud set (scientists they may be) and how they constantly prove how "ill informed" THEY are and how they constantly avoid addressing central questions of EVIDENCE. Then tell me they aren't frauds.

The truth is, it isn't the "deniers" that are in denial, its the idiots that ever bought any version of "Consensus = Science". That's just stupidity and it's now been fully exposed. Continuing to believe proven stupidity borders on insanity. Continuing to believe con-men and con-women like Gore, Pachauri, etc. just shows and either a lack of capacity for independent reasoning or just plain laziness and unwillingness to do some research and objectively assess the veracity of opposing arguments. Anyone who does that on the subject "AGW" or "climate change" or whatever the title of deception is this week will soon arrive at the conclusion that they are in fact a "denier". If not, they have an agenda.




By Nutzo on 6/29/2010 11:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you expect Gore to do any research, when he can make millions by simply going around scaring people?

Follow the money....


By Spamalotnot on 6/29/2010 4:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Good point . . . and why would bad scientists (especially those who know their own failings) even try to do research or real science when corrupt governments (including the UN - the most corrupt of all) will funnel them grants worth millions just for agreeing with their power grabbing cons?

Follow the money indeed . . . .


By phxfreddy on 6/29/2010 10:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
I get the idea I am reading a journalism majors output when I peruse Tiffany's stuff.

Believing in global warming is a tell. Anyone who believes in it is technically and scientifically incompetent.

Fact is most people just are too afraid to admit they do not believe. They do not want to be hounded by the left.

Yes the open minded all tolerant left. You know. The people who brought you NAZI's and Stalinism.




By Smilin on 6/29/2010 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Anyone who believes in it is technically and scientifically incompetent." oh, and you're a Nazi.


Sure, seems tolerant enough to me. :P


By phxfreddy on 7/4/2010 11:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not a question of tolerance but rather competence.

These guys who actually do "climate science" are spread sheet scientists for that is what the math is. A great big spreadsheet / finite difference engine that you can make give any answer.

Simple fact is you can't do controlled experiments with the earths climate / weather.

....by why do I waste my time on the "scientific" aspect of this. Its not a science issue....it is a political issue.

Conservatives and liberals both believe in the laws of gravity. That is because it is science. Yet these same liberals and conservatives disagree on global warming. That would make sense only viewed from a political perspective and not a scientific one.


Climate change skeptics
By killerclick on 6/28/2010 12:23:08 PM , Rating: 5
Anybody who doubts climate change is a racist!




Its Tiffany, it must be an article about AGW
By Xavi3n on 6/29/2010 1:19:38 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously Tiffany, we get the message, every day you find articles supporting AGW, yet you forget that this a technology website.

Its getting pretty tiresome.




By Smilin on 6/29/2010 2:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's entertaining. She got on your nerve. haha.


Science is Not an Opinion Poll
By pheffern on 6/28/2010 12:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
We don't get to vote on whether a scientific theory is correct. Relying on a particular view's "prominence", or the number of times it has been cited as some sort of analog for its accuracy is a singularly terrible idea.

Not to mention the fact that the statistic presented, that 64% of pro-AGW papers are cited more often than anti-AGW papers, is hardly the conclusive knockout punch that they make it out to be.

And let's not even talk about the agenda of the study's authors.

At best, this study shows little or nothing of relevance. How did they get this published?




RE: Science is Not an Opinion Poll
By autoboy on 6/28/2010 12:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
My blog shows up more in google search results that yours, hence, my blog must be truer than yours so there! :P

Seriously, did a child conduct this study?


God is real
By fic2 on 6/28/2010 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the same criteria of peer review and such we can now know for sure that God is real since a higher percentage of religious writings by experts (i.e. preacher types) say that he/she is.




RE: God is real
By Shining Arcanine on 6/28/2010 4:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Please do not resort to such arguments. Such arguments tend to validate the study.


It's a Trick Question..
By just4U on 6/29/2010 4:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stanford University recently conducted a study that shows a minimal number of scientists who do not accept that human beings have contributed to the Earth's climate change have "far less expertise and prominence in climate research" than scientists who do believe climate change has been affected by humans.


Think about it, Has mankind contributed even in just a miniscule way towards climate change? The answer would likely be yes.. and overall should be a given. Now the questions that should have been asked of those prominent in the field is,

Has mankind contributed dramatically to climate change? Overall what do you believe the cause and effect of climate change will have upon the planet and humanity in particular?

In my opinion there's to much smoke and mirrors here to try and whip us (the masses) into a frenzy but we've gotten somewhat wise to that tactic.. so now ask these people the right questions. I don't believe their "IN ON IT" From what I've been told many are pissed off about the whole thing and how it's being twisted.




RE: It's a Trick Question..
By alanore on 6/29/2010 10:00:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you completely.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Carbon Dioxide is released by burning fossil fuels. Therefore it has a greenhouse effect on the atmosphere.

The question is the magnitude of the effect.

If I fill a bucket with water out of the sea, the sea level will decrease. It just so happens that its such a small amount that its totally unmeasurable by monitoring sea levels. More over, there are so many natural effects, evaporation, rain, hell even the amount of sewage getting pumped into the sea, would complete mask the effect I'm having on it.

If I bought a bigger bucket, say 100 billion gallon, it would have a measurable effect, and it would have a knock-on effect on natural processes.

I know that on the whole the climate and trying to model it, is an extremely complex task, so its unlikely that we are going to see any definitive answers, but as yet there has been no huge effect that can be blamed on global warming 100%, so we do have time.


"Skeptics are not well-informed on the topic"
By drando on 6/29/2010 10:11:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Study says skeptics are not well-informed on the topic


The headline says it all . Watching Fox "news" doesn't make you informed. Nor does listening to Al Gore. You actually have to put in a little effort on your own rather than being spoon fed crap from the media. Try reading a research paper for yourself. Or if that's to complicated for you then just read the abstract for it. Science is complicated, if it weren't then we'd have everything figured out already. It amazes me that you people accept science in every other area of your life (because everything you have or know about was brought to you by the cumulative gathering of information of thousands of years of science) then panic and cry foul the moment it produces something that you don't want to be true.

CAUTION: Reality is represented in the following video.
Climate Change - Meet the Scientists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&playnex...
There's links to factual data regarding each and every statement made. You know that report that 32,000 scientists claim that global warming isn't real? What a bogus piece of shit that was; the first guy on the list is a professor of biology and the last guy on the list is a wood engineer. WTF do those guys know about climate change? Any random guy with a degree was allowed to sign that report and call himself a scientist.




By Smilin on 6/29/2010 1:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give you the short version.

"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Authors_Against_E...


GIGO
By gsellis on 6/28/2010 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Tom Fuller says it all

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Polic...

A junk paper from junk scientists. And now it creates a blacklist based on bad methodology. From a guy who started out well and has fallen to 'propaganda is science'. Sigh.




By MarcLeFou on 6/28/2010 1:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of stupid study is that ?

Lets see how often others cite papers published on a certain subject and, the view that has the most "points" wins ?

That's bound to be the stupidest methodology of a study I've ever heard.

I can type a paper stating that the sun is green and get quotted in all of the papers in the world as a lunatic and its still not going to make my assertions true ... unless I write 20 papers about it according to the people who did this study. Then its gotta be true since there won't be opposing articles!

A survey of every single top experts in the climate field would give a much better breakdown of the view they have on the matter than the amount of published paper / references to said papers. What a waste of time and money.




By JimboK29 on 6/28/2010 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
Expertise and prominence in the field? Gimme a break!

I am not going to do your own research for you, but step away from your little Stanford studies once in a while, take off the blinders and look at three of the highest prominent people/panels before the world came down around them:

1) Michael Mann
2) Phil Jones <--- contemplated suicide over the leaked climate emails (Climategate)
3) James Hansen
4) IPCC

Look I am going to tell you something that should not be a surprise. There are far more anti-gloabl warming meteorologists and experts out there than your little Stanfors study suggests. The problem is they fear for their jobs if they speak out. This is why many meteorologists will either go with the flow or keep quiet - they have families to support. If the ones listed above have to make up numbers, fudge data, use uncalibrated equipment, cook the books and bribe others, than what does that tell you? Follow the money.

There is so much crap coming out. I read one yesterday that hurricanes are getting stronger when compared to the 50's and 60's. really? How is that possible when we just started using satellites in the mid-70's? The you have your studies that get published in which no one has to verify - like "By 2074 the icecaps will be gone". What happened in the 70's when we were all going to freeze to death?

If I told you: By 2027, temperatures in New York will be 2 degrees above average - would you just read it, absorb it and go tell others?




shenanigans
By jimbojimbo on 6/28/2010 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prominence was analyzed by finding the four most popular climate change and non-climate change papers published by scientists, and "tallying" the number of times these papers were cited
This number means nothing scientifically speaking! That's like saying Britney Spears was quoted millions of times so what she says is more likely correct than the secluded genius that only a few people know. This only proves that more people are writing pro-anthropogenic warming papers than not and that's what this study should say that it concluded.




This is not surprising
By Shining Arcanine on 6/28/2010 3:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
The research of "scientists" that focus on global warming is more likely to be driven by monetary motivations than actual scientific interest, so a study that says that few scientists focused on global warming are skeptical is unsurprising. Saying that there is a problem gives you funding while saying that there is no problem does not. That single distinction also determines whether or not you are publishing papers on the topic and therefore, whether or not you are being surveyed by this study.

The study is meaningless. Researchers are often measured by the quantity of publications they make rather than the quality of the publications they make. As absurd as it might sound, this study is likely just as valuable in advancing the career of the researcher that did it as the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was for the mathematicians involved with it. The motivation of the researcher that did this study was likely not to discover actual truth, but merely to advance his own career.




In another study
By ZachDontScare on 6/28/2010 4:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
In another study, 100% of evangelical Christians think athiests are teh stoopid.

Its a religious debate, what would you expect those completely taken in by the global warming hoax to say? That the opponent is better informed?




it is a sign
By isayisay on 6/28/2010 4:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
This study does have an important insight to shine a light on... and it isn't about global warming. This is about the dumbing down of the science community, the need to travel in herds and agree with each other. Effectively, this study by a respected school was a popularity quiz.

Combine the dumbing down of the science with those so convinced they must be right that they consciously twist data so the other side doesn't have a foot to stand on, and what a great mix. Zealots and mental midgets. Apply the model over to news complex, reporting in packs, sensational journalism with little hard journalism. Mix it all together and you get global warming... a sea of confusion surrounded by a pack of sharks waiting to take advantage of the easy money governments are about to blindly throw at this. Hand out trillions of dollars to fix ... something... somehow.

The zealots and media hounds could be 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate... but if it is accurate, it is by luck and not by science.




Popularity = Truth?
By makius on 6/28/2010 5:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so let me get this straight... just because A has been cited or quoted a more than B it has to be true? I guess Galileo, Newton and Einstein never got that memo...

This "study" is the most unscientific thing I have heard in a while.




Not taking a side...
By Smilin on 6/29/2010 10:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to point this out though...

How many of YOU are experts? I see a lot of intarweb links being used as sources and lots of debates about logic taking place. What I don't see is anyone on here who really knows what they are talking about.

Is anyone a climatologist? Did you spend your life researchign the climate?




IPCC
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/29/2010 11:29:03 AM , Rating: 2
So there is a big circle jerk around the IPCC involving a bunch of corrupt establishment shills. What else is new? Yes, science is bought and paid for. From tobacco research to GMOs, there is 10 times as many papers supporting the flawed positions, simply because there is 10 times more funding to support the flawed positions. Now one has to ask, why does Big Money want people to believe so badly in this whole "CO2 is gonna kill you!" meme? It is precisely because... they want you to die. They want nothing less than that. A tax on breathing is a tax on life, and thus is the ultimate means of control.

Woe be for thy slave who fails to comprehend the limitless nature of greed and power. The power to make you believe that your own $%&^ing breath is killing the planet. The power to make you unflinchingly buy products that are made by people who are driven to jump to their deaths. Can you comprehend anything this world is throwing at you?

Eh, who cares anyway. The 21st century prisons will let everyone have iPads, so inmates can txt each other meaningless gobbledegooks, and all will be well.




My 13 year old is a Literary genius
By rsmech on 6/29/2010 11:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the results, approximately 64 percent of papers by climate researchers convinced of human contribution were cited more often than those who are unconvinced.


If popularity equals science than my 13 year old & other teen & pre-teen girls make Twilight one of the greatest literary works written.(excluding past works in history. just as the GW camp doesn't acknowledge Earths history of warming & cooling)

Just like global warming it's not just science, it's true because it's popular. Global warming make you feel all tingly inside like Twilight make pre-teens feel. I just don't know what camp I'm in: bicycle or prius. How about you?




By Lerianis on 7/4/2010 12:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
Because if they do, they are denigrated and marginalized by other people in their scientific arena, who say that they are being used as 'tools' by the Republicans and conservatives.

Sorry, but that is not the case. I have looked at the temperatures for my town and my state for the past 100 years, and there has been N O increase in temperatures in the past 100 years.
In fact, the temperature has DROPPED by 1/10th of a degree.




Publish or Parish
By Swedishelk on 7/5/2010 1:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
The profs don't want to be that dirty homeless man that takes soda cans out of the garbage and begs for spare change from the students.




Shens
By clovell on 6/28/2010 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 1
So AGW just got voted Prom King, eh? What respectable "scientist" even calls a tallying of published papers a "study"? I know plenty of guys who publish a lot who aren't worth a shit, and plenty who don't that are.

Some of the smartest scientists and professors I know are blacklisted from certain journals over intellectual disagreements with the editors.

Should we now threaten those heretics that don't recant with excommunication?




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki