Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Finaly ONE senator understands global warming (long, scroll button)

rofgilead · 09-26-2006, 06:41 PM

Example:

Global Genetic Change Tracks Global Climate Warming in Drosophila subobscura
Joan Balanyá, Josep M. Oller, Raymond B. Huey, George W. Gilchrist, and Luis Serra
Science 22 September 2006: 1773-1775.
Published online 31 August 2006 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1131002] (in Science Express Reports)
On three continents, a low-latitude, natural genetic variant of the fruit fly is increasingly found at higher latitudes, paralleling climate warming over the past 25 years.

Seriously, Ustwo, I can understand how it is possible to have a different perspective on politics, but this is just science and measuring what is happening around us. Just start reading the articles.
_____________________________
On this statement:

Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323 However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.
________________

I say 'Benny Peiser' is just dirt being thrown in peoples eyes. Was he published? If so, in what journal? The papers that support global warming were peer reviewed and did not have major holes in their science or messed up experiments. Rejected papers usually have: 1) missing experiments that need to be completed 2) outright problems or errors 3) badly written, or bad conclusions that do not have supporting evidence.

Scientists in climate change do not make the statement in their papers that "Thus, climate change is caused by humans", because their data usually is on some small, particular aspect of climate change - and would not be able to support the authors making such a huge conclusion. Your senator is just being a peice of shit when he makes the statement that most papers did not directly endorse the notion of man made climate change - science doesn't work that way - politics does.

Anyways, Ustwo, your senator is really incorrect on the science - just read the darned Journals where peer-reviewed, good science is being published monthly supported global warming.

09-26-2006, 06:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	Example: Global Genetic Change Tracks Global Climate Warming in Drosophila subobscura Joan Balanyá, Josep M. Oller, Raymond B. Huey, George W. Gilchrist, and Luis Serra Science 22 September 2006: 1773-1775. Published online 31 August 2006 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1131002] (in Science Express Reports) On three continents, a low-latitude, natural genetic variant of the fruit fly is increasingly found at higher latitudes, paralleling climate warming over the past 25 years. Seriously, Ustwo, I can understand how it is possible to have a different perspective on politics, but this is just science and measuring what is happening around us. Just start reading the articles. _____________________________ On this statement: Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323 However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser. Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view. ________________ I say 'Benny Peiser' is just dirt being thrown in peoples eyes. Was he published? If so, in what journal? The papers that support global warming were peer reviewed and did not have major holes in their science or messed up experiments. Rejected papers usually have: 1) missing experiments that need to be completed 2) outright problems or errors 3) badly written, or bad conclusions that do not have supporting evidence. Scientists in climate change do not make the statement in their papers that "Thus, climate change is caused by humans", because their data usually is on some small, particular aspect of climate change - and would not be able to support the authors making such a huge conclusion. Your senator is just being a peice of shit when he makes the statement that most papers did not directly endorse the notion of man made climate change - science doesn't work that way - politics does. Anyways, Ustwo, your senator is really incorrect on the science - just read the darned Journals where peer-reviewed, good science is being published monthly supported global warming.