Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

Quote:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html
The U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions is a call to our nation's leaders to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. The statement is endorsed by more than 1,700 scientists and economists with expertise relevant to our understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions. This marks the first time leading U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.

This unprecedented list of signatories includes six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 10 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship, and more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
...
The letter, with the full complement of signatures, will be delivered to every member of Congress in spring 2008, as both chambers prepare for critical votes on national climate policy. In addition, several scientists and economists will personally delivered the letter and meet with their senators and staff to discuss the importance of taking action to reduce emissions while growing our economy.

6 + 30 + 10 + 100 = 146
100% * 146/1700 = 8.6%

WHY DO "U.S. Scientists and Economists' THINK "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" ARE LIKELY TO BE "heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming?"

Quote:

http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/THE_STATE_OF_CLIMATE_SCIENCE.pdf
October 1, 2003

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warning of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.

WHY DOES THE IPCC'S "more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" CONCLUDE "the observed warning of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations?"

IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I would like to point out that ican's math is still terrible as 400 is a minority compared to the 1700 and 1100 that signed the following

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html

http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/THE_STATE_OF_CLIMATE_SCIENCE.pdf

I would like to point out that Ican's math is just fine, most especially since he is posting comment after comment from the scientists on his list, while those of you attempting to discredit him keep posting large vague numbers without anything to support that those numbers are valid and not fabricated.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
296
Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems and expressed global warming skepticism. "Human development, associated with the continual advance of Civilization on the Earth, has always influenced the local weather; and the degree of influence on local weather is probably proportional to the magnitude of the changes in the Earth's topography that have resulted from continual human advances," Valentine wrote to EPW on May 17, 2007. "There is no evidence that any of these changes in local weather have ever resulted in a change to the global climate. My own research has convinced me that excepting for one situation, there have NEVER been ANY influences that have changed the global climate - not solar, not stellar, not variations in Earth's spin on its axis - nothing - that can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, for which equally valid evidence is available that contradicts the assumption of global climate change," Valentine explained. "This single exception is the known variation of eccentricity of the Earth's orbit about the Sun. This is the periodic variation of distance from Earth to the Sun that changes the distance from the Earth to the Sun within Earth's seasons, and occurs within tens of thousands of year epochs," he concluded. (Note: Valentine is expressing his personal views.)

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

From Ican's list
Number of nobel winners - 0
Members of the national academy of Science - 0
Members of the national academy of engineering - 0
recipients of the McArthur Fellowship -0
members of the IPCC - 2

0+0+0+0+2=2
2/650 = 0.3%
2/400 = 0.5%

The evidence of the IPCC is cited in their report ican.
The Physical Science Basis

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You didn't check the links Foxfyre? I have posted them several times.

Feel free to point out ican's math is fine but it only shows your math skills are on par with his.

Which is larger Fox? 400 or 1100?
Is 400 a majority of the sum of 400 +1100? Be careful how you answer. It might leave you open to ridicule.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You didn't check the links Foxfyre? I have posted them several times.

Feel free to point out ican's math is fine but it only shows your math skills are on par with his.

Which is larger Fox? 400 or 1100?
Is 400 a majority of the sum of 400 +1100? Be careful how you answer. It might leave you open to ridicule.

Hey a hundred dollars is a lot bigger number than a dollar. I believe you if you tell me you gave a dollar to a good cause. Will you believe me if I tell you I am a hundred times better than you because I gave a hundred dollars to the same cause?

I think 400 scientists who are on the record as being skeptics or deniers of global warming are far more credible than a long list of people that have not expressed an informed opinion on the subject. We already know that many of those on the IPCC list are bogus as they are used as support of something that they in fact have given no input and might or might not agree with.

So, when you post the official position of as many of the scientists on your list as Ican has been posting, you might have a better chance to make a credible argument about that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

That's funny Fox..
So unless I spam this thread with the letter signed by 1100 scientists and sign ONE name each time, you won't believe they actually signed the letter?

http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/THE_STATE_OF_CLIMATE_SCIENCE.pdf

Read the letter Fox and read the names.
If you feel anyone is misrepresented then feel free to tell us which names those are and I can contact the person to find out.

Quote:

we are writing to confirm that the main findings of these documents continue to represent the consensus opinion of the scientific community. Indeed, these findings have been reinforced rather than weakened by research reported since the documents were released.
In brief, the findings are that:
1) Anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of greenhouse gases, is already underway and likely responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50 years"warming that has produced the highest temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during at least the past 1000 years;
2) Over the course of this century the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity"a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;
3) Temperature increases in most areas of the United States are expected to be considerably higher than these global means because of our nation's northerly location and large average distance from the oceans;
4) Even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected warming could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the U.S., including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise;
5) Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century; and,
6) Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the longer emissions increase, the faster they will ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system.

53 of the rougnly 1100 that signed and agree to the above.

Quote:

Sincerely,
J. David Allan, Ph. D.
Jon E. Ahlquist, Ph. D.
Richard J. Abitz, Ph. D.
Vincent J. Abreu, Ph. D.
David D. Ainley, Ph. D.
Bruce P. Allen, M. S.
Neela Malati Akhouri, Ph. D.
Ilse Ackerman, M. S.
Phillip Allen, M.Sc.
George Albercook, Ph. D.
Leslie M. Adams, Ph. D.
Laura Sue Allen-Long, M. S.
Becky Alexander, Ph. D.
Steven M. Adler-Golden, Ph. D.
Donald L. Anderson, M. A.
David P. Ahlfeld, Ph. D.
Bonnie Alexander, Ph. D.
Dennis Baldocchi, Ph. D.
William Arnlod, Ph. D.
R. Scott Anderson, Ph. D.
Mike Auerbach, Ph. D.
Robert S. Anderson, Ph. D.
Randy Balici, Ph. D.
Jesse A. M. Ballenger, M. A.
Robert M. Auge, Ph. D.
Theodore L. Anderson, Ph. D.
Stuart S. Bamforth, Ph. D.
Matthew P. Ayres, Ph. D.
Dyke Andreasen, Ph. D.
John R. Barker, Ph. D.
New Brunswick, NJ
Dominique Bachelet, Ph. D.
Gretchen Hampt Andreasen, Ph. D.
Claude C. Barnett, Ph. D.
Catherine Badgley, Ph. D.
Norman Andresen, Ph. D.
Eric J. Barron, Ph. D.
Roya Bahreini, M. S.
John T. Andrews, D. Sc.
Jill S. Baron, Ph. D.
Allison A. Bailes III, Ph. D.
Jennifer L. Apple, Ph. D.
J. E. