Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I think I read somewhere that there are 200 climatologists as the core.
32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
I think I read somewhere that there are 200 climatologists as the core.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
There seems to be a fairly strong correlation between involvement with Exxon PR groups and being a far-right nutcase.
My guess is that if you're a far-right nutcase you're probably in the orbit of these outfits anyhow, at least in the US, because as well as doing PR for Exxon the same outfits also tend to do PR for other far right economic, religious and political causes. So if you're a far-right nutcase involved in any of that stuff, and you have anything resembling scientific credentials, you're probably going to be on various mailing lists and attending events etc and will be tagged as someone who is worth asking for support in this campaign too. Similarly if you've been involved with support for any other 'scientific scepticism' stuff that draws far-right PR funding. Lindzen for example is outspoken about not believing in the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer. Some of the others are xtian fundies who don't believe in evolution. Teller, as a tireless advocate of various kinds of Dr Strangelove military craziness was doubtless on a bunch of such lists due to his PR work on behalf of the mega-death industry.
You get the picture ...
It's something we all need to remind ourselves of from time to time, and not confuse scepticism with being partisan either. A lot of people who describe themselves as 'climate sceptics' aren't sceptics in the proper sense of the term. You have to have some criteria of falsifiability IMO, even if you're an interested layperson rather than a scientist in the field.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Thank god you did read it on the internet in some unspecified, undisclosed location, otherwise how would we trust that there were any at all!
Really? It's interesting how that position has lived on in the US then. The last British public intellectual I can recall who rejected the smoking-cancer link was Hans Eysenck, and that was a long time ago.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It occurs to me that I might be giving the impression that this stuff is purely a US phenomenon, which it isn't. It's just that there are better sources on PR funding for the US ones. In the UK there seems to be a fairly strong correlation between involvment in similar campaigns with people who were involved with the Monsanto PR effort during the 'GM wars' of a few years ago. It's just easier to make a solid case for a money trail from Exxon to prominent climate sceptics via the US PR fronts, I'm guessing because of the US having somewhat more transparent accounting laws.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
The same PR groups you mention started working with the Coal industry then homed their skills by representing the pro smoking lobby. I went to a fascinating lecture about the whole industry denial / lobbying process - which of course exists in the UK but is much greater in the US (according to the chap presenting)
Only 9000 phds disputing the theory? A mere trifle.
Out of the 2.25 million USA citizens who have a PhD, yes.
The better information is all down to clause 301(c) of the US tax code - lobbies that want donations to be tax-deductible have to publish details of them.
We can assume that there's at least as much activity again paddling along under the surface, undocumented, in the US.
Are you suggesting that after the first few names it suddenly changes into a list of qualified climate scientists?You looked at the first few names of a 32,000 name petition and drew your conclusions? Good work.
Whether global warming is happening and whether it's man made aside, this petition is absolutely worthless. And anybody that thinks it isn't has some serious learning problems. For the hard-of-thinking:
1) Going to college and doing a science-based degree does not qualify you to comment professionally on climate change.
2) Going to college and doing a science-based degree does not mean you have critically evaluated climate change data.
3) Virtually all professional scientists have PhD's, which whittles this list down to about 9000.
4) Many of these 9000 do not work in science.
5) Taking the very conservative estimate of 15000 science PhD's being awarded each year in the US, these gives around 720 000 people since 1960. So around 1% of science PhD's have signed the petition, which is not a lot.
6) Signing a petition says nothing about whether the premise is true, all it says is what people want to be true.
7) The petition is organised by a recognised loon.
8) Don't forget the conflicts of interests with Exxon paying people!
US census results on numbers of US citizens with a doctoral degree:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2007/Table1-01.xls
From memory I thought it was around 1% of the 18-and-over population, in fact it's slightly higher. 9000 out of a potential pool of 2,496,000, or 0.0036%. Alas, the census doesn't break down the PhDs into subject areas.
It would be unfair though to exclude those with science PhDs awarded before 1960. Many of the more prominent anti-climate science people are elderly, and it is reasonable to assume this pattern is reproduced among the petition signatories.
Fair enough, those were just roughly calculated numbers, the point is the same though, basically the percentage of eligible people that signed the petition is very small.
US "scientists" sign a petition that makes Global Warming a fantasy. Not even taking into account the abhorrent state of US academic educational standards.... What a surprise.
Currently I'm supporting research trying to save the most beautiful and most tiny creatures of the Amazon Rainforest from extinction by the human (disg)race, but has anyone thought about asking the Polar Bears and other polar wildlife sign a petition to get the human(disgr)ace save what is left of their habitat (already beyond the point of restauration)
Those who claim there is no such thing as devastating human impact on climate and other drastic changes on this planet must get their brain exmanineed because it is clear at some point it stops funtcioning.
salaam.
Currently I'm supporting research trying to save the most beautiful and most tiny creatures of the Amazon Rainforest from extinction by the human (disg)race, but has anyone thought about asking the Polar Bears and other polar wildlife sign a petition to get the human(disgr)ace save what is left of their habitat (already beyond the point of restauration)
Those who claim there is no such thing as devastating human impact on climate and other drastic changes on this planet must get their brain exmanineed because it is clear at some point it stops funtcioning.
salaam.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
Having a PhD doesn't make you a climate scientist. There are many idiots with PhDs, as the signatories of this petition demonstrate.
Having a doctorate doesn't even mean you have a Philosophy doctorate, which is in fact the meaning of the abbreviation "PhD".
I never understood why every doctorate needs to be called philosophy doctorate by people who speak English.
People with academic degrees talking as if they are experts in a field they never even came near to study, using their academic title because they think the abbreviation "PhD" - wrongly used at that in most cases - makes them sound more impressive than anyone who has no such degree, should be stripped of them.
salaam.
I never understood why every doctorate needs to be called philosophy doctorate by people who speak English.
People with academic degrees talking as if they are experts in a field they never even came near to study, using their academic title because they think the abbreviation "PhD" - wrongly used at that in most cases - makes them sound more impressive than anyone who has no such degree, should be stripped of them.
salaam.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Exactly, because you'd never have thought to research any dissenting opinions by yourself.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Based on the way you write, I'd question the academic standards of whatever country it was you trained in.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
edit
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
*peeks*
You made the claim, you have the burden to substantiate it or withdraw it.Exactly, because you'd never have thought to research any dissenting opinions by yourself.
Any chance you could address the issues instead of trying to intimidate posters who are writing in a foreign language?Based on the way you write, I'd question the academic standards of whatever country it was you trained in.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Ahem ...Exactly, because you'd never have thought to research any dissenting opinions by yourself.
I have done a fair amount of research on the 'dissenting opinions' and my conclusions are as follows.
1) The peer reviewed 'dissent' falls into two categories, stuff that might have been significant evidence against the consensus but which has been shown to be false or extremely improbable by the normal workings of science and stuff that is a minor quibble or a largely untestable maybe (e.g. Lindzen's 'sceptical' peer reviewed work with the exception of some bits that have proven false.)
2) The non-peer reviewed 'dissent' largely originates as output from industry funded PR outlets or their affiliates (e.g. Lindzen when speaking outside of peer-reviewed territory) and is then propagated aggressively by right wingers and other nut-cases because their preferred sources of information are mostly industry funded and/or far-right loony PR outlets like Tech Central Station, Free Republic and the sort of 'Aliens Ate My Brain' sources bigfish favours, or more innocently by ordinary people who didn't bother to check carefully when the attempts of these PR outlets to create an illusion of significant dissent made it into whatever mainstream information source they favour.
I too have read up on every "sceptical theory" I've come across - and these days at one of my jobs I've recently been getting half a dozen a week.
In the past year I have observed two new categories appearing:
3) DIY analyses of datasets - by people who, for example, clearly understand neither the data nor the statistics but just keep tweaking until (pun intended) they've convinced themselves that they've made the warming signal go away;
4) The utterly barking - lots of them, some more barking than bigfish's "ferrite Sun".
Then there's the Canuck approach:
5) Don't do any thinking at all, sane or otherwise, just impose the narrative structure of a football game and say "there's another side, there's got to be something in it". I get half a dozen of these a week, too. Takes around a second to detect and bin them.
I have files from which I hope to do numbers. The first hypothesis I'll be testing is that over time the prevalence of the different categories is shifting systematically from bernie's 1 to my 4 or 5. Which would lead to a purely narrative-analysis argument that the sceptics have lost and are desperate.
In the past year I have observed two new categories appearing:
3) DIY analyses of datasets - by people who, for example, clearly understand neither the data nor the statistics but just keep tweaking until (pun intended) they've convinced themselves that they've made the warming signal go away;
4) The utterly barking - lots of them, some more barking than bigfish's "ferrite Sun".
Then there's the Canuck approach:
5) Don't do any thinking at all, sane or otherwise, just impose the narrative structure of a football game and say "there's another side, there's got to be something in it". I get half a dozen of these a week, too. Takes around a second to detect and bin them.
I have files from which I hope to do numbers. The first hypothesis I'll be testing is that over time the prevalence of the different categories is shifting systematically from bernie's 1 to my 4 or 5. Which would lead to a purely narrative-analysis argument that the sceptics have lost and are desperate.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Any chance you could address the issues instead of trying to intimidate posters who are writing in a foreign language?
He dismissed the petition based on some perceived academic failings of the US university system. I reckon it would be hard to determine that, if you're having some difficulty with the language of that establisment.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You claim to have done research in the area: what are the 'normal workings of science'? Is that a term of art?
No he didn't.
Obviously the US education system is poorer than either the Canadian or the Belgian at inculcating English-language comprehension skills.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
But you are ridiculing people who are putting forward their EXPERT opinion.
So surely you should all be experts to?
Or were you fed a line, you believed it, now someone counters it, and you mock it...on the grounds that those other scientists must have been right, because........errrrm....they said it first?
Lets be honest.
You, me and possibly everyone else in this thread knows absolutely FUCK ALL about climate change and whether it is down to man.
All we do know, is what you have been told by a group of scientists.
Yet when a different group comes along, oh lets all laugh because this group of scientists must be a lesser group then the other group of scientists because they are saying something different.
It seems to me that there is a desire to believe. I have no desire to believe and no desire to disbelieve, it would be interesting to know the truth, and I don't just decide that one group of scientists are right simply because....
I think it is interesting that 32,000 people including 9,000 people possibly with academic careers are willing to push so far as to put their names to a petition countering the 'claims' made by the IPCC.
Now also remember the IPCC has not exactly proven itself to be infallible.
If you remember the figures they used for the 10 hottest years, were completely inaccurate, and had to be amended afterward, because they tried to portray those hottest years as being very recent, when in reality, those hottest years were spread over the last two centuries.
Do I believe in Climate Change, yes there is enough evidence and acceptance for me to believe it, I don't give a fuck about it, because I don't see how I can really do that much about it, not in the face of global action.
That doesn't mean I am going to rubbish 32,000 signatories who possibly know far more then the collected knowledge of all the people in this thread, just because.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
The bottom line for me is this: I don't have any vested interest one way or another. I'd just like scientists to work at getting to the truth, as close as they can. I can live with the answer, whichever way it goes.
But I want the answer to be based on cold hard science, not belief, and political agendas.
At the moment, there is dissent as to the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. All the laughing and name calling you want, won't change that fact.
But I want the answer to be based on cold hard science, not belief, and political agendas.
At the moment, there is dissent as to the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. All the laughing and name calling you want, won't change that fact.
Skill in assessing scientific research is separate from skill in generating it.
The very first thing it requires is the ability to read accurately.
Aldebaran wrote:
And Johnny Canuck2 responded:
(My emphasis.)
Aldebaran notes the petition and notes the abhorrent state of US academic education.
Johnny Canuck2 catches a "flavour" from that and confuses it with basing an opinion of the petition on an opinion of US academic education.
And then:
Well, yes. I haven't yet read
Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by David Michaels (Oxford University Press, May) - but the title is the point.
Lobbies manufacture doubt and dissent - relying on people who don't read accurately, and relying on people willing to say "There's two sides and I won't choose so let's do nothing."
This is reinforced by the widespread tendency to reduc the world to a football game of two (presumed equal) sides.
The very first thing it requires is the ability to read accurately.
Aldebaran wrote:
And Johnny Canuck2 responded:
(My emphasis.)
Aldebaran notes the petition and notes the abhorrent state of US academic education.
Johnny Canuck2 catches a "flavour" from that and confuses it with basing an opinion of the petition on an opinion of US academic education.
And then:
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Well, yes. I haven't yet read
Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by David Michaels (Oxford University Press, May) - but the title is the point.
Lobbies manufacture doubt and dissent - relying on people who don't read accurately, and relying on people willing to say "There's two sides and I won't choose so let's do nothing."
This is reinforced by the widespread tendency to reduc the world to a football game of two (presumed equal) sides.
New Scientist's review of the above said:
Similar threads
