MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Wednesday, September 17, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 59.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
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 18, 2013 8:02 am

bdog wrote:Well this study also "proves" that 2/3 of scientists have no opinion on the cause of global warming.


No, that is a misreading. 2/3 of the studies did not offer an opinion on anthropogenic global warming. That is unsurprising, most studies that mention GW are not intended to enter that fray.
Last edited by Huckleby on Sat May 18, 2013 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

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

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 18, 2013 8:07 am

Sandi wrote: No you are trolling and flaming.


You just made me think of that Bob Marley song "Burning and Looting"

This morning I woke up in a curfew;
O God, I was a prisoner, too - yeah!
Could not recognize the faces standing over me;
They were all dressed in uniforms of brutality. Eh!

(That's why we gonna be)
Trollin' and a-flaming tonight;
(Say we gonna troll and flame)
Trollin' and a-flaming tonight;
(One more thing)
Flamin' all pollution tonight;
(Oh, yeah, yeah)
Flamin' all illusion tonight.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

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

Postby bdog » Sat May 18, 2013 8:14 am

That's very Meadey.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3242
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

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

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 18, 2013 8:17 am

rabble wrote: Any scientist who can come up with a repeatable dependable study or test that even suggests AGW can be denied is guaranteed an unlimited supply of "grant money" for life. There are too many corporations out there who will pay big bucks to keep polluting just a little while longer.


I have a delayed reaction to your comments. The big story last year was that a giant study bankrolled by the Koch Brothers came back validating AGW.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29 ... d-man-made
"The results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature are in and Richard Muller, the study's director (formerly an AGW skeptic) declares, 'Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'"

I think the take-away there is that scientists are infected by a streak of integrity that we don't often see elsewhere in society.

Most studies are done with government funding. I have no trouble imagining and conceding that funding decisions are biased by politics, and that governments are more keenly interested in studies that are alerting them to global warming. But I keep that factor in proportion.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

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

Postby rabble » Sat May 18, 2013 11:13 am

Huckleby wrote:I think the take-away there is that scientists are infected by a streak of integrity that we don't often see elsewhere in society.

No they're not. They're all moneygrubbing liars. Ask Sandi.

Well, except for the ones who support her view. Those have integrity. Too bad they keep getting scarce.

Huckleby wrote:Most studies are done with government funding. I have no trouble imagining and conceding that funding decisions are biased by politics, and that governments are more keenly interested in studies that are alerting them to global warming. But I keep that factor in proportion.

That implies that at least some studies are not done with government funding. I wonder what conclusions those are coming to?

It also raised the question of WHY are most studies funded by governments. How come the deniers don't fund any studies?

Could it be that they know those studies will show AGW and their best tactic is to run FUD on the other studies?
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6151
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

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

Postby rabble » Sat May 18, 2013 11:17 am

Detritus wrote:
bdog wrote:The whole idea of a "literature study" is ridiculous. Why didn't they ask the scientists who originally did the literature what they think? Have them all sign affidavits and count the yeas and nays. Then let me know the results.

The only methodology this guy seems to have is calling laymen "citizen scientists".

Studying, in the aggregate, what previous studies have found is a perfectly legitimate approach. "Meta-studies" is what they're usually called, but "literature study" is a fine term, too. There would be no point in "asking the scientists what they think," since their judgement is already displayed in their publications.

From the guardian article:

We also decided that asking the scientists to rate their own papers would be the ideal way to check our results. Who knows what the papers say better than the authors who wrote them? We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6151
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

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

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 18, 2013 11:23 am

rabble wrote:That implies that at least some studies are not done with government funding. I wonder what conclusions those are coming to?


It would be interesting for somebody to look at the results broken down by private/public funding. Maybe funding is so often a mix, that it is hard to do.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

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

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 18, 2013 1:36 pm

So... is this just a thread about whether we agree that scientists agree? If so, that's not very stimulating.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat May 18, 2013 2:27 pm

Bludgeon wrote:So... is this just a thread about whether we agree that scientists agree? If so, that's not very stimulating.

Seems to me this thread is about how little understanding most Americans in general, and forons in particular, have about how science works (and it does work). But you're right, it sure ain't very stimulating.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8859
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

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

Postby Meade » Sat May 18, 2013 3:44 pm

Huckleby wrote:I have a delayed reaction to your comments. The big story last year was that a giant study bankrolled by the Koch Brothers came back validating AGW.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29 ... d-man-made

Why do you say (and the headline you link to says) "bankrolled by the Koch Brothers" when the Koch brothers provided only part of the funding? The headline there says: Koch Bros Study Finds Global Warming Is Real And Man-Made

But if you bother to read on, it says the study was funded by "the Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Bowes Foundation, the Koch Foundation, and the Getty Foundation."

Why pull out and isolate the Koch brothers? Do you think that somehow gives it more legitimacy? You say that was last year's "big story" and yet you report it in a blatantly skewed way. Why?
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 » Sat May 18, 2013 3:49 pm

Meade wrote: Why pull out and isolate the Koch brothers? Do you think that somehow gives it more legitimacy? You say that was last year's "big story" and yet you report it in a blatantly skewed way. Why?


The fact that the Koch brothers funded the study in a significant way is interesting and important, that's why it was widely reported. It may also be true that the dog bit the postman. If a liberal group had funded a study that concluded that voter fraud is rampant, that connection would similarly be notable.

You make a fair point.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

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

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 18, 2013 3:58 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: Seems to me this thread is about how little understanding most Americans in general, and forons in particular, have about how science works (and it does work). But you're right, it sure ain't very stimulating.


If people are misunderstanding the process, then deign to set um straight, Sir Isaac Newton.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

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

Postby Meade » Sat May 18, 2013 4:27 pm

Yes, Koch Brothers has become a huge shibboleth for many on the left and, unfortunately for them, its use by them continually reveals their biases, prejudices, and lack of critical thinking.

If you go to the berkeleyearth.org website, you'll learn it wasn't even the "Koch Brothers" who have given them funding. It's the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. But it's easier, I guess, to just say "Koch Brothers" when you're trying to impress and influence potential supporters who don't care much for accurate information.

You'll also learn, by reading their website, that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation has given the organization less than 12% of their funding.

http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.o ... n-support/

Koch Brothers. OH NOES!!!
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

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

Postby Sandi » Sat May 18, 2013 4:50 pm

Global warming is a fact. The earth has warmed and cooled since it's existence, and it is presently not nearly as warm as many times in the past.

What those who want to blame global warming on human activity do is concentrate on the small recent increases in global temperatures. Well, even a few hundred years isn't a long enough period to measure meaningful changes. Global temperatures in any one hundred year period are not enough to even make a blip in the historical noise variance.

Humans may be indeed contributing, but if so, to what extent is guesswork at best. A few years ago I put together four videos. They are about ten minutes each, but informative, and easy to understand. Please watch them with an open mind.

http://madisonforum.net/wp/?p=1065
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

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

Postby Stebben84 » Sat May 18, 2013 5:06 pm

Sandi wrote: A few years ago I put together four videos.


4 videos of the same guy.

Carter's paper contains a stunning array of errors, the most serious of which I itemised in an analysis for the same journal. Some of the inaccuracies are laughable. For instance, Carter cites a palaeotemperature reconstruction as evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the late 20th century, even though it only provides temperature data up to 1935. Elsewhere he suggests wrongly that atmospheric carbon dioxide only produces a small warming effect, basing his assertion solely on erroneous calculations posted on a website about "Plant Fossils of West Virginia". And he attributes the warming in the late 20th century to solar activity, but refers to a paper that used inaccurate data about sunspot activity, and which when corrected show no correlation with the recent global average temperature record.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... bob-carter

Thanks for your research.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar