×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the but-it-was-cold-outside-yesterday dept.

Earth 1105

An anonymous reader writes "A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global warming. The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results. In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so that anybody can check their results. From the article: '... a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from U.S. Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance," the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1105 comments

BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (-1, Troll)

sprego (2925147) | about a year ago | (#43751837)

I will buy old Slashdot accounts. For 2-3 digits you can get hundreds of dollars. Contact me at buy@chammy.info !

Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751989)

Why, it's the same gentleman who was shilling in the Microsoft thread yesterday. Glad to see that they've upped your budget.

Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (-1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#43752115)

Eight out of ten cat owners said their cats preferred Crack Cocaine :)

Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (-1, Troll)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#43752257)

Actually, one scientist already destroyed this whole 'overwhelming numbers agree' argument [wikipedia.org].

Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down.

Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (0, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43752269)

I will buy old Slashdot accounts. For 2-3 digits you can get hundreds of dollars. Contact me at buy@chammy.info !

... and for those who do not know you sold have your reputation tarnished by blatant shill posts

Yeah... (5, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#43751863)

Too bad the scientific method is no match for the stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-yell-la-la-la-la-la method.

Re:Yeah... (3, Interesting)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year ago | (#43752075)

Yeah! It's like saying that 97% of priest believe in god anyway. Plus that number means nothing, it would be foolish to say that human activity has no consequence, though what matters is how much.

Also, science isn't about democracy. More than 60% of the scientists didn't believe in the movements of continents in the 50ies, yet it is admitted now.

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752255)

This is going to be the biggest hit to science ever if it turns out to not be a big deal or a better explanation for the warming trend is proposed. Its very bad for science that this got politicized so soon, especially with this focus on "consensus". Like you say, these papers are not i.i.d, so the intuition provided by this evidence is misleading.

Re:Yeah... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752113)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz read on this guy, its not LALALALA it is a concentrated, orchestrated, and payed for effort to hide the truth to the benefit of a few very wealthy individuals http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-koch-brothers-exposed-20120420.

Re:Yeah... (3, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#43752191)

And this goes for both sides.

One side says that global warming exists and is manmade. They go too far and decide that your personal car and incandescent lights are solely to blame. You are selfish and should give back to society and the government for your misdeeds.

One side looks at that stance as foolish. But they go to far and reject global warming completely in an effort to distance themselves from their political opponents. And then when shown results that contradict their position, they say that it isn't manmade.

If you ignore the politics and let the science do the talking, you might actually get somewhere.

Re:Yeah... (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43752273)

at some point 97% of geologists believed plate tectonics was false
at some point 97% of scientists didn't believe that dino's became birds or believed that they were just the slow and lumbering lizards like in 60's movies

almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field

Re:Yeah... (3, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#43752389)

I think the real debate is what the consequences are from global warming. Most skeptics I know don't doubt that we impact out world. The questions we have is how large an impact that really is and whether the earth can adapt to it (without wiping us out.)

It doesn't help that the extremest on the global warming side keep giving dire apocalyptic warnings with near timelines that keep turning out false (or not anywhere near as dire as the predictions where told to us.)

Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751865)

There are shenannigans here. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html

Re:Not so fast (-1, Troll)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#43752011)

Of course there are sheningans abound.
To start with, I'm pretty sure that at least 97% of all scientific papers aren't about global warming, greenhouse gases, or atmospheric science at all.

Like the cat-food advert (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43752311)

Of course there are sheningans abound. To start with, I'm pretty sure that at least 97% of all scientific papers aren't about global warming, greenhouse gases, or atmospheric science at all.

Like the cat food advert, this should probably say " 97% of all scientific papers which expressed a preference..."

I do believe it because it based on sound science (4, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about a year ago | (#43751873)

But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751959)

I'd guess about 97% of the research scientists are Govt. funded.

If there is no crisis - nothing to solve - why continue to employ them?

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (4, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year ago | (#43751987)

The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.

This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.

I think we're just fucked.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752059)

I'd read through the papers of the 97% and the 3% before I would say that 97% of the papers does not validate it.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (0)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year ago | (#43752111)

I respect people with degrees and PHDs about a topic more than say, politicians or 'youtubers'. But isn't that then an appeal to authority?

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (2)

OG (15008) | about a year ago | (#43752223)

"Appeal to authority" isn't always a problem. It can be a problem when the "authorities" aren't actually subject matter experts, and it's a fallacy when applied in deductive reasoning (not inductive, however).

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (5, Insightful)

godrik (1287354) | about a year ago | (#43752173)

What you say is definitively true. But that is not the point of the article, the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made. Yet everybody you talk to tends to say to "experts are still debating". Well, with these numbers they are not still debating, they are pretty much convinced.

Yet, they might be wrong. But policies have to be made based on experts opinion. And that opinion is not properly represented in the media.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (3, Insightful)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | about a year ago | (#43752369)

the point is to verify that the vast majority of experts believes (base don their study) that global warming is man made.

Is entirely man-made or man contributed to it? Those are two very different statements. If we only contribute that suggests that it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable. Given the history of the planet, I think this is the more likely scenario and we would be better off spending our energy figuring out how, as a species, to survive it when it inevitably happens.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43752175)

Strawman argument: no one is saying the studies are valid because there's a consensus about it. They're valid based on the science IN those studies. What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it. Perhaps it would have been foolish to start heavily taxing coal and oil back in the 70's or 80's, as climate change may have proven to be a false hypothesis, but now it's foolish not to. Or at least extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (1)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#43752345)

People could agree with you on the cause, but disagree that taxes - in any form - are the solution. Don't confuse a scientific proof with a political action.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (2)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about a year ago | (#43752367)

Let's not kid ourselves, we are not naive here. The whole point of this article is to tell people that the experts are not debating and are in fact in a consensus on this issue (check the reply above you http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43752173 [slashdot.org] ). My point is, I wouldn't care if it was the opposite, I would still believe it because it is based on sound science.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (5, Informative)

Paul Slocum (598127) | about a year ago | (#43752195)

Actually according to them, only 32.6% "of climate science papers agree on it":

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. source [iop.org]

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about a year ago | (#43752197)

Right, you can never validate a hypothesis in science. You can only fail to falsify it. In other words, no one can seem to come up with another good explanation for the warming we've observed, so we've failed to falsify the idea that it's due to carbon dioxide emissions, a hypothesis first proposed in 1896 [wikipedia.org]. That doesn't mean it's the truth, but I sure know which way I'd bet!

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752317)

I, too, agree with the science behind it. However, I have to ask this question, since the wording of the article isn't clear:

It says "97% of publications that take a stand on AGW," but does "we can't tell for sure" count as "taking a stand"?

If all we're being told is that, of the people who say yes or no, 97% say yes and 3% say no, while some other unspecified number of papers say "inconclusive", that's a far less headline-grabbing result. But it's the result that matters.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#43752379)

Here's the way I see it. Scientists are like any other professionals. The ones that are doing top level research are the elites of their field. Some deniers will say that it is just everyone just covering each other when you get 97% consensus. At their level, you don't win grants and Nobel prizes by proving something everyone else has proven. You get them by discovering something no one else has found before. Scientists are arrogant and opinionated as much as your professional athlete, top notch lawyer, whatever. If you've ever attended meetings, discussions can delve into nasty fights reminiscent of British parliament debates. If 97% of them agree on something, then the science is probably sound.

Re:I do believe it because it based on sound scien (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752387)

I think that attitude is actually kind of the problem. You see, there are a whole lot of people who think the same way, only they come to the conclusion that it isn't sound science. The problem is that most of them (and possibly you as well) have a tiny fraction of the knowledge of climate science that the scientists writing the papers do. I know I don't have the background to make an informed decision. I'd like to think that I have the wherewithal to spot obvious quackery by examining things like data gathering methodology, but I am not confident at all that I personally could spot more subtle errors, malicious or otherwise.

There's a reason that when these scientists go to get peer reviewed, I'm not doing the reviewing. There is a lot to be said for keeping an eye on our mechanisms for funding and reviewing scientific research, but healthy skepticism of our processes would at most cause somebody to be less sure about the conclusion. The actual problem we have is a bunch of people who are sure that man-made global warming isn't real, and that requires that they take the same attitude that you are: that their individual assessment of the data is more important that the work of scientists who study climate professionally.

And the other 3 percent (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751893)

Are written by quack pseudo science climate DENIERS! They should have their credentials revoked. They're not practicing science, they're practicing DOGMA! Everyone KNOWS that climate change is 100% man-made! Data from billions of years ago proves it!

Re:And the other 3 percent (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43752267)

Absolutely not true.

We decided from the start to take a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no opinion'.

A huge swath of that 3% was dealing with non-climate change matters, and didn't take climate change into account for their results. I think what I've heard is that when it comes to peer-reviewed articles explicitly opposed to AGW, there was just one in the past decade. Out of tens of thousands.

Re:And the other 3 percent (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43752331)

Are written by quack pseudo science climate DENIERS! They should have their credentials revoked. They're not practicing science, they're practicing DOGMA! Everyone KNOWS that climate change is 100% man-made! Data from billions of years ago proves it!

They should burn their papers ... oh wait!

Publication bias (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year ago | (#43751915)

Without regard to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real: Which papers get published are largely a function of who's on the editorial board of each publication. If those boards are stacked with people holding a particular position, they tend to publish only papers which agree with that position.

Re:Publication bias (1, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43752143)

That's true, plus being published doesn't mean being truthful [gizmodo.com].

Throw in the politicization of science and its funding (i.e. if 97% of funding goes to "pro-agw" scientists, these results would be expected, or vice-versa), and it's hard to draw any real-world conclusions through popular vote of journal-published papers. Add in the asymmetric risk to the wealthiest parts of the world and the politics gets even more dubious.

Maybe we should stick to actual science and let the chips fall where they may. Phlogiston was once very popular, but so is Relativity. Theories, predictions, observation, refinement - repeat as needed until the theory and observations reach equilibrium. In the meantime, I'll try not to use my TomTom to get to the Anti-Relativity conference.

Re:Publication bias (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43752277)

Without regard to whether or not gravity is real, almost all physicists are INCREDIBLY biased in favor of gravity.

There are a lot of ideas or theories that, if you ignore reality, the relevant fields are incredibly biased towards or against. Bias doesn't mean incorrect, and the "reality" of a theory matters a lot. At least, to most researchers. Less so for paid shills for, say, the fossil fuel industry.

That's not the whole story (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751917)

That's an extremely biased viewpoint.

I know for a fact that 11,500 of those so-called "peer-reviewed papers" were paid for by Big Tree.

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751921)

Because nature will solve the problem in her own way, whether we like it or not.

Re:No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752025)

I just hope it not the same way that Mars solved its problems.

3% said... Uhm. (0)

KickedAbyss (2925983) | about a year ago | (#43751933)

2-3% of Climate Science Papers seemed to only talk about how awesome the pretty doggy clouds looked.

Re:3% said... Uhm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751977)

2-3% of Climate Science Papers seemed to only talk about how awesome the pretty doggy clouds looked.

And those are the ones that matter, because that proves those 2-3% are the only scientists not corrupted by a dangerous bias towards science!

Endorsement =/= cause.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751935)

So from reading the article and the other links, the "meta" study (i.e., not a study, but kinda like a study) finds that many of these reports are similar in which they all believe (not prove) that global warming is man made...

Re:Endorsement =/= cause.... (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43752265)

Proof is for mathematics and liquor. Science provides the best explanation based on current data, and there best explanation at the moment is that CO2 emissions from manmade sources are a major cause of observed climate change.

Right.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751937)

100% of people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it for the longest time too.

Re:Right.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43752233)

100% of people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it for the longest time too.

No learned person in the western world phase thought the world was flat for well over 2500 years, I wish this moronic meme would do.

bias in publications? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751941)

I am not commenting on Global warming.

I am wondering if the bias in publications plays any role in these numbers. Any idea how hard it is to publish something that goes against standard scientific thought in any field?

Re:bias in publications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752125)

Extremely hard.

Re:bias in publications? (4, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year ago | (#43752241)

Publications that go against the accepted dogma of the day, are generally rejected and can cause death to the career of the author. Contrary opinions have to be snuck in and couched in vague wordings. I suspect this is also true with global warming research.

Re:bias in publications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752371)

It is an issue of initiative. Who is to say which Bias in publications is correct? the ones which are paid by big business to say that there is no global warming> or the ones which arent paid by big business and who say there is big business?

In 1490's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751953)

Most scientists believed the earth was flat. In the mid 1800's 99% of leading scientists did not believe in microbes. Louis Pasteur did. Consensus is meaningless.

Re:In 1490's (1, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43752053)

> Most scientists believed the earth was flat. In the mid 1800's 99% of leading scientists did not
> believe in microbes. Louis Pasteur did. Consensus is meaningless.

Not true. By the 1490s, it had already been pretty well established that the earth was round. It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.

So while it may not have been en vogue to say the earth was round, privately, amongst those who did study the issue, it was allready known.

Re:In 1490's (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43752139)

And looking for some citations on this in wiki...it seems I may have confused the geocentric/heliocentric world with the flat earth, even the church talked about the roun earth. Thomas Aquinas (who died in the 1200s) said:
"The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."

Re:In 1490's (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752089)

You are full of shit. Scientists have known that the earth is not flat since antiquity. The even got the diameter approximately right. Columbus miscalculated the diameter and thought that he sailed to India.

Learn a bit of history, before making ignorant posts.

Re:In 1490's (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43752145)

Indeed. Proof is everything, the rest are just words spoken by people who have no clue either way.

I think they mean.. (4, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43751961)

I think they mean 97% of scientists agree that some amount of global warming is caused by mankind.The amount that is caused by humans may be some or even most, but I don't think anyone could argue that it is ALL caused by mankind.

Re:I think they mean.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752229)

Right then, one scientist per paper very inefficient use of scientists.

Re:I think they mean.. (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#43752351)

No. That's what media outlets are spouting, but it's not even that - it's 97% of published papers, not scientists.

87% of statistics are made up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751963)

and scientists are not exclucded from this statistic

Like "they" care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751969)

Already saw the documents about new strategies for when the North Pole defrosts, quite some nations working on it....

Yes, they might all agree but... (5, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43751981)

They might all agree but I read this climatescienceskeptic blog which gives a whole bunch of really obvious ideas about why its natural or not happening at all like the solar output or volcanos which I'm pretty sure that all the scientists are too dumb to have realised happen so I'm going to go with the blog.

Re:Yes, they might all agree but... (1)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43752135)

I agree with the guy who can't speak English!

Re:Yes, they might all agree but... (4, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43752293)

I agree with the guy who can't speak English!

how do yu kno that me cant speak english youve only seen me type it so surely you should be saying you agreee with the guy who cant type english

who funds the basic research? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43751991)

The answer is some combination of US government funding sources i.e. EPA, NSF, pick your favorite three letter acronym. these funding bodies already "believe" in man made climate change. The real bias is not the publications, it's the funding and the publish or perish nature of academic research. No on is willing to bite the hand that feeds them.

Re:who funds the basic research? (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year ago | (#43752213)

So all of these papers where funded by the US government in one way or the other? Even those published in other countries?

You should really stop thinking that the world ends at the borders of the US.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752029)

A potential environmental catastrophe is impending. Why concentrate on who's guilty? The interesting question is, what are we going to do about it?

Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752043)

Whatever now shut the heck up and quit polluting

some things i'd like to see (1)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#43752061)

Is research on the greenhouse effect itself. Right now the theory is that greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation in the upper atmosphere that would normally escape to space, and reradiate that in all directions, including back to earth, thus forming a greenhouse effect.

This part needs more confirmation. Has anyone done more empirical tests on this effect itself? You know, actually measure controlled IR emissions from earth to space to analyze absorption?

I think the research is heading towards more of the secondary effects - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is, water. Will increase CO2 cause reduced H2O in the air? that sort of effect..

Another thing i'm curious about is just energy production causing global temperatures to rise.. Do all the carbon & nuclear production of energy, do they cause global temperatures to increase directly? (and not just via a greenhouse effect) All that heat production has to end up somewhere, and all the power plants just end up dissipating the heat into the atmosphere (or convert to electricity, which eventually gets turned to heat somewhere else..) Is that enough energy to cause global temperatures to rise?

Lots of research still left to be done.

There are more papers in the study... (2, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a year ago | (#43752063)

...that reject AGW than there are that blame humans for most (>50%) of agw.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/ [rankexploits.com]

"The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:

that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it."

Boy, warmists are really bad at math!

Re:There are more papers in the study... (1, Funny)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43752227)

How dare you spread blasphemies that could hurt the profit potential of businesses that have been blessed with investments from his Holiness ALGORE!

Re:There are more papers in the study... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752299)

Do you get paid to post this? You only come out of your shell to bash global warming then hide again for months at a time.

Also searching through documents for very lengthy and specifically worded phrases will of course give low results.

Re:There are more papers in the study... (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43752325)

Boy, warmists are really bad at math!

So, you see one publication by one set of people and come to the conclusion that all "warmists" are bad at maths?

And you're the one levelling accusations of bias?

Re:There are more papers in the study... (1)

mpdolan37 (675902) | about a year ago | (#43752395)

I reject your science and math and replace it with magic. There problem solved. I just need an ice crystal and your concerns will be resolved. Just don't complain when a glacier levels a major city.

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752091)

As others have pointed out, this is could just be indicative of funding and publication bias.

They can publish until they're blue in the face... The tree hugging AGW crowd are missing one very key element. Starving people don't care. They want food. If burning back a forest and running a tractor over the cleared land feeds their kids. They're going to do it.

Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752133)

However, any paper that suggests otherwise, is a complete career killer for its author.

It is a very chilling time in Science.

What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (1, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43752163)

Do those 97% of papers all predict the same effects of the man-made global warming?
And are those predicted effects of man-made global warming actually observed in real data that occurred *after* the predictions were made?

Once again, we go back to the standard process of: Weather event X occurs. (where, for example, X is a cool and wet spring that just happened in the midwest).
X is either:
1. PREDICTED BY GLOBAL WARMING MODELS!*
            * Which model? There are so many to choose from and "global warming" can mean everything from "it will never snow in Europe again! We will have malaria and jungle diseases covering Norway!" to "Europe will be covered in glaciers because the Atlantic currents will fail!"
OR:
2. SO WHAT IF IT WASN'T PREDICTED! THAT'S JUST LOCAL WEATHER NOT THE CLIMATE!*

            * But don't worry, if it gets hot this summer or if there's a mild winter somewhere, that will be proof of global warming and not "just the weather". You see, it's a one-way street where global warming is always right.

Re:What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (1)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43752253)

You have a very limited understanding of how Science works.

Re:What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (0)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43752321)

Yeah, that whole "make a hypothesis" and "experiment to identify data to disprove the hypothesis" schtick is obviously a right-wing propaganda tool made up by young-earth creationist Oil executives!

We need a more "balanced approach*" where all science is correct as long as it starts with the "correct" conclusion that Global Warming is the fault of Evil Republicans and works backwards to the inevitably correct conclusion that all industry should be shipped to China in the name of "fairness" because only Republican CO2 emissions hurt the environment.

* Balanced Approach is an officially approved Obama buzzword.

Re:What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43752359)

So, basically you're taking the end results which end up in the popular press (you yourself selected local weather events) and blaming that on the scientific community? And then going from that to dismissing all the work of the science community?

That's clutching at straws to say the least.

Re:What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752301)

You're a Rush Limbaugh listener, right? Only Rushbo fans talk about "ALGORE" and how liberals are all about FEELINGS.

Re:What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (2)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43752373)

If Rush Limbaugh is saying that you should judge a what man really believes by his actions and not his empty rhetoric, then he's right.

I thought that being a good scientist meant looking at facts objectively instead of fitting the facts to your predisposed feelings. I guess that must be the "old white guy" science that has fortunately been superseded by collective groupthink.

Re:What do they PREDICT, not what do they FEEL (1)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43752377)

In today's life lesson you learn the difference between science which attempts to identify a cause for something and science which attempts to predict a result from something.

This study looked at science about what causes global warming, but what the result of global warming might be.

Selective statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752181)

More scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/17/latest-97-consensus-study-goes-belly-up-study-found-more-scientific-publications-whose-abstracts-reject-global-warming-than-say-humans-are-primarily-to-blame-for-it/

It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752201)

It really doesn't matter whether people believe its happening or not in the end. Once everyone figures out how much they will need to give up in comfort to lower CO2 it will just never happen. For example, smaller living spaces, much less climate control (cooling/heating), walking verses driving, major cuts to air travel, less meat, less stuff, etc.... Live like people did 150+ years ago. It's just not going to happen.

The only way C02 will get lowered is if we figure out a safe cheap fusion tech to fuel our modern life style.

Hillarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752219)

I find it awesome that when the position disagrees with them, certain will complain about a bias in scientific research. but they are willing to accept a position which was generated by only a few scientific researches which are 100 percent biased through their payments by big business. Some of these researchers being the same people who said that smoking doesnt cause lung cancer.

Well that's that then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752247)

Now that we can agree it's our fault we can fix it right?

Who am I kidding. Instead of cursing an indifferent god and suffering our inevitable fate we'll instead curse each other and suffer our inevitable fate. We'll bicker over the politics and the science as the ice caps melt, the weather goes bananas and vast swathes of humanity starve to death. It doesn't matter if we caused it, it only matters if we're doing something about it.

Science is the new religion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752251)

So whatever the majority of scientists say is canon, and if you go against it, you're being heretical. If you're being heretical, then you float, which means you're made of wood, and therefore, are a witch. BURN the witch!!

Re:Science is the new religion... (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43752349)

So whatever the majority of scientists say is canon, and if you go against it, you're being heretical. If you're being heretical, then you float, which means you're made of wood, and therefore, are a witch. BURN the witch!!

I can't disagree ... witches are a renewable resource

What is misleading is this study (2)

handofpwn (2628313) | about a year ago | (#43752259)

Even though it is true that a significant majority of scientists who study climate change agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will cause warming, the real debate still rages on in regards to the feedback effect that CO2 actually has in influencing the rate of warming. When you frame the question on the issue of 'does CO2 cause global warming', the answer is a unanimous 'yes'. When you frame the question in terms of the actual issue- 'will CO2 warming cause a feedback effect that will lead to the destruction of life on earth', the answer is anything but unanimous.

Re:What is misleading is this study (3, Insightful)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43752337)

Nice strawman there. C02 warming that leads "to the destruction of life on earth' is not exactly the primary concern of most scientists.

There are a hell of a lot of really bad things that can result from C02 warming that don't involve the destruction of life on earth.

Let's start eating shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752295)

100 billion trillion flies cannot be wrong.

Willful Ignorance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752323)

For those not of the scientific persuasion, 97% agree with the methodology, data aquisition, and conclusions that arrive at the answer that climate is man made. They're not just saying "I agree with this paper". They're saying, "I've studied the science behind this paper and the science is legit. Therefore the paper is legit." That's a big freaking difference.

cause and effect, how does it work? (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#43752329)

Most Americans have a shaky understanding of cause and effect, courtesy of years of public education where feelings trump facts, opinions trump research, ineptitude trumps ability, and equal outcomes trump equal opportunity. As a result, other than saying "stop global warming", nobody really cares - they assume that "someone" will fix it, and that someone is probably "the government". You'll hear things like "global warming is bad, but I need a minivan to drive my 4 kids (which I _chose_ to have) to soccer" or "they should just tax rich people" or "blame China". Nobody wants to be the guy who actually sacrifies anything.

Journalists are stupid (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43752375)

That's because journalists, as a class, are simply not very intelligent people.

They're children of rich kids who are too stupid to do something more socially useful -- and being rich -- they gravitate towards people who wield power, and are usually the most irresponsible when it comes to wielding their own power. Only rich kids can afford to become journalists, since only people whose parents can pay them to do wage-free internships and cadetships can make it through.

There's nothing wrong with the science. They're something wrong with the privileged, clueless swine who purport to be the gatekeepers of our democracy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...