Global Warming Consensus Narrows – Still Misleading

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | January 22, 2009 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

Earth and Environmental Scientist Peter Doran recently surveyed 3,146 scientists in an effort to clarify the “scientific consensus” on global warming. Professor Doran has previously complained that his study revealing cooling in the Antarctic had been misinterpreted, causing confusion in the global warming debate. Here we go again.

[RogerFGay]

ping

[Wonder Warthog]

"But let’s look at the question again. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? “Significant” means anything from barely measurable to important to perhaps the primary cause. It is my impression that many scientists believe human activity has an effect on climate or think there might be – although most often that effect is thought to be very, very small."

There are NO scientists who believe that mankind's emission of CO2 has NOT contributed to the global climate cycle. The only valid question is "how much, compared to other factors". And right now, the correct answer is "not very damned much".

[coloradan]

The globe has been cooling since 1998. The real question is, how thick does the ice have to be over New York City before they admit they were wrong, and reverse all the Global Warming policies?

[meyer]

The globe has been cooling since 1998.

Cold is the new warm. Recession is the new boom. Down is the new up.

We've always been at war with Eurasia...

[JaguarXKE]

There are NO scientists who believe that mankind's emission of CO2 has NOT contributed to the global climate cycle. The only valid question is "how much, compared to other factors". And right now, the correct answer is "not very damned much".

If you pee in the ocean, do you contribute to it being wet? Yes. Is it significant? No.

[pappyone]

For more confusion on this article go to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm.
This article states that 10,200 “experts” around the world were contacted, 3,146 agree with MMGW.

[alloysteel]

Global warming, for whatever reason, is NOT tied to the amount of CO2, or even heat, formed by anthropogenic sources. The only rationalization for this insistence on making CO2 the culprit, is the basis for a new trading scheme and a taxation on wealth formation. This is similar to the selling of indulgences by various hucksters posing as representatives of the church back in the latter part of the Middle Ages, and is equally as unworthy.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Is C02 output by man THE dominative force?

And if so, what is the natural dominative force supposed to be?

Would not swift climate change occur naturally anyways as it has in the past?

Are we not headed for another ice age in the next few thousand years?

And if so, could human activity actually delay that?

I bet you would get far less willing to stick their necks out on those.

[RogerFGay]

It may be that they contacted over 10K, inviting participation in the survey, but only a bit over 3K responded / i.e. participated.

[RogerFGay]

But even that might be telling. Less than one third of the scientists invited to participate in the survey thought it important enough to participate.

[buffyt]

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/24/global-warming-debate-has-anyone-noticed-that-its-over/

Another really GOOD ONE! I heard that there was a new Rasmussen poll about glowbull warming and less than half of those polled think human caused global warming exists, most said it is a natural climate cycle.

[buffyt]

Hy daughter is a geoscientist/hydrogeologist and she LAUGHS at human caused glowbull warming!

[Wonder Warthog]

"Global warming, for whatever reason, is NOT tied to the amount of CO2, or even heat, formed by anthropogenic sources."

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. Like it or not, mankind does release CO2 into the atmosphere, so it "does" contribute some small additional fraction of the global energy balance. The science for that effect is incontrovertible. What "is" in question, as I pointed out, is how much is that small contribution with respect to the total climatological energy balance. The best science says, not much.

And that SAME "best science" is also starting to tell us that we may be heading into another Ice Age, which would be infinitely worse in it's impact than any POSSIBLE effect due to the worst case global warming.

[buffyt]

200 years of warming due to human activity? SUVs and ACs in 1809?

[buffyt]

My sister in Iowa and my friend in Michigan would agree with you! They have had enough snow this winter!

[RogerFGay]

Thanks for the link. I added reference to it in the article.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If you pee in the ocean, do you contribute to it being wet? Yes. Is it significant? No."

VERY good analogy, and precisely my point.

[RogerFGay]

Thanks.

[The Great RJ]

Global warming is being undermined by real science. Theories in science are not based on consensus, but on being able to demonstrate with further experiments that the theory is indeed correct. The CO2 driven man caused global warming theory is failing because more and more actual experiments and data analysis do not support the hypothesis. Al Gore’s charge that no further research was needed as there was a consensus of scientists who blindly accepted the theory was the antithesis of true science.