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.
I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2).The number is exactly one.
For decades an increasing number of scientists studies the effects of low levels of Lead in the environment and concluded that lead was toxic in any and all forms at any concentration. government efforts to restrict the use of lead in paint and as a gasoline additive were stifled by one scientist that happened to work for the producer of Tetra Ethyl Lead. Eventually our Congress got the word and effectively banned lead in most uses including shot for hunting birds.
I see the "anthropogenic global warming" debate as analogous to the lead debate. Most scientists have concluded, after extensive research, that the global climate is warming and that man made CO2 emissions are a major factor in the rise. There are a few "scientists", mostly working in the energy industry, that vociferously deny there is any connection.
My thought is real scientists are dedicated to figuring out the truth and presenting it to the world after their work has been checked by other scientists. These people are not worried about future funding. The "scientists" that are working in the corporate world are more then willing to write and publish, generally without any outside review, anything their corporate masters want said. These are not scientists they are propagandists and should be ignored.
For decades an increasing number of scientists studies the effects of low levels of Lead in the environment and concluded that lead was toxic in any and all forms at any concentration. government efforts to restrict the use of lead in paint and as a gasoline additive were stifled by one scientist that happened to work for the producer of Tetra Ethyl Lead. Eventually our Congress got the word and effectively banned lead in most uses including shot for hunting birds.
I see the "anthropogenic global warming" debate as analogous to the lead debate. Most scientists have concluded, after extensive research, that the global climate is warming and that man made CO2 emissions are a major factor in the rise. There are a few "scientists", mostly working in the energy industry, that vociferously deny there is any connection.
My thought is real scientists are dedicated to figuring out the truth and presenting it to the world after their work has been checked by other scientists. These people are not worried about future funding. The "scientists" that are working in the corporate world are more then willing to write and publish, generally without any outside review, anything their corporate masters want said. These are not scientists they are propagandists and should be ignored.
In the last fifteen years, scientists who maintain that we are experiencing man-made global warming have not been able to find it. As such, I must conclude that their conclusion is either faulty or pure BS.
By the way, the hypothesis of political scare scientists in the seventies was that pollution would block out sunlight and an ice age would follow. First, I want my ice age, then we can talk about global warming. Which I will bet that after shivering for a century, most of us would be screaming for it to arrive.
Opinionum commenta delet dies, naturae judicia confirmat.
("Time obliterates the fictions of opinion, and confirms the decisions of nature.)
- Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II, ii: 5.
. . .
Science is not based upon a consensus of opinion; science is based on empirical evidence. See "The cold truth about climate change" by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008) at:The cold truth about climate change - Salon.com
The fact that there is not complete consensus of opinion is inapposite. As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions.
In the last fifteen years, scientists who maintain that we are experiencing man-made global warming have not been able to find it. As such, I must conclude that their conclusion is either faulty or pure BS.
By the way, the hypothesis of political scare scientists......
Two questions:
Are you suggesting that all 9136 scientist are incompetent in finding man-made global warming and, if so what is your evidence?
Are you suggesting all 9136 scientist are all political and if you are what is your evidence?
In the last fifteen years, scientists who maintain that we are experiencing man-made global warming have not been able to find it. As such, I must conclude that their conclusion is either faulty or pure BS.
Is this the equivalent of "a tree fell in the forrest that I did not hear, thus the three did not fall?" Because that is the only conclusion that one can take from such a statement. There has been a great deal of evidence supporting the existence of Global Climate Change and the roll that has been played by human civilization. Your failure to see it doesn't change the facts.
Quote:
By the way, the hypothesis of political scare scientists in the seventies
The global cooling predictions that I think that you are referring to didn't have nearly as much support in the scientific community as it did in a news media driven by using the latest scientific paper, peer reviewed or not, that provides juicy headlines. One such story was the inconclusive results of studies on food dies that drove Red M&M's off the market for decades.
I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2).The number is exactly one.
Moderator cut: against Great Debates guidelines
Go to the NIPPC reports and count for yourself the numbers who disagree. And number is not all inclusive.
What is the insuperable line?
How much evidence must there be
To prove what is plain for all to see?
Must there be unanimous consent -
Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
In the progress of time?
I don't believe that of 9137 scientists, only 1 disputes global warming. I know there is 1 at MIT and 1 at Princeton who don't believe it. If I'm not mistaken, that's 2. I know that in the original IPCC report on global warming, 1993 I think it was, most of the purported scientists who endorsed it were nothing of the kind. They were economists, psychologists, people of that sort.
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.
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.
