Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Robert Lichter reports on a survey of American climate scientists commissioned by STATS at GMU. Some of the findings:
In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.
We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:
In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.
In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence "substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming," compared to three out of four (74%) today.
Scientists find Al Gore much more reliable than the media:
Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as "very reliable." Another 31% say broadcast news is "somewhat reliable," compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as "not very" or "not at all" reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.
Former Vice President Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it "very reliable" and 38% as somewhat reliable. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" as very reliable.
Via Trevor Butterworth and the International Journal of Inactivism.
Environment
Comments
So, are the results of this survey more nearly sound than those of the Brown, Pielke and Annan online poll? If so, how so?
Posted by: bob koepp | April 25, 2008 10:02 AM
Hang on, 26% of climate scientists do not agree with that statement? That's like learning that 26% of biologists don't believe in evolution. How come it's so high?
Posted by: Paul Crowley | April 25, 2008 10:45 AM
You answered your own question. Online polls are inherently utterly unreliable. It would take a really screwed up ordinary survey to manage to approach that level of meaninglessness.
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | April 25, 2008 10:48 AM
2 Because the headline is wrong. They weren't all climatologists (probably not even a majority based on the sampling they specify). Read closer and you'll find it is a sample of members of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union rather than climatologists specifically.
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | April 25, 2008 10:53 AM
"Online polls are inherently utterly unreliable." OK, if it's inherent, as you say, then you should have no difficulty in answering my "How so?" Again, if it's inherent, then your answer should make no reference whatever to the content of the questions, but be framed entirely in terms of the methodology of online polls. Enlighten me.
Posted by: bob koepp | April 25, 2008 11:24 AM
Online polls are usually self-selecting samples, often with unauthenticated participants which allow ballot-stuffing. An online poll can be reliable only if participants are authenticated members of some fixed list and a large majority of those randomly selected to participate respond.
Posted by: Paul Crowley | April 25, 2008 11:31 AM
bob
Does the phrase "self-selecting" mean anything to you?
In this survey 400 (some-what) experts where phoned and asked what they thought.
In an Internet survey, any moron that gets to the right domain gets to have his dipshittery count. Depending on the setup he can have his dipshittery count a few times or several thousand times (the morons have the advantage of living in their parents basement, and thus can dipshitterize full time).
Posted by: elspi | April 25, 2008 11:43 AM
The post title implies a pro-"warmer" result, but (as noted) 76% seems low enough that it could have been titled "many scientists skeptical that humans are responsible for global warming". That's not even considering the issue of "by how much". That's surprising, especially since even many skeptics concede that man has contributed to some warming.
As to the efforts to trash the study, they might not be climate scientists (and how many people have that degree?), but they are scientists and they are in related fields.
If this was a telephone poll, what specific problems would make it any more unreliable than any other poll?
Posted by: BillBodell | April 25, 2008 11:56 AM
They weren't all climatologists (probably not even a majority based on the sampling they specify). Read closer and you'll find it is a sample of members of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union rather than climatologists specifically.
B Frantz, can you tell us the fraction of climatologists who are also AMS/AGU members? Or the fraction of AMS/AGU members who have a degree/published article in climatology?
Thank you in advance.
But the clarification is apt, as the numbers may have some skew due to the AMS members who do not publish climo papers.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | April 25, 2008 12:00 PM
Yeah, I know what 'self-selecting' means. I even know that it's a potential source of bias. Note that I said 'potential'. Of course, so long as the potential is not realized, it can't bias anything. Any reason to think the results of the online poll I mentioned are actually, as opposed to potentially, biased? If so, that would be relevant to the question I initially posed.
