32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Seriously bigfish, take your medicine.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Is this the same 32,000 scientists who were surveying biodiversity from space in your earlier thread? Because that's a bit like stargazing whilst underground...
Wrong again. Wrong list. There was an earlier petition that contained a handful of moody names slipped in by unscrupulous people trying to discredit it. However, this is brand new petition with built in safeguards to prevent people with no scruples from polluting it with bogus names. For example, Big City Lib admits he tried to crash the list, but failed miserably:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-i-are-on-that-list.html
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Sounds like a funny way for climate change skeptics to behave, a minute ago you were telling us how good pollution is for plant life
You can try to disparage it all you want, but the fact is, it's a completely new list. The previous petition attracted just under 18,000 signers, whereas this latest effort has attracted 32,000 signer, 9,000 of them phd's. An increase of ~14,000.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Lawrence Solomon, a former warmer, explains:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/16/32-000-deniers.aspx
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Peer reviewed what now? 32,000 scientists can't be wrong blah blah blah PhD blah blah blah I'm right blah "blah" blah "blah" blah everyone's out to get me blah blah toxic waste is good for you blah blah blah 5% cut in emissions is pure fascism blah blah blah first they came for my industrial pollutants then they came for my children blah blah blah.
Yossarian
⏭️
I reckon bigfish could probably find some sources to maintain that it's actually cooled down.
How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?” asks Lawrence Solomon (Mr Solomon's views were last quoted in a different thread by bigfish a day or so ago, and I'm starting to wonder if the man and bigfish have ever been seen together}
He reviews the history of previous petitions, including the Heidelberg Appeal, which ultimately obtained 4,000 signatures, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.
"There have been other petitions - some of them were signed by geniuses - therefore, my petition is not stupid."
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
With the precarious state of fossil fuel supplies, it's getting to be fairly academic anyway isn't it ?
Should we really be burning the stuff as fast as we can get it out of the ground ?
You know what ? - plenty of us realised that decades ago, before the research showed what a fecking mess we'd made of things.
Should we really be burning the stuff as fast as we can get it out of the ground ?
You know what ? - plenty of us realised that decades ago, before the research showed what a fecking mess we'd made of things.
It would be best if you do your own research Phil as I'm a bit busy at the moment. I can help you get started, but you're on your own after that - try searching the output of Richard Lindzen of MIT and Freeman Dyson of Princeton. Both have written on matters concerning climate and climate modeling. I'm sure there are others on the list, too.
1) 32,000 people made up of university professors and people on a who's who lsit of US scientists yet only 9,000 have PhDs???
To be a university professor or to get on such a who's who list you'd need a qualification beyond a PhD (i.e. a post-doctoral degree).
I'm guessing they are using a quite inclusive ratehr than exclusive defitnion of sceintist. I.e. anyone with a science-related degree or job.
2) what fields do they study in? If their qualifications do not qualify them to give any level of expert opinion on climate change it is dishonest to flaunt them in this context. It would be like asking Gridiron players on the finer points of fast bowling and using it to challeneg the consensus opinions in cricket.
I see that Arthur Robinson himslef has no qualifications that would make him an expert on the subject, him being a chemist in the field on preventive medcine
3) Do you agree with Arthur Robisnon's anti-evolutnary petions too.
4) How many of that 32,00 have the relevant qualifications to the right level to be "seriously involved" in the IPCC project. My guess would be a tiny percentage if any.
To be a university professor or to get on such a who's who list you'd need a qualification beyond a PhD (i.e. a post-doctoral degree).
I'm guessing they are using a quite inclusive ratehr than exclusive defitnion of sceintist. I.e. anyone with a science-related degree or job.
2) what fields do they study in? If their qualifications do not qualify them to give any level of expert opinion on climate change it is dishonest to flaunt them in this context. It would be like asking Gridiron players on the finer points of fast bowling and using it to challeneg the consensus opinions in cricket.
I see that Arthur Robinson himslef has no qualifications that would make him an expert on the subject, him being a chemist in the field on preventive medcine
3) Do you agree with Arthur Robisnon's anti-evolutnary petions too.
4) How many of that 32,00 have the relevant qualifications to the right level to be "seriously involved" in the IPCC project. My guess would be a tiny percentage if any.
Well I hope there's never a petition denying gravity, we'd all float off!
bigfish said:
So, in a word, yes, it is Frederick Seitz' petition. As I said.
I looked up three names at random from the scrolling list - and all had the same names as signatories of previous Seitz editions. All discredited as stupid propaganda exercises.
Sorry I don't have a week to spend on a rigorous statistical analysis of the US phonebook namespace - but I call:
Old news, warmed up.
story
Changing the facts
But even if global warming is not happening, or not caused by our activities, it is still stupid in the extreme to continue using up our resources as we've been doing.
Even if our activities are actually doing some good for the planet, it is still stupid to continue as we've been doing.
We simply cannot continue behaving like spoilt children.
Even if our activities are actually doing some good for the planet, it is still stupid to continue as we've been doing.
We simply cannot continue behaving like spoilt children.
story
Changing the facts
Even if it were true that there is no global warming, we are not causing damage, we have terrific green credentials, it's nevertheless really idiotic not to make radical long term changes.
We absolutely must change our habits of endless consumption.
So your argument is pointless, absurd, spurious, narrow, shortsighted and annoying.
We absolutely must change our habits of endless consumption.
So your argument is pointless, absurd, spurious, narrow, shortsighted and annoying.
But you've written on climate modelling
Lindzen: yep, your lone ace. A scientist who has had some actual experience of work in the area.
In 2001 he put his name to this: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
The world eagerly awaits news of what caused his change of heart over the following two years.
Whatever it was, it didn't affect the other 10 members of the US National Academy of Sciences panel quoted above - or the hundreds of IPCC authors with equivalent expertise.
Dyson: Quantum and nuclear physicist. Experience and expertise about as relevant to the subject as a landsape gardener's. I enjoyed his Infinite in all directions - 1988 speculations on astrophysics - in much the same way that I enjoyed Alfred Jarry's 'Pataphysics (1893).
They're actually irrelevant to be honest as no-one here is claiming expertise or putting forward the idea that they'r own views form part of a consensus of expert opinion.
When people talk about 'scientifc concensus' they're talking about a consensus of opinion of qualified individuals working in the field.
Infact even if you were to survey scientists outside of the field I would well imgagine that you probably would find a general concensus if favour of human-induced global warming. Using the very liebral defitnion of scientist 32,000 people is just a drop in the ocean. This is simply because most 'scientists' will tend to follow expert opinion fairly uncritically in fields outside their own realms of expertise.
And of course non-expert opinion seems to be divided along certain socio-poltical lines, with scientists more likely to fall into the socio-poltical groupings that favour anthrogenic global warming for a variety of reeasons. As I said before though I would not read anyhting into this either way.
My main point is though is that what is shown by the petition is meaningless and does not show what it purports to show and worst of all is dishonest. You could perfectly correctly say that scientific concensus in itself does not mean that a theory is correct. Scientific concensus is subject to change all the time. But it is worng to pretend it does not exist in this case or that this petition is somehow meant to disprove it.
It's wrong in terms of truth-seeking, whether within the disciplines of science or of philosophy.
But US civil law is another matter.
All this "there's no cosnensus" shite is laying the grounds for defending the lawsuits
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You can't read, can you? The article mentions the Oregon petition, which was the Seitz petition. It had 17,000 signatures. This is a different one.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Two of the responses to the original article are apropos of many of the replies in this thread.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Well I hope there's never a petition denying gravity, we'd all float off!
Well, you'd probably believe it, seeing as how you've swallowed the 'human caused global warming' line, hook line and sinker.
Since JC2 is obviously far too well-informed to do any actual reading:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.petitionproject.org/
me said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You'll have to go over this one again.
"Even if it is doing some good, it is stupid to continue doing it...."
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I continue to use the analogy of the 'eclipse of the sun crisis'.
In olden times, people like the Maya etc, concluded that the only way to cause the evil monster that consumed the sun at eclipse time, to spit it out again, was to tear the hearts out of living people, and offer them up as appeasement.
Similar acts of appeasement were used by various historical people to bring about the end of droughts, plagues, etc.
What happened was, the best scientific minds of their age, got together and determined that, variously, a monster was eating the sun, the gods were withholding water, or bringing about plague.
These were serious, earth changing problems, and we can assume that these thinkers put their best efforts into forming the solution of human sacrifice.
And lo and behold, it worked! The sun came back, the drought ended, the plague went away. Why? Because of the sacrifice, that's why. And you can bet that anyone who suggested that the sun would come back anyway, and that the killings weren't necessary, was shouted down as a heretic, at the very least.
So today we have another geologic occurrence, and some of our best minds want to give up another sacrifice: our economy, and possibly the basics of our civilization. They say it is imperative, and they are loud enough that they are trying to shout down anyone who naysays them.
Just like it always was!
In olden times, people like the Maya etc, concluded that the only way to cause the evil monster that consumed the sun at eclipse time, to spit it out again, was to tear the hearts out of living people, and offer them up as appeasement.
Similar acts of appeasement were used by various historical people to bring about the end of droughts, plagues, etc.
What happened was, the best scientific minds of their age, got together and determined that, variously, a monster was eating the sun, the gods were withholding water, or bringing about plague.
These were serious, earth changing problems, and we can assume that these thinkers put their best efforts into forming the solution of human sacrifice.
And lo and behold, it worked! The sun came back, the drought ended, the plague went away. Why? Because of the sacrifice, that's why. And you can bet that anyone who suggested that the sun would come back anyway, and that the killings weren't necessary, was shouted down as a heretic, at the very least.
So today we have another geologic occurrence, and some of our best minds want to give up another sacrifice: our economy, and possibly the basics of our civilization. They say it is imperative, and they are loud enough that they are trying to shout down anyone who naysays them.
Just like it always was!
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
And what is your point, in any event? Someone signed it 'donald duck'?
There are names in the telephone book that were put there as a gag, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of the book as a valuable reference for telephone numbers.
Similar threads
