ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 68 Replies latest jw friends

  • rassillon
    rassillon

    I will see your 200 and raise you 17,000.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

    Global Warming Petition
    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

    During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

    Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

    Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

    Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

    Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

    The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

    The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

    This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

    The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.

  • Reefton Jack
    Reefton Jack

    This is further to Uninformed's comments about "Average" temperatures.
    Although I am not a meteorologist, I have always had a keen interest in the subject.
    Also, for many decades, one of my father's jobs was that of a Weather Observer for the then Dominion Weather Office (Now known as the "Met Service").

    A locality's "average" weather - temperatures, rainfall, snowfall, frosts ect. - is calculated from daily weather readings that are collected over a thirty year period.

    This allows for usual ups and downs that occur between one year and another.


    Just as importantly,though, it establishes a standard in measurement by which one set of results can be compared with another.


    What this means is before you can say that "average" temperatures are now higher / lower / or the same as "average" temperatures of previously; you first have to calculate what the average has been from the daily temperatures of the previous thirty years.
    - Otherwise you are not comparing "Apples with Apples", as the saying goes!

    (Incidentally, Meteorology is by no means the only discipline to establish standards by which test data is collected.
    Those of us who have been involved in Industrial Measurements - such as I have been for 11 out of the last 18 years - will know that there are rigid standards spelled out for the measurement of just about everything.
    These standards are necessary for that very same reason
    - i.e. so that one set of test results can be compared with another.
    To do otherwise is - at best, untrustworthy - and at the worst, meaningless).


    Sorry, Uninformed, if I have bored you
    - It is just that your remarks about whether a " 10 or 20 year period" is significant sparked this!

    Seriously, though:
    - to determine by how much the average temperature has changed,it would be first necessary to establish what the "average" temperature now is.
    -Furthermore, so that this current "average" can be compared with what was previously the "average", it would have to be calculated in the same mannner.

    i.e. From the average of the daily temperature readings taken over the last 30 years (1977 - 2007).

    With all the dialogue that is going on currently about the matter of climate change, I have not seen anywhere yet a comprehensive study of how the "average temperature" - as measured by the accepted procedures - has altered.
    (Such data should now be dead simple to come by - with automated weather stations, that can be accessed remotely from someone's computer.Unlike in my father's time, when sombody had to go around and painstakingly read the data, and record it by hand).

    Perhaps someone can direct me to such a study?


    Jack.

  • dilaceratus
    dilaceratus

    Rassillon: "I will see your 200 and raise you 17,000."

    Oh, for crap's sake-- doesn't anybody even try to find out whether their counter-arguments aren't fraudulent?

    From Sourcewatch:

    "When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

    The whole article on OISM and the history of this petition is worth reading.

    (Edited a few moments later to add some paragraph breaks and rewrite the history of Arthur B. Robinson. Let's split the difference, and call it all Formatting.)

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Quote:

    With all the dialogue that is going on currently about the matter of climate change, I have not seen anywhere yet a comprehensive study of how the "average temperature" - as measured by the accepted procedures - has altered. (Such data should now be dead simple to come by - with automated weather stations, that can be accessed remotely from someone's computer.Unlike in my father's time, when sombody had to go around and painstakingly read the data, and record it by hand).

    Perhaps someone can direct me to such a study?

    Sure. It's covered pretty well in this summary, and I'm sure it's even better documented in the detailed report: 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary

  • Bryan
    Bryan

    Oh my God... our co2 is far reaching! We are also warming MARS!

    Or could it be the sun warming Mars... and us as well?

    Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    Bryan

  • rassillon
    rassillon

    dilaceratus wrote

    Rassillon : "I will see your 200 and raise you 17,000."

    Oh, for crap's sake-- doesn't anybody even try to find out whether their counter-arguments aren't fraudulent?

    From Sourcewatch:

    Oh, for crap's sake - Do you not know what a wiki is?

    Who wrote the article which you cite?

    Do they have an agenda?

    Are all the facts correct?

    Did you research and find out whether your counter-counter argument isn't fradulent?

    Or did you just post it cause it agrees with how you feel?

    Since it agrees with you, you don't have to check, right?

    ===========================================================================

    Ok dude, I think you are taking this a little too seriously.

    First I don't think you addressed the humor of my post and that is unexcusable!

    Fact is that ANYTHING you find on the internet will have flaws, I take everything with a grain of salt.

    Fact WIKIs are more prone to flaws, they are just one step up from blogs.

    Fact if human induced global warming was proveable it would have been done, it has not.

    You people are so high up on your OPINION that you think you are the only ones who are right.

    Moderation is where it's at.

    In emergency situations do you want someone running around yelling "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!" ?

    No you don't, calm heads are better, such as the time when my brother saved a guys life who was in a car accident.

    When other people who witnessed the car accident were freaking out, he set there and held a guys face together so the guy could breath until the ambulance arrived. This is a person who can't stand the sight of blood.

    There is as of yet no conclusive proof that global warming is anything more than the natural cycle of geological/atmospheric/solar events which have happened several times in this planets history.

    Besides I don't see any of these people who preach GW to be changing their lifestyle and living in mud huts or flying electric jets arround....Guess they don't think it is that urgent after all.

    You know what you could do to help, stop using a computer, every post you make you are killing the planet.

    If you reply to this post it means you don't care about the planet.

    If everyone buys into your theory and say they are successful in cutting back the things that you "believe" are responsible for GW and you are wrong and GW continues that is time wasted in figuring out what changes need to be made to live on a warmer earth.

    Be a little balanced dude.

    -r

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    From an economic standpoint - part of an article from the National Review. Just this morning the news is reporting some major climatologists are saying that there is too much hype about global warming - it's become Hollywood right now. If everyone simply stopped contributing so much garbage to the planet we would all be better off but then I think of the overpopulation thats happening and it all gets bogged down. If people are living longer and people are the ones responsible for global warming, then that equates to too many people polluting the planet. If we erase a billion or so from this earth all at once, would this halt global warming in its tracks? sammieswife.

    Skeptics are heckled for calling attention to global warming scare tactics. But the simple fact is that activists need to hype the threat, and not just because that’s what the media demand of them. Their proposed remedies cost so much money — bidding starts at 1 percent of global GDP a year and rises quickly — they have to ratchet up the fear factor just to get the conversation started.

    The costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow — a total impossibility — we’d barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that “it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century” to beat back global warming.

    Thirty Kyotos! That’s going to be tough considering that China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.

    A more persuasive cost-benefit analysis hinges not on prophecies of environmental doom but on geopolitics. We buy too much oil from places we shouldn’t, which makes us dependent on nasty regimes and makes those regimes nastier.

    Environmentalists like to claim the “energy independence” issue, but it’s not a neat fit. We could be energy independent soon enough with coal and nuclear power. But coal contributes to global warming, and nuclear power is icky. So, instead, we’re going to massively subsidize the government-brewed moonshine called ethanol.

    Here again, the benefits barely outweigh the costs. Ethanol requires almost as much energy to make as it provides, and the costs to the environment and the economy may be staggering.

    Frankly, I don’t think the trade-off is worth it — yet. The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time.

    Lewis and Clark took months to do what a truck carrying Tickle-Me Elmos does every week. Technology 10 years from now could solve global warming at a fraction of today’s costs. What technologies? I don’t know. Maybe fusion. Maybe hydrogen. Maybe we’ll harness the perpetual motion of Sen. Joe Biden’s mouth.

    The fact is we can’t afford to fix global warming right now, in part because poor countries want to get rich, too. And rich countries, where the global warming debate is settled, are finding even the first of 30 Kyotos too fiscally onerous. There are no solutions in the realm of the politically possible. So why throw trillions of dollars into “remedies” that even their proponents concede won’t solve the problem?

    © 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


    — Jonah Goldberg is Editor-at-Large of National Review Online.
  • zack
    zack

    I agree the climate has warmed. No doubt about it. Personally, I think it's a good thing. I sure don't hear complaints from any folks beating out

    an existence in Siberia. I also think we need to consume less, develop alternative energy, and clean up after ourselves. While there are

    pollutants that damage the rivers, lakes, and streams, I do not agree that CO2 is a "pollutant." To me, the most immediate danger to the environment

    is the overharvesting of the world's fish stocks and the rabid and accelarating rate of deforestation. As for getting rid of cars, trucks, etc..., what would we replace them with?

    If you replaced 100 million cars in the US with 100 million horses, you'd need to grow an extra 200 million tons of food just to feed these animals through one winter. How

    would that be done? And that's just transportation. And how would we in the West offset the output of CO2 of developing nations like China and India, who are now only beginning to climb

    their way out of grinding poverty? Do we tell them they can't have cars and washing machines?

    In the profession I work in I am often asked to find a solution for some problem or another. Sometimes I recommend to do nothing for one of two reasons:

    Either a solution would be worse than the problem (and more expensive to remedy than to live with) or

    The problem is not obvious enough to produce a solution for with the data at hand. Good thread.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    Lets be realistic as well. The pporer countries will suffer more as they always have done and the richer, more industrialized nations will soldier on and still reap the financial reward for contributing pennies in foreign aid. Clean up the air and land on this side but move all the polluting plants to the other side. I'm not saying thats bad or good, right or wrong but that's just the way the world works. There is NO corporation thats going to do anything that doesn't make a profit for them so I'm not delusional enough to believe that any government and its corporate partners are ever promoting an ideology or plan that is built on compassion or honest concern. Money talks. Any country that can't figure out how to reduce the level of poverty, increase the health and welfare of its people or provide better education shouldn't even think of contributing a trillion dollars to a cause based on possibilities and should do's without first fixing existing problems, makes no sense. sw

  • dilaceratus
    dilaceratus

    Rassillon: "Who wrote the article which you cite?

    Do they have an agenda?

    Are all the facts correct?"

    Precisely the same questions I posed about the reference you gave to a "petition" a decade old, of extremely dubious provenance, based on an article never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    The Sourcewatch wiki happened to be a concise round-up of the OISM debate. Following through on the citations would lead to articles in the journals Science and Scientific American, which facts you have entirely neglected to address. That you have chosen to strike your blows against a medium, rather than the specific, sourced information presented from them is hardly surprising-- after all, you were the one who brought up the Oregon Petition in the first place.

    Rassillon: "Fact[:] if human induced global warming was proveable [sic] it would have been done, it has not."

    Kindly refer to the IPCC reports, which have been noted throughout this thread, and establish firmly what you claim has not. As a precis on the most recent report, from today's Newsweek:

    "On Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, marshaling the research of nearly 1,000 scientists from 74 countries, issued a long-awaited report on climate-change "impacts, adaptation and vulnerability." The study found that global warming was already affecting the Earth's ecosystems; it predicted that continued climate change, in combination with other environmental stressors such as population increases and greater urbanization, would lead to more-severe and widespread drought, greater coastal and riverine flooding, and "increased risk of extinction" for 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species. Depending on how much temperature rises, food production in the temperate regions (including parts of the United States and Canada) could actually increase, but would probably decline in much of the tropics."

    Based on the shoddy work so many on this board have demonstrated on this issue, I wonder whether they personally believed the WTB&TS's propaganda that they were "studying" their Watchtowers by skimming them, and highlighting a few passages, and so believe that this is the same method genuine researchers use in weighing the questions of climate change, or evolution. No doubt the members of the IPCC do little other than piece together a few half-heard strings gathered from cable news shows, bar conversation, and anecdotal quips from popular magazines, in establishing their "OPINIONS."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit