03-17-2015, 12:15 PM | #46 | |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Presumably because you recognize that scientists overwhelmingly say it is happening? You're not a climate scientist yourself, so you have to defer to the experts.
Quote:
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
|
03-17-2015, 02:03 PM | #47 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
No I don't. Convince me.
|
03-17-2015, 02:29 PM | #48 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Ok.
Who do you trust as a reliable source of information on this subject?
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
03-17-2015, 03:23 PM | #49 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Of what? You already believe AGW is real. Did you come by that belief independently of scientists warning us of it?
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
03-17-2015, 03:26 PM | #50 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Convince me that "what the scientists overwhelmingly say" is that AGW is real. I am not yet convinced of that.
|
03-17-2015, 03:31 PM | #51 |
Старый сержант
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women.
Posts: 1,464
|
Maybe this will help?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article 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.
__________________
Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius. |
03-17-2015, 04:25 PM | #53 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Well done, I was expecting either that, or the 2004 Science editorial. This is a stronger piece IMO.
What do you think of the major criticisms of this study? |
03-17-2015, 04:25 PM | #54 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
|
03-17-2015, 04:36 PM | #56 | |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Plus, see the wiki page of counterexamples. First, it's a short list, though of course, it is undoubtedly incomplete. Second, it contains multiple references to what the scientific consensus is that they are objecting to, including especially another wiki page specifically listing a large number of statements of consensus on the subject. That page includes this statement:
Quote:
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
|
03-17-2015, 04:41 PM | #57 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Oh, of the abstracts 1991-2011, those were mostly paid for. The review is free. But given the scope of all academia I really doubt that who paid for the studies is important. If we're talking about one study that's one thing, this is a review of many many studies and the money is mostly from academia I'd expect.
|
03-17-2015, 04:42 PM | #58 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
If we want to be careful, Wikipedia is out, right? We should agree on that.
|
03-17-2015, 04:52 PM | #59 |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
My line of question was because I wondered if many of the abstracts were paid for by a small number of "entities" As you were.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|