The planet is warmer in general and especially at the both poles. But is seems reasonable to think that along with periodic ice ages, there are periodic "warm ages" as well. This is well in line with the way everything is cyclical in nature.
'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'
by designs 165 Replies latest social current
-
-
lisaBObeesa
Do people really think that that the international scientific consensus was formed and but all those scientist didn't take into account the earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling? really?
http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/01/1276_climate_skeptics.png
-
besty
Hmmmm anyone else having any problem with the link above that besty gave for the 98% ?
Everytime I click it it gives me this error:
Google for Doran Zimmerman 2009
-
StoneWall
Thanks for the name besty!
I was able to google it and found some interesting articles realted to that study and it backs up what I thought about the numbers.
Here is a link and I'll post a partial quote from one site:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672039/posts
Quote:
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
I recently heard this claim on my own threads. I looked at the source (the study Doran and Zimmerman 2009), found some problems, and then wrote back on my threads. However, I have seen this claim so many times that I believe it would be good to make a post about it. I also e-mailed several prominent climate scientists who would be considered 'skeptics' to get their opinions on the study. Their responses are displayed at the end of the post. In this post I briefly comment on past responses to the study, then break my post into three sections. The first will focus on the flaw in the study (the second question), the second will look at the motives of the researcher, and the third will be posting responses from prominent 'skeptical' climate scientists. First I'm going to address a common response to this study. In this post at The Hockey Schtick, it is pointed out that the 97% statistic is based on only 79 climatologists, and that those participating were self-selected. There are two concerns here. The first is sample size. While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.
Other concerns with the study deal with numbers behind it, or other reasons to consider it a poor study. However, these aren't my primary concern. My concern is the actual questions asked in the study, which I will show in a moment.
The study on which these claims are based is available here. It is an paper by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman written in 2009, entitled "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Here is the citation:
Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3)
-
tootired2care
@stonwall - although Dennis Ambler is biased source to the contrary of the anthropogenic global warming, it's really hard to argue this solid point he makes in his review of Doran/Zimmerman's report. I'd be interested to hear Doran/Zimmerman's rebuttal to these points.
According to Ambler's review of the Doron/Zimmerman data, 10,257 scientists were contacted, 3,146 responded. That's less than 31%. Of that group "only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduced that by half by only counting those who they classed as "specialists."
Ambler further dissects the consensus: "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
http://voices.yahoo.com/only-76-scientists-97-agree-cagw-11314412.html?cat=3
-
StoneWall
tootired2care said:
@stonwall - although Dennis Ambler is biased source to the contrary of the anthropogenic global warming, it's really hard to argue this solid point he makes in his review of Doran/Zimmerman's report. I'd be interested to hear Doran/Zimmerman's rebuttal to these points
You and me both on the part I got underlined above in your quote. I'd love to hear Doran/Zimmermans rebuttal to this.
-
-
tootired2care
@bitb - that reminds me of the mascot for the liberal political party.
-
kurtbethel
There is a way to determine if what the climate scientists accept as being true is accurate or not. One of the principles of science is that it can be used to predict future events. This is how eclipses and comet motions are predicted accurately. This is how industrial processes work, knowing the scientific principles of chemistry, metallurgy and physics enables one to build things that reasonably function as designed. This is also how the life sciences work, biochemistry, genetics and agriculture.
With this in mind, if the climate scientists have a model that is scientifically accurate, they would make predictions that are accurate. This would be the test that they are dealing with facts and not a hypothesis. So if someone tells you that the majority of climate scientists accept something as scientific fact, then see how their predictions line up with what happened during the interval they made predictions for. They should be able to quickly and easily supply you with this data, as they would have had to examine it to conclude that the scientists were right. Don't accept any stonewalling "wait on Jehovah" or "trust the faithful slave" type of bogus answers. They have no place in the scientific world.
-
Berengaria
@bitb - that reminds me of the mascot for the liberal political party.
There is no "liberal political party".
