The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you cannot necessarly draw any conclusions from their neutrality.Maybe 90% support mmgw, maybe 90% are skeptics.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, "(48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis" is the very definition of skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry, but you cannot deduce that from this article. Maybe you have read the study so that fine. but the study is supposed to have the same methodology as Naomi Oreskes's which defined neutral papers like I did. It is possible to write an article about climate change without taking any side. It does not mean that you don't believe one of the other, but simply that it was relevant to you article.
That being said, the methodology of the study might be different, but I'll be really interested in the exact definition ofwhat qualifies as a neutral article.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying that there is not enough information to support the conclusion that man is a significant cause of GW is a highly skeptical position, and those 48% would not be available as evidence for encouraging people to change their behaviors (which is what the debate is really about).

[morphball]

It's probably not very hard to figure out the motivations of the people who fund studies such as these, but let me ask, what motivates the average joe to run around and vocally dismiss global warming. The average joe is not paid by Big Oil, coal or Detroit.

What do these people stand to gaid arguing stuff they do not understand and latching onto every single hair brained study they can find?

Will some one please enlighten me?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably not very hard to figure out the motivations of the people who fund studies such as these, but let me ask, what motivates the average joe to run around and vocally dismiss global warming. The average joe is not paid by Big Oil, coal or Detroit.

What do these people stand to gaid arguing stuff they do not understand and latching onto every single hair brained study they can find?

Will some one please enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Accepting MMGW arguments means accepting that they should cease their own contributions to global warming, such as driving their beloved autos or turning down their beloved air conditioning.

[L'ennemi.]

Why would you want those 48% to be available as evidence? They might just have written an article about climate change where they did not need to assume wether man was responsible for global warming. So you can not draw any conclusions from their supposed neutrality. At least that was a possibility implied by Oreske methodology. Maybe the definion of neutrality is different in this study, but the information given in this link is insufficient.
Funny thing is, in the first study the neutral papers where used differently, as the author pointed out the fact that they did not contest the responsability of man in Global Warming...(a rather fallacious argument if you ask me.)


But this discussion about those 48% neutral papers is rather pointless, and this study seems stupid.
I mean if you want to know wether their is a conscensus or not, why not, instead of drawing dubious conclusions based on some articles, Why not call every author and ask them.
Do you believe man to be responsible for global warming? Yes/ No/ not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

[wacki]

A while back Benny Peiser reviewed climate change abstracts and claimed he found 32 that disagreed with the consensus. One of the abstracts discussed the need for alternative energy and carbon sequestration. Amazingly Benny thought that debunked the consensus. 2 years later Benny admitted that he was 97% wrong.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

Will this be a repeat? Only time will tell.

Gotta love the meaningless quote wars and industry funded faux journals.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
The Debate is Over!

[/ QUOTE ]
This, like your previous comment about CO2 not mattering because it's "washed out of the air by increased rain", shows that you really have no understanding of the issues, or interest in truth.

This isn't even about global warming - the above statements show an embarassing lack of basic logic.

[ 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."


[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the study (according the article, it's not even published yet - ever heard of peer review, genius? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]), but you would expect most climate change papers to be neutral. That's because the point of scientific papers is not to wax lyrical about the topic; it's to discuss and present frameworks, data, examine specific effects, and so on.

We know nothing about his findings. To demonstrate how useless these results probably are, do a search on google scholar for global warming. You'll come back with articles like this:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...CO%3B2&ct=1
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JGR....93.9341H
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.p...p;setcookie=yes

There's heaps more. All mention global warming, some would likely turn up under whatever his search terms are - yet none provide any support or denial for MCGW. That's because they're not designed to do that. Unlike a few vocal deniers, scientists aren't in some mad frenzy to prove or disprove MCGW; they have specific issues to work on.

Anyway, this OP makes you a clown on this issue.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not call every author and ask them.
Do you believe man to be responsible for global warming? Yes/ No/ not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with conducting the study that way is that the authors will immediately see the purpose of your phone survey and give an answer depending on how they want your survey to turn out, whereas the articles were (presumably) written to communicate the author's view on the topic with no eye to how that view may be used in a survey. In other words, the survey as conducted is hopelessly biased by the readers who must guess what the authors' answers would be based on their initial articles, and your proposed survey is hopelessly biased by the authors' bias about the way they want the survey to turn out.

Basically, an opinion survey means very little because opinions come in all sorts of degrees and precision. The percentages in the survey in the OP are attempts to turn vague assertions of opinions into hard facts which is absurd.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
To clarify: I'm not denying the fact that they are a lot of scientist who have serious doubt about the validity of the model and are simply trying to find better models. However, Human made global warming has tremendous consequences for our lifes, and this is the main reason why this is such a hot topic. it is easy to see that the stakes are far higher than a simple search for scientific "truth".

[/ QUOTE ]

Having trememdous impact on our lives cuts two ways, if people spend trillions of dollars on a problem that actually isn't as urgent as the alarmists say it is (their predictions are based on what the models tell them) and/or the government imposes policies that are ineffective, then this also has had a tremendous impact out people's lives. A lot of people perceive this to be just another way for government to increase it's power and control.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html


[/ QUOTE ]
Priceless. These guys continue to make complete asses of themselves, and one has to wonder what the [censored] a doctor and an anthropologist are doing with literature surveys of subjects they can't understand.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not call every author and ask them.
Do you believe man to be responsible for global warming? Yes/ No/ not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with conducting the study that way is that the authors will immediately see the purpose of your phone survey and give an answer depending on how they want your survey to turn out, whereas the articles were (presumably) written to communicate the author's view on the topic with no eye to how that view may be used in a survey. In other words, the survey as conducted is hopelessly biased by the readers who must guess what the authors' answers would be based on their initial articles, and your proposed survey is hopelessly biased by the authors' bias about the way they want the survey to turn out.

Basically, an opinion survey means very little because opinions come in all sorts of degrees and precision. The percentages in the survey in the OP are attempts to turn vague assertions of opinions into hard facts which is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well opinion survey clearly have their limitations, but they still can give you an idea of what a group think. If they is a vast majority supporting a side its bound to show. Of course, it won't serve as a definite proof but it'would still be better than trying to deduce what they believe from article they wrote with a very different intent.