You've posted the chart, without attribution, in violation of JREF rules. In so doing you left out the caption that explained the meaning and intent of the zero point.
Look at the box in the top of the chart where the lines are explained. It refers to "Warming". Not absolute heat content, but warming. Simple enough I think.
As to attribution, the chart has been posted and referenced many times before on this Forum. It is not necessary to keep restating what has been stated before.
Your posting of the chart misrepresented the intent of the original source quite obviously. I pointed it out. To restate:
You won't find sceptics at the Cato Institute. It's for people who are already wedded to an ideology and who will force any subject into that mould. A(nthropogenic)GW is not compatible with their ideology, since it means the existence of external costs to economic transactions. This in turn implies regulation of some sort by society. Since the Cato ideology is that any regulation is wrong then they cannot believe in the reality of AGW.
The majority are not ideological and take the science and the evidence for what it's worth, when critically examined. We aren't conspiracy theorists. We go by the science as a whole, and are convinced of the reality of AGW.
Yes they are ideological as AGW theory is not based on science that is reproducible. It also has nothing to do with conspiracy theories as skeptics do not believe in conspiracy theories either. What skeptics believe is the existence of environmentalism as a religion.
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Former Director of the EPA's Bioenvironmental Division, USA
Adriano Mazzarella, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Naples, Italy
Edited by Locknar:
List edited.
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, Germany
Zachary W. Robinson, B.S. Chemistry, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Natural Sciences, Poland
Meteorologists:
"Scientists that study the earth's atmosphere, climate, and weather" - Wordsmyth Dictionary
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Science, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Edited by Locknar:
List edited.
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Science, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, B.Sc., M.Sc., Retired Head of the Australian National Climate Centre, Australia
Social Scientists:
"The assessment of regional environmental and social impacts is a multidisciplinary task that involves natural and social scientists working in tandem with policy makers." - American Meteorological Society
Alan Carlin, B.S. Physics, Ph.D. Economics, Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Alan Moran, Ph.D. Economics, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Edited by Locknar:
List edited.
Wolfgang Kasper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of New South Wales, Australia
Yaron Brook, B.Sc. Civil Engineering, M.B.A. Ph.D. Finance, USA
Deceased:
"Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead" - James Hansen, 2006
Aaron Wildavsky, Ph.D. Political Science, USA (Died: September 4, 1993)
Adrian H. Gordon, Meteorologist, University of South Australia, Australia (Died: April 12, 2000)
Edited by Locknar:
List edited.
William (Bill) A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, USA (Died: September 10, 2000)
William Mitchell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Oxford, UK (Died: October 30, 2002)
A list containing a few names is fine, a list of 499 names is not. Edited for Breach of Rule 6.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Locknar
Is it your position that the Cato Institute is not an organisation dedicated to the propagation of an extreme free-market ideology? I'm sure I could find evidence to the contrary in its own material.
Apparently the IPCC does not believe your lies either.
Anybody can be a reviewer for the IPCC reports, it doesn't imply any special status. The production of the IPCC reports is a very open process. So your reference is worthless.
Are we supposed to be impressed by the list you posted, even assuming that everyone on the list wis a scientist (and quite a few are not)? The American Meteorological Society, for example, has over 13,000 members. How does that compare with the size of your list?
It also has nothing to do with conspiracy theories as skeptics do not believe in conspiracy theories either. What skeptics believe is the existence of environmentalism as a religion.
There's that "believe" again. Science and environmentalism are not interchangeable terms. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts both that science can concern itself with climate and that AGW is a real and observable effect, in paleoclimatic and in current data.
Let's be clear about one thing. What you regard as a "sceptical scientist" is a scientists who believes that AGW is a fiction. Is that correct?
As to your cut-and-pasted list, have you checked that all
of them actually have the opinions you've been told they do? And for mhaze's sake, could you provide a link to the site you copied it from? Otherwise he'll have to take issue with it and I'd hate to see you guys fall out.
Are we supposed to be impressed by the list you posted, even assuming that everyone on the list wis a scientist (and quite a few are not)? The American Meteorological Society, for example, has over 13,000 members. How does that compare with the size of your list?
Is it your position that the Cato Institute is not an organisation dedicated to the propagation of an extreme free-market ideology? I'm sure I could find evidence to the contrary in its own material.
Anybody can be a reviewer for the IPCC reports, it doesn't imply any special status. The production of the IPCC reports is a very open process. So your reference is worthless.
First draft Reports should be circulated by Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs for review by experts selected by the Working Group/Task Force Bureau and, in addition, those on the lists provided by governments and participating organizations, noting the need to aim for a range of views, expertise, and geographical representation. The review circulation should include:
- Experts who have significant expertise and/or publications in particular areas covered by the Report.
- Experts nominated by governments as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, contributing authors or expert reviewers as included in lists maintained by the IPCC Secretariat.
