Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: "31,000 scientists just in the USA reject 'global warming' agenda"

  1. #1
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836

    "31,000 scientists just in the USA reject 'global warming' agenda"

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2008052...l-warming.html



    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734


    What kind of consensus is that. I know lloyd would like people to think these 31,000 scientist are all crazy. We are not talking about 10 or 20 or 100 or 200 or 1,000 or 2,000, but 31,000 just in the USA.

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Want to be they arent all scientists? Even James Inhofe's list of 400 SCIENTISTS was proved a lie.

    I will still bet you that the overwhelming majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS believe in global warming. Thats climate scientists John. You know the ones that are the experts in this area. They are not economists or weathermen.LOL.

    Climate Scientists John. Not guys who get paid by the oil, gas, and coal companies.

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    In an April 2009 poll in the Guardian "asked what temperature rise was most likely, 84 of the 182 specialists (46%) who answered the question said it would reach 3-4 degrees centigrade by the end of the century; 47 (26%) suggested a rise of 2-3 degrees centigrade , while a handful said 6C or more. While 24 experts predicted a catastrophic rise of 4-5C, just 18 though it would stay at 2c or under.

    Just one small poll.

  4. #4
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Surveyed Scientists agree global warming is real.

    About 90% of the scientists afreed that mean global temperatures had risen copared to pre-1800's levels.

    82% agreed that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperature.

    THE STRONGEST CONSENSUS ON THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING CAME FROM CLIMATOLOGISTS WHO ARE ACTIVE IN CLIMATE RESEARCH , WITH 97% AGREEING HUMANS PLAY A ROLL.

    "CLIMATOLOGISTS ARE THE ONES WHO STUDY AND PUBLISH ON CLIMATE SCIENCE. SO I QUESS THE TAKE-HOME MESSAGE IS, THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT THE FIELD OF CLIMATE SCIENCE THE MORE YOU'RE LIKEY TO BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING AND HUMANKIND'S CONTRIBUTION"


    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/am...vey/index.html

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    From wikipedia

    consensus:

    The finding the climate has warmed in recent decades has been endorsed by e very national science academy that has issued oa statement on climate change, including the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

    On april 29, an environmental journalist richard littlemore revealed that a list of "500 scientists with documented doubts of man-made gobal warming scares distributed by the heartland institue included at least 45 scientists who neither
    knew of their inclusions as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents. Many of the scientists asked the heartland insitute to remove their names from the list.

  6. #6
    Atypical is offline

    More Bullshit from A Chronic Liar and Brain-Dead Robot

    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2008052...l-warming.html



    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734


    What kind of consensus is that. I know lloyd would like people to think these 31,000 scientist are all crazy. We are not talking about 10 or 20 or 100 or 200 or 1,000 or 2,000, but 31,000 just in the USA.
    __________________________________________________ ______________

    Background on the president (Seitz) of the organization that is responsible for the petition cited above. He died in March of 2008. So much for prestigious credentials (unfortunately).

    From RealClimate

    To summarize:
    -Seitz was a professor of physics at Illinois from 1949-1968 where he did seminal work on the nature of unit cells in crystalline solids
    -During much of this time (1962-1969) he was also president of the NAS
    -Seitz ended his active research role in 1968 to take on an administrative job as president of Rockefeller university
    -After retiring from academia altogether in 1979, he became a ‘permanent consultant’ for RJ Reynolds Tobacco
    -In 1989, CEO of RJ Reynolds let Seitz go because “Dr Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice”
    -Seitz has continued to work for the Marshall Institute and other such think tanks
    -He is currently 96 years old

    From Real Climate re "Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey".

    A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.

    The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.

    Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new – an open source debunking.

    As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve set up a Wiki to provide a one stop shop for articles debunking some of the worst climate contrarian pseudo-science. So, we’ve therefore set up a page for the new OISM paper, and what we’d like to do here is to start collecting material on this paper.

