S
strain_searcher
genkisan said:
This sums it all up in one post. Genkisan amazing read.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
This sums it all up in one post. Genkisan amazing read.
S
socioecologist
Keyboard must be working, I see responses. Still no substantive criticism of the science, however?
The speculative science that uses models with incomplete data?
I think you are wanting the politics to be refuted, because there is no science that says that Co2 is any problem at all. Only opinions that use the so called "science" as justification.
If you are telling us that the IPPC reports are confirmed science that has consensus among the majority of scientists that study this field of knowledge, you would be wrong.
Just what science are you referring to?
I think you are wanting the politics to be refuted, because there is no science that says that Co2 is any problem at all. Only opinions that use the so called "science" as justification.
If you are telling us that the IPPC reports are confirmed science that has consensus among the majority of scientists that study this field of knowledge, you would be wrong.
Just what science are you referring to?
S
socioecologist
Come on man, don't play--you know exactly what I mean, and you've danced around the issue for 24 hours. What are you refuting?
I am refuting that mans release of Co2 into the atmosphere is causing a global catastrophe. I also highly doubt that Co2 is even a problem at all.
There is simply not confirmed causations studies that point to it being a problem. The IPCC, the political body with a clear agenda, seems to be able to make false statements and release edited reports eluding that there is a consensus by the majority of reputable scientists on the issue, when that is not true. There is absolutely NO scientific consensus on the issue of Co2 being the catalyst for the globe warming at an abnormal rate.
Studies that show the sun is far more responsible for most ALL of our climate changes, but you can't tax the sun. Or at least they haven't figured out how to do that yet.
They can sure impose mandates and redistribution of the worlds wealth if they can only get the masses to believe the false claims they make.
There is simply not confirmed causations studies that point to it being a problem. The IPCC, the political body with a clear agenda, seems to be able to make false statements and release edited reports eluding that there is a consensus by the majority of reputable scientists on the issue, when that is not true. There is absolutely NO scientific consensus on the issue of Co2 being the catalyst for the globe warming at an abnormal rate.
Studies that show the sun is far more responsible for most ALL of our climate changes, but you can't tax the sun. Or at least they haven't figured out how to do that yet.
They can sure impose mandates and redistribution of the worlds wealth if they can only get the masses to believe the false claims they make.
S
socioecologist
Climate scientists are careful in their peer-reviewed work (not meant for popular consumption, as we've systematically dumbed down our citizens) to not claim "global catastrophe". There is consensus in the literature--as has been pointed out several times now--that climate change is (1) taking place, and (2) has anthropogenic roots. The only thing that is unclear and debated, however, is the extent to which our CO2 emissions are affecting the global climate.
I haven't read anyone claim that there is consensus on this particular area. That obviously doesn't mean that there is "no consensus" on climate change--very different birds. Yes, the sun creates variation in temperature. Yes, the earth's orbit creates variation in temperature. These--and other pertinent variables--are incorporated in the models; the results indicate, with 90% certainty, that above and beyond all "natural" variation, the current upward trend in temperature is due to human activity.
You've chastised many in this thread for being scientifically illiterate, but you are applying a Newtonian, static definition of causality to a phenomenon that is, by definition, non-linear, dynamic, and (most importantly) probabilistic. This demonstrates an unfortunately archaic view of the current methods used in modern climate science (and, frankly, any other "science"). I'm afraid that your understanding of "causality" might need a touch up.
Causality requires three elements:
(1) Correlation between variables (i.e. statistically significant relationship)
(2) Correct time order (x must come before y if x is to cause y)
(3) Non-spurious relationship (no other variable can have a confounding effect on the dependent variable)
Only when these three elements are met can causality be discussed; however, meeting these three elements is not enough to determine causality. Remember the old adage: statistics demonstrate correlation, theory suggests causation, but neither prove anything?
I haven't read anyone claim that there is consensus on this particular area. That obviously doesn't mean that there is "no consensus" on climate change--very different birds. Yes, the sun creates variation in temperature. Yes, the earth's orbit creates variation in temperature. These--and other pertinent variables--are incorporated in the models; the results indicate, with 90% certainty, that above and beyond all "natural" variation, the current upward trend in temperature is due to human activity.
You've chastised many in this thread for being scientifically illiterate, but you are applying a Newtonian, static definition of causality to a phenomenon that is, by definition, non-linear, dynamic, and (most importantly) probabilistic. This demonstrates an unfortunately archaic view of the current methods used in modern climate science (and, frankly, any other "science"). I'm afraid that your understanding of "causality" might need a touch up.
Causality requires three elements:
(1) Correlation between variables (i.e. statistically significant relationship)
(2) Correct time order (x must come before y if x is to cause y)
(3) Non-spurious relationship (no other variable can have a confounding effect on the dependent variable)
Only when these three elements are met can causality be discussed; however, meeting these three elements is not enough to determine causality. Remember the old adage: statistics demonstrate correlation, theory suggests causation, but neither prove anything?
And you can reference this? Where did you get this verbiage?
If Co2 levels through history are following temperature rises, could they possibly be causing the temperature flux? That would indeed conflict with the correct time order of a causation, yes?
S
socioecologist
Bro, have you read the IPCC report that you constantly criticize? That's where the 90% certainty figure originates from; do a little more digging and you'll find that most climate scientists believe that to be a conservative estimate (which is why I've mentioned several times that the IPCC is a conservative organization). The incorporation of different climatic phenomenon in the models has been around for, literally, decades.
This is exactly why climate scientists simply shake their heads in sadness when people pick up the propaganda posted by climate disinformation groups (like the one you cited earlier); we've known about these cycles and their effects (they are fairly uniform and predictable)--this is part of separating the "signal" from the "noise".
In our post-industrial history, CO2 change precedes temperature change, not the other way around. Someone was making a similar false allegation in the last thread and I stopped participating because they could not produce any data that demonstrated that temperature change was causing CO2 changes (it devolved into name calling, which I hope this does not).
Please bear in mind that temperature does in fact affect CO2, but it does so from the standpoint of a positive feedback loop. In other words, increased CO2 in our atmosphere (mostly from fossil fuel combustion) causes (and I use the term stochastically here) temperature increases, which in turn cause further CO2 increases, which are mostly oceanic in origin. Positive feedback loops are definitely one of the biggest areas of contention in climate science today, as no one is very certain about possible outcomes--though, if you take a look at the literature over the past decade, you'll find that the estimates that are on the upper boundaries have been right so far (i.e. the "sky is falling" crowd has been right, and often conservative in their predictions).
This is exactly why climate scientists simply shake their heads in sadness when people pick up the propaganda posted by climate disinformation groups (like the one you cited earlier); we've known about these cycles and their effects (they are fairly uniform and predictable)--this is part of separating the "signal" from the "noise".
In our post-industrial history, CO2 change precedes temperature change, not the other way around. Someone was making a similar false allegation in the last thread and I stopped participating because they could not produce any data that demonstrated that temperature change was causing CO2 changes (it devolved into name calling, which I hope this does not).
Please bear in mind that temperature does in fact affect CO2, but it does so from the standpoint of a positive feedback loop. In other words, increased CO2 in our atmosphere (mostly from fossil fuel combustion) causes (and I use the term stochastically here) temperature increases, which in turn cause further CO2 increases, which are mostly oceanic in origin. Positive feedback loops are definitely one of the biggest areas of contention in climate science today, as no one is very certain about possible outcomes--though, if you take a look at the literature over the past decade, you'll find that the estimates that are on the upper boundaries have been right so far (i.e. the "sky is falling" crowd has been right, and often conservative in their predictions).
I'm sorry, but I discount the findings of the assessment committee of the ICCP. It is what both the media and those that have been sold the bill of goods always reference. However, that group is a sham, and they have manipulated former findings to fit their agenda. Even going as far as completely removing studies from the final report that did not conform to the agenda.
That coupled with the fact that the reviewers that made comprise this 90% you speak of is only around 60 some individuals. You, as well as others, like to make it sound as if this science is accepted by 90% of the scientific community, but that is a lie. And if not a bald faced lie, a very clever manipulation of the facts.
And a very clever manipulation is all this Co2 thing is.
Sad that academics such as yourself fall for it, but it is always easy to swallow a pill that is to your taste.
That coupled with the fact that the reviewers that made comprise this 90% you speak of is only around 60 some individuals. You, as well as others, like to make it sound as if this science is accepted by 90% of the scientific community, but that is a lie. And if not a bald faced lie, a very clever manipulation of the facts.
And a very clever manipulation is all this Co2 thing is.
Sad that academics such as yourself fall for it, but it is always easy to swallow a pill that is to your taste.
S
socioecologist
No dude, you misunderstood. 90% is the stochastic probability that post-industrial climate change is due to human emissions. This figure is derived from a meta-model, incorporating 13 separate climate models from researchers all over the world.
Over 1000 different climate scientists contributed to the IPCC report, for all the bad things you write about it, not 60. We've already discussed the review process.
You have fallen back to the same old story: "you guys have fallen for CO2". This is why I asked you, yesterday, to rebut the scientific basis of the human-induced climate change hypothesis.
You have not done so. So far, the only substantive claim I've read from you is that you discount the effect of CO2. If that's the case, you are 150 years behind. I appreciate your courtesy in replying to my previous posts, but--unless you have something substantive to contribute--I'm finished here. Peace.
Over 1000 different climate scientists contributed to the IPCC report, for all the bad things you write about it, not 60. We've already discussed the review process.
You have fallen back to the same old story: "you guys have fallen for CO2". This is why I asked you, yesterday, to rebut the scientific basis of the human-induced climate change hypothesis.
You have not done so. So far, the only substantive claim I've read from you is that you discount the effect of CO2. If that's the case, you are 150 years behind. I appreciate your courtesy in replying to my previous posts, but--unless you have something substantive to contribute--I'm finished here. Peace.
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - ]
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – ]
The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.
Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)
CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case.
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears.
ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming.
# #
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
# # #
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists.
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century”
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears"
With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.
http://reallifetimes.blogspot.com/2007/12/senate-report-debunks-consensus.html
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - ]
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – ]
The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.
Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)
CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case.
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears.
ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming.
# #
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
# # #
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists.
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century”
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears"
With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.
http://reallifetimes.blogspot.com/2007/12/senate-report-debunks-consensus.html
Last edited:
Although arguably less credible than the 400 scientists above, the Oregon Petition contains over 18,000 names w/credentials of scientists that disagree with the findings of the IPCC summary reviews.
All of these dissenters are basing their findings on the same material the review board bases their finding on.
All of these dissenters are basing their findings on the same material the review board bases their finding on.
S
socioecologist
Notice what they are lining up to criticize: (1) the process used to write the reports, and (2) the degree to which human induced climate change will affect the earth.
And when citing numbers of scientists involved in the process, which report are you referring to? There were four separate reports issued this last year, detailing different sub-systems of climate research (which is why the numbers you cited and I cited were so dramatically different).
RE: the Oregon Petition. This was a project funded by Exxon as well, joint issued by two different think-tanks who received substantial contributions from Exxon. Furthermore, notice what the petition says:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Do you see anywhere in the text that says "climate change is no human-induced?" Absolutely not. They are disgruntled because they do not think change will impact the planet very much--this goes back to my previous posts on the disagreement stemming from variation in impact, not causal explanation.
I'm really surprised that you keep posting things like this. You said this to Grat3fulHead--a dude who has time and again demonstrated a really smart and developed understanding of complex systems:
From a real scientist, your posts have been consistently spot off.
Edit: This quote from Samuel Bodman, the Bush Energy Secretary, regarding the IPCC reports ought to give an idea of how far from reality your comments are:
And when citing numbers of scientists involved in the process, which report are you referring to? There were four separate reports issued this last year, detailing different sub-systems of climate research (which is why the numbers you cited and I cited were so dramatically different).
RE: the Oregon Petition. This was a project funded by Exxon as well, joint issued by two different think-tanks who received substantial contributions from Exxon. Furthermore, notice what the petition says:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Do you see anywhere in the text that says "climate change is no human-induced?" Absolutely not. They are disgruntled because they do not think change will impact the planet very much--this goes back to my previous posts on the disagreement stemming from variation in impact, not causal explanation.
I'm really surprised that you keep posting things like this. You said this to Grat3fulHead--a dude who has time and again demonstrated a really smart and developed understanding of complex systems:
hoosierdaddy said:
From a real scientist, your posts have been consistently spot off.
Edit: This quote from Samuel Bodman, the Bush Energy Secretary, regarding the IPCC reports ought to give an idea of how far from reality your comments are:
Last edited:
If you agree with Bodman's statement, then you are as lost as Bush is on this issue.
He was only stating the admin line on this to begin with, not his personal opinion.
For you to compare what he said to my posts, and try to make something out of that, is just as ignorant as your not only backing of the IPCC lie, but perpetuating it.
Eluding that there is a consensus of thousands of credible scientists on this issue is a flat out lie constructed by the IPCC summary panel. A group with a clear political agenda.
I suppose it's OK to have a lie told to us by the IPCC, yet you want to try to throw stones at something that has Mobil/Exxon as a sponsor, simply because they were the sponsor. To hell with the content.
Very typical leftist tactics. And very typically flawed.
Take all you want that I have said to others out of context. It only shows your bias to the opposing view.
My reply to head was concerning consensus. What I had stated was that with consensus of a scientific issue, there really is no more need for research.
One of the reasons we do not try to prove or disprove the earth is flat theory.
A consensus has been reached due to unquestionable scientific findings.
Which is exactly what the political body that is the IPCC wants. No more debate, so they can get on with the works of constructing a global redistribution of wealth and the start of the one-world-order.
Only a fool will deny the motives of the UN and the IPCC.
You seem to think it is quite a reputable group, since all you need is the groups summary panel's lie about consensus to call it good.
And you call yourself a scientist? Are you a political scientist?
You can try to throw a bad light on me personally and attack my credibility, and no, I am no scientist. But I have common sense, and I am not one to be fed a bill of goods that is lacking.
I see very typical leftist tactics with your replies.
But let's can all that...what is your suggestion we do? Really...what is your solution to what you consider the problem? Let's hear what you would have us do, assuming the lies that are being told are true.
And if you are not already doing what you would suggest, then you would be nothing but a hypocrite....since you apparently agree that the thing is of an urgent nature, as the IPCC wants us to believe.
Or could it be that your small contribution would not make a big impact? Similar to how the Co2 in our atmosphere may actually be contributing to the increase of plantetary heat increase, yet in the grand scope of things is little to be concerned with.
He was only stating the admin line on this to begin with, not his personal opinion.
For you to compare what he said to my posts, and try to make something out of that, is just as ignorant as your not only backing of the IPCC lie, but perpetuating it.
Eluding that there is a consensus of thousands of credible scientists on this issue is a flat out lie constructed by the IPCC summary panel. A group with a clear political agenda.
I suppose it's OK to have a lie told to us by the IPCC, yet you want to try to throw stones at something that has Mobil/Exxon as a sponsor, simply because they were the sponsor. To hell with the content.
Very typical leftist tactics. And very typically flawed.
Take all you want that I have said to others out of context. It only shows your bias to the opposing view.
My reply to head was concerning consensus. What I had stated was that with consensus of a scientific issue, there really is no more need for research.
One of the reasons we do not try to prove or disprove the earth is flat theory.
A consensus has been reached due to unquestionable scientific findings.
Which is exactly what the political body that is the IPCC wants. No more debate, so they can get on with the works of constructing a global redistribution of wealth and the start of the one-world-order.
Only a fool will deny the motives of the UN and the IPCC.
You seem to think it is quite a reputable group, since all you need is the groups summary panel's lie about consensus to call it good.
And you call yourself a scientist? Are you a political scientist?
You can try to throw a bad light on me personally and attack my credibility, and no, I am no scientist. But I have common sense, and I am not one to be fed a bill of goods that is lacking.
I see very typical leftist tactics with your replies.
But let's can all that...what is your suggestion we do? Really...what is your solution to what you consider the problem? Let's hear what you would have us do, assuming the lies that are being told are true.
And if you are not already doing what you would suggest, then you would be nothing but a hypocrite....since you apparently agree that the thing is of an urgent nature, as the IPCC wants us to believe.
Or could it be that your small contribution would not make a big impact? Similar to how the Co2 in our atmosphere may actually be contributing to the increase of plantetary heat increase, yet in the grand scope of things is little to be concerned with.
And tis the basis of all your attacks? You 'feel' as though the bill of goods is lacking?hoosierdaddy said:
So, the only acceptable evidence is proof... anything short of proof is 'a bill of goods that is lacking'
Your perfectly qualified to read about the lack of proof, and regurgitate other's doubts here. You are not qualified to discount the opinion of some scientists based on the opinion of other scientists.
If there were proof either way, this argument would be moot...
You simply do not have enough information to call bullshit, yet you act like you do. No there is not enough evidence to 100% prove 100% anthropomorphically caused Climate Change, but there is plenty of evidence which indicated to some degree that our activity has some effect.
Until you prove how there is some other cause which explains 100% of the climate change... you're just another right winger following the talking points...
Sorry, head...but I am not the sole crusader of this issue. There are many, many folks in society that make you look like a mental midget, that are right with me on this issue.
If I were one of the lone ducks that are trying to convince others of extraterrestrial life forms invading us in our sleep, then you could easily throw the stones at my arguments that you do. But, this isn't the case. Credible scientists from all over the world are seeing the same lame bullshit that I am seeing, and they are voicing their dissent from it as well.
Now run along and dust your hermies.
If I were one of the lone ducks that are trying to convince others of extraterrestrial life forms invading us in our sleep, then you could easily throw the stones at my arguments that you do. But, this isn't the case. Credible scientists from all over the world are seeing the same lame bullshit that I am seeing, and they are voicing their dissent from it as well.
Now run along and dust your hermies.
Right back at'chahoosierdaddy said:
Don't you think lying about my garden is a bit childish, kiddo?
Grow up, eh... I don't care how long you've been alive... Grow up...
Further evidence or your ignorance.hoosierdaddy said:
You're not on the ball on any topic are you? The only way you argue is by insult and lies. Too funny.
Last edited:
How about this, genius...
Stop with all the name calling and source derision, and bring something to the table other that your doubt.
Stop with all the name calling and source derision, and bring something to the table other that your doubt.
Your infatuation with me is really starting to creep me out.
