Filled up for $1.78/gallon

[z12358]

Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]."


Z: You can learn about a person from the company he keeps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories


Z.

[Brucelee]

"This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—"

The "consensus view" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat.

This agreement did not make it so.

Nor does consensus trumph bad science.

I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon. Im sure a gallon of molten gold would be more but you get the idea. Thats why I just buy a new printer everytime I run out of ink. Get the newest printer and ink cartridges for about 20 bucks more.

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by boggtown

I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon.

Wait I thought White-out was the most expensive per gallon?

[jeffsquire]

QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[I]"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.......you can learn a lot about a person from the company he keeps.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories[/urlZ.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________
Sure can.

-" One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic.. . . . .Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists. “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
For more on this, see the following link.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

100 years of media reports on global warming and cooling. They can't decide what it is. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp

[jeffsquire]

[QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]."
QUOTE]
_--------------------------------------------
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly.

What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles.

Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree.

[z12358]

JS:
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly.

The study covered ALL 928 articles in the ISI database (covering ALL peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world) having "global climate change" in their keyword list.

What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles.

The above example would not have entered the 75% consensus universe as it would have directly contradicted with the consensus hypothesis: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities".

Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree.

Not true. Read carefully. Quote:
"The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis."

Z.