    So, in the comments, please catalog any:

    links to articles dealing with debunkings of the previous incarnations of this paper
    obvious errors
    clear cherry-picking of data
    interesting edits between versions
    and we’ll collate all the pertinent stuff on the RC-Wiki page. To make things easier, please label all comments by the section or figure numbers.

    Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on.

    In another example, the authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral). Additionally, they take the ratio of temperature change to CO2 change in the ice core record and assume that is the climate sensitivity of climate to CO2 as opposed to the other way around.

    There is much, much more. Have at it! (end)

    For those who want REAL AND ACCURATE INFORMATION and not ideology go to

    hhttp://www.realclimate.org/wikiere.
    Last edited by Atypical; 09-28-2009 at 02:31 PM.

  7. #7
    candleman is offline
    Mentor
    candleman's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2009 Location: Outer Banks of North Carolina Posts: 1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    __________________________________________________ ______________

    Background on the president of the organization (Seitz) that is responsible for the petition cited above. He died in March of 2008. So much for prestigious credentials (unfortunately).

    From RealClimate

    To summarize:
    -Seitz was a professor of physics at Illinois from 1949-1968 where he did seminal work on the nature of unit cells in crystalline solids
    -During much of this time (1962-1969) he was also president of the NAS
    -Seitz ended his active research role in 1968 to take on an administrative job as president of Rockefeller university
    -After retiring from academia altogether in 1979, he became a ‘permanent consultant’ for RJ Reynolds Tobacco
    -In 1989, CEO of RJ Reynolds let Seitz go because “Dr Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice”
    -Seitz has continued to work for the Marshall Institute and other such think tanks
    -He is currently 96 years old

    From Real Climate

    A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.

    The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.

    Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new – an open source debunking.

    As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve set up a Wiki to provide a one stop shop for articles debunking some of the worst climate contrarian pseudo-science. So, we’ve therefore set up a page for the new OISM paper, and what we’d like to do here is to start collecting material on this paper.

    So, in the comments, please catalog any:

    links to articles dealing with debunkings of the previous incarnations of this paper
    obvious errors
    clear cherry-picking of data
    interesting edits between versions
    and we’ll collate all the pertinent stuff on the RC-Wiki page. To make things easier, please label all comments by the section or figure numbers.

    Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on.

    In another example, the authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral). Additionally, they take the ratio of temperature change to CO2 change in the ice core record and assume that is the climate sensitivity of climate to CO2 as opposed to the other way around.

    There is much, much more. Have at it! (end)

    For those who want REAL AND ACCURATE INFORMATION and not ideology go to

    hhttp://www.realclimate.org/wikiere.
    This is a great discussion guys. I like experts opinions. It's like we have a bunch of Doctors around here. But, when I have dental work done I go to a Doctor of Dentistry. When I have questions about my business plan, I use a Doctor of Business. So, I get the point of making sure that it's Doctors of Climate Studies when we have questions about our climate. I'd like to read more from those sort of Doctors. I'd really like to hear from ones that are alive also.

  8. #8
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) link says that 87 of those that signed the petition took money from industry. Really, well how much money has Al Gore made SO FAR from his man made global warming hoax (I say hoax because almost everyone of his predictions have now been proven wrong by one of the men that originally made them, "Mojib Latif"). Hummm it is over 100 million. How much money have the scientist that say man is the reason for global warming gotten from the industries of solar, wind and selling carbon off sets. Selling carbon offsets is a scam that even Madoff would be proud of.


    I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) says some of them that signed the petition are economist. Well maybe Obama should have read his own economist (or at least the "Heritage Foundation" who said almost exactly what his Treasury Department said) report on what the "Cap and Trade" bill would have cost before (wink, wink) he came out 2 months later and said that it will only cost "the price of a stamp a day". Hummmmmm I think 1,760 dollars is at least 10 times the 126 dollar Obama said it was. The reason there are economist involve in the petition is because the petition gos into what the cost of the man made global warming hoax will cost our economy.


