http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad So, now what. What are the next steps in this issue. Do we keep insisting on government controls on production based on a non existent consensus or do we go back to the drawing board?
Again I have to ask why people are so determined to continue to create as much pollution as possible? Frankly I don't care if humans have any effect on global warming or not. I do know that anything we do to make for a cleaner environment is a good thing. It shouldn't be something we'll only do if it is going to make for nicer weather, it should be something we do because earth is a pretty cool place and we really don't want to ******** it up.
Well I'll go with one issue. There is a push to ban incandescent light bulbs in place of fluorescent bulbs. The theory is that the fluorescent bulb uses more power and thus creates more polution. In fact, the manufacture process of CF's uses more energy than the process for your typical A-lamp. Plus, while an incandescent bulb is filled with inert gasses, a CF is filled with some nasty shit. So there is no clear cut winner here. But based on this "consensus" apparently the inc. lamp has to go. Now that there is no consensus, I'm hoping that we could re-visit this and many other issues, including how such decisions effect develping nations' ability to fend for themselves and sometimes just all around asthetic decisions. I mean CF's have shit color rendering and aren't typically dimable. I want my reds wicked red and sexy dark in my house.
The CFs I use in my house seem to put of better light than the incandescent bulbs. Have you tried the ones with the glass bulb around the actual fluorescent part? I think that helps. As for the rest of it. There are small amounts of "nasty shit" in the CFs, but if you dispose of them properly (every seven years when they burn out) it really isn't a problem. Which brings me to the manufacturing. The CF may take more energy to make, but do they end up making up for that in the energy they save over the span of their seven year life? The biggest issue I have with CFs (and I just thought of this last weekend when I bought a new pack of them) is that the amount of plastic packaging they come in is insane. But I'm not too worried about forcing people to use CFs. What I'm more worried about is eliminating the use of coal fired power plants, increasing the availablity and convenience of mass transit, cutting down on vehicle emmissions, and that sort of thing.
I'm curious to see whether the 48% neutral papers actually "refused to either accept or reject the hypothesis" or rather simply didn't address the issue as it wasn't relevant to the topic (ie - a paper discussing actual warming effects in Greenland will not necessarily get into the cause of the warming if they are only interested in presenting test results). If those are the "neutral" category, then they should be discarded from the results, leaving you with a 87% explicit or implicit acceptance and a 12% rejection.
Two points: What is a medical researcher doing studying papers on climatology? Who doesn't realize that the subject of most climate change papers is not if humans cause it?
The document you requested can not be found or is undergoing routine maintenance. Perhaps a consensus is developing ...
The link doesn't work, but just click "home" on the page it takes you to, and you'll see the article on the home page.
So let's get this straight: 45% of climatology papers endorse man-made global warming. 6% reject this position. 48% weren't addressing the position. Let's put it this way: 7.5x more scientists endorse man-made global warming than reject it. Anybody need a definition of "consensus"?
The doctor used the same database as the original researcher and has noted that the percentage of publications that endorse the consensus has gone from over a majority to at the best 45%. Is that not significant? What do you think would be the cause for such a shift? P.S. Good job editing out your snideness
I don't even know if the first researcher even counted papers that didn't deal with who causes global warming. I'm guessing not, because it wouldn't make sense to.
It's a stupid method to do a keyword search in a database. These scientists are real, live people. If the question is to determine their current opinions about global warming, dude, just pick up the phone and call them.
Because they're two different researchers who have nothing to do with each other. Plus, I've never heard anything so stupid as declaring a science paper "neutral."
I didn't know that statistical research wasn't replicable It may be odious but how can we be sure that prhase wasn't used in the original assessment. I see no reason to believe it wasn't
You don't jack shit about my worldview. But I'll say that about any thread that's as stupidly conceived as this one.
Not to mention that "rejecting the consensus" could also mean that the researchers believe that global warming is having a far greater or radically different effect on the climate. When I saw this link before, I noticed that the researcher's paper had been submitted but not accepted for publication. Any schuck can submit a paper. Let's wait and see whether the peer-review process gives the paper legitimacy or whether they find fault with the writer's statistical methods.
Perhaps scientists now spend as much effort writing about whether humans are a cause of global warming as medical researchers spend debating the efficacy of leeches.
Well, for my part, I keep insisting on government controls because I know corporations will ******** us over with polution unless it makes $$$ not to, and at this point, as far as many polutants go, it doesn't make $$$ sense to be clean. I also think the same applies to individuals. They will pollute as long as it doesn't cost them too much. Therefore ruining the environment. There is a place for government enacting statutes as far as this goes, so I am fine with it. As far as consensus, I think that as long as there are those who put poltical posturing above science, there will be those who try to make an argument that something like this has a big effect on "consensus". If there is scientific evidence that man causes warming and that more importantly, public policy can have an effect on global warming -- great. Only a complete moron would think that things like gas convservation doesn't have an effect on public policy (middle east) and pollution. Only a moron would think that public transportation and HOV lanes don't promote less fuel use. Only a moron would think that regulation of housing can't have an effect on energy usage. I used to think that there was nothing worse than a self satisfied redneck Republican until I met a self satisfied liberal from Marin. I am starting to think that the most insuffereable are the libertarians who find conspiracy whenever collective or government action could possibly do some good.