So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

[Steve Petersen]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

 

[S53]

Oh curse those Conservative bloggers!!! Lol.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0322200...s_warming_lies_opedcolumnists_iain_murray.htm

 

[Baggins]

I do not believe there were any industrialist driving SUVs and refusing to recycle at this time.

I do not believe it has been impossible to grow grapes in the UK at any period since their introduction into the UK apart from, possibly, the mini ice ages like the medieval one. What has restarted in the last half century is the manufacture of wine in the UK not the growing of grapes.

Was there a point in posting this?

 

[Baggins]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

I agree that that is a pathetically short list and it doesn't even wholly comprise of people who are climate scientists:

Dr. John Brignell, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Northampton Engineering College

or come from important institutions, viz Northampton Engineering College. I would have thought they could have scraped together more than 400 meteorologists let alone 400 scientists.

I am sure that in reality there are a great many more people who have problems with all or part of the scientific consensus on global warming.

But having said that the climatologists who accept the consensus probably out number them between 10:1 and 100:1, and no reputable scientific organisation rejects the consensus.

That is the important point

Most of the people on that list appear to be astronomers so they probably have a bee in their bonnet about sun cycles and an incomplete understanding of climatology.

Also if you follow the link and read about what they object to most of them have disagreements over the scale of the problem not that global warming and climate change is occuring. Many of them are retired or Emeritus professors as well rather than working scientists.

 

[Baggins]

Oh curse those Conservative bloggers!!! Lol.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0322200...s_warming_lies_opedcolumnists_iain_murray.htm

That was an opinion lead attack on Al Gore not a scientific paper. Why post it?

The guy posts the moronic mantra " the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past" without understanding that we don't fear for the Earth but for advanced human civilisation

 

[Steve Petersen]

Another fact is related to the origin of the climate change debate: established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, cosponsors of IPCC, a significant portion of IPCC delegations are formed by meteorologists who have been involved and actively participating since the beginning of the climate change debate.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has a different constituency. As the UNFCCC was signed and ratified by the vast majority of countries from all over the world, the Annex I and non-Annex I countries are well represented, despite the fact that lack of financial resources prevent a wider participation of developing countries representatives. The problem with the representation of countries in the UNFCCC process is of a different nature: as the problem is regarded as a political one because diplomats outnumber scientists in most of delegations.

http://climateethics.org/?p=30

 

[chaim]

What is your point in posting this?

The IPCC deals with the science and the UNFCCC is a policy response to the science. Are you agreeing with what we have been saying all along that the political debate should be about the policy (UNFCCC) and not the science (IPCC)?

http://climateethics.org/?p=30

 

[Btodd]

Whether it's the global warming debate, evolution, 9/11 truth or whatever....I am completely sick and tired of people using the term 'scientist' as a catch-all term of authority on whatever subject they're talking about.

And the making of lists! Here's a list of 'scientists' who doubt evolution, please ignore that we've included mathematicians, computer engineers, and many other 'science' titles that have NOTHING to do with the subject matter.

Just like the 9/11 debate, who cares if a software engineer thinks fire can't bring down a building? Who cares if a landscape architect thinks so? People who don't really care about science, that's who. Appeals to authority in which the 'authorities' aren't even authorities.

/end rant


Btodd

 

[SallyNow]

Let's for a moment pretend that human activity isn't screwing up the climate.

Well, it is screwing up things like the water we drink, the air we breath, the soil we grow our food in. Sure, in North American and Europe we've shipped off a lot of our most polluting factories to countries without human rights laws in place, or with very weak ones, and that are desperate for work. But we're still causing pollution that is hurtful, damaging to the human body, damaging to the plants and animals we rely on, and can even have an effect on local weather patterns.

This should be common knowledge by now, so I won't bother posting links (it would be like posting links to how Henry the 8th had 6 wives or that Pres. George Bush is still in office for a few more weeks!) but hey, if anyone does want to post the obvious, please do so.

 

[Billnew]

A lib believes in global warming?
This is a shock?

Obama said he will sit down with white house management to see what energy saving
programs are being used in the White house.
I guess the incandescent bulb has seen the last of the White house.
Do you think he will check with the mechanics, to make sure they tune up the limos?
Oil changes and air filter changes?
I will feel much better when he does all this.

 

[Guttermouth]

A lib believes in global warming?
This is a shock?

Obama said he will sit down with white house management to see what energy saving
programs are being used in the White house.
I guess the incandescent bulb has seen the last of the White house.
Do you think he will check with the mechanics, to make sure they tune up the limos?
Oil changes and air filter changes?
I will feel much better when he does all this.

So, the alternate position, I guess, is that you want him not to care and you would feel better if he ignored such things?

 

[Baggins]

A lib believes in global warming?
This is a shock?

Obama said he will sit down with white house management to see what energy saving
programs are being used in the White house.
I guess the incandescent bulb has seen the last of the White house.
Do you think he will check with the mechanics, to make sure they tune up the limos?
Oil changes and air filter changes?
I will feel much better when he does all this.

If he doesn't change his own behaviour and that which he controls how can he even start to persuade citizens to do what is right?

It may seem like tokenism but it is in fact an important step

 

[romanov]

I do not believe it has been impossible to grow grapes in the UK at any period since their introduction into the UK apart from, possibly, the mini ice ages like the medieval one. What has restarted in the last half century is the manufacture of wine in the UK not the growing of grapes.

Was there a point in posting this?

Well?

 

[romanov]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

 

[Baggins]

Well?

That didn't answer the question.

What relevance has the return of viniculture to the UK got to global warming?

What was lost wasn't the ability to grow grapes but the desire to make wine - savvy?

 

[Baggins]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Appeals to authority do not work if they are not real authorities. The real authorities are climate scientists and every relevant scientific body accepts global warming.

This panders to the notion among non-scientists that anyone with a degree is some sort pan-subject genius.

I would no more accept a aerospace engineer as an authority on climate science, than I would trust myself to build a functioning airplane.

Sadly these sorts of ridiculous petitions only impress non-scientists

Edited to say - it is rather pathetic that of the 31,072 "scientists" ( many are engineers and that is not the same thing at all) that have signed the list a massive 495 are involved in climate science. For those challenged by maths that is nearly 1.6% of the petition signers - how convincing.

 

[Steve Petersen]

How many of the members of the IPCC are climatologists vs. some other specialty?

 

[chaim]

Depends on which working group your are talking about. However seeing we are talking about the scientific, I assume you would be interested in working group 1. The list of authors to the group one report are available here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
From my brief perusal it appears that they are ALL from atmospheric science institutes or research universities with climate science programs. Don't see any computer science companies on the list.

How many of the members of the IPCC are climatologists vs. some other specialty?

 

[romanov]

That didn't answer the question.

No, I asked one. That is the reason for the little (?) thing at the end.

What relevance has the return of viniculture to the UK got to global warming?

What was lost wasn't the ability to grow grapes but the desire to make wine - savvy?

No, it was the inability to produce the quantity and quality of grapes necessary to produce wines that would not make you gag.

 

[romanov]

Appeals to authority do not work if they are not real authorities.

I think the web site went over this ground very well. The signers of the petition are in scientific or engineering fields and are well versed in the scientific method.

The real authorities are climate scientists and every relevant scientific body accepts global warming.

There are climate scientist who do not subscribe to the man made global warming hoax. And it is a hoax. I base my knowledge in the life time of reading everything I can. I have found some of the most useful knowledge comes from completely unrelated sources. Like the Nenana ice classic. Like the story I read years ago about how Greenland got it's name.

This panders to the notion among non-scientists that anyone with a degree is some sort pan-subject genius.

I would no more accept a aerospace engineer as an authority on climate science, than I would trust myself to build a functioning airplane.

Are you not some sort of geologist or am I confusing you with some-one else on this board. I would be willing to bet you could build a plane because I am sure you can read and do some math. I am sure any-one who can read can come to a conclusion on MMGW.

Sadly these sorts of ridiculous petitions only impress non-scientists

Sadly, too many people are believing in the MMGW hoax.

Global warming is not man made. It is part of a cycle. The planet gets warmer. It gets cooler. This ball of mud and water has been much much warmer and much much cooler in times past. In the short geological history that modern man has been on this planet, we've had what? An ice age, a mini ice age and during the Renaissance the temperature was an average of 5 degrees warmer than it is now. In fact the Renaissance is when human populations exploded on this planet. If I had a choice between global warming and global cooling, I'd pick global warming.

Ok, so I've heard we've experienced a 10th of a degree change in temperature, 3/10ths of a degree change in temperature and 7/10ths of a degree change in temperature. As far as what I know, I'd go with the 3/10ths of a degree change. Let's just assume for the sake of argument, that global warming is man made. (Now in no way is this an admission that global warming is man made. I said we are assuming. And don't give me any of that garbage of, "You know what you do when you assume.") So what do we do to drop the average temperature by 3/10ths of a degree? How many trillions of dollars do we spend dropping the temperature that 3/10ths of a degree? How far back into the dark ages are you willing to go? More importantly, how much power are you willing to give to government over your life for 3/10ths of a degree change? And a change in average temperature that's really not an average temperature at all. It's an average temperature since records have been kept. But for how many millinia were the temperatures on the Earth virtually unknown?