31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[This_person]

It has never been called the IPGW; it is the International Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC's conclusion is that man-made effects are now overcoming the natural climate-influencing factors.
It makes sense if you study it.

No, it doesn't. The warming of the early part of the century was huge, and there was no man-made effect on it. Then cooling and stabilization. Then, about thirty years of warming. What you posted shows only thirty consistent years of warming. That's insignificant. And, when you compare it with the large NON-man-made warming, it makes it a pointless blip of data.

There has always been variation in the planet's climate because it is a dynamic system. The many phenomena that influnce global temps have various interactions, not easy to understand in just a few sentences. One example: clouds reflect solar energy from space (albedo) creating a net cooling; they also reflect back heat from the earth's surface, which is why overcast nights are warmer than clear nights. This seemingly simple occurrence does not act alone; other things will affect the net gain or loss of heat -- GHG concentrations, aerosols, relative temp, etc.
For a good primer, see NOAA's Q&A (Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions) or see other links in earlier posts.

I saw, I read. I've read others. Nothing, not a single thing, points to any EVIDENCE of man-made effects on the very short term warming that may (if the data were accurate) be occuring. But, even the data has huge question marks around its accuracy. Not to mention that significant points changed with the change of the USSR. A little unbiased research points to short term potential minor warming, nothing outside of the normal band of global temperatures.

 

[wildsage]

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. The natural phenomena and physical laws are pretty cut-and-dried. Then again, so is the evidence supporting evolution by natural selection but a vocal minority insists that science is bogus, as well.

What you posted shows only thirty consistent years of warming. That's insignificant. And, when you compare it with the large NON-man-made warming, it makes it a pointless blip of data.

Most of the people (by far the majority) who specialize in this area of knowledge do not consider the information pointless, insignificant or a blip. It's nice to know that you disagree with them but how do your credentials match up?

I saw, I read. I've read others. Nothing, not a single thing, points to any EVIDENCE of man-made effects on the very short term warming that may (if the data were accurate) be occuring.

You are welcome to your opinion but I'll put more weight behind the conclusion summarized by the IPCC after synthesizing the vast collection of data related to global climate change. There are a few dissenters -- and, yes, still significant arguments over some of the details, no one is claiming absolute unanimity -- but the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant fields agree with the IPCC's conclusion.
If you want to satisfy yourself of undisputably unbiased research, I guess you would have to review all of the climate change data from all reliable (peer-reviewed) sources -- not just those from the handful of deniers & obfuscators -- and publish your own conclusion. Please use footnotes.
I'll wait.

 

[This_person]

Yes, it does. The natural phenomena and physical laws are pretty cut-and-dried.

So, everybody agrees then, right?

Most of the people (by far the majority) who specialize in this area of knowledge do not consider the information pointless, insignificant or a blip.

And, by far the majority believe in God, so He's true, too, right (hey, if you can bring up meaningless comparrisons, so can I).

You are welcome to your opinion but I'll put more weight behind the conclusion summarized by the IPCC after synthesizing the vast collection of data related to global climate change. There are a few dissenters -- and, yes, still significant arguments over some of the details, no one is claiming absolute unanimity -- but the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant fields agree with the IPCC's conclusion.

Well, the IPCC is pretty biased in how it works, and there are MANY skeptics, not "a few". Some even work for us. Here's a short list of "skeptics" (I prefer "realists")

 

[Lenny]

So, everybody agrees then, right?

Dammit! You caught them again in their empty argument. If it's cut-and-dried, nobody who is relevant can disagree. Course, they are the only ones using the C&D argument.

 

[wildsage]

So, everybody agrees then, right? And, by far the majority believe in God, so He's true, too, right (hey, if you can bring up meaningless comparrisons, so can I).

Believe in which one? Oh, nevermind, we were discussing science not mythology.

Well, the IPCC is pretty biased in how it works, and there are MANY skeptics, not "a few". Some even work for us. Here's a short list of "skeptics" (I prefer "realists")

All you have is a short list, what is it 41? Mea culpa, I should have written "a RELATIVE few." (Guess how many people's work was studied by the IPCC in order for them to reach its consensus.) Still, a far cry from claims in the "news" post that started this thread. Let's see 41 versus 31,000 -- wow, that's way less than one percent!

So if your sourced list is of "scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions" do you concur that at least some of them agree with two of the principal conclusions and more agree with at least one?
Biased how? Some scientists criticize the IPCC for being too conservative in its predictions. Sounds kind of middle-of-the-road to me.

 

[wildsage]

Dammit! You caught them again in their empty argument. If it's cut-and-dried, nobody who is relevant can disagree. Course, they are the only ones using the C&D argument.

In this universe, the science is cut & dried. Now maybe you have magical powers that alter physical properties and circumvent natural laws. How fortunate for you!

 

[diehardstroker]

The global warming zealots are the same ones that thought their cars, elevators, ovens, well basically the whole world was going to shut down at 12:00:00 January 1st, 2000, anyone remember what actually happened?

 

[wildsage]

The global warming zealots are the same ones that thought their cars, elevators, ovens, well basically the whole world was going to shut down at 12:00:00 January 1st, 2000, anyone remember what actually happened?

No, that was the Millennialismites. Keep your zealots straight.
And be patient, I'm sure someone remembers what actually happened.

 

[This_person]

Believe in which one? Oh, nevermind, we were discussing science not mythology.

No, if we're talking global warming, we're talking mythology - not science.

All you have is a short list, what is it 41? Mea culpa, I should have written "a RELATIVE few." (Guess how many people's work was studied by the IPCC in order for them to reach its consensus.) Still, a far cry from claims in the "news" post that started this thread. Let's see 41 versus 31,000 -- wow, that's way less than one percent!

Um, the 31,000 ALSO disagree, not agree, with global warming.....

So if your sourced list is of "scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions" do you concur that at least some of them agree with two of the principal conclusions and more agree with at least one?

I'm sure there are unintentional nuggets of truth in there, yes

Biased how? Some scientists criticize the IPCC for being too conservative in its predictions. Sounds kind of middle-of-the-road to me.

Biased in having an agenda for their results. Biased in not looking at the bad data provided because they had a predetermined outcome. That kind of biased.

 

[This_person]

In this universe, the science is cut & dried. Now maybe you have magical powers that alter physical properties and circumvent natural laws. How fortunate for you!

If man made global warming is actually occuring, and the science is cut and dried, where do all of the legitimate scientists who disagree get their opinions from? Why is there a controversy at all?

Could it be it's NOT so plain and clear?

 

[AK-74me]

If man made global warming is actually occuring, and the science is cut and dried, where do all of the legitimate scientists who disagree get their opinions from? Why is there a controversy at all?

Could it be it's NOT so plain and clear?

Don't you know by now? They are all paid off by big oil!!

 

[wildsage]

Um, the 31,000 ALSO disagree, not agree, with global warming....

Ummm, asked & answered. Either you have a real short attention span or you just skipped to the end; you need to go back and start reading this thread from the beginning.

nuggets of truth in there, yes

Congratulations! Now, see, rational thought doesn't hurt too much does it?

Biased in having an agenda for their results. Biased in not looking at the bad data provided because they had a predetermined outcome. That kind of biased.

REAL short attention span

If you want to satisfy yourself of undisputably unbiased research, I guess you would have to review all of the climate change data from all reliable (peer-reviewed) sources -- not just those from the handful of deniers & obfuscators -- and publish your own conclusion. Please use footnotes.
I'll wait.

Don't you know by now? They are all paid off by big oil!!

...and/or big coal or have their credibility compromised otherwise
Singer: big oil AND tobacco
Soon: American Petroleum Institute
Balling: ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC
Lindzen: ExxonMobil, Western Fuels Alliance, OPEC
Idso & Idso: ExxonMobil
Michaels: IREA
Bailunas: OISM

and many, many more

 

[Velocity26]

Ummm, asked & answered. Either you have a real short attention span or you just skipped to the end; you need to go back and start reading this thread from the beginning.
Congratulations! Now, see, rational thought doesn't hurt too much does it?

REAL short attention span


...and/or big coal or have their credibility compromised otherwise
Singer: big oil AND tobacco
Soon: American Petroleum Institute
Balling: ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC
Lindzen: ExxonMobil, Western Fuels Alliance, OPEC
Idso & Idso: ExxonMobil
Michaels: IREA
Bailunas: OISM

and many, many more

You're a whack job.

 

[wildsage]

You're a whack job.

I'm stunned by your witty & insightful post. And you thought to use one of those animated smilies, how precious! Now settle down, dear, the grown-ups are talking.

 

[This_person]

Ummm, asked & answered. Either you have a real short attention span or you just skipped to the end; you need to go back and start reading this thread from the beginning.

So, what 31,000 were you talking about if not the subject of the thread?

Congratulations! Now, see, rational thought doesn't hurt too much does it?

Doesn't hurt me at all. Doesn't change the FACT that the results were inaccurate and biased, but doesn't hurt to know that, no.

...and/or big coal or have their credibility compromised otherwise
Singer: big oil AND tobacco
Soon: American Petroleum Institute
Balling: ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC
Lindzen: ExxonMobil, Western Fuels Alliance, OPEC
Idso & Idso: ExxonMobil
Michaels: IREA
Bailunas: OISM

and many, many more

 

[wildsage]

I really wish you would pay attention the first (or second) time.

So, what 31,000 were you talking about if not the subject of the thread?Doesn't hurt me at all. Doesn't change the FACT that the results were inaccurate and biased, but doesn't hurt to know that, no.

Maybe they meant "Scienticians." This name gathering has been going on for 10 years and has a lot of questionable aspects.
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Case Study: The Oregon Petition
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists.
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon.
In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet [update: now you click for a mail-in form], and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center."
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... Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature: "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot.
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Updated campaign
In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a petition closely similar to the Oregon Petition... Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute." This renewed distribution has continued until at least February, 2008.

The OISM "petition" has credential & verification problems; it may as well have your name, and the guy who changes your tires, and your fishing pals, and the guy in the Subway shop and the woman in the beauty parlor -- all may have an opinion that differs from the IPCC conclusion but how many of them are likely to be knowledgeable in the relevant fields? If someone has a Bachelor of Science degree in sports medicine, that doesn't mean he or she is a scientist.

Your recent post

...there are MANY skeptics, not "a few". Some even work for us. Here's a short list of "skeptics" (I prefer "realists")

contained a link to a list of professionals (not "skeptics") who (at least partially) disagree and it is more legitimate, but still a far cry from 31,000 (or 3,100 or even 310) which was the subject of this thread.
Here's a list of skeptics, "persons and organizations... [who] are not necessarily scientists or scientific organizations" Category:Global warming skeptics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There's about, what 250 names there? With such intellectual giants as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck & Michelle Malkin I can understand that you might be in awe; maybe they are all smarter than you.

 

[This_person]

Your recent post
contained a link to a list of professionals (not "skeptics") who (at least partially) disagree and it is more legitimate, but still a far cry from 31,000 (or 3,100 or even 310) which was the subject of this thread.

So, saying they were a percentage of the 31,000 provided what information?

I gave a Wiki list of people skeptical of the hype, who happen to be professionals in the weather field. I also gave a list of "faithful" who lost their faith in the mythology of man-made climate change from the US Senate.

Here's some of the science as to why people who used to believe don't any more. Note, the word "science".

And, a report on the fact that, if it's even occuring, global warming could not be man-made. And, another. But, read this comprehensive look first. Or, this one

New study finds IPCC "consensus" an "illusion"

An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."

The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all."

Here's some of the changes the IPCC had to do to correct their errors.


Sad to see your little world crumble, isn't it?

 

[wildsage]

So, saying they were a percentage of the 31,000 provided what information?

Home-schooled or GED? No, really, I would like to know how you developed those thinking skills [rolls eyes].

(a) The petition of 31,000 names contains far too many bogus entries, no control over who signs or their qualifications, no more accuracy than a poll on a freeper website asking "Hate Hillary? Yes or Hell Yes." OISM refuses to prove validity so the claim is exaggerated and lacking any value.
(b) one of your links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) provides a list of actual scientists, not "skeptics"; I didn't dispute the validity of those on this list, just the relatively small number (41) -- vastly smaller compared to bogus claim noted in (a) above and to the vast majority in agreement with IPCC. The Wiki entry states plainly that "This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."
(c) I pointed you to a list of GW skeptics and excerpted this disclaimer ("It should be noted that the persons and organizations listed here are not necessarily scientists or scientific organizations.") so that you could see the difference. Is simple comprehension like that beyond you?

I gave a Wiki list of people skeptical of the hype, who happen to be professionals in the weather field.

It's "climate" not "weather" and (yet, again!) I didn't dispute the people on that short list.

I also gave a list of "faithful" who lost their faith in the mythology of man-made climate change from the US Senate.

Yah, oil-man Inhofe's website -- now there's a brainiac.

Here's some of the science as to why people who used to believe don't any more. Note, the word "science". And, a report on the fact that, if it's even occuring, global warming could not be man-made. And, another. But, read this comprehensive look first. Or, this one

Here's some of the changes the IPCC had to do to correct their errors.​

What? The IPCC corrected errors?? How effin' biased of them!!

I find it hard to believe that you understand any of this science; it appears that you cherry-pick the alternate suppositions that disagree with what you already don't want to hear, whether they are from legitimate studies (a few) or the fossil-fuel propaganda machine (the majority). If you do understand this stuff, go to realclimate.org and search their website for your dissenting data du jour. 9 times out of 10 they will have already refuted the lies and will provide links to the sources. Yeah, go ahead and scoff but it is written by climate scientists and they stay away from policy BS. RealClimate
However, I suspect that you will continue to get your disinformation from the "pseudo-science for sale" lobbyists and carbon-owned websites. Whatever. (Lord Monckton? OFP.)

Sad to see your little world crumble, isn't it?

It will be sad for your GGKs when they see theirs flood.​

 

[This_person]

Home-schooled or GED? No, really, I would like to know how you developed those thinking skills [rolls eyes].

Public school, two Bachelor's.

Yah, oil-man Inhofe's website -- now there's a brainiac.

So, it's wrong over and over and over and over again in refuting the data because of who it came from? Is that your argument against the data?

What? The IPCC corrected errors?? How effin' biased of them!!

When you present the IPCC's data, you present it as a unified front of scientists. It's not. When you present their data, you present the pre-corrected data, and the data was widely hyped before corrections, but not after. That's what makes that biased. The data presented is highly misleading, propaganda, biased. The actual data, the cold, unbiased information, does not say what the hype and executive summaries say. See how that works?

It will be sad for your GGKs when they see theirs flood.

I'll take that (non)risk.