Oh sorry...
I followed this thread for the first few pages then came back to it later without reading through everything inbetween properly, it would seem.
so, to be clear, these 32,000 people haven't actually signed up in opposition to "the human-caused global warming hypothesis" as you claim in the OP.
They've signed up in opposition to the idea of it causing 'catastrophic heating of the earths atmosphere and disruption to the earths climate... in the foreseeable future'.
These are 2 very very different statements, and depend entirely on what is meant by 'catastrophic'.
There's also the cunning phrase 'there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause...'
The word "will" introduces a certainty to the phrase that goes beyond anything that any reasonable scientist would use when it comes to predicting 'catastrophic heating'.
basically IMO most of the IPCC, and probably even Al Gore himself would actually agree with the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of that petition because of the way it's worded, so that entire press release is a fraud IMO as it misrepresents what the scientists who have signed it have actually signed up to.
It's not just bigfish though, that's the way the whole contrarian movement operates to a large extent. Get some superficially plausible 'doubts' into the public domain and it looks like a 50/50 open question to anyone who doesn't go digging for the details, checking sources etc.no worries... shows something that I've been thinking about with these threads actually... essentially bigfish is at a major advantage in terms of the casual observer because he get's to post his drivel in the OP, whereas it takes us a bit of time to fully refute whatever point he's making, with the refutation coming in drips through the thread, so most people will probably just check the op, scan over the thread quickly and may well miss the most relevant points and go away thinking bigfish was talking sense.
or does aldebaran subscribe to a more creationist viewpoint?
part of the whole background to the climate change issues is the fact that the climate has changed dramatically fairly rapidly on many occasions in the past (due to a variety of factors), and these changes have often led to mas extinction events where vast swathes of the species on the planet have been wiped out.
IMO it is arrogant in the extreme for us to think that we can cause such a dramatic change in the earths climate as we're looking at in such a short timescale without at the very least that change having a dramatic impact on the carrying capacity of the planet in terms of how many humans it can support
I was wondering how you knew that the other warming/cooling periods didn't happen this quickly. We were taught in school that the dinosauras were wiped out due to a meteor hit that spread ash into the sky and cut out the sunlight.
Aldebaran... sorry, it was a cheap shot, but wasn't meant seriously, the point I was trying to make is that the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event around 65.5 million years ago which finally wiped out the last of the dinosaurs would have (by current theories) involved a climatic change that was more severe and faster than the one we're currently going through.What that comment weird has to do with my post is a riddle to me.
Could you be so kind to reserve commenting on the ideas of Christian lunatics for said Christian lunatics. Thank you.
[wiki]The consequence of an impact would be a dust cloud which would block sunlight and inhibit photosynthesis for a few years, which would account for the extinction of plants and phytoplankton, and of organisms dependent on them (including predatory animals as well as herbivores). Small creatures whose food chains were based on detritus had a reasonable chance of survival. It is estimated that sulfuric acid aerosols were injected into the stratosphere, leading to a 10–20% reduction in sunlight reaching the earth's surface. It would have taken at least ten years for those aerosols to dissipate.[60][66] The consequences of reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere included a brief (hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation of an intensity similar to an oven set to broil, killing exposed organisms.[35] Global firestorms may have resulted from the heat pulse and the fall of incendiary fragments from the blast back to Earth. High O2 levels during the late Cretaceous would have supported intense combustion. The level of atmospheric O2 plummeted in the early Tertiary Period. If widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect once the dust cloud settled, and this would have exterminated the most vulnerable organisms that survived the period immediately after the impact.[67]
I wrongly I think interpreted that as saying that never before had the claimte changed so dramatically and so fast as to cause mass extinctions at the levels we're now looking at. This would obviously be wrong as this graph of mass extinction events shows... but that wasn't actually what you were trying to say I think?but never before a climate change came about at such a dramatic speed making it impossible for life (all life) to adapt to these changing conditions.
ah, ok, so you are arguing against the meteor impact theory.That is only one of the suggestions. There is to my knowledge no proof that dinousaurs "suddenly" became extinct or how they got extinct.
salaam.
In 1980, a team of researchers consisting of Nobel prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez, his son geologist Walter Alvarez, and chemists Frank Asaro and Helen Michels discovered that sedimentary layers found all over the world at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary contain a concentration of iridium many times greater than normal (30 times and 130 times background in the two sections originally studied). Iridium is extremely rare in the earth's crust because it is a siderophile, and therefore most of it travelled with the iron as it sank into the earth's core during planetary differentiation. As iridium remains abundant in most asteroids and comets, the Alvarez team suggested that an asteroid struck the earth at the time of the K–T boundary.[63]
ah, ok, so you are arguing against the meteor impact theory.
Other than this event though you are essentially correct, although the further back in time we go, the lower the accuracy level in actually dating any changes
Just to clarify, I'm not disputing that we're on the cusp of a human induced mass extinction event - though there are multiple causes of this on top of climate change (deforestation, land use changes, use of pesticides etc. etc.). The question really is what the extent of the climate change will be, and exactly what impact that will have on biodiversity / species extinctions etc.
That is only one of the suggestions. There is to my knowledge no proof that dinousaurs "suddenly" became extinct or how they got extinct.
salaam.
You had originally posted that all climate changes took place over a long period and "never before a climate change came about at such a dramatic speed making it impossible for life (all life) to adapt to these changing conditions."
The comment not about when and if dinasours roamed the earth, it was that this has happened before.
Well yes, but I think when reading my posts in context of this discussion that obviously makes exclusion of events like "a meteor hitting the earth" (and which is only a theory).
salaam.
There is a more or less global layer of iridium though, and some craters in the Deccan Traps that point to some kind of impact event.
The planet is going to continue to evolve. The species that can adapt will. The others will cease to exist. Pretty much as it is today.
... That's a return to the techniques of that pioneering disinformation scam, the Heidelburg appeal, which they actually managed to get some Nobel Laureates to sign by a variation of the same technique.
Why would they? The language of the Heidelburg Appeal is perfectly reasonable. I'd support it myself. Scientific ecology rather than mystical mumbo-jumbo and hysterical romanticism, sure, I'm absolutely onside with that.
<snip>
You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Three cheers to Lord May for coming out and telling it like is with his parting shot. It looks like anthropologist and novelist Michael Crichton's observation that environmentalism constitutes a new form of religious fundamentalism particularly suited to urban atheists, is well founded. At any rate Crichton and Lord May appear to view things similarly on this particular score. "Enivronmentalism as Religion"
<snip>
Well, you see that's the whole basis of the scam right there. Clearly the 50 or so Nobel laureates who signed both the Heidelburg Appeal and the World Scientists Warning to Humanity on climate change didn't think that the evidence concerning climate change was 'pseudo-scientific gibberish'. ...
Yes it does:But the World Scientists Warning to Humanity document does not issue a warning on "climate change"
World Scientists Warning to Humanity said:Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks are very great.
We have been through this several times before, for example here.the globe stopped warming about 10 years ago
We have been through this several times before, for example here.the now comprehensively discredited hockey stick study.
We have been through this several times before, for example here.Nor have you enlightened us on how it is possible for you to believe that carbon dioxide drives Earth's climate
I love the way CT nuts always say this about wikipedia now that it requires information to be properly sourced. Of course if any particular quote from it was incorrect, which is not impossible, then the actual error in the specific information should be pointed out, and corrected on wiki. Instead, people with no actual argument can only try to poison the well.the laughable and totally discredited Wikipedia.
You appear to be claiming 1) that Bernie said he was a Dr, and 2) that he isn't. Provide evidence for both those claims or withdraw them."Dr" Gunther
Yes it does:
Yes it does: <snip>
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.
...
The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge. An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that "hundreds of IPCC scientists" are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years".
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the "Greenhouse gas forcing ." statement above, Professor McKitrick explained "A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed."
Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as "Typical IPCC doubletalk" asserting "The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model".
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers' comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.
No vested interest in the authors of that piece at all, is there?
International Climate Science Coalition. said:of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest