Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

Shit, You mean Richard Muller is in on the conspiracy now too? They're buying off the skeptics left and right. What will we do when instead of 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW, it becomes 100%?

ok, i've seen this stat that 97% of......
show me where you get this bogus statistic from.
and if you can't maybe you should refrain in the future.

[gwb72tii]

anthropogenic global warming has been proven- i'm wrong

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/sho...ostal-charges/

[herbivor]

ok, i've seen this stat that 97% of......
show me where you get this bogus statistic from.
and if you can't maybe you should refrain in the future.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/sho...ostal-charges/

Would these back to back posts be considered irony or hypocrisy?

[rwh11385]

We already have the technology to solve the problem, but it costs more than fossil fuel, or at least the upfront cost.

I assume from context (comparing cost to fossil fuel) that you are talking about renewable sources. Yes, we have them, as well as yes they need to come down in price to allow greater adoption... but we'd still have an elevated amount of CO2 if in fact human-responsible global warming was accurate. Therefore, even when we get all of our power, locomotive, plastics/foams, etc. from renewable or sustainable sources, we'd still have need to reduce CO2 that already exists.

With a growing number of people and fewer trees, an artificial photosynthesis process would certainly allow us to fix the atmospheric composition. Or if people still burn dinosaurs, they could simply pay to negate their impact.

ok, i've seen this stat that 97% of......
show me where you get this bogus statistic from.
and if you can't maybe you should refrain in the future.

[nando]

the oceans would probably absorb most of the extra carbon in 100 years if we stopped increasing it right now, but at the cost of great damage to coral reefs (which seems inevitable in either scenario).

oh wait, there's probably an ocean acidification and coral reef destroying conspiracy too!

[gwb72tii]

Would these back to back posts be considered irony or hypocrisy?

i always try to quote a reputable source, as you do
but the 97% figure is pulled out of a hat and is BS

[rwh11385]

i always try to quote a reputable source, as you do
but the 97% figure is pulled out of a hat and is BS

Maybe you aren't trying hard enough to find that data point (or at all)? Don't say a figure doesn't have backing without looking into it to be sure. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass (per usual).

Have you ever tried a website called www.google.com?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.UCGnAbRSRTN

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

In the study, the authors wrote: "This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change."

Source for the USA Today article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
Expert credibility in climate change

From the abstract:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

In layman's terms (for you), that means that anyone who is credible (and 97% of researchers in total) believe in human-made climate change. That's the exact statistic that herbivor used, backed up by source data.

[Farbin Kaiber]

What the fuck does that even matter, its like saying 97% of e30 guys think Ary's products are utter shit. If 97% of all scientists polled said that, it would be different. Any specialized group in regards to anything is a pool of incestious belief and opinion.

[rwh11385]

What the fuck does that even matter, its like saying 97% of e30 guys think Ary's products are utter shit. If 97% of all scientists polled said that, it would be different. Any specialized group in regards to anything is a pool of incestious belief and opinion.

Why would the opinion of a scientist who studied tapeworms have an informed opinion about global warming?
Why would the Fox Body Mustang crowd have a qualified assessment about Ary's product quality?


Besides, the point was George is lazy and believes all statistics are made up, except for when they are in his favor.

[2761377]

quoted by r3v's resident scholar-

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

quoted from scientific journals international website-

Many authors and researchers expressed concerns about the fairness and integrity of the peer review process in traditional scholarly publishing. Many scholars feel that the peer review system in the traditional publishing world is plagued by elitism, bias, abuse, and conflict of interest.

Richard Horton, editor of the medical journal The Lancet, has said "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong"

mr. horton makes a strong point. not to mention the politics of academia, since this issue is a leftist hot button.

[Fusion]

I like how this is very carefully worded

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely" that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

...so that if whenever in the future their bullshittery is again debunked or proven to be tweeked for (any) political reason, they can just twist everything again. Or use rwh's tactic and call it sarcasm.

Btw: This wouldn't happen to be the "study", where most of the mentioned 1300 "experts" didn't recall ever being questioned and some of the enlisted were staff, students etc. Would it? Yes I lack interest in googling the answer.

[rwh11385]

quoted by r3v's resident scholar-

quoted from scientific journals international website-

mr. horton makes a strong point. not to mention the politics of academia, since this issue is a leftist hot button.

So, this isn't even that thinly veiled of an anti-science argument...

[frankenbeemer]

From the same source, different article:

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise.

Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse.

[Kershaw]

I like how this is very carefully worded

welcome to the world of science, where things evolve based on new data. that's why when scientists write things down, they say, "this is the best idea we've got so far." not, "this is absolutely the answer 100%."

science is not like religion where the answer is believed 100%, scientists understand that there is always a possibility, however minute, that they are wrong.

[Fusion]

Ah, yes, than I must be right. Apart from it being "google research", USA Today lied:

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely"...

welcome to the world of science, where things evolve based on new data. that's why when scientists write things down, they say, "this is the best idea we've got so far." not, "this is absolutely the answer 100%."

science is not like religion where the answer is believed 100%, scientists understand that there is always a possibility, however minute, that they are wrong.

You're right, but none of that applies to AWG because certain misused data can be a trigger to spend taxpayer money on dumb shit.

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth's warming over the second half of the 20th century.

There simply wasn't a credible scientific alternative to the theory that the earth is flat.

And noone actually agreed with the IPCC, they just twisted it all around and used others' research (which should'nt be opionionated) to create a false opinion, probably without prior consent to do so.