http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Th ... le8641.htm
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey 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. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 makes plants grow. WE NEED CO2!!! it is life giving.
it's a hoax.
it's a hoax.
- Attachments
-
- coolingworld.jpg (574.03 KiB) Viewed 2750 times
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
i'm already tired of politicians telling me about my 'carbon footprint' while they have two cars and fly around the world. People are using this bullshit term as if they know what it means.
In the UK we are getting taxed on 4x4 cars and flying - yet the governement won't ban 4x4s and have allowed the building of another terminal at Heathrow. There won't be any less 4x4s on the road as the people who can afford them can afford the tax, so the harm to environment (if there is one) will be the same. It just means the government will squeeze a bit more money out of us yet again. Wankers.
In the UK we are getting taxed on 4x4 cars and flying - yet the governement won't ban 4x4s and have allowed the building of another terminal at Heathrow. There won't be any less 4x4s on the road as the people who can afford them can afford the tax, so the harm to environment (if there is one) will be the same. It just means the government will squeeze a bit more money out of us yet again. Wankers.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
well, co2 or not, warming or not, it doesn't make it any more right to live a wasteful life, ruining the ecosystem with our crap. Consequence isn't just the world heating up and causing mankind to die out. I think there are many short term consequences that we can do somthing about, such as not dumping trash in the sea. (I hear NJ NY area does this alot) Sure, it's not global warming, but it does immediate damage to the surrounding ecosystem. No rocket science in that I think.
The co2 deal seems to make it sound like because mankind's effect is so small, we an do all the damage we want. I don't think it takes a scientist to figure out that many species, particularly marine animals, wouldn't be having such a hard time if it weren't for us. Sure, every celsius of warming kills more coral, and that messes up the basic marine ecosystem, but there are many more man induced problems that can be taken care of.
The problem with warming and co2 is that it's become a central topic of environmental conservation. It's a big topic, and seems to pull the focus away from more obvious, imminent problems. Like recycling, trying to use less plactic, etc. These are all immediate threats to nature, and maybe theyr'e less important because the "big" issue is co2 and global warming? bah, that's nonsense.
Not to say that these changes in how we view global warming isn't good. I think it's a good thing that we're spending time and effort to try to understand the whole phenomenon. If it brings up environmental preservation as an important topic, good. If it can act as a gateway for more people to become environmentally aware, great. I just have a gut feeling that that's not where its' heading.
The co2 deal seems to make it sound like because mankind's effect is so small, we an do all the damage we want. I don't think it takes a scientist to figure out that many species, particularly marine animals, wouldn't be having such a hard time if it weren't for us. Sure, every celsius of warming kills more coral, and that messes up the basic marine ecosystem, but there are many more man induced problems that can be taken care of.
The problem with warming and co2 is that it's become a central topic of environmental conservation. It's a big topic, and seems to pull the focus away from more obvious, imminent problems. Like recycling, trying to use less plactic, etc. These are all immediate threats to nature, and maybe theyr'e less important because the "big" issue is co2 and global warming? bah, that's nonsense.
Not to say that these changes in how we view global warming isn't good. I think it's a good thing that we're spending time and effort to try to understand the whole phenomenon. If it brings up environmental preservation as an important topic, good. If it can act as a gateway for more people to become environmentally aware, great. I just have a gut feeling that that's not where its' heading.
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Believe me Ken, regardless of whether mankind is causing global warming or not i think we should respect our environment (immediate and global), but i'm afraid governments are less concerned about the environment and more concerned with creating new ways to tax/subjugate us. If they really cared they wouldn't tax things, they'd ban them.
i'm also concerned with the way the media portrays all this as fact - the one time a documentary on Channel 4 in the UK showed another perspective they had to apologise because it gave a different view to the official line. WTF? Where's freedom of ideas and speech? Even if the doco was wrong one should be allowed to express a differing and questioning stance.
Another example of the UK's handling of recycling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4r3krs8eEY
Meanwhile out politicians fly all over the world to discuss global warming - how about trying a virtual meeting using the internet perhaps?
i'm also concerned with the way the media portrays all this as fact - the one time a documentary on Channel 4 in the UK showed another perspective they had to apologise because it gave a different view to the official line. WTF? Where's freedom of ideas and speech? Even if the doco was wrong one should be allowed to express a differing and questioning stance.
Another example of the UK's handling of recycling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4r3krs8eEY
Meanwhile out politicians fly all over the world to discuss global warming - how about trying a virtual meeting using the internet perhaps?
Last edited by Mr Arkadin on Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
i agree, regardless, we don't need to be so wasteful, but once more i'll go over basic life chemistry. co2 is the lifegiving gas that plants need. they breathe it and make oxygen which makes life nice for us. plant growth=lower temperatures, so the effects tend to cancel(ever notice how much cooler the park is than the parking lot?). also, all those ice cores show 2 things.
1. co2 levels rise after temperatures rise because the extra heat makes extra animal activity which makes more co2...
2. co2 level have been around the historic low point for the last few hundred years. there should be a new flowering of life if they didn't poison the oceans and such...
notice how i used the pronoun "they" and not "we" at the end of number2? i think it's safe to say, that if we had all the info about what harm would be done by dumping say a few thousand tons of nervegas(us army) into the atlantic or other simillar bad move, "we' would never be for that.....
read the newsweek article and understand! read orwell! who remembers that just thirty years ago, they wouldn't be able to feed us because of the coming ice age and wonder.....
1. co2 levels rise after temperatures rise because the extra heat makes extra animal activity which makes more co2...
2. co2 level have been around the historic low point for the last few hundred years. there should be a new flowering of life if they didn't poison the oceans and such...
notice how i used the pronoun "they" and not "we" at the end of number2? i think it's safe to say, that if we had all the info about what harm would be done by dumping say a few thousand tons of nervegas(us army) into the atlantic or other simillar bad move, "we' would never be for that.....
read the newsweek article and understand! read orwell! who remembers that just thirty years ago, they wouldn't be able to feed us because of the coming ice age and wonder.....
Mr. A, of course you're right. a global carbon tax won't solve anything. it's just another level of control and the whole "carbon footprint" thing makes respiration a crime. this goes right back to Thomas Malthus and his ideas of population control from the 1700s. of course, he wanted to use a plague...
A tax on breathing is next, mark my words.
Breathing produces co2..In time we'll all be environment terrorists.
And rightly so ... damn us for all being here. Living and breathing.
I m convinced the whole thing is bullshit, designed by 'them' so they can exercise more control
I mean eve the recycling issue is blatently lied about.
If ya want to 'save' the environment dont recycle paper... waste it
The more wasted paper the better
Im serious.... just think about where paper comes from.
Trees..
Not just trees but trees that are grown in huge, managed farms, specifically for making paper.
The more wasted paper the more trees are needed to make new, the more trees these farms must produce...
Trees suck up co2
More trees = more oxygen for everybody
Then theres the whole transporting paper to the recycling plants, and whatever chemicals are used in the process. This cant be good.
And from my understaning, most paper sent for recycling in UK is driven in trucks to a seaport, Then shipped from there to another, then eventually shipped to China, where they burn it in huge power plants.
That sounds great for the environment, doesn't it
Take away point:-
Save the planet - waste paper
Breathing produces co2..In time we'll all be environment terrorists.
And rightly so ... damn us for all being here. Living and breathing.
I m convinced the whole thing is bullshit, designed by 'them' so they can exercise more control
I mean eve the recycling issue is blatently lied about.
If ya want to 'save' the environment dont recycle paper... waste it
The more wasted paper the better
Im serious.... just think about where paper comes from.
Trees..
Not just trees but trees that are grown in huge, managed farms, specifically for making paper.
The more wasted paper the more trees are needed to make new, the more trees these farms must produce...
Trees suck up co2
More trees = more oxygen for everybody
Then theres the whole transporting paper to the recycling plants, and whatever chemicals are used in the process. This cant be good.
And from my understaning, most paper sent for recycling in UK is driven in trucks to a seaport, Then shipped from there to another, then eventually shipped to China, where they burn it in huge power plants.
That sounds great for the environment, doesn't it
Take away point:-
Save the planet - waste paper
don't really know.
what's important and what i do know is that there is an obvious lie. the lie is that most, if not all scientists believe in "Global Warming". here, there is a survey of published papers showing that very few studies actually show the common idea to be true. only 7% expicitly support it. only 32% could be said to implicitly support it in some way(by being neutral even!).
the question is not whether the earth is cooling or heating. i'm not surprised to hear of either. there have been many climatic changes in earth's history. there's never been "stable climate". as i've said before, europe was in a mini ice age about 500 years or so ago. my problem is that there's an obvious lie. and another(co2 added to the atmosphere is bad is a lie). this indicates corruption....
an aside about recycling-
here in LA county, there is a company that owns the trash concession. they are paid to collect the trash, which they haul away to central sorting stations, where they sort every single bit of garbage by hand, saving the good stuf to sell for profit. at the same time, everyone pays an extra fee for recycling services, which there is much pressure to participate in. the same company picks up the recyclable items takes them to the sorting facility and sells everything that is sellable. the upshot is that we, the stupid citizens pay for the same service twice, the company(waste management) gets paid twice and has much of it's extra profit(selling recyclable materials. most things are.) from items presorted for free. meanwhile, dumb consumers feel like they have helped the environment. do you see how they play on our ignorance and emotion? still, the same system that supports this pork barrell corruption calls itself a friend and wants my unbridled trust and affection. ha!
Last edited by garyb on Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
I'm not really sure its' a government conspiracy though.. it almost appeared to me that the government is trying its best NOT to deal with the issue by playing it down. The co2 thing was around much longer than the anti-warming theory so, I guess it's just the direction of the prevailing winds of hypothesis.
But, by disproving, or at least saying that co2 has little effect, the government can save a bunch of dollars because it's so expensive to reduce emissions. It's a catch. If they had to reduce emissions, nobody can really afford it.
Bottom line is though, whatever that can save the environment, I'd do. I'd hate to see my kids grow up in a world with unattractive reefs, barren land, crazy weather, and people who don't give a damn about keeping the planet beautiful. It's just a bad ideology to grow up with.
But, by disproving, or at least saying that co2 has little effect, the government can save a bunch of dollars because it's so expensive to reduce emissions. It's a catch. If they had to reduce emissions, nobody can really afford it.
Bottom line is though, whatever that can save the environment, I'd do. I'd hate to see my kids grow up in a world with unattractive reefs, barren land, crazy weather, and people who don't give a damn about keeping the planet beautiful. It's just a bad ideology to grow up with.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
It's not only the government that has something to loose, it's mainly the oil industry that will loose the most. Now you can probably understand why the supreme court appointed the current president in 2000.kensuguro wrote:
But, by disproving, or at least saying that co2 has little effect, the government can save a bunch of dollars because it's so expensive to reduce emissions. It's a catch. If they had to reduce emissions, nobody can really afford it.
the government or governance?
ALL the world's governments get their money from one central source. there's a reason for all these "trade" agreements like the EU and the African Union and the Pan Asian Union and the North American Union(SPP). sorry if you missed it, but world government is here NOW. it just hasn't been announced yet.
even while governments pretend to resist these things, they don't. a good example is the Kyoto Protocols. there's been lots of noise about how Bush won't support them, and yet he just signed an agreement that goes even further while still saying that he won't deal with the Kyoto agreement. the Kyoto Accord means DEATH to humans.
a good example of how these trade agreements are more powerful than the government(shame on europeans for not noticing in their own lands), is the recent NAFTA tribunal which forced the USA to allow Mexican trucks to haul US freight even though US trucks are not allowed in Mexico.....
THE BANKS AND THE ROYALTY THAT OWNS THE BANKS RUN IT ALL. that's why there are no hard borders in EU countries. that's why the same laws(like cameras and IDs) get passed in all countries at once.....
it's amazing how short memories are. after WW2, europeans should never get taken in by rhetoric again and yet....hey, who even remembers the Newsweek article posted here, or any of the other thousands like it from that time?
no, people would rather get defensive and even angry about someone waving the danger flag.......well, when the UN's Agenda 21 hits with it's "rewilding" and "human habitation zones" and the cities look like something out of soylent green(people weren't allowed to live outside the concentration camp cities in that movie, the country was out of bounds because of greenhouse gasses, exactly the same scenario as Agenda 21), then people will probably still be confused.....
ALL the world's governments get their money from one central source. there's a reason for all these "trade" agreements like the EU and the African Union and the Pan Asian Union and the North American Union(SPP). sorry if you missed it, but world government is here NOW. it just hasn't been announced yet.
even while governments pretend to resist these things, they don't. a good example is the Kyoto Protocols. there's been lots of noise about how Bush won't support them, and yet he just signed an agreement that goes even further while still saying that he won't deal with the Kyoto agreement. the Kyoto Accord means DEATH to humans.
a good example of how these trade agreements are more powerful than the government(shame on europeans for not noticing in their own lands), is the recent NAFTA tribunal which forced the USA to allow Mexican trucks to haul US freight even though US trucks are not allowed in Mexico.....
THE BANKS AND THE ROYALTY THAT OWNS THE BANKS RUN IT ALL. that's why there are no hard borders in EU countries. that's why the same laws(like cameras and IDs) get passed in all countries at once.....
it's amazing how short memories are. after WW2, europeans should never get taken in by rhetoric again and yet....hey, who even remembers the Newsweek article posted here, or any of the other thousands like it from that time?
no, people would rather get defensive and even angry about someone waving the danger flag.......well, when the UN's Agenda 21 hits with it's "rewilding" and "human habitation zones" and the cities look like something out of soylent green(people weren't allowed to live outside the concentration camp cities in that movie, the country was out of bounds because of greenhouse gasses, exactly the same scenario as Agenda 21), then people will probably still be confused.....
the guy who made the biggest pro global warming movie of all times, Al Gore, Mr. Inconvienient Truth, is an oil man! his father headed Continental Petroleum, one of the biggest in the world! the oil companies are supporting global warming because the same banking families that run government also control the oil! it was Rothschild that funded BP, Continental and Standard oil!BingoTheClowno wrote:It's not only the government that has something to loose, it's mainly the oil industry that will loose the most. Now you can probably understand why the supreme court appointed the current president in 2000.kensuguro wrote:
But, by disproving, or at least saying that co2 has little effect, the government can save a bunch of dollars because it's so expensive to reduce emissions. It's a catch. If they had to reduce emissions, nobody can really afford it.