Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

I have not read the linked article and have no idea what the term "endorse" means. I am also no climatologist. I just want to bring up an example in a field that I am more familiar with.

If you survey papers in the biomedical/genetics field from the 50s and 60s, you will likely find many citations that mention something like "DNA is the basis of genetics/inheritance". This fact (and biomedical scientists acceptance of this fact) has not changed through the years. However, you will find very few similar citations in papers published in the last 20 years simply because this concept is so well established and accpeted that there is NO sense in mentioning it.

 

Not necessarily true. If one is desperate enough, one can often find a journal that will publish your article, even if your article is not worth the paper it is published on. Getting someone knowledgeable about your field to read and appreciate your paper is a different matter. Do you know the impact factor of the journal (relative to other journals in the field) that this article will be published in?

 

Are you saying that Matt is clueless on a topic that is going to negatively impact his livelihood in the lighting business (IIRC)?!

 

If he is in the biz, then he should be able to adapt to changing market demands, technologies, etc. If he can't, then he shouldn't be in the biz.

 

No sarcasm in that comment then, eh?

 

You have character? "Are" and "have" mean different things.

 

Photolysis and metalepsis are very different yet can bring such light on subject. With the cleaner brighter newer lights can be exposed to dullness but with halogen can brighten the world. Problem is micro cells. It might not accept such offerings. You have the eyeball construction which primarily with glasses. You aren't firing enough optical cells. Think of that laser surgery, where you get your eyes sheared a gunmetal grey or something. You have normalization in cells but this can cause abnormal cells like microcytes just for starters. Change does do that on the cellular level. And of course; you need a proper dietary habits to strengthen said weakness.

Now I'll admit. I've got a problem here. The Earth is 4 billion years old and expectations to last 10 billion years. Thus the Sun will exstiguish all chances of aberrations. How ever how fast is that Billion year accerlarant. I don't think. Its that fast but it sure does stop on a dime.

If we can find water and get some of those bluecollar workforce out there in solar system if not galaxy. You can always decrease pollutants. But you have to get there in order to do it. Imagine the effects of travles. We now go couple hundred miles per hour but commoners will diffently want to seek more speed. Thus tireing out the ambitions and establish slower more develeop pathway toward happiness.

Its almost for sure that there will be huge solar walls out there and if good enough. You can control the heat which could elevate the atmosphere. Then you would shrink it to expell or further condense pollutants. Robots could do this none stop 24/7 with human supervisions.

Plus imagine the more violent accidents. We will formalize around such things. Take China's offerings as an example. I do believe Mexico and the USA did go through samething before economic strongholds. So in essence China does what USA already did. Thus creating and strengthning a system of acceptance. Thats been the issue for the last 60 thousand years.

Now if in the marketplace something comes out but its underdeveloped. A guided control pathway to understand things better. It must be better when you have billions as opposed to millions. I admit sometimes it frustrates. Take the different television levels. There are many many levels in progress. Yet half of those could've been developed without other half. That would save time but can it broaden understanding.

However an industry establishes; and the same can be said of outerspace. We think the shuttle is a hoopty. Yet this months Ad Astra Magazine articulates. The shuttle could possibley be here in 2057 but with Japan Europe and Russia technology. After that I'm sure Koreas and China and whomever will tag along with thier findings. Our already 30 year vehicles with Japan and Europe moderinzations will produce some nefty shuttle buses to and fro.

So basically if the Earth is on the brink now. What about hundred years from now? Its these things in which we educate outselves on. Its hot but we diffently can go hotter! Or cooler. But diffently cleaner!

Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory Obviously there is a problem. What degree ? or Can a methodology exsist beyond availabilities?

 

The Al Gore-style hyper-alarminst version of global warning may be equally ridiculous.

 

Ironically, both threats can be reduced by American energy conservation.

Not gonna happen.

 

Who paid Dr Schulte?

This is the key question in my mind. The report may have been commisioned with a particular goal in mind, and then written to support that goal (cf tobacco research published in the 50's, any national budget statement).

Furthermore, the report summarised by a reporter for the Daily Tech and then promoted by Republicans. This is not the report we are reading but someones interpretation of it.

Finally, the figures quoted can be interpreted as follows:

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright. However, 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, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. Therefore, 94% of the papers consider that humans MAY be having an effect on climate change. This is a clear consensus."

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

I'd love to respond, but without reading the actual article (and report) it's a wee bit difficult.

Edit: link to the Daily Tech article, which seems to be the one Matt is referring to. Now to find the actual study.

Exactly.

I love when people say the Earth is in danger. No it isn't. The Earth, regardless of what happens, is going to be fine. It's people that are potentially at risk here.

Edit (2): I have yet to see this report or even a mention of this report on anything other than right-wing blogs and a single "news" site. There are scientific journals I read regularly and they address it all, often publishing detractors of the global warming concept in the journals and putting such articles on their websites. They aren't ones to hide from the issue and even they're not touching it. That is a bit suspicious.

Edit (3): I cannot find Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte mentioned anywhere else other than in republications of the original piece on the right blogosphere.

 

Emphasis added. If that is the definition of "consensus" used in both word searches, I think scientists who expressly reject the "consensus" to be completely wacky. Even if you think that climate change is 1% caused by humans and 99% caused by the sun or some other non-human factor, you have to agree with the "consensus" by definition.

To argue that there is no "consensus" based on such a broad definition- it defies common sense.

 

C'mon, since when does a spec writer create market demand? I'm a house designer and builder. We actually install the stuff that people select and pay for. That IS the market demand.

 

Here is the real butt-nugget of the entire discussion. Facts are that the earth is warming, as the result of CO2 build-ups, as the result of human activities. As a result, humans are seeing, and are going to continue to see, reductions in our habitat. It is a survival thing. If we preserve our habitat, humans will enjoy a better chance at survival. If we degrade our habitat, humans will suffer a lower chance at survival.

Since you have no fear of political correctness (whatever that is), start your calculator and give us the answer!

 

This kills me. The environment doesn't give two shits about costs/benefit analysis; we either do what we can to reduce our effects on the environment, or we lose. It's that simple.

 

I'm very disappointed you missed this opportunity to throw in an ad hominem

 

Fight poverty. Own a business that's fifteen feet underwater.

 

Make sure to hold on to all the junk in your basement. It will be very valuable at the floating atolls and Bartertown.

 

Just like the issue itself (the Earth IS warming, the exact cause IS NOT known), it is not as simple as "we'll manage" or "we're doomed".