Politi"Fact" | Do scientists disagree about global warming?
Based upon the preponderance of evidence we conclude that Tim Pawlenty’s claims are both incorrect and misleading to the public, who may not be familiar with the science behind climate change. It is not "fair to say the science is in dispute," as if there are good arguments on both sides. Rather, there is significant scientific consensus that human beings are contributing to global warming. We rate his statement False.
Posts
4 comments:
Hey Tom, I was reading the politicfact article you posted today "Politi"Fact" | Do scientists disagree about global warming?" and in the article, it says:
"out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic..."
So I looked into this claim and was lead a NYTImes article with these excerpts:
"William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny."
. . .
"For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change."
green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/
So at best (if I'm not missing anything, I just woke up....), the politicfact article is misleading (because they qualify the statement I noted above with "approximately 97 to 98 percent of those *actively publishing* in the field,") at worst, it's wrong.
Just my two cents...
Anonymous,
This article looks at the 97% claim:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672039/posts
Hey Anonymous, you ever been to a school that didn't have an ecology deptment?
American River Community College Science and Engineering dept. offers an associate science degree in Environmental Conservation. That's their science department. That's the only degree they offer.
Hello?
Surely a fluke at the local level. Lets move on to the City College.
... innovative courses such as Ethnobotany, Restoration Ecology, Natural History Field Studies, Dinosaurs and the Science of Life, Marine Ecology...
Shit.
Let's try the State University.
Did you look at that link?
It makes me wonder is it that the EPA is the only growing concern in the country?
How else to explain so much conformity - where every institution of higher learning churns out these legions of mind numbed Democrats chanting sustainability in low fidelity monotone.
Pretty impressive for something that isn't even a science.
Know what happens to tenured professors who exercise their academic freedom by pointing out flaws in the sustainability lobby's dogma?
Politically incorrect Prof may lose his job.
Scratch that. Politically incorrect Prof did lose his job.
Wow. If you are an up and coming associate prof or a post graduate looking around the ole eco-depts "mission statements", and looking at the fate of Prof James Enstrom, think you are going to buck the trend, for something as inconsequential as telling the plain damn truth about global warming?
Post a Comment