Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
I thought there was supposed to be a consensus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"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.""

I've read enough papers to know what the 'neutral' category looks like. They're not "refusing" to address the cause. They're not addressing it, as that's considered a given.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, Hero's got his head in the sand as usual. The only good evidence is evidence he agrees with. Rush to judgement and all that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

"accepting the consensus without explicit statement"

No, I didn't ignore that statement at all. AS I SAID BEFORE ... there are many papers that simply don't address the issue in any way.

There were many examples of explicit agreement that said - human-caused global warming through CO2 emissions. There were many examples of implicit agreement I found (and didn't include) that went like this - to reduce global warming humans need to reduce CO2 output/ find CO2 sinks. They didn't explicitly say "human CO2 emission causes global warming", but their tenor made the assumption obvious.

OTOH there are MANY papers that simply leave the issue unaddressed - like the ones I cited, above.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I just thought I'd stick this here -
Homer's Ithaca Possibly Found Thanks To New Geologic Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181034.htm
Wait a minute ! Those science types don't know nothin' ! Homer's from Springfield ... wait a minute ...
... what's that you're saying ?
... A different Homer ?
DOH !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
First par:
"... the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change"

---

Quote:

---

The question isn't 'does it exist' it's 'are humans causing it'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Sigh ...

The Mars southern cap is receding, the northern one is stable. Some planets and moons are undergoing apparent warming, others, significant cooling.

The sun's output is estimated to be causing 3% (maximum) global warming, not 30% like the article says.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
...
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Al Gorettes out there generally fall into 3 categories :
...
3) Saavy, manipulative capitalists looking to cash in on a catchy marketing gimmick

---

Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

I've noticed lately since the dire predictions seem to be falling flat (hurricanes, record heat, rising tides, tsunamis, even fracking earthquakes), that the new term is climate change.

---

Quote:

---

Did you know that Enron, General Electric, and DuPont were heavily involved in lobbying the Clinton/Gore White House to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Even to the point of Ken Lay paying several in-person visits to the President?

---

Quote:

---

That's right, you tell him! If he doesn't agree with the rest of us, he's just a plain moron!

Oh wait, that's right, all the same charges could be levelled against you. But you happen to enjoy the position of being in the majority on these boards, and that means that those standards don't apply to you, right? Sorry, I forgot!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So when the braver capitalists take advantage of that, you guys.... the pro-capitalists... suddenly find that it's a bad thing? Hmmm... NOPE. No double standard here!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Damn, I didn't erase that in time. Sorry.

Granted, you do know what you're talking about most times. But what I find troublesome isn't anybody's ability to back up their position with a good argument, but the way people approach those who disagree with them.

I guess my frustration is this: if you hold a minority view on these boards (whether you're a social conservative, a Republican, a philosophical theist, a Christian, or practically any other non-majority outlook), there are very few people who will actually talk with you. Most will simply mock you and tell you you're a moron. Now, I'll readily admit that some of those who hold the minority opinions do so in loud and obnoxious ways, but hey--so do some of those in the majority (and I'll not name any names). I'll even go so far as to admit that some of the minority folks hold some truly nutty positions--but again, some of the majority folks take the majority views to ridiculous extremes. Unfortunately, though, very little tolerance is extended to those of us with beliefs/acceptances/worldviews that deviate from what is the norm on FFF.net boards. I actually saw a post where one of our own (a frequent poster, no less) talked about how he'd enjoy seeing Christians burned at the stake. I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered

---

Quote:

---

Did I say it was a bad thing? Just responding to Jongstraw's comment about businesses taking advantage of the furor with an example

---

Quote:

---

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it (whatever that view might be). I, for one, just don't feel welcome on the boards anymore. And I think that that's just sad.

---

Quote:

---

That is sad. You are one of the few sane, rational people I enjoy reading on this board.

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, I know what you mean. The happy times I post on this board now are the ones when no one responds. When I get that email that someone has responded to my post, I get that sick knot of dread in my stomach, in anticipation of the negativity and deprecation I am likely to find when I click on the link. Why do I still come? I don't know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"I can't hold a minority view without feeling degraded for it ..."

Yeah, I know. I was against Bush from day 1, thought the Iraq war was a war of opportunity ... you wouldn't believe the things that were said to and about me, and how people with opinions like mine were slandered.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What you SHOULD be able to find is emotionally neutral, straightforward, fact-based conversation even if it disagrees with your viewpoint.

---

Quote:

---

is it the tone or the content that you find distressing?

---

Quote:

---

Possibly for the few sane voices like mine??

---

Quote:

---

Then they get it back - majority or minority

---

Quote:

---

Possibly for the few sane voices like mine?? - Signy
And you too, of course.-CTS

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And your little dig at Clinton was just a little dig at Clinton. THAT shit is still stuck to your shoe.

---

Quote:

---

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007.

---

Quote:

---

Altho Klaus-Martin this researcher used the same "database" and "search terms" as Orsekes, there is no indication that he used the same method of categorizing the papers' general viewpoints.

---

Quote:

---

Furthermore, there is no real definition of what he means by "neutral". Until the paper is actually published and people get to compare some of the actual papers with HIS characterization of them and with Oreskes' there's no way to figure out if this is an apples-to-apples comparison.

---

Quote:

---

Both sides are guilty of inflammatory language. It's ugly no matter who says it.

---

Quote:

---

The thing that drives me nuts is that those in the majority aren't called on it (at least not nearly as often) in spite of the fact that there are those on that side who are equally culpable.

---

Quote:

---

But I'm sure that I'll be attacked merely for making these observations, so why do I bother?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well of course, we will have to wait until the paper is published and then try to do a fair comparison. I think that was my point. I'm glad you agree. AFA "neutral" papers are concerned, does that mean the authors explicitly refuse, or is it something they just fail to address? Again, we will have to wait and see.

---

Quote:

---

BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, but you can't do a 'fair' comparison, because Dr. Oreskes' one page essay does not go into any depth about how she analyzed the papers relating to 'global climate change'. There's nothing in her paper to compare anything to. She just states conclusions without any information on how she arrived at them. Dr. Oreskes also fails to include 'neutral' as a category. Does that mean that if a paper she reviewed didn't explicitly disagree with the 'consensus', she considered it an implicit agreement? She has no place in her methodology for papers which say "We don't know if the consensus is valid or not".

Once again, actually look at Dr. Oreskes' paper. Decide if you would accept such a piece of work, without any description of how results were obtained, as a valid report relating to the regulatory work you do.

---