To the global warming nay-sayers

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllSeasons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Funny how you haven’t linked a source to prove any of your fallacious claims for the duration of this thread.

If global warming isn’t happening, as I and certain others on this thread know, why should we be afraid of it?
I have this cartoon on my office door. A scientist is giving a talk at a podium telling that over 2000 climate scienstists have accepted climate change, and there’s this guy in the audience who responds, “I’d like a second opinion.”

I’ve linked sources over and over again here on this thread and for the past 3 years on CAF threads. Plus you all know full well how to seek out information on a topic. If you aren’t internet savvy, there are local bookstores, the local library and university libraries. It almost seems as if some people do not want to know the truth about climate change, but purposely seek out false information and refuse to even consider the straight-forward scientific findings and theories.

Anyway, here goes again – an more extensive list.

For starters on basic information about CC see links at: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

For rebuttals against denialist industry claims see:
News articles to keep up with arising climate change issues and studies (for the studies you can then “google scholar” the lead author they interview and other info, and usually find the study):
climateark.org/

Climate data links: tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/

More in next…
 
More resources on climate change, the science & impacts:
  • Benestad, R. 2010. “Cold Winter in a World of Warming?” RealClimate.org, 12/14/10, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/.
  • Benton, M. J. 2003. When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time. London: Thames & Hudson.
  • Betts, R., M. Collins, D. L. Hemming, C. D. Jones, J. A. Lowe, and M. G. Sanderson. 2011. “When Could Global Warming Reach 4°C?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369:67-84.
  • Cline, W. R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. “Asia.” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-506.
  • Dai, A. 2010. “Drought Under Global Warming: A Review.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change. 10/19/10, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/pdf.
  • Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
  • Gornall, J., R. Betts, E. Burke, R. Clark, J. Camp, K. Willett, and A. Wiltshire. 2010. “Implications of Climate Change for Agricultural Productivity in the Early Twenty-First Century.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 365:2973-2989.
  • Hansen, J. 2010. Storms of My Grandchildren:The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. NY: Bloombury.
  • Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo. 2010. “If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Darned Cold?” columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
  • Hays, G. C., A. J. Richardson, and C. Robinson. 2005. “Climate Change and Marine Plankton.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(6): 337-344.
  • Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, and E. G. P. Greenfield, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737-1742.
  • Högy, P., H. Wieser, P. Köhler, K. Schwadorf , J. Breuer, J. Franzaring, R. Muntifering and A. Fangmeier. 2009. “Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.” Plant Biology 11: 60-69.
  • Hunter, M. D. 2001. “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 153-159.
  • Kehrwald, N. M., L. G. Thompson, Y. Tandong, E. Mosley-Thompson, U. Schotterer, V. Alfimov, J. Beer, J. Eikenberg, and M. E. Davis. 2008. “Mass Loss on Himalayan Glacier Endangers Water Resources.” Geophysical Research Letters 35: L22503.
  • Kundzewicz, Z. W., L. J. Mata, N. W. Arnell, P. Döll, B. Jimenez, K. Miller, T. Okt, Z. Sen, and I. Shiklomanov. 2008. “The Implications of Projected Climate Change for Freshwater Resources and their Management.” Hydrological Sciences 53(1): 3-10.
  • Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
  • Long, S. P., E. A. Ainsworth, A. D. B. Leakey, J. Nösberger, D. R. Ort. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312(5782): 1918-1921.
more in next…
 
more CC sources:
  • Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, M. I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M. C. O. Ferrari, and D. P. Chivers. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29):12930-12934.
  • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2010. Assessing an IPCC Assessment: An Analysis of Statement on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. The Hague: Bilthoven. pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf.
  • New, M., D. Liverman, H. Schroder, and K. Anderson. 2011. “Four Degrees and Beyond: the Potential for a Global Temperature Increase of Four Degrees and Its Implications.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369:6-19.
  • Oh, N-H., and D. D. Richter, Jr. 2004. “Soil acidification induced by elevated atmospheric CO2” Global Change Biology 10.11: 1936-1946.
  • Oschlies, A., K. Schulz, U. Riebesell, and A. Schmittner. 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s increase in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.
  • Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, and Co-authors. 2007. “Technical summary.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23-78.
  • Qiu, J. 2010. “Measuring the Meltdown.” Nature 468:141-142.
  • Rahmstorf, S., M. Mann, R. Benestad, G. Schmidt, and W. Connolley. 2005. “Hurricanes and Global Warming – Is There a Connection?” RealClimate.org, 9/02/05, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/.
  • Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(38): 14245-14250.
  • Roemmich, D., and J. McGowan. 1995. “Climatic Warming and the Decline of Zooplankton in the California Current.” Science 267(5202): 1324-1326.
  • Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.
  • Schellnhuber, J. 2009. “Terra quasi-incognita: beyond the 2°C line.” 4 Degrees and Beyond, International Climate Conference, 28-30 September, Oxford, UK.
  • Schellnhuber, J. 2010. “Tragic Triumph.” Climatic Science 100: 229-238.
  • Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598.
  • Shakhoval, N., I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk,V. Yusupov, D. Kosmach. and Ö. Gustafsson. 2010. “Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf,” Science 327(5970): 1246-1250
  • Thornton, P. K., P. G. Jones, P. J. Ericksen, and A. J. Challinor. 2011. “Agriculture and Food Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa in a 4° C+ World.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369: 117-136.
  • UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2009. Recent Trends in Melting Glaciers, Tropospheric Temperatures over the Himalayas and Summer Monsoon Rainfall over India. United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. mtnforum.org/rs/ol/counter_docdown.cfm?fID=6017.pdf.
  • Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. “Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(51): 21527-21532.
  • Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.
1000s of references can be found on these sites (don’t worry, they’ve indicated the errata):
 
Global warming is merely a scare-tactic used by lobbyists and the government to get what they want with less effort.

Pope Francis, God bless 'im, is not an authority in the matters of science. Certainly, we are all called to take care of the Earth and its creatures.

We aren’t called to let fear rule our lives in an unsightly and foolish manner, however.

Fie on the myth of so-called “global warming.” Fie!
 
lynvic,

Sorry, you seem like a very nice and sincere person. But you lost me completely with your gross mischaracterization of the ‘Climategate’ e-mails mixing the attempt to use tree rings to deny the existence of the medieval warming period with the ‘hide the decline’ attempt to obfuscate and deny the very recent decline in temps. You also overlooked the CYA e-mails urging each other to delete data, source e-mails, and the shouting down of pro-AGW climate scientists pointing out the science was being corrupted and it would damage credibility in the future. You also overlook the collusion revealed in those e-mails in ensuring anti-AGW studies would not be published in peer-reviewed magazines, not based on their methodoligies or data (publicly available and sourced), but because they contradicted the AGW gospels and could not be refuted on the basis of science. The whole field has been too highly politicized.

Peace to you and yours,
 
Again with the extreme rhetoric!! No value whatsoever? Did you really type that? Really?
It does appear to me that they do not care about life. But perhaps it is just a matter of them not giving AGW a hearing, and the holy fathers speaking on it a hearing.

As religious people, we always have to be aware of our human nature and the devil harming and deceiving us. That goes for me probably more than for others. I am not lobbing ad hominems at skeptics out of some dislike or hatred or disrespect. I’m honestly concerned about skeptics and the victims of AGW.

And I’ve been over this again and again in my own mind over the past 20+ years to see where I might be wrong, thinking:

(1) supposing they are right (big relief and halleluia) … but I “foolishly” mitigate AGW anyway, then no harm done, but a lot of good done – I’ve saved a lot of money and improved my health by mitigating a false climate change, and I’ve mitigated a host of other true problems.

(2) Supposing I am right, but I (and others) fail to mitigate – then we are consigning a huge portion of the human population on into the future to horrible harms and death.

It seems to me the ONLY option under such a grave threat (even if there are very serious doubts about it) is to mitigate…at the very least in “no regrets” ways.

Maybe I need to stress more strongly what could happen over the next decades, centuries, and millennia if we fail to mitigate, and it does look like we are on that crash course. Maybe something like what happened 251 mill yrs ago when 90% of life on earth died from a great global warming, except that we are contributing to a great warming orders of magnitude faster than ever before; the sun is a lot hotter now (on its slow course to self-destruction in some billions of years); and there’s more life to be wiped out now, including humans. There just is no good analog for our present dire predicament, but perhaps the end-Permian great die out might help people to understand what could happen.

See:
I hope that helps people think about turning off lights not in use and many other practical things they can do to mitigate climate change.
 
If the Pope or the Catholic Church publicly advocated its stance to combat global warming, would you still deny it?

Catholic Church Goes Green To Counter Global Warming
The headline is misleading to say the least.

Did you even read the article? Because here is what the Pope said:

“We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink, as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.”

That is NOT an endorsement of global warming. These are basic tenets of living that all people want and they best come from free market capitalism.

Here is where it comes from:

"Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Ph.D, is a non-Catholic, glacial and atmospheric researcher at Scripps Research Institution of Oceanography. He is also a member of PAS.

Ramanathan and his team of researchers presented the Vatican with details about the impact of melting glaciers. He said fighting global warming is a moral issue."
 
Global warming is merely a scare-tactic used by lobbyists and the government to get what they want with less effort.

Pope Francis, God bless 'im, is not an authority in the matters of science. Certainly, we are all called to take care of the Earth and its creatures.

We aren’t called to let fear rule our lives in an unsightly and foolish manner, however.

Fie on the myth of so-called “global warming.” Fie!
They never seem to look at the complete thermodynamic cycle. 🤷:eek:
 
I have this cartoon on my office door. A scientist is giving a talk at a podium telling that over 2000 climate scienstists have accepted climate change, and there’s this guy in the audience who responds, “I’d like a second opinion.”
I’ll see your 2,000 “climate scientists,” (what is that, anyway) and raise you 31,000 documented REAL scientists, with their names. I want the full names of all 2,000 “climate scientists” you keep referencing. ALL 2000.

Petition Project includes 31,487 names
 
I’ll see your 2,000 “climate scientists,” (what is that, anyway) and raise you 31,000 documented REAL scientists, with their names. I want the full names of all 2,000 “climate scientists” you keep referencing. ALL 2000.

Petition Project includes 31,487 names
I don’t consider dentists and philosophers to be climate scientists, just bec they have Ph.D.s or Dr. before their name. Neither do I consider engineers, geologists (not specializing in climate science), astrophysicists, theoretical physicists, or nuclear physicists to be climate scientists. And I really do not consider Drs. ‘Frank Burns’ ‘Honeycutt’ and ‘Pierce’ from the hit-show MAS*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell (‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’) to be climate scientists.

My bar is pretty high – they should be working in the area of climate science and publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of climate science…which I believe narrows your list to about 15 or something…mostly fossil-fuel funded or connected, or previous part of the “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” campaign.

see: desmogblog.com/oregon-petition

For the well over 2,000 scientists who actually contribute to climate science see the reference pages of the IPCC for both their names and the studies they publish (go to each chapter in the following 2 sections (WGI-Science and WGII-Impacts) and at the end will be “references”):
That only has studies that go up thru 2005; the new IPCC report should be coming out later this year. For more recent studies try Science, Nature, PNAS, J. of Climatology, Geophysical Research Letters, and other top science journals.
 
…Pope Francis, God bless 'im, is not an authority in the matters of science. Certainly, we are all called to take care of the Earth and its creatures…
Just as I thought, even if the pope is a scientist, as Pope Francis is, people still won’t accept what he has to stay…denigrating him as “not a scientist” or “not a climate scientist,” while accept what dentists or engineers have to say against AGW as God’s truth. 🙂

But anyway, as far as I know Pope Francis has not spoken directly about climate change, only about protecting creation (which also includes stopping abortion, according to his meaning). The OP is about what BXVI said.
 
I don’t consider dentists and philosophers to be climate scientists, just bec they have Ph.D.s or Dr. before their name. Neither do I consider engineers, geologists (not specializing in climate science), astrophysicists, theoretical physicists, or nuclear physicists to be climate scientists. .
Nice try to discredit over 31,000 trained scientists! Guess what, there was no such thing as “climate science” before this made-up global warming BUNK came on the scene. That’s why I asked “what is that?” because there really is no such thing as “climate science.” There’s geology, and meteorology, one of which deals with the earth itself, especially the earth BEFORE humankind even appeared, and one which deals with the weather and climate. But there is no such degree, as “climate science” or wasn’t, until the BS that is “global warming” appeared.

How dare you discredit geologists? The very people who have some perspective on what has happened to the earth long before humans came along. But because they do have that information, they are some of the most skeptical of AGW and thus, you toss them off as if they are worth nothing. So, so arrogant. And blind.

These are people who have been taught to THINK clearly and in a scientific manner. It really doesn’t so much matter what their degree(s) are in, but that they know what science consists of, and that it doesn’t consist of a bunch of politically-driven individuals getting a “consensus” and agreeing that a computer-modeled theory is the truth. Science is not consensus. And, these signatures show that there IS NO CONSENSUS anyway!

The 31,000 signatures stand. Yours are the ones who are mostly government-paid fictions.
 
