And the exclusion of the scientist who refuted the notion that GW is causing a decline in the polar bear population would be an example to the contrary.Originally Posted by NobleSavage
And the exclusion of the scientist who refuted the notion that GW is causing a decline in the polar bear population would be an example to the contrary.
Who knows why he got kicked out of Copenhagen... He doesn't dispute GW, he just says there are a bunch of polar bears. Big deal, maybe the warming is good for the bears. At least it was the scientific community censuring one of their own an not some outside organization manipulating the process. The same scientific community that normally welcomes dissenting opinions if they are backed up with real research.
Considering that there are numerous fake scientific looking websites, fake "scholarly journals", and well funded front organization, the scientific community is forced to separate the BS from the real science. When credentialed people are payed big money to flat out lie and misrepresent science then I'm not surprised when a number of them get outed. This is not "suppression". I trust the scientific community to separate the truth from fiction more than any other organization.
If you want to go through them, I can site numerous good sources that document cases of where the Bush admin did engage in REAL suppression of science for 8 years. And they are all much more serious than the removal of one polar bear dude.
If there is a conspiracy gong on why would the organization that represents the nations physicists, American Physical Society, publish a paper that was critical of some aspects of GW (as pointed out by EonBlue) and then a year later sum up all the evidence with the following statement:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
July 22, 2008 - APS Reaffirms Climate Change Position
That is a very bold statement and it is coming form the Nation's physicists. Not sociologists, not economists, not parapsychologists, but physicists. The most conservative and rigorous of all the sciences. And they have a history, like the other journals, of welcoming dissenting opinions.
Whether on the subject of GW or on any other topic, those with a vested interest will, and do, contribute billions of dollars into pushing their agendas at all levels.
Follow the money, track website operators, count the number of PO boxes for lobbyists in Washington, watch the obvious blatant lying in media and TV advertising. How the hell media networks in the US are allowed to publish that crap, is anyone's guess - obviously there is no form of effective regulation when it comes to lying. This need not be on any particularly controversial issue - they even lie and distort over trivia (tho even that usually has a background agenda).
Where does the money come from? The source is consumers who were dumb enough to have believed garbage and were then ripped off by every industry with a vested interest/agenda in protecting their patch of turf. These industries, whether oil, pharma, "insurance" and whatever do not give a damn about consumers or anyone other than their own asses - all are naturally predatory and use prayer mats several times a day to worship a dollar. You can be assured each has their "organizations" and "institutes" clogging up the PO boxes in Washington where they specialize in lying and disseminating misinformation.
That does not stop at PO boxes and extends to those in government who "supposed" to be representing a nation, but in fact are "insider dealing" within govt. A classic example of that was the unoriginal use of fear and panic by the last administration with claims of 200,000 to 2 million deaths from avian flu. Now the problem has been laid out - wait for the solution. The govt needs to buy "Tamiflu" from a Rumsfeld pharma corp, Gilead where Gilead gave the distribution rights to Roche. So, let's help Rumsfeld's slush fund - sorry major shareholding - and order 20 million doses of "Tamiflu" for $2 billion and make the world a safer place. In reality Tamiflu is a worthless drug sold for $100/dose which can offer the consumer more side effects than a cure to avian flu - at most it may decrease the number of days a person is ill from avian flu. Who knows? It may be a cure for ingrowing toenails, but little else.
There are no levels parasites will go to propagate their agenda and rarely is that in the interests of anyone other than themselves. These are the corps and "organizations" who, to varying extents, manipulate government policy thru the dissemination of untruths and misinformation to the public - and have no doubts that, under certain circumstances, they would kill for greed and to protect their dollars by selling defective/dangerous product if they thought this would pass unnoticed.
Excuse me while I get some "clean coal" - I want to protect the environment and help reduce greenhouse gasses
What about this
Carbon Dioxide
and this
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport
Why would I trust a no name website over the most prominent scientific journals and
every single scientific body of national or international standing?
Again, why would I trust a politician ( in this case Inhofe who has been throughly discredited by people much more qualified than myself) over established science?
Excuse me while I get some "clean coal" - I want to protect the environment and help reduce greenhouse gasses
You might like this chart Webby,
http://www.publicintegrity.org/inves...es/entry/1171/
Check out how small universities and professional societies are to the industrial groups. No wonder there is so much disinformation.
No problem on the first one as I assume you can refute what is said.
The second has alot more information than you give it credit.
I know there is a lot of info there but is it junk science or the real thing? There is A LOT of "fake" science out there pretending to be the real thing. Since I'm not a scientist the way I figure it out is by looking at what the various scientific bodies and prominent journals (Science, Nature, etc.) have stated.
To me it's a bunch of blah blah by a bunch of self proclaimed knowitalls, based on assumptions of what the temperatures use to be, or what they think the temps use to be as conditions/tools for measuring temperature has changed significantly over time. They can't even be totally accurate for the last 100 year data as measuring methods vary, let alone the last thousand or million. Based on what they base their 'facts' on, there can really be no facts at all, just best guesses and theory.
Sure, the earth is changing, sure, there are alot better ways of utilizing alt energy, and living cleaner, but the fear mongering and bs associated with it all is too much.
I know you are being sarcastic here, but yeah it can be easily refuted. I really don't feel like going through it though. One, I'm not a scientist, but I do trust the scientific community.
Second, I could spend my entire life pointing out the faults in the millions of junk science websites.
I've been arguing the entire time that there is a scientific consensus and that there are good reasons to trust that consensus. I really don't want to get into the details of something that I'm not qualified to discuss.
If you went to a doctor and he said you had a 90% chance of dying if you keep eating salt what are you gonna do? If you go and see 10,000 other doctors and 90% of them say the same thing... what do you do?
That is the situation we are in with GW. The evidence is not 100% and it never will until (or if) it's too late. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence pointing in one direction. It's not a hoax, conspiracy, or fraud. So what should we do?
But they are not "self proclaimed"... Your average scientist has probably spent about 7-10 years in higher ed studying these things. They have to write a dissertation that is scrutinized by a committee every step of the way. They have to pass oral exams in front of their department. They don't just hand out PhDs. Once they have their credentials, they have to submit their papers to journals that are peer reviewed before they are published. It's all a very rigorous process with many checks and balances. Yeah, it's not perfect but I don't see anything better out there.
That speaks volumes NobleSavage. The PO box biz in Washington must be thriving despite the recession. Years ago there used to be 800 max lobbyists - it's more like 3000 now, - that's a lot of PO boxes and one hell of a lot of "opinions", agendas, free meals and disinformation from everyone from clean coal salesmen to Exxon save-the-planet representatives
You might like this chart Webby,
The Climate Change Lobby - Articles - The Climate Change Lobby Explosion
Check out how small universities and professional societies are to the industrial groups. No wonder there is so much disinformation.
See what you mean on universities and prof societies - It's nice to see the real authoritative sources being well represented
Exactly. So how is it that these 700+, and growing(not to mention the 68% of 51,000 scientists in Canada that were canvased), scientists don't get the same respect? Did they not endure the same scrutiny as the rest of them? I know they didn't just get their phd's handed to them either, even though they don't agree with the 'consensus'.
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
-- Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
Here is a small quote from the above link as I know the promoters of gw won't bother to click the link for one reason or another..
Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)
#
This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.
Senator Inhofe list has been well debunked. Just about any time you have a self selected list it's a big tip off that you are dealing with junk science.
Last edited by NobleSavage; July 25th, 2009 at 08:48 PM.
A much more accurate survey was done by Gallop:
http://bucksdelux.com/random/climate_change.pdf
Then why haven't you realised that you have a self selected list and are dealing with junk science?
You posted a link to the definition of 'self selected list', uhm, okay? How about actually debunking the credentials of the ones you are claiming to be involved in junk science.
"They don't agree with me, they must be stupid or getting paid"
Anyway, carry on. Let me know when we can plug a volcano or something so we can really kick C02 in the balls, better yet, let's tax the hell out of everyone(based on junk science) until noone can afford to pay their heat bill.
Take it easy mano, I'm out of this nowhere conversation
Where did I post a self selected list? I didn't, and wouldn't.
Let me google that for youHow about actually debunking the credentials of the ones you are claiming to be involved in junk science.
"They don't agree with me, they must be stupid or getting paid"
Vocanos and natural sources of C02 are part of the natural carbon cycle. The cycle is carefully balanced and we evolved to live on the earth very recently (on a geological time scale). By adding anthropogenic sources it accumulates in the atmosphere and is not removed by the natural cycle. It might be only a few hundred ppm but it's enough to cause a green house effect. The glass on a green house need not be thick, just transparent and insulating.Anyway, carry on. Let me know when we can plug a volcano or something so we can really kick C02 in the balls, better yet,
Yeah the CO2 was much greater several millions of years ago be the earth was much different then and we weren't around.
Sounds like YOU are being an alarmist.let's tax the hell out of everyone(based on junk science
If what is posted isn't on your list, then you disagree with it. That isn't self selection? Your Nature and Science are the end all of information?
Google, for me, whatever your want, dispute the scientists I quoted. They don't matter?(I know I know, it's only a few compared to kajillions of others saying that is was colder before they even knew what a thermometer was, yet they can know what the temperature was back then) It's easy to pick and choose what you respond to
If you say so..
Me alarmist? LOFL-- That's right, companies won;t ever pass their extra tax burden on to consumers, it just doesn't happen. Obama saying these bills would 'necessarily rise', not to mention real people that crunch real numbers(not like these scientists and what they thought the temp was 500 yrs ago) saying what it will do to power bills and beyond.(I'd google that for you, but I guess you know how)
Like I said, it is obvious we will not agree and the digs are rising fast, so you keep on fear mongering and I'll keep being an alarmist.
Peace
Nature and Science aren't self selected. They earned there reputation by doing good science for over 100 years. I merely picked Nature and Science as they are the two most prominent. I'm happy to include any peer reviewed journal, however each individual publications weight is determined by how many other scientists cite it. That is the scientific model. And as I have mentioned before it is how Google came up with page rank, they just copied the science model .
I think you misunderstand the term "self selected list" - it's a term of art. This is an example of a self selected list as opposed to a statically sound poll:
Who's Who in Creation/Evolution - CreationSuperLibrary.com
Are those scientists actively publishing in peer reviewed journal on the topic of climate change? If so find me the actual papers and we can go from there. I'm not gonna waste my time going through a bunch of quotes put together by a politician with a reputation for being disingenuous.Google, for me
The CBO (which is respected on both sides of the isle for real numbers) puts the figure at $175 per household by 2020.Me alarmist? LOFL-- That's right, companies won;t ever pass their extra tax burden on to consumers, it just doesn't happen. Obama saying these bills would 'necessarily rise', not to mention real people that crunch real numbers(not like these scientists and what they thought the temp was 500 yrs ago) saying what it will do to power bills and beyond.(I'd google that for you, but I guess you know how
http://www.eenews.net/public/25/1145...t_daily_01.pdf
Personally, I think it will just end the current socialism we have with the costs of burning fossil fuels and force people to be more responsible in their decisions. And it will level the playing field for alternative energies that don't enjoy the same subsidies as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a dead end and markets suck at long term planning. For the future of our nation we need something to help us kick the habit.
I have never been alarmist. In fact I'm on recored in this very forum stating that if the proposed solution was to live like the Amish I'd be against it. The only thing I have argued is that there is a scientific consensus and that consensus is that GW is real. I've also tried to point out all the pseudoscience that surrounds this issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
