Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

See? Your post was convoluted and complicated, but I managed to fix it. Why can't we do the same for climate change?

Seriously, why on earth are you pretending you don't have an agenda here?

 

I thought for a second you were just trying to confuse the issue and muddy the waters for everyone coz you'd been caught out.

Lucky us!!!

Y'know how long it took me to find that information about the, (so called), source? About 10 minutes! YOU could have looked into the source before posting it but instead you asked, Do we keep insisting on government controls on production based on a non existent consensus or do we go back to the drawing board?

That tells me, (and most other unbiased people), that you ARE biased. You've got an axe to grind and, much like the 'source' of this story you're not interested in evaluating the truth... you just want to listen to people who agree with the position you've already decided on.

 

What I don't get is why anybody would think it's ok to use the atmosphere as a storage place for CO2.
Even if people didn't believe global warming as a whole is caused (or helped or nudged in the wrong direction) by tons upon tons of carbon being pumped everyday into the atmosphere, surely we should all be able to agree on the need to find (and finance and support) alternative sources of energy that don't pollute as much, no?
I don't care if global warming is caused by the migratory patterns of the Singaporean Pink-Crested Cockatoo. Reduction of carbon emissions would still make sense to me, just as much as recycling and not clubbing baby seals to death do.

 

His biases are immaterial. Your original source is the problem.

 

I'll tell you what I think!

I started off not knowing much about the subject. Then I saw a TV programme back in the early 70's that detailed how man was changing the atmosphere because, at that time some scientists were convinced man was COOLING the atmosphere. I did some reading on it at the time and wasn't entirely convinced one way or the other. Now... fast forward about 25 years, (about the early 90's), and other scientists are convinced man is heating the atmosphere.I've done some reading on it and have come to the conclusion that it seems likely that this is, in fact, the case.

Since then more and more evidence has come to light to support this position. If any information appears that seems to disagree with this position I have studied it avidly but, frankly, there's very little. On a few occasions something appears to contradict the evidence but is then shown to be false.

What really pisses me off, though, is this holier than thou shit where we're meant to believe that evil scientists are meant to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes... but there's no evidence... nobody produces anything concrete. We're just meant to take any statements from people who disagree with the majority view and 'trust them' for some unexplained reason. We're led to believe the very fact that virtually all the scientists that study this subject agree upon something, means it can't possibly be true.

Well that's crap. The majority of those who support these people are professional contrarians and people with a vested interest.

I'm all for examining the evidence and arriving at a conclusion but that is precisely NOT what we're being asked to do. We just have to take it ON FAITH and that's not on as far as I'm concerned. If you have any EVIDENCE regarding climate change indicating that man isn't a factor in some measure then I say, bring it on!!! Let's see it.

 

You know, this topic shows what happens when people with no scientific background or understanding of research methologies attempt to talk about science. How the heck can you measure scientific consensus by measuring the amount of papers published? Obviously there are going to be a lot of papers against global warming, but it's not because scientists disagree about global warming, it's because there are a lot of scientists who gets paid to write bad things about global warming. Or who write bad things about global warming in an attempt to get famous. While those who support global warming will see nothing much to talk about global warming which hasn't been mentioned by their peers and write less paper. Why should they write a paper supporting global warming if everyone is supporting it already?

Scientific consensus can only be measured by the statements from reputable scientists and organisations, not from papers written by no-name hacks. And many organisations have already supported global warming.

 

That's true but I still say that a great deal of the evidence regarding the issue can be understood, (in broad outline, anyway), by those of us with an interest in science, i.e. not just 'skimmers' of the press but people who actually try and understand what is being said. In any event some of this just ain't that complicated, at least on a superficial basis.

As I say, if someone's got some evidence let's see it so that we can make our OWN mind up. In that regard the first thing I'd do is try and find out what someone else who has expertise in the area has to say about it but that doesn't mean I am biased... that means I want to hear BOTH sides of the argument because I AM unbiased.

I worked in network/internet security for a number of years, (until quite recently), and the number of times I heard people prattling on about the subject, (which they clearly didn't understand), would make your eyes water. So, trust me... I'm more than aware of how easy it is for scientific matters to be misconstrued by the general public but it's also the case that things can be explained in a manner that normal people, (people with an interest in the subject who have some motivation to try and 'get it'), can follow.

It's precisely because I have a scientific background that I'm not prepared to take things 'on trust'. That's what annoyed me when this MITH fella says I'm biased.

 

Is the issue the researchers or the publishers? If an entity having a stake in the status quo pays for Y number of articles the results are alterable. Not that status quo stakeholders would ever operate in such an unethical fashion.

 

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. Well, not really.

Nothing quite like a graph to make the point,



To be fair it is only a few months of data but the artic cap is back as strong as ever so no polar bears need be worried..... for now.

 

Why would they?

That is why they wouldn't.

 

Perhaps you missed all the posts about the polar ice cap melting. Perhaps you commented on that fact not being important over just a year. If you did, I commend your INTJ personality.

I find temperatures declining fairly steadily for the past five years and the temperature for the past few months plumitting to that of ovre ten years ago to be interesting. It doesn't prove a thing but if global warming were on intrade (and it might be), the odds would be decreasing.

 

Things to do:
1. Get a dictionary.
2. Go to the W section and find the definition of 'weather.'
3. Go to the C section and find the definition of 'climate.'
4. Hope that I have enough intelligence to understand the difference between the two.

 

I did see the study that debunked the whole global cooling consensus during the 70s nonsense some of the illiterati are obsessed with. Did anyone post that? If not, I'll go dig it up this afternoon.

 

Well there's your problem. Say it with me, "climate change."

 

No, I don't. Perhaps you could explain why one integral time scale is more significant than another.

 

BTW - If anyone is interested, arts and letters daily is recommending http://climatedebatedaily.com/ .

 

Didn't we have the IPCC to do that?

I tend to think some people will just keep asking for more discussion and data while we all cook nicely at gas mark 6.

 

Clearly climate change has been clearly debunked. Even though under most climate models colder winters are to be expected.

 

Ugh. Ugh on both pictures.

 

LOL. Must spread...

 

Please, explain it to me.

 

Roughly two years ago BigSoccer (www.bigsoccer.com) instituted a program whereby members could give other members reputation points for posts that they found to be either a positive or constructive contribution to BigSoccer (positive points), or a non-constructive contribution (usually trolling flaming or spamming).

The reputation system, also known as "rep," became a very popular way for users to compliment other posters for posts they agreed with, found to be exceptionally well thought out, or hilarious. They could also use the system to prove their lack of testicular fortitude and harass a member they didn't like.

Quickly the reputation system became a social experiment run amok (harassing messages, reputation abuse, users posting pictures of boobs and the roving adolescent gangs repping them for it) and the administrators of BigSoccer decided to make it less prevalent on the site. For some unexplained reason this created a borderline mutiny and over the course of a week many members threatened many unpleasant actions, but ultimately proved their lack of cojones and settled down.

Today the rep system exists largely as it did originally, but it is no longer on display for all users to judge other users solely by the amount of light coming off them (though you can still tell who spends most of their day in the "boobies" threads).

What the member you quoted meant was that he would have liked to have given positive reputation (or repped) the other member, but there is a set limit of reputation one members can give to another over a given period of time. It is also possible that member A has repped member B recently and thus unable to convey the reputation points.

I hope this has helped you to understand the reputation system as it exists on BigSoccer today. If you need assistance or require a more thorough explanation, please click here.