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.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
  1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
  2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
  3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
  4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
  5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
  6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
  7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)
Code:
1. Atmosphere (579)

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

2. Earth (2,240)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,684)
    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)
Computers & Math (935)
Code:
1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

    I) Mathematics (581)
    II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
Code:
1. Physics (5,225)

    I) Physics (2,365)
    II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
    III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,822)
Code:
1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
Code:
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)
Medicine (3,046)
Code:
1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
Code:
1. General Engineering (9,833)

    I) Engineering (7,280)
    II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
    III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)
 
lynvic,

Sorry, you seem like a very nice and sincere person. But you lost me completely with your gross mischaracterization of the ‘Climategate’ e-mails mixing the attempt to use tree rings to deny the existence of the medieval warming period with the ‘hide the decline’ attempt to obfuscate and deny the very recent decline in temps. You also overlooked the CYA e-mails urging each other to delete data, source e-mails, and the shouting down of pro-AGW climate scientists pointing out the science was being corrupted and it would damage credibility in the future. You also overlook the collusion revealed in those e-mails in ensuring anti-AGW studies would not be published in peer-reviewed magazines, not based on their methodoligies or data (publicly available and sourced), but because they contradicted the AGW gospels and could not be refuted on the basis of science. The whole field has been too highly politicized.

Peace to you and yours,
There has not been a significant recent decline in temps, and whatever short term lack of signficant increase, the scientists point to various factors that have suppressed the increase: increased aerosol pollution (cooling effect) from increased coal burning, esp in China; solar irradiance going into a deep minimum (it’s now climbing out, so we should be expecting some added warming from that within a few years); heat uptake of in the deep ocean. Any climate scientist worth his/her salt will tell you there are many factors that impact climate and you have to look at several decades worth of data, not just 1 or 10 years, bec it is a zig-zag thing…but that zig-zag is pointed upward, as expected, according to the greenhouse effect theory and law of physics.

The important point is the global temps have not gone back down to pre-70s levels, which is what one would expect if our GHG emissions were having no impact.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

RE the MWP – no climate scientist disputes there was medieval warming in the North Atlantic and European areas, they just have not been able to establish that there was much overall “global” warming then. But even if there had been, this in no way disproves the warming of today, but actually (if you think about it) strengthens the evidence that GW can happen bec it has happened in the past.

As far as I know, Mike was not using tree ring data to try and disprove the MWP…he agrees that if there were a MWP globally, that would only support the evidence today that GW can happen (read his book The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars). AGW we well established before Mike’s studies started coming out, and it is truly amazing the ferosity with which people have attacked him, even lobbing death threats at his then 6 year old daughter. … When there are plenty of other proxies that also point to the similar “hockey stick” and (as mentioned) a global MWP would NOT disprove AGW today.

I myself became aware of the greenhouse effect in the 60s when I read extra science books in HS, and I think that has served me well to understand current AGW.

I’ve know Mike Mann and other climate scientists for years. They are good, decent people, not worthy of the scorn and abuse they are facing. And I’m proud they have not caved. I’d thought I might be the last person standing on the AGW issue – and no ridicule and abuse will ever dissaude me from mitigating what I know is a serious problem. I’d give my life first, rather than cave.
 
I’ll see your 2,000 “climate scientists,” (what is that, anyway) and raise you 31,000 documented REAL scientists, with their names. I want the full names of all 2,000 “climate scientists” you keep referencing. ALL 2000.

Petition Project includes 31,487 names
Over 30,000 scientists worldwide are awarded their PhDs each year, so let’s stop with the “I have this many, how many do you have?” game. We could also find 30,000 attorneys who think they know the law better than the Supreme Court…so what?
 
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…

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)
Code:
1. Atmosphere (579)

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

2. Earth (2,240)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,684)
    IV) Geophysics (341)
    V) Geoscience (36)
    VI) Hydrology (22)
Let’s look at the science, not these people who don’t know what they’re talking about no matter how many PhDs they have (and some on that list got their PhDs a looong time ago and are not practicing climate scientists, nor do they do research in climatology or publish in peer-reviewed SCIENCE journals on the topic of climate change). As mentioned there might be some 30 or so who do, and of those about half are funded by the fossil fuel industries (or associated with institutions so funded) and the other half are trying to get their names off the list.

I know some of your 30,000 or people like them. There was a geologist with PhD teaching on our campus who didn’t even know the difference between a climate “feedback” and a climate “forcing.”

When I spoke of AGW, she brought up that water vapor is the major GHG (a favorite deceiving point of the denialist industry). I told her, yes, climate scientists know that, but that WV is a cliamte “feedback.” The slight warmth that climate “forcings” such as CO2, CH4, etc cause, cause more WV to be evaporated into the atmosphere, desiccating soil and plants (harming crops, contributing to wildfires), and under certain weather conditions coming down as humungous deluges, hurricanes, and blizzards (and we can only expect worse in the future, once AGW is really under way).

But H2O molecules only stay up for a few hours to days and are NOT a climate “forcing,” only a feedback to the warmth that is there by other factors. CO2 molecules, OTOH, stay up in the atmosphere a lot longer, 100s of years, and a portion can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years; CH4, about 10 years. They are climate “forcings” that can cause the warming that causes more WV to be evaporated into the atmosphere. The professor thereafter stopped trying to hoodwink me on the topic of AGW…but imagine if I had not known, then she may have convinced me to sign that petition.

We also have physics professors and other science professors who do not accept AGW on campus.

It should be noted that the sciences at our “state” university are heavily funded by Exxon, GM, Shell, etc. Private universities would be even more beholdened to the dev-oils. Also check out the sponsors for TV news programs in which the weathermen say “no AGW.”

(In fact, I’m sort of thinking that maybe that’s how some hope to get jobs at such universities and businesses…by signing that list :)).

There are plenty of instances like that around the country. They may have a PhD tacked on to their names, but they know squat about climate science in its current state of the art and/or their institutions or fields within their institutions/businesses are heavily beholden to the fossil fuel industry and those who make $$ off those industries.

I also know of a hydrologist working for the NWS in the upper Midwest who was fired for trying to warn about climate change leading to increased flooding from more severe deluges and rapid snow melts, and more severe blizzards in his area – just a couple of years before he was to be eligible for retirement benefits, leaving him and his wife destitute. He had been warned not to mention GW several times, but his conscience would not allow him to remain silent. And look what’s happening now up there, just what he predicted.

As I mentioned a previous post, I am really proud of the climate scientists who have not caved to the powers-and-money-that-be. There is tremendous amount of pressure to do so, either for job/financial carrots, or to avoid the sticks of vicious and malicious attacks.
 
Over 30,000 scientists worldwide are awarded their PhDs each year, so let’s stop with the “I have this many, how many do you have?” game. We could also find 30,000 attorneys who think they know the law better than the Supreme Court…so what?
No, sorry, EasterJoy, you don’t get to dismiss the argument with your terse statement. The AGW proponents always dismiss other scientists by putting these so-called “climate scientists” on a pedestal that cannot be reached by other scientists. They have created their own little world, and try to exclude any other brand of science that might actually have a perspective on the problem. This is not how scientific communities operate in the real world. The Petition Project was begun in order to counter their claims of “Only we are the high priests of climate, and only we can determine the parameters and scope of the problem.” Wrong.

You’re not the referee here, but thanks for the attempt!

😉
 
Oregon Petition [from http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition]

The infamous “Oregon Petition”

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

In April 1998, Art Robinson and his organization the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a well-known climate change skeptic (and tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was a “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

The Oregon Petition’s Disguise Attempt

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

The included research paper was also made to mimic the style of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

With the signature of a former NAS president, and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. In fact, the documents had been authored by Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both who receive funding from the oil industry) and Robinson’s son Zachary.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

The Oregon petition and Big Tobacco

It’s interesting to note that Fred Seitz, the author of the cover letter, is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”

However, nine years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz was still sufficiently rational to sit as the Chair of Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Seitz passed away on March 2, 2008, after spending his declining years working with global warming skeptics such as Fred Singer.

Fake Names including The Spice Girls

According to the May 1998 Associated Press article, the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected.

The petition included the names of "Drs. ‘Frank Burns’ ‘Honeycutt’ and ‘Pierce’ from the hit-show MAS*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as ‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’ and again as simply ‘Dr. Halliwell.’ "

In response to the issue of the fake names, Robinson said, “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.”

Articles on the Oregon Petition:
Scientific American: Skepticism about skeptics.
• Kevin Grandia. “The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda,” Huffington Post, July 22, 2009.
• “Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project,” SkepticalScience, March 11, 2010.
 
They never seem to look at the complete thermodynamic cycle. 🤷:eek:
No kidding. I bet they’d pass out cold if they realized the amount of various stuffs that one volcanic eruption puts into the atmosphere, too. Better shut those down, while we’re at it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top