REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Less than half of scientific papers support Gorebal Warming?

POSTED BY: BARNSTORMER
UPDATED: Friday, September 21, 2007 06:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3470
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:25 AM

BARNSTORMER


I thought there was supposed to be a consensus.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scient
ists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm


Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm not sure I'd support Gorebal warming (sic) either.

In any case, I thought I'd add a comment about the "1934 is warmest year on record". I looked at the corrected NASA, and there are a few honest things I can say about it:

1) 1934 WAS the warmest year, but not by much.

2) If you look at trends, no below-average years (with three exceptions) occurred after 1985, and no below-average 5-year average occurred after 1983 (no exceptions).

3) Plotting the data on an x-y graph and doing a linear regression still shows a clear upward trend, no matter that 1934 spiked high. So an honest discussion of the corrected data would not dispute the upward trend.

I suspect one of the climate drivers is soot particles from coal, charcoal and dung fires, jungle clearing (by fire) and forest fires and diesel soot
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.""

I've read enough papers to know what the 'neutral' category looks like. They're not "refusing" to address the cause. They're not addressing it, as that's considered a given. They're addressing effects. Here are some:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702145431.htm
Death Rates Will Rise Because Of Global Warming, Researchers Warn

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm
Global Warming Means More Snow For Great Lakes Region

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050507094531.htm
Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030714091843.htm
UC Riverside Researcher Says Global Warming May Threaten Endangered Species

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050805175531.htm
Global Warming's Effects Extend To World's Smallest Butterfly

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030314071607.htm
Global Warming Could Trigger Cascade Of Climatic Changes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050922015634.htm
Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:07 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
I thought there was supposed to be a consensus.


There was...just not one we all agree on.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, Hero's got his head in the sand as usual. The only good evidence is evidence he agrees with. Rush to judgement and all that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.""

I've read enough papers to know what the 'neutral' category looks like. They're not "refusing" to address the cause. They're not addressing it, as that's considered a given.



"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%."

Seems pretty clear from this part of the quote, which you somehow managed to leave out, that the "implicit" endorsement segment Dr. Schulte refers to should cover the papers, such as the ones you cited, which consider global warming as a given.

So do you know specifically which papers Dr. Schulte classified as 'neutral' should be in the 'implicit endorsement' category? Or ar you just calling him a liar based on supposition?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:58 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, Hero's got his head in the sand as usual. The only good evidence is evidence he agrees with. Rush to judgement and all that.


There's no rush to judgement. I don't claim to be a climatologist. All I know is there's no consensus. I think we should all agree on that, but you wont even acknowledge that there is disagreement over whether or not there is a disagreement. My head might be in the sand, but most liberals have there's stuck somewhere I bit darker and less pleasant.

I've noticed lately since the dire predictions seem to be falling flat (hurricanes, record heat, rising tides, tsunamis, even fracking earthquakes), that the new term is climate change. That way if it rains, doesn't rain, snows, doesn't snow, warm, cold, hurricane, no hurricane, earthquake, locust, bee sting, bird crap, whatever happens its all CLIMATE CHANGE...and the solution is ending American industry, high taxes, and strict control of every aspect of a your life.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer

"accepting the consensus without explicit statement"

No, I didn't ignore that statement at all. AS I SAID BEFORE (you gotta learn how to read, boy) there are many papers that simply don't address the issue in any way.

There were many examples of explicit agreement that said - human-caused global warming through CO2 emissions. There were many examples of implicit agreement I found (and didn't include) that went like this - to reduce global warming humans need to reduce CO2 output/ find CO2 sinks. They didn't explicitly say "human CO2 emission causes global warming", but their tenor made the assumption obvious.

OTOH there are MANY papers that simply leave the issue unaddressed - like the ones I cited, above.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:10 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


I have'nt looked into this so may be wrong but a friend reminded me yesterday that the Ice-caps on Mars have also been receeding in recent years.
Is Mars experiencing Global warming? If so it's unlikely to be being caused by humans so what's the reason?
Coincidence? or,as I suspect, The Sun.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:23 PM

LEADB


You forget: Mars global warming occurred -only after- Earth vehicles were sent there; clearly, that's the cause! Ok, just kidding, couldn't resist.

Link of interest: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
Caution, quick look suggests the site is biased against global warming (could be wrong). Interesting read in any case.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Sigh ...

The Mars southern cap is receding, the northern one is stable. Some planets and moons are undergoing apparent warming, others, significant cooling.

The sun's output is estimated to be causing 3% (maximum) global warming, not 30% like the article says.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I just thought I'd stick this here -

Homer's Ithaca Possibly Found Thanks To New Geologic Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181034.htm

Wait a minute ! Those science types don't know nothin' ! Homer's from Springfield ... wait a minute ...

... what's that you're saying ?

... A different Homer ?


DOH !




***************************************************************

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:34 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

"accepting the consensus without explicit statement"

No, I didn't ignore that statement at all. AS I SAID BEFORE ... there are many papers that simply don't address the issue in any way.

There were many examples of explicit agreement that said - human-caused global warming through CO2 emissions. There were many examples of implicit agreement I found (and didn't include) that went like this - to reduce global warming humans need to reduce CO2 output/ find CO2 sinks. They didn't explicitly say "human CO2 emission causes global warming", but their tenor made the assumption obvious.

OTOH there are MANY papers that simply leave the issue unaddressed - like the ones I cited, above.



You mean these?

-Death Rates Will Rise Because Of Global Warming, Researchers Warn
-Global Warming Means More Snow For Great Lakes Region
-Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend
-UC Riverside Researcher Says Global Warming May Threaten Endangered Species
-Global Warming's Effects Extend To World's Smallest Butterfly
-Global Warming Could Trigger Cascade Of Climatic Changes
-Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated

So according to your understanding, papers which state "Global Warming is going to cause X disaster." don't implicitly accept the 'consensus' that Global Warming is real?

Remember that according to the article, "Not only does it (consensus) not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming."

Actually, without seeing Dr.Schulte's actual data we can't be sure, but it seems to me that an article which states:
"The latest issue of Conservation Biology examines the viability of the Sinai baton blue and the results of human population pressures. The study predicts that in the absence of global warming, grazing, and plant collection (three activities directly linked to humans) the world's smallest butterfly would persist for at least 200 years." pretty much takes GLobal Warming as a given.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+
Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change""

The question isn't 'does it exist' it's 'are humans causing it'. Geezer smacks forehead DOH !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:42 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I just thought I'd stick this here -
Homer's Ithaca Possibly Found Thanks To New Geologic Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181034.htm
Wait a minute ! Those science types don't know nothin' ! Homer's from Springfield ... wait a minute ...
... what's that you're saying ?
... A different Homer ?
DOH !



These can't be the same type of scientists as the Global Warming supporters. They talk about "possibly found" and "evidence to support their hypothesis". Nothing in there about "consensus" or "settled science" or "no doubt".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:53 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change""

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change"


Which is reported in the Daily Tech article as Dr. Oreskes' criteria in her earlier search. Dr. Schulte's criteria for consensus is reported as believing humans are a cause of Global Warming, even if not the 'primary' cause.

Quote:

The question isn't 'does it exist' it's 'are humans causing it'.

When one of the studies you cite as 'neutral' states "The study predicts that in the absence of global warming, grazing, and plant collection (three activities directly linked to humans) the world's smallest butterfly would persist for at least 200 years." I can't avoid the feeling that they believe 'humans are causing it'.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:58 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Sigh ...

The Mars southern cap is receding, the northern one is stable. Some planets and moons are undergoing apparent warming, others, significant cooling.

The sun's output is estimated to be causing 3% (maximum) global warming, not 30% like the article says.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."




Sigh.....

And there I was thinking that the smoke signals of the little-green-men were causing greenhouse gasses.

Oh well.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:44 AM

JONGSSTRAW


The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
1) Dumb & Dumber, fill my head with your thoughts & lead me types
2) Desperately seeking relevence in the world types
3) Saavy capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
...
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick



Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:42 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
...
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick



Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

"Keep the Shiny side up"


No...can't say that I did.
I posted that in reference to the current flood of advertising that hawks a particular product, and then closes with..." and it's good for the environment."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I've noticed lately since the dire predictions seem to be falling flat (hurricanes, record heat, rising tides, tsunamis, even fracking earthquakes), that the new term is climate change.
Well, I don't know who predicted earthquakes. THAT certainly isn't a scientific "consensus"! In fact, so many people here in CA talk about "earthquake weather" that scientific papers have been pubslished specifically addressing this issue, and what they say is There Is No Such Thing As Earthquake Weather

So aside from earthquakes... the models predict that the AVERAGE temperature will rise but in some areas (the polar regions) it will rise by a whole boatload (that's a scientific term!), in other areas (the equator) you will hardly notice the difference, and other areas (notably Europe, if the Gulf Stream slows down) it may get colder. So far, the polar regions ARE warming a LOT more than other areas. I'm in touch with someone in Alaska... they had MUD and rain in November... unheard of before.

Same with rainfall... more intense bursts and less snowpack. Basically more extreme weather events. Over the past decade, the number of category 4 -5 hurricanes has increased. This year, not so much. But just as 1934 was the warmest year, we are due a few quiet years even under global warming. It sure would be nice if you educated yourself a bit on the topic. But I suppose that would be too much to expect!



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:04 AM

CAUSAL



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?
Well, you know what they say: It's an ill wind that blows no one any good. Like I said in the "News from Iraq" thread, which turned into a loooong discussion on vehicle fuel economy... there's actually long-term money to be made in environmentally-friendly products. So when the braver capitalists take advantage of that, you guys.... the pro-capitalists... suddenly find that it's a bad thing? Hmmm... NOPE. No double standard here!

Do you know which sector has been quietly shitting its pants for the last decade over climate change? ... The insurance sector. Why don't you go snoop around in there for a while, see if you can find anything to smear environmentalists with?

BTW GEEZER- I know that the Republicans pushed mightily for the "energy deregulation" that made Enron possible, so what was Enron's effect on Clinton... if any? Or do you just prefer to leave things at the "smear by implication" stage?

You know, someone with a name a lot like yours posts long and loud about not implicating Bush until the trial is over. Innocent until proven guilty. Let the system work and all that. That wouldn't be you, would it? Someone as intelligent and rational as you wouldn't have a big ole double standard hanging like a huge wart on the end of their nose, would they? Nah...... Couldn't be!




---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's right, you tell him! If he doesn't agree with the rest of us, he's just a plain moron!

Oh wait, that's right, all the same charges could be levelled against you. But you happen to enjoy the position of being in the majority on these boards, and that means that those standards don't apply to you, right? Sorry, I forgot!

If you don't know anything about me by now, you should have realized that I'm willing to bird-dog down a topic to the bitter end. I generally like to stay on a point until it's resolved, without bringing in extraneous points or name-calling. And I have on occasion even admitted to being wrong. But sometimes I just don't have time for along, well-researched post. I'll get back to Hero later with more detail. Consider that post to be the exception rather than the rule.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:23 AM

CAUSAL


Damn, I didn't erase that in time. Sorry.

Granted, you do know what you're talking about most times. But what I find troublesome isn't anybody's ability to back up their position with a good argument, but the way people approach those who disagree with them.

I guess my frustration is this: if you hold a minority view on these boards (whether you're a social conservative, a Republican, a philosophical theist, a Christian, or practically any other non-majority outlook), there are very few people who will actually talk with you. Most will simply mock you and tell you you're a moron. Now, I'll readily admit that some of those who hold the minority opinions do so in loud and obnoxious ways, but hey--so do some of those in the majority (and I'll not name any names). I'll even go so far as to admit that some of the minority folks hold some truly nutty positions--but again, some of the majority folks take the majority views to ridiculous extremes. Unfortunately, though, very little tolerance is extended to those of us with beliefs/acceptances/worldviews that deviate from what is the norm on FFF.net boards. I actually saw a post where one of our own (a frequent poster, no less) talked about how he'd enjoy seeing Christians burned at the stake. I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So when the braver capitalists take advantage of that, you guys.... the pro-capitalists... suddenly find that it's a bad thing? Hmmm... NOPE. No double standard here!



Did I say it was a bad thing? Just responding to Jongstraw's comment about businesses taking advantage of the furor with an example.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:24 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Damn, I didn't erase that in time. Sorry.

Granted, you do know what you're talking about most times. But what I find troublesome isn't anybody's ability to back up their position with a good argument, but the way people approach those who disagree with them.

I guess my frustration is this: if you hold a minority view on these boards (whether you're a social conservative, a Republican, a philosophical theist, a Christian, or practically any other non-majority outlook), there are very few people who will actually talk with you. Most will simply mock you and tell you you're a moron. Now, I'll readily admit that some of those who hold the minority opinions do so in loud and obnoxious ways, but hey--so do some of those in the majority (and I'll not name any names). I'll even go so far as to admit that some of the minority folks hold some truly nutty positions--but again, some of the majority folks take the majority views to ridiculous extremes. Unfortunately, though, very little tolerance is extended to those of us with beliefs/acceptances/worldviews that deviate from what is the norm on FFF.net boards. I actually saw a post where one of our own (a frequent poster, no less) talked about how he'd enjoy seeing Christians burned at the stake. I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.


I know how you feel Causal, but do not let them get to you. The ones that use insulting names or worse, shit... just ignore them. Some of them are civil, most are not. Just about all my posts are bird-dogged by some pompous punks here with nothing better to do in their pathetic lives than mock and hurl insults...screeeeeewww them! Your posts are great...let the little rude bitches get their jollies off if that's what makes 'em happy. Don't leave these boards!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it ..."

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, since this is a discussion board, don't come here looking for acceptance because you prolly won't find it! But it should be possible to have a discussion w/o having to wade thru the kinds of rhetorical shit that a lot of people bring to the board. Sometimes I have to try very very very hard to keep my snark to a minimum when ppl post cr*p. Like... little rude bitches
Quote:

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered
Well, that's because you're a terrorist-loving liberal faggot who hates america and really should either go live with those stinky cheese-eaters or be in Gitmo to be non-tortured by waterboarding doncha know!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:51 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


When you think about it, statements like these from people like Jongstraw certainly don't fit into the pointless insult category:

"The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
1) Dumb & Dumber, fill my head with your thoughts & lead me types
2) Desperately seeking relevance in the world types
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick"

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, that's just fact-based assessment.

Anyway, Jongsstraw et al... I think I've made my point. I personally don't care to hear "who started it" but it seems to me that some of the folks who cry long and loud about how "unfairly" they're treated haven't looked in a mirror lately. That goes across the board no matter on which side of the ideaological divide you may happen to land.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Did I say it was a bad thing? Just responding to Jongstraw's comment about businesses taking advantage of the furor with an example
And your little dig at Clinton was just a little dig at Clinton. THAT shit is still stuck to your shoe. I'll be sure to bring up "innocent until proven guilty" at every oppty from now on. And maybe now we can get back to the topic at-hand? What was written was this:
Quote:

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

First of all, I find it interesting that the exact same release is repeated across all of the sites. I have one question that won't be able to be answered until the actual paper comes out.

Altho Klaus-Martin this researcher used the same "database" and "search terms" as Orsekes, there is no indication that he used the same method of categorizing the papers' general viewpoints. Furthermore, there is no real definition of what he means by "neutral". Until the paper is actually published and people get to compare some of the actual papers with HIS characterization of them and with Oreskes' there's no way to figure out if this is an apples-to-apples comparison. I wouldn't be doubtful except that I've seen plenty of misleading claims (1934 was the warmest year!) to make me look rather closely at all claims on the topic. Also, if you look at some of the other posts on that site (“German Scientists Declare Speed of Light Broken”) they seem to lean towards tabloid sensationalism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:27 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.


That is sad. You are one of the few sane, rational people I enjoy reading on this board.

Unfortunately, I know what you mean. The happy times I post on this board now are the ones when no one responds. When I get that email that someone has responded to my post, I get that sick knot of dread in my stomach, in anticipation of the negativity and deprecation I am likely to find when I click on the link. Why do I still come? I don't know.

Back to the thread, I thought I would share a quote from my husband's boss (also a phd scientist) at the Dept of Energy on global warming:

"Anyone who says that the data conclusively shows that human activities cause global warming is not a scientist.
Anyone who says the data conclusively shows that human activities cannot be the cause of global warming is also not a scientist."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That is sad. You are one of the few sane, rational people I enjoy reading on this board.
CTS- I repeat my reponse. This is a discussion board. If you come here looking for support or agreement you'll be disappointed. What you SHOULD be able to find is emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact-based conversation even if it disagrees with your viewpoint. If that kind of discussion should happen to make hash of your viewpoint... would that still bother you? I guess what I'm wondering is... is it the tone or the content that you find distressing?
Quote:

Unfortunately, I know what you mean. The happy times I post on this board now are the ones when no one responds. When I get that email that someone has responded to my post, I get that sick knot of dread in my stomach, in anticipation of the negativity and deprecation I am likely to find when I click on the link. Why do I still come? I don't know.
Possibly for the few sane voices like mine??


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:54 AM

KANEMAN


Wow!! Look how quick a thread can become a tissue to cry into. Pathetic......

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:54 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it ..."

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered.



Then I would expect that you, of all people, would treat those in the minority with respect, given that you've been on the receiving end.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:23 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What you SHOULD be able to find is emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact-based conversation even if it disagrees with your viewpoint.

In my view, emotionally neutral is as rare on this board as snow in Alabama. Not unheard of, but noteworthy when it happens. I am not afraid of disagreement; in fact, as a divergent thinker, I thrive on it.

Quote:

is it the tone or the content that you find distressing?
Tone, of course. I don't agree with Causal on a great deal of things. But he is one of the few who can discuss disagreeable content in an emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact based conversation.

Quote:

Possibly for the few sane voices like mine??
And you too, of course.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Then I would expect that you, of all people, would treat those in the minority with respect, given that you've been on the receiving end."

And I do - till they slag me personally or start defaming whole groups of people. Then they get it back - majority or minority.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


RUE
Quote:

Then they get it back - majority or minority
Eh... don't slag 'em back.

CTS
Quote:

Possibly for the few sane voices like mine?? - Signy
And you too, of course.-CTS

Why thanks! *bats eyelashes*

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
And your little dig at Clinton was just a little dig at Clinton. THAT shit is still stuck to your shoe.


Ken Lay did lobby the Clinton White House in favor of the Kyoto Accords. Probably because Clinton was the President at the time it came up. Why so touchy?

Quote:

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007.


To check on this, first I went and looked for Dr. Oreskes' paper. What I found was actually an essay in Science Magazine based on an earlier lecture. Here's a link to the page. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
Note that it is just one page, and only about one column is actually devoted to her analysis. So it's really pretty hard to determine her methodology in identifying the papers she considered supportive, either explicitly or implicitly, of the consensus on 'global climate change' (Her actual search term, as noted in the erratum to his article, dated 21 Jan, 2005.)

Quote:

Altho Klaus-Martin this researcher used the same "database" and "search terms" as Orsekes, there is no indication that he used the same method of categorizing the papers' general viewpoints.

And unless Dr. Oreskes has revealed her methodology in another paper somewhere, we'll still not know after Dr. Schulte's paper is published.

BTW, do you know Dr. Schulte? Otherwise it might be considered as demeaning or denegrating to refer to him by just his first name and drop the honorific 'Doctor'. I know you wouldn't do something like that on purpose.

Quote:

Furthermore, there is no real definition of what he means by "neutral". Until the paper is actually published and people get to compare some of the actual papers with HIS characterization of them and with Oreskes' there's no way to figure out if this is an apples-to-apples comparison.


Based on the article, Dr. Schulte defined neutral as "refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis".

Dr. Oreskes' paper states:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position."

So she doesn't seem to have have a category for 'neutral' papers. This will make your comparison difficult indeed.

Looks like you haven't done the due diligence on Dr. Oreskes' original work that you want to do on Dr. Schulte's paper. Once his paper is through peer-review (A step Dr. Oreskes seems to have thought not necessary) and published we'll see if his methodology is a little more transparent.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well of course, we will have to wait until the paper is published and then try to do a fair comparison. I think that was my point. I'm glad you agree. AFA "neutral" papers are concerned, does that mean the authors explicitly refuse, or is it something they just fail to address? Again, we will have to wait and see.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:04 PM

CAUSAL


Tone. I can deal with people disagreeing with me. What I can't take is not being afforded basic dignity. Note that agreeing with me is not what I consider "basic dignity" (in spite of your implications to the contrary). What is basic dignity is respecting people's basic right to make decisions on their own--insteading of mocking their beliefs; like, for instance, accusing people of having their heads stuck in the sand. That may seem accurate from your point of view, but that can't possibly be the best way of putting it. Both sides are guilty of inflammatory language. It's ugly no matter who says it. The thing that drives me nuts is that those in the majority aren't called on it (at least not nearly as often) in spite of the fact that there are those on that side who are equally culpable. Maybe that's because being in the majority makes them feel above criticism?

Perhaps there's a reason why those with minority views continue to leave the boards other than the fact that they're in the minority.

But I'm sure that I'll be attacked merely for making these observations, so why do I bother?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Both sides are guilty of inflammatory language. It's ugly no matter who says it.
I agree
Quote:

The thing that drives me nuts is that those in the majority aren't called on it (at least not nearly as often) in spite of the fact that there are those on that side who are equally culpable.
Not sure I agree on either count. In general I find MOST people "in the majority" are pretty reasonable people: HKCavalier {yes, HK) FredG, Soup, Fletch2, Mal4Prez, LeadB, SargeX, me (I try anyway). Yeah Rue "goes off" and shouldn't. I know Rue and have expressed myself off the board about that. But aside from you and Finn, most of conservatives here are downright trollish. So I think you're reacting to a very few posts and not really seeing the overall picture.
Quote:

But I'm sure that I'll be attacked merely for making these observations, so why do I bother?
Do you consider my reply an attack?


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:41 PM

CAUSAL


Meh. Maybe I'm just bitter today. I'm not too old to be so sensitive. I'm young to be so crotchety. That's what gets me through days, anyway!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:45 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well of course, we will have to wait until the paper is published and then try to do a fair comparison. I think that was my point. I'm glad you agree. AFA "neutral" papers are concerned, does that mean the authors explicitly refuse, or is it something they just fail to address? Again, we will have to wait and see.



Sorry, but you can't do a 'fair' comparison, because Dr. Oreskes' one page essay does not go into any depth about how she analyzed the papers relating to 'global climate change'. There's nothing in her paper to compare anything to. She just states conclusions without any information on how she arrived at them.

Dr. Oreskes also fails to include 'neutral' as a category. Does that mean that if a paper she reviewed didn't explicitly disagree with the 'consensus', she considered it an implicit agreement? She has no place in her methodology for papers which say "We don't know if the consensus is valid or not".

Once again, actually look at Dr. Oreskes' paper. Decide if you would accept such a piece of work, without any description of how results were obtained, as a valid report relating to the regulatory work you do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Back to the papers - usually they come with a list of key words/ search terms. No one could possible read though all those papers, or even skim through them. Not only that, but services/ programs that do literature searches don't search the papers - they test key word lists, or at best, abstracts.

It would be interesting to see exactly how each was done, but I suspect it was through literature search programs of key words and/ or abstracts.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back
AAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!! *tears hair out* Does that mean you have to have a tantrum at your kid when they're having a tantrum????

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sorry, but you can't do a 'fair' comparison, because Dr. Oreskes' one page essay does not go into any depth about how she analyzed the papers relating to 'global climate change'. There's nothing in her paper to compare anything to. She just states conclusions without any information on how she arrived at them. Dr. Oreskes also fails to include 'neutral' as a category. Does that mean that if a paper she reviewed didn't explicitly disagree with the 'consensus', she considered it an implicit agreement? She has no place in her methodology for papers which say "We don't know if the consensus is valid or not".

Once again, actually look at Dr. Oreskes' paper. Decide if you would accept such a piece of work, without any description of how results were obtained, as a valid report relating to the regulatory work you do.

I'm assuming that there is a substantive paper somewhere that will be ferreted out in time.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL