Lets see Rome and Copenhagen comment on this one

[sidbrown]

Who said it does? I was speaking of fixed scientific principles which can be applied to any given area of study. Do you need an advanced degree in Nuclear Physics to know that it is wrong to repair a reactor with duct tape and nails? A scientist - any type of accredited scientist, will recognize faulty methodology.

So, are you in effect saying that the only credible scientists are those you agree with?

Or, that GW theory is actually an established, bedrock fact and only the profoundly stupid or intrinsically evil will question it?

The above are simple questions and not accusations.

The original post claims to have the signatures of 30,000 American scinetists who are skeptical of global warming. It says that they are experts.
But the list of 30,000 people includes medical doctors and others who have no expertise in climatology. In fact of the 30,000 American “scinetists” listed there, there are only 39 who are climed to be climatologists. Further, there is no indication as to their institution and no address is given, and there is no listing of their published research papers in the area of climatology.
So it really isn’t 30,000. It is actually 39 people who are climatologists. And of those 39, how many have published research peer reviewed papers in this area, so that they can in fact, be called experts, And how many of the thirty nine been receiving money from big oil or from OPEC? We really don;t know, since information on the 30,000 scientists is woefully incomplete.

 

[sidbrown]

Hmm…I guess you can’t know about anything unless you have a degree in it? Does my education stop at graduation?

The question is whether a bachelor’s degree in mathemcatics or some other field makes on and expert in climatology. It is claimed that thirty thousand scientific experts have signed the petition. But this is essentially dishonest since they are not experts in climatology. For example, take a look at the first five signers of the petition:

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).
5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

 

[po18guy]

The original post claims to have the signatures of 30,000 American scinetists who are skeptical of global warming. It says that they are experts.
But the list of 30,000 people includes medical doctors and others who have no expertise in climatology. In fact of the 30,000 American “scinetists” listed there, there are only 39 who are climed to be climatologists. Further, there is no indication as to their institution and no address is given, and there is no listing of their published research papers in the area of climatology.
So it really isn’t 30,000. It is actually 39 people who are climatologists. And of those 39, how many have published research peer reviewed papers in this area, so that they can in fact, be called experts, And how many of the thirty nine been receiving money from big oil or from OPEC? We really don;t know, since information on the 30,000 scientists is woefully incomplete.

If only one peer-reviewed climatologist disagrees, does that mean he is incorrect?

You are arguing a non-point. The data behind the GW/CC rage appears to have been cooked. Would an accredited, peer-reviewed scientist consider this a problem?

 

[sidbrown]

If only one peer-reviewed climatologist disagrees, does that mean he is incorrect?

You are arguing a non-point. The data behind the GW/CC rage appears to have been cooked. Would an accredited, peer-reviewed scientist consider this a problem?

No. the claim was that there were 30,000 scientists and experts who were global warming skeptics. I think that this claim has pretty well been debunked and shown to be an essentially dishonest claim.

 

[qui_est_ce]

HUH?

       ***Qualifications of Signers
       Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list          if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of      Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.      The petition has been circulated only in the United States.      ***{snip}

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)
1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

         2. Earth (2,239)                                        I) Earth Science (94)

II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

         3. Environment (986)                                        I) Environmental Engineering (487)

II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

         [/INDENT]Computers & Math (935)
                              1. Computer Science (242)          
     2. Math (693)          [INDENT]                              I) Mathematics (581)

II) Statistics (112)

         [/INDENT]Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
                              1. Physics (5,225)          [INDENT]                              I) Physics (2,365)

II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

         2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,821)
1. Chemistry (3,128)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

         2. Biology (1,438)                                        I) Biology (1,049)

II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

         3. Agriculture (783)                                        I) Agricultural Science (296)

II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

         [/INDENT]Medicine (3,046)
                             1. Medical Science (719)          
     2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,103)
1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

         2. General Science (269)

No. the claim was that there were 30,000 scientists and experts who were global warming skeptics. I think that this claim has pretty well been debunked and shown to be an essentially dishonest claim.

Oh the Bull****!! The actual science behind the whole theory has been debunked, yet you wish to pick apart the qualifications of the many who disagree.

It has already been agreed that climate change is real. PO118guy has brought up the real question of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Instead of answering that question, you continue to rant against the signers.

What, Sid, qualifies you to have any say here?​

 

[sidbrown]

Oh the Bull****!! The actual science behind the whole theory has been debunked, yet you wish to pick apart the qualifications of the many who disagree.

It has already been agreed that climate change is real. PO118guy has brought up the real question of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Instead of answering that question, you continue to rant against the signers.

What, Sid, qualifies you to have any say here?

So your response is use vulgar barnyard expressions and to launch an ad hominem argument. I do not think that more than 39 or the 30,000 expert scientists listed on the petition are actually climatologists, and where are the credentials of those 39 who are claimed to be climatologists. What papers have they published? I am waiting, because a simple vetting of the first five signers of the list shows conclusively that they are not scientific experts in climatology and have no published papers in that field.

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).
5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

 

[po18guy]

No. the claim was that there were 30,000 scientists and experts who were global warming skeptics. I think that this claim has pretty well been debunked and shown to be an essentially dishonest claim.

Let’s make this basic: Is it bad for a scientist to lie?

 

[Calliso]

Let’s make this basic: Is it bad for a scientist to lie?

Where is the evidence of lies? I mean something other then cherry picked often taken out of context emails? And there are more scientists involved in climate science then those involved in the email thing anyway.

 

[po18guy]

Where is the actually good evidence data was manipulated? The emails certainly aren;t it.

Whether simply faulty, or fraudulent, it must be questioned. I was trying, apparently in vain, to get another poster off of the red herring of a petition. The entire world now seems to be calling the data into question. Before we re-make the earth’s social and governmental systems, shouldn’t we make danged sure that the data is:

1. True
2. Accurately measures what it purports to measure and
3. Shows an irrefutable correlation with what is allegedly occurring?

 

[Calliso]

Oh the Bull****!! The actual science behind the whole theory has been debunked, yet you wish to pick apart the qualifications of the many who disagree.

It has already been agreed that climate change is real. PO118guy has brought up the real question of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Instead of answering that question, you continue to rant against the signers.

What, Sid, qualifies you to have any say here?

The science has been debunked? that is a pretty strong claims care to actually back it up with some evidence?

 

[Calliso]

Whether simply faulty, or fraudulent, it must be questioned. I was trying, apparently in vain, to get another poster off of the red herring of a petition. The entire world now seems to be calling the data into question. Before we re-make the earth’s social and governmental systems, shouldn’t we make danged sure that the data is:

1. True
2. Accurately measures what it purports to measure and
3. Shows an irrefutable correlation with what is allegedly occurring?

Well we cant irrefutably prove humans are the cause not without having another earth we can speed time up on and see what happens with no humans but everything else being the same.

Here is more evidence for temperature rise. skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html as well as going over the evidence that directly points to humans again

It is also important to note that the science behind co2 being a greenhouse gas was established long before now. aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

[po18guy]

Well we cant irrefutably prove humans are the cause not without having another earth we can speed time up on and see what happens with no humans but everything else being the same.

Here is more evidence for temperature rise. skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html as well as going over the evidence that directly points to humans again

It is also important to note that the science behind co2 being a greenhouse gas was established long before now. aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

OK, we’ll go with you on everything. What do we do now?

Population control will be part of ‘the answer’. It always is. So, who volunteers to be soylent green?

 

[sidbrown]

OK, we’ll go with you on everything. What do we do now?

Population control will be part of ‘the answer’. It always is. So, who volunteers to be soylent green?

The last time I looked it was mostly the Catholics who were pushing NFP .

 

[RobbyS]

Yes well why does The Holy Father in Rome join in and say that we need to look after the enviroment and many other clergy around the world siding with the lefties.

The Holy Father is a European and his personal political views reflect this.

 

[po18guy]

The last time I looked it was mostly the Catholics who were pushing NFP .

Yur killin me, sid!!! First time in history that Catholics are blamed for de-populating the earth. Well, then, your time here is obviously wasted. Best go on some third world forums and talk to them all about it.

 

[sidbrown]

Yur killin me, sid!!! First time in history that Catholics are blamed for de-populating the earth. Well, then, your time here is obviously wasted. Best go on some third world forums and talk to them all about it.

In our neighborhood there are Muslim families with six or seven children. Most of the Catholic families around here have two children, although there is one with three children.

 

[Hesychios]

Chris 0711 Sorry, lets change **** to nonsense.

Now what part of " the world does not have a global warming problem" don’t you understand.

And don’t give me the “enviromentally aware and responsible” nonsense.

THERE IS NO EVIROMENT PROBLEM.

The world has never been in better shape.

Wow.

 

[Hesychios]

The Holy Father is a European and his personal political views reflect this.

I think that if true, for this reason alone (not to mention some others), you are very lucky to have him.

 

[Hesychios]

Let’s make this basic: Is it bad for a scientist to lie?

How do we know that thirty thousand scientists have signed such a petition?

What are their credentials, who has verified this?

 

[Joab_Anias]

What the heck is a carbon-neutral city?

You really don’t know? Hint, it has to do with emissions and balance.