Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

To think that the huge population expansion and the industrial and other pollution resulting from it has no effect on the earth is sort of naive IMO. Regardless of scientists. petitions or whatever.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Regardless of scientists. petitions or whatever.

Whatever is right. Not even a third of these American "scientists" have PHD's. Nice.

Why don't we take science a little more seriously folks?


-Rob

I know one thing. It is not good science to cherry pick data then base statistics on this info. Statistics derived from biased information are worthless.

The scientists and promoters of the global warming theory actively and very deliberately seek evidence that global warming is real. They turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't support their view. They certainly don't look for such data.

The same is true of the arguments they trot out to the public to try and convince us. Before/after photos of a place where polar ice has disappeared - statistically insignificant in itself, but it looks dramatic, so publish it!! To hell with the infinte number of other photos that could be taken showing nothing or even an opposite effect.

They may claim that there is a large amount of evidence supporting global warming. But there is a virtually infinite amount of evidence that does not support it. And that information is ... just ignored. There is also evidence that it is getting colder. I know that where I live the last few years have been pretty cold.

The worst thing about the global warming conspiracy is the fear mongering idea that, if it happens, global warming will have a runaway, irreversible effect. We know that isn't true. Because global warming of 8 degress C caused by a vast increase in greenhouse gases has happened before and the world bounced back from it!

That 8 degees change nearly wiped out life on earth. But it is an order of magnitude greater than what is being claimed now: 0.6 degrees C? Given the fact that some measuring stations are near to towns that have expanded and created islands of heat?

0.6 degrees is small. Someone do me a favour. Take those graphs showing a scary rise in temperature and redraw them with zero as the origin for temperature. Degrees C will do, but using zero Kelvin would really put things into perspective.

Let's face it. Global warming - even if it is real and man-made - is just an also-ran in the big picture of damage we are doing to the world. We will kill life by deforestation and pollution long before global warming has any real effect.

The problem isn't so much how we are living. It's how many of us are living.

Well this is an oldie but a goodie!

Originally Posted by sicboater

Whatever is right. Not even a third of these American "scientists" have PHD's. Nice.

Why don't we take science a little more seriously folks?


-Rob

How many would you say have PHD's then Rob? Lets say a 1/5th. that would mean that 6200 had PHD's That sounds like a lot of opposition which should be considered, not shut out! Even if only 10% had PHD's that is still a lot of pedigreed brain power not to mention the native intelligence of the rest who signed it.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

0.6 degrees is small. Someone do me a favour. Take those graphs showing a scary rise in temperature and redraw them with zero as the origin for temperature. Degrees C will do, but using zero Kelvin would really put things into perspective.

How about a perspective that matters - measure your body temperature. Now add 8K=8C and call your doctor with the result, see what they say. My thermometer says that the temperature of the air outside changes by about 20K to 30K every day, yet life hasn't disappeared at all, has it? I don't live by the ocean but even when I lived the thermometers were doing pretty much the same.

The temperatures in question are something else and the reasonable thing is to treat them as such.

BTW I already applied the statistical analysis to your arguments above such as

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I know that where I live the last few years have been pretty cold.

I think I will spare you the result, but I know you're not doing science for a living.

Here's an interesting profile on one of the most important among the skeptics (not on the warming itself but on what should be done about it)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...29Dyson-t.html

Originally Posted by JMS

How many would you say have PHD's then Rob? Lets say a 1/5th. that would mean that 6200 had PHD's That sounds like a lot of opposition which should be considered, not shut out! Even if only 10% had PHD's that is still a lot of pedigreed brain power not to mention the native intelligence of the rest who signed it.

Not enough IMO. Any jackass can sign a petition and say they are a scientist. I am not saying shut out anyone, but rather that signatures on a petition are worthless to me. BTW I am not even expressing a belief in the subject one way or the other. I don't care if we are warming the earth or not, plain and simple.

-Rob

Originally Posted by gugi

BTW I already applied the statistical analysis to your arguments above such as

Originally Posted by Rajagra I know that where I live the last few years have been pretty cold.

I think I will spare you the result, but I know you're not doing science for a living.

You are completely missing my point. Which is that information is being ignored.

I didn't make that comment about my personal experience to imply it was statistically significant. It was merely to give an example of evidence that exists and doesn't support the global warming theory.

Let me give you another explanation. In the field of clinical trials it is important to publish results of trials that don't prove anything. Why? Imagine 20 clinical trials are run on a completely ineffective drug. On average, 5% of trials will give results that are statistically significant at a 5% confidence level, purely by chance. I.e. one of those 20 trials will appear to show the drug may have merit. (On average)

What happens if the only trial that gets published is the one that suggests the drug works?
Answer: People are mislead.

THAT is what is happening with the global warming theory. Everything that seems to support it is being screamed from the rooftops. Everything that fails to support it is being quietly ignored.

Result: People are being mislead.


(And for what it's worth I do have a degree in maths, and have worked in clinical oncology, albeit on the computing side of things.)

I don't think I'm missing your point, I see no evidence for your claims. There is data and there is analysis of the data, claims and refutes - the business as usual.
Could you please provide examples that scientifically relevant information is being withheld? I don't follow this topic too closely, but I've seen more than enough fairly rigorous treatment on it with opposing conclusions to not be worried at all.
I don't really know where you get your information, but I suspect it's not the mainstream channels, i.e. scientific publications.
Of course, I'm always looking for evidence supporting any statement I come across.

The problem with your data point is not that it's statistically insignificant, it is that it is irrelevant. Hence the example I gave - it illustrates some relevant temperature and time scales. The distance to the quantum noise is completely irrelevant in this case.

Originally Posted by gugi

Could you please provide examples that scientifically relevant information is being withheld?

That would be quite a trick considering it wouldn't have been published.

Ask yourself these questions:

A) Have you ever seen a news report about new evidence being found that supports the global warming theory?

B) Have you ever seen a news report about no new evidence being found that supports the global warming theory?

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say your answers are A) Yes. and B) No.

It's just the way things work. Nobody bothers reporting things that aren't interesting or don't seem to prove anything. This natural bias is something that needs to be consciously fought in order to be truly scientific, as I explained in the clinical trial post above.

I've seen a report showing video of a collapse of polar ice. I've never seen footage on the news of polar ice just sitting there doing nothing, though clearly it would be a trivial matter to film it. Indeed it WAS filmed - when the ice collapse was filmed there was time either side of the collapse where nothing happened. But what gets shown? the dramatic bit that seems to prove something. It's to be expected.

Climatologists are mounting expeditions all the time seeking evidence of global warming. They are quite open about it. Do you think they eagerly report any negative results with the same vigour as their positive results? You certainly seem to have complete faith in them. I don't. They show every sign of being passionately biased.