Global Warming Consensus

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    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.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

    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. [emphasis in original]

    Link
     
  2. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I know this is a hot topic (no pun intended), but as a layman it appears to me to be pretty much a straightforward conclusion.

    Mankind is pumping tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is a given.

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is a given.

    The worldwide measurements on carbon dioxide in the air shows a significant spike in this gas that mirrors the increased burning of fossil fuels. The net effect of all production of carbon dioxide, along with the natural sinks that absorb this gas, equates to a rising level of this particular gas in our atmosphere. That is a given.

    Therefore, to me it makes as much sense to say 1 +1 = 2 as to say increased burning of fossil fuels resulting in rising carbon dioxide levels that our planet can not natually absorb will result in an overall increase in this particular greenhouse gas which will result in a corresponding increase in global temperature averages over time.
     

  3. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    Wasn't it "Global Cooling" that was going to kill us all not very long ago?
     
  4. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Not trying to attack you, but that statement is one that I just have to shake my head at when someone makes it. To me it says, "well they got it wrong before, why should I listen to the scientists now after they have been studying this for decades and come to a different conclusion than was originally stated?"
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    That is what the original post is about. Listening to all the scientists now.
     
  6. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    Ok. Sad when people simply use fear and emotion to push a political agenda.
     
  7. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    The Earth is warming yes, however we are not the primary reason. We are certainly not helping, however. Bear in mind that we have been transitioning out of an ice age for how many thousands of years now? So yes, I expect it to get warmer. The good news is it is cyclical. I do believe that we pump too much junk into our atmosphere, however I hate these people that claim we are killing the earth. In fact, a certain amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is a good thing to maintain the ecological balance of the Earth. Additionally, people dont give enough credit to how the Earth "Cleans" itself naturally. Its actually pretty incredible if you take the time to read about it.

    But what we also need to understand is that anytime a portion of the earth gets hotter another portion will get colder. The great thing about Earth is that there is in fact a natural balance.

    Obviously, it completely depends on the bias of the scientist who is researching and publishing studies about it. What I have stated above are things that I have gathered after reading about it, so it could be wrong too....
     
  8. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Oh, I know that there is not a consensus among scientists that man is responsible for global warming. But ask a scientist if global warming is occuring and most will tell you that it is. The division is over man's role in global warming.

    While obviously not a scientist, I have thrown my hat in the ring with those scientist who have come to the conclusion that our pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via fossil fuels is contributing to the increase in greenhouse gases and therefore global warming.

    Even if we discount man's role in global warming completely, I think we all could agree that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and the pollution they create (not to mention the countries that consumption of those fuels tie us to) would be a great thing for America. I would love to see the energy department heavily invest in breeder reactor technology as well as do more to encourage alternative fuel vehicles, be they hydrogen based or even electric. If breeder reactors could be perfected they could provide us with thousands of years of energy and with vehicles operating on something other than fossil fuels we would be self-sufficient once again for our energy needs. Its pie in the sky, but I can hope.
     
  9. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    We need to get rid of .gov involvement in should-be private sectors such as energy. Almost everything the big bad gov't touches seems to be inefficient.
     
  10. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I can understand your point, but I have to disagree. Energy has become a big issue on the world stage and as China and India continue to consume more the political implications of energy resources will drive more national decisions. Simply put, energy strategy is a national defense issue and all national defense issues should be handled by the government and not private corporations.

    That being said, I think the government's involvement should not be in the actual creation of breeder reactors or alternative vehicles, but should be in the form of grants, loans and tax incentives to create the environment for these breakthroughs to happen. As of right now, the government is paying lip service to alternative energy sources and big business is not about to overextend itself in this arena.
     
  11. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    We hardly need to "perfect" breeder reactors before switching to nuclear power. What we are capable of right now is good enough. I can think of six Utah families that probably wish the :censored: retarded environmentalists hadn't stopped the spread of nuclear power in the US.
     
  12. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    That is too much gov't involvement. Robbing money at gun point from taxpayers isn't right.
     
  13. merlock

    merlock Active Member

    2,515
    0
    36
    +1
    Excellent point!
     
  14. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    2
    0
    Thank God nobody does that with respect to gun control.
     
  15. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    Whew!
     
  16. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Oh dear, you hit a button...

    Much like gun control. Until you dive deeply into the subject, what you hear in the news makes sense. Once you know, you laugh at how wrong the statements are.
    Compared to when?
    Mankind before the industrial revolution - yes.
    1900 - 1970 when we went through a cooling period (global cooling) while still pumping out tremendous amounts of CO2 - Houston we have a problem
    1,000,000+ years ago when we were not around - today would seem like nothing
    Yes, but again compared to what? Water vapor is the biggest at about 98% of the "effect". All Human produced CO2 represents about 0.2% of the "effect".
    Carbon dioxide's effect on the climate as it's percentage rises is logarithmic (less effect as concentration rises/need more and more to get same effect) instead of exponential (what the media tries to imply). As an example, changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
    Sorry, its just not that simple. Like the fact that ice cores show carbon levels lagged behind temperature increase. So it could very well be that temperature increase causes CO2 levels to rise. Which if is the case, cutting CO2 will do absolutly nothing... except cost billions-trillions of dollars.
     
  17. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    2
    0
    Excuse me, is this seat taken? :popcorn:
     
  18. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    GS1, Links/graphs? I'm having trouble finding them after a quick search.
     
  19. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38