The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All

[Exsubmariner]

The Debate is Over!

[ 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 can't wait for the new mantle of the MCGW cult true believers to transform into the persecuted underclass of the scientific community laboring as outcasts to expose the "truth." I can imagine someone from the MCGW to wax poetic very soon about Galileo. The fallacy of the appeal to the majority, that is, the "consensus" having been exposed and debunked...

[adanthar]

The original post (that is, Mark Asher's blog post) says that this study will be published in "Energy and Environment."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nd_Environment

This doesn't mean it's a bad study on its own, but I suspect it's not the giant killer you and Drudge think it is.

[Copernicus]

"This doesn't mean it's a bad study on its own"

Exactly....if you assume it is then ad hominen has reared its ugly head. The research is painfully easy to verify, so until and unless its methods are proved to be biased, it certainly supports what the skeptics have been saying: "What consensus?"

[adios]

Fortunately the scientific method involves something else entirely. Taking a poll or whater on how many believe what is basically meaningless. So in reality the sceintific issues brought about by Climate Science are far from settled and won't be for a long time.

Then we have this little story:
Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and landslides are some of the additional catastrophes that climate change and its rising sea levels and melting glaciers could bring, a geologist says.

We better send trillions of dollars immediately to make sure this doesn't happen. Our taxes will have to go up/we'll just have to pay more for energy. But wait ..


Burgmann isn't too worried about sea level rise causing more earthquakes or volcanic eruptions though, noting that catastrophic rates of sea level rise in the future are uncertain and that the current rate of rise—about 0.12 inches per year (3 millimeters per year)—isn't enough to destabilize the crust.

"It would take a long time to add up to a significant amount," Burgmann said—so while it's an area of research to keep an eye on, it's unlikely to have any disastrous consequences, at least for now.

But we all know that Burgman is an oil company tool.

[L'ennemi.]

Without reading it, I fail to see in what way this study exposes and debunkes the concensus. In the original study, they were 25% of neutral papers. Those were not papers saying: "maybe, maybe not", but papers that, given their approach, did not need to take a side. So, you cannot necessarly draw any conclusions from their neutrality.Maybe 90% support mmgw, maybe 90% are skeptics. So I'd like to know what qualifies as a neutral paper in this new study to draw any conclusions.
If you only count the votes cast, it is 48-6 for mmgw, so not a huge victory for skeptics if you ask me.
That being said, I'm amazed at the energy devoted by skeptiks to disprove the role of man in Global Warming. After all, their motive is not the search for a scientific truth, but a refusal to change our whole lifes because of global warming theories. For this reason, I'm surprised that not more emphasis is laid on the reality of the fight agaisnt global warming. The Kyoto Protocol had very easy targets, and very few countries are on pah to meet them. Add the development of China, India and hopefully other Thirld worlds countries and the hope to drastically reduces our emissions becomes a pipe dream. It would at least requires huge sacrifices that I doubt anyone is willing to make.

[mosdef]

"No consensus" = "Settled Once and for All"? Even if one accepts the results of the study, your conclusion is still quite a leap!

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
.... After all, their motive is not the search for a scientific truth, but a refusal to change our whole lifes because of global warming theories. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting that people who believe that climate models have a lot of room for improvement and believe that that Climate Science is a worthwhile endeavor but believe that the models predictive value is unproven are not seeking the truth. And what theories are we talking about exactly. Perhaps an attempt to review how theories fit into the scientific method would be constructive:

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

I submit that the current state of the art in climate models is far from being theory.

[L'ennemi.]

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".

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[L'ennemi.]

[ 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.