31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

[Halon451]

You clearly do not know what the word "consensus" means. Please read it for yourself (it is in this thread above or you can use your favorite dictionary). The only way 31,000 scientists disagreeing could mean that there is no consensus would be if there were less than 62,001 relevant scientists.

Great, thanks for pointing that out. So how many relevant scientists are there exactly, currently studying this phenomenon? Now, please, only count the number of actual scientists involved in the relevant research, even 62,000 scientists seems to be a lot. Imagine 62,000 people in a single room, you dig? To me that's a staggering number of people working on the same problem, even on a global scale, so it's not entirely ridiculous to say that this number or less is the correct answer. The rest are politicians, media, and the masses like ourselves, therefore we do not count towards the consensus.

Of course, if the point was that there is not absolutely universal agreement about the world's climate, that, of course, is true, and will very likely always be true. There isn't even universal agreement about the shape of the earth (see post above).

So, do you believe the earth is flat? Have you been to space and seen the earth with your own eyes?

 

[jinjuku]

Wow, THANKS for posting the link to what a scientific method is... how very thoughtful of you. And to think, you actually took the time to look this up on the web.

You seem to need the help

You're missing the point. A petition is by nature, a show of hands. This is a very politically charged event, and also has serious social and economic implications. Thousands of scientists who have labored under what they believe to be false pretenses on issues concerning GW have in the past, historically kept their mouths shut fearing a backlash from such a politically charged issue as this. This petition IS NOT INTENDED TO DISPROVE anything. This represents an uprecedented number of respectable scientists coming forth to voice their own disagreement over the whole alarmist aspect to GW. A petition is NOT part of the scientific process, it's a call for action, or a call for awareness. Get it right. A petition signed by you, myself, or any other audioholic on issues concerning GW would probably just find its way to the nearest waste receptacle, and be quickly forgotten. However, it is truly significant when such a document is signed by those who have the credentials to fully understand what (and what is not) happening with the issue so vehemently debated. In short, they are no longer afraid of holding their tongue, and this is the way they have chosen to announce this. My god...

Here you go (no thanks necessary):

Petition - Definition

I am not missing any point. I read through the make up of the participants in the survey and come away unimpressed.

Answer this, how many scientists are there on the globe right now? I really don't know the answer, but I will wager that 31,072 do not a consensus make. Nor a majority. A vocal minority perhaps.

I agree scientist shouldn't be in a position where they hold their tongue or produce results with a forgone conclusion being desired before they start. This serves no one.

I think the main point of our disagreement is "when such a document is signed by those who have the credentials to fully understand what (and what is not) happening with the issue so vehemently debated."

Not all the signers IMO fit that criteria. I fall into that group with my education and I wouldn't be a good fit to weigh in on that. I would recommend going to someone with area expertise. I am killer at writing billing algorithms and clean UI. please don't ask me about advanced data structures in C.

 

[gene]

I would think that sitting down together and having rational discussions among actual scientists would be better than letting guys like Al Gore and the "hype-and-controversy-loving" news media dictate policy.

yes or trusting the Bush Administration & Oil Companies who have paid off scientists to deny humans involvement in global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

If you surround yourself only with people who agree with you, you'll probably end up being very narrow-minded and when you get off base no one is there to tell you. Same goes with science - it's all about peer review and discussion amongst testing.

This shouldn't really be such a hot topic. I welcome both sides of the discussion. If you (the random person reading this) don't, then you may want to re-evaluate just how objective you truly are.

I agree which is why its also good to get opposing views to Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh too.

Saying Al Gore is in this for the money is like also drawing the conclusion that Bush and Bin Laden are friends and business partners. Hey maybe that is why he never focused on actually catching him?? You see how conspiracies ramp up rather quickly when all the facts aren't know.

The bottom line is if GW is true (which I am a firm believer of) then the poorest people/countries will have the hardest time adapting to the changes and its truly a shame that the world in general isn't being more proactive to prevent it for the dignity and preservation of our own race.

 

[Halon451]

You seem to need the help



I am not missing any point. I read through the make up of the participants in the survey and come away unimpressed.

Answer this, how many scientists are there on the globe right now? I really don't know the answer, but I will wager that 31,072 do not a consensus make. Nor a majority. A vocal minority perhaps.

I agree scientist shouldn't be in a position where they hold their tongue or produce results with a forgone conclusion being desired before they start. This serves no one.

I think the main point of our disagreement is "when such a document is signed by those who have the credentials to fully understand what (and what is not) happening with the issue so vehemently debated."

Not all the signers IMO fit that criteria. I fall into that group with my education and I wouldn't be a good fit to weigh in on that. I would recommend going to someone with area expertise. I am killer at writing billing algorithms and clean UI. please don't ask me about advanced data structures in C.

Okay, here goes, once more...

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

And since your background is CS, and you mentioned your category is found amongst the signers:

Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

So perhaps you're more qualified than you think? Hell, I don't know, my background is in Nuclear Engineering, and you know what? I felt impressed by the credentials of those who signed. I can understand how their fields of study would be related and instrumental in evaluating the data and research that has taken place on this issue thus far, each and every one of them.

What exactly would it take to impress you?

 

[Rickster71]

Al Gore's company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made.
So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse.

Even if Man Made Global Warming did exist; in principle, what's the difference between war profiteering and this?

 

[tn001d]

I heard monstercable has been dumping toxic chemicals in the back of there brisbane, ca offices.

 

[jinjuku]

Okay, here goes, once more...

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Here goes again: The petition was distributed with NON PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE WRITTEN TO LOOK LIKE IT WAS FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENTISTS. What do you fail to understand about this? Do I actually have to walk you through the thought process on what this means to the petition?

From NT Times article:
Dr. Seitz’s petition was accompanied by an article concluding that emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, posed no climatic threat. Instead, the article said, the emissions amounted to “a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution” by stimulating atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing plant growth.

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a specialist in this field.”

“Most top scientists in the field disagreed with him, I among them,” Dr. Press said. Asked if Dr. Seitz’s beliefs had shifted in recent years, Dr. Press said they had not.

And since your background is CS, you mentioned this:

Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

So perhaps you're more qualified than you think? Hell, I don't know, my background is in Nuclear Engineering, and you know what? I felt impressed by the credentials of those who signed. I can understand how their fields of study would be related and instrumental in evaluating the data and research that has taken place on this issue thus far.

What exactly would it take to impress you?

Did these 903 people run simulations with accepted data sets? Is that what you are intimating?

I agree researchers in the CS fields are important to helping evaluate ANY hypothesis. That is why I have posted link after link after link after link after link... of what some of those studies have found. Hmm, a petition of people with degrees vs peer reviewed and published studies. Take your pick and place your bets.

I am impressed with some of their credentials also. I am not sure how it is relevant to the material studies out there.

Talking about swimming against the current, I guess I am one lone CS major out of 903...

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out?

Anyone who has been paying attention knew what the science would say. I have known about the fact of manmade global warming since at least the mid '70s, haven't you? If not, why not?

 

[Rickster71]

Anyone who has been paying attention knew what the science would say. I have known about the fact of manmade global warming since at least the mid '70s, haven't you? If not, why not?

I asked my two questions first.
Can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse.

Even if Man Made Global Warming did exist; in principle, what's the difference between war profiteering and this?

 

[Halon451]

From NT Times article:
Dr. Seitz’s petition was accompanied by an article concluding that emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, posed no climatic threat. Instead, the article said, the emissions amounted to “a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution” by stimulating atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing plant growth.

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a specialist in this field.”

“Most top scientists in the field disagreed with him, I among them,” Dr. Press said. Asked if Dr. Seitz’s beliefs had shifted in recent years, Dr. Press said they had not.

Yeah, I caught this all the first few times you said it, thanks. However, taking articles, from ALL things, such as the New York Times, a media outfit historically known for embracing a liberal political agenda, hardly offers any credibility to your statements, even though it sounds good on the surface. Is this your springboard? Is this the counter-proof that is supposed to shut me up or something??

No sir, you don't need to walk me through anything, I can find my own way. I appreciate the offer though.

Dr. Seitz was not the author of the 12-page article submitted with the petition, obviously, he presented the cover letter, which I have read, along with the article. I will concede one point that the format was structured to resemble an official NAS publication, okay, I will give you that. However, should that automatically disavow the 31,000 scientists who willingly put their reputations on the line for something they believe in? Again, I am offering no conclusive proof that manmade GW does not exist, I am merely challenging the blind faith panic that has swept the entire globe, most of who really are not qualified to interpret the data. I've heard one side, dear god, I've heard it time and again, every time I turn on the TV. Now I see a group of respected individuals within the scientific community that are lending their brains and thoughts to the issue and stating that what we're getting shoved down our throats on a daily basis, isn't eh... quite what it seems to be. Midly.

My parting shot (I've got to get some work done):

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser

Funny how the political tentacles just creep in from everywhere around this issue isn't it? Jimmy Carter of all people? No there's no slant there, nope, not at all....

 

[tn001d]

I heard monstercable has been dumping toxic chemicals in the back of there brisbane, ca offices.

I heard Blu jeans cables is going green... they are changing there name to Green Jean Cables...

All cables will be made from recycle products and all wires will be biodegradeable.

 

[Haoleb]

Im sorry but I just cant leave well enough alone... Maybe my brain has been entirely miswired from birth but I dont understand why everybody here feels the need to argue over this topic.

Lets break it down the basics. As basic as it will ever get.

There are ALOT of people on this planet. Most dont live as we do in north america... Which I think we can all be thankful for. Why?

Think about how much stuff is produced, Throw away, wasted, etc. Think about the raw materials and energy it takes to make those things. The hazardous by products. Etc. Lets face it we all waste ALOT. Recently there was a program on either discovery or the science channel which laid it all out. What an average human in north america consumes in their lifetime. Its astonishing. Now think about how much that is when you consider EVERYONE is using that.

The human race is the Alpha parasite on this planet. we arent like parasites, we are the definition of the word. If you dont agree with this then stop reading now because obviously your IQ is too low or your extremely ignorant.

You figure that if your lucky and you dont die in a car accident, get cancer, struck by lightning, or drown in your own bathtub you might. might live to see 80. 80 years. That is not a long time. Most of us probably wont even be around that long. So what is the point in debating "global warming"? Were talking about people that are trying to "green up" our planet and lifestyles. This is a bad thing? You know what. Who cares if we need to scare the public into thinking the earth will be fried into oblivion even if its not true. If people will start to think about what they waste and care about it why debate it?

The only reason to want to not "go green" is if its going to cost you or your company significant amounts of money. Sadly enough even though we only have such a short time to simply, Live.Laugh and Love people are still seemingly consumed by money, and to hell with anyone else.

No, Im not a tree hugging granola munching fruitcake like some of the folks out there. I love my v8 engines, I leave my power amplifiers on 24/7 and I rather like living in the wasteful overindulgent fashion most of us are accustomed to. But Really. Why argue about this? You dont want cleaner air?, Cleaner water?, You dont like saving money? You dont want any future generations of your family to be able to enjoy the same things that we do?

 

[Alamar]

Gore is right. They are wrong. It doesn't really matter how many of them there are or what degrees they have, when the truth is obvious to anyone who bothers to look for themselves.

What can you say when eloquent logic such as this is applied to the issue?


NOTE: I do think it's a good idea for individuals to make common sense choices that would reduce their carbon footprint .... as long as that means I don't have to get rid of my big screen tv

EDIT: As to the prior post I guess the ends justify any means to get there?

 

[Alamar]

Anyone who has been paying attention knew what the science would say. I have known about the fact of manmade global warming since at least the mid '70s, haven't you? If not, why not?

Actually in the 1970s most the worry was about global cooling and not warming.

.... or are you being sarcastic and I've missed it????


EDIT: To be clear though I do agree 100% that needless waste is silly. If we just cut back on the STUPID stuff I'm sure it would help a lot.

 

[Halon451]

So what is the point in debating "global warming"? Were talking about people that are trying to "green up" our planet and lifestyles. This is a bad thing? You know what. Who cares if we need to scare the public into thinking the earth will be fried into oblivion even if its not true. If people will start to think about what they waste and care about it why debate it?

The reason I have a huge problem with the scare tactic is because I truly believe the underlying motive in all of this is much less benevolent towards the environment and being so politically charged has become a machine, unlike any other to bilk the unassuming public out of more money, to impose unnecessary "greenhouse" taxes, to stifle economic and industrial growth - which has led to the many great modern amenities that now give us our valued quality of life, to create an atmosphere of dissention and hostility amongst the natives, if you will, which empowers any given government to establish that much more control and compromise, etc.

The one good thing that I have seen come from all of this is the expedited processes at developing non-oil dependent automobiles, which will hopefully one day remove our national dependency on foreign oil. Sure, the less hydrocarbons we burn will mean less contribution to pollution and CO2 in the atmosphere, but the point is where do you draw the line? For me, the line became crystal clear the moment "Carbon Credits" were introduced. And nobody give me this baloney about how Al Gore is redirecting that money towards R&D programs... he has already made a substantial profit off this madness, and more coming in each day. It is indeed, called profiteering.

Hey, maybe some of you can live with a larger portion of your money falling into government pockets or Gore's, but as for me? I think they have enough of mine already.

 

[Rickster71]

The only reason to want to not "go green" is if its going to cost you or your company significant amounts of money. Sadly enough even though we only have such a short time to simply, Live.Laugh and Love people are still seemingly consumed by money, and to hell with anyone else.

Why argue about this? You dont want cleaner air?, Cleaner water?, You dont like saving money? You dont want any future generations of your family to be able to enjoy the same things that we do?

This is much bigger than you, or I wanting the world to be a clean and better place. We all do!

It's about millionaire politicians altering scientific data to meet their own financial means.
They are all laughing all the way to the bank.

Or could it be, that a good reason for Al Gore to want us pawn tax payers to go green, is to make his company money.

Why is it that most of you know it's wrong when Bose or Monster cable uses deceptive advertising to make millions?

Don't you see Al Gore's shell game is the same thing.

 

[MinusTheBear]

Out of these 31, 000 scientists that signed this petition how many of these people have research on global warming published in scientific journals or any other scholary sources on the topic. These are the only people that matter for this petition. Just because you have a PHD doesnt mean anything on this issue unless you are doing the research (either for or against).

 

[MinusTheBear]

This is much bigger than you, or I wanting the world to be a clean and better place. We all do!

It's about millionaire politicians altering scientific data to meet their own financial means.
They are all laughing all the way to the bank.

Or could it be, that a good reason for Al Gore to want us pawn tax payers to go green, is to make his company money.

You could say the same for the person that is currently running your country

 

[astrodon]

Quoted from the NY Times article:

From 1978 to 1988, Dr. Seitz was a member of the medical research committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. His work for the company was the subject of a 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine that criticized what it called an “overlap” between scientists who deny climate change and “tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking.”

The article, by Mark Hertsgaard, said that Dr. Seitz had helped R. J. Reynolds “give away $45 million to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s,” studies that “avoided the central health issue” of smoking and “served the tobacco industry’s purposes.”

Thanks jinjuku! You answered my earlier question about what field of science Dr. Seitz is in. Most medical doctors take only two semesters of algebra-based physics as undergraduates. This perhaps explains why he doesn't understand radiative transfer and thermodynamics which is at the heart of the process of global warming.

 

[astrodon]

Not to sidetrack this, but according to the article he's past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. And you are...?

A fine society and a fine place of learning. As for me, my background is not too shabby, but I certainly have not served as president of a professional society (being chair of an academic department at a university is as high up as I wish to go). I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics and my field of study is non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) radiative transfer in the atmospheres of cool stars. I also have done research on the solar atmosphere, (solar system) planetary and extrasolar planetary atmospheres. I have a pretty good understanding of opacities and thermodynamics in these types of atmospheres as well. I have not published any refereed papers concerning the Earth's current global warming problem, but have professional friends (at NASA/Goddard) that have. Most of the people in my line of work are convinced of the evidence that support that humans are the direct cause of the enhancement of CO2 and CH4 (two greenhouse gases) in the Earth's atmosphere over the past hundred years through deforrestation and the advancement of industry. This is based on conversations I have had with my colleagues at professional meetings on astrophysics. Also, the relationship between atmospheric warming and greenhouse gases is fairly well understood (though it is still a complicated process). Though the scientists in my line of work do not represent a big sample, it should be pointed out here that we do have a fairly good understanding of radiative and convective processes in atmospheres. I just wanted to let you know about my background since you asked.