Reminder: The jury is still out on global warming! Here's the preliminary result:

[DetlefK]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

97-98% of all scientists working in the field of climate change have the opinion, that global warming is real and man-made.
But, COME ON:

If 97 out of 100 doctors tell me I'm sick and I need that medication immediately, the jury is still out.
If 97 out of 100 weathermen tell me that a tornado/hurricane is headed for my town, the jury is still out.
If 97 out of 100 motor mechanics tell me my car is an accident-waiting-to-happen, the jury is still out.
If 97 out of 100 pest exterminators tell me that rats are roaming inside the walls of my house, the jury is still out.
If 97 out of 100 people tell me not to go on vacation in Afghanistan, because I might get kidnapped, the jury is still out.
If 97 out of 100 people can identify the guy who stole my car, the jury is still out.
If 97 out of 100 scientists say global warming is real and man-made, the jury is still out.



It's the easy way to dismiss academics and professionals as arrogant out-of-touch elitists, but sometimes you should accept advice from people WHO KNOW WHAT THE F**K THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(My gut-feeling tells me that quantum-mechanics is a hoax, but please don't tell that to the people of Hiroshima.)

[joeybee12]

1. I think it's closer to 99%...from what other things I've read...

but apparently if an idiot like Sean hannity says it's out, well, then gotta go with him over them book-lerned scientists.

[rfranklin]

2. Have you no faith?

Faith based facts prove irrefuddably that the earth was created 6000 years ago by the sky guy with the long white beard.

[WhiteTara]

3. and the miracle was

that he could hold his hands up in the air (to keep space for the ones on his left and right) the entire time he was doing it.
:rofl:

[hendo]

6. the creation belief has nothing to do with denying global warming

Global warming deniers are simply nut jobs.

[Count Olaf]

4. It is what we do about it that makes a difference

Whether the fundies will admit it or not, too much CO2 is THE cause.

So let's focus on the CO2 instead. I think we all want clean air to breathe(except Lisa Murkowski)

Instead of allowing Congress to debate 'cap and trade' in an effort to squeeze more money out of the little people, let's go after the big polluters and shut them down. There will be no 'trading' your pollution.

They want to put this all off on us little people and too much driving , or telling us population control is the key.

There is no amount of changing our lightbulbs that will offset what what the big polluters are doing. (like for example BP!)

We then need to stop 'free' trade with companies and countries that do not follow strict environmental laws.

As far as this country has fallen, we are still a leader in the world and we need to start leading in positive directions, even if we have to drag the dinosaurs kicking and screaming.

[hendo]

5. The problem with scientists

is that they have little to no interest in spinning their conclusions in a way that will make sense to the majority of the population.

Unfortunately that leads to a point where the side that is the loudest is the one that influences Americans. Just look at the lunacy over vaccines.

[Johonny]

11. which scientists are these?

The ones that write websites http://www.realclimate.org/

The ones that write popular books http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Understanding-David-Archer/dp/1405140399/ref=pd_sim_b_1

The one that write reports for policy makers http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html

If you real have a hard to understand there's even http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Dummies-Elizabeth-May/dp/0470840986

Just a little example.

I think the truth is a lot of people are happy to not look at the evidence no matter how many scientist try to get them to. Not because it is too hard, but because the evidence goes against their deep seated beliefs. They also gladly absorb any counter argument no matter how untrue or counter to the evidence if it reaffirms their existing beliefs.

No matter how hard scientist work at getting information to the public and there is no shortage of them trying, much of their audience simply ignores it. Blaming the scientist is pretty laughable. The information is out there. Oh boy is it out there.

[Winterblues]

7. Atomic Theory is after all "Only a Theory"

The jury is still out...

[alc]

8. 97+% agree on gw forcing

And they should because it's a tested physical theory based on physics. There is disagreement on feedback values though (around 50/50 on if feedback is dangerous at the time of AR4) which are based on models that depend on dozens to hundreds of tweakable parameters.

If 97 out of 100 scientists say global warming is real and man-made, but 50/50 on if it will be a disaster I say let's take some precautions but keep researching. It's possible that man-made CO2 will be a disaster but NOT because of CO2 (which has under 1 degree C maximum forcing). There are other tested man-made causes of gw that are being ignored (black soot in Asia, deforestation, aerosols, etc). Focusing on CO2 and CO2 feedback could be as dangerous as ignoring it.

If 97% of doctors say I have a tumor but only 50% say it's cancerous, I want more test results before beginning drastic treatment.

If 97 out of 100 weathermen tell me that a tornado/hurricane is headed for my town, but it's 50/50 on which, I'd look for more info before deciding what to do.

If 97 out of 100 motor mechanics tell me my car is an accident-waiting-to-happen, but 50/50 on whether it's a 5MPH tap or something more severe I'd want more details.
...

[marions ghost]

10. How about

focusing on CO2 as well as other causes?

As for your adding 50/50 conditions onto the 97% figure, you are using bogus arguments in an effort to confuse the issue with illogical "logic."

Your formula is how people end up doing nothing. :thumbsdown:

And I've heard these arguments from intelligent people, not only you.

[DetlefK]

13. that's why testing a hypothesis is a complicated and serious business

The tricky part is finding a good cut-value for your variable. For a simple model you have to minimize:
1. the possibility to denounce a correct hypothesis
2. the possibility to accept a false hypothesis

For more complex models you have to include weighting parameters: What will it cost if I commit mistake number 1? What will it cost if I commit mistake number 2?
It's really tricky to create a good model how to calculate such costs, which costs you use for your decision-making, which mathematic estimator to use, whether you prefer efficiency or purity for classifying your data...

[unblock]

9. sidebar, but did quantum mechanics have anything to do with hiroshima?

atomic theory, certainly; but i didn't think quantum theory was involved.

[DetlefK]

12. you are right, there would be better examples

...but Gamov's theory of Alpha-decay or the Bethe-Weizsäcker-formula (how much energy is stored inside an atomic nucleus) are less known.

More or less everyday examples of quantum mechanics are:
* Laser - every time you want to read a CD/DVD
* Cosmic Microwave Background - you only get the right spectrum if you follow Planck's approach of quantized light
* electronic energy bands in solid matter - the reason why you only need a battery of a few Volt to power a small device
* missing colors in sunlight - absorbtion lines
* the read/write-head in your hard-drive - employs the GMR-effect to measure if a magnetic bit points upwards or downwards