CtTaxed.com

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

More of “the debate is over” debate.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Meanwhile over at climateaudit.org they continue to “review” and find glaring errors in the climate data from the other continents not just the North American. They have started a “Where’s Waldo” game to try and find the monitoring stations.

Apparently the NASA scientist’s model forces the urban stations (which are subjected to urban heat which is >1950 generally speaking) in to “correctness” by comparing them with the rural stations located somewhere else on the continent. hmmm. So the raw data is adjusted. The thought of “adjusting” raw data and then drawing conclusions in the magnitude of 1/4 degree just does not seem mathematically rigorous.

So, like why bother with the urban data at all? Well I am making an educated guess but when your data sample decreases in number the error in your calculated results go up. Maybe the urban data was needed to get the error band down in to the 1/4 degree range? Just a guess. Or to make the map look full.

There are a lot of people out there trying to figure out what mathematical equation the NASA scientist Hansen is using. They are trying, but why isn’t this model/equation just made public? And opened to world wide review? Why is it a secret? We have already paid for it, it was done on the government clock. I technically own it.

Meanwhile the co-founder of Greenpeace has some rather harsh words for Hollywood Al and Leo.

This film should be a good, clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype.

Did you know there are more trees in Connecticut and New England now then since ~1790? The settlers clear cut CT and NE very quickly, visitors from Europe commented on how the New Englanders would burn fires in rooms that no one was in. We quickly ran out of trees in New England. The re-forestation of NE didn’t occur till the industrialization and decline of the farm. Most of trees you see are no more than 50-75 years old. We have “new growth” forests in CT/NE, when you travel out west you see the difference in the “old growth” forests immediately.

Any way it is clear we polute less and have more trees due to industrialization. It may be counter intutive but industrialization / business is the best friend the environment ever had.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply