MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Saturday, August 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 76.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 25, 2013 8:15 pm

bdog wrote: I think the 97% number is misleading. And I won't even buy that without being able to see the detail study results. And the thing was done by someone with a huge bias! I don't see why you are not more skeptical of it.


A 2010 study came up with the same 97% number.

Literature surveys are not hard to do, climate skeptics could do a survey if they saw any benefit to their cause. The surveys publish how each paper is scored, so they can be easily checked and challenged.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6417
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby bdog » Sat May 25, 2013 8:29 pm

Again, it's misleading. It does not mean that 97% of scientists think global warming is man made, but most people will think it does. Which is fine with the org that is running this propaganda campaign.

I need to know the details from the papers that were scored to know if the method was legit. They have not published those details (show me the text from the papers that support their conclusions).
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Meade » Sat May 25, 2013 8:36 pm

Trees grow until they stop growing. They don't grow up and down - only up. Temperatures go up, down and up again. And then down again.

Prof Wagstaff needs to get an accurate ID on that 150 years-old tree. If it's a Serviceberry, it will never reach the power line even if it lives another 150 years (which it won't). If it's a Metasequoia glyptostroboides, either take down the stupid power line and bury it (which, in a sophisticated progressive city like Madison, should have been done long ago) or cut down the Dawn Redwood, grind out the stump and plant a sensible Serviceberry in its place. In fact, plant a thousand Serviceberry to help sequester CO2. There's global warming going on, in case you haven't heard. Now don't be a Serviceberry denier or we'll all have to shun you. And by all, I mean at least 97%.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat May 25, 2013 9:07 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Respectfully, what's more tenuous is the suggestion that, if it were the only tree in existence since the dawn of time, then our scant hundred years of observation yield material enough to prove wild hypotheses about the tree, when the truth is we don't know much about the condition or the behavior of the tree prior to that time, nor about what we can expect it to do in the very distant future.
Unfortunately for this argument, there is more than one climate. We need look no further than next-door to Venus to see what happens when a runaway greenhouse effect takes over. And you can continue to deny that we have climate data dating back many millions of years, but that won't make that data go away. We don't need to know what the temperature was every day of every year to make reasonable conclusions about climatic trends. Furthermore, we're not talking about the very distant future, we're talking about the upcoming century. Sea levels are already on the rise. Why don't you want us to address that?
Bludgeon wrote:A reasonable party might respond that some degree of skepticism is in order.
Absolutely. This is why I was a skeptic too -- 20 years ago. It's difficult for me to fathom just how much data you think we need before we can begin to reasonably interpret it. We no more need to fill in every gap in the climate record to conclude that the changes occurring in modern times are unprecedented than we need to fill in every gap in the fossil record to conclude that evolution happened.
Bludgeon wrote:...it's too bad this science has become popular science
I agree it's always wise to be cautious when you read about science in the popular press or hear about it on television. Luckily, that's not where scientists get their facts.
Bludgeon wrote:...more likely than not we're giving ourselves credit for a variety of natural phenomena that (time will tell), have nothing to do with us
Again, even if you're right, isn't not polluting still a better option than continuing to pollute regardless? And isn't preparing for worst-case scenarios still better policy than assuming everything will work out fine?
Bludgeon wrote:We should take the money out of emissions compliance and put it into new energy research
Isn't it wiser to both cut emissions and develop new energy sources? And isn't it less likely that new technologies will be developed if we continue to assume there's nothing wrong with the old ones? Technological innovation is more often than not a product of economic factors, so making it more expensive to continue with the old ways is a sure bet to nudge people towards developing new ones.
Bludgeon wrote:In the mean time I would not worry a lot about doomsday scenarios better left to the old testament.
Alarmism doesn't help no matter what the cause, but I think you are exaggerating the extent to which real scientists are claiming we're doomed. That's popular press stuff, not actual science. Don't listen to the outliers, listen to the (uh-oh, here's that word again) consensus.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8825
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 25, 2013 9:40 pm

You're a bit out on a couple limbs yourself there, professor. I'll wager you know some of your assertions are tenuous. What we lose when we run out of our recorded temperature data is substantial, I'm sure you'll admit. Going from daily records to projected temperatures, we lose the ability to be specific, or to see specific things. Projected temperatures have every possibility of being wildly off the mark - on occasion, or very often. I don't have the same faith in these projections and models that I have in 'analog' temperature recordings. I don't think any of us should - there could be any number of climactic temperature events that are completely hidden in data this vague. I'm very wary when I see dramatic, "hockey stick" sorts of conclusions being paraded around in congress.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bland » Sat May 25, 2013 10:16 pm

Meade wrote:Trees......don't grow up and down - only up.
Even ignoring the obvious fact that trees most definitely do grow down (I'd think someone as into gardening as you claim to be would know about taproots) you're still wrong as usual. Trees grow every which way.

Take this fella for instance
Image

and The Leaning Trees of Greenough
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby pjbogart » Sat May 25, 2013 10:24 pm

It's arguments like this that make me desperately want to believe in God. I don't really desire the existence of heaven and hell so that good people can be rewarded and bad people punished so much that I hope there's a moment where we can look back at our lives and feel a sense of responsibility for our decisions. A god-sight, an omniscience where we see truth, unadulterated by selfish foolishness.

When you look back, Bludgeon, and see global warming, the thawing of the arctic, the dramatic rise in CO2 and methane and watch the earth fundamentally changed in such a way that makes it virtually, if not completely uninhabitable, perhaps you'll see that you fought so hard for a small group of people to gather riches as they decimated our planet. Does that sound too hippyish?

Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. Even if we completely replaced fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, the permafrost has already begun to thaw and with it the CO2 and methane levels are like a runaway train. Canada, Russia, Greenland... huge landmasses that would literally require a global freezer to reduce their thawing and prevent catastrophe. It's too late, and it might have been too late long before global warming was even a topic among the most educated climate scientists.

But even while I engage in melodramatic Cassandra-ism, at least I'm not thinking, "how would electric cars impact my 401k?" "My team doesn't believe in global warming, so I guess I don't either."

Some things are bigger than politics. I think climate change is one of them.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6137
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Sun May 26, 2013 1:32 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:It's difficult for me to fathom just how much data you think we need before we can begin to reasonably interpret it. We no more need to fill in every gap in the climate record to conclude that the changes occurring in modern times are unprecedented than we need to fill in every gap in the fossil record to conclude that evolution happened.


How so? You are saying "unprecedented" in regard to what? Temperature? Rate of temperature change?

There is nothing extraordinary about temperature, or rate of change that hasn't happened in the past, and often.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby bdog » Sun May 26, 2013 4:50 am

pjbogart wrote:Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag.

It's too late, and it might have been too late long before global warming was even a topic among the most educated climate scientists.

Not only too late, but inevitable.

Beware the beast man, for he is the devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or lust or greed. Yes, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him. Drive him back into his jungle lair: For he is the harbinger of death.
The Twenty-third Scroll, Ninth Verse, "Planet Of The Apes"
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Leroy Gates » Sun May 26, 2013 5:22 am

Bland wrote:
Meade wrote:Trees......don't grow up and down - only up.
Even ignoring the obvious fact that trees most definitely do grow down (I'd think someone as into gardening as you claim to be would know about taproots) you're still wrong as usual. Trees grow every which way.

Take this fella for instance
Image

and The Leaning Trees of Greenough


Ducks grow down.
Leroy Gates
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Meade » Sun May 26, 2013 7:25 am

Bland, obviously, I wasn't talking about Bristlecone Pines. No one has planted a Bristlecone Pine under a power line in somewhere over 4,000 years because their damn taproots grow into and clog up sewer pipes.

But your exception to the rule is apt because it brings to mind the story of "The Giving Tree". Remember that book - written in the early 60's by Satanist, Anton LaVey?

Image

The story follows the lives of a female apple tree and a male human who are able to communicate with each other; the racist kingdomist tree addresses the human as "Boy" his entire life. In his childhood, the boy enjoys playing with the tree, climbing her trunk, swinging from her branches, and eating her apples. However, as time passes the tree becomes mean, jealous, and stingy.

After entering adolescence, the boy wants to have a human girlfriend but the tree, feeling threatened, tells the boy to stay away from girls, they're only trouble, which he does. After reaching adulthood, the boy wants a house; the tree tells the boy to "go dig a hole and live in the mud", which he does. After reaching middle age, the boy wants a career but the tree tells him he could make more money and pay less in taxes by setting up a "non-partisan" liberal progressive social welfare 501(c)4 nonprofit, which he does, calling it "Liberty Tree Foundation".

In the final pages, the boy (now a shriveled old man) wants only "a safe place to rest," having never gotten a good night's sleep in over 40 years due to his worries about global warming and constantly having one eye open for the IRS and Eric Holder.

The story ends with a huge limb falling off the tree, hitting the boy on his bald shrivelled head and killing him, and with the sentence "And the tree was happy."

Some people believe that the book is an "allegory about the responsibilities a human being has for living organisms in the environment," others believe it belongs in the category of "self-help" book. Still others put it on the shelf marked "Sado-masochist Erotica". The book has been used to teach children moral lessons. Under this interpretation, however, the last drawing (in which the old man lies on the ground with xx's for eyes) is of unclear significance.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Sun May 26, 2013 7:59 am

bdog wrote:Again, it's misleading. It does not mean that 97% of scientists think global warming is man made, but most people will think it does.

OK, lets put it more specifically: 97% of scientific papers that address the cause of global warming state that it is anthropogenic. This result was corroborated exactly by a second literature survey.

I can think of several reasons why this figure might not translate exactly to 97% of scientists. For instance, we don't know if the number of papers/scientists is the same among skeptics and non-skeptics. There is uncertainty - perhaps the true figure could be 90% or 99%. What is most significant, in my mind, is that the number has been rising steadily over 20 years, not that the methodology is precise.

You've suggested that the scientists who expressed an opinion in their papers are irresponsible; and that there exists a silent majority of responsible scientists who research the causes of GW but do not offer a position. This theory is a gut-level, faith-based opinion unsupported by evidence. And I'd say your speculation is implausible - a paper addressing GW causes would state specifically that there is insufficient evidence to support AGW if that was its opinion.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6417
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Sun May 26, 2013 9:53 am

Huckleby wrote:
bdog wrote:Again, it's misleading. It does not mean that 97% of scientists think global warming is man made, but most people will think it does.

OK, lets put it more specifically: 97% of scientific papers that address the cause of global warming state that it is anthropogenic. This result was corroborated exactly by a second literature survey.

Or most people could read the fucking FOUR PARAGRAPHS in the fucking abstract instead of stopping at the thread title to yell "ooooh that's misleading!"
rabble wrote:Consensus: 97% of climate science papers that take a position on global warming agree warming is man-made
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.


Oh, and the Guardian's got an article on it too.


So, to recap: of the scientists who wrote any of 11,944 papers that mentioned 'global climate change' or 'global warming', 64.5% of them took a stand on the AGW consensu. Of that 64.5%, 97.2% of them endorsed it.

97.2% of 64.5% is 62.694%. Therefore:

62.694% of the scientists endorsed AGW,
1.806% rejected it, and
35.5% would not take a stand.

Anyone want to check my math?

Considering the vitriol spewed against the scientists who have take a stand, I suggest that the ones who haven't are more worried about retaliation than they are about whether there's enough evidence.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6078
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby city2countrygal » Sun May 26, 2013 10:26 am

Meade wrote:But your exception to the rule is apt because it brings to mind the story of 'The Giving Tree'. Remember that book - written in the early 60's by Satanist, Anton LaVey?"


I will not stand for the bastardization of one of my fav childhood authors, “liberty” or not lawry.

The Giving Tree was written by Shel Silverstein.

Enuff Z'Nuff
city2countrygal
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:43 pm
Location: ???

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sun May 26, 2013 10:50 am

city2countrygal wrote:
Meade wrote:But your exception to the rule is apt because it brings to mind the story of 'The Giving Tree'. Remember that book - written in the early 60's by Satanist, Anton LaVey?"


I will not stand for the bastardization of one of my fav childhood authors, “liberty” or not lawry.

The Giving Tree was written by Shel Silverstein.

Enuff Z'Nuff

Who could forget the famous oil tycoon?

Image

I always wondered how he found the time to develop into such a great storyteller.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar