390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[Poptech]

And very few are climate scientists, or even do any work related to meteorology and oceanography.

3803 Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment Scientists
2964 Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture Scientist
4818 Chemistry Scientistss
5223 Physics Scientists
935 Computers & Math Scientists

ect...

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You can check them yourself.

Qualifications of Signers

Your great list of AGW skeptics includes fewer than 500 who have any sort of degree in climatology/meteorology??? And that number includes TV weathermen and people who have relevant degrees but whose jobs are unrelated to their degrees?

 

[macdoc]

and indeed not few rather notorious ones have been found to create qualifications they are not entitled to...to put it delicately.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

If a majority of members did not support the statement on behalf of the AMS, by its elected officers, there would be a great outcry. There isn't one.

You can check them yourself.

Qualifications of Signers

Did anybody check the qualifications they claimed to have?

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.

And included them all the same.

You have to actually hold a debate to lose an argument. Last time that was done the skeptics won.

Copenhagen Conference. Not what your side has been arguing for is it?

'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' (NPR - Intelligence Squared Debate)

"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."

Science ad populum. Showmanship has nothing to do with science.

Where it matters, in the halls of academia and the corridors of power where such matters are discussed rationally over time, your argument has been lost. In the face of reality, how could it not be? How many petitions are there for scientists who don't think global ice is melting at an increasing rate, that there aren't droughts in just the regions predicted, that biological ranges aren't changing? Those are the realities that politicians and intelligent businessmen have to take note of.

Even the Bush Administration had to (very reluctantly) accept those realities by its dying days. And they loved your petition to start with. Adored it. Brought it up every chance they could.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

3803 Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment Scientists
2964 Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture Scientist
4818 Chemistry Scientistss
5223 Physics Scientists
935 Computers & Math Scientists

ect...

This is supposed to mean what? VERY few people with math or computer science degrees have any background at all in climate science (or for that matter, any other science). Most environmental engineers know little about meteorology or climatology (check out the requirements for a B.S. in environmental engineering at Yale:
http://www.seas.yale.edu/files/environmental/B.S._Engineering_Degree.pdf
There is no requirement for any coursework in climatology or meteorology.
What about Stanford?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/ees/guidelines.html
A couple of classes on air pollution. No requirements for courses in climatology or meteorology.
University of Florida:
http://www.ees.ufl.edu/prospective/undergrad/curriculum.asp
No required classes (and only 1 elective class) in climatology or meteorology.)

Chemists? Physicists? Biologists? What do these people know about climate science?

Do you actually believe that there is a generic group of people known as "scientists" who work in all the different fields and know everything about everything???

 

[varwoche]

Cato's Journal is a Peer-Reviewed publication. Some of the papers as I stated relate to the economic effects of climate change.

This part is so absurd as to be laughable. The scientific consensus that you are pretending doesn't exist pertains to the science, not economics.
<man hitting head on desk goes here>

 

[CapelDodger]

and indeed not few rather notorious ones have been found to create qualifications they are not entitled to...to put it delicately.

When I asked "Did anyone check ..." it was, of course, a trick question. It just wasn't PopTech's "sceptics" who did the checking.

 

[macdoc]

On the other hand

Amongst those that DO understand

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

January 22, 2009[/FONT]
...........
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

........
Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude,[/FONT] "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]" [/FONT]

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

and not a few multi-discipline are on the same page

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

as they are here as well

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

across national boundaries

and the National Science Academies of the G8+5

2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change".
The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[20] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[mhaze]

This part is so absurd as to be laughable. The scientific consensus that you are pretending doesn't exist pertains to the science, not economics.
<man hitting head on desk goes here>

Except that economics is specifically mentioned in the OP, and there are numerous-numerous economics experts on the IPCC list of 2500 which ..... really isn't 2500 and .... really isn't 1200-1300 and which .....maybe is 600-700.....

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.....

BenBurch already got miserably stung by the hornets of reality when he made the error of actually discussing the Oregon Petition.

Now, you don't happen to want to do the same, do you?

Make my day. It's Whack-a-Mole time!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

BenBurch already got miserably stung by the hornets of reality when he made the error of actually discussing the Oregon Petition.

Now, you don't happen to want to do the same, do you?

Make my day. It's Whack-a-Mole time!

Where I live, the temperature has already fallen into the 20's on at least 1 occasion, so there aren't many insects around. There aren't many hornets in my area anyway (just annoying yellowjackets).

 

[BenBurch]

Did MHaze really say that? He had his posterior handed to him when we discussed that bogus and fraudulent petition, but in his mind, he won. Most of what he believes is true only in his mind anyway, so this is no surprise.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Except that economics is specifically mentioned in the OP, and there are numerous-numerous economics experts on the IPCC

The IPCC not only reports on the state of the climate and climate science, it also reports on the potential effects of climate change and possible mitigation strategies (they have 3 separate "working groups" to handle these 3 areas). It would therefore be expected that they would have economists and sociologists and experts from other fields related to the social/economic/cultural aspects of climate change and mitigation strategies.

 

[macdoc]

there are numerous-numerous economics experts on the IPCC

and that says squat about the science of AGW. Take the trash over to the politics forum.

 

[technoextreme]

Qualifications of Signers

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

Poptech are you really that shortsighted not to think that some of us don't have similar qualifications to people on that petition. I'm an electrical engineer. Electrical engineers are on that list. As an authority on electrical engineers only dumbasses would think electrical engineers have any relevance to global warming.

 

[bokonon]

How many petitions are there for scientists who don't think global ice is melting at an increasing rate, that there aren't droughts in just the regions predicted...?

What are "just the regions predicted" to have droughts if AGW is occurring? Do they differ from the regions predicted to have droughts if non-A GW is occurring? If someone theorizes that some combination of AGW and non-A GW is occurring, can he create a Venn diagram of drought areas to bolster his case?

Where were these predictions published? How long was it after the predictions were published that the predicted droughts materialized?

Are there any new predictions for "new regions of drought" that can be used to bolster the case for AGW going forward?

 

[Poptech]

Your great list of AGW skeptics includes fewer than 500 who have any sort of degree in climatology/meteorology???

So only people with degrees in climatology or meteorology are relevant?

This is supposed to mean what? VERY few people with math or computer science degrees have any background at all in climate science (or for that matter, any other science).

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics

Chemists? Physicists? Biologists? What do these people know about climate science?

Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)

The IPCC not only reports on the state of the climate and climate science, it also reports on the potential effects of climate change and possible mitigation strategies (they have 3 separate "working groups" to handle these 3 areas). It would therefore be expected that they would have economists and sociologists and experts from other fields related to the social/economic/cultural aspects of climate change and mitigation strategies.

It is therefore expected there would be skeptical papers opposing these "mitigation strategies" by skeptical social scientists.

 

[Poptech]

Poptech are you really that shortsighted not to think that some of us don't have similar qualifications to people on that petition. I'm an electrical engineer. Electrical engineers are on that list. As an authority on electrical engineers only dumbasses would think electrical engineers have any relevance to global warming.

Is you say so...

Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)

 

[Poptech]

If a majority of members did not support the statement on behalf of the AMS, by its elected officers, there would be a great outcry. There isn't one.

Prove it.

Did anybody check the qualifications they claimed to have?

Yes all the names are available online, alarmists have had years to debunk it but failed.

And included them all the same

They are included because as the AMS clearly states...

"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

Science ad populum. Showmanship has nothing to do with science.

Where it matters, in the halls of academia and the corridors of power where such matters are discussed rationally over time, your argument has been lost. In the face of reality, how could it not be?

Debate has everything to do with scientific debate. If your position is correct you should have no problem winning the scientific debate. Actually you should encourage it to further reinforce your alleged "consensus".

How many petitions are there for scientists who don't think global ice is melting at an increasing rate, that there aren't droughts in just the regions predicted

"Global ice" is not melting at an increasing rate...

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era (World Climate Report)
Antarctic sea ice increasing: study (ABC News, Australia)
Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)

Other ice masses that are shrinking began in the little ice age.

Droughts are par for the climatological course...

Colorado River Streamflow History Reveals Megadrought Before 1490 (University of Arizona)
Droughts Like the Great Dust Bowl of the 1930s May Have Been Unexceptional in Prehistoric Times, New Study Suggests (Duke University)
Extreme Droughts Played Major Role In Tragedies At Jamestown, "Lost Colony" (College Of William And Mary)
Not To Worry - Geographer Says Heat, Drought Are Par For The Climatological Course (University At Buffalo)
Lessons Learned From Drought Deaths 40,000 Years Ago (Science Daily)
Marshes Tell Story Of Medieval Drought, Little Ice Age, And European Settlers Near NYC (Science Daily)
Past Droughts Geographically Widespread In The West, According To Tree-ring Data (University of Arizona)
Researchers Find Evidence Of 16th Century Epic Drought Over North America (University Of Arkansas)
Tree-ring Data Reveals Multiyear Droughts Unlike Any In Recent Memory (University of Washington)

 

[technoextreme]

Is you say so...

Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)

So do you have any proof that this is even any way similar to the petition project or are you just clueless as to the difference in being in charge of an organization as opposed to trying to pass yourself off as a false authority.

 

[mhaze]

Poptech are you really that shortsighted not to think that some of us don't have similar qualifications to people on that petition. I'm an electrical engineer. Electrical engineers are on that list. As an authority on electrical engineers only dumbasses would think electrical engineers have any relevance to global warming.

I assume by your comment that you are unaware of discussions paralleling climate behavior with simulation of operational amplifiers.

and that says squat about the science of AGW. Take the trash over to the politics forum.

Argument by arrogance rejected; attempt to reframe assertion of OP rejected; attempt to keep discussion on familiar grounds to stunted intellect rejected.

Economics is stated as part of discussion by OP.

The IPCC not only reports on the state of the climate and climate science, it also reports on the potential effects of climate change and possible mitigation strategies (they have 3 separate "working groups" to handle these 3 areas). It would therefore be expected that they would have economists and sociologists and experts from other fields related to the social/economic/cultural aspects of climate change and mitigation strategies.

No kidding? So it follows that economists, sociologists and experts from other fields relating to the social/economic/cultural aspects of climate change and mitigation strategies are certainly qualified to sign a petition. Where is the complication in that?

So they are qualified to sign the Oregon Petition.And this brings us to the question of:

1. What exactly did they sign their names to?
2. A petition for what or to do or not do what, over what geographical area, for what time periods, at what cost or cost savings?

Without knowing these answers, any discussion about whether they are qualified to sign the petition is incorrectly framed and is meaningless. And clearly, the Warmers pursuing this path of discussion here know neither

• (1) or
• (2)