Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2013, 12:55 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,903,529 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier of FORTRAN View Post
Ferd, what issues do you take with current models?
There are numerous ones. Have you done any searching on the issue concerning the problem with models? There is an enormous amount of information out there concerning it and it is a major dispute within the field.

 
Old 05-24-2013, 05:37 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,188,880 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
We have already established that the study misrepresented the findings of numorous peer reviewed works.


Why should we believe the study found 0% that disputes the theory when we know the study LIES and states that certain works (which clearly challenge the theory) are supportive of the theory?
So what's the percentage of scientists who oppose the theory of man made global warming?????
 
Old 05-24-2013, 05:39 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,903,529 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
So what's the percentage of scientists who oppose the theory of man made global warming?????
We honestly don't know as the manner to which they established their data is meaningless.

Try going back and reading the key points of the thread that deals with the problems concerning this study, that way you don't repeat questions and take positions that have already been shown to be invalid.
 
Old 05-24-2013, 05:41 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,188,880 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
We honestly don't know as the manner to which they established their data is meaningless.

Try going back and reading the key points of the thread that deals with the problems concerning this study, that way you don't repeat questions and take positions that have already been shown to be invalid.
You could use any credible study, you don't have to use the study cited.

I think the bold part sums up your argument
 
Old 05-24-2013, 05:51 PM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,764,499 times
Reputation: 5434
Scientists live off of grants funded by leftists. You have to eat.
 
Old 05-24-2013, 06:20 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,603,414 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
So what's the percentage of scientists who oppose the theory of man made global warming?????
The Cook et al. study is not the only one to evaluate scientific agreement on man-made global warming.

Anderegg et al. (2010) used an extensive dataset of 908 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of man-made climate change.

They started with a larger data set of climate researchers but narrowed the group based on criteria such as the researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher. They then ranked the scientists based on the number of articles and other criteria in terms of their expertise and scientific prominence.

Only ~ 3 % of the top 200 climate researchers do not accept the evidence of anthropogenic climate change, and the relative expertise and scientific prominence of the skeptics is substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

The Anderegg et al. research study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is a top-level research journal. The abstract is available at the link below, and you can download the full article also.
Expert credibility in climate change

link to Cook et al article: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
 
Old 05-24-2013, 06:32 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,603,414 times
Reputation: 4784
The following research study also examined the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change:

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

The full article is here:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
 
Old 05-24-2013, 06:43 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,903,529 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
You could use any credible study, you don't have to use the study cited.

I think the bold part sums up your argument
Which "Credible" study would that be? There have been several claimed to purport the same as this one, all were shown to be as worthless as this one.

You are right, the bold does sum it up "we" as in you, me, and everyone is not entirely sure as there have been no honest evaluations of such.
 
Old 05-24-2013, 06:48 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,903,529 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
The following research study also examined the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change:

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

The full article is here:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Problems with that as well, and has been discussed to death times over on this board. You pull out Doran/Zimmerman, then someone else pulls out Oreskes... rinse and repeat like it all never happened before.

Good luck with that, not going to bother. They all have serious flaws.
 
Old 05-24-2013, 07:57 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,603,414 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Problems with that as well, and has been discussed to death times over on this board. You pull out Doran/Zimmerman, then someone else pulls out Oreskes... rinse and repeat like it all never happened before.

Good luck with that, not going to bother. They all have serious flaws.
I wouldn't call the studies seriously flawed. Every research study has limitations. But these three studies, using different methodologies, all showed the same result: very few credible climate scientists deny the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

If you mean Namoi Oreskes, she also reviewed the literature on the scientific consensus studies and concluded that "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top