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

Originally Posted by icedog

So then by the Gugi standard over two thirds of those signing the petition are charlatans.

That would only be an assumption!

Originally Posted by gugi

To me a bachelor's degree it not a qualification for a scientist. It's got to be at least M.Sc. to count. It is not hard to be a 'lab monkey', push few knobs and get a readout. To properly interpret the data and make valid conclusions you need a lot more, hence a minimum of at least M.Sc. to qualify.

I gues because I have no degree at all my reasoning abilities lie somewhere between those of a large ashtray and 500ml of pond scum.

Originally Posted by icedog

I gues because I have no degree at all my reasoning abilities lie somewhere between those of a large ashtray and 500ml of pond scum.

Ahh, don't be upset with my friend Ivan, he just can't help himself!

Why is it that every time that an observation is made that is not founded in reality and proved otherwise people who just want to feel "green" move on to another unprovable position. I am referring to the polar ice cap issue. New satellites that went up about a year ago are yielding data that the caps are getting larger not smaller. How can a cornerstone of the global warming issue be so glossed over?

I am in total agreement about being conservative in our footprint on this globe but put it in perspective. Yes we generate CO2 but one volcanoe erutpion spews forth amounts of CO2 that humans put into the eco-system in a decade. I believe it is morally wrong to "waste", I abhor waste, but get a grip on reality. Go after chemical and biological pollution because they are much more of a problem than some pie in the sky CO2 problem that is being touted by an individual that has a company that sell carbon credits, give me a break!


Take Care,
Richard

Link?

All the things I've found say that the ice cap is larger this year than last year, but last year was an all time low.

I think Gugi's just generalising, or taking the average, or whatever. I think he'd agree that intelligence is intelligence, whether it's been shoe-horned into a the western ideal of "qualification" or not. I mean, I've met people who hold a PhD who got through it because of riding on their supervisor's coat tails, and who really should be floating on the surface of a pond providing much-needed nutrients for insects and their larvae (Zing!). And I've met truck drivers who would put a professor to shame. Degrees and PhDs etc are just training mechanisms - ideally they show people how to think, but they've become, IMO, about telling people what to think.

My biggest issue with the global warming caused by humans debate is the handling of the data. I don't want this to become a rant about professions, but consider this. If I wanted to build a house, I'd call a builder. If I wanted to see whether I've got cancer, I'd consult a cancer specialist. When research scientists want to analyse data they've collected, who do they go see? A Statistician, you'd think....Unfortunately, not always. Statistics is a lot like sex - everyone does it, but few do it well, or have extensive training in it. Statisticians are the porn stars of science!

Anyway, most branches of science utilise statistics, because most collect empirical observations. Climate change is no different. One of the most famous, although out of date, examples is the "Hockey stick" debate around the turn of the century. Paleoclimatologists guestimated global temperatures from core samples etc, and showed on a graph that it was basically constant until the last few decades (or so) where it shot up. The graph looked like a hockey stick in shape. Did these people, who are undoubtedly experts in their field and very highly regarded internationally, consult an expert in data reconstruction and statistics? No, they did it themselves and stuffed it up. But it got published, under peer review (no statisticians on the reviewer panel for those journals, clearly). The mistake didn't cause major issues, but that was more about good luck than good management

Luckily that one got caught and we moved on to better things. But how many don't get caught? One man's proof is another's source of frustration and scepticism.

James.

It is smaller last year because it is agreed that last years data and the data before the SAT data was inaccurate due to the limitations of the measuring methods. Even if it was so, what bothers most reasonable people is the warning of the total destruction of the world in 5 years from polar ice melting. We really need to step back and not let either side of the debate hijack the discussions on climate change. There are people in the academic world that are now actually afraid of the repercussions of questioning the "doomsday" predictions. Anytime there is a silencing of the the opposition, on either side, it is a path that historically has lead to nothing but problems. Just because one can beat the drum louder and longer does not mean that it should be the only music in the town. Eventually people found out that it was true that the earth was not the center of the universe ......many year after Galileo died in prison!


Take Care,
Richard

Very good point riooso, I do hope that that people on both sides keep persuing the facts while keeping an open mind as to the results. We all know what happens when you go looking for a cause. And yes correlation /= causation.

I'm trying to find some links on the faulty sat data that you mentioned before but can't find much.

And thanks Jimbo for mentioning the thing we always forget.

Edit: just wanted to add this recent report on ocean acidity due to CO2 in the atmosphere, studies are linked in the article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0521105251.htm

These quotes expose the arrogance of the people leading the global warming movement! I think these quotes would be one of the biggest reasons why there is such doubt and skepticism over this matter!
Here is the link where I found themGlobal Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Much of the article fits my own beliefs also!

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...
former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

Originally Posted by JMS

These quotes expose the arrogance of the people leading the global warming movement! I think these quotes would be one of the biggest reasons why there is such doubt and skepticism over this matter!


"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations
Please define the arrogance in this statement.

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)

Oh you mean like the reasons for going to war against Irac?

Manipultae, manipulate dance to the music!