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.
Thankfully liberals seem to find homage in coastal cities and regions (snickers). They're not about to move to fly-over country because of some great flood that's going to sweep their progressive bastions away.
I'm fairly conservative in business . .free market, etc. LIbetarian more than anything, govt hands off
Yet, I find nothing to dispute with the scientific conesus on global warming. it seems that these fake "conservatives" i.e. I watch Fox News, so i'm conservatives. . are just hiding their heads in the sand.
At the end of the day, whats it matter? As a libetarian i say if you live in MIama you should pay foryourself once the city starts going from 100 year to 10 year floods. I think anyone on a costal place should never get bailed out by the federal govt.
Thats what this sand will come down to. Bunch of numb nuts in Floridia itching their heads when Miami keeps getting flooded year after year or water reclaims some of it. . .than asking for federal hands out (just like Christie did) when they have to pay the COST of the new enviorement
Today's republicans are hiding their hands in the sand until it comes to asking for money
Our team agreed upon definitions of categories to put the papers in: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no opinion, and implicit or explicit rejection or minimization of the human influence, and began the long process of rating over 12,000 abstracts.
Quote:
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.
So out of the 12,000 we deemed to be related to climate change 4,000 of those papers took a stance on who caused it and 97.1% say it's human caused.
In other words 32.3667% of the abstracts who took a stance make the claim that it's human caused. the other 67.6333%, well, just forget about those. They decided to not make any claims about who or what is responsible. You know, because the people involved in those don't really care about, or have the guts, to make any claims about who or what is responsible for it. All that matters is that those who will make a claim it's man-made are the loudest ones of the group (in a typical liberal fashion).
So out of the 12,000 we deemed to be related to climate change 4,000 of those papers took a stance on who caused it and 97.1% say it's human caused.
In other words 32.3667% of the abstracts who took a stance make the claim that it's human caused. the other 67.6333%, well, just forget about those. They decided to not make any claims about who or what is responsible. You know, because the people involved in those don't really care about, or have the guts, to make any claims about who or what is responsible for it. All that matters is that those who will make a claim it's man-made are the loudest ones of the group (in a typical liberal fashion).
Selective reading. Read more from the same link.
Quote:
Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below. Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24.
This guy is a geochemist and taught geology for twenty years. Now go back in this thread and tell me how many called this entire thing that I posted nonsense because of that very thing. lol
"James L. Powell was born in Berea, Kentucky and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology.
He holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College.
He taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 years."
I see what you did there, instead of replying you added another graph. Kind of like cheating isn't it? Just so it's clear to others my reply was in response to the black pie graph. The second graph is not accurate becsue it only represents the 1/3 of papers that took a position on AGW.
This thread premise is garbage. Most scientists absolutely think global warming is something to be concerned about. I know many, and while we don't know exactly what will happen, we don't think global warming is a nonissue.
You're obviously lost in a fog of confusion, as I've made no reference to any study other than the OP's.
So you have never referred to the 97% studies or claimed consensus? If you have not referred to consensus based on those "97%" studies be it Cook or others (the others are just as silly in their methodology), then you have never claimed "consensus" at all then? If you have not, then understandable, but if you have ever appealed to such claims of "consensus", understand that such claims are rooted in these politically motivated surveys and are not scientific in the least.
So... while I can respect an objection to concluding any specific meaning to a given side that you may make concerning this study (obviously, by reading it the only conclusion you can make is the specific group it tested holds a position that it classified accordingly), I wonder if your objection is reasonable or founded in a deep rooted belief of a given bias?
Unlike the pro-oil followers in this thread, I'd like an unbiased study, instead of a "survey" where those chosen to receive it and those who returned it may or may not be cherry-picked by an interested party.
You see, biased "results" aren't results at all. Merely corporate propaganda. That may or may not be true with this one. The sources of funding were not made clear in the published "survey." But I suspect that it quite possibly could be fossil fuel.
Interesting choice of comments, could you provide a "study" to which you deem "unbiased"? I think by doing such you could very clearly show us all here what your "conditions" for objectivity are.
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.
