global warming what we can do/fact or fiction

[jackattack]

^^ I don't think that the iris will competely stop warming. It may cancel out other positive feedbacks. I think the whole idea of positive feedbacks is whats fueling the hysteria around global warming. From climate sensitivity of 1.6 degrees to co2 people end up with 12 degrees of warming. The idea of unstoppable global warming is silly. Clouds *could* be a positive feedback but they've observed evidence supporting Lindzens theory.

 

 

 

And it hasn't technically warmed since 1998. That doesn't really mean anything but it's the same as people who cherry pick years to start from like 1980.

[dragoonson]

I'm not going to argue about fact or fiction but I do have some ways to counter.

 

 

 

Stop eating meat,or anything produced by an animal.

 

Eat only vegetables

 

Stop bathing

 

Walk around naked

 

Realise all things the government do is a conspiracy

 

Realise the government is really "The Man".

 

Go to war against Frat Orcs on a Mysterious Island of Mystery

[Igor]

1. do not burn down forests.

 

2. Put a mandatory CAP on CO2 omissions.

 

3. Assassinate George Bush

 

4. Convert to a fuel cell/compressed air/ different form of energy.

 

 

 

Plz dont flame~Lionhear_0

[Lionheart_0]

No personal attacks, kay?

[reaper88888]

Global Warming is real. Period. It is proven scientific fact.

 

 

 

 

 

As for how to slow it down, well, unless every person on Earth simply stops burning fossil fuels, it isn't going to get better. We're already either on the brink or past the point of no return. Feel free to try to reduce your carbon footprint, though. It might help the Earth recover once we either wise up or die out.

 

 

 

But no worries, the real troubles probably won't start until you're middle-aged. Let our children and grandchildren deal with it. After all, that's been the mindset for centuries. And a tradition like that can't be wrong, can it? A tradition like that won't be partially responsible for destroying the environm... Oh, wait..

[re4p3r1]

Global Warming is real. Period. It is proven scientific fact.

 

 

 

 

 

As for how to slow it down, well, unless every person on Earth simply stops burning fossil fuels, it isn't going to get better. We're already either on the brink or past the point of no return. Feel free to try to reduce your carbon footprint, though. It might help the Earth recover once we either wise up or die out.

 

 

 

But no worries, the real troubles probably won't start until you're middle-aged. Let our children and grandchildren deal with it. After all, that's been the mindset for centuries. And a tradition like that can't be wrong, can it? A tradition like that won't be partially responsible for destroying the environm... Oh, wait..

 

 

 

So let me get this straight...You think global warming is real but don't think we should do anything about it??

 

 

 

And also sorry but global warming is a proven fact, thats why theres a ongoing debate about it.

[dragoonson]

No personal attacks, kay?

 

 

 

You spelt your own name wrong =D>

[doomy]

No personal attacks, kay?

 

 

 

You spelt your own name wrong =D>

 

Lol :lol:

 

(urg that lol smiley look stupid imo)

 

 

 

Real or not, I don't really care, I never really have.

 

I mean I do somethings, I do turn my computer off when I'm not using it etc, but thats more or less because dad doesn't like the power bill high :P

[dusqi]

And also sorry but global warming is a proven fact, thats why theres a ongoing debate about it.

 

 

 

Not amongst scientists (see Myth 3: http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462 )

 

 

 

Even oil companies accept it (hear the Chief Scientist at BP talking about how we need to quadruple energy efficiency: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_detai ... 1&ipp=1000 - the 90 minute talk contains a nice overview of the whole climate change area, based on numbers and from a source that many climate deniers will find acceptable, so I recommend it)

 

 

 

In fact, the only debate seems to be amongst lay people. The podcast that I linked above contains some talk about why this might be the case. Basically, people can't see it happening, so they don't understand it.

 

 

 

The real question is what can be done about climate change. Which is what this topic is about.

[assassin_696]

I guess the problem with global warming science is that because something has to be done about it at the individual level, it gets politicised and suddenly everyone's an expert and everyone knows that it's a myth. Online articles can look credible, professional scientists putting their names to alternative theories can be persuasive so it gets hard to weigh things up objectively.

 

 

 

Take the Standard Model in physics. You get some lone wolf type physicists cooking up alternate explanations for it, saying it's wrong, providing "some evidence" against it and they can sound convincing. But you fail to realise that the Standard Model has been tested to an unbelievable degree of accuracy (not quite possible with climate change) and there's almost scientific consensus in it's validity. That doesn't mean it can't/won't be adjusted, modified or maybe even thrown out, it just means that the probability of this happening is low, very low. Naturally the Standard Model doesn't get the attention global warming does, but if it did you'd probably find people denying it, citing the lone wolves and giving their own reasons. But it's all about probabilities, not possibilities. Aspects of global warming might possibly be wrong, but not probably.

[jackattack]

And also sorry but global warming is a proven fact, thats why theres a ongoing debate about it.

 

 

 

Not amongst scientists (see Myth 3: http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462 )

 

 

 

Even oil companies accept it (hear the Chief Scientist at BP talking about how we need to quadruple energy efficiency: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_detai ... 1&ipp=1000 - the 90 minute talk contains a nice overview of the whole climate change area, based on numbers and from a source that many climate deniers will find acceptable, so I recommend it)

 

 

 

In fact, the only debate seems to be amongst lay people. The podcast that I linked above contains some talk about why this might be the case. Basically, people can't see it happening, so they don't understand it.

 

 

 

The real question is what can be done about climate change. Which is what this topic is about.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that.

 

 

 

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. This is no "consensus."

 

 

 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

 

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Th ... le8641.htm

[The Observer]

Here's something that some people might find interesting.. Don't know if it was posted or not...

 

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

[dusqi]

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. This is no "consensus."

 

 

 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

 

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Th ... le8641.htm

 

 

 

I found the published paper: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... _fomat.pdf

 

 

 

The reason that 48% of papers are "neutral" is debatable. Perhaps they have no opinion, or perhaps they just did not state their opinion. If there is a consensus, scientists won't waste journal space restating the obvious. That would be like writing a physics paper and starting off by stating that you think gravity exists. A better survey would have looked at all of the papers of individual scientists, and looked at those who accepted/rejected climate change in at least one of their papers. I think that the percentage of "neutral" scientists would drop significantly. And, after all, that's what is important - what the individual scientists think.

 

 

 

Concerning the 6% of papers which explicitly or implicitly reject climate change, I don't think that that number suggests that there is no consensus. The IPCC says climate change is 90% likely due to humans. That leaves more than 6% doubt. But, I think that they are poor odds.

 

 

 

A couple of other methological issues are that not all scientific papers are created equally. There were papers supporting intelligent design in obscure journals, but that didn't make them worth reading. The other methodological issue is that there is no discussion of how papers were judged to be implicitly/explicitly supporting or against. It looks like it was just one guy (the author) going through them all. Psychological research tells us that the best thing to do is to have at least a couple of raters going through them all independently, and then a third rater who sorts out any disagreements. For example, one of the scientists that he quotes as writing a paper explicitly against human induced climate change (Cao et al., 2005), I read as just giving the opinion that climate change models are still uncertain. This is far from explicitly denying that human-induced climate change is occurring.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's something that some people might find interesting.. Don't know if it was posted or not...

 

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

 

 

 

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" tv program was investigated by the Office of Fair Trading in the UK. They ruled that it misrepresented the views of some of the scientists quoted, who were told that they were going to be in a fair and balanced program.

 

 

 

They also ruled that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007" and so it was OK to air the program because global warming was not a matter "of political or industrial controversy [...] and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply." In other words, the program did not interfere with political debate because the debate was already over.

 

 

 

Edit: I scanned the rest of the article, and the main point it seemed to make is that the sun is causing climate change. This myth has been debunked here (see 6 and 7): http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462

[jackattack]

The reason that 48% of papers are "neutral" is debatable. Perhaps they have no opinion, or perhaps they just did not state their opinion. If there is a consensus, scientists won't waste journal space restating the obvious. That would be like writing a physics paper and starting off by stating that you think gravity exists. A better survey would have looked at all of the papers of individual scientists, and looked at those who accepted/rejected climate change in at least one of their papers. I think that the percentage of "neutral" scientists would drop significantly. And, after all, that's what is important - what the individual scientists think.

 

 

 

 

 

A couple of other methological issues are that not all scientific papers are created equally. There were papers supporting intelligent design in obscure journals, but that didn't make them worth reading. The other methodological issue is that there is no discussion of how papers were judged to be implicitly/explicitly supporting or against. It looks like it was just one guy (the author) going through them all. Psychological research tells us that the best thing to do is to have at least a couple of raters going through them all independently, and then a third rater who sorts out any disagreements. For example, one of the scientists that he quotes as writing a paper explicitly against human induced climate change (Cao et al., 2005), I read as just giving the opinion that climate change models are still uncertain. This is far from explicitly denying that human-induced climate change is occurring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't say they deny that humans have an impact on the climate, just that they disagree with or don't endorse the consensus view. Thats a pretty major blow to the consensus claim. Even with a weak definition of what the consensus says. The most interesting thing is that only one of the studies mentions catastrophic climate change. This study was done with the same method as the one by Naomi Oreskes. Everyone seemed to love hers.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I scanned the rest of the article, and the main point it seemed to make is that the sun is causing climate change. This myth has been debunked here

 

 

 

No it hasn't.

 

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/ ... 3.pdf/view

 

 

 

And for the love of God please stop putting the same website over and over.

[warri0r45]

And also sorry but global warming is a proven fact, thats why theres a ongoing debate about it.

 

 

 

Not amongst scientists (see Myth 3: http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462 )

 

 

 

Even oil companies accept it (hear the Chief Scientist at BP talking about how we need to quadruple energy efficiency: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_detai ... 1&ipp=1000 - the 90 minute talk contains a nice overview of the whole climate change area, based on numbers and from a source that many climate deniers will find acceptable, so I recommend it)

 

 

 

In fact, the only debate seems to be amongst lay people. The podcast that I linked above contains some talk about why this might be the case. Basically, people can't see it happening, so they don't understand it.

 

 

 

The real question is what can be done about climate change. Which is what this topic is about.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that.

 

 

 

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. This is no "consensus."

 

 

 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

 

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Th ... le8641.htm

 

 

 

Why the emphasis on "catastrophic results" when the issue is to what degree humans contribute? If the benchmark for debate is the IPCC claiming that:

 

 

 

Most of the observed warming

 

over the last 50 years is likely to

 

have been due to the increase in

 

greenhouse gas concentrations

 

(IPCC, 2001).

 

 

 

then why is Schulte talking about things like "Quantitative evidence for the consensus" or "Mention of catastrophic climate change"?

 

 

 

And like dusqi said, many of the papers surveyed in the Schulte analysis are neutral (48%). Schulte seems to think this adds to his point that there is "a significant movement of scientific opinion away from the apparently unanimous consensus", yet ironcally in science if people stop endorsing or rejecting a position it's probably because it's been established already. Shulte is definitely overcooking things here and not considering the prospect that lowered explicit/implicit acceptance of the consensus could mean that it's no longer an issue and is just taken for granted.

 

 

 

Shulte's conclusion is rather telling, too (Shultes paper)

 

 

 

"Conclusion

 

There appears to be little basis in the peer reviewed

 

scientific literature for the degree

 

of alarm on the issue of climate change

 

which is being expressed in the media and

 

by politicians, now carried over into the

 

medical world and experienced by patients."

 

 

 

Again, if the standard for debate is the IPCC's claim, then why on earth is he bringing politics and media into this? This is very suspicious and makes no sense as a strict scientific analysis. He's fluffing around with what it is he's actually testing.

[jackattack]

 

Why the emphasis on "catastrophic results" when the issue is to what degree humans contribute? If the benchmark for debate is the IPCC claiming that:

 

 

 

Most of the observed warming

 

over the last 50 years is likely to

 

have been due to the increase in

 

greenhouse gas concentrations

 

(IPCC, 2001).

 

 

 

then why is Schulte talking about things like "Quantitative evidence for the consensus" or "Mention of catastrophic climate change"?

 

 

 

And like dusqi said, many of the papers surveyed in the Schulte analysis are neutral (48%). Schulte seems to think this adds to his point that there is "a significant movement of scientific opinion away from the apparently unanimous consensus", yet ironcally in science if people stop endorsing or rejecting a position it's probably because it's been established already. Shulte is definitely overcooking things here and not considering the prospect that lowered explicit/implicit acceptance of the consensus could mean that it's no longer an issue and is just taken for granted.

 

 

 

You don't have to type "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" at the top of the paper to accept it. If the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category. Whats more interesting than those neutral papers are the ones who disagree with the consensus. Schulte used the same method as Oreskes and I remember the first time we got into this you had no problem using her paper. Despite the fact that she lied about her method, she found no papers that disagreed. If that has gone from 0% to 6% that shows that the consensus position is shrinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shulte's conclusion is rather telling, too (Shultes paper)

 

 

 

"Conclusion

 

There appears to be little basis in the peer reviewed

 

scientific literature for the degree

 

of alarm on the issue of climate change

 

which is being expressed in the media and

 

by politicians, now carried over into the

 

medical world and experienced by patients."

 

 

 

Again, if the standard for debate is the IPCC's claim, then why on earth is he bringing politics and media into this? This is very suspicious and makes no sense as a strict scientific analysis. He's fluffing around with what it is he's actually testing.

 

 

 

He's saying that there is no basis for what they say in scientific literature. He brings it in because that is what feeds the anxiety of patients.

[warri0r45]

 

Why the emphasis on "catastrophic results" when the issue is to what degree humans contribute? If the benchmark for debate is the IPCC claiming that:

 

 

 

Most of the observed warming

 

over the last 50 years is likely to

 

have been due to the increase in

 

greenhouse gas concentrations

 

(IPCC, 2001).

 

 

 

then why is Schulte talking about things like "Quantitative evidence for the consensus" or "Mention of catastrophic climate change"?

 

 

 

And like dusqi said, many of the papers surveyed in the Schulte analysis are neutral (48%). Schulte seems to think this adds to his point that there is "a significant movement of scientific opinion away from the apparently unanimous consensus", yet ironcally in science if people stop endorsing or rejecting a position it's probably because it's been established already. Shulte is definitely overcooking things here and not considering the prospect that lowered explicit/implicit acceptance of the consensus could mean that it's no longer an issue and is just taken for granted.

 

 

 

You don't have to type "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" at the top of the paper to accept it. If the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category. Whats more interesting than those neutral papers are the ones who disagree with the consensus. Schulte used the same method as Oreskes and I remember the first time we got into this you had no problem using her paper. Despite the fact that she lied about her method, she found no papers that disagreed. If that has gone from 0% to 6% that shows that the consensus position is shrinking.

 

 

 

Why do you think I expect each paper to say "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" to accept it in these studies? What basis do you have for saying that the neutral papers disagree with the consensus? You shot yourself in the foot here, jack. You said "if the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category" but of course the same logic would apply to implicit rejection, but your argument doesn't hold because only 6%, implicit or explicit, reject the consensus. The neutral figure is 48%. Again, if what you said was true, you'd expect these 48% to be added to that 6% figure.

 

 

 

As for Oreskes analysis, I didn't see any problems with it when I first saw it. What makes you say she lies about her method? Show me how she did that if you could please.

 

 

 

Also, I take it from that final comment that you actually think there is a consensus? Or are you going to tell me 100% of people have to accept it for it to be a consensus again? If there is a 6% drop in the acceptance of the consensus then so be it. From what youve showed me before (if I remember correctly), I wouldnt be surprised that its no longer 0% rejection, but I'll have to read up on the issue some more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shulte's conclusion is rather telling, too (Shultes paper)

 

 

 

"Conclusion

 

There appears to be little basis in the peer reviewed

 

scientific literature for the degree

 

of alarm on the issue of climate change

 

which is being expressed in the media and

 

by politicians, now carried over into the

 

medical world and experienced by patients."

 

 

 

Again, if the standard for debate is the IPCC's claim, then why on earth is he bringing politics and media into this? This is very suspicious and makes no sense as a strict scientific analysis. He's fluffing around with what it is he's actually testing.

 

 

 

He's saying that there is no basis for what they say in scientific literature. He brings it in because that is what feeds the anxiety of patients.

 

 

 

No, jack. Read it again and read what I'm saying again. If the benchmark to which consensus is tested is the IPCC's claim, then the comparison of scientific literature to the things you hear in the media and from politicians is completely beside the point and only serves to obscure things. If this kind of hypothesis testing is what counts for science these days then science has become a game for imbeciles. I have to be more rigorous in my undergraduate biochemistry pracs for christ's sake.

 

 

 

I mean really, how does that conclusion sum up this paper if it was supposed to be judging consensus by what the IPCC claimed? Read the abstract again and how it defines consensus if you don't understand what I'm saying.

[jackattack]

 

Why do you think I expect each paper to say "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" to accept it in these studies? What basis do you have for saying that the neutral papers disagree with the consensus? You shot yourself in the foot here, jack. You said "if the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category" but of course the same logic would apply to implicit rejection, but your argument doesn't hold because only 6%, implicit or explicit, reject the consensus. The neutral figure is 48%. Again, if what you said was true, you'd expect these 48% to be added to that 6% figure.

 

 

 

As for Oreskes analysis, I didn't see any problems with it when I first saw it. What makes you say she lies about her method? Show me how she did that if you could please.

 

 

 

Also, I take it from that final comment that you actually think there is a consensus? Or are you going to tell me 100% of people have to accept it for it to be a consensus again? If there is a 6% drop in the acceptance of the consensus then so be it. From what youve showed me before (if I remember correctly), I wouldnt be surprised that its no longer 0% rejection, but I'll have to read up on the issue some more.

 

 

 

The neutral papers don't disagree with the consensus. The just don't agree with it either. There were 25% that were neutral in Oreskes paper.

 

 

 

Oreskes did lie about her method. In the original article in Science she said she typed the words 'Climate Change' into the ISI database. Typing that in yields something like 12,000 papers. She then said she typed in 'Global climate change'. That excludes 90% of papers. And she said she analyzed 928 abstracts when there were only 905. I wouldn't say that completely invalidates her work but it does raise some questions.

 

 

 

 

No, jack. Read it again and read what I'm saying again. If the benchmark to which consensus is tested is the IPCC's claim, then the comparison of scientific literature to the things you hear in the media and from politicians is completely beside the point and only serves to obscure things. If this kind of hypothesis testing is what counts for science these days then science has become a game for imbeciles. I have to be more rigorous in my undergraduate biochemistry pracs for christ's sake.

 

 

 

I mean really, how does that conclusion sum up this paper if it was supposed to be judging consensus by what the IPCC claimed? Read the abstract again and how it defines consensus if you don't understand what I'm saying.

 

 

 

What he was studying was if there was a basis in the media for the distress patients are feeling from agw alarmism.

[warri0r45]

 

Why do you think I expect each paper to say "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" to accept it in these studies? What basis do you have for saying that the neutral papers disagree with the consensus? You shot yourself in the foot here, jack. You said "if the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category" but of course the same logic would apply to implicit rejection, but your argument doesn't hold because only 6%, implicit or explicit, reject the consensus. The neutral figure is 48%. Again, if what you said was true, you'd expect these 48% to be added to that 6% figure.

 

 

 

As for Oreskes analysis, I didn't see any problems with it when I first saw it. What makes you say she lies about her method? Show me how she did that if you could please.

 

 

 

Also, I take it from that final comment that you actually think there is a consensus? Or are you going to tell me 100% of people have to accept it for it to be a consensus again? If there is a 6% drop in the acceptance of the consensus then so be it. From what youve showed me before (if I remember correctly), I wouldnt be surprised that its no longer 0% rejection, but I'll have to read up on the issue some more.

 

 

 

The neutral papers don't disagree with the consensus. The just don't agree with it either. There were 25% that were neutral in Oreskes paper.

 

 

 

Oreskes did lie about her method. In the original article in Science she said she typed the words 'Climate Change' into the ISI database. Typing that in yields something like 12,000 papers. She then said she typed in 'Global climate change'. That excludes 90% of papers. And she said she analyzed 928 abstracts when there were only 905. I wouldn't say that completely invalidates her work but it does raise some questions.

 

 

 

If the neutral papers are neutral, then why did you say the neutral papers disagree with the consensus?

 

 

 

Where did she say she typed in global climate change? I didnt catch it here. Where did she say this?

 

 

 

I see your point that analysing 928 abstracts when there are only 905 would be lying but I cant seem to gain access to ISI web of knowledge. I've never used it before and I think it requires authorization or something.

 

 

 

 

No, jack. Read it again and read what I'm saying again. If the benchmark to which consensus is tested is the IPCC's claim, then the comparison of scientific literature to the things you hear in the media and from politicians is completely beside the point and only serves to obscure things. If this kind of hypothesis testing is what counts for science these days then science has become a game for imbeciles. I have to be more rigorous in my undergraduate biochemistry pracs for christ's sake.

 

 

 

I mean really, how does that conclusion sum up this paper if it was supposed to be judging consensus by what the IPCC claimed? Read the abstract again and how it defines consensus if you don't understand what I'm saying.

 

 

 

What he was studying was if there was a basis in the media for the distress patients are feeling from agw alarmism.

 

 

 

Please, think. You're missing the very point. What is the actual consensus that this debate hinges on?

 

 

 

You originally quoted the following, pertaining to the study in question, found on a site called DailyTech:

 

 

 

"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. This is no "consensus."

 

 

 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

 

 

 

Now, what is the measure of consensus in the paper in question? Read the abstract:

 

 

 

"FEAR of anthropogenic global warming can

 

adversely affect patients well-being.

 

Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus

 

about climate change was studied by a review of

 

the 539 papers on global climate change found

 

on the Web of Science database from January

 

2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research

 

by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that

 

between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific

 

papers on global climate change had rejected

 

the consensus that more than half of the warming

 

of the past 50 years was likely to have been

 

anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers

 

(6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject

 

the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of

 

the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus,

 

fewer than half now endorse it. Only 6% do so

 

explicitly. Only one paper refers to

 

catastrophic climate change, but without

 

offering evidence. There appears to be little

 

evidence in the learned journals to justify the

 

climate-change alarm that now harms patients."

 

 

 

I'm loosing my patience going on like this.

[jackattack]

They printed a correction in Science about the search terms. You need some kind of login to get on the ISI. It was Benny Peiser who analyzed it. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

 

 

 

 

 

I still am not sure that I get what your saying in the end. Is it that his conclusion should not mention the media? If that is what your saying he mentions it because that is what affects patients.

 

 

 

"FEAR of anthropogenic global warming can

 

adversely affect patients well-being....There appears to be little

 

evidence in the learned journals to justify the

 

climate-change alarm that now harms patients."

[warri0r45]

They printed a correction in Science about the search terms. You need some kind of login to get on the ISI. It was Benny Peiser who analyzed it. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

 

 

 

 

 

I still am not sure that I get what your saying in the end. Is it that his conclusion should not mention the media? If that is what your saying he mentions it because that is what affects patients.

 

 

 

"FEAR of anthropogenic global warming can

 

adversely affect patients well-being....There appears to be little

 

evidence in the learned journals to justify the

 

climate-change alarm that now harms patients."

 

 

 

Fair enough. Looks like Oreskes made some mistakes after all.

 

 

 

As for the point I was trying to make, don't worry about it. I gave up trying. It's all as plain as I can put it in what I wrote if you want to go over it again.