Ecolog:
Can anyone refer me to data-supported and fully-referenced studies (rather
than opinions) that define the balance (percent, ratio) of direct and
indirect anthropogenic and non-human sources/causes of the various
climate-changing factors (listed) together with mitigating factors and how
they influence trends in climate change in terms of fluctuations and
long-term trends of what might be called "greenhouse" and "nuclear winter"
consequences? Such studies should be clearly enough presented that anyone,
"scientist" or "non-scientist," should be able to understand the
conclusions and their foundations at any level and be able to follow the
logic back through the analysis to the raw data.
While I am influenced by what percent of "scientists" believe, I am only
provisionally influence by such broad numbers and tend to be more impressed
by qualitative than quantitative assessments (WHICH scientists, and their
credibility) of that kind. Still, I am far more interested in the "hard"
science and its scholarly but clear presentation, together with all the
relevant "ifs," "ands," and "buts" than I am in a rather confusing tangle of
claims.
WT
PS: As a matter of common sense, we non-experts can kinda get it that human
activity causes all kinds of damage to all kinds of systems, including the
climate system. But we get real confused because of the scale and complexity
of the relevant factors and the dynamic nature of systems and the potential
for shifts in trends. We also can kinda get it that the anthropogenic part
is BIG, but we have trouble getting a handle on how big in comparison to all
the other climate-change factors and modulating effects and processes.
Finally, we've been misled so much that we are suspicious of band wagons and
fads as a genre. We realize that those who challenge the dominant view can
be hucksters and cranks, but we also seem to remember that The Authorities
have often turned out to be wrong throughout history and that challengers
tend to get burned at the stake.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Claisse" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Reference for % of scientists that think climate
change is caused by humans?
Turns out there a several good references listed on wikipedia under global
warming controversy.
Thank you to those who already responded.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Jeremy
Claisse
Sent: Mon 2/16/2009 7:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Reference for % of scientists that think climate change
is caused by humans?
My brother (who works in marketing) recently sent me the e-mail below. I
don't intend this to turn into a discussion of the general public's
understanding of uncertainty in science, I am just wondering if anyone
is aware of a study that looked at the percentage of scientists that
think climate change is caused primarily by anthropogenic factors vs.
entirely a natural cycle.
Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1955 - Release Date: 02/16/09
06:55:00
