Outside Asylum Take a walk, smell the roses. Any topic is fine, save people bashing.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Outside Asylum ] [ Return to Search Results ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Would 98.5% count as "virtually all"?

Posted by GliderGuider (A) on January 18, 2007 at 14:18:31

In Reply to: "at least as far as virtually all climate scientists are concerned." Incorrect again posted by Victor Khomenko on January 18, 2007 at 14:02:05:

From this article :
A small but vocal minority (under 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.

Interestingly, one very vocal set of critics of the IPCC have accused it of a right-wing, pro-corporate bias that has led to it understating the dangers.

Now from the article linked below:

While there is little debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among mainstream, published climate scientists, there is an ongoing debate about global-warming theories in the popular media, and on a policy level. Non-scientists debate whether there is a scientific consensus on the existence of global warming, and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to justify action to attempt to ameliorate its effects. Those who believe that such a consensus exists express a wide range of opinions: some merely recognize the validity of the observed increases in temperature, while others support measures such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are intended to have some near-future climate effects, and to lead eventually to further measures. Still others believe that environmental damage will be so severe that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, even if the immediate economic costs of doing so are substantial. An example of the latter is the Sierra Club, which has sued the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon-dioxide emissions.

And of course there is the Oreskes study from 2004:

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

It appears that the perception of controversy and lack of consensus is mostly in the public imagination and is being driven by corporatist agendas.

Over to you.

• Global warming controversy   (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---