Posted on 09/03/2007 6:33:02 AM PDT by fabrizio
and, to this Owl Gore replies “Consensus? We don’t need no stinkin’ consensus!”
bookmark
The study is flawed, because papers with a unique, new perspective are more likely to be published than papers that repeat the same positions. A better method would be to interview scientists directly.
So you’re saying 7% IS ‘less than half’??? Where’s your proof?
This should silence the Global Warming Debate Deniers.
But it won’t, alas.
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes ....
Ah-Ah! A femi-nazi, this explains it.
(I knew that 19th Amendment thingy would create havoc, but nobody listened.)
BUSH cronies!!!!
/lib rant off
:-)
Hey stop being so picky!
7% is big improvement in accuracy figures for those moonbats!
Last month Al Gore claimed multiple times that Two Billion people participated in Live Earth yet they can only account for less than Forty Million of them. That's not even 2% of their frequently claimed attendance figures!
Is Naomi Oreskes the author of the one paper that predicts doom?
Another fly in the ointment is what I percieve to be lowered standards for publication, at least in my field. There is brilliant work being done, but a higher number of repackaged derivative works compared to 15 years ago. For example, just last week there was an "Exciting Energy Thing" involving the high reactivity of an aluminum amalgam with gallium rather than mercury. The latter has been known for half a century. The work was intuitively obvious, but the Energy Buzzword was introduced.
Likewise, "Global Whatever" is a growing "industry" that produces funding and revenues. It would be very easy to get funded and published if one took the Party Line.
First of all, where is the paper referred to? He makes no reference to where you can find Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s work.
Second, in addition to published material, has anyone conducted a simple poll of noteworthy climate scientists, that could consist of two questions?:
1) The Earth is in a period of Warming on a global scale.
—a) I agree with this statement.
—b) I do not know if the Earth is in a period of warming, cooling, or general stability in temperature on a global scale.
—c) I disagree with this statement.
—d) The statement does not adequately describe what I know.
—e) I refrain from comment.
2) Current, not extraordinary, human activity can have a significant effect on Earth’s climate on a global scale.
—a) I agree with this statement.
—b) I do not know if the human activity can have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate on a global scale.
—c) I disagree with this statement.
—d) The statement does not adequately describe what I know.
—e) I refrain from comment.
Such a poll would strongly clarify both who believes that Global Warming is taking place, and who believes that Man Made Global Warming is taking place. And who does not, or cannot definitively say, one way or another.
So youre saying 7% IS less than half??? Wheres your proof?
I believe the truth can be found when one is working with large values of 2 (not traditional values of 2). When working with large values of 2 there is reasonable doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. I hope this helps.
Best regards
If the other threads on this very same topic didn't, this thread won't either. Besides, there is a Global Warming Debate.
Yep, that's the way I read it.
Examining peer-reviewed papers ... 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.
Just a wild guess, but she's 'prolly' a godless commie who votes straight Dem too. (not sarcasm)
Thanks, I failed to consider the possibility of large values of 2.
Speaking of which:
1) The Earth is in a period of Cooling on a global scale.
2) Current, not extraordinary, human activity can not possibly have a significant effect on Earths climate on a global scale.
Which section of a University library should I be able to find current research on these obvious truisms?
ping
A climate scientist Von Storch (sp?) did such a survey and found a ~50:50 reply for and against AGW
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.