Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

I don't know how many scientists there are who are experts in global warming, or some aspect thereof.

I have read that there are petitions signed exclusively by climate scientists, and that the numbers are very high, in the "tens of thousands" range [edit: those petitions support consensus]. There have been several studies of the extent to which there really is consensus. The fraction of active climate scientists who agree with the consensus statements is in the high 90% range.

Real climate scientists are pretty much settled on it, and evidently are not really that interested in stepping into the soap opera of the debate in the general public (go figure). They generally just stick to their science. The debate ended for them about 10 years ago.

Scott

Originally Posted by beezaur

I don't know how many scientists there are who are experts in global warming, or some aspect thereof.

I have read that there are petitions signed exclusively by climate scientists, and that the numbers are very high, in the "tens of thousands" range. There have been several studies of the extent to which there really is consensus. The fraction of active climate scientists who agree with the consensus statements is in the high 90% range.

Real climate scientists are pretty much settled on it, and evidently are not really that interested in stepping into the soap opera of the debate in the general public (go figure). They generally just stick to their science. The debate ended for them about 10 years ago.

Scott

About the time the overall global temperature leveled off and started to slightly cool? You mean those ten years?

The 2.6 million are people who hold a BSc in America; thats the same criteria they used for the petition.



Please excuse my math. I think the point still holds.

I can't find any data that indicates a leveling off or cooling.

Here NASA's latest data Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

Please point me to your source

Originally Posted by JMS

About the time the overall global temperature leveled off and started to slightly cool? You mean those ten years?

Yes, those same 10 years.

That is denier argument #13 here: Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics . In a nutshell, you have to screw around with the data to arrive at that (incorrect) conclusion. 1998 was anomalously hot due to El Nino, just as this past winter was anomalously cool due to La Nina. The specific page for that argument is here: Did global warming stop in 1998?

Scott

Originally Posted by JMS

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Much of the article fits my own beliefs also!

This link was something that I posted earlier, but I think it got lost among the rest of my post!
Read the whole thing if you are interested!
There are two things which make me recoil from the global warming ideas as put forth by the global warming advocates, 1) the arrogance in which it is put forth! 2) the continuous changing of the arguments when the global warming ideas don't fit the real world!

Originally Posted by JMS

This link was something that I posted earlier, but I think it got lost among the rest of my post!
Read the whole thing if you are interested!
There are two things which make me recoil from the global warming ideas as put forth by the global warming advocates, 1) the arrogance in which it is put forth! 2) the continuous changing of the arguments when the global warming ideas don't fit the real world!

I agree with you on 1 and 2, I find that politicians drive me nuts with their BS on the subject and disagree with you in that despite the politicians the science is still good.


As for the link referenced; the facts appear to be correct to the best of my knowledge, but (there's always a but) allot of the detail is left out to support his argument. you can cherry pick to prove any point, its only when you look at all available information that you can make an informed decision.

Originally Posted by JMS

This link was something that I posted earlier, but I think it got lost among the rest of my post!
Read the whole thing if you are interested!
There are two things which make me recoil from the global warming ideas as put forth by the global warming advocates, 1) the arrogance in which it is put forth! 2) the continuous changing of the arguments when the global warming ideas don't fit the real world!

I don't know that much can be done about the perception of arrogance. The issue is pretty technical, and it involves some effort for anyone to understand. So anyone who forms any sort of an educated opinion has a substantial emotional investment. That makes people hesitant to change their minds, and very sensitive about changing. No one likes to be wrong, and no one likes to be duped.

A few years ago I was on the other side of the debate, and denied global warming completely. There was this nagging voice in the back of my mind telling me I should really know more about it. Eventually I had to come to terms with the fact that I had been wrong. It meant reversing myself around my family and friends, alienating myself in their eyes, and alligning myself with liberals who I vehemently disagree with on just about every other topic. It was not easy to change sides.

As to the changing of scientific arguments, I think that is more the result of the media's reporting. They used to be incredibly bad at reporting what scientists were saying. Still they love to prolong the debate in the general public (that is what sells news), but they are starting to more accurately portray the science. Science evolves surprisingly rapidly, but if you go back and look at stuff from the first climate scientists in the 1970s and 1980s, you will find predictions that proved to be remarkably accurate.

Scott

Since absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence I thought I'd put a post on my absence from the thread. I stopped posting since beezaur seems to be a lot more informed on the subject and I share the rational framework through which he looks at the problem.

In any case I am not qualified to determine whether there is an anthropogenic global warming, as I have not read or understood enough of the scientific evidence (both sides). In any case a political argument is the last thing that has a chance to convince me either way. There's always money involved in anything, as it was pointed out, that argument is completely void. The oil industry is certainly very interested in good science as, when put in use, it translates directly into money. They are also interested in bad science if that can be translated in policies which bring them money. Fortunately science is rather objective - everything is measured by its predictive power, so one doesn't need to resort to non-scientific arguments. The drawback is that it may take time and money, not to mention the intellectual effort, if you want to know the truth.

Science and Nature are the newspapers of the scientific community, and they, as any other peer reviewed journal have black marks on their track record of publishing not only wrong, but even fictional 'research' as cutting edge science. They do try to weed out the bad science, but as everybody knows 'new', 'surprising', 'unexpected', etc. results are a lot more marketable and desirable, so things are naturally biased towards controversy. Which is not a bad thing at all, in fact it's imperative for science. As the old communist saying goes 'trust, but verify'.

The last one has the best refutations for most situations here.

YouTube - 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate