Sunday, February 27, 2005
CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING?
From SEPP.org's latest email (if you are interested in this stuff you can sign on for a regular email from Professor Fred Singer there).
If the consensus position is only held by (3/4 X 3/4 X 1/4 X 1/10 X 60%) 0.8% of scientists how exactly is that a scientific consensus? (It may be a political consensus in the same way that Lysenkoism in the USSR was - except more disastrous)
Particularly revealing were the almost sensational results of a surveyThis is part of a report about a German scientific conference with, unusually representatives from both sides. If 1/4 of European climate researchers don't believe that the majority of any warming is caused by mankind then how many of the rest believe there is historically unusual warming at all (my guess 2/3rds of the 3/4s). How many of that rest believe it is remotely enough to start melting ice (my guess 1/4). How many of those believe Kyoto is an effective response (guess 1/10th) If this is what pro-Kyoto Europeans think & we know many American & Russian scientists are less convinced what proportion of world scientists agree (60%)?
conducted by Prof. Bray among some 500 German and European climate
researchers. The results show impressively that the much- repeated claim of
a "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic global warming is a carefully
constructed piece of fiction: According to the survey results, some 25% of
European climate researchers who took part in the survey still doubt
whether most of the moderate warming during the last 150 years can be
attributed to human activities and CO2 emissions.
If the consensus position is only held by (3/4 X 3/4 X 1/4 X 1/10 X 60%) 0.8% of scientists how exactly is that a scientific consensus? (It may be a political consensus in the same way that Lysenkoism in the USSR was - except more disastrous)
Comments:
<< Home
"Amazingly enough, there actually IS such an artificial phenomenon as Global Warming: It occurs every two to four years as massive amounts of hot air and bullshit are released into the atmosphere and environment by politicians and bureaucrats desperate to keep their synchy "jobs" in an election year!"
-Earnest Truth
-Earnest Truth
# posted by 
: February 27, 2005
: February 27, 2005
couldnt you find any real figures to use? guesswork doesnt offer much of any use to either end of the debate, i reckon.
i think that enough people have collected enough evidence we can look at that it makes sense to do so.
incidentally, i dont think i've seen anything that succesfully refutes that global warming is happening. have you?
could you link to something i can read?
i think that enough people have collected enough evidence we can look at that it makes sense to do so.
incidentally, i dont think i've seen anything that succesfully refutes that global warming is happening. have you?
could you link to something i can read?
If you mean real figures of the opinions of all climate scientists on whether they believe in warming & to what degree - no I don't think it has been done, certainly not by the warming enthusiasts.
Nobody on the sceptical side suggests we should not look at the evidence. Only the enthusiasts say that on the grounds that "the debate is over".
If you are looking for evidence I suggest you follow the Link to Professor Singer's SEPP where there is a vast amount of refutatun of anthropogenic & catastrophic warming.
There are also a number of other threads on "climate change" on this site which you may find useful.
Nobody on the sceptical side suggests we should not look at the evidence. Only the enthusiasts say that on the grounds that "the debate is over".
If you are looking for evidence I suggest you follow the Link to Professor Singer's SEPP where there is a vast amount of refutatun of anthropogenic & catastrophic warming.
There are also a number of other threads on "climate change" on this site which you may find useful.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
# posted by : April 07, 2007
: April 07, 2007
This is a very old story & that the Luddites stand by it proves how very far from honesty they are. The answer also shows how much the alleged "consensus" depends on media self-censorship:
Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928 abstracts mentioning "climate change," published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the "consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some 12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117 articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his had been widely reported on the Internet, his paper would not be published.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/December%2030.htm
Post a Comment
Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928 abstracts mentioning "climate change," published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the "consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some 12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117 articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his had been widely reported on the Internet, his paper would not be published.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/December%2030.htm
<< Home
