interesting video about global warming:
Dangit! I came here to post that. :P
Anyway, as a big believer in science, and the scientific method, I fell I must make some kind of a responce, even though this is an older thread at this point.
I think there are as many as 30k scientist out there who are very againt this supposed 'manmade global warming'.
Aargh, this keeps cropping up.
The 30k number is likely referring to the Oregon Petition, which claims to have 31,000+ signatories from scientists that disagree on global warming in some form. It is used by various denier circles to dispute that there is a consensus in the scientific community on AGW. This is actually a very misleading argument, though, as there are some serious problems with this petition.
I will be pulling the quotes (italicized) from the petition site, here: petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
My responses will be bolded.
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
First problem: the petition defines a scientist as anybody who has a "Science of..." degree. This would include various science of engineering, etc. type degrees, which offer no qualifications to make statements on climate science.
Looking down the page a bit further, this is confirmed.
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
Note: the petition further claims that 1,400 of the above 3,800 signatories have a phd in climate related fields. I'll get to this later.
Here's the remaining fields, compressed to save space...
Computer and mathematical ... Physics and aerospace ... Chemistry ... Biology and agriculture ... Medicine ... Engineering and general science
Okay, this means roughly 27,000 do not have degrees in anything related to climate science.
An additional problem is that there has been no apparent vetting process by which the signatories were verified to be valid signatories. There is no contact information listed, which is unusual (this makes it hard for anybody to verify the names are legitimate). Sure, their site states "independently verified" but again, no transparency to this process.
So, Scientific American decided to take a random sample, contact them, and see what they had to say.
web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
Not exactly confidence inspiring.
Conclusion: the 30,000 number widely thrown around is grossly misleading.
In other words - check your sources.
Speaking of sources - mainstream media outlets are atrocious when it comes reporting science accurately; journalists tend not to understand the material they are trying to report (that's just my guess though). Political sources - left, right, or center - have to deal with the political biases of their constituents, in addition to having the same issues the media does with understanding science, and so are even less reliable.
Consequently, I ignore the newspapers, nightly news shows, popular magazines, think tanks, institutes, etc. Even worse: bloggers that quote mine (take statements out of context in a misleading way), make assertions without making references, and - best of all - post a reference that actually contradicts their assertions because they didn't bother to actually, you know, read the reference. Instead, I find the scientific source, and go read it for myself.
Strangely, when you stick to the actual peer reviewed scientific papers, the consensus is clear: global warming is happening, and at least a significant part of it is man made. Additionally, every major scientific organization backs this consensus. When it comes to science, I'll trust the conclusions of AAAS, NAS, Royal Society, etc. over any other source. This may look like blind trust in authority, but in reality It's just acknowledging that science is best done by real scientists.