- Expert reviewers nominated by appropriate organizations.
Expert reviewers should provide the comments to the appropriate Lead Authors through the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs with a copy, if required, to their Government Focal Point.
There's that "believe" again. Science and environmentalism are not interchangeable terms. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts both that science can concern itself with climate and that AGW is a real and observable effect, in paleoclimatic and in current data.
Skeptics can either believe in or against AGW but they all do not support the alarmist fantasy of doomsday or the necessity for "action" on carbon emissions.
Are we supposed to be impressed by the list you posted, even assuming that everyone on the list wis a scientist (and quite a few are not)? The American Meteorological Society, for example, has over 13,000 members. How does that compare with the size of your list?
That's your belief I'm sure. Obviously we all understand free markets, and most economists support them where they're appropriate. They also understand how unfree markets generally are, and that free markets are not appropriate to all situations. Which is to say, they do not support free markets under all circumstances.
First draft Reports should be circulated by Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs for review by experts selected by the Working Group/Task Force Bureau and, in addition, those on the lists provided by governments and participating organizations, noting the need to aim for a range of views, expertise, and geographical representation. The review circulation should include:
- Experts who have significant expertise and/or publications in particular areas covered by the Report.
- Experts nominated by governments as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, contributing authors or expert reviewers as included in lists maintained by the IPCC Secretariat.
- Expert reviewers nominated by appropriate organizations.
Your point being? That the Cato Institute is not an appropriate organisation to nominate reviewers?
Expert reviewers should provide the comments to the appropriate Lead Authors through the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs with a copy, if required, to their Government Focal Point.
Good question, no answer from you. You try to dismiss even the possibility of climate science because it isn't "reproducible". By the same logic (there's that word again) science cannot address black holes. Which, by reductio ad absurdam, shows that you're misunderstanding something. I suggest you look again at your model of what science is. Yours is clearly over-simple.
Yes vs. what you "believe". The scientific community in no way overwhelmingly supports AGW or the alarmist conclusions.
Yes it does support AGW. There's a wide range of opinion on what the implications are, but it's generally held that they're something to be concerned about. National scientific institutions around the world have made statements to that effect, including the AAAS and the Royal Society. Only a very small clique (with which you're no doubt familiar) holds a different view.
If you want to equate religion and conspiracy you should try your argument in the Religion Forum.
Skeptics can either believe in or against AGW but they all do not support the alarmist fantasy of doomsday or the necessity for "action" on carbon emissions.
Simply throwing "alarmist" around isn't an argument against science or scientific views. I see that you do have a benchmark for scientific scepticism : not supporting any action on carbon emissions. Which is very revealing.
Obviously we all understand free markets, and most economists support them where they're appropriate. They also understand how unfree markets generally are, and that free markets are not appropriate to all situations. Which is to say, they do not support free markets under all circumstances.
Good question, no answer from you. You try to dismiss even the possibility of climate science because it isn't "reproducible". By the same logic (there's that word again) science cannot address black holes. Which, by reductio ad absurdam, shows that you're misunderstanding something. I suggest you look again at your model of what science is. Yours is clearly over-simple.
I don't dismiss climate science, I dismiss alarmist fantasies. As for Black holes I suggest you talk to someone who has researched them, I have not so I cannot answer your question.
National scientific institutions around the world have made statements to that effect, including the AAAS and the Royal Society. Only a very small clique (with which you're no doubt familiar) holds a different view.
That is nice, no poll was ever taken of the organizations members. Those statements were decided by a majority of council members. If you can produce a poll of the complete membership body of even one of the organizations I would be interested.
Simply throwing "alarmist" around isn't an argument against science or scientific views. I see that you do have a benchmark for scientific scepticism : not supporting any action on carbon emissions. Which is very revealing.
Now that is hilarious. Have you checked that list as well? Have you subtracted the economists, and the political scientists, and the imaginary characters, and the novelists? It's a joke.
Meanwhile the Copenhagen Conference is nearly upon us. Your guys have really lost the argument big-time. Game over. Reality trumps ideology once again.
Nonsensical argument. Prove Santa Claus does not exist. If you cannot prove that even a majority of the members support that statement you have nothing.
Now that is hilarious. Have you checked that list as well? Have you subtracted the economists, and the political scientists, and the imaginary characters, and the novelists? It's a joke.
There are no economists, political scientists, imaginary characters or novelists on that list. I clearly separated the social scientists from the natural scientists on mine.
Meanwhile the Copenhagen Conference is nearly upon us. Your guys have really lost the argument big-time. Game over. Reality trumps ideology once again.
"In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided."
And very few are climate scientists, or even do any work related to meteorology and oceanography. I really don't care if a bunch of medical doctors and veterinarians don't believe in AGW. Of course, there's no guarantee that signers necessarily don't believe in AGW because the wording of the petition gives the impression that it is in opposition to the Kyoto Treaty rather than to AGW.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
