Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Link produces no document. It isn't clear how they are defining consensus. Way to broaden the conversation.

 

They don't overdrive the LED. A phosphor coating is applied which filters out the blue.

with proper lnsing, you can get very close to the conical beam. It's coming , trust me there will be an LED based Source 4 fixture within a couple of years that can even project images (gobos)

They are dimmable and the LED doesn't produce heat. The electronics do. With proper heat sinking, it can be minmized.

 

I don't have the knowledge of either of you on the subject, but I could swear I've seen reports that a few R&D groups have created white LEDs over the past six months. Not bulbs, but single LEDs.

I could be wrong, but I keep thinking I saw that somewhere.

 

Lighting nerds.

 

I suppose we CAN take it as read that there is a document, can we???

 

Osram and Nichia do the same thing.

I have never heard of the process of overdriving the LED. I guess it is true that you learn something new every day.

I used to work for a manufacturer of that produces RGB and white light fixtures for the architectural and entertainment/theatrical markets. The white light is also color temperature controllable. They mix warm and cool color temperature diodes in one fixture. As you adjust the intensity between the two you can achieve a CT anywhere between 3000K and 6500K. I want to get back into it, but might have to wait a bit.

Agreed. The white light is coming soon.

or replace the very expensive lamp.

My bad.

 

It turns out the 'author' is a medical researcher, an endocrinologist to be exact.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

'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. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.'

Let's have a look where it's published.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

'The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers [1][2]. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton[3].

People who have published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar and Indur Goklany.'

Maybe that's one way for the skeptics to go... if you can't get the reputable publications to print your stuff, just start a NEW publication

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html/

'If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor.

According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals.

The journal remains unknown to most scientists. “I really don’t know what it is,” says Jay Famiglietti, editor-in-chief of Geophysical Research Letters.'

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php

'This seems likely to be a rerun of Benny Peiser's effort. (Peiser said that 34 of Oreskes' abstracts rejected the consensus. Eventually he downgraded the number to just one.'

Just ONE!!! LOL You can't say these fellas haven't got a sense of humour, can yer!!!

Great fun!!

 

They're making my brain hurt. I can barely remember what wattage to buy when I go to Home Depot.

 

I agree. I don't think there's a consensus, however, about what counts as "proper knowledge".

 

Has the National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Engineering (or other prestigeous scientific/engineering organizations) come up with a position?

 

But I'd suggest that having to start your own journals because nobody else takes you seriously probably isn't a good sign.

 

Instead, we should trust the blunt hammer of industry shills on the take.

 

For certain, the guy who's trying to publish an article in a fanzine about how scientists don't believe in global warming.

Not sure about the people who quote such a thing approvingly. Maybe they're on the take, maybe they're just misinformed.

 

If you can't discredit, just muddy the waters and misinform; the discrediting can then come later.

 

I love the way we start discussing whether the issue of 'Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory' and end up talking about fkcving light bulbs

 

Yep. I'm the guy that buys three or four different sizes because I can't remember which one I needed. You'd think I'd commit that to memory. Nope. Every time.

If it's a plumbing project, f**king forget it. My ass will spend more on gas on repeated trips back to the store than I will on the actual job.

The only thing I'm really good at is getting the exact cable I need at the right size for my electronics. I never screw that up.