650 scientists oppose global warming

[SpidermanTUba]

Al Bore is a scientist in B.S.

and the biggest hypricate to walk this earth.

his house wasn't even environmental fitted, until he was caught and shamed into it..what a friggin JOKE..

Why is it that when confronted with any argument having to do with global warming - all the righties can do is say "Bla bla bla Al Gore" ? WE GET IT. You don't like Al Gore and think he's a total dork. Big fucking deal. Its IRRELEVANT.

[SpidermanTUba]

In Nukeman's defense he's an honest person who isn't interrested in what he can get out of people and who he can use. He's also used to people not shooting each other for a pair of shoes.

So I guess he just didn't fit in.


The French Quarter stinks like a toilet during the rainy season. Nasty place

That's your upper lip. The French Quarter has a new sanitation service and is as clean as any city's down town area can be.

I don't see what killing people for their shoes has to do with anything. Are you talking about West Philadelphia? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A964958260 Because West Philadelphia isn't in New Orleans, its in Philadelphia. That's pretty far away.

Nor do I see what Nukeman's honesty has to do with his utter inability to have a good time.

[SpidermanTUba]

it's just that a lot of environmentalist and politicians who have latched on this, are not..

Who cares? What does that have to do with the science?

[SpidermanTUba]

Yup, and this was after "scientists" predicted that the arctic would be ice free this summer, never happened.

They didn't. You just made that up.

This summer did have the 2nd lowest arctic ice level since 1979. 9% more than the record low, 34% less than the 1979-2000 average.
http://http://www.nsidc.org/images/a...01_Figure5.png

By the way the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old. 150 into 4.5 billion is what percentage?

I'm sure you can do the math yourself. If you can't maybe you should find a new topic to talk about. when you're done please explain the point and what the age of the Earth has to do with this discussion?

[SpidermanTUba]

Even if that's true (I want a link) winter 08/09 is setting cold records and the first warmest year in the past 150 was 1933.

You want a link? Take your pick http://www.google.com/search?q=10th+...ord&as_rights=


The first warmest year in the past 150 IN THE UNITED STATES ONLY was 1934, not 1933. The first warmest year in the past 150 GLOBALLY was 1998. It is GLOBAL warming we're talking about, you are aware of that, right?

Get your facts straight.

[Trigg]

That's your upper lip. The French Quarter has a new sanitation service and is as clean as any city's down town area can be.

I don't see what killing people for their shoes has to do with anything. Are you talking about West Philadelphia? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A964958260 Because West Philadelphia isn't in New Orleans, its in Philadelphia. That's pretty far away.

Nor do I see what Nukeman's honesty has to do with his utter inability to have a good time.

Well it needed a new service, because before every time it rained the sewers would back up and it would smell like an port-a-pot.

West Philadelphia has nothing on New Orleans. I'll get the article if you really want it, the one that states New Orleans is more dangerous than Iraq. Wonderful place, and yes a kid did kill someone for a pair of shoes while we lived there.

Nukeman's honesty has everything to do with why he didn't stay....that crooked coonass way of doing business.

Mardi Gras did rock.......but that doesn't make up for the fact that it has always been a dangerous city.

[Hobbit]

You want a link? Take your pick http://www.google.com/search?q=10th+...ord&as_rights=


The first warmest year in the past 150 IN THE UNITED STATES ONLY was 1934, not 1933. The first warmest year in the past 150 GLOBALLY was 1998. It is GLOBAL warming we're talking about, you are aware of that, right?

Get your facts straight.

First off, I have a fact for you. Railing somebody for having their facts screwed up for being off by one year makes you a dick.

Second off, a google search which points to nothing but newspaper articles citing the charts you've posted rather than the method of data collection is both lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Third, don't you remember that thing about NASA, who compiles all these temperature readings, issuing that contraction a few years ago about how 1998 wasn't as hot as reported and that 1934 was hotter?

Fourth, I'm looking at the ice mass charts wanting to know how the data was collected, not the whole '10th warmest year' since our records only date back to the end of the mini ice age, after which I would expect it to warm up a bit.

Fifth, shrink your damn charts. I don't want to set my screen resolution to 10kx10k just to get rid of the scroll bars.

[MtnBiker]

They didn't. You just made that up.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weathe...ing/index.html

I'm sure you can do the math yourself. If you can't maybe you should find a new topic to talk about. when you're done please explain the point and what the age of the Earth has to do with this discussion?

The narrow scope of your historical climate data as compared to the actual historical climate of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old is absurd. Perhaps you should attempt to embrace such or find a new topic.

[April15]

(NOTE: I am not attempting to debate the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming in this thread - rather, I am wanting to debate only the claim there is no consensus.)


This thread is to address the Senate Minority Report titled U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9


This report has been used by many to show there is widespread skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming. There are numerous issues with the report.

First off - this list in question originated as a list of 400+, in a similarly titled report, which can be found here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb


This list of 400 supposed climate scientists included economists and other social scientists, retired scientists, TV weathermen, and amateurs. To be sure - the list does include some people who are practicing scientists in a relevant field, I am not disputing that. For instance, Dr. Claude Allegre, a top Geophysicist in France. But it also includes people like Bob Edleman, former Chief Engineer of Boeing's Electronic Systems Division. How does being a former chief engineer of a private company's electronics division qualify one to issue an expert opinion on climate science related issues? It doesn't.



So let's break down this original list of 413 names. Actually its done quite nicely for us.




http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...ience-46011008


(20 of those 70)

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...mists-46011008


Thus 17% of the original list of 413 don't even have a background that would qualify them to comment on the issue. They are as qualified as Joe the Plumber to comment on it. Joe the Plumber's ordinary guy opinion might be important in an election but it bears no relevance on scientific truth.





[link=(http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...011008-3)]LINK[/link]







http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...money-46011008





http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...tired-46011008

Now just because you're retired doesn't mean your mind isn't sharp and you aren't as smart as you used to be - but it does generally mean you're not on the cutting edge anymore. Any new theory is going to have a disproportionate number of skeptics in the ranks of the retirees of the field. Quantum physics, for example, was not readily embraced by physicists who got their PhD's in 1875.



That still leaves a few hundred qualified scientists who are presently working in a relevant field and who aren't taking money from oil companies, true. But they are a very tiny minority. The American Geophysical Union has issued a statement in support of anthropogenic global warming - they have 50,000 members.


(The above is sort of a short synopses of this:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...money-46011008)

This new list is just an extension of the old bullshit list.


The new lists includes gross misreprentations of the claims of some scientists whose work is quoted. http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/1...re-since-1850/





Here's another:




http://gristmill.grist.org/print/200...ow_comments=no



One could continue to pick apart the list of "650 scientists" all day long. We might be left with a few hundred that are a) qualified b) not being misrepresented c) active in their field and most importantly of all d) actual scientists - but so what? Compared to the tens of thousands who disagree with them - that is nothing.


Every single major scientific society in the U.S. and in most of the civilized world have issued statements in support of AGW. These in include the aforementioned American Geophysical Union (50,000 members), the American Meteorological Society (11,000 members), the American Chemcial Society (160,000 members), the American Institute of Physics (46,000 members), the list goes on.

The only major American scientific society which has not issued a statement in support of AGW is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who has issued a statement essentially not taking a position. The originally issued a statement against it - but members started resigning their membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...physical_Union




To sum up, two points:

1) The legions of scientists who support AGW are astronomically huge compared to the very small but vocal minority who are opposed.

2) Whenever you see someone claiming to have a "list of (x number) of scientists" that are opposed to anthropogenic global warming - actually check the list out. Though there will be several entries which do support the author's claim, you will find many questionable entries, they may even outnumber the ones that make sense.

That there is a lack of agreement in the sciences is great. It means the theory is in constant testing.

[Classact]

(NOTE: I am not attempting to debate the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming in this thread - rather, I am wanting to debate only the claim there is no consensus.)

What data do you compare Senator Inhofe's data against? What authority found a scientific consensus and what was the date of that report? Is Senator Inhofe report newer than the consensus authority report? I bet your base consensus is four or five years old, maybe half of the original people died and the other half changed their position... can you prove me wrong?

[Classact]

Did I lose you some place?

[Classact]

Maybe the same people are on the consensus report that are on Senator Inhofe's report? Got report?

[Classact]

Where did SpidermanTUba go? I really want to know if Inhofe and the other report have the same names on them... duh