None taken. I don't particularly endorse this petition or another. I just tried to verify some of your earlier claims and they were incorrect. Apparently you were referring to another petition. As far as I am concerned they can include anyone they want as long as they don't make false claims. They don't claim they have a petition of 30000 climatologists, and neither have I. Quite the opposite in fact. Besides, climatology is not based on chemistry. Climatology is essentially simulations of physics. Read again what I wrote. CO2 absorption is fairly well understood, as is black body radiation. There is a weak greenhouse effect from CO2. Man-made CO2-increases directly accounts for fractions of a Kelvin. But that is not what the IPCC are telling us. They are telling us that there is a much much stronger multiplier effect from other sources, mainly from H20. The proposed mechanisms are extremely complex, and there is no consensus about those mechanisms. Schulte 2007. That is not the point, though. It uses the same methodolgy and is just as flawed as Oreskes. Oreskes found that 75% of peer reviewed papers with the search phrase "global climate change" gave either an explicit or implicit support for the theory. Peiser found that only 2% of the 75% was an explicit endorsement of the theory. 73% of the papers on global climate change gave an "implicit support", e.g. by studying the implications of a potential global climate change on forest eco systems or on the economy. I agree. Real science is made by logical reasoning and experimental verification of predictions. Not by politicians, votes or consensus opinion. I used to be a believer in climate change some twenty years ago. However, I am gradually changing my mind due to new evidence and a better understanding of the climate models.
Same guy, different fake bulk mail petition. I guess he didn't like the first results. Those dentists and engineers should be a resounding help then. Ummm... no. Would you like to quote what you're trying to say is in the IPCC report? This way we can examine it closely. Maybe that's because you just quoted a study by an endocrinologist? None of any global climate change is dependent on models, just simple measurements that are occurring today, so I'm intrigued how the models changed your mind.
Lindzen is not a dentist, (or a stooge of 'big oil' for thatmatter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_health_risks_of_smoking Dangerous Warming Unlikely, MIT Climatologist Says - by Dr. Richard Lindzen - The following excerpts from his presentation are presented with Dr. Lindzen's permission. My personal experience over the last 16 years leads me to the conclusion that when it comes to politicized science, real communication is almost impossible. First, it leads to a meaningless polarization associated with meaningless questions, such as "Do you believe in global warming? Are you a believer or a skeptic?" Given the many facets of the issue, if you are a believer, what exactly is it that you believe? Depending on whether you are a believer or not, you are likely to hear only what you expect to hear. Recent Temp Changes Small The global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease--both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6ºC (or about 1ºF) over the past century is likely. A relevant question is whether this is anything to be concerned about. It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are "record breakers" or even whether current temperatures are "unprecedented." All that matters is that the change over the past century has been small. The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of a degree, and all of you know intuitively that that isn't very much. It does pay to speak about the levels of atmospheric CO2. They are increasing. To be sure, over long periods, climate can cause CO2 changes, but the increases observed over the past century are likely due to man's activities. When and if the levels double, they will increase the radiative forcing of the planet by about 4 Wm-2, or about 2 percent. This will prove relevant. Unscientific Consensus The scientific question of relevance is what do we expect such an increase to do? The answer, most assuredly, is not to be arrived at by a poll of scientists--especially of scientists who do not work on this question. The issue of consensus is, in this respect, extremely malign, especially when the consensus is merely claimed though not established. However, the whole idea of consensus is problematic. With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists. Of course, science is not primarily a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign. When in 1988 Newsweek announced that all scientists agreed about global warming, this should have been a red flag of warning. Among other things, global warming is such a multifaceted issue that agreement on all or many aspects would be unreasonable. With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics. Doubling of CO2 Little Cause for Concern Let us begin by considering the fundamental question of whether the observed increases in CO2 are likely to be a source of alarm. We will see how the matter of consensus has been employed to mislead and misinform the public. It matters little that the claimed consensus is not based on any known polling of scientists. Our concerns over global warming are based on models rather than data, and if these models are correct, then man has accounted for over 4 times the observed warming over the past century (even allowing for ocean delay) with some unknown process or processes having cancelled the difference. We assume, moreover, that these unknown processes will cease, in making predictions about future warming. This statement illustrates that the observations do not support the likelihood of dangerous warming, but our ignorance may be sufficient to allow the possibility. In point of fact, our ignorance is probably not that great. Computer Models Altered How do we reconcile this with the claim that present models do a good job of simulating the past century? It's simple: The "accurate" model reconstructions require "forcings" of data and speculative guesses about such factors as the influence of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. In an inverse manner, trial-and-error assumptions and data are forced into the computer until the inaccurate model projections are reconciled with the observed climate. However, such inverse forcings are highly unscientific and unlikely to reach similar results regarding anything other than the particular range of data and temperature history the computer is attempting to reconstruct. This would have been an embarrassment even to the Ptolemaic epicyclists, yet an almost identical analysis has just been presented to our government through such unscientific reconstructionist model forcings. Science Contradicts Media "Consensus" Consensus (as represented by all contemporary textbooks on atmospheric dynamics) exists, but does not support alarm. Consensus is therefore claimed for exactly the opposite of what science agrees on. Here is the correct statement: In a warmer world, extratropical storminess will be reduced, as will variance in temperature. Given the speciousness of the bases for alarm regarding claims of increased storminess, it is perhaps unsurprising that there is real consensus on the following item, though the consensus is barely mentioned: Kyoto, itself, will have no discernable impact on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change. Claims to the contrary generally assume that Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever-more restrictive regime. However, this is hardly ever explained to the public. So, where does all this leave us? (1) The data currently represented as "consensus," even if correct, do not imply alarm. However, where the consensus view is too benign, the opposite of the real consensus is claimed to be the consensus. In much current research, "alarm" is the aim rather than the result. (2) The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible. (3) No regulatory solution to the "problem" of preventing increases in CO2 is available, but the ubiquity of CO2 emissions--which are associated with industry and life itself--remains a tempting target for those with a regulatory instinct who have always been attracted to the energy sector. (4) Resistance to such temptations will require more courage and understanding than are currently found in major industrial or governmental players who largely accept what is presented as the consensus view. The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto.
Well consensus doesn't mean unanimous. And you're right, Lindzen is not a stooge of big oil, he's worked for big coal, which (according to your link) he charges $2,500 a day. (I enjoyed how you linked to the paragraph on his views on smoking -- were you trying to gut your position? Here's the text of your link: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated[29][30]...") I remember that Lindzen even offered to bet a guy that global average temperatures would be lower 20 years later -- naturally when the bet was accepted he ran away and wouldn't follow through.
yeah ... quite a scientific argument there ... attack the highly qualified guy personally. here's what i know ... the 'global warming' hysteria is fading ... THANK GOD. Face it, your side is losing the debate, mother nature is seeing to that. by the way, temperatures, if current trends are maintained... WILL BE LOWER. you'll soon need to find a new religion
There's nothing to address in his argument. In one paragraph he insists that CO2 will have only a small effect, and in another paragraph he insists that the models don't predict well enough to know what the effect will be. Which is it? In another paragraph he states that some unknown process has cancelled out the warming that man has caused -- ignoring that anyone can look up the measurements that show that the temperature has increased. Clearly what he's saying is wrong on some level. There's no real arguments there. But let's say that he's genuinely correct and has strong arguments -- even he has said that the global average temperature has risen 0.6 degrees -- he would still be a dissenter in the field. You seem to be under some misimpression that this is a debate decided by the public or by belief. Even if most people disagree, the science has been all but proven in peer reviewed papers. Climatologists overwhelmingly think that this is the case and that global climate change is happening. If public opinion was the deciding factor on expert consensus, which it is not, you'd still be wrong as polls indicate that 70% of people believe global warming is happening. Yes, because we'll be entering a thing called "winter." See how it all depends on what time periods are chosen?
OF course the climate changes. And we have become the new extinction event and the major cause pushing it towards the hot end. We are pushing the accelerator in the wrong direction. So far, the "gee we are not hurting the planet" has become the new flat earth society
You made a couple of claims regarding the petition. Some of them were easy to check out. I did. They were false. - You claimed "Mickey Mouse" and other fake names are on the petition. False - they are not. - You claimed it is a "bulk email petition". False - it is not. - You claimed "they've even admitted that of the 30000 signatures, at best 2500 are scientists". False. They still claim over 30000 scientists, including 9000 PhDs. - You claimed "the bulk of the scientist signers are dentists, physicists, biochemists". The dentist claim is false. Maybe there are some dentist signers but certainly not the bulk of the list. Yet you persist with the dentist claim in every post. As I said before, I don't have an opinion about the veracity of this particular petition one way or the other. But your bogus claims discredit you - not anyone else. Well, how about if you back some of your claims up with a reference for a change. "Ummm... no" is hardly an argument. I don't event understand what you disagree with. And no, I am not going to start quoting from IPCC reports. You do your own homework. I did not quote from Schulte. I mentioned it in passing. You asked for a reference which I provided. Please stop misrepresenting what I wrote. Besides, what is your point? Oreskes is hardly a climatologist either. But repeating her study is a simple literature search and counting exercise. A high school student could do it. You have got to be kidding! "None of any global climate change is dependent on models". None. Maybe you can back that statement up with a peer-reviewed publication. If you seriously believe that climatology is all about measuring temperature, and that physics or modeling play no part, then there is no point in discussing with you.
You're right -- that was the last fake bulk mail petition sent out. Here's the source for this information, and as you can see the petition is a joke: "The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Right again, the current petition drive is a bulk mail petition, of which they refuse to say how many hundreds of thousands of mailings that they've done to get their "39 climatologists." Well that's were you and I part company because it depends on what you call a scientists. You call dentists "scientists" and I would argue that they're not. Well they offer a breakdown of how many are climatologists on their site here, and as you can see almost none of them are: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php Do a google search on a few names. I've hit dentists -- what will you hit? I guarantee you won't hit a climatologist. Well you should have an opinion on this "bogus" petition. The fact that you're defending this rather bizarre joke, signed by a 96 year old man with dementia, indicates to me that you want to believe what it's saying is true. This desire, by the way, to see what a person wants to see rather than what is there is the exact same accusation that global warming deniers throw around on a regular basis. You claimed something about the IPCC report and I think you've either misinterpreted something or misunderstood something, but I can't know until you show which part of the report you're trying to cite. How am I supposed to cite the part of the report that you think supports your claims? You did cite it, and you cited it as evidence that there has been a reduction in support in the field with regard to climate change. I simply pointed out that it was written not by a climatologist but by an endocrinologist, which I find hilarious. It's a pretty plain and simple statement. For example, the Keeling curve is simply based on measurements and it's increased dramatically. Global average temperature charts going back to the industrial revolution are simply based on measurements and they've increased dramatically. Why do you feel you need models?