Monday, September 03, 2007

More on the next (as in previous and lower on the page) post...

...or at least a connected idea.

I bump into this at Tech News by way of FARK: Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
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.
And here's a kicker...
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.
So I gets to thinking when I run into this quote:
I think it's a slap in the face to the entire scientific community for you to simply pick and choose which empirically observed, peer-reviewed, scientific theories to accept based on whether or not you like their conclusion
I'm fifty-six years old, and I bet I didn't hear the phrase "peer-reviewed scientific theories" more than once a year in my layman's life. Now I run into it maybe three times a week or more, and pretty much only (as in: only still) on this one subject.

I figure the vast majority of the folks sputtering this script have barely skimmed an original, current technical article or three on climate change, and this only after being prompted to do so by a pundit of their usual persuasion, and I further estimate these 95% folks have read none of the peer reviews. It sure wasn't like they were heavy into peer reviews in the past; judging by present behaviour, they woulda told us about it.

Anyways, I was mentioning in the next post about "Evidently lines on a piece of paper substitute for thought with some folks."

No comments: