About the study trying to question the scientific consensus about global warming?

Question

Here's a discussion of the journal that it was published in.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html/

Note that ES&T is about as mainstream as it gets. It's the Wall Street Journal of the environmental business, published for many years by the American Chemical Society, a large and very diverse organization, not known for environmentalism. More here:

http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/about.html

The study found that 32/528 papers (about 6%) question the reality of man made global warming. I wonder how many of the 32 also came from "Energy and Environment"?

John Walkup - We share common interests in good science and the environment. In that context, and respectfully, has it occurred to you that insulting people may be counterproductive to your concrete goals outside of this forum?

Answer 1

Bob, my answer would be almost identical to the one I just provided to one of Dana1981's questions - it's here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsxB3z0dwkBzNP1dArewtD0S.Rd.?qid=20070830122627AALowNu

Answer 2

1. Science is not a consensus activity
2. _All_ scientists do NOT agree
3. Even the socialistic EU "scientists" are
backpedalling on their GW stance
4. Global warming, like global cooling is part of the
natural climatic cycle.
5. There have been many such cycles in Earth's
history.
6. Earth is presently in the last stages of an ice
age and was considerably warmer for most of its
history.
7. Floating ice occupies the same volume as would the
liquid water that comprises it.
8. Even if the ocean levels rise the alarmist 28
feet, just move away from the beach.
9. Warmer climate means more crop growing area.
10. Water is not going anywhere. Except for what we
have shot into space with rockets, there is the same
amount as there always was.

Answer 3

Benny Peiser's paper has no longer been refuted. Propaganda web content proceed to intentionally distort Dr. Peiser's sparkling place in this: "I truly have under pressure returned and returned, Oreskes comprehensive argument is incorrect using fact the whole ISI information set incorporates only 13 abstracts (below 2%) that explicitly recommend what she has called the 'consensus view'. in certainty, the traditional public of abstracts do no longer point out anthropogenic climate substitute." - Benny Peiser the certainty keeps to be that Oreskes intentionally and deceptively called a paper "The medical consensus on climate substitute" whilst applying the quest term "worldwide climate substitute" as a result leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers. This on my own debunks her learn. Even nevertheless as a right away criticism, each little thing of Peiser's learn stands different than that once you criticize basically Oreskes' cherry picked papers (928 no longer 12,000) the 34 papers Peiser stumbled on doubting AGW will possibly no longer have been coated in Oreskes' paper. No kidding! So he withdrew basically this as a right away criticism of her paper. the the remainder of his criticism keeps to be alongside with basically 13 (a million%) explicitly recommend the 'consensus view'. eliminating the 34 papers is beside the point as Peiser's learn cleary shows that no consensus exists and Oreskes became no longer observing each and all the papers (928 out of 12,000). end: Oreske's paper is debunked and valueless.

Answer 4

Interesting discovery, Bob. I'm also curious why a medical researcher performed the study in question. Why would a non-expert be trusted to evaluate the opinions of climate science paper authors?

That reminds me of how Jello thinks that when a scientist says "we believe" it's the same as a religious belief. Certainly a medical researcher can understanda scientific paper better than Mr. Jello, but still, I'd rather see such a survey done by someone like Oreskes who's familiar with the subject.

Answer 5

I wonder how much the authors have to pay to have their papers published in that journal.

Answer 6

For the people smart enough to understand this, you're preaching to the choir. For the others, you're wasting your time.

Answer 7

huh

Answer 8

whats your point?