A Solution To Global Warming

[James S Saint]

Or you simply have a distorted view of reality and who a "real scientist" actually is concerning any issue.

[Helandhighwater]

Or you simply have a distorted view of reality and who a "real scientist" actually is concerning any issue.

I edited.

And yes I have actually met climatology experts, they were weaving magic spells and saying things that simply weren't true, because they are liars and sorcerers.

A Scientist on climatology and specifically the field of AGW, is a person who has a PhD in a relevant field who has done research in said field, and most likely has published papers in journals and is a member of an accredited institution. Although not always, it tends to depend on your country of origin.

http://throughagreenlens.com/2009/07/24 ... -debunked/

This link might interest you:

Have you ever heard of the 30,000 Global Warming Petition? It has been repeatedly touted by climate science deniers as proof that the scientific community is divided on the evidence for AGW. Well, we now have even more solid ground from which to repute petition-waving deniers.

Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog points out that, of the 30,000 who have signed the petition, 39 are experts in climatology. That’s 0.1%. To be fair, he adds in those who claim to have a background in atmospheric science, concluding that 0.5% of the signers have experience in climate change science.

When I think I’m having chest pains I don’t go to Dermatologist, I go to a Cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in Medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automaticauthority in all things science.

The article goes on to explain the dubious beginnings of the petition, including the fact that few of the names can be verified.

When I first heard about the “30,000 scientists” who deny climate change, I have to admit that I was a bit shaken, though somewhat doubtful. Now, we see that, judging by this petition, the number is less than 200, and even that is largely unverifiable.

You need to not be so gullible I think, in the same way the media can lead you to false conclusion on the pros of AGW it can lead you to false conclusions on the cons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake", he said.[21]
”

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23] ”


A 1998 statement the Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reads:
“ The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change. [24]
”

To the issue of duplicate names, the Global Warming Petition Project had responded:
“ Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.[25]

Ultimately though an opinion in science is worth about as much as a pile of crap. I could get 30,000 signatures on a petition saying evolution is false. No one would care.

[James S Saint]

There is a simple flaw in your retort (minimum)..

A scientist knows what "science" is and looks like, right?
The petition stated that global warming reports were not scientific.
They don't have to be climatologists to see whether a report is scientific.
Hell I can do that much.

Additionally, anyone can look into Quantum Mechanics, and if they know a little math, can tell that almost the entirety of QM is no more than speculation and literal superstition. Yet what YOU see as "what most scientists believe" would imply that QM is the best science we have. Yet it isn't actually science AT ALL.

In addition;
"I heard that most Mexicans believe in X. I met a few Mexicans and they believed in X.
Therefore, "most Mexicans believe in X".
How scientific is that assessment?
Yet that is your claim for veracity.

[Helandhighwater]

There is a simple flaw in your retort (minimum)..

A scientist knows what "science" is and looks like, right?
The petition stated that global warming reports were not scientific.
They don't have to be climatologists to see whether a report is scientific.
Hell I can do that much.

Additionally, anyone can look into Quantum Mechanics, and if they know a little math, can tell that almost the entirety of QM is no more than speculation and literal superstition. Yet what YOU see as "what most scientists believe" would imply that QM is the best science we have. Yet it isn't actually science AT ALL.

In addition;
"I heard that most Mexicans believe in X. I met a few Mexicans and they believed in X.
Therefore, "most Mexicans believe in X".
How scientific is that assessment?
Yet that is your claim for veracity.

A scientist who is not in climatology is no more credible than a mathematician who says that evoltution is false. You can have an opinion, opinions are worth shit.

If the petition was signed by 30,000 climatology experts on AGW someone would care. The fact that it is not means it is worth as much as a book with no prose in it. It's empty and lacking definition or reason. It is empty.

There are probably a few million people in science who know nothing about evolution who would sign a petition saying they think it is false. As I say no one would give a shit for two reasons 1) opinions are worthless 2) and let me reiterate this: if you have no knowledge of a subject beyond the layman why on Earth would anyone care?

Additionally, anyone can look into Quantum Mechanics, and if they know a little math, can tell that almost the entirety of QM is no more than speculation and literal superstition. Yet what YOU see as "what most scientists believe" would imply that QM is the best science we have. Yet it isn't actually science AT ALL.

Prove it. I have had enough of you making assertions you can't back up, either prove why anything about QM is wrong or superstition or likewise no one cares.

I would agree some interpretational sides of the argument are philosophy but then Bohm and others never won a a Nobel prize for his interpretation so who cares? So... What is it you dispute exactly?

[James S Saint]

If the petition was signed by 30,000 climatology experts on AGW someone would care.

Simple way to reveal a truth...
"Where are the 30,000 climatologists that signed the petition stating that global warming IS caused by industrial nations?"

Of course, you overlooked the point (no surprise).
A scientist knows what science looks like... no matter what field of science it is.

[Helandhighwater]

If the petition was signed by 30,000 climatology experts on AGW someone would care.

Simple way to reveal a truth...
"Where are the 30,000 climatologists that signed the petition stating that global warming IS caused by industrial nations?"

Of course, you overlooked the point (no surprise).
A scientist knows what science looks like... no matter what field of science it is.

You never answered my questions. Why does anyone give credence to opinion. Surely science is about peer review? Are you really expecting me to take the opinions of a little less than 30,000 Laymen over the scientific process?

Hell no, money where their mouth is too. Publish refutations, learn the field, no one cares if some MD from hampton wick thinks it is false. No one cares if some MD from Hampton Wik thinks it is true either for that matter.

If I got a petition from 1 million nobodies who think AGW is true does that beat your those who think it is false. No it is 1 million nobodies no one cares about.

[James S Saint]

If the petition was signed by 30,000 climatology experts on AGW someone would care.

Simple way to reveal a truth...
"Where are the 30,000 climatologists that signed the petition stating that global warming IS caused by industrial nations?"

Of course, you overlooked the point (no surprise).
A scientist knows what science looks like... no matter what field of science it is.

You never answered my questions. Why does anyone give credence to opinion.

The ONLY thing YOU have is opinions from which you make your statements of your opinion.
In MY case, on a few Physics and Psychology issues, I AM the "scientist". My opinions have a foundation in direct experience that is independently repeatable. MY experience with news reports (as a psychologist) as to what "science says" is that such reports LIE. Without reading the actual experiments themselves and knowing what to look for, you are stuck with mere reported opinions of others.

Publish refutations, learn the field, no one cares if some MD from hampton wick thinks it is false. No one cares if some MD from Hampton Wik thinks it is true either for that matter.

Have you actually tried to "publish a scientific paper"?
In order to get it published, YOU have to be "one of them".
If you don't believe that, which you probably don't, just try it.
Until then, you have only opinion that what you are hearing has any credibility at all.

You have a religious Faith in "Science"... that isn't even Science.

[Helandhighwater]

Er no I have a wide dearth of scientific papers I could quote if you were to ask and a wide circle of Scientists I talk to on the subject. What are you talking about here because your just not making any sense, I ask you for evidence and you turned around and said that is my opinion? I asked first for evidence. What are you doing here, just dicking with me?

Publish refutations, learn the field, no one cares if some MD from hampton wick thinks it is false. No one cares if some MD from Hampton Wik thinks it is true either for that matter.

Have you actually tried to "publish a scientific paper"?
In order to get it published, YOU have to be "one of them".
If you don't believe that, which you probably don't, just try it.
Until then, you have only opinion that what you are hearing has any credibility at all.

You have a religious Faith in "Science"... that isn't even Science.

No I have no faith in science whatsoever, what I have faith in is God or maybe belief or maybe the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Science however is not a faith based deal. If you are just going to mess me about and not answer any of my questions or do anything I ask then just get bent.

You have been asked to provide backing for your assertions, you have failed, not just here but on every thread you have been asked to do that. If you continue to fail to back up what you say why should I even talk to you? Honestly I am doing all the work here and all you are doing is saying no you are just wrong, you really are because I say so. Either back up what you claim or I wont bother replying any more.

I don't have an opinion, I have an accord with verifiable science. Something you seem very reticent to produce even when asked several times. So what have you got for the 3rd time?

We have established what science is about, let's stop dancing around the issue.

[James S Saint]

I don't have an opinion

Then why argue that mine is wrong?

You have your reasons for believing what you have stated.
I stated my reasons for believe what I believe.

It isn't my fault that my way doesn't require as much "work" as yours.

[Helandhighwater]

I don't have an opinion

Then why argue that mine is wrong?

You have your reasons for believing what you have stated.
I stated my reasons for believe what I believe.

It isn't my fault that my way doesn't require as much "work" as yours.

Ok if you continue to talk around me I am going to ignore you, I am asking you questions or I am asking you to prove things, and why then you maintain your opinion. I am not arguing about opinions in and of themselves, I am asking what yours are based on, because people don't formulate opinions based on faith alone (the subject is not religion), and I presume you have a reason to believe what you do. I am asking you to validate your opinion with evidence, I have been asking that for nearly two pages now. Continue to talk shit at me and I will ignore you from now on, it's that simple. I will not talk to people who have absolutely no evidence for anything they claim, and base there opinions there in on nothing. Such people are not worth my attention. Show me some evidence for anything you say or don't at this point I really couldn't care a rat tailed shrew for anything you think, because its all based on hot air.

Show me some evidence. How many times can I say this before it sinks in?

[MagsJ]

Please remain civil guys - thank you

[Helandhighwater]

We are remaining civil, please point out any part of anything everyone has said that is not civil?

Clearly you either don't know what civil means, or you are making a stand against heated debate. Either way why should I care unless you justify it?

Civil? What is civil? What I said on another thread was far from civil and yet you took no notice of that? What do you think civil is, and don't just ignore this because mods can't discuss issues, cause that just makes you wrong because you can't justify your self.

Has James complained that I am being rude?

If so then it is not civil. But I probably wont give a shit anyway, cause James seems like an adult who can take it. For which I offer my respect.

[MagsJ]

No-one has complained about either person, and I did say 'remain civil' didn't I?

[Helandhighwater]

No-one has complained about either person, and I did say 'remain civil' didn't I?

Heavy handed, if no one is being uncivil why say remain civil? We're not 8, we don't need to be told to remain civil when we already are. Do we? Or are you just being patronising?

Nothing to see here. No one did anything wrong. Move along. It's amazing how we can actually do things within the rules at our respective ages without being molly coddled by people that are younger than us isn't it. Gotta love the internet.

To use an analogy STFU and drive.

When you get to my grand old age only then can you patronise me. The term patronise definition look it up.

[MagsJ]

Glad to see you took it so well hahw My request for civility to remain has never been seen in a negative light before, and has never even been worth a reply to before... as you were

[Helandhighwater]

Like I give a shit to quote myself. You were being patronising you got called on it. Live with it.

You can't moderate the future, you don't need to, you can however moderate the present.

You can't ask people not to do something that hasn't been done and probably wouldn't of been, that is disrespectful and demeaning to people. You will learn that when you get older. Who the hell cares that no one has pointed that out before, they actually were probably too scared to be honest. You don't scare me, especially when you are being heavy handed.

God I am bored of people who are so sure of themselves that they are prescient.

[James S Saint]

God I am bored of people who are so sure of themselves that they are prescient.

A mirror calling the reflection false.

[Helandhighwater]

God I am bored of people who are so sure of themselves that they are prescient.

A mirror calling the reflection false.

What claims have I made? James you seem completely incapable of understanding my points. Where have I claimed anything at all is right or true?

I think form now on since you refuse to answer any questions or demands for evidence I will just ignore everything you say. It seems more expedient than going on in circles because you really don't care to answer anything anyone asks.

Cya, wouldn't want to be ya.

Oh yeah I did make a claim that the sun would warm the Earth more as time goes by, it's unrelated to AGW, but I stand by it.

[James S Saint]

Kewl..
..the theory really works.

[Helandhighwater]

Kewl..
..the theory really works.

You are just not really on the same planet as me are you. You just avoid answering questions, say things that don't matter. Now I am sure to you that means you have done something worthwhile but to anyone reading this they are just thinking you are being evasive, or trolling I am not sure which. Probably just being evasive because you don't have any answers. Good luck with that.

Not going to reply any more you are not worth my attention.

[James S Saint]

Kewl..
..the theory really works.

You are just not really on the same planet as me are you.

Just slightly above you.

[Helandhighwater]

Trolling see you later.

[James S Saint]

Last word.

[Stoic Guardian]

Nuclear Winter

[Faust]

Okay, this has devolved into a bunch of nothing. I'm locking the thread. Warning issued to Heland - next time a mod asks for civility, please comply. 24 hour ban.