TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,798
Do you even know what the AAPG's official position is and what it had been?
Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections
- Thread starter Poptech
- Start date
Do you even know what the AAPG's official position is and what it had been?
That poll is of only 498 scientists not even remotely the membership body of either group. AGU = 50,000+ and AMS = 12,000+
59% (293) do no believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years
46% (229) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
95% (473) do not describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science
71% (353) do not express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases.
68% (338) are not confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.
74% (368) do not rate Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” “very reliable”.
All that despite the intense spin by your article. Hardly overwhelming.
Yes and? Funny of all the societies your bring up the AAPG when I did no such thing.
Anyway since you have no membership vote, claiming guilt by association is dishonest and misleading.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
True believers never have doubts.
Which must be nice.
I wind up having to check all this stuff out, and its a lot of work.
My remaining doubts are all about the magnitude of the problem; Is it a problem, a disaster, or worse?
I'd love to be shown that its all solar and that its going to go away, but none of the data support that presently.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,798
It was a random sample. Do you have any idea what that means?
You are free to present any data that supports your contention that the boards of the scientific societies are not in agreement with the membership.
Yawn. 84% believe that humans are impacting the climate. I guess that you missed that part.
And this is important because?
I brought up the AAPG to show that the membership can pressure the board into change the society's official stance. Sorry if that was too complicated for you too grasp.
How does one add that laughing dog to their post?
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,798
41% said "great danger", 44% said "moderate danger", 13% said "little danger"
A majority (56%) answered "fully mature" or "fairly mature".
64% answered "very reliable" or "somewhat reliable"
macdoc
Philosopher
Since when is science done by polls and opinion? 
...go back to your politics section...you deserve each other...
...go back to your politics section...you deserve each other...BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Again I refer people to the seminal volume "How To Lie With Statistics" which will show what PT is attempting here for what it really is.
Yes that members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society DO NOT overwhelmingly believe in AGW, a couple hundred do.
You keep failing to show any membership vote on the issue because none exists.
So? It fails to clarify to what extent.
It is further evidence Al Gore is propagandist.
Members can maintain inclusion in a scientific society for many reasons least of all has to do with support of their position statements.
I am still waiting for the membership vote. This is not complicated. Please show me the data.
Funny Ben mentions true believers, when that is what people are who support the computer climate models, I know better. Do I have any doubts that there is no evidence for AGW (not climate change) except worthless computer climate models? Nope. Do I have any doubts that we have experienced a mild warming trend since the LIA? Of course, how mild it is remains in question. Do I have any doubts that Rahmstorf used a data padding technique? Nope. So it depends on what exactly you are asking.
Megalodon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Messages
- 3,228
No, you are a total joke.
Saying it enough times doesn't make it true...
They curved fitted a model ensemble, not the model ensemble used by Rahmstorf et al., thus invalidating a claim that was not made.
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,798
Let me see if I understand this. You're claiming that everyone who wasn't interviewed in a random survey doesn't believe in AGW???
Since you're claiming that the position of the AGU and AMS does not represent the views of the membership, why don't you present some evidence to support that.
Yes, you keep avoiding presenting any evidence to support your contention that the position of the AGU and AMS is not supported by its membership.
This is even funnier than your first statement.
So what if he is? Al Gore isn't a scientist, just someone who made a movie.
And many members of the AAPG quit and others threatened to quit after the board came out with an anti-AGW position. The board was forced to back off and declare that the AAPG was neutral on AGW. How many members of the AGU, AMS, and all the other scientific societies have quit because of their stance on AGW? Where's your data?
Show me ANY evidence that the majority, or even a significant minority, of the membership of the AGU doesn't agree with the AGU's pro-AGW stance. You're the one making the assertion.There are other surveys that also show that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. Where's your evidence that the anti-AGW group is anything but a small minority?
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,798
How do you explain why minimum temperatures are increasing 3 times as fast as maximum temperatures? How do explain why the largest warming has occurred in high latitudes and the least in the tropics?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
And i know he'll have some choice lie to explain THIS away;
Attachments
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Are you serious about this remark? What actually is the JOKE?
Fitting curves to observed data has been done for centuries. It is a serious and intensely researched area of mathematics and science.
Curve fitting just happens to be the subject of the paper you based this thread on. If it is a JOKE then the paper is a JOKE and this thread is a JOKE. Does that make you the JOKER and if so where is BATMAN
?BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
... if so where is BATMAN
To hell with him, get me Catwoman! Mrrrrrrow!
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Groundhog Day all over again. Same old same old.
Where do you see yourself in a year or two, after the El Nino? Still trying to live in this decade?
I can picture it now. "Global warming stoped in the 2000's so it might stop again and anyway the numbers are manipulated and anyway Al Gore is fat and anyway the Arctic has often been like that and who needs glaciers anyway and anyway it's all wrong because it offends the holy name of Ayn Rand and I've got figures to prove it!"
Let's see how that projection works out.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I'd have thought they'd cause a fuss if it didn't. I would. Wouldn't you?
But for Poptech it's for everybody else to prove that they do.
Any organisation, even a voluntary one, is potentially Stalinist. History demonstrates that. There's Poptech's evidence, served up for him.
There's no end to it is there?
But he's a US American, and therefore of critical importance.
They're too terrified to admit it. I don't think you appreciate the Stalinist nightmare that is the professional scientific world. Poptech does, which is why he avoids it so effortlessy.
The evidence is in the lack of evidence. It's obviously being concealed by the liberal scientific press (which is Stalinist to the core).
I am stating that you don't know their position and cannot. All you can conclude is 300 or so scientists support that position. You also failed to realize that support of this position is on a widely varying scale and the alarmist position is not even in the majority of your random survey.
I am saying that no poll or vote was done so no conclusions can be drawn as such. Why don't you present some evidence to support your implications. You are attempting to imply that they do. I asked for proof, you failed to provide it.
Why don't you show me they do. No you are the one making the assertion that position statements by a handful of council members represents the opinion of the societies thousands of members. You have provided zero evidence for this claim. I have no idea what the position is because no vote or poll was taken. See alarmists like to pretend that the position statement = 50000 scientists support AGW when no such thing is proven. You could have a majority of 25001 scientists in support of AGW and 24999 opposed and still have a majority but that is hardly compelling. Sorry for not having your faith, I need evidence.
Some of it has to do with problems in the temperature record and it is not warming in Antarctica. You seem to be suggesting evidence of regional warming and not "global warming".