Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

What else do you call 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

In the case of Science magazine, the controversy followed a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, in December of 2004. Her research consisted of analyzing 1,000 papers on the subject of global warming, published since the early 1990s. She concluded that 75% of them backed the theory of man-made global warming and none dissented from it.

 

Dr. Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, was one of many scientists to disagree with Dr. Oreskes's unequivocal conclusions. Dr. Peiser decided to conduct his own analysis with the same documents and found the following: "Of all 1117 [papers], only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. 322 [papers] (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 470 (or 42%) [papers]... do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change."......

 

http://www.aim.org/briefing/global-warming-consensus-melts/

[flamingjimmy]

In the case of Science magazine, the controversy followed a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, in December of 2004. Her research consisted of analyzing 1,000 papers on the subject of global warming, published since the early 1990s. She concluded that 75% of them backed the theory of man-made global warming and none dissented from it.

 

Dr. Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, was one of many scientists to disagree with Dr. Oreskes's unequivocal conclusions. Dr. Peiser decided to conduct his own analysis with the same documents and found the following: "Of all 1117 [papers], only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. 322 [papers] (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 470 (or 42%) [papers]... do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change."......

 

http://www.aim.org/briefing/global-warming-consensus-melts/

 

So who do we trust to be right then?

 

the Professor who's at the university of California, got a PHD from Stanford, and has taught at Harvard (some of the most highly respected universities in the world), does a real science.

 

Or do we believe the Sports Science and exercise lecturer from John Moores (So good, that you barely even need A-levels to get in)?

[Cyclone]

Which one appears to be impartial? That's the one I'd trust.

[Urien]

Global Warming not a political scam? Read on:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners

[Wildcat]

If there is an error in a scientific work, it casts doubt on the whole work. If you are as knowledgeable of scientific methods (as you seem to be) then you would know that.

 

I do know that. The doubt that it casts however is miniscule, because the error was not found in chapter one, and doesnt affect the scientific arguments.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Those models would be great, if they weren't based on 'adjusted' real temperatures that artificially create the warming trend that doesn't exist.

 

Why would you be happier with the scientists comparing data that was known to have errors that adjustments can correct? That is a pretty silly argument.

[Wildcat]

Which one appears to be impartial? That's the one I'd trust.

 

In Benny's original paper he claimed 3% disagreed with the consensus but, in October 2006 Peiser admitted, he found no peer reviewed papers and only one non-peer reviewed paper that contradicted the consensus of scientific opinion.

 

So he lied.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/benny_peiser

 

So your question is pertinant, who do you trust to be impartial?

 

Edit

 

Ps Truman's source Accuracy in the Media, sounds like a noble fairminded organisation out to source the truth doesn't it?

 

However it is so Conservative even Ann Coulter, has criticsed them over their support for the Vincent Foster claims against Bill Clinton.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media#Vincent_Foster_conspiracy_claims

 

Some more about them:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media

 

Edit 2:

 

The report on the AIM website is also factually incorrect Peiser's study wasn't of the same papers as the original study, his study included non-peer reviewed papers. So AIMs report also contains a huge misrepresentation.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

You mean they don't say what you want to hear.

 

 

I would be much happier if the science said we were making the world a better place.

[Wildcat]

Global Warming not a political scam? Read on:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners

 

Considering the damage the majority of scientists say we are doing to the environment, I would be pretty cross if we weren't spending money on organisations like these.

 

We should probably be giving them more.

[truman]

Did someone say "peer review" ?

 

 

 

The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:

 

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

form here

 

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8487:global-warming-consensus-garbage-in-garbage-out&catid=57:commentary&Itemid=154