    The man made global warming scientist have ether misrepresented their numbers or have out and out lied about their figures to make man responsible for global warming. The results of that have taken time to prove out that they have been wrong time and time again.

    Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

    ➢ The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
    ➢ CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
    ➢ Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
    ➢ “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
    ➢ Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
    ➢ The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
    ➢ It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
    ➢ Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
    ➢ In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=310&Itemid=1


    Look at what has happen everytime TIME proves that the man made global warming wackos are wrong in their predictions they come out with new evidence to change the predictions.

    Look at what Adumbical says about this: "Science is an ongoing process that CHANGES IF NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED." Ho really so from that I get, no matter how many times the people that say "man made global warming" is true, he will never believe the scientist that have been proven to be corect time and time again.

    Now I ask you, is it resonable (or even sane) for a person to keep believing in people that have been proven to be wrong time and time again (so much so they have to keep finding "NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION") and then to say the people that have been proven to be correct time and time again are wrong.

  9. #9
    Atypical is offline
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) link says that 87 of those that signed the petition took money from industry. Really, well how much money has Al Gore made SO FAR from his man made global warming hoax (I say hoax because almost everyone of his predictions have now been proven wrong by one of the men that originally made them, "Mojib Latif"). Hummm it is over 100 million. How much money have the scientist that say man is the reason for global warming gotten from the industries of solar, wind and selling carbon off sets. Selling carbon offsets is a scam that even Madoff would be proud of.


    I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) says some of them that signed the petition are economist. Well maybe Obama should have read his own economist (or at least the "Heritage Foundation" who said almost exactly what his Treasury Department said) report on what the "Cap and Trade" bill would have cost before (wink, wink) he came out 2 months later and said that it will only cost "the price of a stamp a day". Hummmmmm I think 1,760 dollars is at least 10 times the 126 dollar Obama said it was. The reason there are economist involve in the petition is because the petition gos into what the cost of the man made global warming hoax will cost our economy.


    The man made global warming scientist have ether misrepresented their numbers or have out and out lied about their figures to make man responsible for global warming. The results of that have taken time to prove out that they have been wrong time and time again.

    Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

    ➢ The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
    ➢ CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
    ➢ Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
    ➢ “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
    ➢ Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
    ➢ The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
    ➢ It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
    ➢ Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
    ➢ In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=310&Itemid=1


    Look at what has happen everytime TIME proves that the man made global warming wackos are wrong in their predictions they come out with new evidence to change the predictions.

    Look at what Adumbical says about this: "Science is an ongoing process that CHANGES IF NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED." Ho really so from that I get, no matter how many times the people that say "man made global warming" is true, he will never believe the scientist that have been proven to be corect time and time again.

    Now I ask you, is it resonable (or even sane) for a person to keep believing in people that have been proven to be wrong time and time again (so much so they have to keep finding "NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION") and then to say the people that have been proven to be correct time and time again are wrong.
    From Climate Science Watch

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, global warming denialist du jour on Capitol Hill
    Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009


    The bizarre decision by some members of Congress to use Christopher Monckton as their expert science witness at recent hearings on climate change shows that politically-driven abuse of science is alive and well on Capitol Hill. For those who take Rush Limbaugh as a leader, the colorful Viscount, a scientific amateur who refers to President Obama as “Osamabamarama,” might be just what they’ve been looking for.



    Post by Rick Piltz

    On March 25 the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on “Preparing for Climate Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs” – the eighth thus far in a series of hearings the subcommittee has held this year as part of the development of major climate change legislation. Among the seven witnesses were Tom Karl (written testimony here), Director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and co-chair and editor of the forthcoming U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis report, Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States (public review draft here). Karl, along with several other government and nongovernmental witnesses, presented useful testimony to the effect that global climatic disruption will require efforts to adapt to disruptive impacts in addition to efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    But something else that really caught my attention at the hearing was the presence, and performance, at the witness table of The Right Honourable Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, also known as Christopher Monckton (also here), who was identified as Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute.

    SPPI is a global warming denialist/contrarian operation based in Haymarket, Virginia, and headed by a long-time former Republican congressional staffer. On their web site you’ll find numerous pieces by Monckton (a recent example: “Global Warming is Not Happening”). One also finds Willie Soon, David Legates, and Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, joining Monckton in a recent publication, The Unwisdom of Solomon, which aimed at countering an important study by IPCC Working Group I co-chair Susan Solomon et al., “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emisions,” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 10, 2009.

    This was not Monckton’s only Capitol Hill appearance this year. He was also a witness at a March 12 hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is also developing climate change legislation.

    Energy and Commerce Committee Minority Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) referred to Monckton, in his opening remarks, as being generally regarded as “one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side.” Mr. Barton, who has a history of warring with the mainstream climate science community, went on to say: I think the Earth’s climate is changing, but for natural variation reasons. Mankind has adapted to climate as long as he has walked the Earth. When it rains we find shelter. When it’s hot we get shade. When it’s cold we find a warm place to stay. As Lord Monckton will testify, the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Then during the Little Ice Age people responded to the cold by adapting. Adapting to shifts in temperature will not be difficult. What will be dificult will be adapting to the damage to our economy if a cap and tax bill is passed. In the name of the house of cards posing as scientific certainty, and with alarmism about global warming, the Majority seems hell-bent on….”

    You get the picture. Countering decades of advancing understanding by the leading climate scientists by going straight to the Viscount – who has zero science credentials – and manufacturing a supposed scientific debate in order to justify the usual anti-regulation policy stance. One of Mr. Barton’s fellow members said, “It’s nice to have Lord Monckton here, he was a senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, so he’s a good witness to have.”

    Read his testimony here.

    http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...y_monckton.pdf

    And finally for those that are following this "thread" read carefully John's responses. Do they make any sense? Not if you know anything about logic, critical thinking, science, or understanding how to absorb and respond to information PROPERLY. It's about time that everyone realize that the robot just deflects, ridicules, and uses only those sources that support his positions. (and criticizes others that use sources they like.) Others here have noted his avoidance of information and questions that are uncomfortable. When in a corner attack is his MO.

    The climate problem, whatever its seriousness, is to be understood as INCREDIBLY complex. The truth is what matters not positions that are changed based on this complexity and the evolution of climate science. If one has a non-ideological interest in the science and want it to be accurate then it follows that wherever the science takes us is okay. If I learned that the problem was overstated my reaction would be "great".

    This is what John said recently when confronted with overwhelming information contrary to his position: "The problem is do you want to ruin our economy and make government bigger and pay more takes on the kind of science that they have been putting out lately. "

    THAT is what he cares about. F*** science, truth, and man's interest in protecting his world. Big government and taxes are what count not the health of the world we live in.

    Loyalty to an ideology not people.
    Loyalty to an ideology not ideas.
    Loyalty to an ideology not truth.
    Loyalty to an ideology not honesty.
    Loyalty to an ideology not fairness.
    Loyalty to an ideology not help for those who need it.
    Loyalty to an ideology not respect for other opinions that have substance.
    Loyalty to an ideology not open to the development of new ideas regardless of who creates them.

    How does someone become so indifferent to humanity and a slave to ideology? How does one become such a sub-human?

    Sad.
    Last edited by Atypical; 09-28-2009 at 05:16 PM.

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    If you notice John's techniques he still hasnt refuted the research that shows that Senator Inhofe's infp on "400 scientists" was embarassingly inaccurate. He never will. There were economists, weatherman, people who didnt ask to have their names on the list etc.

    He still hasnt acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS believe that human activity is behind the rise of temperature change and global warming.
    He never will because he cant refute it. So what he will do is try to muddy the waters or change the subject. Classic technique of someone who doesnt have a leg to stand on.

    He completely mispells one of the words AEROSOLS as airsols despite the fact that he claims to know what he is talking about on scientific matters.
    and yet constantly rails on people for supossedly being wrong in their research.

    IF THERE WAS EVER A DOUBLE STANDARD THAT WOULD BE IT.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •