Scientific consensus: humans cause globe warming?

Created by The Respected Doofinator on Oct 7, 2007

477 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#1 Oct 7, 2007
'Is there a scientific consensus that human activity is a major cause of global warming?'

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#2 Oct 7, 2007
The Respected Doofinator wrote:
'Is there a scientific consensus that human activity is a major cause of global warming?'
This question class, was asked over and over again back in the beginning of the last century, called the “New Dark Ages”. Back then, despite advancing from horses to DNA in less than a hundred years, they still thought that what came out of ones breath (CO2) was evil. This Green movement that of course became the Red and Pinko movements, delayed the introduction of the FILL IN THE BLANK power source because the true demon in their eyes was American way of life and capitalism. The near destruction of capitalism not only caused the slow down of technology but also the FILL IN THE BLANK wars and resulting famine.
Next week’s class will discuss witch burning and sacrificing virgins.

“First take log out of own eye ”

Since: Jan 07

Defender of Islamic Iran

#3 Oct 8, 2007
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/30...

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy....[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"

“First take log out of own eye ”

Since: Jan 07

Defender of Islamic Iran

#4 Oct 8, 2007
World religious leaders say YES
http://www.theregenerationproject.org/mfiles/...

World leaders realize urgency of combating climate change and say YES to anthropogenic CC
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp...

Women Demand Voice in Climate Debate and say YES
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/092107WB.sh...

“First take log out of own eye ”

Since: Jan 07

Defender of Islamic Iran

#5 Oct 8, 2007
The self obsessed and corporate wolves say NO
Meta Andrews

Kampala, Uganda

#6 Oct 8, 2007
<QUOTE:
...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.
ENDQUOTE>

Science can not ever be by majority rule - consensus - democracy kind of system, science is about facts being fact or not. Such facts (cosmic facts-that you call natural phenomenon) can not ever be established by majority rule or democracry because fact is FACT.
A FACT not a fact is an ILLUSION.
Likewise 'consensus' is political and has nothing to do with scientific truths which have never depended on consensus.

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#7 Oct 8, 2007
Meta Andrews wrote:
<QUOTE:
Likewise 'consensus' is political and has nothing to do with scientific truths which have never depended on consensus.
Exactly so.

How come people in Uganda can figure this out put people in Berkeley can't?

The Respected Doofinator

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#8 Oct 8, 2007
pjam2825 wrote:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/30...
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The fact that people right articles SAYING that there is a scientific consensus doesn't actually mean that their IS a scientific consensus.

Science Magazine is notoriously biased toward 'human caused global warming', and there have been many reports of scientists who contributed one sentence or on paragraph to the IPCC report but stated they did not support the IPCC's conclusions.

The Respected Doofinator

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#9 Oct 8, 2007
pjam2825 wrote:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/30...
Your 'consensus' is falling apart.

Oreskes is a fraud and recent studies show the exact opposite conclusion.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/831
[Yet all scientists agree that there is more than just one form of human influence. As well as greenhouse gases, land-use changes, aerosol concentrations and other "forcings" have a role to play. At the time of the last IPCC report, we knew a lot only about the role of greenhouse gases (see figure 9 here), but we have invested a lot of time, money and energy into finding out more about the other forcings. They have enabled scientists to declare that such factors as land-use changes and black carbon (soot) concentrations may account for large portions of the recent warming. Moreover, we now know more about natural forcings such as the oceanic phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which some researchers think may account for half of the recent warming trend. This is an area of genuine ongoing scientific discovery.]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
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.]

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#10 Oct 8, 2007
The Respected Doofinator wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that people right articles SAYING that there is a scientific consensus doesn't actually mean that their IS a scientific consensus.
Ummm. I was wrong to say 'right'. It would have been right to say 'write'.

The Respected Doofinator

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#11 Oct 8, 2007
The Truth Matters wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'consensus' is falling apart.
Oreskes is a fraud and recent studies show the exact opposite conclusion.
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/831
[Yet all scientists agree that there is more than just one form of human influence. As well as greenhouse gases, land-use changes, aerosol concentrations and other "forcings" have a role to play. At the time of the last IPCC report, we knew a lot only about the role of greenhouse gases (see figure 9 here), but we have invested a lot of time, money and energy into finding out more about the other forcings. They have enabled scientists to declare that such factors as land-use changes and black carbon (soot) concentrations may account for large portions of the recent warming. Moreover, we now know more about natural forcings such as the oceanic phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which some researchers think may account for half of the recent warming trend. This is an area of genuine ongoing scientific discovery.]
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
[In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
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.]
Well I'm a scientist (my membership in the Union of Concerned Scientists is included in the factoring by those who NEED to) and I don't believe in human caused weather. Mark me down as a no. ok?
Meta Andrews

Kampala, Uganda

#12 Oct 15, 2007
The Respected Doofinator wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly so.
How come people in Uganda can figure this out put people in Berkeley can't?
Hmmm..do not wonder so much, surprises can spring from any part of the world. Simply keep wide awake.
Meanwhile, this guy, got it very right in regards to defining what main stream scientist called the socalled global warming or human induced climatic change...read below:
And another: Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming.
[QUOTE who="Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming"]<quoted text>
I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute, he added. One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people, de Freitas concluded.
[/QUOTE]

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#13 Oct 15, 2007
The Truth Matters wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'consensus' is falling apart.
Oreskes is a fraud and recent studies show the exact opposite conclusion.
There was a previous attempt to debunk Oreskes which also failed:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/peise...

This is just a new attempt, and it isn't standing up to scrutiny either:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/class...

The problem is these skeptics are evalutating papers incorrectly and claiming they disagree with the consensus when clearly they do no such thing.

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#15 Oct 16, 2007
Mr Giblets wrote:
as said above , "consensus" is a political term. I have NEVER come across it before in a scientific context. Postulations are proved by EXPERIMENT.
There was never a consensus about Einstein's theories - they were PROVED by observation. They didn't have a vote on it, or ask a famous actor what he thought. PROOF is the word , not consensus.
Exactly.

By the way, have we ever learned what kind of scientist Cthulu claims to be? He does not seem to have a grip on the nature and culture of 'science'.

The Respected Doofinator
mini

London, UK

#16 Oct 16, 2007
Humans did not cause Global warming
it is just a natural cycle like the ice age and the holocene maximum

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#18 Oct 17, 2007
Mister Mojo wrote:
No Republicans do.
Dear Homer:

No Republicans do what?

Lose their train of thought while munching a sugar doughnut?

The Respected Doofinator
Innocent Bystander

Mundelein, IL

#19 Oct 17, 2007
I live in the Midwest - Up north they have THOUSANDS of tiny lakes that were created a WAY LONG TIME AGO from GLACIERS. So, the glaciers were here, they receded WAY before America became industrialized. While mankind CONTRIBUTES to global warming . . . global warming has been going on for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#20 Oct 17, 2007
The Respected Doofinator wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that people right articles SAYING that there is a scientific consensus doesn't actually mean that their IS a scientific consensus.
Science Magazine is notoriously biased toward 'human caused global warming'
And NASA, the NOAA, the AAAS, the NCAR, the AGU, the USGS, etc etc

All biased towards human caused global warming in the same way that many scientific institutions are biased toward the theory of a solar orbiting earth.

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#21 Oct 17, 2007
We should all wonder if consensus has nothing to do with science, why are skeptics scrambling so madly to prove there isn't a consensus?

Could it be because consensus isn't as irrelevant as they claim?

As Schwarzenegger said:
"If 98 doctors say my son is ill and needs medication and two say 'No he doesn’t he is fine,' I will go with the 98. It's common sense"

He also once said
"Get Your Ass to Mars"

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#22 Oct 17, 2007
pre-emptive response:
no im not saying consensus has any part in the scientific process, it's use is for laypeople trying to determine the current state of the science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 19 min Patriot AKA Bozo 53,526
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 23 min Patriot AKA Bozo 5,585
The future of transport 1 hr IBdaMann 8
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 8 hr litesong 2,121
News Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing A... 10 hr litesong 12
Seeking a objective petspective on CO2's abilit... Mon Earthling-1 20
Global Cooling Mon Earthling-1 77
More from around the web