Since its founding in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has sounded the alarm on global warming. The IPCC published a widely-cited report in 2001 claiming that world temperatures were relatively stable from the year 1000 through 1900 but spiked dramatically from 1900 to 2000. H. Sterling Burnett's commentary in yesterday's Washington Times, however, points out that the science behind the temperature report is seriously flawed. According to Burnett, the IPCC scientists used statistics in their report without consulting any statisticians and, consequently, got them wrong. Furthermore, the IPCC's 2007 predictions of catastrophe resulting from global warming are based on clearly inaccurate data.Don't believe the hype. And don't believe Al Gore or the IPCC. There is no scientific consensus on global warming.
10 comments:
That, my friends, is absolute, utter, conservitive BS! Anyone who looks at the facts can tell that this planet is warming. The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. The whole in the ozone is growing every year, as is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico due to the nitrogen run of from farms along the Mississippi & Missouri rivers. There is no way that any environmental scientist can say that the industrialization of the first world countries has not had an effect on the environment. Anyone stating the opposite is lying to themselves.
This Science Magazine article anylized articles on global warming and determined from there analysis that there definitely IS a concensus on global warming:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
"Consensus: An opinion reached by the group as a whole." - American Heritage Dictionary. Whether a 2004 article states that there is or is not consensus, the fact that debate remains, by definition, indicates that the there is no consensus.
I also feel compelled to note that the article referenced by the second anonymous post leads with citation to the IPCC, which Burnett's article shows has its data wrong.
The Conservative likes to reference only those lines that supports his/her point. The artical goes on to say that the IPCC is not alone and quotes other sources. It goes on to say that 75% of 928 analyzed papers support the consensus, and 25% take no position. 0% disagree with the consensus.
Debate only remains in the U.S. The rest of the world has acknowledged the fact. The debate only exists in the U.S. because of the conservative president who, until the past year, has refused to acknowledge the facts.
Conservatives are very quick to point out flaws in the research, yet can present no evidence to support their "theory" that there is no global warming going on. The debate remains, because the politians in Washington are lining their pockets with the money of special interest groups.
Mr. Conservative, you are BLIND!
Speaking of money from special intersts, Dr. H Sterling Burnett works for the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received $465,900 in funding from Exxon-Mobil from 1998-2006.
I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be. But I am from Missouri and you've got to "show me" that the earth is warming at a dangerous rate and that human activity is the cause of that warming before I'll believe it. The IPCC has made serious claims about global warming in recent years. Those claims, it now seems, are based - at least in part - on faulty data.
Claims of "consensus" in support of a point are not determinative or very persuasive. At one time the consensus was that the earth was flat.
Claims of "consensus" are even less persuasive when there is no consensus. There's no need for tit-for-tat here, just know, anonymous, that not everybody agrees with you and Al Gore. Anybody interested can take a look at . . .
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
Heartland has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.
I sense a theme in your references.
My references are made for one and only one reason - I dispute the "consensus" because there isn't one. I don't have the time (or inclination) to track down all the scientists who dispute the consensus. Heartland has already done that. Also, check the facts in what heartland reports, if you have a disagreement over those facts . . . fine. But simply attacking the funding of a group is a cheap shot. If they're funded by Exxon and lying, that's one thing. If they're funded by Exxon and telling the truth, then who cares whether Exxon is funding them or not?
But, I do see why you don't want to debate the facts with Heartland . . . doing so would require you to admit that there is no consensus on global warming.
I could site references all day from scientist and scientific publications that dispute Heartland and the NCPA that have no financial interest in stating their position. You haven't cited one yet that is *not* backed by special interests. A study is only as good as the people funding it.
Burnett's comentary cites, as one of the flaws in the IPCC's work, a lack of independant peer review. How independant can his critique be when his salary is funded by a company who's income relies on what most state as the cause of global warming - fossil fuel? You don't see that as a problem?
In addition, the report that Burnett cites as debunking the IPCC's work, the analysis by Dr. Edward Wegman, *CONCEEDS* that the earth has warmed since 1850. And Burnett's quote from that report, "cannot be supported" did not apply to the concept of global warming, but that the conclusion that the 1990's was the hottest decade in the millennium could not be supported by their analysis. In short, Burnett is discoutning the entire IPCC report when Wegman only discounted parts of the report.
Don't get me started on Heartland. They're so conservative they poop elephants.
Find an *unbiased* source that dispute that human activity in the last 200 years has *not* contributed to global warming.
And then to the symantics - the Supreme Court comes to a consensus, but still has dissenters. Just because the decision is not a unanimus concensus, does not mean that there is no concensus.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary: "consensus" 1b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
American Heritage Dictionary: "consensus" 1: majority of opinion
(Skipped that first definition in American Heritage, didn't you? Didn't support your position?)
First off, I didn't skip anything. Please see
http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/C0580200.html
That's the definition that I quoted.
Secondly, if all you're arguing is semantics, we likely have agreement. You say that most scientists support the global warming hype. I agree. There is not, however, universal accord. And lately more and more news has been coming out that does poke holes in the hype.
If you want to continue this "debate," feel free. But this isn't the space. This is the space to comment about whether or not the statistics used by the IPCC to measure temperature were or were not flawed. That, you see, was the subject of Saturday's entry.
Post a Comment