More on Global Warming

Remove all ads!

Wasn't that the study that Drew cited to show that NO SUCH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 15 YEARS? If not, then my mistake, and I withdraw most of my criticism, though I still find the categorization method questionable. If so, then I suppose it is more of an application issue then a methodology one, but my objections stand.

 

To be fair, NOG, the study doesn't prove that there are no dissenters. Since 25% of the studies conducted during that period dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change, it stands to reason that some of the scientists doing those studies may have disagreed with the consensus.

 

Further research has proved that you are right about Al Gore. But this past article has largely been ignored by the "liberal" media:

Damn that Al Gore

 

Ok, Chandos - enough with the Onion articles already. It's like a topic seriousness ejecter seat.

 

Quit whining, DR. It's only been two and sometimes a "serious topic ejector seat" is exactly what these "debates" need. :

 

No one's touched this topic in three days. I rest my case.

 

Correlation is not causation?

 

I'm sorry, what was your case again? I forgot.

 

I was stunned to see this

To see a member of the mainstream media actually doubt the existance of manmade global warming was shocking to me. I didn't think it was allowed

 

just another aspect of political correctness. you have to believe what THEY want you to or you are just being a denier

 

Please do explain who 'they' are.

 

those who define PCness, here in the states mostly democratic liberals. you know, the ones who say "you can't say that word it might hurt somebodies fellings" or "you can't punish him for doing that he had a rough childhood" or my personal favorite "it's for the good of the children" ' just a load of B.S.

heck just look at the peace prize award this year, by their own rules it can be awarded to no more than 3 people(no groups) yet this year al gore & the IPCC won it. ok....seems like the IPCC is more than 2 people. this has caused controversy as they have refused to award it to everybody on a team only singling out 3 people in the past. yet this year "oh since it's this group, we will change our rules just for them"

[ October 24, 2007, 09:49: Message edited by: martaug ]

 

It sounds more like the religious right, or the adherents of the Coultergeist, at least to me. But then I'm just a "Democratic liberal" - and glad to be one.

Yes, I even posted a thread on it and thought it was a great choice, because of the awareness that Al Gore has helped bring to the issue of GW. Sorry you didn't like their rules, but it's their gig....

 

Oh, it's certainly allowed. The reason you don't see more of this kind of thing is that most members of the mainstream media have enough common sense to realize that when 99.9% of scientists agree on something and there have been no published studies (none, zero, nada, no dissenting studies here!) going against their consensus within the last 15 years or so, it's probably true. Most members of the main stream media also have enough common sense to realize that reporting and climatology are not the same profession.

 

Drew - It's the reverse that's true here. In some quarters it's NOT allowed to believe in the threats of climate change:

Thou must not speak of climate change, it seems. Gee, what a surprise.

 

Drew, you keep harping on this when it is certainly not true. 99.9% of SCIENTISTS do not agree with this at all. Maybe 99.9% of climatologists who are controlling the journals do. The main reason you DON'T see dissenting studies published in the climate journals is the bias of that community. The editors simply do not allow contrary views to be published.

I have read several articles about the variation in carbon-14 record over the past. An article in Science from 2001 indicated that carbon-14 levels from 11,000 to 45,000 years ago were double the levels of today. There are also times where the level of carbon-14 was LESS than it is today. The times where the amount was less is very interesting -- greenhouse gasses from petroleum distillates reduce the percentage of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. According to the claims of climatologists, there should be less carbon-14 in the atmosphere than ever before, yet that is not true.

Edit: I do believe man has an effect on the environment. I am not willing to follow the assumption we are the only, or main, cause of global warming. There is significant evidence inthe fossel record to indicate global warming trends occur naturally. I just don't believe the climatologists are being thorough in their studies, instead they appear to be in a 'witch-hunt' mentality. The total lack of dissention in their journals is suspicious (when there is evidence contrary).

[ October 24, 2007, 15:56: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Human beings affect climate and environment just as do plants, animals, volcanoes, the action of the sun. It amazes me that anyone would even question this. We do not live in some isolated pocket plane.

I have no idea what is causing the weird weather we are having here in New Jersey. There are probably several causes but the only ones we have any control over are the ones that human beings create.

Arguing about whether humans cause GW or not is IMO just plain silly. If I smoke it causes pollution. If a factory emits carbon dioxide it causes pollution.

There are those who try to improve things and there are those who just talk about it.

 

@T2: I've adressed this several times. For example, when I said

Now, I know that you are convinced that the reason for this is bias, but I'm not so sure. Unless you can come up with some specific and credible dissenting studies that were rejected from publication by reputable journals without a valid reason, you have no evidence to back up your claim. You can't go crying "bias!" and expect it to mean anything unless you are willing to get specific.

[ October 24, 2007, 23:52: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

One point I like to make about the bias line is this:

Yes, there is always error, and there is always scientific (and funding) fashion, and yes there are all those mighty and powerful magazine editors and dominant scientists - so what? To get to that first: I am unpersuaded that against the global scientific consensus it is basically only American conservatives who get it right on Global Warming, because everyone else is just either stupid or biased. Tough chance.

That said, to take into account bias in analysis is entirely sensible. It is usually best applied to assess realiability of a source. When analysing text I would check it in the historical and contextual analysis as a third or fourth step, well after trying to figure out the facts.

Facts on global warming are difficult to deal with - a lot of number crunching, even including statistical ambiguity and so forth. The bias line allows to conveniently bypass a confusing, lengthy or perhaps even factual discourse by attacking the source of the information. In that way it becomes a pre-emption: Of course he sais that, he's a climatologist!

When the bias line is wielded triumphantly, as if it is an argument, the bias litany in my view only gives testimony of how ****ed up, dysfunctional and polarised the US public debate is. The dispute apparently is rather about a scientist's group affiliation and personal track records rather than about science at all. I wouldn't be too surprised if a climatologist giving testimony on global warming would be asked in a hearing what his views on Roe vs. Wade are.