Posted by: bob koepp | April 25, 2008 12:09 PM
In the methodology section at the bottom of the page it says, "The 2007 study was conducted by mail." Earlier in the report it says that the 1991 survey was conducted by phone. Mail surveys are not comparable to phone surveys, they have a much lower rate of repsonse and there is a self-selection bias introduced as well. Another problem with this survey is that not all members of the AGU study climate. Many geologists wouldn't have any more knowledge about climate science that a communication profesor. They weighted "to correct for the fact that a respondent with dual membership in the organizations had a greater chance of being included in the sample." However, it would seem that those who are members of both organizations would be more likely to be qualified than a memebr of only the AGU.
Posted by: Winnebago | April 25, 2008 12:12 PM
Having read the Brown, Annan, Pielke survey, the problems weren't necessarily with the sampling procedure. Other methodological problems, including design of the questions, reliability checks, etc.., were outside the accept procedures of survey research.
Posted by: Winnebago | April 25, 2008 12:15 PM
BillBodell wrote:
Hmmm. I think you should read the article. I don't think the actual quote would be consistent with your suggested title. It says:
Hmmm. I think you should read the article. It was a mail survey.
Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Bill Bodell: "The post title implies a pro-"warmer" result, but (as noted) 76% seems low enough that it could have been titled "many scientists skeptical that humans are responsible for global warming"."
Hmmm, why might that be?
S. Robert Lichter is president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel.
Lichter
CMPA
Posted by: Winnebago | April 25, 2008 12:20 PM
Bob Koepp wondered:
Well, they got an overall response rate of a bit less than 8%. When you get response rates like that, you should worry quite a bit about who was responding.
Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 12:27 PM
To (hopefully) dispel some confusion:
Isn't interesting what can be fabricated from a little ignorance?
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 25, 2008 12:27 PM
Oops. I misunderstood BillB's point. The point in the headlines that caught my attention was "Disagree on Dangers" -- a classic skeptic trope. Lichter's funders are also key skeptic funders.
Posted by: Winnebago | April 25, 2008 12:28 PM
American Meteorological Association? Not AM Society?
In any event, AMS members include such climate-ignorant professionals as broadcast weathermen. AGU probably fewer non-scientists but plenty of non-climatologists.
Posted by: Mark P | April 25, 2008 12:36 PM
Robert,
Where did you find the figure for 8% response rate?
Posted by: Winnebago | April 25, 2008 1:14 PM
I think Mark P gets to the heart of the matter. My recollection from reading Chris Mooney's book on global warming and hurricans was that there are a lot of meteorologists who are not believers in human-caused global warming.
Posted by: Texas Reader | April 25, 2008 2:04 PM
I'll second that request.
Anyway, what will be a quick way to get a fairly accurate sample of climatologists? Finding AMS/AGU members who have published peer-reviewed articles containing the terms "climate" "change" in the abstract sounds a bit too cumbersome...
Also, now that I think of it, will selecting from the AMS/AGU lead to some sort of "American" bias (since both associations are "American")?
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | April 25, 2008 2:14 PM
Winnebago wondered:
Toward the bottom of page 1 here. They got 140 responses from their target sample of 1807, so 12 out of 13 of those contacted didn't respond.
Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 2:23 PM
Thanks, I thought you were referring to the Lichter survey. I have e-mailed Lichter for a full copy, I'm interested to see his response rate.
Posted by: Winnebago | April 25, 2008 2:30 PM
I understand that 87% of gun owners believe guns are vital to self protection. But, they are of course self interested in wanting to continue their current behavior. Also, this just in, 95% of UFO investigators said they thought UFOs were alien spacecraft. I love this way of deciding science. 92% of of christians said they believed jesus was real. The rest were anglican.
The best part was finding Gore credible. Day after tommorrow was rated at 1%, but gore was rated at 26%. And Gores movie uses scenes from day after tommorrow, whats more the scenes are pure CGI. So these fellows trust gore, and are not even even aware that Gore took a totally fake sequence from the day after tommorrow?
http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth
Sharp tools they
Posted by: steven mosher | April 25, 2008 4:44 PM
But, wait -- the warming started before there were humans! First there was an ice age, with hairy primates. Then there was warming, and humans appeared.
Surely this proves that warming causes humans rather than the reverse!
Posted by: Hank Roberts | April 25, 2008 4:46 PM
'Only 29% express a "great deal of confidence" that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases," and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.'
I think that first statistic implies rather a lot of non-climate scientists. Also, "archeological" seems strange.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | April 25, 2008 6:00 PM
Using American Men and Women of Science as a filter definitely excludes any non-Americans (fair enough since the original survey did that too), but also appears to do a resonable job of excluding non-scientists like forecast meteorologists:
"Nominees must satisfy the following criteria:
"Achievement, by reason of experience or training, including contributions to literature, coupled with continuing activity in scientific work.
"Research activity of high quality in science as evidenced by publication in reputable scientific journals; or for those whose work cannot be published due to government or industrial security, research activity of high quality in science as evidenced by the judgment of the individual's peers.
"Attainment of a position of substantial responsiblity requiring scientific training and experience."
Given this, I suspect the sample was weighted almost entirely toward AGU members (nearing in mind that most AMS members who qualify for AMWS are very likely AGU members as well), but even so IIRC a substantial majority of those aren't climate scientists of any sort. It may be fair to conclude that most of the answers had to do with the respondents' sense of what their climate scientist colleagues know.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | April 25, 2008 6:19 PM
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not "within the range of natural temperature fluctuation."
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years...
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a "fully mature" science, but 51% describe it as "fairly mature," while 40% see it as still an "emerging" science.
???????
Posted by: kuhnkat | April 25, 2008 8:02 PM
And what percentage of CA readers think that Mann's work is the biggest fraud since Piltdown, Mosher?
Posted by: dhogaza | April 25, 2008 8:27 PM
SourceWatch on STATS - "...its 2006 annual return to the Internal Revenue Service states that "salary costs for the organization are shared with the Center for Media and Public Affairs. ..."
google "global warming" site:stats.org for some of their prior writings, which may help in weighing their credibility now.
Posted by: Anna Haynes | April 25, 2008 9:40 PM
The survey certainly has problems, but it seems to me tht most of them are a result of maintaining comparability with the 1991 survey (although the decision to do that arguably could have been disingenuous). It would be really nice to see a methodologically defensible survey of climate scientists as such.
On the same day the same site published a longish article on global climate modeling that to my eyes doesn't look half bad. I'd be curious to know what a modeler thinks about it.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | April 25, 2008 11:10 PM
RE: #20 "there are a lot of meteorologists who are not believers in human-caused global warming."
The reason is that these guys look at lots of weather data on a daily basis over long periods of time and probably do not see in the data any significant and permenant change in weather patterns that would signal a change in climate. Also most weatherpersons usually look at only local and regional data which may have not been much effected by any global warming.
For example, if the weatherman lived in the tropics global warming would have less of an effect on weather and temperature than in high latitudes and polar regions where melting of ice and snow and would be readily apparent such has occured recently in the Arctic.
In Winnipeg the temperature can hit -40 deg C in winter and 30-40 deg C in the summer. Thus any increase in the annual mean temperatute would go unnoticed. Precipitation and the pattern of rainfall are far more important to prairie farmers than minor variation in temperature.
If you want to get an handle on global warming, go ask the farmers around the world. Their assesments of any global warming and climate change are probably far more accurate and useful than that produced by the guys in the comfy offices in New York City who just crunch and munch data and look at squiggily lines on computer screens.
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | April 26, 2008 5:48 PM
You bring to mind something Christopher Guest said about Fred Willard in the commentary for Best in Show: "Fred has the patent on characters who are comfortable in their stupidity."
Posted by: pough | April 26, 2008 6:31 PM
"The researchers found a rapid decay in farmers' memories even of major climate events. For example, more than 50 percent of the farmers surveyed in 2002 did not recall the El Nino-caused drought of 1997 and 1998 -- the worst drought in recent recorded history." link
Posted by: z | April 26, 2008 8:31 PM
Steve Bloom, thanks for posting the link in #31. I, too, would be interested in hearing what some of Deltoid's climate specialists think of it.
Posted by: Bruce Sharp | April 26, 2008 11:38 PM
"I understand that 87% of gun owners believe guns are vital to self protection. But, they are of course self interested in wanting to continue their current behavior. Also, this just in, 95% of UFO investigators said they thought UFOs were alien spacecraft. I love this way of deciding science. 92% of of christians said they believed jesus was real. The rest were anglican.'
Yes obviously in order to avoid this sort of prejudice one should take one's medical advice from agronomists; get librarians to audit corporate accounts and consult a plumber if your car breaks down.
Posted by: Ian Gould | April 27, 2008 1:38 AM
Actually, if I wanted advice on guns, I'd have asked a real professional gun user, such as a soldier or policeman. True gun experts are to climatologists as the average gun owner is to a screaming doubtist teenager.
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | April 27, 2008 1:46 AM
Yet somehow Al Gore is a climate expert, as are Laurie David, Ariana Huffington, Trudie Styler, Cheryl Crow, Ted Turner etc.....
And if I wanted advice on future catastrophies, I would go to a tarot reader, soothsayer or grab the ouija board.
I apologize if I have insulted any Crystal ball readers or Psychics......I also apologize that I helped make a case for Gore's Law in writing this post.
Posted by: Betula | April 29, 2008 12:20 PM
No need to apologize for being stupid beyond belief, you can't help it.
Though you could show that you're not quite so stupid by pointing out the error in your analogy yourself, rather than suffer us laughing at you.
Posted by: dhogaza | April 29, 2008 1:03 PM
What is it - the Night of the Exploding Brains?
Oo, and I do have a crystal ball, Ø 110mm, lead crystal, no flaws, purdie swirly patterns and all...
But I use science to inform my trajectories for the future.
Maybe this is where the denialists are stumbling...
Posted by: Bernard J. | April 29, 2008 1:30 PM
The shot used from The Day After Tomorrow is of the "camera" sweeping over an Antarctic ice shelf. Its use was pointed out in the AIT DVD commentary, if not elsewhere, and is perfectly credible.
Posted by: cce | April 29, 2008 1:36 PM
Quite seriously though Betula, dhogaza has his finger on the nub.
And I mean this earnestly, especially as I thought a little while back that we might have met on a stamp-sized patch of common ground.
Alas, philately was not to be our rendezvous...
Posted by: Bernard J. | April 29, 2008 1:38 PM
And when I want to be psychoanalyzed, I go to dhogaza.
Since you are a futurist, I was wondering if you could help me with a few questions. First, at what average global temperature will the warming stop? Second, what will be the benefits,if any,of future warming?
And don't use any deluxe pentagram scrying mirrors....that's cheating!
Posted by: Betula | April 29, 2008 7:53 PM
Bernard... Have you seen the cost of a stamp lately?
I'd like to think there is still a shred of common ground...perhaps the equivalent of a roosevelt dime....philately out, numismatists in...
As I have mentioned in a previous post, my issue is with the alarmism and the way it's presented.....also, I am more concerned about carrying capacity.
I concede you know a lot more about this issue than I do, as do many others on this site.....I probably appreciate the barbs more than anything else....
"A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble in the road. Henry Ward Beecher
Posted by: Betula | April 29, 2008 8:22 PM
The alarmism is so alarming!
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 29, 2008 8:35 PM
LB.... Good one...and I understand the point. However, nothing to do with what I was referring to.....
I was thinking more like this:
First man....In 30 years we will all be cannibals, the oceans will rise 20 feet, catastrophic hurricanes will destroy entire cities, famines will kill thousands, polar bears will be extinct and the earth will explode (seriously).
Second man.....That's a little extreme don't you think?
First man.....DENIER!
Or let's try this one...
First man.....It has been documented beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth has shown a warming trend. We aren't positive how long this will last or 100 percent sure of the cause. Most scientists believe man has some influence, though there are indications that natural causes are to blame also.
This could create climate changes that are detrimental in some ways and beneficial in others. It would be wise to educate the public,corporations and Governments on sustainabiliy issues, conservation and finding and using alternate forms of energy where applicable.There are some questions as to how to go about this.
Second man.....DENIER!
Posted by: Betula | April 29, 2008 11:08 PM
Interesting post! But I smiled despite myself on this one:
1) On what grounds do you present a comparison between apples and oranges? I mean is there any way a particular, very well known documentary with indication of scources can be compared with any other "news source"? Of course in a decision according to instinct, the climate specialists will favor Al Gore! What a tremendous revelation! But that part of the survey is useless, turning into absurd when "The Day after Tomorrow" comes into the picture as well.Posted by: climatepatrol | April 30, 2008 2:54 AM
Betula asks: "Second, what will be the benefits, if any,of future warming?".
Go on Betula keep on asking inane questions like this. You might as well ask what the benefits are of clear cutting the world's remaining wet tropical forests, or of draining most of America's remaining wetlands. Theyb all fall into much of the same category.
Sure, in both of the bottom scenarios, some developers will benefit as will wealthy cattle ranchers, soybean growers, huge corporations etc. But ultimately society has to pick up the bill, so to speak, because the costs on the functioning of complex adaptive ecological systems is externalized. As I have said a million times before, but which you clearly do not appear to understand, these systems generate conditions over variable spatial and temporal scales that make life possible and upon which our civilization rests. There are few technological substitutes for these services. To argue, as you appear to be, that AGW has benefits in light of the fact that its a part of a huge, global experiment with potentially disastrous consequences for nature and for man is the sprint of folly. Given that this kind of debate reaches what I consider to be the basal level of intellectual discourse, I don't know whay I even bother with pedantic and utterly discredited arguments like the 'let's look at the benefits of global warming'. Perhaps it is because many people appear to believe that these illusory benefits make the entire process a good thing.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | April 30, 2008 5:59 AM
Jeff Harvey....
I didn't really see an answer there, except maybe only the rich evil corporations who produce, and the wealthy evil ranchers who feed us will be the beneficiaries.
I was thinking more in the line of what species of plants will benefit from warming? What species of animal will benefit? What parts of the world may recieve more rainfall? What areas of the world will become more usable for agriculture? How many less cold related deaths? How many less baby seals eaten? What types of insects will be more prevalent and what species will benefit from that? Will more grasses grow in certain areas? Will more wetland areas be created? What type of crops can we grow? Will the growing season be longer? What new businesses will be created, and if they become successful and wealthy, will they now be considered evil, and thus a detriment?
I realize that these are questions only a stupid man would ask.....and they are to difficult for me to understand....so perhaps you could try again.
This time I will allow scrying mirrors.
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 7:42 AM
Betula writes:
Yet somehow Al Gore is a climate expert,
You do know that Al Gore was one of Roger Revelle's students, don't you?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 30, 2008 8:08 AM
Hmmm.....Bachelors degree in Government,took some natural resource classes and obtained low grades,was in the presence of Roger Revelle....therefore, a qualified climate expert.
Heres one.....Bachelors degree in Forestry,recieved good grades, served under the youngest General in the History of the Marine Corps......therefore, qualified to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Got it.
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 9:02 AM
Isn't that a wee bit o' a straw man?
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 30, 2008 9:53 AM
What makes the use of such a phony straw man any less absurd than 'global warming is a commie plot'?
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 30, 2008 9:58 AM
Why, because the second statement is true! :)
(sorry, couldn't help myself, getting prepared for Think Like A Denialist Day!)
Posted by: dhogaza | April 30, 2008 10:05 AM
Typically stupid failed analogy by a denialist twit.
First of all, Gore "wasn't in the presence of Revelle", Revelle was one of his professors.
So rather than "served under the youngest General ..." a proper analogy would be "took a course in the theory of warfare using combined infantry/armored forces with air support".
And then "therefore, qualified to discuss the General's beliefs regarding the theory of warfare using combined infantry/armored forces with air support".
Which would be a perfectly logical statement, yes.
And in addition Gore has discussed the issues with a large number of other scientists in the field, and has submitted his writings for vetting by still others.
So no, Gore's not an expert in climate science, but one can safely say he's made himself into an expert in summarizing the research of climate scientists.
Gore gets bashed for being smart. And fat.
Posted by: dhogaza | April 30, 2008 10:10 AM
Betula, against my better judgement I find myself raising a hand to tip my hat a little bit.
'Carrying capacity'? Well, now you might be starting to scratch at an issue worth contemplation, but I think we'd need to wait for Tim to open a thread on Serious Ecological Sustainability to even touch upon this one...
And yes, Beecher was an insightful man.
However...
Your questions to Jeff in #49 are structured to pre-empt a certain (positive) class of answers, and in no way do they constitute an objective approach to nutting out the impacts of climate change, whether positive or negative. This demonstrates a bias in your attitude to the matter, and with such bias it is essentially futile to even attempt a response.
We all know that such responses are possible, however if they are informed only by your a priori presumptions and attitudes there is no chance of a progressive dialogue. "But yea!", you will ejaculate (look it up, children): "surely you scientists have a priori presumptions and attitudes of your own?"
Well, yes, but ones based on the evidence of data, and not upon a paradigm of belief or wishful thinking.
In fact, many scientists wish for answers that are in direct conflict to the weight of empirical evidence. I know that I do.
If you really expect a dialogue that moves beyond hysterical knee-jerking on either side of the debate, you need to start asking questions that are not biased to one side of the argument or the other.
Until such time as this is possible, perhaps discretion is the better part of valour if you wish to retain (attain?) credibility with those whom you would engage.
Can you tell by my florid language that I've been in a steering committee meeting all afternoon?! It sticks like doggy do-do does to a shoe...
:-(
Posted by: Bernard J. | April 30, 2008 10:11 AM
So rather than "served under the youngest General ..." a proper analogy would be "took a course in the theory of warfare using combined infantry/armored forces with air support".
Actually, I was a combat engineer officer with courses in disabling airfields,tunnels and bridges......in addition to constructing the same. Of course, at TBS and Engineer School we did learn warfare tactics, defenses,offenses,calling in airstrikes,extensive weaponry training,terrain models,extensive courses in explosives, logistics,fighting in urban terrain, leadership and managerial skills just for starters. As the headquarters commandant of over 2000 marines with the 26th Marine Amphibious unit..... I suppose my analogy was spot on.
Signed.....the denialist twit.
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 12:30 PM
LB said..... Isn't that a wee bit o' a straw man?
Regarding this... "First man....In 30 years we will all be cannibals, the oceans will rise 20 feet, catastrophic hurricanes will destroy entire cities, famines will kill thousands, polar bears will be extinct and the earth will explode (seriously)."
How so? These are all issues that are being presented as probable......or did I miss something?
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 12:43 PM
You're missing the part where you are the only one presenting these issues at all (seriously).
Where exactly it is a part of the scientific consensus that the planet explodes in the next 30 years? (seriously)
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 30, 2008 1:01 PM
Actually, I was a combat engineer officer with courses in disabling airfields,tunnels and bridges..
any other part of your biography that you want to show of?
and obviously they didn t teach the basics of analogies in engineer school. because you got this one totally wrong.
heres a lionk to some marine staff organisation scheme:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/to/command/To4916b.htm
and you haven t provided a citation for cannibalsim in the IPCC report so far. perhaps it isn t even part of the consensus?
Posted by: sod | April 30, 2008 1:10 PM
Sod... I don't understand what you are insinuating I got wrong with your military link/scheme?? Keep digging.
Also, here's a minion on cannibalism... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuC1xLHXRc
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 1:23 PM
Also, here's a minion on cannibalism... Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuC1xLHXRc
a youtube link to IPCC?
sorry, but i ve seen that one before.
now why not cite a serious source? like a peer reveiewed article? just if you don t have the IPCC report at hand...
Posted by: sod | April 30, 2008 1:29 PM
Of course, I see your Ted Turner and raise you Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command. I think his view is a bit more relevant to the subject than Turner's -- relevant expertise and all that.
(Be sure to read the actual report.)
Posted by: Brian D | April 30, 2008 1:32 PM
Er, typo on my part. Second link should lead here. Sorry.
Posted by: Brian D | April 30, 2008 1:39 PM
LB.....
No need to apologize, I wouldn't expect it anyway. http://nujournal.net/core.pdf
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 1:40 PM
Sod... The point you don't seem to get is that if I argue with Ted Turner......I'm a denialist. Therefore, if you disagree with Ted Turners statement....you too must be a denialist.
You see...we both have something in common....we disagree with the extent of the alarmism, so we must both be deniers.
I'm glad we can put this to rest and finally get along.
Posted by: Betula | April 30, 2008 1:46 PM
Birch,
That's your notion of consensus science? That is funny.
Though I hesitate to confound your expectations, I am truly sorry you are a clueless idiot.
Get back to us when you reach Stage 5.
It is just too hard to reason with an hysteric.
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 30, 2008 1:57 PM
Betula:
LB asked for a reference to the earth exploding being part of the scientific consensus. One paper isn't consensus -- it's just one paper (in an obscure journal, if you can even call it that).
Especially since the Google finds that the author "takes time to practice meditation, telepathy and astral travel" (to say nothing of founding a magic shirt store) and holds that he knows the purpose of life and the human mind's unlimited potential. On top of this, he compares himself to Galileo AND Copernicus while encouraging chain-mail letters instead of peer-review.
That, my friend, is some fine crankery. Sadly, it wasn't what LB (or any of us lurkers with similar interests) were hoping for. It lacks a certain, what's the word, credibility.
Posted by: Brian D | April 30, 2008 2:06 PM
Are you guys alright?
You keep confirming the point I have been making and you don't realize it.
If you follow the links back.....the whole point of my bringing up Cannibalism and the Earth exploding is that they are RIDICULOUS claims! Now I'm suppose to verify them with a consensus?
Do you people realize that the majority of people on this planet aren't sitting around analyzing data to form an opinion? They have jobs and many could care less about a Vostok ice core graph.....in fact if you said Vostok, they would probably say "gazoontite!"
They are forming their opinions based on media headlines, tv and radio talk shows, movies, school indoctrination and the Ted Turners and Hollywood types.It's really not their fault, they have lives and catch what news they can. Like it or not, this is how the majority of people form opinions.....a consensus if you will.
Perhaps the scientists on this site should make an effort to dispel some of the ridiculous, exaggerated claims, instead of calling people who think they are ridiculous (including yourselves, as you have stated in the above links)....deniers. Then more people would get on board.
It's hard to educate someone when you call them denialist twits for not believing that AGW will cause the seas to rise 20 feet.....or is it 17 inches?
The entire point, which I will state until I exhale enough C02 to kill a family of polar bears.....is that the alarmism, regardless of where it comes from, is way over the top.
Ask the average person how many Polar Bears have died from AGW.....the answer would be hundreds if not thousands....where does this come from? Not me. Am I a denier for knowing it's not true?
I realize for some of you the IPCC report is your form of the Bible, if it's not in there, then it can't be reliable. But let's not forget the Bible itself is interpreted a thousand different ways, thus so many forms of religion.
One religion calling another a denier because they don't interpret something the same way.....sound familiar?
And one last point...we know all the speculative horrors of AGW......how about more balance.....if one of you were to write an open minded paper on the negative and speculative positive effects of GW....ie; for every action there is a reaction (not necessarily bad).....maybe more people would take a step back and say....this is reasonabl