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

Bill

Canada

#43 Oct 18, 2007
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are completely ignorant of history. Easily demonstrated by looking at any culture at any time in history. Consensus in “science” is totally meaningless now as it was then.
Go to some Island and see what their consensus is concerning anything resembling “science” and compare it to another culture.
But you're talking about traditional belief systems, not science. Since science started with Galileo (arguably) it has consistently refined its models of our world. Science progresses by correcting its own errors. Science is the study of the laws of nature, and nature doesn't change to suit cultural preferences.

Religions don't usually admit to errors. Religions tend to diverge, because religion deals with things that aren't subject to evidence.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#44 Oct 19, 2007
pjam2825 wrote:
Man made Climate change is real, I have looked at all the evidence and it is beyond doubt.
People that do not except CC are delusional and can’t except basic scientific principles.
It is time to move on and look how to fix this problem.
Nuclear will need to play a large role in the future because of CC so:
Why is Iran denied nuclear power?
so you must know a lot more than the god of AGW - the IPCC - they invented the myth - they say 90% likely - can you please call them and tell them your superior intelligence has made you 100% sure - and while you are doing it can you please tell the rest of us what empirical scientific observations have led you to a totally conclusive decision.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#45 Oct 19, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with the premise.
well no surprises there - and no evidence to back up your standpoint so means zip

thanks for wasting your breath - you just contributed to warming the world according to your theories - that makes you a hypocrite (again)

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#46 Oct 19, 2007
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
But you're talking about traditional belief systems, not science. Since science started with Galileo (arguably) it has consistently refined its models of our world. Science progresses by correcting its own errors. Science is the study of the laws of nature, and nature doesn't change to suit cultural preferences.
Religions don't usually admit to errors. Religions tend to diverge, because religion deals with things that aren't subject to evidence.
science did not start with Galileo - but Francis Bacon - the father of scientific method. You need to brush up on your history and be more correct of what you say.

“Climate change + politics”

Since: Oct 07

Basel Switzerland

#47 Oct 19, 2007
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am neither ("American for Prosperity" or a "Freedom Works"er?:-). I never heard of them until now.
It is time I stop my paranoia with you:-). You have a good heart. I was just referring to the two split-off groups from the seame organization. You make a very honest ample statement regarding political opinionating that speaks to my heart. In Wikipedia, it said that the U.S. Republicans stifled reporting of scientific progress, using the word climate change. But I just discovered myself that the mentioning of the word "climate change" in scientific paper abstracts has become important in order to receive public funding, thus the suspicion of the Republicans. That's why I don't blame them for that. People like you and me who seek the entire truth maybe have a hard time to find an audience. In my attempt to be as balanced and accurate as possible in my reporting in my blog http://climatepatrol.blogspot.com , I am not sexy but - I guess - rather boring. But one thing I found out in my research: One particular example can be found here. In this exemple "there was consensus" assumeing that a warmer world will bring more temperature variability with more severe storms, etc. etc. The Swiss survey demonstrated just the opposite: http://climatepatrol.blogspot.com/2007/10/new...
Since their findings did not confirm what they were looking for to support the accuracy of climate models, what they did was to try to find an explanation - a guessing game - in order not to challenge the consensus position on global warming. It is very subtle, I know.

But your statement is so precious. Would you mind me to quote you on what you said? It is quite important to the Swiss. Liberals in Switzerland are not left, just to give you an example of how important it is to tell the Swiss audience what is going on in the U.S. in particular, and in the media in general. I couldn't say it better than you.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#48 Oct 19, 2007
climatepatrol wrote:
<quoted text> It is time I stop my paranoia with you:-). You have a good heart. I was just referring to the two split-off groups from the seame organization. You make a very honest ample statement regarding political opinionating that speaks to my heart. In Wikipedia, it said that the U.S. Republicans stifled reporting of scientific progress, using the word climate change. But I just discovered myself that the mentioning of the word "climate change" in scientific paper abstracts has become important in order to receive public funding, thus the suspicion of the Republicans. That's why I don't blame them for that. People like you and me who seek the entire truth maybe have a hard time to find an audience. In my attempt to be as balanced and accurate as possible in my reporting in my blog http://climatepatrol.blogspot.com , I am not sexy but - I guess - rather boring. But one thing I found out in my research: One particular example can be found here. In this exemple "there was consensus" assumeing that a warmer world will bring more temperature variability with more severe storms, etc. etc. The Swiss survey demonstrated just the opposite: http://climatepatrol.blogspot.com/2007/10/new...
Since their findings did not confirm what they were looking for to support the accuracy of climate models, what they did was to try to find an explanation - a guessing game - in order not to challenge the consensus position on global warming. It is very subtle, I know.
But your statement is so precious. Would you mind me to quote you on what you said? It is quite important to the Swiss. Liberals in Switzerland are not left, just to give you an example of how important it is to tell the Swiss audience what is going on in the U.S. in particular, and in the media in general. I couldn't say it better than you.
Sure, go ahead and use the quote. I admire anyone who desires the real truth unaltered to fit the preconceived conclusion. Unfortunately many people on this earth are not like that.

You mention Republicans. The USA will be electing a new president. Republican John McCain is running. I have rejected him for one reason. He has said “the debate is over it is time for action” pertaining to global warming. It is unusual that I would reject him for that one single reason. As I pointed out in the last post. He is playing the power and money game and using global warming (fraud) as the vehicle to do it.

I would hope that the USA would stop trying to dance on top of the fence. I think ours leaders know it is phony in the context of all of its wild claims. But they need to pacify the venomous vocal outraged groups. They also know there is money to control. Money is power in politics. This money is what I think has the tightest grip on them. A good video of what mentality the Government leaders have to deal with. http://zooptv.vidiac.com/video/EC257EBB-DF16-...

From all of my posts on this forum a person would learn I have no tolerance for “the debate is over it is time for action” peddlers of global warming. Some may think I come on too strong but there are many non posting readers who get nothing but a steady diet of -“the debate is over it is time for action”

Keep up the search for the truth behind global climate. It is eye opening and interesting at minimum.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#49 Oct 19, 2007

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#50 Oct 19, 2007
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
science did not start with Galileo - but Francis Bacon - the father of scientific method. You need to brush up on your history and be more correct of what you say.
I won't dispute the contributions of Galileo, or Francis Bacon, or Leonardo DaVinci.

But in my mind, Socrates is also an important participant in the development of the scientific method.

Socrates is famous for the "Socratic dialogue": asking questions that test the validity of one's presumed knowledge.

The Respected Doofinator

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#51 Oct 19, 2007
The Respected Doofinator wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't dispute the contributions of Galileo, or Francis Bacon, or Leonardo DaVinci.
But in my mind, Socrates is also an important participant in the development of the scientific method.
Socrates is famous for the "Socratic dialogue": asking questions that test the validity of one's presumed knowledge.
The Respected Doofinator
agreed - I was not meaning to diminish other notable or significant men of science who have made significant and worthwhile contribution but in the evolution of human thought bacon started the so called baconion scientific method which is the base for how we go about assessing things today and as such replace the methods of hermeticism and alchemy. Socrates was more concerned with philosophy and morals but agreed his contribution was also significant.
Chris Jury

Wilmington, NC

#52 Oct 22, 2007
It's funny that all of the world's leading experts on climatology, all of the world's major institutions that deal with climate (NASA, NOAA, AGU, EGU, etc.) endorse anthropogenic forcing of climate as the major reason for recent warming, yet only a little over half of the public realizes that they all agree. It's funny, and by that I mean sad.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#53 Oct 22, 2007
Chris Jury wrote:
It's funny that all of the world's leading experts on climatology, all of the world's major institutions that deal with climate (NASA, NOAA, AGU, EGU, etc.) endorse anthropogenic forcing of climate as the major reason for recent warming, yet only a little over half of the public realizes that they all agree. It's funny, and by that I mean sad.
Its sad that you overstate your case and refuse to acknowledge the growing wave of scientists opposed to global warming. The fact that a number of organisations have jumped on the bandwagon will prove to be their undoing. The fact that you endorse such crap has been yours.
Chris Jury

Wilmington, NC

#54 Oct 22, 2007
Ok, show me this "growing wave of scientists opposed to global warming." I see Tim Ball saying the same nonsense. I see Richard Lindzen arguing things for a couple decades that make no sense. I see Fred Singer denying that the climate has even warmed at all until 2003, despite obvious indications that we had warmed quite a bit.

Yeah, what a wave of scientists--the same few misfits that no one in the scientific community pays any attention to because of the ridiculous arguments they cling to. I'm just bowled over ...

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#55 Oct 22, 2007
Chris Jury wrote:
Ok, show me this "growing wave of scientists opposed to global warming." I see Tim Ball saying the same nonsense. I see Richard Lindzen arguing things for a couple decades that make no sense. I see Fred Singer denying that the climate has even warmed at all until 2003, despite obvious indications that we had warmed quite a bit.
Yeah, what a wave of scientists--the same few misfits that no one in the scientific community pays any attention to because of the ridiculous arguments they cling to. I'm just bowled over ...
As posted by TTM on page 1. Wow this is only a three page thread - is it too hard for you to track the conversation from the beginning or you just a lazy ass.

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.]

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#56 Oct 22, 2007
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
well no surprises there - and no evidence to back up your standpoint so means zip
You provided no evidence to back up your assertions either! Pot - Kettle.

Amazing!

“Small gov't.Low taxes, Freedom”

Since: Mar 07

Ronkonkoma

#57 Oct 22, 2007
WOW 55% of the people who took this survey are drinking the Kool Aid.

Global weather goes on whether man is here or not.

We've been here for 20 minutes do you really think the global weather can be affected by man?

“Climate change + politics”

Since: Oct 07

Basel Switzerland

#58 Oct 22, 2007
JRS wrote:
Hi JRS. Thanks for vising my site and for your encouragment. I just found the site about avarage cloud formation. It seems that after the sun output has reached the max, the cloud formation, most particularly lower clouds went down. Could this be because of more cosmic rays? Svensmarck again? Whatever the case, I am prepared for a long, cold winter this time. The mountains in Southern Italy have just had a blizzard, as reported in the news today...In fact there would be so much to write and talk about...You are right, it is excited.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#59 Oct 22, 2007
Lost Rights James Bovard wrote:
WOW 55% of the people who took this survey are drinking the Kool Aid.
Global weather goes on whether man is here or not.
We've been here for 20 minutes do you really think the global weather can be affected by man?
nup and even the IPCC is being told its models are flawed;

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/...

“Climate change + politics”

Since: Oct 07

Basel Switzerland

#60 Oct 22, 2007
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>A good video of what mentality the Government leaders have to deal with. http://zooptv.vidiac.com/video/EC257EBB-DF16-...
Poignant! I had a good laugh watching this, thanks.

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#61 Oct 22, 2007
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
A good video of what mentality the Government leaders have to deal with. http://zooptv.vidiac.com/video/EC257EBB-DF16-...
Oh, wow!!

Sheep for shearing.

Exactly the type of doofusses that buy healing crystals, pet rocks, seawood tofu pies, and Nigerian internet scams.

It's a crime to let people this stupid keep their money.

The Respected Doofinator

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#62 Oct 22, 2007
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
nup and even the IPCC is being told its models are flawed;
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/...
The articles repeatedly uses the phrase

"The IPCC computer model"

That's like saying "The US Air Force Aircraft Carrier"

There isn't a single model, neither do they "belong" to the IPCC. Displays a glaring lack of knowledge on their part about what they are talking about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
5 Reasons why global warming also known as clim... 1 hr Earthling-1 36
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 1 hr Earthling-1 24
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 47,488
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 1 hr Cut n Paste 3,393
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 27,331
Hottest September On Record 2 hr Earthling-1 6
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr Earthling-1 1,512

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE