31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

[mtrycrafts]

I would think long and hard who on that list are really qualified and who are not. I bet you numbers will dwindle considerably, a blip. A BS in any field does not make you an expert, long from it. And, on it goes.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There sure are a lot of experts in global warming around here. Must be the hot air!

Just as much as those 31k signatories to that petition, right?

 

[MDS]

I've only partially read this whole thread, but you have to look at this kind of data with a critical (mathematical) eye.

The fact that 31,00 scientists signed a petition means absolutely nothing by itself. How many of them agreed with the premise that 'more research is needed' and thus agreed to sign a petition that basically says 'more research is needed'? It does NOT mean that that subset of the scientific community are completetely denouncing the idea of global warming.

Secondly, what percentage of scientists worldwide that have any knowledge and/or experience with the effects of global warming does the 31,000 represent? 31,000 sounds like an impressive number on the face of it but that is surely just a small percentage of the entire population that has knowledge and/or experience in evaluating the phenomena of global warming.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Nothing is ever as cut and dry as the mainstream media would like to portray it. But as a side note, for all those that listened to the experts that said the credit crunch/subprime crisis was 'contained' and would not affect the wider economy, how do you feel about that now? Financially, the US is on the path to becoming what we call a third world country...the whole global warming debate may turn out exactly the same. Nobody really recognizes or acknowledges the problem until it is too late.

 

[Halon451]

You mean there is huge amounts to be made from pushing global warming scare? Where do I sign up? I need a small fraction of those largess, not much, say a mil or two

So what exactly do I, a simple working stiff, or any other critic of the man-induced GW scare stand to gain from pushing against said scare? I gain nothing, I just find it interesting that so many people have jumped into this blindly because so and so said this or so and so said that, or they saw such and such on the news, or read it in the paper - and then demonstrate an air of hostility towards anyone who is simply attempting to think with their own brain on this matter, because whether GW is man-made or not, the effects are already profound.

Nobody here on this thread has even come close to saying "To hell with the environment, to hell with the next generation, etc.", but suddenly because we have committed the ultimate sin of questioning the plate put in front of us to eat, others whose horses apparently ride much higher than the rest find a reason to pounce.

I'm listening to Astrodon on this one, he knows what he's talking about. I have never claimed such a thing - the fact of the matter is most of us are bickering back and forth over issues and data, and facts on a subject that none of us are formely educated in, therefore we are basing our side of the argument over everything we have heard and choose to believe. Simple as that.

All I have asked is to see concrete proof the man is the cause of GW, and I don't give a rat's stinking a$$ about anything from any media source, or the sweeping mob mentality of those who bought into the issue from the beginning without a second thought.

I have stated my reasons for being a skeptic - the GW issue is nothing new, it has been around for a long, long time. I remember when I was a kid hearing about the effects of greenhouse warming, and pollution's impact on it. And if the world's climatologists want to get together and offer their evidence and proof of man-induced GW and here's what we can do to minimize or eliminate the effect, like I said - count me in.

However, it didn't happen that way. This issue is one of the biggest political weapons of our time, and was presented as such from the get-go. Al Gore, as much as has been said about him - sure not a scientist, but who better to sweep the public's mentality than a charismatic would-be Presidential elect, and bring them into a state of panic before the tax acts start sweeping through Congress like a runaway freight train?

And you have cause to wonder why we question things? It's not like it hasn't happened before people...

And where are the massive hurricanes?

 

[Tomorrow]

I've only partially read this whole thread, but you have to look at this kind of data with a critical (mathematical) eye.

The fact that 31,00 scientists signed a petition means absolutely nothing by itself. How many of them agreed with the premise that 'more research is needed' and thus agreed to sign a petition that basically says 'more research is needed'? It does NOT mean that that subset of the scientific community are completetely denouncing the idea of global warming.

Secondly, what percentage of scientists worldwide that have any knowledge and/or experience with the effects of global warming does the 31,000 represent? 31,000 sounds like an impressive number on the face of it but that is surely just a small percentage of the entire population that has knowledge and/or experience in evaluating the phenomena of global warming.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Nothing is ever as cut and dry as the mainstream media would like to portray it. But as a side note, for all those that listened to the experts that said the credit crunch/subprime crisis was 'contained' and would not affect the wider economy, how do you feel about that now? Financially, the US is on the path to becoming what we call a third world country...the whole global warming debate may turn out exactly the same. Nobody really recognizes or acknowledges the problem until it is too late.

All fine points, MDS. Turn around your analysis/approach to include the runaway movement to support the notion of manmade global warming, and you'll see exactly what the opponents are saying in the thread.

As an example of said lies, damn lies, etc....only about 1 in 10 of the scientists involved in the Kioto meetings supported and signed off on the report. Yet here we are...with half the people on this forum suddenly GW experts and supporting whatever governmental flimflam ideas come along to change how we interact with the environment.

I think everyone here is in agreement that there have been contributions made by humanity that have mucked up our planet. The disagreement lies with the completeness or incompleteness of the science of what it means and what to do about it. Are you (anybody) ready to support the Kioto Accord? Has anybody here read it? Do you know the impact of doing just that (estimated to cost the U.S. $400,000,000,000)?!

That's why I'm buggered up about this thread. Many are so very convinced about the truth of the matter, when they are trusting ... who? ... certainly not their own knowledge of the matter. Even our friend Astrodon, well healed in the sciences, lacks some of the important knowledge of the field of climatology. The issue is complex and requires much study and discourse and reasoned action. This dismissal of any questioning (of the fact of GW) you see in this thread by many is, in my humble opinion, a recipe for more knee-jerk governmental policy. And just for drill, I challenge anyone here to come up with any U.S. governmental policy that does NOT have unknowable long-term consequences, hidden agendas, and personal gain involved.

End of rant. Sorry.

 

[Rickster71]

I had to bail early on the discussion yesterday, we went to see an Clapton concert.
It was excellent, by the way.
Sorry, I'd meant to write this yesterday.

I started the thread to stimulate some discussion. Few of us are qualified to interpret or read real scientific data. So, It was for the most part, laymen throwing their opinions out there.
I wasn't as clear initially, with what was really in the back of my mind all along. And that's how everything seems to become a political football.
Please bare with me for a moment.

For example, just change the subject of this thread, to debate the O.J. trail, or the purchase of Alaska in the 1800's, or Cigarettes causing cancer.
O.J. really did kill his wife; even though people will debate it to the death.

The purchase of Alaska for 1.9 cents an acre, really was a great idea.
It was mocked in the press, and William H Seward was a victim of an Assassination attempt.

People, continue to this day to smoke cigarettes; even though every pack has carried the Surgeon General's warning for as long as I can remember. The cigarette companies had their scientists. Do you think their motivation was pure science? Data or not; I never smoked, just because of the warning label.

The point being, every issue is like peeling back an artichoke. Find out who funded the study, the political motivation, who stands to gain, who will lose.

All the above situations, had a real, true scientific answer; though politics and /or money influenced their outcomes.

 

[Halon451]

I had to bail early on the discussion yesterday, we went to see an Clapton concert.
It was excellent, by the way.

I started the thread to stimulate some discussion. Few of us are qualified to interpret or read real scientific data. So, It was for the most part, laymen throwing their opinions out there.
I wasn't as clear initially, with what was really in the back of my mind all along. And that's how everything seems to become a political football.
Please bare with me for a moment.

For example, just change the subject of this thread, to debate the O.J. trail, or the purchase of Alaska in the 1800's, or Cigarettes causing cancer.
O.J. really did kill his wife; even though people will debate it to the death.

The purchase of Alaska for 1.9 cents an acre, really was a great idea.
It was mocked in the press, and William H Seward was a victim of an Assassination attempt.

People, continue to this day to smoke cigarettes; even though every pack has carried the Surgeon General's warning for as long as I can remember. The cigarette companies had their scientists. Do you think their motivation was pure science? Data or not; I never smoked, just because of the warning label.

The point being, every issue is like peeling back an artichoke. Find out who funded the study, the political motivation, who stands to gain, who will lose.

All the above situations, had a real, true scientific answer; though politics and /or money influenced their outcomes.

Bingo. Cannot be said any better than that.

 

[Tomorrow]

I've only partially read this whole thread, but you have to look at this kind of data with a critical (mathematical) eye.

The fact that 31,00 scientists signed a petition means absolutely nothing by itself. How many of them agreed with the premise that 'more research is needed' and thus agreed to sign a petition that basically says 'more research is needed'? It does NOT mean that that subset of the scientific community are completetely denouncing the idea of global warming.

Secondly, what percentage of scientists worldwide that have any knowledge and/or experience with the effects of global warming does the 31,000 represent? 31,000 sounds like an impressive number on the face of it but that is surely just a small percentage of the entire population that has knowledge and/or experience in evaluating the phenomena of global warming.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Nothing is ever as cut and dry as the mainstream media would like to portray it. But as a side note, for all those that listened to the experts that said the credit crunch/subprime crisis was 'contained' and would not affect the wider economy, how do you feel about that now? Financially, the US is on the path to becoming what we call a third world country...the whole global warming debate may turn out exactly the same. Nobody really recognizes or acknowledges the problem until it is too late.

Okay, I hinted at this earlier. Now I'll just ask the question flat out. Many of you (not necessarily you, MDS) have had your poke at the OP's post and the importance, or lack thereof, of the 31,000 petition signers. You've taken on the question of the significance of the scientists competence, relevence of knowledge, political/economic agendas, etc. Now let's turn the question around. And surely for this thread, the primary question I ask in Rickster's behalf is: How many scientists of what quality and background support global warming as a manmade disaster about to occur? Please provide your references. Anyone? Why do many of you so strenuously believe the GW media reports you read? Do any of you take the time to actually read (and understand) the research papers or even abstracts? Do you have the background to "peer review" the reports? What more have you done to satisfy the "truth" that so drives your challenges to Rickster and others? Hmmm?

But you can even ignore the secondary questions if you wish. Just help me understand....How many qualified climatological scientists (out of how many total) support Gore's notion?

 

[Halon451]

Okay, I hinted at this earlier. Now I'll just ask the question flat out. Many of you (not necessarily you, MDS) have had your poke at the OP's post and the importance, or lack thereof, of the 31,000 petition signers. You've taken on the question of the significance of the scientists competence, relevence of knowledge, political/economic agendas, etc. Now let's turn the question around. And surely for this thread, the primary question I ask in Rickster's behalf is: How many scientists of what quality and background support global warming as a manmade disaster about to occur? Please provide your references. Anyone? Why do many of you so strenuously believe the GW media reports you read? Do any of you take the time to actually read (and understand) the research papers or even abstracts? Do you have the background to "peer review" the reports? What more have you done to satisfy the "truth" that so drives your challenges to Rickster and others? Hmmm?

But you can even ignore the secondary questions if you wish. Just help me understand....How many qualified climatological scientists (out of how many total) support Gore's notion?

I almost asked a similar question earlier, but refrained. My question would have been, if an identical petition, qualifications of signers, and lack thereof of any peer review had been put out that actually supported man-induced GW, how many of them would be now praising it whole-heartedly and carrying it high above their triumphant heads as if it were the Olympic torch?

 

[MinusTheBear]

I almost asked a similar question earlier, but refrained. My question would have been, if an identical petition, qualifications of signers, and lack thereof of any peer review had been put out that actually supported man-induced GW, how many of them would be now praising it whole-heartedly and carrying it high above their triumphant heads as if it were the Olympic torch?

Well if this was the same petition in favour of global warming with the same signers as the above this petition is still GARBAGE, USELESS, MEANINGLESS!. It does not matter what position you side on this matter. Petitions on issues such as global warming do not really matter because all they represent are signatures, on a piece of paper that lack any transparency on the subject at hand. Petitions on global warming either in favour or against global warming are politcally motivated and lack any scientifc evidence to support their claims.

In response to this.

Do any of you take the time to actually read (and understand) the research papers or even abstracts? Do you have the background to "peer review" the reports? What more have you done to satisfy the "truth" that so drives your challenges to Rickster and others? Hmmm?

You seem not to understand what "peer review" is. A defintion of peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Successful peer review therefore requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.

Therefore I do not need the background to peer review the research because it has already been done by the experts. Therefore I can read this with knowing for a fact it is from a good source. Peer reviewed research papers published in scientific journals is the least biased, least politically motivated and most scientifically based way of gaining information on this issue.

Let me stress again, if this petition said that 31, 000 scientists including 9000 phd's, signed in favour of global warming etc etc....this still means nothing.

 

[mouettus]

Oh great! Now you guys have 31K scientists to back you up when you drive your big gaz-slurping SUVs and you use your hose to clean your drive way.

Even though my efforts alone won't keep those polar bears on the ice, at least I have my conscience free that I helped for 80 years. I ain't no tree hugger, but I sure am no "as long as me and my wallet lives" type of person.

 

[Tomorrow]

You seem not to understand what "peer review" is. A defintion of peer review....

Gosh, you'd think after undergraduate work in physics at UC Berkeley and 3 years grad work in biology and sociology at SDSU I would have learned what "peer review" is.

It just goes to show you that some people never learn.... You think?!

 

[Halon451]

Oh great! Now you guys have 31K scientists to back you up when you drive your big gaz-slurping SUVs and you use your hose to clean your drive way.

Come on, mo - you've missed the entire point of the opposing side of the argument if you think this. Nobody is trying to kill the environment or the planet here, why does it keep coming back to the SUV owners? What about the 18-wheelers out there, what about the heavy machinery? What about Al Gore and his jet-setting around the globe on his private jet, or his (how many) mansions - I haven't even gone there, nor do I intend to now, because this a point not worth debating IMO. Once man-induced GW is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes - bring that stuff right to the table. There are things that must be endured, unless you suggest we transform ourselves into a third world country?

Bear, I hear what you're saying, and your opinion is counted. However I do not need a lesson, and I will still stand by my statement and say that the majority of the GW thinkers out there would rally behind such a petition if this entire situation was reversed.

 

[mouettus]

Come on, mo - you've missed the entire point of the opposing side of the argument if you think this. Nobody is trying to kill the environment or the planet here, why does it keep coming back to the SUV owners? What about the 18-wheelers out there, what about the heavy machinery? What about Al Gore and his jet-setting around the globe on his private jet, or his (how many) mansions - I haven't even gone there, nor do I intend to now, because this a point not worth debating IMO. Once man-induced GW is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes - bring that stuff right to the table. There are things that must be endured, unless you suggest we transform ourselves into a third world country?

Bear, I hear what you're saying, and your opinion is counted. However I do not need a lesson, and I will still stand by my statement and say that the majority of the GW thinkers out there would rally behind such a petition if this entire situation was reversed.

Thanks Halon. You bring out some good points. But I was pointing out SUVs just because it is joe sixpack's example of not caring for the environment.

 

[MrPirate2882]

* Oregon Petition:
- http://www.petitionproject.org/
- http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
- http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/20831/0086
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

Also, they refuse to divulge how many ’scientists’ they sent it to. Estimates range around 500,000. Getting 31,000 dentists, agricultural engineers, genealogists, etc. to respond doesn’t seem so impressive when you view the data in that light. Also, science is not like American Idol - it’s not decided on unverified votes.

Ultimately, the only people persuaded by this petition are the ignorant and those who *want* AGW to be a lie / hoax / mistake.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Aaaargh! This thread has arisen from the dead!

 

[MinusTheBear]

Aaaargh! This thread has arisen from the dead!

It wont be as dramatic the second time around .

 

[mouettus]

Aaaargh! This thread has arisen from the dead!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6