Fri Jan 24, 2014, 01:26 PM

Startling Number of Scientific Papers Disputed Human-Caused Global Warming Last Year

How many exactly....One, one lousy paper out of 2258 peer reviewed articles.

The tally since 1991: Nearly 14,000 papers that supported human causes behind global warming (chiefly from burning fossil fuels over the past century), and just 24 that rejected human causes.

It's amazing what a well funded smear campaign by such luminary pieces of shit like the Koch brothers combined with GOP drones that will believe anything fed to them like pre-chewed pablum will do.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/startling-number-scientists-dispute-human-caused-global-warming-20140122

14 replies, 3405 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Startling Number of Scientific Papers Disputed Human-Caused Global Warming Last Year (Original post)	sharp_stick	Jan 2014	OP
I would love to see a little "global warming" this afternoon in northern Florida. ...	spin	Jan 2014	#1
It doesn't matter what is causing it so don't get sucked into playing that game.	randome	Jan 2014	#2
It does matter what is causing it!	Vattel	Jan 2014	#4
Disagree. Reducing fossil fuels is an immediate way to stem the problem.	randome	Jan 2014	#7
but the only justification for stemming fossil fuels is the fact that they	geek tragedy	Jan 2014	#10
Oy. Kind of like how treating a disease doesn't require knowing what causes it?	geek tragedy	Jan 2014	#6
What causes a heart attack? Diet? Weight? Indolence?	randome	Jan 2014	#8
no, they want to steer us away from the obvious answer: cutting carbon emissions nt	geek tragedy	Jan 2014	#9
The article is not accurate.	Vattel	Jan 2014	#3
Actually the article is accurate	Progressive dog	Jan 2014	#5
Um, I pointed out the inaccuracy. The problem is not the research	Vattel	Jan 2014	#11
Sorry, I misunderstood your point	Progressive dog	Jan 2014	#13
no problem. cheers.	Vattel	Jan 2014	#14
Amazing is right.	Octafish	Jan 2014	#12

Response to sharp_stick (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 01:55 PM

spin (17,392 posts)

1. I would love to see a little "global warming" this afternoon in northern Florida. ...

Right now at 1:50 pm it's 44 degrees and that's downright cold for a Floridian. I have to wear a jacket outside and I don't have many.

The more accurate term is "Global Climate Change."

Reply to this post

Response to sharp_stick (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 01:58 PM

randome (34,845 posts)

2. It doesn't matter what is causing it so don't get sucked into playing that game.

If a planet-destroying asteroid was headed toward Earth, would we simply throw up our hands and say, "Hey. We didn't cause that."?

The cause of climate change is irrelevant. What matters is doing something to save ourselves.

But yeah, that's quite a disparity between viewpoints. 24 papers. Wow.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:09 PM

Vattel (9,289 posts)

4. It does matter what is causing it!

What we should do to save ourselves depends on what is causing it. If burning fossil fuels is not a cause, for example, reducing the burning of fossil fuels won't help to save us.

Reply to this post

Response to Vattel (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:42 PM

randome (34,845 posts)

7. Disagree. Reducing fossil fuels is an immediate way to stem the problem.

We don't need to 'blame' fossil fuels for causing it in the first place, just use our heads and do what we can to stop it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:50 PM

geek tragedy (68,868 posts)

10. but the only justification for stemming fossil fuels is the fact that they

are causing climate change.

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:33 PM

geek tragedy (68,868 posts)

6. Oy. Kind of like how treating a disease doesn't require knowing what causes it?

Reply to this post

Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:45 PM

randome (34,845 posts)

8. What causes a heart attack? Diet? Weight? Indolence?

Pick something that will likely improve the situation so one doesn't occur again. It doesn't need to be a one-for-one trade-off.

We're at the point now where we don't need to argue about how to 'solve' climate change, we simply need to do something to stay alive.

But that's what the deniers want to do: they want to argue with us with the full knowledge that it can never be 'proved' what causes climate change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:50 PM

geek tragedy (68,868 posts)

9. no, they want to steer us away from the obvious answer: cutting carbon emissions nt

Reply to this post

Response to sharp_stick (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:06 PM

Vattel (9,289 posts)

3. The article is not accurate.

The research did not reveal that since 1991 "nearly 14,000 papers supported human causes behind global warming." The nearly 14,000 papers did not reject anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but they did not necessarily endorse or accept AGW.

Reply to this post

Response to Vattel (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:31 PM

Progressive dog (5,430 posts)

5. Actually the article is accurate

and shows that almost zero responsible scientists dispute the human cause of climate change.

Reply to this post

Response to Progressive dog (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 05:27 PM

Vattel (9,289 posts)

11. Um, I pointed out the inaccuracy. The problem is not the research

that, as you point out, shows that almost no responsible scientists dispute the claim that humans are causing global warming. The inaccuracy is in the article when it says that nearly 14,000 papers supported the claim that humans are causing global warming. The person who did the research is careful to point out that he was not looking at whether a paper supported or accepted or endorsed that claim.

Reply to this post

Response to Vattel (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 05:36 PM

Progressive dog (5,430 posts)

13. Sorry, I misunderstood your point

Actually, I skimmed the article and missed the quote.

Reply to this post

Response to Progressive dog (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 07:32 PM

Vattel (9,289 posts)

14. no problem. cheers.

Reply to this post

Response to sharp_stick (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 05:34 PM

Octafish (55,745 posts)

12. Amazing is right.

From sharp_stick:

It's amazing what a well funded smear campaign by such luminary pieces of shit like the Koch brothers combined with GOP drones that will believe anything fed to them like pre-chewed pablum will do.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)