[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

So to support this -

" Originally Posted by Texas Wedge View Post
*I* dismiss global warming because there are just as many (actually more) scientists who say it's not true as there are who say it IS true."

you cite the following article -



Which states that -

45% accept the global warming consensus explicitly (7%) or implicitly (38%)
48% are neutral
and a whopping 6% reject the consensus outright


and you derive from these findings that more scientists say that it's not true..

must be that New Math I've heard so much about.



More on the author of that article later, don't have time to research it now. The dentist chair awaits.

My fault. Poor choice of words. I should have said, "there are just as many (actually more) scientists who did not say it's true as there are who say it IS true." Simple mistake...but it did confuse the situation....

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."

So in MY math...
7% explicitly support
48% are neutral
6% explicitly reject

That leaves roughly 39% who voiced no opinion and were given an absentee yes on the support side simply because they did not directly reject the hypothesis. Yet, even if you want to give the 45% to the support side, that still leaves 55% who do NOT accept or reject the hypothesis. Are you suggesting that because they didn't explicitly reject the hypothesis that they must support it? I'm not saying they reject it, either. I'm saying they have not accepted it. Therefore only 7 (or 45 if you wish) percent of the scientists involved have supported the hypothesis. That's less than half.

Add this...

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.

And I choose to believe that mankind is NOT the primary factor for whatever warming we're experiencing. Are we having an influence? Most likely, yes. Is it a major influence? Most likely, no, IMO. Is global warming going to turn the planet into a fiery rock? It wouldn't appear so...unless you believe Al Gore's movie and presentations. According to Schulte...

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."

I'm not saying I'm right. I just saying I'm not going to be swept up in the belief of a catastrophic event if we don't start walking or biking everywhere and shut down all industrialized nations.