What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
82 Comments
- londubh, on 10/17/2007, -12/+34Schulte is a global warming denier. Everything about the title and blurb was confusing about this and misleading. The consensus article in question says that there is still a scientific debate over global warrming as if it were in doubt. Human caused global warming is happening. That debate ended. The oil and coal companies want you to believe that burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate is okie dokie.
- kgrandia, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19The Schulte "soon-to-be-published" study was passed around the blogosphere by many in the climate change denial industry as somehow proof there was major disagreement amongst scientists about the realities and causes of global warming. Turns out thought that the "research" was never to be published -- so its really important that this is on the public record as an attempt to spread misinformation.
- londubh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It's not about debate. You can debate all you want. I don't need to debate the science. We can discuss the finer points. Just as there is no scientific debate about the fact that life evolved on earth there are debates about the finer details and their is much research being done to refine our understanding of evolution. And so as it is with climate change. The earth's climate has changed in the past without man's intervention. The scientific debate is over how much man is affecting the climate today.Their are a number of lines of climatic evidence from sediment cores from around the world, tree rings records that go back thousands of years and those tree ring records can be matched up with trees that died thousands of years ago and extend it back past the birth of ancient trees still alive, and then there are the ice cores that go back tens of thousands of years. There are many lines of evidence that point to a warming world and this is where the oil and coal companies want you to think there is a scientific debate (when there isn't).
Carbon 14 has a half life of around 5700 years. Carbon 14 forms in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms. The rate is pretty constant but does fluctuate a bit. All of that oil and coal in the ground is millions and millions of years old. So any carbon 14 in it would have decayed to nothing. So we can tell by the ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the extra CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuel. And anyone who understands basic chemistry knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the more you have in the atmosphere the more heat it is going to retain. There is a debate or scientific inquiry on how nature deals with that extra carbon. The Earth is a very complex system. Is global warming increasing the intensity of hurricanes? Is global warming responsible for the collapse of the North Pole ice? You can look at pictures of glaciers a hundred years ago and now and see a clear difference. Anthropogenic climate change is only highly contested by those duped by the oil companies. The extent of human influence is debated because there is still a lot we don't know and new information will change and clarify that picture. - berserker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13From the Article:
"The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication."
Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte is an Endocrinologist.
Endocrinology - the branch of biology dealing with the endocrine glands and their secretions, esp. in relation to their processes or functions.
In what way is this person (read: puppet) considered climatology expert?
From the linked Dailytech.com article: August 29, 2007
"Schulte's survey (of research papers on climate change) contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures."
I find it hard to believe that Schulte's has the qualifications to refute such a study. - xman00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The parent is talking out of his ass and knows absolutely nothing about the scientific community. A few months ago, Scientific American published a research article by a relatively infamous AIDS-denier scientist on an un-related biological topic. They prefaced the article with a statement saying that while this man's AIDS theories had been solidly discredited by the scientific community, this particular paper of his, after being peer-reviewed, was considered to be scientifcally sound, and they were going to publish it despite his nutball reputation in the AIDS field. The magazine stressed how important it is to separate the man from the research.
That's the scientific method in action, baby, and why anthropogenic global warming will not go away no matter how much the rich and powerful want it to. History will remember (and ridicule) the deniers just like we now laugh at the people who thought the earth was the center of the universe and man was poofed into existence by an invisible being. - jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Debate is fine, but both sides are not equally legitimate. It's similar to holocaust denial, and evolution denial. One side has evidence, the other side just finds anomalies and makes ***** up.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Debate is based upon providing new evidence. Providing nothing but canards, outright myths, politicized hype & insults is not debate.
Asking questions in not the problem - asking the same questions repeatedly because the answers conflict with your beliefs and preconceived notions is. - kgrandia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"I think that everyone should watch the UK documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', it helps put things into perspective."
I think everyone should watch the ABC Australia interview with the Director of the Swindle is totally thrashed at the hands of Dateline host, Tony Jones, glaring inaccuracies are exposed: http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-ton ... - MistySteele, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Doesn't matter really, the article has already served it's intended purpose. 6 months from now, ask a Fox news viewer or ditto head about global warming and they will tell you that there was an article some time ago where 500 some odd scientists concluded that global warming was a fraud. We all selectively listen to and remember the news we want to hear.
The best hope at "consensus" on this topic is to get both sides to realize that it's not an all-or-nothing debate. There's enough evidence of human-driven climate change to take moderate steps to start to look at greenhouse gas emission control strategies, and to start to invest in alternative energy strategies. This can be adjusted up or down as more data come in.
If a large commissions of credible scientists say there's an approximately 80% chance something we're doing is harmful and probably will have bad consequences, one should take proportional action. The wrong response is to say "well, there's a 20% chance they're wrong so we should do absolutely nothing. - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10TGGWS was a fraud produced by a fraud who has never produced a legitimate documentary is his life.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9E&E is a denier journal.
Having a denier paper rejected by E&E is like having your creationist biology paper rejected by "Journal of Creation". Or like having your alternative-medicine paper rejected by "American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine". Thats gotta hurt.
It says a lot about the quality standards of the denier blogosphere that they hyped a pre-publication version of a paper so bad it wasn't worthy of E&E. - Jem2768, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11That'll be the mostly debunked and widely discredited "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary you speak of?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm ...
yup, that really helps clear up the confusion - kgrandia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Only takes a few particles of pulonium to kill you - concentration is not a reflection of effect.
- kgrandia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9"They force us to use this stuff and now want to blame us for the earth doing what it always has done."
Just read a story this morning that the Arctic passage is ice free for the first time in human history, yep, that's pretty normal alright. - meekerunger, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13Panic and worry about global warming is going to sell more Energy and Environment Journals than saying everything is going to be fine. 'Not of interest to me' should have no place in a peer reviewed journal.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17What's news is that people still argue about whether or not a scientific consensus exists, instead of educating themselves enough to realize that science *NEVER* moves forward by consensus.
- garths, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3I've published a fair bit, and I must say that I would be shocked if the editor of a journal went public saying that a paper I submitted had been rejected. In my field all submissions are completely anonymous, are usually reviewed anonymously, and the results of those reviews (accept/reject) are sent ONLY to the authors.
Unless climatology is a very different field I would say that the behaviour of this editor is amateurish at best, unethical at worst. - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Questions & skepticism are good & necessary. A skeptic will admit to being mistaken. Asking the same questions repeatedly because the answers conflict with preconceived notions is not skepticism - it's denial.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The pertinent little Detail in this "Non-consensus" nonsense;
"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 ...
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.
"
>> When half of the papers don't run around and say; "the sky is falling -- humans cause Global Warming" it doesn't mean that there isn't consensus. Not all papers discuss what CAUSES Global Warming, not all papers discuss Global Warming.
If someone were cynical, they could throw more "doubt" on GW by mentioning ALL scientific papers in a given year and say; "Only .001% of Scientists say Global Warming is occurring in peer reviewed papers." See, there, now I've cleared up this GW hoax. Just ignore it and drive your SUV.
>> I suspect that, the Global Warming denying, is a lot like all the other denying this government does. It isn't that they DON'T think that many people will respond to the issue personally. It's that there is uncertainty. The government had its own research that clearly pointed out that Global Warming was occurring -- but decided not to print it. Why, if Exxon will make profits anyway?
Perhaps it's because, while people who are CERTAIN on both sides are arguing, many people who want to just get through life, and not alienate their co-workers and friends will say to themselves: "I'm just going to stay out of this."
The 9/11 conspiracy is the same deal. IF what the Government contends is true -- they could EASILY prove some theories about a missile hitting the Pentagon false. In fact, I'm pretty sure a plane hit -- regardless that they could have intercepted all of these planes with F-16s with the ample warning they had. But why not just release a video and clear the whole thing up?
Because they WANT people to argue. They want people divided. Instead of talking about the Bush administrations war-profiteering and corruption, we have to argue about the weather, abortion, gay marriage, 9/11, war in Iraq, patriotism, and on and on and on. We can't do anything about it, until all things are proven -- because if you can't prove evolution to these folks, FORGET about getting rid of Haliburton, even though they've been caught red handed defrauding the government on numerous occasions.
GW is happening, and was most likely set off by humans. Regardless of the cause, we have to respond and modify our behavior and research the best course of action.
The rest of the issues -- are moot. We have a corrupt administration, interfering in the personal lives of people, just so that they can rip us off while people become alienated from each other in distrust and rancor -- they should all be in jail for 100 other reasons, so why should we have to prove them guilty if they cannot prove themselves innocent?
GW is important -- and denying it might mean more Oil profits. But I think that us wasting our time arguing the same damn things day in and day out is the goal. It's to make the Left and the Right hate one another, while the middle hand picks our pockets. Have you noticed the dollar crashing people? Is that a partisan issue? - Dweller99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Scepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific scepticism in climate change is ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views."
http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php - hammerattack, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2People are somehow under the impression that E&E is an actual scientific journal. It's not. It's a tabloid mouthpiece for environmental activists.
- Dweller99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about getting the opinion of scientists then?
"The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Scepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific scepticism in climate change is ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views."
http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php
I am not sure why I am bothering since none of you are interested in anything that disagrees with you anyway, but there you go. A source that is not just "a bunch of liberals" unless of course you use the Digg definition of Liberal meaning "anyone who disagrees with me" - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Concentration does denote effect. If it, in any case, does not, you must prove it. Otherwise apologize to vsu.
He has a point. You dugg him down anyway and you called him ignorant. Denial is not asking the same questions that you, personnally, have heard.
Denial would be, for example, never listening to someone else's point in a discussion and instead always trying to silence them as ignorant or some other derogatory term. - NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6oh yeah, link to wikipedia that quotes a bunch of liberals and call it end of day.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its not denial to question what comes first, CO2 or temperature rise. Studies point to temperature rising before CO2.
It is not denial to ask how accurate a monitoring station in central Bejing can be over the course of the last century.
It is not denial to demand that someone prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that their computer model of the future is 100% accurate before demanding that I pay carbon tax.
It is not denial to ask for public debates to be held between leading researchers on this subject. - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I see you took a few minutes to visit wikipedia. Unfortunately, you didn't understand what you read. You ought to take a few weeks to take a chemistry class and learn how the thermal properties of a mixture (which, our atmospher is a mixture of gasses) are affected by altering the concentration (relative number of particles) of a componant. BTW, the properties youlisted are not the only "colligative" properties. A colligative property is ANY property affected by changes in concentration.
While you're at college, you might also want to take a math class. You're doing that ridiculous thing again. You know, where you convert a percentage into an integer coefficient, plug that into a log function, and then think the result has anything to do with anything. It's completely nonsensical. And no, changes in concentration do not have a logarithmic change in effect in every case, or even most cases. One case where it does - the pH of a solution - this piece of math of yours wouldn't even work. (pH is the -log of the molar concentration of hydroxide ions).
Kindly stop pretending you're anything other than a political hack who can regurgitate random facts. - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't even know what a colligative property is. Hint: It's any property that is affected by the relative concentration of particles in a solution.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your reading comprehension is terrible. Please note the use of parenthesis around "consensus", which is also predicated by the definite article (the). Most people know that means that we're not referring to the word itself when you see that kind of sentence structure.
Your first point (or second, if you still think you were being anything other than a pedant by giving me the definition of consensus) is irrelevant to the fact that Oreskes specifically excluded a much broader set of results by only searching for "climate change", by only searching the ISI database, by only reading the abstracts, and so on. It is completely moronic to state that a person holds an opinion when you've never actually asked that person. The Oreskes consensus, quite simply, is a lie. - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Climate change denial industry? There's a whole industry? Why aren't I getting paid then? I should be getting paid for pointing out the hypocrisy of the "we're all going to ***** die unless you buy our eco-friendly product to stop global warming" industry.
- londubh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Since when did exposing the fact that Exxon Mobile of spending millions of dollars to muddy the waters over climate change become tinfoil hattery? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/2 ... Sorry but you've been duped. It's OK to admit being fooled by them. I won't hold it against you.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your ignorance is astounding. This is the second time you've relied on a source to try to disprove me without actually reading the material. Did you notice that one of the colligative properties discussed is "vapor pressure"? And how do we define "vapor"? It's a gas, basically. I'll spare you all the technical chemistry terms that are well beyond your comprehension.
Once again, we return to the core of the issue which is that altering the COMPOSITION of a MIXTURE by 0.00009 parts per million will have a negligible effect on that solutions thermal properties. The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm, whether caused by humans or not, can not even come close to accounting for the idicated rise in temperature over the past century. - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've never heard of pulonium. However, there was a guy recently killed with HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE polonium 210. Had he been given polonium 208, he would have easily survived.
By the way, concentration is a reflection of effect. It's called a colligative property. That's basic chemistry. If you had taken a decent course in chemistry, not only would you know that, but you'd see right through the global warming BS. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Yes, cite wikipedia, the stalwart of truth and fairness on hot button topics.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are correct. Sci-Am is on the level of the popular press; even if it is closer to the journals than Time or Newsweek. However, Sci-Am published its article after the full article had been peer-reviewed by actual professional journals - namely: Call Oncol, Science, Cancer Genet Cytogenet, etc... . The Sci-Am article was primarily to showcase that it is the facts & research findings that matter - not who did them.
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/duesbergp.html
When Pariahs Have Good Ideas
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=s ...
Speaking of denial, call a spade a spade. There is a difference between a skeptic and a denier.
A skeptic asks a question and can admit to being wrong. A denier provides statements of belief, ignorance & occasionally deceit; occasionally in the form of questions.
Ad hominem is where some irrelevant quality is pointed to so that the factual claim can be dismissed. The factual claim was handled first, and then a separate comment was made about deniers. - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oddly enough, I'm quite familiar with the definition and its application as a logical fallacy. You, on the other hand, seem to miss the subtle difference.
Irregardless, I wasn't the one who (rightfully) raised the issue of someones qualifications. I do, however, agree that the debate should be limited to people who actually make physics, chemistry, and other sciences directly related to the atmosphere their primary pursuit. Enough of corn-hole-poking proctologists, social studies teachers and most imporantly, politicians.
Incidentally, she did not do a "bibliographic study of published research". I suggest you go and read the report methodology a little closer. It's basically push polling. You'd get more accurate results from reading tea leaves. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amazed at the interest an unpublished paper gets these days.
Hey, I have several that were never published, could we get a news crew over here and some digg action? - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "consensus" is a logical fallacy. As Carl Sagan once said, "Absense of Evidence is not Evidence of Absense". All Oreskes delivers is a cherry picked evidence of absense. (I say "cherry picked", incidentally, because searching the ISI database turns up thousands of articles that reference climate change.)
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Have you been paying attention to the entire global warming "debate"? The overhwelming majority of people throwing their two cents in are completely unqualified. Consider that the very notion of "consensus" about global warming comes to us from Naomi Oreskes - a GEOLOGIST - who now holds a position as a glorified history teacher. She has absolutely no background in climatology, atmospheric chemistry and has never published anything related to physics, chemistry or atmospheric sciences. Yet we are all to believe that her half-assed assay of cherry picked abstracts actually amounts to a rock solid consensus of scientists (not a single one of which were ever actually polled).
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You're probably going to find that there wasn't much funding involved and little to no paper trail connecting Schulte and oil industry money. You don't need a lot of funding to type some keywords into a search engine and attempt to analyze the results. Heck, you can do it yourself with Google Scholar - like this:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/09/eli-does-schult ...
The guy that is apparently behind this is British aristocrat and known climate denier Christopher Monckton. Schulte has been caught copying & pasting Monckton's talking points (see link). The paper was then passed off to willing dupes at "Daily Tech" and Sen Inhofe's staff, who then proceeded to create a Big Noise.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_re ... - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You must have taken different ecology and meteorological classes, than I did. My classes agreed with the peer-reviewed consensus that climate change is happening AND its our fault.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Try looking at scientific journals rather than mainstream media outlets for available scientific evidence.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But politicians and pundits have no place leading the debate and disagreeing with climate experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Debate is fine, but both sides have to be weighed based on their merit. One side has peer-reviewed science, what does the other side have? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This was a much better read the first 3 times.
Do you work for a carbon credit company? - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Al gore's movie did not end the debate, peer-reviewed science ended the debate
- Dweller99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Scepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific scepticism in climate change is ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views."
http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You are being dugg down for willful ignorance. The point brought up is not valid. Concentration does not denote effect. A necessary trace component can have detrimental effects when the concentration is increased.
Denial is different than skepticism. Skepticism is necessary. Denial is asking the same question repeatedly because the answer conflicts with your preconceived notions & beliefs.
anthropomorphic = ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human
anthropogenic = caused or produced by humans - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So....
Debate = denial? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1More particles could kill more people.
How about one particle? Will it partially kill you?
Since you seem to have the answer, tell me exactly how much CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is too much and why. - hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Actually, CO2 has only gone up a few thousandth of a percent. CO2 allegedly comprised 228 parts per million before humans started mucking about. Now it's 320 ppm - an increase of 92 parts per million, or 0.0092% of atmospheric composition. BUT, that increase represents a 40% increase over pre-industrial levels, and 40% sounds really effin huge!
BTW, it's fun during a debate with a global warming fanatic who actually thinks they know something to ask them to provide an example of any physical system in which a 0.0092% increase in a component of a MIXTURE alters the colligative properties such that - at any given volume - the thermal properties are so drastically altered as to allow a comparatively huge increase in thermal insulation. After their eyes unglaze, you can slowly welcome them to the world of rational thought. - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Some of the loudest deniers are economists, mining analysts, and journalists (with no scientific background). You should probably look at the definition for ad hominem.
An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Naomi Oreskes was not conducting original field research, so her background is irrelevant. She did a bibliographic study of the published research - something well suited for a history teacher to undertake.
"not a single one of which were ever actually polled"
It was not an irrelevant poll of opinion, but rather a summarization of available research findings. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is