Climate Change Questions...

[Tim the plumber]

Your saying that there are 600+ papers confirming that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change?

 

Yes or No?

 

If No then that graph is 100% misleading. A deliberate misleading thing. I call that a lie.

[swansont]

Your saying that there are 600+ papers confirming that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change?

 

Yes or No?

 

If No then that graph is 100% misleading. A deliberate misleading thing. I call that a lie.

 

The chart's numbers say there are ~600-650 peer-reviewed papers a year on the climate in some respect. And yet only about one per year (on average) rejects the idea that there is anthropogenic global warming going on.

 

If that's a lie, it seems there are two possibilities for that: the number of climate papers, or the number that reject AGW. 650 papers a year doesn't seem outlandish to me; there are undoubtedly several journals that publish such works, so a dozen or so a week is not a lot. (There were >600 scientists contributing to the 2007 report on "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis", so that's 650 papers a year from a pool of probably many thousands of scientists). You are free to check that or, alternately, find >25 articles that reject AGW.

 

Other than that, I don't see how it's misleading at all, seeing as it doesn't claim anything that you have implied that it claims. If there were an actual scientific problem with the idea of AGW, I'd think that there would be a brisk trade in articles discussing it, such as goes on in all other branches of science with regard to ideas that don't embrace the mainstream. The reasonable conclusion is that nobody has data or valid modeling to contradict AGW.

[CharonY]

Considering that this discussion tends to repeat itself I would like to add this paper. Here, a finer analysis was done to differentiate between climate papers and articles specifically addressing agw. Here, the paper found a rejection rate based on abstracts of about 1.9% (given potential error rates, this is quite remarkable). Note that rejecting global warming can be a different subset than rejecting AGW (as the latter may allow for global warming).

[Tim the plumber]

Considering that this discussion tends to repeat itself I would like to add this paper. Here, a finer analysis was done to differentiate between climate papers and articles specifically addressing agw. Here, the paper found a rejection rate based on abstracts of about 1.9% (given potential error rates, this is quite remarkable). Note that rejecting global warming can be a different subset than rejecting AGW (as the latter may allow for global warming).

Well done for putting in the last sentence.

 

Surely the discussion is utterly wrong headed. The significant question is "How significant is human activity in global climate?"

 

By representing the skeptical side of the debate as 100% denying of any change in climate the alarmist side has created a straw man to knock down.

[swansont]

Well done for putting in the last sentence.

 

Surely the discussion is utterly wrong headed. The significant question is "How significant is human activity in global climate?"

 

By representing the skeptical side of the debate as 100% denying of any change in climate the alarmist side has created a straw man to knock down.

 

The message is not addressing skepticism — actual skepticism — it is addressing denialism. Skepticism carries with it the promise that actual facts and data will be the topic of discussion, and there is some threshold of them that will be found to be convincing. Skepticism is not the knee-jerk rejection of science.

 

"Global warming is a hoax" is not an example of skepticism. "There is no consensus" is not an example of skepticism. These subjects are what is being addressed by the infographic: this is science, with virtually none of it denying global warming, and there is a consensus. What isn't true is that there are two equal sides to this story, or that the basic question isn't settled, as some would have everyone believe.

[iNow]

Why people feel the need to remain so forceful and firm in their ignorance is beyond me. To illustrate swansont's point to those who perhaps struggle with basic reading and comprehension, I offer the below. Even people still eating crayons or huffing glue should be able to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tim the plumber]

97% of climate experts agree that human activity is having an effect on climate.

 

As do I.

 

Have 97% of climate scientists been asked if they consider AGW a significant danger to humanity?

 

I think you might get a very different answer to that question if it was ever asked.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the Plumber

 

I am posting this in all three of the ongoing Climate Change threads. Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are all logical fallacies; they are rhetorical devices that may seem on the surface to advance a case but in reality all they do is misdirect the debate and obscure the truth. The use of logical fallacies is against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4

 

You have been cut a lot of slack so far in these debates as we wish to provide an non-partisan arena for discussion through which agreed scientific principles can be elucidated. However, we do insist on the use of a basic scientific methodology and this precludes the use of logical fallacies.

 

The dismissal of a serious scientific point backed up by peer-reviewed literature with ridicule or a simple denial of facts is just not acceptable.

 

Please do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel it was unjust.