What planet are you on?
You defend their work in post #32.
And you quote their article in post #40.
Go figure.
GW: Separating facts from fiction
- Thread starter Lucifuge Rofocale
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fiction separating
You defend their work in post #32.
And you quote their article in post #40.
Go figure.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
The best way to tell if a statement is correct or not is by the font.
It is really funny the way you are always claiming "consensus" in the scientific community on Global Warming. There have NEVER been consensus or even a marginal majority about the matter. There have been some polls made one or two years ago among scientists, and results showed that barely about 16% of them were "pro-warming" theory, and about 65% where sceptic about it -the rest didn't know what to say.
One famous recent poll made among scientists and politicians from the whole world showed that "global warming" ranked the LAST in importance among present world problems. You have seen it. It was in the 16th place behind famine, poverty, terrorism, desertification, water shortage, unemployement, heatlh care and sanitary conditions in developing countries, etc, etc.
You are really funny and cannot be taken seriously.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Personally, I'm about 60/40 in "favor" of GW. The evidence is pretty damn good, but when we're talking about something like global climate it's almost a chaotic system.
The problem I have is people who take a "True Skeptic(tm)" position, and insist that everybody who doesn't share their denial of GW is a Believer. They always seem oblivious to their own religious devotion to being "skeptical" of GW.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
I just did a survey, and 100% of those that took it think you should provide links to these alleged surveys.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Dude,
This is a skeptics forum. Don't tell us there are lots of scientists that are skeptical about AWG. Demonstrate it. You keep alluding to all of this evidence. Cool, I'm on your side. I'm skeptical of AWG. Give us the evidence. That is how you are taken seriously here.
Good`point. Touché. In post 32 I said “no debunking of Mc McIntyre and McKitrick.” Then in post 40 I provided the abstract of their first critique to MMBH98 sloppy work, the Hockey Stick.
But you said: “Because all you've done so far is cite two blithering buffoons…”. Must I assume the other 21 post I did were blank? Contained no information? Your precision is not a scientific one. Your arguing technique is based on fallacies, red herrings, and ad hominems directed to people that cannot answer your rant. I see that despicable.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Wow...It's like 1inChrist became a born again anti-GW crusader.
Interjecting... here in this very thread you will see evidence about GW from leading scientists at NOAA, Scripps, EPA, Woods Hole, Dept of Energy, Livermore Labs, MIT, Columbia, and the IPCC, including important, recent findings.
And on the other side we have 'evidence' from two gibbering buffoons who can't tell degrees from radians.
So, what's the basis for your skepticism?
This letter was sent years ago to many scientists around the world. The petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and intellectual personalities from all over the world. The list can be checked (the full 17000 + names at the link). The list was “debunked” by Tim Lambert and other “debunkers” saying they discovered about 15 fake names there, and they introduced there some fake names themselves. The rest of the 16.985 names have been checked and shown to be legitimate. My name is there since many years ago.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Letter from Frederick Seitz
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.
Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
Paper: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm - Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
****************
An explanation is given at the site:
Explanation
Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers.
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals: http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals = http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers.
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals: http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals = http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The basis for my skepticism is the "evidence" provided by thousands of gibbering buffons working in the IPCC, NASA/NOAA, CRU, HADLEY, MeT, Scripps, etc.
It is also the same basis for many thousands of other scientists from all over the world. Naming just the members of one library in the debate does not provide enough evidence of being in the right track. Some of you asked for links to evidence proving there is are many dissenters, which shows a lack of consensus on global warming, and I provided it.
Now, name the facts. And any fact that you can mention is under dispute, and will be for many years ahead.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
And just what are your credentials?
ETA, I should translate.
And just what are your credentials?
We need to resolve the following before I'm going to examine anything that you post, as you are operating with a severe credibility deficit and the day is too short.
varwoche said:
Yet more debunking of the two gibbering buffoons...
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
Pssst. Why don't you tell everyone how many years ago it was sent out? Seems like you're deliberately avoiding sharing that information. I wonder why...
You mention debunkers, but not the Scientific American piece on it. I wonder why...
You state that those that signed this petition share your view, yet the wording of the petition doesn't substantiate all of your claims. I wonder why...
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Well there's GW and AGW. I'm skeptical of AGW or at least the extent of AGW.
Based on my reading of evidence provided by others on this forum and my own reading it seems that scientists generally agree that the earth is warming and that there are two potential causes or combination of causes.
1.) Natural including terrestrial and astronomical changes.
2.) Man made including deforestation and increased green house gasses.
What is not known is A.) to what extent either or both contribute to GW and B.) how severe the increase will be.
I concede that the scientists who are skeptical of AGW are the minority but there are qualified experts in that minority.
Is it your position that skepticism of AGW is irrational?
Still Waiting for Scientific Answers
But, but... you all haven't said anything about the scientific discussion on the flawed paper in Science about Greenland melting glaciers. I am still waiting for see how skillful are you at scientific discussion. Up to now all you have done is political rethoric and not bone in the meat.
The Petition dates back to 2001. It seems you haven't read it because the date is on the letter.
Wonder no more: Why should I? Do you mention the dissentig views -besides rejecting them? It is your job of presenting your case, not mine.
Read it again. But new and terrible fraudulent work has been committed by warmers (as Mann's infamous Hockey Stick). So the Petition has fallen short of what the fraud is today.
But, but... you all haven't said anything about the scientific discussion on the flawed paper in Science about Greenland melting glaciers. I am still waiting for see how skillful are you at scientific discussion. Up to now all you have done is political rethoric and not bone in the meat.