An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
No Berz, the overwhelming consensus in the climate modeling community is that humans contribute significantly to global warming. There is no significant scientific debate on the matter.

The deniers start to sound like ID'ers and Creationists. Not there yet, but getting close.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Something like the Wheeler and Taylor book is far better in this regard.

That's a much tougher read, I reckon.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Sorry for the confusion. I meant my dissection not some Senate press release . I mean come on. 100 called a few respond all of a sudden there is unananimity across all the experts. What a complete junk srticle that never should have been written .

No one said "a few." All we know is that it's less than 50.

19 and that's a few comparitively speaking vs 100 EXPERTS CONSULTED. That article is an embarrassment to journalism.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Did Muslims fly planes into the glacier shown calving in Gore's movie?

No, but temperatures around them were probably raised by global warming. Higher temperatures = more melting. More melting = more calving.

Less tilt = cooler summers in the northern hemisphere where ice sheets grow. The amount of sunlight recieved by our planet is the ~same, but not the amount of sunlight hitting the northern latitudes because the Earth's tilt changes over time. Once winter hits those latitutdes, its cold enough to snow even now. But there's only so much water available to turn into snow each year, so the variable that drives ice advances is the amount of snow that is melted during the summer. Cooler summers means less melted snow.

Yeah, but warmer winters might mean less snow accumulation. The real question though might come from what the less pronounced seasons do to ocean currents. Somehow I suspect those have more to do with this than the ammount of sunlight.

19 and that's a few comparitively speaking vs 100 EXPERTS CONSULTED. That article is an embarrassment to journalism.

They've got to work with the sample they have. If most scientists didn't go see the movie, but the question the paper is trying to answer is what did scientists who went to see the movie think of it, they're forced to draw conclusions based on what answers they got. They can't know a priori who saw the movie and who didn't.

[Solly]

There is no significant scientific debate on the matter.

That's because the debate is now political rather than scientific.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

They've got to work with the sample they have. If most scientists didn't go see the movie, but the question the paper is trying to answer is what did scientists who went to see the movie think of it, they're forced to draw conclusions based on what answers they got. They can't know a priori who saw the movie and who didn't.

The article represents itself as a straw poll of all experts those critical and those supportive. I already alluded to reasons why those nonsupportive would be least inclined to view the movie or read the book. Therefore the straw polling methodology is suspect at best. The conclusions drawn absolutely meaningless.

The attempt to disguise this in the context of an article leads one to wonder why the AP is making a story up out of thin air.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nothing from the CATO institute is of interest.

Shooting the messenger.

And I'm still waiting for the claim of consensus among all climatologists to be substantiated.

[Ramo]

Already has been, but again:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Already has been, but again:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Yup, that proves it beyond any doubt. When IPCC says that there are a major concensus behind what IPCC, then it must be true.

I guess that most of the other organisations that are mentioned in some way or another are involved in IPCC, so they probably won't disagree.

The proving done by the article analysis was just a piece of cake - all those nasty pseudoscientists paid by the oilcompanies of course couldn't get their propaganda publicised.

Et voila - consensus is proven.

[Ramo]

Yes, the IPCC is a worldwide climate science consensus organization, so it probably includes representatives from various American climate science consensus organizations - the National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc., etc. The point is that NONE of these consensus organizations disagree with the idea that humans contribute significantly to gloabal warming.

I don't know what point you were trying to make with your third line. But in case you misunderstood the point, I'll quote it once more:

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, the IPCC is a worldwide climate science consensus organization, so it probably includes representatives from various American climate science consensus organizations - the National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc., etc. The point is that NONE of these consensus organizations disagree with the idea that humans contribute significantly to gloabal warming.

I don't know what point you were trying to make with your third line. But in case you misunderstood the point, I'll quote it once more:

I actually bothered to read it, so you could have spared our host for some bytes

You are quite right, thise organisations agrees, but it's not like they have made a voting amongst their members and says x % agree and y % disagree.

About the 928 abstracts - doesn't you find it a bit peculiar that 100 % of them (not including those that wasn't about current days) was in full agreement despite the fact that there actually are dissidents ? How come that none of these are found in this survey ?

[Ramo]

The organizations agree because the members overwhelmingly agree.

This is a study published in one of the two most respected scientific journals around (the other being Nature). The reason why none of the abstracts Oreskes sampled differed from the consensus position is because, again, this is the consensus position. It's overwhelmingly accepted by people in the field. Just as if you were to run a search in Biology journals for studies on the validity of evolution, you would see that practically no papers disagree with the consensus.

[BlackCat]

Except that there are dissidents - and not as UR lamely claims on ID level.

You can't compare this with evolution because evolution is based on hard facts (fossiles, genetics, observations etc) while the reasons behind global warming still are guesses and computermodels that plainly tells what the questioner wants to hear - don't misunderstand me, it is a valid theory, just as evolution. but it for certain seems to me that anyone that suggests that there may be other reasons than human impact is rediculed, ignored, smeared etc. - that is not what I call scientific methods.

[chequita guevara]

I've never heard of any scientists who disagree with evolution.

[BlackCat]

There has probably been a few, and there was for certain a lot after the theory was published.

That they were proven wrong really doesn't matter - they were allowed to express their points of view - actually, it was them that had the good publicity, but had to give in for evidence.

Currently, anyscientist that dares to question IPCC are blamed to be paid by oil industry wether they are independent or not - just the fact that they suggest other explanations for the global warming, is discrediting.

Some researchers suggested that cosmic radiation could have an impact on the climate, but was attacked because it would diminish the impact humans was suspected to have. Is that the way we want science to work ?