backtop


Print 173 comment(s) - last by peteyboy64.. on Sep 25 at 10:22 AM


IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

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.


Comments     Threshold


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

Of course
By Murst on 8/29/2007 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming


It would be silly to blame man.. there's many more women out there.

Also, is there really anyone out there arguing that humans have more to do with warming than our sun?

------------------------------------------------- -----

On a more serious note, its sad how DT has turned completely biased in the global warming issue after masher started blogging. The least you could do is get another blogger who offers a different perspective.




RE: Of course
By James Holden on 8/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: Of course
By Murst on 8/29/2007 3:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
I must have missed something. What does that have to do with global warming?


RE: Of course
By James Holden on 8/29/2007 3:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
Read his posts and comments. It was my understanding DT picked him up just for anti-anti-GW stuff.


RE: Of course
By Murst on 8/29/2007 3:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, although we don't have much to go by yet (2 blogs so far - 1 of which is about the environment), I'm hoping you're right.

I'm rather uneducated when it comes to environmental issues, and it'd be nice to have both sides of the story.


RE: Of course
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 3:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it'd be nice to have both sides of the story.

Having 2 honest and objective sides would be even better.

Let us know when you find such a place.


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think that complete coverage of the "consensus" view here at DT is really necessary, since there is already coverage to the point of saturation by the mainstream news media.

The point of Michael's posts is to point out the many flaws in the "consensus" view, i.e., to help balance out the overall global warming reporting and show that there is anything but a "consensus."


RE: Of course
By Martimus on 8/29/2007 9:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Asher is the only person I have seen writing about Global Warming on a regular basis. I don't remember ever seeing it in the so-called "main stream media". For the most part, no-one cares about global warming; at least not where I live. Of course we would generally welcome it, because it would mean longer summers and warmer winters. Maybe you live in a place that reports more on these things, but it isn't reported much around here. I did really like the article on pollution in Lake Michigan. That is actually important to me. I like to fish there, and I would hate it if another of our lakes got to the point that we can't eat out of it. There are way too many of them as it is.

While that article had nothing to do with Global Warming, or Nuclear Power, Michael Asher seemed to try to relate them to the article. It was actually comical.


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 9:28:34 PM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding me? Global warming is in the mainstream news all time time, at least daily. Here, check this out:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=global+...


RE: Of course
By Hyperbole on 8/30/2007 11:31:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you kidding me? Global warming is in the mainstream news all time time, at least daily. Here, check this out:


http://www.globalwarminghype.com/


RE: Of course
By grenableu on 8/29/2007 9:35:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Michael Asher is the only person I have seen writing about Global Warming on a regular basis
Then your eyes are screwed shut tight. Every major media outlet has at least one, if not a whole team of of reporters dedicated to global warming and similar issues. There are so many of them, they even have their own organization, the Society of Environmental Journalists:

http://www.sej.org/

Here's a news story about the NY Times head environmental reporter, whose spent the last 12 years writing about global warming:

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2007-04-12/news/1720...

I particularly like the song he sings at the end, which clearly shows his "impartiality" on the subject of climate change:

quote:
The lyrics for the chorus were, “Satan said/ come liberate carbon it’ll spin your wheels/ liberate carbon, it’ll nuke your meals/ liberate some carbon baby, it’s the American way.”


RE: Of course
By onelittleindian on 8/29/2007 10:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Satan said/ come liberate carbon it’ll spin your wheels/ liberate carbon, it’ll nuke your meals/ liberate some carbon baby, it’s the American way.”
These are the people writing our environmental news? Good god, no wonder its so messed up!


RE: Of course
By Martimus on 8/29/2007 10:18:25 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry that I don't read the New York Times. I mainly read the Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, MLive.com, and the Oakland Press. None of them seem to cover global warming, or at least I have never read any global warming articles in any of them. I'm not sure how to "screw" an eye shut tight, but it sounds impressive.

I would like to see some more scientific opinions other than Mr. Asher's. I somewhat value his opinion, although he does have a minor columnist tint to his writing that makes me question his conclusions. It has that feeling that he has a theory that he is trying to prove, rather than trying to get as much information as possible out about the subject to make an informed decision. I started reading because I never thought much about the global warming theory, but I have only seen articles from him that discredit the theory, with nothing to point toward its merits. Every theory has merits, and avoiding pointing them out always seems to dull an argument.


RE: Of course
By rsmech on 8/30/2007 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would like to see some more scientific opinions other than Mr. Asher's


There aren't that is why it's sold to the mainstream media. If you want facts listen to Al Gore or watch his movie, what he says is consensus.

There are many more examples, I'm just poking fun at. This sites "bias" is just the other side of an issue. It's like David & Goliath. The other sides information outlet is so huge in comparison. If you think these articles are suspect, you have the option to say so, you don't get the same satisfaction with the other major outlet. The author even reads the comments. That is why it is so sad when the other side talks about facts and all they can do is personally attack the author. They can't support their ideas with facts, only emotions. As has been said before if you can come up with a good argument for the other side of the coin you have an option to have it featured here. As of yet I have seen no takers, is the other side so lacking of facts that no one can create such a story?


RE: Of course
By Martimus on 8/30/2007 3:23:36 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but news stations are almost always some sort of editorial. I haven't trusted a story on the news in a long time. I really just want an unbiased article. They aren't vey popular these days, because they don't cause controversy, and so don't get as many "hits", or as high of a rating. I am too old to care about this he-said, she-said type of reporting. I am used to writing articles that show both sides of an argment, and then give reasoning as to why I consider one side more valid. That is what I would like to see on this subject. I don't want a Rush Limbaugh type response that just brushes aside any opposing views, and openly invites fighting. I don't care who is right, I just want to know the truth.


RE: Of course
By dever on 9/12/2007 3:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michael Asher is the only person I have seen writing about Global Warming on a regular basis. I don't remember ever seeing it in the so-called "main stream media"
quote:
Maybe you live in a place that reports more on these things, but it isn't reported much around here.
And you live in... Uranus?


RE: Of course
By rsmech on 8/30/2007 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 3
Turn on your TV for the other side of the story. I'm glad to see this because there was no other side to TV & mass media.


RE: Of course
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By peteyboy64 on 9/25/2007 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 1
What lies? Apparently the "consensus" idea comes from the ISI Web of Science database. That was in the 1st paragraph. The whole article is based on Dr. Oreskes research from those papers, and her claim of "consensus" based on that research. The subsequent study from the same database found the opposite of what the doctor had found. The 1st paragraph again:

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.

Perhaps Dr. Oreskes should have followed your advice with the "consensus" with her research, It's not "ALL the scientists" but only "the papers published in the ISI Web of Science database". That would have prompted less knee jerking from all the Chicken Littles that want research monies from a fear-induced public.


RE: Of course
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2007 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 5
Ask and ye shall receive good sir.

I have started a blog, and intend to post a mixture of tech and environmental posts, and in the environmental posts I expect to be taking a rather opposing viewpoint to some of Michael Asher's opinions.

I should be airing a new pro-environment protection/conservation piece tomorrow, I expect.

Also, all who read this, bear in mind--if someone lets a person's op ed sway their opinion without reading solid science and facts, then they are lost in my mind.

I do love the comments and debating, but keep in mind, you should always closely read the sources quoted, and ask for sources, where none are stated.


RE: Of course
By Murst on 8/29/2007 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm looking forward to it ;)


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 5:56:08 PM , Rating: 5
Jason, you seem to imply that Michael is anti-environmental protection and anti-conservation. Although I don't know him personally, I don't get that at all from his writings here at DT. I think you're wrong about that.

But have fun in any case!


RE: Of course
By Rovemelt on 8/29/2007 8:15:20 PM , Rating: 1
Bwahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahaha

ahhh... ahem. good one TomZ! wow! Yea, that was FUN!


RE: Of course
By 16nm on 8/29/2007 8:45:03 PM , Rating: 5
I love the enviroment. I love the outdoors, sports and camping. I am very concerned about the future of our planet. I think we should not jump to conclusions and overreact with regard to Global Warming. When I read MAsher #2's articles, I am left with the idea that he is a very objective person and not at all against the environment or pro-business or whatever it would be when you don't give a damn about Global Warming. He seems to be saying that we should just gather the facts and be sure about them before acting. (That actually maybe repeating him word for word.) This seems very reasonable to me. For God's sake, people, other planets in our solar system are suffering from Global Warming! would that not be one hell of a coincidence? THat should be enough to tell you that we need to sit back and rethink this whole global warming phenomenon.


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 9:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to try to ridicule me, then at least give me one quote - just one - that supports the view that Michael is anti-environment or anti-conservation. Just one will be fine. Please, go ahead, we're waiting...


RE: Of course
By Schrag4 on 8/30/2007 2:42:51 PM , Rating: 4
*crickets chirping*

Rovemelt (or anyone) seems unwilling to step up, so let me see if I can't figure out why he said that...

I think Rovemelt equates 'not bending over backward to reduce carbon emissions' with being anti-enviroinment. I would agree with you that Michael is most likely not anti-environment and not even anti-conservation. The point that I see Michael trying to make is that alarmists shouldn't be telling me what I can and can't do based on science that isn't even science, based on a concensus that's not even a concensus.

I'm sure Michael, just like me, would LOVE to reduce gas consumption, electricity consumption, all consumption. But I'm not going to do what I can't afford to make that happen. And I wouldn't ask anyone else to spend money they don't have for this cause either. I'm going to feed and clothe my children first, and that's what really matters. Once I see proof that my grandchildren or their grandchildren, etc. will die because I drove a car to work then I'll change my ways. As it stands, however, the argument for 'man-made GW with C02 being the cause' seems extremely weak in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the majority of scientific publications from 2004 to 2007.


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 3
^--- hits the nail on the head!

I feel like I can identify with Michael, although I don't know him personally, because we are somewhat like minded, (even though his IQ is probably 2x mine). Even though I rail here against the so-called global warming consensus, I am also busy at home replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, adjusting the (auto-setback) thermostat, I often bike into town to run errands instead of starting the car, we combine errands to reduce car trips, we keep our cars running well and don't overbuy in terms of size/weight, recycling our waste, etc.

Because of this, I don't see any tension at all between being a GW skeptic and still at the same time working to conserve energy (also to save cost) and reducing our impact, while at the same time maintaining a decent standard of living for my family.


RE: Of course
By mars777 on 9/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By Poptech on 9/1/2007 11:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Saving nature means sacrifice.

Saving Nature from what? CO2?

" CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality. "

- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

quote:
Global warming has some serious effects before you can actually say it is 5 Celsius warmer than 10 years before.

Where the hell are you getting your numbers from?

Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)

quote:
Like tsunami, tornadoes...

Link between climate change and tropical cyclone intensity: more research necessary (World Meteorological Organization)
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/news/archive/n...

"A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."

Tornadoes not Linked to Global Warming (Eugene Tackle, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, Iowa State University)
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=289


RE: Of course
By Schrag4 on 9/2/2007 10:18:44 PM , Rating: 5
"Saving nature means sacrifice."

You're right, I should move my family into the woods and trap squirrels to survive. Meanwhile you can keep destroying mother nature by using a computer to post on this site. I mean, you have to sacrifice for YOUR 'cause' by polluting in order to convert people like me, right? Kinda like why Gore needs to spend 13,000 bucks on electricity at his home in a single month? I'm sure it's all used to spread the word about conservation.

Seriously though, you totally missed my point. At some time in the very near future, most of the technology that I use will become obsolete, and will be replaced with technology that uses less resources. I'm all for this. However, I won't be on the bleeding edge of energy saving techniques because I can't afford to. I'm sorry, I gotta feed my kids (who you say are dead anyway because of global warming...)

Let me give you a direct example of this. I personally believe that tankless water heaters are a PERFECT way to use much less gas (when compared to your typical 40 gallon water heater), and if you buy a big enough one, it will always give you hot water, even if you run it all day and all night. However, when my old 40 gallon water heater died, spilling water all over my basement, I didn't get a tankless water heater. I was more than willing to plunk down the 500-600 bucks (vs 200 for a tank) but the area where the heater goes didn't have the proper ventilation, and I was quoted 2,000 bucks just for the installation. I'm sorry, I can't afford that. Meaning, my kids wouldn't eat or have clothes if I'd gone with the tankless. If you say "screw your kids, get the tankless" then you're an idiot.

My point is that it's not as cut and dried as you'd like everyone to believe. You can't just push for 'green' over everything else. You have to weigh other factors in your decisions. Is it really worth sacrificing to go as green as possible? If you truely believed that then you should really kill yourself, because we all produce CO2 just by breathing. If you're not willing to do that then where do you draw the line? And why should I draw it at the same place? I'm ok with you telling me where the line is for you, just don't think I'm an idiot or an evil person if my circumstances don't allow me to draw it at the same place as you.

"Global warming has some serious effects before you can actually say it is 5 Celsius warmer than 10 years before."

I'm lost. Are you high? 5 Celcius? You're probably right, we'd be in some trouble if the temp rose 5C in 10 years. However, I don't think we could raise it 5C in 100 years if we tried as hard as we could. That's right, I believe that if the earth started cooling rapidly and the eggheads decided that we needed to raise the temp 5C, we couldn't do it if we tried. Hell, one could argue that we've unintentionally gone to great lengths to do just that over the last 150 years and we sure failed miserably.


RE: Of course
By Dactyl on 8/30/2007 1:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad that DT's solution to the complaints about Mr. Asher is to bring in more voices rather than to shut him up.

Bravo DT!


RE: Of course
By Lord 666 on 9/4/2007 12:25:57 AM , Rating: 2
Who is complaining about him? If you don't agree, then voice your opinion publically or find another thread.

Maybe there should be threads about the First Admendment otherwise known as Freedom of Speech since Dailytech is a US based site.


RE: Of course
By grenableu on 8/29/2007 6:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The least you could do is get another blogger who offers a different perspective.
Why not raise the same objection to CNN, USAToday, The NYT, the Washington Post, the LA Times, or any other major media outlet? I never hear anything from them except "global warming is the end of the world", which no real scientist believes in.


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 7:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. I read CNN a lot, and I am so sick of article after article they publish that attributes all sorts of secondary problems to human-induced global warming. And yet their journalists don't even have to cite a single study that proves their assertions.

But I've also accepted long ago that any subject that is in any way technical will probably get mangled by mass media.


RE: Of course
By Murst on 8/30/2007 10:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'd love to, but I doubt they'd care. Unlike CNN and such, at least I get the feeling that DT listens to its readers. Sure, if I'm the only one who feels like that, then ignore it. But if enough people voice an opinion one way or another, I'm sure DT would be happy to adjust, whereas it would take a miracle to change something about CNN or FOX.

(I'm not saying that CNN doesn't listen to its readers, but it is on a completely different scale than DT, Anandtech, etc)


It's called "Spin"
By Rovemelt on 8/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's called "Spin"
By porkpie on 8/29/2007 8:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michael Asher is using spin here, as has been demonstrated time and time again
You keep claiming this, but every time someone calls you out, you run and hide. I think its clear who here is using facts and who is doing the "spinning".

quote:
He's not qualified to be preaching about details of climate science.
The climatologists he quotes in his articles are. Thats how journalism works, see. You write an article and cite your sources. Asher certainly seems to know more about the basic science than the monkeys who write CNN's environmental news.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By Rovemelt on 8/29/2007 9:08:51 PM , Rating: 1
Conservative spin also brought us those WMD's in Iraq

The idea that privatized health care would serve all Americans well

I've shown TOO many times that Asher is just wrong. You just won't listen. I could give you my credentials, but you won't listen. You only want to hear happy-shiny pony stories about our future like a little girl. Be a man already...take responsibility like an adult.

There is a consensus among scientists about global climate change, and it doesn't remotely match Asher's out-gassing here. I do interpret the numbers he quotes as a consensus, considering that so much of this science is based on modeling. He'll just pull those rare papers that match what he wants to hear. Did you read any of the 30+ articles that explicitly support global climate change? How about the 45% that directly and indirectly support the theory of global climate change?

Did Asher even provide a reference for this paper today? He could be totally misreading an article again. Like he's done too many times. This is probably why he didn't go far as a scientist.

And now conservatives are trying to serve up global warming as a hoax.

Let's hope for the sake of mankind that Asher is right, but with his credentials and the conservative movement's results, I'll question what I read here with a grain of salt.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 9:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did Asher even provide a reference for this paper today? He could be totally misreading an article again.

RTFA:

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.

As to the rest of your post - pure bullshit. Being a global warming skeptic is in no way aligned with any conservative movement. You are trying to create controversy and confusion, instead of talking facts. You are yourself doing what you accuse Michael of. How about jumping into the debate and bring in some data/facts instead of simply casting aspertions.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By Merry on 8/30/2007 11:35:32 AM , Rating: 1
As to the rest of your post - pure bullshit. Being a global warming skeptic is in no way aligned with any conservative movement

But i seem to remember you saying that the Green movement was aligned with the left. I believe you described them as Socialists (Insert negative tone here).

Are you now trying to tell me that you've changed your mind and that politicians views on climate change are in no way aligned with their political opinions?


RE: It's called "Spin"
By Ringold on 8/30/2007 12:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
You're right; communists/Marxists/socialists have largely thrown their lot in with environmentalism because they have powerfully related goals.. namely, the destruction of free enterprise and the current capitalist system for political purposes for some, for extreme environmental reasons for others.

Questioning global warming, however, just indicates a willingness to critically challenge ideas; that could be anyone, liberal, conservative, libertarian, statist, fascist, whatever. As I said in my other post, there is little business interest to motivate conservatives to oppose global warming and thus no such political synergies between conservatives and global warming skeptics.

The OP wasn't contradicting himself, just not painting with your mile-wide brush.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By Merry on 8/30/2007 1:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
You misread me. Personally I believe much the same as you, however time and time again Tomz and yourself use 'mile wide paintbrushes' by painting environmentalists red.

As for related goals between environmentalism and socialism there is certainly an argument to back this up, however, these people are at the very extremes of each respective movement and hold little power and are thus of no consequence. You'll probably find that most socialists are from a poorer economic background and as such extreme environmentalism wouldn't be in their interest as it would keep them poor, or they simply wouldn't care.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 1:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think Ringold is making a different point, that there is not really any correlation between being a global warming skeptic and being conservative.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 1:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and I appreciate your comments. You have the ability to explain it better and in more detail than I can.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By Christopher1 on 9/4/2007 10:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. Communists/Marxists/Socialists have pretty much thrown their lot in with the Global Warming fanatics because their motives are pretty much the same: to 'protect' the Earth from humans and to protect people from themselves.

I realized that there was a problem with global warming theories when no one would give me a straight answer on "How do we know that this isn't a regular, natural temperature change? We have no records dating back more than 150 years, a blink in the eye compared to the history of the Earth!"
No one could answer that question or completely dismissed it as "Conservatism", which I got angry at because I am an extreme libertarian according to some tests I have taken online.

Being skeptical of a theory that tries to say that "We are going towards a date with death from heat!" is not conservatism, it is realism..... we just don't have enough data to make a direct association between 'rising temps' (if there are any) and something called 'global warming'.
That said, I do think that we need to cut down on pollution and make more energy-efficient vehicles.... but only to make the lives of humans better, NOT to protect this planet.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By piotrr on 8/31/2007 8:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
As you can see from the "reference", it makes claims only about the new study and then APPEARS to compare it to the old one. It doesn't really.

The old one is here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

/ Per


RE: It's called "Spin"
By grenableu on 8/29/2007 9:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is a consensus among scientists about global climate change
Why/ Because you say so? According to this article, there isn't any consensus. That agrees with what I've read from other sources. Most scientists just aren't sure. That's why so much research is still going on.

quote:
Did you read any of the 30+ articles that explicitly support global climate change?
Did you read any of the 30+ articles that deny global climate change is being caused by humans? And did you miss the fact that, even among those 30 papers that support the belief, only ONE of them claims its going to be a serious problem?


RE: It's called "Spin"
By Ringold on 8/29/2007 10:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
I love how you conflate "conservative" with seemingly anything you personally disagree with.

Do you even understand the word? If so, how would you explain a true conservative desiring to invade a foreign country with little just cause? Keep in mind the top imperative of a conservative: limited government.

And the idea that privatized health care would serve all American's well has never been tested, now has it? A modified free health insurance market, such as the one Switzerland has and Mass. recently implemented appears to offer the best balance between social well-being, personal choice, and devastating the pharma sector. (Note where almost all major pharma companies in Europe have retreated to in the face of socialized medicine: Switzerland)

As for global warming being a hoax and conservatives role in advancing that idea.. again, I'd like to know what the principle of limited government and maximum personal responsibility has to do with global warming. It's not money -- businesses have discovered ways to profit no matter what Congress does. Whether or not GW is a fact or not doesn't have any bearing on any of its core principles.

It does, however, play nicely in to the agenda of communism and socialism. Feel free to reveal the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' though if you'd like. Good luck with so many major oil companies supporting carbon trading schemes.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By A5un on 8/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's called "Spin"
By robtali0321 on 8/30/2007 10:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conservative spin also brought us those WMD's in Iraq


UGH! I know it is not on the GW topic, but it does relate to the credibility of the "facts" posted by this user, and it a very important topic to me becuase nobody recognizes the FACTS noted below.

First, Do you consider the UN a "conservative" organization? UNMOVIC/UNSCOM found irrefutable evidence of the creation WMD in Iraq, and there were a dozen UN resolutions stating that the burden of proof of their destruction was on Sadaam's government. He ducked and dodged those resolutions and played games with the UN and it's inspectors. The reason for going into Iraq was to enforce those resolutions. Without action, what do those resolutions mean? Why would anyone respect UN decisions/directives if there are no consequences? I wish we weren't there right now, but to say we went into Iraq under false pretenses is to be completely ignorant of the FACTS.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By robtali0321 on 8/30/2007 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conservative spin also brought us those WMD's in Iraq


UGH! I know it is not on the GW topic, but it does relate to the credibility of the "facts" posted by this user, and it a very important topic to me becuase nobody recognizes the FACTS noted below.

First, Do you consider the UN a "conservative" organization? UNMOVIC/UNSCOM found irrefutable evidence of the creation WMD in Iraq, and there were a dozen UN resolutions stating that the burden of proof of their destruction was on Sadaam's government. He ducked and dodged those resolutions and played games with the UN and it's inspectors. The reason for going into Iraq was to enforce those resolutions. Without action, what do those resolutions mean? Why would anyone respect UN decisions/directives if there are no consequences? I wish we weren't there right now, but to say we went into Iraq under false pretenses is to be completely ignorant of the FACTS.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By rsmech on 9/2/2007 1:06:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And now conservatives are trying to serve up global warming as a hoax.


You just don't get it. Myself, a conservative, am not anti global warming. I DO believe the climate changes & has ALWAYS changed. I just believe it has and is regardless of man. Man may have a minor impact, very minor. I don't care how many papers show GW, I don't need science to tell me history. What science does is tell me WHY not that it did. Consensus is NOT science. Give me any theory (not hypothesis) or law that is consensus?


RE: It's called "Spin"
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2007 9:10:11 PM , Rating: 4
> "Michael Asher continues to do this to supplement his income "

Just to clarify, I don't get paid for these articles.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/30/2007 8:15:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Michael Asher continues to do this to supplement his income in essence because he could not succeed as a professional scientist.

Although you may not believe me, Michael has some very serious and heavy credentials in his background. In addition, he is completely unpaid for his work at DailyTech.

I certainly do not practice any form of politicking, though if I had to describe myself with a political orientation it would be strictly liberal. I don't see how political affiliation has anything to do with global warming.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By guidryp on 8/30/2007 9:06:19 PM , Rating: 3
I would much rather he(M.Asher if even is real name) was paid by DT than what ever astro-turfing organization is funding him. The only people I have seen approach the issue with this kind of vengeance are paid lobbyists. I encountered one on a political board in Canada. The difference was he was completely open about his organization and his work. Provided his credential and links to their website. He wasn't blogging though. He was posting in the message forums with the same tactics. Drive by studies fresh of the presses, that if you took the time to refute, he would simply pump up the next one. Veracity is not important here simply pumping out the twisted take on the information to sow doubt is. Sad to see DT endorse this behavior by allowing it to go on.

Todays "study" for instance. A: we can't see it. B: it is published in: Energy and Environment. Which is Climate Skeptics Journal, where they can publish anything without scientific scrutiny.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/20...

"If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor."

Now is still "Shocking" as M.Asher writes that a climate skeptic examines the body of work, and publishes in a climate skeptic journal that hey it is not the consensus we were told?


RE: It's called "Spin"
By TomZ on 8/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's called "Spin"
By ttowntom on 8/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's called "Spin"
By pliny on 8/31/2007 9:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is spin. Here "http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570..." is the methodology of Oreskes which Schulte claims to be following:
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

The papers said to be "neutral" are the one's which just weren't about AGW at all (ice ages, gas measuring techniques etc). The score is 45% for, 6% against, 48% off topic.

The statement about only one paper mentioning catastrophic results is just false. Try "climate tipping point" in Google Scholar and you get 9040 hits. Here are just two with tipping point in the title:

"http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ab..." Journal of Climate Volume 18, Issue 22 (November 2005) "The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice, 1988–2003: Have We Passed a Tipping Point?"

"http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~mw/docs/sici.pdf" GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L23504, doi:10.1029/2006GL028017, 2006 "Does the Arctic sea ice have a tipping point?"


RE: It's called "Spin"
By onelittleindian on 8/31/2007 10:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here are just two with tipping point in the title
Its obvious you didn't even read the links you posted. Let me quote from one for you:

quote:
Summary: ...the model results are equivocal on the mechanism and magnitude of enhanced climate change [but] are in agreement that it is a process that occurs only after warming (about 13 deg C above modern) and is geographically confined.</ quote>Now, pull that rather large foot out of your mouth, eh? That is about as far from "predicting climate catastrophe" as one can get.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By pliny on 8/31/2007 11:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
The statement was only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results, and it is disproved by these examples. There are plenty of others.


RE: It's called "Spin"
By onelittleindian on 8/31/2007 11:29:56 AM , Rating: 1
But your examples don't make reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. The one says that, if the Arctic warms more than 13 degrees (the IPCC is only predicting 2-4 deg. over the next 100 years) that it'll become ice-free year-round. That isn't anything close to predicting a "catastrophe". Its almost exactly the opposite in fact.


Papered Out
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2007 2:00:18 PM , Rating: 4
I think some of what you are seeing has been caused by the fact that the topic has already been beat to death and there are a number of past theoretical papers through the 90s and early 00s about how human effects were contributing to global warming.

Also, if I were writing on a paper about climate change today, I would stay neutral, in that it is much more easy to prove that the world is warming than the fact that humans are causing it. The temperature data is hard to debate, but theories about emissions are easily debateable.

The 6% challenging the "consensus" is not suprising, either. If it is a consensus opinion, but not definitively proven, it makes sense that there would be challenges to it, in fact I would hope there would be or it would indicate a failure on the part of the scientific community.

Why the climate is changing is perhaps one of the most complex questions that can be examined, so I expect you will see many papers "playing it safe" and not proposing or supporting theories as to the cause of the change, either for human responsibility or against it.

Also, another small note temps from 1998-2005 net change remained almost level in most areas, which really means nothing as temperature data is very chaotic and is only easily looked at over multiple decades. Still some people likely were quick to propose, "the world might be cooling" because of a small random trend in temp data. Similarly, I would soon expect a deluge of "the earth is warming" papers, as 2006 was so hot, esp. if 2007 is equally hot or hotter.
I do not agree with either stance, as it is rather illogical to look for patterns chaotic data over a very short timeframe.

Still, it is interesting to know what the scientific community is writing about.




RE: Papered Out
By Keeir on 8/29/2007 2:51:02 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

Actually, if your read Naomi Oreskes paper and conclusions, you might come to different conclusions.

If M. Asher has accurately reported the data in the new study, it would suggest that there are significantly more scientist who reject anthropogenic climate change now in 2004-2007 than in 1993-2004. This is not a logical if scientist have reached a broad consesus.

Further, from 1993-2004, 75% of climate change paper "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". Now in 2004-2007, only 48% do? Again, not a logical conclusion of scientists reaching consesus.

More likely than being papered out, in the 1993-2004, only scientists who had a belief or desire to prove anthropogenic warming were publishing climate change papers. Since 2004, more general/other(non-biased) scientists are addressing the issue as it becomes more important and prevelant in daily life.

I think the last line of your is pretty funny
quote:
Still, it is interesting to know what the scientific community is writing about.

Since we (all people) may soon be forced to consumer alot less energy, goods, etc in the name of preventing anthropogenic global warming the fear of which is based primarly on the writing of scientists (albiet re-interpreted by politicians and reporters), I think what scientists are really writing about is of critical importance.


RE: Papered Out
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 3:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since we (all people) may soon be forced to consumer alot less energy, goods, etc in the name of preventing anthropogenic global warming the fear of which is based primarly on the writing of scientists...

That's not going to happen, and you know it. Get real.


RE: Papered Out
By Ringold on 8/29/2007 11:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're more optimistic than I am, that's for sure.


RE: Papered Out
By Poptech on 8/31/2007 4:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser)
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sciencelette...

quote:
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years"


RE: Papered Out
By Ringold on 8/29/2007 10:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do not agree with either stance, as it is rather illogical to look for patterns chaotic data over a very short timeframe.


Just as illogical for the world to try to be crafting global schemes to act on this chaotic data, especially when the ramifications are so massive -- particularly for the developing world where huge portions of the worlds population live on less than $2 a day and the only reliable method of raising an area to prosperity is reliable, cheap energy (and free trade, or at least enough to allow export-driven growth). And yet that's precisely what the political class is doing -- drafting policy based on arbitrary assumptions to appease the masses.


RE: Papered Out
By Ringold on 8/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Papered Out
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 1:16:11 PM , Rating: 1
Some sheeple are here on this topic clicking "Not Worth Reading" instead of adding to the discussion. There are a number of posts that are very good that someone downrated. I wouldn't take it personally - I think everyone knows what's going on.


RE: Papered Out
By Procurion on 8/30/2007 11:37:18 AM , Rating: 1
A primer for the un-enlightened such as yourself, Jason. Research scientists are funded by government and special interests. Research scientists make money from the research either by the funding or the patents that result from the discoveries, or they garner notoriety, or both. Basically governments, money, and recognition drive almost all research. It is politically correct(and STRONGLY encouraged) to ring the bell for global warming and that is what governments are funding. Any jackass with a degree that comes up with a new "spin" on global warming gets his name and picture in the press, and more money next year. This is the major reason behind the hue and cry on global warming.
Greenhouse gases have never been documented as a precursor to global warming, only hypothesized. That hypothesis is based on cores drilled into ice which yields the gases present for the era examined. The hounds of warming ignore the "Inconvenient Truth" that they are looking at a STATE, not a precursor. They also conveniently ignore the FACT that when our atmosphere is heated, those greenhouse gases MUST be present as a higher percentage. Dinosaur shit didn't cause global warming then, and I don't remember anyone finding prehistoric cars. The efforts of Masher to present a counterpoint, and defense of Masher by numerous people who have the mental capacity to question are what this site is all about. The site you have shamelessly tried to advertise for is not what most would call a good source for information on any subject. Any subject in science MUST be debated by all parties in an open forum in order for all the facts to be presented-not posted on a website as a rant(here's an idea! Put a link to the webpage arguing that we didn't go to the moon on your site). This site does a damned good job of that by allowing a wide variety of interests that are oriented towards science to be presented here as long as they aren't blatant propaganda.
As a biologist, I CAN tell you that if you're looking for ideas on your advertised site, you should consider the reasons that a huge number of scientists believe is the underlying cause in a lot of warming scenarios. Without all the cliches and other associated garbage, it is a huge decrease in available carbon fixing. Trees...One cubic meter of wood has fixed close to a ton of carbon. The majority of third world countries are de-foresting their countryside at a combined rate of over a BILLION hectares every year-and in the majority of cases, not only are the trees being cut down, they are burned which re-releases the carbon they had fixed IN ADDITON to eliminating their future fixing potential.(http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_rate.htm) The reason you don't hear anything to speak of regarding this is because the governments of most third world countries want the finger-pointing to be at the US and other large countries. The truth, however, is that the US has a reasonable record when it comes to protecting and requiring trees to be replanted. My county that I live in requires a minimum number of trees per acre whether there were trees there before development or not. The intolerant ones are not the people questioning the dog-and-pony show. The intolerant ones are the people who lash out, insult, ridicule, belittle and sometimes physically attack anyone who doesn't bow their head and praise the intellect and glory of the wonderous gods of environmentalism. The basic train of thought behind Mashers' postings is not that global warming doesn't exist, it's a reasonable questioning of the hoopla and scientific data-or lack of it.


RE: Papered Out
By James Holden on 8/30/2007 12:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Giant wall of text crits you for 10,000.

Don't be so quick to name people un-enlightened.


RE: Papered Out
By Procurion on 8/30/2007 1:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry...forgetting to put a break at the paragraphs makes everything I wrote useless. Criticize the content in a supportive or contrary way, but criticizing the presentation is tacit agreement that you can't find flaws within said content. I bear no real grudge with Jason but his view is narrow in my opinion. I enjoy the various views expressed by many posters, but think it is rather crass of you to belittle other bloggers on this site.


RE: Papered Out
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 1:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - while the post is a bit hard to read, you make a number of very valid points.


RE: Papered Out
By wlw on 8/30/2007 5:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
It seems odd to refer to others as unenlightened when part of your criticism is that it is crass to belittle others bloggers. Not trying to attack you, just pointing out your argument might be better received if there was not an appearance of belittlement in your own post. I don't think you intended that but terms like unenlightened, uninformed, etc. can be taken as insulting if the person you are addressing is relatively well informed and intelligent.


RE: Papered Out
By Procurion on 8/30/2007 6:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Touche, and point taken. It was a remark made that required personal knowledge of my experiences in the past with research grants and such. You are right, it did read as a contradiction to what I posted. I tried to remedy that by making the point that I don't have a grudge with Jason. I do, however, fail to see the point in posting comments criticizing punctuation that follow up with admonishments based on nothing. Therefore the post which said as much. Posts made without information in them are just that.


RE: Papered Out
By Procurion on 8/30/2007 1:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
The link picked up the parentheses. This is the good link, although the material can still be found with the bad one. http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_rate.htm


RE: Papered Out
By gsellis on 8/30/2007 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 3
I am no longer convinced that the earth is warming. I used to believe it was, but the cause was solar. Now, since the two modelers that say it is warming refuse to release their model code and data sets, it becomes more and more suspicious. The recent correction to the NASA models that Roger Pielke Sr. discovered had to come from a reverse analysis of raw data and the results to show that the black box was not working correctly. That model is still a black box. Science is about taking the same materials and producing the same results over and over. Since they refuse to disclose the methods of the model, it makes me, and others, wonder what they are hiding.


Our capability
By A5un on 8/29/2007 2:19:45 PM , Rating: 5
Some of my professors at my school have said on numerous occasions that if you want to win a Nobel Prize, find a way to model turbulent flows exactly. If that's true, this means that researchers have yet found a way to do so. Well, without this capability, how exactly are we modeling the warming trend (if there is one)? You can do all the curve fitting you want, but human activities ain't gonna follow no mathmatical formula (I think...).

Further, from my studies in heat transfer, various turbulent correlations leading to quantities of heat transferred often times have an error as large as 20%, and sometimes even bigger.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but how can an overly simplified model produce accurate result? The model may be capable of differentiating temperatures by half a degree or less, but that does not guarantee accuracy. It just means that the model can produce "precise" results, and nothing more.

Obviously, I'm no scientist. But, I can't help but question all the researches, whether supporting global warming or dismissing it. I say it's just too early to tell. But by the time we are able to tell, it may be too late. So what do you do?




RE: Our capability
By Keeir on 8/29/2007 3:02:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But, I can't help but question all the researches, whether supporting global warming or dismissing it. I say it's just too early to tell. But by the time we are able to tell, it may be too late. So what do you do?


Something that bothers me is that the cost of "fixing" the problem of CO2 will be extreme and in the process humans may further unbalance the climate or release even worse pollutants. For example, I like the newer diesal cars. They generally produce less CO2 per mile than gas cars. But if we had been driving diesal cars for the past 10 years (reducing CO2) we would have been releasing a significantly greater amount of particale pollution. Which has a definate and immediate effect on air quality of human health.

What do "I" do? I examine the actual risks and best probablities of the time and determine whether is better to cut CO2 or provide clean drinking water for every individual in the world (or any other project that will directly benifit humans). I don't do -anything- in the hopes that something will potentially avoid a potential climate change that will potentially be harmful for humans or the long term health of the planet.


RE: Our capability
By porkpie on 8/29/2007 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But if we had been driving diesal cars for the past 10 years (reducing CO2) we would have been releasing a significantly greater amount of particale pollution
Bingo. That's why lying to people about "global warming" in the hopes it'll help us get a cleaner enviromment is a bad idea. It's not just diesels, but all engines. You can tune for maximum efficiency (lowest CO2) or lowest emissions (NOx, particulates, etc). But you can't do both at once.


RE: Our capability
By A5un on 8/29/2007 4:08:31 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I think max efficient may mean max CO2, as combustion results in CO2 and H2O as its primary products. I may be wrong, but I think this is correct...

As for emission, nearly all emission control is done by the catalytic convertor, or a ceramic filter or some sort in a diesel. As for NOx, that's a result of the high exhaust temperature that allows air's oxygen and nitrogen for recombination. So in maximum efficiency, all of the air is processed, leaving no oxygen for recombination with nitrogen, therefore less NOx. So I guess you do get them both at the same time?


RE: Our capability
By porkpie on 8/29/2007 6:29:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually, I think max efficient may mean max CO2
Max efficiency means minimum fuel use per mile, which means minimum CO2. When you're designing and tuning and engine, usually efficiency and emissions are in a tradeoff scenario, which means less co2 = more pollution and vice versa.


RE: Our capability
By chessmaster42 on 8/30/2007 12:13:06 AM , Rating: 3
Actually both of you are right in a way. The hotter the gases taking part in combustion, the more efficient engine is. However, the actual combustion is less efficient at higher temperatures leading to more NOx CO and other less energy robbing and polluting products. So there is a balancing act between the two.


RE: Our capability
By onelittleindian on 8/29/2007 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Something that bothers me is that the cost of "fixing" the problem of CO2 will be extreme and in the process humans may further unbalance the climate
I've seen a couple stories now that greenhouse gas emissions are the only thing keeping us from having another Ice Age right about now. We normally have them every 10,000 years, and its been 12,000 since the last one hit.


RE: Our capability
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 3:56:15 PM , Rating: 3
I saw a story of Bush shaking hands with an alien.

Note - I didn't say illegal alien.


RE: Our capability
By beezdotcom on 8/29/2007 4:04:29 PM , Rating: 1
By legal alien, I trust you mean "legal immigrant from Earth". Because I don't think any of the greys from Zeta Reticuli have valid green cards.


RE: Our capability
By A5un on 8/29/2007 3:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
All I was saying was just that I honestly (and I think we all) don't know whether CO2 does cause "global warming," because what we've seen thus far are just empirical models.

As for diesel's particulate emission, well, gasoline engines also produces particulate emission, that's nothing new. But "new" technology is capable of cutting down diesel particulate emission by as much as 80%. You may argue that such "technology" wasn't available back then, but I think that's largely due to the fact that diesel was not a popular fuel for average consumer back then. Perhaps the amount of research going into diesel back then was scarce?

And even what I said may be incorrect, as both of us have failed to include the emission from both processing these fuels and construction of processing facilities to process these fuels. Until then, it's difficult to say which is cleaner.

Plan for the worse and hope for the best?


RE: Our capability
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 6:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I was saying was just that I honestly (and I think we all) don't know whether CO2 does cause "global warming," because what we've seen thus far are just empirical models.

That's right, and it's going to be a tough thing to prove, since historical data shows that temperature moves first, followed by CO2. I'm not sure how you prove causality when the "effect" leads the "cause."
quote:
Plan for the worse and hope for the best?

How about this: study first, then plan, then implement. The current agenda put forward by Gore and his followers is implement first, and study later. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Gore's plan has a high probability of wasting time, effort, money, and resources for nothing.


RE: Our capability
By 16nm on 8/29/2007 8:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some of my professors at my school have said on numerous occasions that if you want to win a Nobel Prize, find a way to model turbulent flows exactly. If that's true, this means that researchers have yet found a way to do so. Well, without this capability, how exactly are we modeling the warming trend (if there is one)? You can do all the curve fitting you want, but human activities ain't gonna follow no mathmatical formula (I think...).

Further, from my studies in heat transfer, various turbulent correlations leading to quantities of heat transferred often times have an error as large as 20%, and sometimes even bigger.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but how can an overly simplified model produce accurate result? The model may be capable of differentiating temperatures by half a degree or less, but that does not guarantee accuracy. It just means that the model can produce "precise" results, and nothing more.


Scientists are on the fence because they can not be sure of what is causing global warming.

quote:
Obviously, I'm no scientist. But, I can't help but question all the researches, whether supporting global warming or dismissing it. I say it's just too early to tell. But by the time we are able to tell, it may be too late. So what do you do?


Research! This is what scientists are doing day in and day out. They try to find answers.


Debating What ?
By DCatanzaro on 8/30/2007 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly are we debating here ? Here is what we have - a history professor did a CLIMATE study three years ago and then a medical doctor repeated the same CLIMATE study recently and then a reporter has reviewed pre-copy of this new study that NONE of us can read yet.

Seems as if
A) History professors should stick to history,
B) Medical doctors should stick to patients,
C) CLIMATOLOGISTS should stick to climate studies, and

D) We all should wait on reading the study before people all get in a huff over what this paper actually says/means.

and yes I do have a PhD - but it is in biology so that is why I don't do CLIMATE studies.




RE: Debating What ?
By wlw on 8/30/2007 12:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the history professor or medical doctor did climate studies. What they did was attempt to categorize what climatologists are actually saying as a group. One does not need to be a climatologist for that. The general media tends to just assert that there is a consensus among scientists. If that is true, anyone should be able to look at the relevant published literature and see that it is true. It sounds like a lot of scientists are much more reserved in their views than how the media and politicians describe them.


RE: Debating What ?
By DCatanzaro on 8/31/2007 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think that mlw caught my point here.

In all studies (including climatological ones) there are a innumerable subtleties that are missed by the non-expert. Thus when a non-expert is classifying studies into categories of "supports" and "does not support" you have to think about the why.

Does a study "not support" a conclusion because the study design is flawed or does it truly "not support" the hypothesis.

That's my first problem with BOTH of the studies.

The second issue is that Dr. Oreskes study is flawed from the beginning because she only looked at ABSTRACTS, and thus could not evaluate the why of the support/does not support argument. Dr. Schulte repeated the study a few years later, repeating the same mistake.

Do either of the individuals have the training and/or discipline to rigorously evaluate the climate studies ? Can they evaluate the underlying assumptions of the climate models, the computational algorithms used, the hypotheses being evaluated in the study, and the statistics used to determine if the hypothesis was rejected ? Frankly I doubt it. Additionally, for the purposes of their studies, my argument does not even matter because both Drs. Oresks and Schulte only read the abstracts - none of the information I outlined above would be contained in the abstract so neither party could evaluate these parameters.

I am not impinging their reputation but scientists trained in the "harder" disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc) use the Scientific Method (outlined by Francis Bacon) and statistical methods to evaluate hypothesis driven research. The disciplines of History and Medicine are observational at best and not hypothesis driven. Now Dr. Oreskes has BS in Geology (hard science) and while a history professor does publish on the study of science so that seems to fit OK. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte is an endocrinologist - fairly far afield.

Finally, I would agree with wlw, most scientists are way more conservative in their conclusions - it is the media reporting that has a tendency to overstate (incorrectly mind you) scientists conclusions.


RE: Debating What ?
By James Holden on 8/30/2007 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Agreeing with DCatanzaro here. These guys just did a study on the consensus, neither did a study on the actual science put forth in those articles.


RE: Debating What ?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/30/2007 12:32:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

Seems as if
A) History professors should stick to history,
B) Medical doctors should stick to patients,
C) CLIMATOLOGISTS should stick to climate studies, and

There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere -- Isaac Asimov


RE: Debating What ?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/3/2007 6:19:23 PM , Rating: 3
I hate to reply to my own post, but let's take a lot at some other people who didn't stick to their field:

• Samuel F. B. Morse was a professional portrait painter but developed the concept of the single-wire telegraph on a trans-Atlantic crossing.
• George Eastman was a high school dropout, but invented the film roll and hand-held camera.
• Wilhelm Röntgen was a physicist that discovered one of the most important advances in medical technology; the x-ray.
• George de Mestral was an electrical engineer, but managed to invent Velcro in his spare time.
• Charles Goodyear grew up a poor, uneducated farmer with no formal training in chemistry or physics -- he invented Vulcanized rubber when he wasn't sitting in debtor’s prison.
• Thomas Edison grew up a telegraph operator; he was home schooled without any primary education.
• George Westinghouse, long time rival of Edison, had almost no formal education but is credited with the air break and the automatic signal device.
• Christian Huygens was celebrated almost exclusively as an astronomer and mathematician before inventing the pendulum and pocket watch.
• Amedeo Avogadro graduated in ecclesiastical law, but grew weary of the church and went on to pursue mathematics and physics. We know him for Avogadro's Number.
• Joseph Glidden was a school teacher, county sheriff, publisher for the DeKalb Chronicle and town supervisor. He invented barbed wire too.
• Samuel Colt, inventor of the revolver, claimed he conceived the idea as a sailor working the Boston to Calcutta trade routes.
• Louis Braille was a brilliant, but blind, cellist and organist. At 15 he created the first iteration of the Braille writing system.
• William Herschel's successful music career gave him the leisure to study mathematics. He would later discover the first planet in recorded history.
• Bill Lear dropped out of the 9th grade and later joined the Navy during World War I. After inventing the personal car radio, the Lear Empire went on to pioneer everything and everything in electronics and aerospace at the time.
• Joseph Lister, the father of antisepsis, was apprenticed in a Quaker winery. He later went to pursue optics; he invented the optical microscope.
• Lewis Edson Waterman, an insurance broker, invented the capillary fed fountain pen without any formal training in physics, chemistry or biology.
• Robert Boyle, a genius by anyone's account, had no formal education in mathematics yet formulated one of the cornerstone principles of thermodynamics: Boyle's Law.
• Joseph Monier was a gardener attempting to create studier flower pots when he created reinforced concrete.
• Evangelista Torricelli, a mathematician, invented the barometer eighty years before Climatology entered the world lexicon.
• John Tyndall, noted as the laying the precursor principles for fiber optics also pioneered the study of Glaciology. He had a doctorate degree in philosophy and worked as a railway engineer in his early years.
• Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin and replaceable parts, was a law school dropout.
• Isaac Singer was a professional actor before refining, and perfecting, the sewing machine design.
• John Boyd Dunlop was formally trained as a veterinary surgeon before inventing the pneumatic tire and the Dunlop Empire.

When Aristotle composed the guidelines for scientific method, there was never a perquisite that for discipline accreditation. Invention and discovery are not the sole domain of the specialized scholars.

http://kristopher.us/2007/09/stick-to-your-field-l...


RE: Debating What ?
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 1:38:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What exactly are we debating here ? Here is what we have - a history professor did a CLIMATE study three years ago and then a medical doctor repeated the same CLIMATE study recently and then a reporter has reviewed pre-copy of this new study that NONE of us can read yet.

I'm agreeing with the sentiment of Kris' post above. Global warming is not just a topic of interest to science or climatologists alone. It is a large issue touching many aspects of our lives, and so it is in my mind legitimate to be studied from all angles.

In addition, I think it is also fair game for non-scientists such as myself to discuss it as well. Sure, I'm not going to be doing any groundbreaking work in GW any time soon, but that doesn't mean I don't have a valid opinion on the subject and how it is being interpreted by politicians, the media, and society in general.


Why the Heck does DT have an anti GW spinner?
By guidryp on 8/30/2007 7:56:44 PM , Rating: 1
Ummm. Exactly why does DT have an anti GW spinner posting to DT. Why do I need to get this BS with my tech news?




RE: Why the Heck does DT have an anti GW spinner?
By Rovemelt on 8/30/2007 8:08:34 PM , Rating: 3
He's creating a conservative blogger newsfeed through DT. I won't post the links...do a simple search and see for yourself.


RE: Why the Heck does DT have an anti GW spinner?
By guidryp on 8/30/2007 8:18:53 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't mean what is his motivation. I mean WTF is DailyTech motivation for hosting this drivel? I have no issues with them having a staff blogger that would post any one of these stories that he found interesting.

But this is essentially a one issue poster. Guys(AT/DT) if Anand/Daily Tech are looking for the Fox news crowd they can count me out. I will get my tech news free of politics elsewhere.


By TomZ on 8/30/2007 8:24:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, Rovemelt figures out how to create a second account. LOL.


RE: Why the Heck does DT have an anti GW spinner?
By TomZ on 8/30/2007 8:18:53 PM , Rating: 1
Exposing the flaws in the so-called "global warming consensus" has nothing to do with conservatism. Haven't we already had this discussion? Give it a rest, will ya?


RE: Why the Heck does DT have an anti GW spinner?
By guidryp on 8/30/2007 8:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Source watch on the Journal "energy and environment" of which an advanced copy was obtained for this story.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_...

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals . Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers [1][2]. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton[3].


By TomZ on 8/30/2007 9:32:57 PM , Rating: 1
Rovemelt, oh I mean quidryp, please explain give us more informatio about this!

Where did you learn about where this study will be published. Got links? (Just want to try to keep you honest.)

Also, do you have a problem with the study itself or its results? You seem to be attacking it pretty hard, did you even read the study?

Maybe you should pour yourself a cup of coffee, relax, wait for the report to come out, read it yourself, and then give us your views about it. Better yet, if you think that Michael is dead wrong on his conclusions, ask Kris if he will publish a rebuttal blog post authored by you.


By Poptech on 8/31/2007 4:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sourcewatch Profile (Discover the Networks)
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.as...

quote:
SourceWatch seeks to expose what it calls the "propaganda activities of public relations firms" and the activities of organizations working "on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities...

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate - we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques."

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.


Center for Media & Democracy: Sourcewatch (ActivistCash.org)
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview....


By ttowntom on 8/30/2007 11:35:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why do I need to get this BS with my tech news?
I notice you didn't complain about the whale hunting ban story. You consider that tech news-- but stories about climate change are not? Rofl, better pull up your pants, your prejudices are showing.


By Poptech on 9/1/2007 11:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...




By Jaylllo on 9/3/2007 8:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Rofl, why are there MDs and MS students there?


By Poptech on 9/4/2007 2:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
There are 2 MD's listed and MD's are scientists just of medicine. Example: Say for instance the claim that malaria will be rampant because of "Global Warming" would you not want an MD who speciliazes in malaria's opinion on this issue? Opinions on climatology run the spectrum of the science disciplines.

MS is not a student! It is someone who has a Masters Degree in the field!


By aging catholic on 9/4/2007 9:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
But the original post is "Scientists disputing Man-Made Global Warming Theory"

Not "Scientists like doctors who can say that *IF* GW is true then there will (or will not be) a malaria epidemic".

So what if a doctor says GW will not cause malaria? (and I seem to remember it used to be a real problem where I live until DDT came along).

What useful thing can the doctor say about GW happening in the first place?


By Poptech on 9/5/2007 1:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Medical Doctors are scientists. They are trained in Science and thus can give a scientific opinion on "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory.

You seem to think they are not scientists and you are wrong.

What can someone with a PH.D. in mathematics say about Global Warming? Yet Gavin Schmitt is one of the most outspoken proponents on the issue. You have no argument.


By aging catholic on 9/4/2007 12:45:51 AM , Rating: 1
and dead people!

and people with no qualifications to do with climate.
(political science, microbiology, mining geology).

my landlord and his roaches could make it to that list - except he is too young.
a lot of the people on that list are very old and set in their ways.


By Poptech on 9/4/2007 2:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and dead people!

You mean August H. (Augie) Auer Jr who died June 10, 2007?

So his opinion on the issue prior to his death should be ignored? Should every scientist who dies work no longer be used in debate?

quote:
and people with no qualifications to do with climate. (political science, microbiology, mining geology).

Then no one should listen to these people either:

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA)
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)

Politicians:

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Celebrities:

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout


By aging catholic on 9/4/2007 9:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
Damn right no one should listen to a bunch of singers and actors. (Or we get The Govinater and Ronnie-raygun)

I explained above why the medical docs are no good.
But physics etc are at the heart of it.

I have read some of the papers for. They seem legit but I'm no expert.
I have read some of the papers against by people on your list. Even I can see that there are some errors in the science. Deliberate or dumb?

If you want to convince me at least make the arguments clever so I can't find the errors.

ac


By Poptech on 9/5/2007 1:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
No you haven't explained anything. You don't decide which scientist can give their opinion on Man-Made Global Warming Theory. By your standards you just removed the following:

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)

Two of the biggest names in supporting "Man-Made" Global Warming.

The biggest lie is that all the scientists waying in have Ph.D's in Climatology.

I cannot make it any more obvious. Harp on the two MDs in the list until your blue in the face but it does not make their opinion any less Scientific.


so jason mick
By meepstone on 8/29/2007 4:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
What happened to pages long of retorts about how dumb the poster of this thread is about believing something he read?

Seems instead of vigorously pushing your ideals on others like previous post you seem to have taken a more "SAFE" and "Neutral" stance yourself.




RE: so jason mick
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2007 4:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
I am sorry good sir, did you expect me to get worked up over a casual report??

The report is giving data. Data can be interpreted lots of ways. I put out why I think the data fell how it did in the report above.

Why would I argue about it? Do you expect me to deny the data's existence?

If you've read my blog and continue to do so you would know I am no means neutral on the topic of environmental conservation (in general, not just global warming, ONE issue being discussed)

Also, I would prefer to save my energies for my own article, where I discuss a counterpoint using papers of the opposing viewpoints and data compiled.

I find it funny that you "so jason mick" me and hope that I give you some big fight about a bunch of data.


RE: so jason mick
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you luck in this rat's nest. If this were 200 years earlier you'd get stoned by these people.

By the way you can't embellish your facts or see a positive outcome from them. Those processes are the sole custody of MAsher and his cult followers.


RE: so jason mick
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 7:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish you luck in this rat's nest. If this were 200 years earlier you'd get stoned by these people.

LOL, that's pretty ironic, since the global warming enthusiasts are clearly the ones who have already demonstrated that attitude.
quote:
By the way you can't embellish your facts or see a positive outcome from them. Those processes are the sole custody of MAsher and his cult followers.

You can't also post bullshit, because there are any number of people here who are well informed and smart enough to tear you to shreds. I've yet to see where Michael was proved wrong yet on this topic. If you are aware of embellishment of facts, you should call him out on that. Otherwise, yours is just hollow criticism.


RE: so jason mick
By TheGreek on 8/30/2007 10:55:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually 99% of them endorse "Masher's theory".


Not as LOL as this.


RE: so jason mick
By porkpie on 8/29/2007 7:49:31 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry, but the people doing the stoning are all on the other side of the fence. Scientists who publish research unflattering to GW regularly receive enormous amounts of hate mail, and sometimes even death threats. Some have had to have their phone numbers and email addresses blocked. Enviromnentalists compare them to Holocaust deniers and have even suggested jail time for anyone who "disagrees on so serious an issue". One prominent environmentalist recently suggested that any meteorologist who publicly stated their disbelief in global warming should have their license stripped.

Scientists have had their funding yanked or bloacked by government agencies, and several have been fired for their beliefs, including the state climatologists of at least two US states. Given all this, I'm surprised ANY scientist has the balls to stand up and state he doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. Most are too scared of the consequences.


conclusions in scientific papers
By ariadne on 8/29/2007 6:20:13 PM , Rating: 5
I am a scientist -- though not a climate scientist. I have to agree with Jason Mick's comment above that scientists do not draw conclusions in their papers that they cannot support with their data. A scientific paper generally presents data on a very specific question/hypothesis, which is usually a small piece of a much larger puzzle. So it is not at all surprising that a scientific paper on an aspect of climate change would not speculate on anything outside of the conclusion that the researcher can draw from his or her data -- such as whether the results that they are seeing can be causally and definitively linked to human activity.

I suspect that if you actually DID a "Survey" of "Published Scientists," that you would find that the majority do in fact support the conclusion that human activity contributes to climate change.




RE: conclusions in scientific papers
By TomZ on 8/29/2007 6:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Since most "published scientists" don't work in that field, you might as well do a survey of the general public, since they are just as qualified to answer the same question. You'll probably get the same results as well.


RE: conclusions in scientific papers
By Rovemelt on 8/30/2007 8:29:28 PM , Rating: 1
Yea...right...you're so cute when you're wrong!

I guess 4 years of college taking the most difficult classes in the sciences followed by 8 years of post-graduate studies and a post-doc or two for five years means nothing to you.

Since it does mean nothing, surely your master and "seeker of the truth" can spare the nothing effort and actually get through a graduate program in the sciences already? Just humor us? No, no...I'm sorry,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RKQRVn4NAs

Sally Struthers doesn't count, Masher(6%)Asher! Give it a few years in an accredited graduate school in a top 20 rated accredited program (no, not through the web...I mean actually do work) so he can finally tear off that albatross of incompetence and crown himself Michael(6%)Asher, Ph.D.

Then we can just sit around and pretend it didn't happen, because Michael(6%)Asher is just as competent as he was before school.


RE: conclusions in scientific papers
By TomZ on 8/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: conclusions in scientific papers
By TomZ on 8/30/07, Rating: 0
By grenableu on 8/29/2007 6:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
. So it is not at all surprising that a scientific paper on an aspect of climate change would not speculate on anything outside of the conclusion that the researcher can draw from his or her data
You're missing the point. In the earlier study, most scientists did "speculate" (as you call it_ that anthropogenic GW was real. Now, most do not. And a growing number are actually claiming the exact opposite. That's a big change in attitude, whether you see it or not.

quote:
I suspect that if you actually DID a "Survey" of "Published Scientists," that you would find that the majority do in fact support the conclusion
And you base your suspicion on what data? What you see on CNN?


By Procurion on 8/30/2007 3:57:29 PM , Rating: 1
'Repeated often enough, the lie becomes accepted as truth. To which the meticulous scientist replies: bullshit.'

Once everyone can see the scientific method behind the change models, there might be a consensus. Until then, it is pandering.


By Poptech on 8/31/2007 4:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (Heartland Institute)
http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

quote:
A survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now.


By Anonymous Freak on 8/29/2007 6:49:57 PM , Rating: 1
Now, really, of the world researchers that study the climate (not just "global warming", but the climate in general,) it is pretty much accepted as fact (note, I said "accepted as fact", not "proven as fact",) that the average temperature of the Earth is, indeed, warming.

It is also generally accepted that Human activity plays some part in this warming.

The only real, honest, scientific debate is to what level Human involvement is responsible.

It has been shown that the levels of Carbon Dioxide and other "greenouse gasses" are significantly higher now than they have been through at least the last 4 ice ages. It is a proven fact that higher concentrations of these gasses cause the global temperature to rise. (Just look at Venus.)

The fact that these higher concentrations fit precisely with the industrial revolution (and the mass burning of fossil fuels,) is, yes, a coincidence that has not been proven 100% to be due to Human intervention, but the circumstantial evidence is far too great to dismiss it. With present data, the best possible theory (and that's what science is really all about, theories,) is that Humans are largely responsible for the imbalance in greenhouse gasses compared to what has historically been present.

It is true, less than 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there as a direct result of Human action. However, if my aquarium has a 'natural' salt content of 6%, and I increase it by one third (to 9%,) my fish will die. (I honestly don't know the percentages, but I do know that if I add 1/3 more salt than I am supposed to, they will die.) The fact that fully 33% of the CO2 is directly attributable to Human action shows that we have increased the CO2 levels by far too much already.




By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2007 7:03:47 PM , Rating: 3
> " of the world researchers that study the climate (not just "global warming", but the climate in general"

The search term used by Shulte (and earlier, in Oreskes work) included the phrase "climate change". Therefore, any paper published in this period which made any reference to climate change was included in the study.

> "It has been shown that the levels of Carbon Dioxide and other "greenouse gasses" are significantly higher now than they have been through at least the last 4 ice ages"

Its also been shown that, when terrestrial CO2 levels were nearly 10 times higher than now, the earth was not significantly warmer than it is today. CO2 definitely has some warming effect. But its effect is asymptotic, as it only absorbs in a narrow band of the infrared.

As one climatologist has stated, its like repainting a window black. The first coat (current CO2 levels) absorb most of the light. Further coats have little effect.

> "It is true, less than 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there as a direct result of Human action"

According to latest research, the actual figure is closer to 2.75% of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic. The rest are due to natural sources.


By TomZ on 8/29/2007 7:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, 2.75% is certainly "less than 33%." I knew the 33% figure was bogus, but I was having a hard time finding the real figure.


By 16nm on 8/29/2007 9:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Around the year 2000, I remember reading a piece saying something to the effect that everyday volcanos around the world produce more greenhouse gases than we do in one year. It was a semi-comical piece and the point in the end was that it would be smarter and cheaper to figure out a way to cork the world's volcanos than do anything else. lol


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/30/2007 8:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
One of the more interesting topics I've read about recently is the effect on volcanic activity and history after:

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli...

quote:
TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.


By Rovemelt on 8/29/2007 4:20:51 PM , Rating: 4
Need I say more?




By SandmanWN on 8/29/2007 4:29:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, as in only 7% would disagree with mashers assessment.

45% would seem to imply they disagreed but not be forthright. The other 48% would seem to imply they agree yet they also would not be forthright.


By porkpie on 8/29/2007 6:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually 99% of them endorse "Masher's theory". Only 1 scientist out of 539 supported a belief in catastrophic global warming, which By all Masher said and written, is the one thing he's stood against.


Another nice read
By Bioniccrackmonk on 8/29/2007 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
I especialy like the last paragraph when it talks about how the papers are supported by "thousands of scientists", when in reality, its the politicians who are putting their fud into it and then snipping bits from the scientists papers to support their claim. I always wonder what the world would be like if the internet wasn't around to show us all sides of the argument and not just the one that the news reports.




RE: Another nice read
By therealnickdanger on 8/29/2007 1:52:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I always wonder what the world would be like if the internet wasn't around to show us all sides of the argument and not just the one that the news reports.

It would be the year 1992, and Bill Clinton would get elected. Oh wait...


RE: Another nice read
By porkpie on 8/29/2007 2:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when in reality, its the politicians who are putting their fud into it and then snipping bits from the scientists papers to support their claim
Yeah, funny how that info never seems to get reported in the newspaper. But I can't tell you how many times I've read that old "thousands of scientists" phrase.


RE: Another nice read
By onelittleindian on 8/29/2007 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'll sh*t a 10 lb gold egg if this story ever makes it onto the news or any of my local papers.


RE: Another nice read
By Karmakaze on 8/31/2007 10:01:57 PM , Rating: 1
LOL are you kidding?

This is EXACLTY the kind of story most of the media is looking for - bullshit designed to mislead the public so their corporate masters can keep killing us while they profit.

Seems Britt Hume has mentioned it, so perhaps photos of that gold egg of yours might be forthcoming?


Meanwhile...
By Rovemelt on 8/30/2007 8:02:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yahoo News: Study predicts more severe U.S. storms

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_sc/storm...

Just doing your journalism job for you now Michael(6%)Astor...

can't provide the actual journal article again, sorry. Just like in this blog by conservative Michael(6%)Astor.




RE: Meanwhile...
By novacthall on 8/30/2007 8:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Over the course of this discussion, I've watched your posts get more and more libelous towards Mr. Asher. Now they seem to have degrade into flat out personal attacks, and you've resorted to scouring the mainstream for any straws to grasp at in the light of any information that may be counter to your personal beliefs.

This is regrettable, as I have seen you put together coherent, well thought out posts. You don't have to agree with the man, but you don't have to be uncivil about it, either.


RE: Meanwhile...
By robtali0321 on 8/31/2007 8:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if Del Genio's model is more accurate than those used by the NOAA to determine whether or not it will rain tomorrow?!?


Transparent propaganda
By ProfRaze on 8/31/2007 2:14:11 PM , Rating: 3
Further thoughts. I don't know why it is surprising that most papers exploring climate change do not comment on the contribution of human activity. Good research is usually quite focussed in the questions it asks, and I imagine many studies are focussed on researching the manner of climate change or its effects. Even studies looking at causes are more likely to concentrate on immediate, proximate causes of this or that observation rather than more complicated whole-system causes.

Word play is fun. Scientific papers generally don't have to explicitly support something which is already accepted. For example, papers on astrophysics don't have to mention the author's acceptance of the theory of gravity, as it can be assumed. If you realize that and change your wording slightly, your same study comes up with only 6% of papers rejecting man-made global warming.

It also doesn't specify what papers are being talked about. What are the subjects here? What is he defining as "papers on climate change"? You could easily have dozens talking about, say, the levels of ice in the arctic that would never refer to the cause of global warming, just its effects. Also:

Quote:
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte

Forgive me if I'll take the word of climatologists over that of someone who has zero training in the field.

Given that the studies were published in a pro-energy journal, one by a historian and one by a medical researcher, I think it's safe to assume they are grossly biased and all mistakes cited are quite purposeful.

Propoganda takes many forms. Too bad the media are so easily suckered by it.




RE: Transparent propaganda
By onelittleindian on 8/31/2007 3:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also doesn't specify what papers are being talked about. What is he defining as "papers on climate change"?
I guess you didn't read the article. It clearly says the papers are all those in the ISI database which includes the search phrase "climate change".

quote:
Scientific papers generally don't have to explicitly support something which is already accepted
No, but they have to at least implicitly support it. Most papers didn't even do that.

quote:
Forgive me if I'll take the word of climatologists over that of someone who has zero training in the field.
Great! Take their word for it. They're all saying the media has exaggerated and politicized the debate, and movies like Gore's Inconvient Truth bear no relationship to the truth.


RE: Transparent propaganda
By Karmakaze on 8/31/2007 9:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great! Take their word for it. They're all saying the media has exaggerated and politicized the debate, and movies like Gore's Inconvient Truth bear no relationship to the truth.


LOL you talk about exaggeration while claiming that "all" climate scientists are saying the media has "exaggerated and politicized the debate".

OK so all of them are saying this? Can you prove this assertion? I doubt it.

A bit of an exaggeration perhaps because of your political views regarding climate change?


ridiculous
By janesays on 8/31/2007 5:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
I find it strange that this story has virtually blanketed the internet and media, repeated verbatim, when the actual content is practically nonexistent. Are we that desperate for any scrap of evidence against man-made global warming that we'll cling to someone's vague claims of an unpublished paper submitted to a journal which is not in any database I can find, including ISI and my school's extensive database, implementing questionable scientific methods by an endocrinologist? Also, with growing consensus comes the lack of need to reaffirm that consensus, because a paper upholding the status quo is NOT publishable. It's therefore suspect to only include papers from the last three years; you can't possible get any accurate sense of scientific consensus in this manner.




RE: ridiculous
By Karmakaze on 8/31/2007 9:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Did you notice what is also left out of all these stories about this bullshit study?

The fact that since "An Inconvenient Truth" Industry has had a full court press going on where for example they offered $10K to any "scientist" willing to whore themselves out and write papers disputing climate change theory. I wonder if Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte has received his blood money yet?

Also notice how the stories about this study also mislead as to its meaning and purpose. For example: "Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research."

Actually, he did not "update" that research. To "update" it, he would have included the original data as well. If he had done that, his paper would have said something like: "Between 1993 and February 2007, 1456 papers were published regarding climate change, and of those only 32 rejected the consensus view, and those 32 were published after industry started offering $10k to any 'scientist' willing to publish papers refuting the consensus."

Of course that wouldn't have earned this medical researcher $10k, even though it would have told us a lot more than the bull he is attempting to have published.

That's right, attempting, because this "study" has not been peer reviewed and accepted for publication as is made clear in this story.

The fact that this medical researcher has released some of the info in his paper before peer-review also leads me to suspect that he knows it will probably be rejected simply because it is fundamentally flawed.

Here is another misleading statement in the story:

"These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade."

First of all, based on the info given alone, there is no way to determine what the numbers represent, let alone whether they are "changing viewpoints".

This claim is nothing but proof that people reporting on this "study" are willing to massage the data and findings to mislead the audience as to its meaning.

Here is another misleading claim - in fact outright lie - in the story:

"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."

Utter bullshit. This "study" does no such thing. At best it shows that there is still disagreement in the field, but it does not in any way contradict the IPCC findings simply because it is not a climate study!!! There is nothing in this "study" that deals with the actual science of climate change, all it is is a survey of published papers.

In July 2006 a Harris Poll survey found that 50% of respondents believed that Iraq had WMD when the US invaded. They are wrong. Does the poll result contradict the findings of the ISG regarding the lack of WMD? Of course not.

So how does a "study" showing 32 papers out of 528 (or 1456 if the full data is used) disagree with the consensus contradict a scientific finding? It doesn't, and to claim it does is yet more unscientific bullshit designed to mislead.

Without being able to read the full "study" I can not for sure claim it to be false, but from what has been published in this and other stories about it, it is 100% clear that the data was cherry picked and massaged to come to a pre-defined conclusion, and is being used to "prove" far more than it ever could show, even if it is accurate.

In other words this guy should take his $10k and go back to medicine, where hopefully he is a little more scientific about his approach to research.


RE: ridiculous
By onelittleindian on 8/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: ridiculous
By Karmakaze on 9/4/2007 6:45:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sell it somewhere else. That Newsweek story has been long discredited, by an editor at Newsweek itself, no less.


Disputed yes, discredited no. Even if the article was biased, that doesn't change the facts presented in it. For example, not even Newsmax has disputed that industry offered $10K grants to write papers contradicting climate change theory. Their argument is that since $50 Billion has been spent on climate change research that it is the "believers" who are tainted.

Of course they don't explain that the difference between receiving a research grant to study something and a grant to write a paper finding something specific is huge.

If YOU don't know what it is, or why its bad, then YOU are no more scientifically grounded than these bribed "scientists".

The fact is, being given money to find any predefined answer is NOT science, and is nothing more than bribery.

quote:
Why not do just what this researcher did? Query the same database using and look at the same list of papers? He gave his methodology-- you can reproduce his results exactly. Isn't that better than closing your eyes and pretending its all a conspiracy?


Actually I don't need to research the papers he looked at, because I am not disputing the numbers he reported. What I am disputing is the criteria he used to frame the data. He chose two years, and that two years was directly after the aforementioned bribe offer was made.

His study showed 32 papers out of 528 published in the last two years disputed climate change theory. That is a very carefully cherry picked piece of data, massaged because he then goes on to say that this shows a dispute in global warming theory because less than half (49%) explicitly or implicitly endorsed climate change theory.

Does that mean that less than half of climate scientists endorse climate change theory? HELL NO. All it means is that in papers published in the last two years only 49% implicitly or explicitly endorsed climate change theory.

To claim anything more than that is nothing more than an attempt to massage the data to fit a preconceived notion.

If we cherry pick in another direction and we include a larger set of data, we find that only 32 papers out of 1456 published since 1993 explicitly dispute climate change theory. That is about 2% of all published papers.

If we massage the data in another way, we find that since 1993, 98% of all papers published have not explicitly disputed climate change theory.

Does that mean that only a tiny minority of scientists, and only in recent years (coincidentally after the bribe off) actually dispute climate change theory? Actually no it doesn't, because this is only a survey of published papers and in no way represents the thoughts of all climate scientists.

The fact is this study means NOTHING, and it especially doesn't mean what all the "deniers" on this thread are trying to claim it means - that climate change theories are wrong. Remember for a few years now, "deniers" have claimed that the older study was meaningless, now when a new study is carried out, suddenly it is meaningful? The answer is NO, and the only people trying to MAKE it meaningful are propagandists.

quote:
Its obvious, though, you're far too emotionally wrapped up in the religion of global warming to ever do anything remotely so rational and unbiased.


You seem to be the one emotionally wrapped up in this - I have presented rational reasonable arguments - and all you can come up with is ad hominem. Yep, I'm the emotional one.

You can't dispute my reasoning, so you resort to distractions.


This story mentioned by Britt Hume on Grapevine
By jskirwin on 8/30/2007 6:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations Mike.
Britt Hume discussed this story on his Grapevine segment on Fox. He even sourced it to DailyTech.

I believe a woohoo is in order.




By ChuckDriver on 8/30/2007 7:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295330,00.html

I heard it on Sirius on the way home, surprised that this site would be mentioned on a cable news program. I visit DT several times a day and keep the RSS feed in iGoogle. Looks like it is more popular than I thought.


By ttowntom on 8/30/2007 7:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
It was on the Drudge Report earlier today also.


Anthropogenic Global Warming?
By Adrian Vance on 8/30/2007 10:50:50 AM , Rating: 1
There are 200 times as many water vapor molecules in air as CO2 and each absorbs four times as much IR, heat energy for a net effect 800 times that of CO2 which is an insignificant trace gas. James Hansen has long tried to hand Congress a new tax, i.e. on carbon, but water vapor is responsible for 99.99875% of the heat absorbed by the atmosphere. If you examine the 900 papers NASA has published you will not find one that deals with IR absorption in the manner of Tyndall who 150 years ago defined all of this clearly. This is a real scandal in science and will be a millstone around Hansen's neck not a minute too soon.

Adrian Vance




RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming?
By sontec on 9/1/2007 12:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge anyone to provide empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate. The evidence does not exist. Neither does the claim of CO2 having a long residence time in the atmosphere. Provide the evidence for those two; it does not exist. Climate models , melting ice, a warming earth, scientist opinions, claims of "consensus" and news headlines is not evidence to support those hypotheses. For those interested, there are at least three papers that falsify the CO2 hypothesis, available upon request.

How that Yahoo article makes the claim 1998 was the warmest year on record in the U.S. is curious. NASA was forced to revise U.S. records when errors were found by Steve McIntyre at http://climateaudit.org. Here are the corrected temps: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg...

Urban Heat Island effect is why we are seeing such high temperatures in cities, and please note each time news reports cite such high temperatures, they are not from rural locations. NOAA and NASA refuse to release the code on how they adjust for UHI. Why? Because there is no logical process for doing so; it is guesswork.

I invite everyone to visit http://surfacestations.org/. Since the U.S. has 8% of the land mass, yet 20% of the surface stations should speak volumes once one discovers how incompetent and unreliable the system is. If our system is in such disarray, how can we have confidence in areas like Russia, China, Africa and even the U.K.?

Dr. Roger Pielke has a blog at http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ . There you can find a plethora of information concerning AGW, IPCC corruption and everything else related to climate science. This is the last day for his blog and it will be sadly missed.

Despite all the hype, the world has netted a whopping .2C degree increase in temperature since 1940. Further, temperatures have stalled since 1999, which is after the massive El Nino (not connected to AGW) of 1998. No matter what is claimed about AGW, if ocean temperatures do not continue to rise, the entire hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change is to be rejected on that alone.

Finally, in order for a hypothesis to be validated, it must be falsifiable. What AGW proponents have created is a irrefutable hypothesis by blanketing all weather events under the guise of "global warming"; whether it's hot or cold, windy or still, more or less hurricanes etc., somehow it is linked to AGW. That my friends is an irrefutable hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis does not allow for falling or even stalled temperatures. Either CO2 drives climate in a linear fashion or it does not. But wait! The UK Met Office (AGW Central) has released a 'new and improved' global warming model. Since there has been no additional warming as evidenced by satellite land and ocean measurements, now Met O is in the business of predicting weather in mere years instead of multiple decades. It's magic! http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN083736...
Ah yes, yet another unfalsifiable hypothesis. One should note the telling reason for this "new" methodology.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...
quote:
“These predictions are very relevant to businesses and policy-makers who will be able to respond to short-term climate change when making decisions today. The next decade is within many people’s understanding and brings home the reality of a changing climate.”


Translation: "we concede global warming has stopped, but just you wait and see what happens the next five years".

Please note the predictions for precipitation by Met O for 2007, then check the actual results.

The emperor has no clothes.


By janesays on 9/1/2007 2:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Can anyone explain to me why the skeptics against man-made global warming are so emotional and quick to claim "hype" and grab onto any scrap of counter-evidence as if their one and only purpose in life was to disprove the fact that humans CAN have an effect on weather?

Let's say we all buy into antropogenic global warming, but it happened to be false. What horrible consequences would occur? We'd be forced switch from fossil fuels a few decades earlier and begin implementation of renewable energy resources which would at least lessen the tension in the oil-rich middle east. Americans would have to buy less than house-sized vehicles and perhaps for once have to consider the welfare of the entire community, not just themselves. Oil companies would fall, certain CEO's would cease to reap in the atrocious amount of profits they have had the fortune to enjoy for decades. The energy sector would be infused with new ideas and innovation; scientific research would be bolstered as everyone scrambles to find the cheapest source of energy. For a couple of decades the economy would slacken because of the hole left by the oil industry and all those dependent on it, but not any more than would occur in a few decades anyway when easily accessible oil runs out. In fact, speeding up the transition to other energy resources would arguably lessen the shock the economy would have to endure since the longer the wait, the more money we will have invested in the oil sector to dig up harder and harder to find oil.

Consider, on the other hand, if global warming IS caused by humans, but we choose to not believe it. What are the possible consequences? There is probably no limit on the amount of catastrophic disaster that could befall humankind if we are wrong on this issue. Increased hurricanes (oh wait, that's already happening...), rising seas, famine and flood, temperature extremes, and perhaps even a new ice age? Who knows. What can be said with certainty, however, is that out of all the possible consequences, the percentage in which humankind would fare reasonably well is incredibly small.

So why, skeptics, is it so important that you "stop the hype"? What horrible catastrophe are you hoping to avert? How is your stance the one that will better humankind in the end? Because I assume that you must believe this, if you are to be so fervent in your denouncement of a purely scientific phenomenon. After all, I don't see anyone arguing passionately against quantum mechanics, claiming that we are all blinded by the hype of the uncertainty principle; the particle in a box has no clothes!


Is it just me...
By chsh1ca on 8/29/2007 9:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
...or does it seem odd to anyone else that only 528 papers have been published and made available on ISI in three years' time during which we've seen possibly more scrutiny over the subject matter than any other period in history?




RE: Is it just me...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2007 9:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
175 papers/year on a given topic is a fairly high number. Contrast that to, say, papers on well-accepted theories like gravity or plate tectonics, which are lucky to see one paper/year.

Still, the figure is doubtful to be all-inclusive, as some relevant papers may not have included the search terms. But had Shulte (or earlier, Oreskes) attempted to 'fish' for those papers, they risk introducing statistical bias into the dataset. By impartially including all papers (and only those papers) which include the terms "climate change" or "global warming", the survey is kept unbiased.


It's not just about warming.
By PaxtonFettel on 8/30/2007 7:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
In Nature today a good paper on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 decreasing evotranspiration in plants and possible flood risks associated.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/ab...

Just wanting to keep some perspective on things here. We have increased atmospheric CO2 levels and whilst its warming effect may be debateable, depending on who you talk to, it also has other effects. Pumping that much of any gas into the atmosphere that is so essential to basic biology can't not have an effect somewhere.

Michael, your thoughts? Anyone else?




By masher2 (blog) on 8/30/2007 9:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think its pretty clear that the botanical effects of increased CO2 will be more positive than negative. CO2 is, after all, airborne fertilizer. CO2 levels during the Devonion era were up to 2,000% higher than they are today, and that era spawned such a rich increase in plant and animal biodiversity that its been termed the "Devonian Explosion".

The paper you cite is interesting. It claims changes in plant respiration will mean an increase in flood risks-- but a decrease in drought risks. What's the net economic effect? In most nations (excluding places like Bangladesh, obviously), drought losses outweight flood losses. In the US, for instance, flood losses from 1988-1998 totaled $52B. But drought losses for 1988 alone were $40B. In a nation like Australia, I suspect drought losses outweigh floods by a much larger factor.


CONSENSUS????
By ATTYATLAW on 8/30/2007 11:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know whether humans are the cause or a contributor of GW or even if GW is a bad thing. Logically speaking, eveyone must agree that there has been GW before, unrelated to human activity, i.e., there was an ice age. Therefore until scientists can conclusively say that this current GW, unlike prior GW, is not caused by natural forces, than I will refuse to adhere to non-scientific arguments and sermons of "consensus" or "conformity." Thank you for poking a few holes in the overused "consensus" argument. People, please refrain from making this a conservative-liberal arugment. I firmly believe most of us simply want our government to mind its own business whether here or abroad. GW should not be associated with partisan poltics.




RE: CONSENSUS????
By wlw on 8/30/2007 12:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not only does it seem difficult to determine if/how much humans are a cause of climate change, I cannot even tell if everyone is measuring the same thing. I keep reading disputes as to whether the climate has warmed, cooled or stayed relatively unchanged. I am not asserting it is not changing, but unless everyone is at least talking about the same thing, it is hard to reach a valid conclusion as to what, if anything, should be done. I can tell you the average temperature of my house by taking a reading in each room and averaging it. That will not tell you the temperature in any given room or if it is warmer or cooler than it was yesterday in any particular spotr in the house. The temp in any given room may move in an opposite direction than the average of all rooms. Last I checked, the global climate was actually slightly more complex than my house. Can someone on this blog with a better understanding of the science than I have tell me if there is even a consensus over what they are measuring? Thanks.


In a war of definitions, no-one is "neutral".
By piotrr on 8/31/2007 8:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
And how many of the "neutral" articles on climate change build on the natural assumption that climate change is real and thus find no reason to comment on its existance one way or another?

Oreske's "search terms" are an extremely broad brush to paint any kind of picture with, which is stated already in the original metastudy. This new study does not have any shocking differences with Oreske's original one, it is just presented as if it does. Just like the whole NASA "Y2K" debacle was presented as if an enormous change had taken place.

The real facts are that more than half of all climate studies have no reason to bring up the obvious, and are listed as "neutral". But think about it: If you were really sitting in the middle of a consensus, why would you bring it up?

/ Per




By Poptech on 9/2/2007 12:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
Great logic there. What "natural assumption"? You mean the one spread by non-scientists like Al Gore and the main-stream-media? A paper studying climate does not have to mention an unproven theory simply because it is frequently mentioned on TV and not mentioning it does not imply any endorsement. Does this mean that every scientific paper that does not endorse or mention any other unproven theory(s) quietly endorses all of them? What kind of nonsense is this?

The new study further refutes the original which was already refuted here:

RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)
QUOTE (Benny Peiser)


"The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years"


So what's the point?
By danrien on 8/31/2007 9:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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."


It's also not a consensus that global warming is not caused by man. In fact, I would like to point out that only 6% of the papers rejected the consensus. Thus this research gives no solid foundation on which to reject the fact that it isn't happening; it only serves to tell the public that scientists are being scientists and following through with the scientific method. Instead of throwing out opinions, many of them are choosing to abstain from such and therefore not sully the results of this study in favor of either side.

However, I would assume that accepting the consensus without saying so out loud still represents to a large extent that these scientists agree with the other climatologists who have outright said they agree with the consensus. I mean, just because I'm going to vote for Obama when given the chance doesn't mean that I have to stand from a street corner and yell out that I'm going to vote for Obama.

I'm really confused as to the argument Masher is attempting to make here; it seems as though he is saying since no overwhelming majority agrees that global warming is caused by man, then it must not be? Or is he saying that we're just not sure yet? If the latter happens to be true, then it would seem to me that nobody's been misled; public opinion generally seems to hold true to that as well.

Either way, a (substantially) larger percentage of the scientists surveyed seem to be of the opinion that global warming is caused by man than not by man, which in my mind provides enough incentive to believe that we should make valid efforts to lower carbon emissions, all with a reasonably small amount of cost incurred upon citizens, of course. Better safe than sorry, right?

Personally, however, I do think that nuclear power should be in far greater use today. I have enjoyed Masher's articles on that subject.




RE: So what's the point?
By Poptech on 9/2/2007 12:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
No you don't understand, the whole point of this is that it further disputes the ONE paper by Oreskes that Al Gore used to claim a consensus. The same methods are applied to current papers and you find no consensus. Oreskes work was already debunked here:

RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sciencelette...

" The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years "

quote:
I'm really confused as to the argument Masher is attempting to make here; it seems as though he is saying since no overwhelming majority agrees that global warming is caused by man, then it must not be?

No he is saying there is no consensus that it is caused by man. If Man-Made Global Warming was provable via the Scientific Method then there would be nothing to debate but it is not. It is not up to those who disagree with the theory to prove it, it is up to those who agree with it to do so via empirical evidence and the scientific method.

quote:
Either way, a (substantially) larger percentage of the scientists surveyed seem to be of the opinion that global warming is caused by man than not by man


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (Heartland Institute)
http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

"A survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now."

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...


Wow MAsher, You know how to get the comments.
By mkrech on 9/7/2007 10:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed your post and especially the comment string.

For your next post see if you can dig up something controversial on stem cell research.

I can't wait.




By mkrech on 9/7/2007 11:08:44 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I was still reading the comments here so I didn't even notice... your way ahead of me. Stem cells - genetic engineering... close enough. Great minds right?

Biotech, Genetic Engineering and the Boy Who Cried Wolf
http://www.dailytech.com/Biotech+Genetic+Engineeri...


By Rovemelt on 8/30/2007 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070829/ap_on_sc/green...

Sorry, can't provide the PDF.




Understanding data
By ProfRaze on 8/31/2007 11:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
All those studies show is the dramatic impact that politics had on science. The reason so few scientists stated that global warming was human caused was simply because they knew their careers would end if they did. It's scientific McCarthyism.

Too bad those researchers weren't insightful enough to understand their own data. I wish I could say it was rare.




Possible
By Shuxclams on 9/4/2007 6:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen two posts about how Global Warming is a fraud or whatever the author contends or is inferring. Global Warming - actual temperatures are indeed increasing, C0² is increasing, why not just be cautious until it's sorted out, I mean what can it hurt to 'go green' just in case? There is plenty of money to be made from going green, there is very little downside unless your tied to Carbon Based Fuel or Energy companies. As for coverage in the press, Europe and the rest of the world are light years ahead of the USA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/...

SHUX




Analysing the spin
By semipreciousdotcom on 9/5/2007 1:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
What a nice way to twist things. Not every published scientist deals in the science of warming. A mechanical engineer scientist busy with writing his papers will not have time to read global warming papers and make a decision, so you can not add him to the 'scientists who do not endorse global warming'. This is called a very clever spin, or just plain spin. What I want to know is this:

Out of the scientists who have studied global warming, how many endorse it.

Duh!, I thought you were smarter than to be spun like that peeps!

Its like asking all published scientists about "do Indians have less chance of alzhiemers due to turmeric in their diet"

Most published scientists will say "we do not know, here or there".

Ask the nutritional scientists and most will say "yes, we have read the research and it is possible that it has a positive effect".

Can you say from the above that "Most published scientists do not endorse turmeric for alzheimers?"

But thanks for showing me how spin works :)

I am a chemical engineer and an environmental engineer. I am convinced 100% of humans being the cause of global warming and of its seriousness. For me its not a political issue, this is a political issue only in the US and only due to the US.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














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