Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
    #3460449 - 12/07/04 05:47 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

This is an article from Science that states that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.


For those who don't know:
Science and Nature are the two non-specialized science journals; they are written primarily for scientists and other technically minded people, and present orriginal research and reviews that are of interest to all scientists, regardles of discipline (unlike, say, Journal of the American Chemical Society, which only interests chemists).

In other words, this a primary mouthpiece for the scientific community. Since it presents original research, many articles in Science will be mistaken; however, this article is a review of over 900 articles dealing with the subject of climate change, and so is more reliable than any papers dealing with original research.


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

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

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.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu />



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3460980 - 12/07/04 07:49 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

all this says is that out of 900 articles written, none of them
refute the notion that mankind is (negatively) impacting the
environment.

essentially, if what some claim is true, that there is a wide-spread
scientific bias towards the human explanation, than this summary
doesn't mean anything because they wouldn't have written any
articles contrary to their widespread agenda.

but, then again, if you believe the unbiased nature and principle
of these magazines, then you can postulate that, just as many
of us believe, that climate change has been impacted by man.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: afoaf]
    #3461137 - 12/07/04 08:20 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


essentially, if what some claim is true, that there is a wide-spread
scientific bias towards the human explanation, than this summary
doesn't mean anything because they wouldn't have written any
articles contrary to their widespread agenda.




What's the difference between "wide-spread scientific bias" and consensus?

What this article demonstrates is that most researchers studying climate change favor an explanation that includes the influence of humans. None oppose the notion. Thus, there is consensus in the community of scientists stuyding the climate that humans have impacted the climate, and continue to do so. Those who claim differently are wrong.

This is not to say that the scientists aren't wrong, of course, just that everyone actually writing published, peer-reviewed papers agrees.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3461648 - 12/07/04 10:20 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

The root of the issue is that this line..."The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas"...is fundamentally flawed. Simply looking at the natural climate changes throughout history shows that the change over the last 50 years is statistically insignificant. It happens all the time and therefore there is no way to connect it to human causes.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Catalysis]
    #3463870 - 12/08/04 11:52 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

The people doing this research have access to those data (historical climate change), and are trained to analyse it. In fact, we are talking about the same people that produced those data - from ice cores taken from glaciers, for example. And yet they still hold the position that humans have had an impact on climate change.

The statement you refer to is not fundamentally flawed in that it is self-contradicting; it is fundamentally flawed in that you either disagree with it or disagree with the arguments used to support it.

The paper here doesn't deal with the particular arguments within the community of scientists studying climate change over whether humans have had an impact on the climate; it is pointing out that there isn't one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3465484 - 12/08/04 05:46 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

This is not to say that the scientists aren't wrong, of course, just that everyone actually writing published, peer-reviewed papers agrees.




my point exactly.

except, some people think this 'consensus' is contrived and not
arrived at honestly.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: afoaf]
    #3465550 - 12/08/04 06:00 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


except, some people think this 'consensus' is contrived and not




They do (almost) all work for universities, those bastions of elitist liberal thought. And they get government money. :shiftyeyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #3466371 - 12/08/04 07:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

phi1618 said:
The people doing this research have access to those data (historical climate change), and are trained to analyze it. In fact, we are talking about the same people that produced those data - from ice cores taken from glaciers, for example. And yet they still hold the position that humans have had an impact on climate change.

The statement you refer to is not fundamentally flawed in that it is self-contradicting; it is fundamentally flawed in that you either disagree with it or disagree with the arguments used to support it.

The paper here doesn't deal with the particular arguments within the community of scientists studying climate change over whether humans have had an impact on the climate; it is pointing out that there isn't one.




Actually I'm not sure that's true. I think that if you look at the climate data, you can see that any recent climate change is not significant compared to past data.

Now, as a scientist, I will try to explain what is really going on here. We get our funding from you, the taxpayer through government funding organizations. Personally I get mine through NIH and NASA. I assume that these people get funding through other government science organizations. What happens is that these people get a research grant because of the political sway that it holds. They then spend 10 months of the year at their vacation home living off the money and they take a couple months doing some simple research at the library to come to a conclusion. This conclusion, however, is devoid of any hard evidence that humans are causing the earth to be destroyed within the foreseeable future. Its like that group that currently studied if Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem or not. Shit, they probably got 100k of your tax dollars to do it and that could have been spent on research like cancer, Parkinson's, and nerve damage.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Catalysis]
    #3466881 - 12/08/04 09:24 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Actually I'm not sure that's true.



Which statement does this refer to? That the climate scientists refered to in this article are the same scientists that produced data about the past climate?

from the article:
Quote:

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.




So, from the article and the analysis they did, it's not clear either way. However, it should be noted that the primary way that people study the climate is by developing computer driven models and comparing the output of these models to geological and other available climate data. So, I strongly suspect that there is a large overlap between paleoclimate researchers and those interested in the impact of human activity on the climate.

Quote:

I think that if you look at the climate data, you can see that any recent climate change is not significant compared to past data.



This sidesteps the arguments and methodology of researchers interested in climate change. Climatologists delop models to predict particluarly long term changes in climate. These models incorporate data from a variety of sources (further down) and are weighed against the geological and climatic record.

Human activity has produced a substantial increase in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 150 years ( http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html ) The models developed by climatologists all predict that this is causing change in the climate and will have an increasingly significant effect over the coming decades.

The problem with your argument about the climate data is that you're trying to detect a signal against an extemely noisy background. Only an enormous and likely catastrphic change would be detectable with 95% confidence.

Quote:

We get our funding from you, the taxpayer through government funding organizations. Personally I get mine through NIH and NASA. I assume that these people get funding through other government science organizations.



You are not talking about a small group or an isolated community of researchers. The people involved in studying the climate include climatologists, computer modelling specialists, astronomers (impact of incident energy and its fluctuations from the sun), aerologists (study the composition and chemistry of the atmosphere), oceanographers, biogeochemists (study the flow of elements through biological, geological, and atmospheric cycles), meteorologists, biologists, glaciologists, geologists, etc. etc.
Nor are researchers studying climate change limited to the US.
This is not an isolated, or even relatively isolated, group of people. This isn't Dr. Ricaurte (NIDA funded drug researcher). This isn't even a single discipline.
What you are suggesting is that a huge group of people who studied in different countries and universities and who have a variety of specialties and get their funding from a variety of sources are cooperating in distorting the facts in order to get funding more easily.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #8357459 - 05/03/08 01:58 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

The claim by Oreskes has been shown to be inaccurate.

See http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesupernovasky
Comrade
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,990
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Phred]
    #8357520 - 05/03/08 02:18 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Also, Avery and Singer collected names of 500 scientists who have published papers whose content contradicts some aspects of the recent warming alarm. Sen James Inhofe has a similar list of 400+ scientists.




Wow Phred, I cant believe you posted this AFTER I refuted it in the other global warming thread.
Don't be too embarrassed over this, now, but this is pretty embarrassing stuff.


www.dailykos.com

Quote:

It's a very bad day for the chronic climate change deniers at the right wing "think" tank, the Heartland Institute.

The folks at DeSmogBlog have discovered an inconvenient truth about the heartland institute's "500 climate scientists" list:

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list.

They updated the news with:

UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. we've published more quotes here

A sample quote:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

Ouch.

Make sure you click all the links, especially the one in the update, and bookmark DeSmogBlog so you can keep up with the story as it develops.


This is an open thread. The Flat Earth floor is yours, for eco-news and anything else that's on your mind.

And, of course, you can read the Overnight News Digest here.





So no, it has not been debunked. If anything, YOUR list has been debunked.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 19,383
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 4 days, 1 hour
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (moved)
    #8357742 - 05/03/08 03:28 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

This thread was moved from Political Discussion.

Reason:
This thread appears to be discussing science, and as a similar thread was creating quite the spout of drama in the Politics forum very recently, I am going to move this one to Science & Technology for further discussion in efforts to spare the dramatics.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: supernovasky]
    #8357822 - 05/03/08 04:00 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

I think you appended the wrong reply to the wrong article.

This has nothing to do with any list being sneered at by the minions of Markos Moulitsas and everything to do with a scholarly refutation of Naomi Orestes' errors of fact -- errors which she then admitted to.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,919
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #8357835 - 05/03/08 04:03 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

If the science is going to be debated, then this thread should be moved here:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/7776816/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD


--------------------
--- nothing right now ---


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8357840 - 05/03/08 04:06 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Ummm... no. See Geokills' rationale for moving the thread to the proper forum.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,919
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Phred]
    #8357851 - 05/03/08 04:08 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Where has it been moved to? I don't see that anywhere; just that it has been closed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesupernovasky
Comrade
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,990
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8357893 - 05/03/08 04:20 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

This has nothing to do with any list being sneered at by the minions of Markos Moulitsas and everything to do with a scholarly refutation of Naomi Orestes' errors of fact -- errors which she then admitted to.




Phred, I honestly don't give your article any credit. It seems to use a list that has been refuted time and time again, a list of scientists that disagree with global warming (a list that contained a SERIOUS ethical breach, picking random scientists names and putting them on the list against their wishes, scientists who argue FOR AGW).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: supernovasky]
    #8358008 - 05/03/08 04:57 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Super, you are responding to some post that was never in this thread, and that wasn't made by me in the first place.

Go to my post of today, click on the link, read it. Don't stop at the end of the first paragraph, read the entire article. Check out some of the embedded links as well, if you wish.

The article I linked has nothing to do with some list of hundreds of scientists and everything to do with showing how Naomi Oreskes screwed the pooch in her article in Science where she claimed her exhaustive search of every relevant scientific paper published in a decade failed to unearth a single paper which disagreed with the AGW orthodoxy. AGW adherents trumpeted long and loud for years that this was definitive proof no "real" scientist disbelieved their hypothesis.

As it turns out, Oreskes was wrong. Quite a few real scientists do dispute the orthodoxy, yet she somehow managed to miss (at the least) a few dozen of their papers.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesupernovasky
Comrade
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,990
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: Phred]
    #8358418 - 05/03/08 07:01 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

I'll just let this speak for itself, a few breakdowns of Peiser's arguments from your site. I already showed his first paragraph was outright wrong, with the whole "scientist list" Stuff. As for the other parts:

Quote:

Chris Mooney has some comments on the Peiser/Oreskes dispute about the scientific literature on climate change.

Oreskes asserted that none of the papers rejected the consensus position (anthropogenic climate change). Peiser asserts that these 34 reject or doubt the consensus position. Note that Peiser added “or doubt” to the category so it is logically possible for both of them to be correct. So, judge for yourselves by looking at the abstracts. I want to see what my readers think so leave a comment giving your count for how many “reject” and how many “reject or doubt” the consensus. (Yes, there are only 33 abstracts.)

Update: John Fleck, Henry Farrell and William Connolley are all very much less than impressed with Peiser’s work.

Update 2: Peiser has posted the missing abstract in comments. Chris Mooney isn’t impressed either.

So here they are:

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

Read the big list, many of these are ABSURD to include in a study that shows abstracts that throw doubt on anthropogenic global warming.

So how do they break down?


Do not discuss consensus: 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 20, 21, 32, 33


Support consensus: 4, 6, 8, 9, 18, 23


Address consensus, not revealing a position: 1, 28


Oppose consensus, opinion pieces: 10, 27


Seek change in consensus, peer reviewed: 7, 15, 20


Directly oppose consensus, peer reviewed: None

Grand total of all 33: one rejection of AGC, five doubters, twenty-five no opinions, two supporters of AGC

Here are the ages of the studies:

Year # of Articles
1993 4
1994 2
1995 4
1996 4
1997 3
1998 5
1999 0
2000 5
2001 4
2002 1
2003 1
2004 0
2005 0

The average age of these citations is about 8 years.
IMHO, not only do these citations not challenge
AGW, many of them are probably obsolete. Climate
science has come a long way in the last decade.





Still pretty embarrassing.


http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/



Edited by supernovasky (05/03/08 07:03 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [Re: phi1618]
    #8369525 - 05/06/08 06:08 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Nature won't publish articles that the editors consider to be against the mainstrean or what they think the majority believe. Its probably the same with Science. They're in it for the money.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop: Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Are we too late to save our climate?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
BrainChemistry 4,927 99 08/11/09 01:47 PM
by Minstrel
* The Scientific Importance of the Moon jdirty 1,106 6 04/28/07 03:16 AM
by elbisivni
* Climate Change tak 768 10 03/14/06 07:03 AM
by WhiteBunny
* Welcome to the rational face of climate cult alarmism Visionary Tools 518 0 06/02/08 03:01 PM
by Visionary Tools
* Dried Mushrooms Slow Climate Warming In Northern Forests Floyd_ 332 0 11/11/08 01:32 AM
by Floyd_
* Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual Visionary Tools 834 4 01/20/08 04:17 PM
by badchad
* I completely lost trust in scientific studies
( 1 2 all )
Epigallo 3,585 34 11/12/08 05:22 PM
by Plasmid
* Scientific Study Concludes that Ecstasy Harms the Brain of First Time Users
( 1 2 all )
JackTackle 5,580 26 12/06/06 11:09 AM
by badchad

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Lana, trendal, automan
4,255 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 18 queries.