Yeah, about that letter to the UN with 500 signatures (re: climate)

[SLP]

I was made aware of a letter, signed by 500 "scientists" sent to the UN to let the delegates there know that Climate Change is just a big hoax.

500 scientists? We'd better take heed, right?

Not so fast - come to find out, only 2.8% of the signatories are climate scientists.
The rest are lawyers, engineers, etc.

AND the data they relied on was largely bogus and/or disinformation. Goodness, the lengths denialists with agendas will go to...



Letter signed by "500 scientists" relies on inaccurate claims about climate science

A few tidbits:

"Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading."​

SUMMARY
This letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.

The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.

And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science.


"I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one."​

Looks like, for some, increased pollution and possible destruction of life as we know and enjoy it is the price our (and their) grandkids will pay for good market returns for billionaires...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually, it would only take two scientists telling the truth in order to take heed, or warning, if doing so would help.

Since in the politic game, definitions change at the drop of a hat, and loyalties at the drop of a few dollars, and facts change as fast as money changes hands,
so
it is 'never-ending', never helpful, never solving anything --- just a continual deception and
pumping more money around....

 

[pitabread]

Not so fast - come to find out, only 2.8% of the signatories are climate scientists.
The rest are lawyers, engineers, etc.

AND the data they relied on was largely bogus and/or disinformation. Goodness, the lengths denialists with agendas will go to...

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually, it would only take two scientists telling the truth in order to take heed, or warning, if doing so would help.

Since in the politic game, definitions change at the drop of a hat, and loyalties at the drop of a few dollars, and facts change as fast as money changes hands,
so
it is 'never-ending', never helpful, never solving anything --- just a continual deception and
pumping more money around....

If you have a dictionary I recommend looking up "prejudice" and "bias". Then spend a full day, in a restful setting, reflecting on the extent to which these mind sets have influenced your viewpoint. I can't change your mind, but you are probably smart enough to do it on your own. I wish you productive contemplation.

 

[SLP]

Actually, it would only take two scientists telling the truth in order to take heed, or warning, if doing so would help..

Pity the denialists cannot find even two.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Pity the denialists cannot find even two.

Why can't they find two ? It is not at all impossible. Just usually not sought for. And of course not published when found. OR , overwhelmed with disparate false accounts to bury the truth to the point of not being seen by most anyone.....

 

[SLP]

Why can't they find two ?

You'd have to ask them.

It is not at all impossible. Just usually not sought for. And of course not published when found. OR , overwhelmed with disparate false accounts to bury the truth to the point of not being seen by most anyone.....

Right, OK.

Tell me - what is it like to see a conspiracy around every corner?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You'd have to ask them.

They did not say they could not find two.

If any one of them has honestly searched, they found them long ago , eh?

YOU SAID they could not.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You'd have to ask them.

Right, OK.

Tell me - what is it like to see a conspiracy around every corner?

Do you mean common business model ? Common politic practice ? As is commonly taught in all the schools, all the parties, all the business functions and seminars .....

 

[SLP]

Do you mean common business model ? Common politic practice ? As is commonly taught in all the schools, all the parties, all the business functions and seminars .....

No idea what you are talking about, and frankly, don't care.

 

[SLP]

YOU SAID they could not.....

They can't, so it seems.

 

[JackRT]

The Theory of Evolution has been attacked in much the same way as Anthropogenic Global Warming. For example:

Claim:

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

***

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They can't, so it seems.

I think you mean they haven't shown you yet.
If anyone searches, I believe they can find them .....

 

[Shemjaza]

I think you mean they haven't shown you yet.
If anyone searches, I believe they can find them .....

I've searched before... all I found was lies and misunderstandings. If you can actually present some coherent science on the matter I'd be interested.

(But history has made me doubtful).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've searched before... all I found was lies and misunderstandings. If you can actually present some coherent science on the matter I'd be interested.

(But history has made me doubtful).

If anyone trusts 'men' / 'science'/ in the flesh, then there is no remedy, no answer. Only a curse. (as Yahuweh shows throughout all His Word)

 

[Ophiolite]

If anyone trusts 'men' / 'science'/ in the flesh, then there is no remedy, no answer. Only a curse. (as Yahuweh shows throughout all His Word)

10/10 for your avoidance tactics. I don't think I have ever seen you answer a simple question in a direct manner. Does it ever occur to you that this could be seen as dishonest? Surely that is not how you would wish a Christian to be perceived?

 

[SLP]

I think you mean they haven't shown you yet.

They've tried. And failed. A great example is the letter mentioned in the OP. That was presented here in another thread by a denialist, who strongly felt that the letter was PROOF that his denialism had merit.

If anyone searches, I believe they can find them .....

I don't.

 

[SLP]

If anyone trusts 'men' / 'science'/ in the flesh, then there is no remedy, no answer. Only a curse. (as Yahuweh shows throughout all His Word)

Cool dodge.

Expected no less.

 

[SLP]

10/10 for your avoidance tactics. I don't think I have ever seen you answer a simple question in a direct manner. Does it ever occur to you that this could be seen as dishonest? Surely that is not how you would wish a Christian to be perceived?

It may not be dishonest - it may be all he is capable of.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Cool dodge.

Expected no less.

haha.... did not mean to fool anyone - I had a chevy most of my life, and now a ford when possible. One pickup truck that was a dodge, from chicago - cool truck, cool dodge, yes.