What is the method of spending the least amount of money again?
And as for the blanket dismissal… You’re suggesting that your list of thirty names of scientists largely in other fields is somehow equitable to the mainstream scientific understanding? Why are you giving thirty non-experts more credence than the vast majority of climate scientists?
So your logic here is that any scientist who disagrees is wrong therefore you cannot listen. It’s just a matter of adding up scientists. what happens if the balance tips? Do you change your mind by decree because it sure sounds like that to me.
So to my original question, how many dissenting opinions does it take between now and the end of the world before it’s politically correct to listen?
I found this on the Senate web site showing 400 scientists who dissented in 2007 updated to 650 in 2008. The report.
Pick a number so I’ll know when I can discuss it.
This only works by ignoring the history of how the consensus appeared.
Even McCain agrees with the consensus, I still think the efforts of some to politicize this issue are creationist level insulting.
:sigh: Inhofe again, IIRC those lists were already discussed, I really can not take seriously a report that, among other things, still insists that the “hockey stick” was debunked. NASA and other organizations still refer to it, the New Scientist still reports that it was a Myth that it was debunked and the original researchers are still working, debunked is not a word that I would use, unless the intent is to mislead.
Well I’m convinced. I’ll look for a peer review of his research by the noted Senator turned Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore.
How’s that number coming along?
George Will is the main subject here, but I see why you would not be willing or able to defend his misleading quotes.
The site already mentioned:
Deals also with the organizations that follow the current consensus.
It is important to notice that on the last list cited by you, many where not climate scientists, so the number you are talking about does not mean much as most of it are only opinions not supported with papers published in climate research; it is curious IMO (taking into account the wiki cite) that many of the scientists mentioned by Inhofe are geologists.
That’s not a number, that’s a site. How many scientists will it take before you remove your fingers from your ears. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with any of them.
Pick a number. It’s a simple question. No tricks.
Sorry, you are making the trick, Inhofe’s numbers are misleading and unreliable, History shows it was only about 1 or 2 in favor of Global warming at the beginning of the 20th century, it took lots of effort and evidence to convince almost all of the climate scientists and the majority of related researchers to accept it , now seeing the deniers in the minority and using misleading tactics like George Will is just pitiful.
Once the majority of climate scientists come with criticism of the current view is when one can agree with the contrarians. This is assuming deniers come up with supporting evidence, so far, at least in the SDMB, I have seen only misleading info from the deniers and very little on the way of published papers supporting them.
Will you concede that some scientists have published peer reviewed papers in journals stating that CO2 levels are increasing and will cause long term warming? And that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of human activities? I’m assuming that you will concede that some scientists have made such peer reviewed publications.
I will not concede that any climatologist has published an contrary paper in a peer reviewed journal. Not a fucking one. That isn’t a supermajority, true. It is unanimous. Rush Limbaugh and George Will are not scientists, much less climatologists, much less published one on this subject.
All I asked for was a number that represented a point when it’s politically safe to acknowledge there are legitimate voices of dissention. So far I’m hearing the words “la la la la la” from people who are forbidden by PC law to allow a discussion.
So, I’ll ask again. How many scientists with dissenting opinion would it take for a discussion to take place?
:rolleyes:
IMHO it is when over 50% begins to say something different, and it is you who is really not dealing with the numbers. Not all of the scientists in Inhofe’s list are relevant and many are only giving an opinion not based on research, so it is silly to pretend you have a proper number.
Why don’t you finally admit that it’s a stupid question? There is no magic number. It depends on a number of factors, like (as was pointed out above) how consensus was achieved, what the qualifications of the dissenters/nondissenters are, what biasing factors are present, etc. It’s like you’re asking, “Exactly how many hairs must a person lose before they are considered bald? I insist on a precise number!” It’s nonsense.
And besides, discussion *has *taken place. You are acting as though there is some conspiracy to silence global warming dissenters. As has been documented throughout this thread, there was plenty of debate over global warming, but evidence swung scientific consensus in the direction of AGW. You are complaining because people aren’t treating something that has been fairly well-established as though it were an open question. You’re not advocating free inquiry; you’re advocating bad science.
This is not so strange when you consider that one of the techniques we are taught to recognise rocks, is to wet them in order to better see details. Now, most geologists carry a waterbottle, and will use that, but some … well, don’t spread it about, but some just don’t recognise cinnabar until they’ve given it a good licking.
Either that, or the high number of geologists emplyed by oil companies might signify, but I don’t know, I still think “Cinnabar lickers” :mad:
IMO? When around 25% of peer reviewed scientific articles are bucking the consensus, then we should listen.
ETA: Hell, I’ll be stupidly generous: when 5% of accredited climatology journal articles take an unambiguous “No AGW” stance, the time will come to re-evaluate.
I certainly wouldn’t deny it. But in any event, I am happy to concede for all purposes that CO2 levels are increasing and that increased levels of CO2 are very likely to cause long term warming.
Because that’s not the critical issue. The critical issue is whether CO2 induced warming will cause water vapor levels to increase, causing further warming, causing water vapor levels to increase further, and so on, resulting in warming which will have significant negative effects.
I have called this the “CAGW Hypothesis,” it’s the only hypothesis that really matters in this discussion.
Again, I won’t deny it.
Contrary to what? The CAGW Hypothesis? Or some other claim?
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com takes George Will to task for his erroneous and baseless arguments. Being the statistical wonk that he is, he illustrates Will’s folly with some graphs (constructed from NASA data) of global temperature anomaly over time, graphs which, as far as I’m concerned, put the boot to climate change deniers, who, as GIGObuster has noted above, “are beginning to resemble creationists in relation to biological science, the methods used by the deniers in recent discussions are reaching underhanded levels.”
I don’t think there is serious dispute that climate can and does change. To me, temperature graphs of the past 100 years or so actually cast doubt on the CAGW Hypothesis. Because they suggest a question which has not yet been answered satisfactorilly, as far as I know:
What, if anything, caused the increase in global surface temperatures which took place roughly in the first half of the 20th century?
Why articles? Why not 5% of climatologists?
Because then you’ll see assorted crazies and Exxon shills and other unreliable folks calling themselves climate scientists just to claim that XYZCAGW is false. Asking for peer-reviewed papers filters out most of the crazies.
Besides, in science, it’s the research itself that’s important, not the people doing it.
Meanwhile, can someone tell me just who exactly George Will is supposed to be or to do, and why anyone should care what he thinks?
Busted! As in totally!
(Warning! Liberal blogger site, tighty rightys advised to observe anti-cootie protocols!)
Georgie
University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center website, as quoted.
Then why do you discount research done by Exxon? Yes, they have an interest in disproving AGW. But if you see ‘Exxon’ next to the name and discount it, you are not judging the research, you are judging the people.