The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am
Statistician Ruth Lea:
There seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind’s fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority.
- Gaia-cultists “prove” these fellows are paid shills for Big Oil in 5… 4… 3…Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 05 03 at 12:04 AM • permalink
The Lords’ report also contained a quote from Professor Reiter, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, which challenged the appropriateness of the notion of scientific consensus. He said “consensus is the stuff of politics, not science”.
Consensus is not only the stuff of politics, it’s the stuff of cults as well. Just ask any Mother Garia™ fanatic. To them, consensus is all.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 03 at 12:23 AM • permalink
- #2 I beg to differPosted by Margos Maid on 2006 05 03 at 12:23 AM • permalink
- dissenters are in a healthy majority
Sometimes this is the highest form of patriotism (Apologies to Paris Hilton)Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 05 03 at 12:46 AM • permalink
- We’ve had global cooling and global warming. Can global stasis – whoops, sorry,
GLOBAL STASIS be far away?Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 05 03 at 12:53 AM • permalink
- Daring the Sydney Morning Aged to publish this one or another we hate Chimpy Nokyoto McGlobewarmer Bushitlerburton.
Fairfax Editor-in-Chief head explodes in 3, 2, 1….Posted by Jay Santos on 2006 05 03 at 01:26 AM • permalink
- Dave S. — Sorry, he was pulled under by a drowning polar bear.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 03 at 02:36 AM • permalink
- Ah! Humor…that’s funny, Zoidberg.
She mentions she is a qualified statistician, but—as far as I can read—not statistics are cited in the article.
Funny way of thinking, statisticians. I remember sitting next to one on a train passing a sheep station. “Lotta sheep”, sez I. “1248, to be exact”, sez he. “Wow” sez I, “How’d you do that so quick?”. “Simples”, sez he, “Just counted their legs and divided by four”.Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 03 at 04:00 AM • permalink
- Off to the Gaia Gulag for that heretic! The virtue of our MILF will not be so insulted!Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 05 03 at 07:36 AM • permalink
- Zoidberg — You’re obviously averaging out left and right sites. Once you limit yourself to reading lefty sites alone that number goes up to around 99%. In fact, once the lefties get past the fact that Bush is President — OK, they can’t get past the fact that Bush is President… but you see what I mean.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 03 at 08:54 AM • permalink
- Stupid, deluded lefties! Always swallowing whatever is thrust in front of them without fact-checking it first!
Wait, did you say Peiser?
Benny Peiser, in his study, found 34 abstracts which according to him “reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the the observed warming over the last 50 years”. Note that I said “according to him”. Reproduced below is one of those 34 abstracts.
4. A Critical Analysis of Climate Change Policy Research
Rothman DS, Chapman D
Contemporary Policy Issues 11 (1): 88-98 Jan 1993
Abstract: After more than a decade of scientific warning, the policy community has begun to take up the challenge of global climate change. This paper considers recent efforts to analyze policymaking in this area. Shortcomings in present policy research include: (i) inconsistencies in data and methods, (ii) myopic vision of available options, (iii) overly anthropocentric cost/benefit assessments, (iv) inadequate treatment of uncertainly and irreversibility, (v) lack of recognition of developing and developed countries’ differential motives, (vi) unsatisfactory presentation and interpretation of results, and (vii) limited peer review.
Can anyone point out to me where this abstract “rejects or doubts” anything, as opposed to, say, discussing policy options for “the challenge of global climate change”, for which there has been “more than a decade of scientific warning”?
Give it up, guys. Even the Bush Administration acknowledges anthropogenic global warming now. It’s OK, you’re allowed to do that and still oppose Kyoto. (That’s my position).
A complete list of Peiser’s rejecty-doubty abstracts is available here.
- Also, here’s a quote from Peiser that may interest you guys:
Obviously, most of the really important papers, in particular empirical studies, are to be found in the 11,000 or so ISI listed papers that weren’t analysed. I make this point clear in my letter to Science, and even stress that I do not wish to question that the majority of papers support the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
- … conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority.
I think we’re reaching the point where it can be taken as axiomatic that any group of particularly vocal people who just so happen to espouse leftist ideology are a mere minority. Nice to see somebody finally say so about the eco-religionists. Consensus, my ass.
- Give it up, guys. Even the Bush Administration acknowledges anthropogenic global warming now.
Just for ChrisV, let’s quote the lead-in again, with helpful bolding:
There seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind’s fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change.
There’s quite a difference between “acknowledging anthropogenic global warming” and asserting that it’s a major driving force. But if you’d like to argue that we should give up on your strawman, be our guest, I guess.
I think Karl is resigned to having Hillary as the Dem candidate in ‘08. That is why he has started the “Draft Cthulhu-Condi” movement to produce a GOP dream team for the election.
As for our contemporry activities being the major cause of any global changes in climate that might be happening that was always implausible. We know there have been such changes during historical times, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Climatic Optimum being three examples. When you also consider that the sun has varied its output over historical times, the idea that any changes must be human induced becomes very shaky, especially when the evidence is the frothy world of computer modeling. Finally, the modelers, often the same people who today shout loudest about warming, were absolutely convinced in the 70s that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age, and that their models proved it. Why, there was one year when the snow stayed on the ground all summer in Northern Canada. Who could doubt it? Only ignorant rednecks of course. Feh.Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 05 03 at 08:34 PM • permalink
Correct Richard. This one and The Chaser
- you’re all wrong wrong wrong.
A bloke I was talking to in a bar yesterday told me yesterday that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists on climate change. He sounded very knowledgeable too.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 05 04 at 06:21 PM • permalink
- just as I thought. Deafening silence in the face of hard evidence.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 05 04 at 06:24 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.