Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
OK, here it is. To bring everyone up to speed, you linked to this article [b][url="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/"]published by NASA on its website that promotes and repeats the 97% falsehood.
|
Quote:
|
Here is the abstract of the [b][url="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article"]first footnoted article you quoted....We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.
|
Quote:
|
We find that 66.4 of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
|
My understanding of the above is as follows,
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"
- 66.4% of the scientific papers were about climate studies having nothing to do with man made global warming (example: they were about subjects like will El Niño be strong or weak, what is the Earths average wind speed, ex.ex.)
"32.6% endorsed AGW."
- 32.6% of the papers supported man made global warming.
"0.7% rejected AGW."
- 0.7% of the papers rejected man made global warming.
"0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."
- 0.3% of the papers were uncertain of whats causing global warming.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
- Among papers speaking of global warming 97.1% believed humans are causing global warming.
Quote:
|
In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
|
My understanding of the above is,
The authors of the "66.4 of abstracts that expressed no position on AGW" were invited to express their views on man made global warming. And 97.2% of those responding authors endorsed the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Quote:
|
For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
|
My understanding of the above is, as time passes less and less scientific papers oppose the theory of humans causing global warming.
Quote:
|
As you can see in the first sentence, all this claims to be is a examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since when is a selective evaluation of literature on a topic a proxy for what all people associated with a particular field of study think? It never has been before. And it still is not now.
|
Has there ever been a scientific theory attacked so much by the general public, corporate interests, and American politicians? How else can scientists give the general public information about the climate science community?
And by looking at the current scientific papers from a particular branch of science you can get an understanding of what that scientific community is thinking about, studying, and what theories they are supporting.
Also scientists that are publishing papers are "active scientists", and those who are not publishing papers are "inactive scientists." So this paper give insight into what theories active climate scientists are accepting.
Quote:
|
Also, LOL, 66% of the sample is cast aside right off of the bat. And this is a problem, because this is the segment that skeptics such as myself would be publishing papers in.[/font]
|
I assume the 66% you speak of above is referring to "66.4 of abstracts expressed no position on AGW."
Repeat from above,
"We find that 66.4 of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"
My opinion of the above's meaning, 66.4% of the scientific papers were about climate studies having nothing to do with man made global warming (they covered subjects like will El Niño be strong or weak, what is the Earths average wind speed, ex.ex.)
Quote:
|
As you know very well, skeptics such as myself do believe that the Earth has warmed (depending on when you start the measurements), that the Earth's climate has changed (always has and always will),
|
Skepticism and attacking/questioning scientific theories is perhaps the most important aspect of the evolution of science, and science would not find the truth without it.
Quote:
|
and that humans have probably made some sort of contribution to our planet's climate situation. All of this has been posted here many thousands of times by skeptics such as myself. And you have seen it before quite a few of those times. So do not pretend that you do not understand our position on this.
|
Do you concede that (perhaps) human CO2 releases have altered our planets atmosphere with the possible effect of changing the Earths weather?
Quote:
|
What we skeptics believe is that we do not have sufficient understanding to justify the sort of radical (leftist) agenda being promoted by the supporters of the extreme AGW alarmism hypothesis. In other words, our position is that we have no opinion other than that you people have gone completely over the top about this.
|
According to the National Research Council/The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA,
"Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions, and the outcomes from various climate models."
A 11.5 degree temperature increase would be devastating to our food crop and livestock production (in a time of overpopulation, lack of fresh water, and loss of top soil.)
And there are no scientific academy's or scientific organizations discrediting the above future temperature increase theories.
Future Climate Change | Climate Change | US EPA
And as you say we don't have a good understanding of global warming. Groups like NASA believe global warming could stop deep ocean currents and cover North America in ice 365 days out of the year. (global warming is not something humanity can just ignore. Its better to act on a theory that may not be true, than to risk destroying this whole planet.)
A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science
Quote:
|
Therefore, skeptics who publish papers are to be found among the 66.4% noted above. And that whole segment is cast into the waste bin, straight away. This is clearly unacceptable, and is a biased and not a very scientific approach to evaluating this sort of question.
|
The source says, "0.7% rejected AGW."
-0.7% of the papers rejected man made global warming.
Quote:
|
This is not a statistically sound poll of either all scientists or climate scientists. It is not even clear what kind of scientists this survey is specifically speaking of. And what about the rest of the scientists who have not published papers on this? What about their opinions? Apparently they do not count. They certainly have not been counted here.
|
If those climate scientists wish to express their opinion on the theory of man made global warming they can publish papers amongst their piers. And their opinions will be analyzed by the climate science community.
Quote:
|
All this shows us is that the hardcore ideological zealots who profess to have sound knowledge on this topic and who have published articles documenting their position favor the AGW alarmism hypothesis by 97%. That does not tell us what all scientists or all climate scientists believe on this topic.
|
It tells us what the active climate science community believes about man made global warming.
Quote:
|
I am still waiting for a source on this claim that is scientific and that at the start actually claims to represent the final conclusion that 97% of either all scientists or all climate scientists support the AGW alarmism hypothesis. Certainly this study does not even purport to do that.
|
As far as I am concerned you provided that source.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
The above source has citations, references, and figures. It contains an Introduction, Methodology, Results,
Sources of uncertainty, and Comparisons with previous studies.
Chad.
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.
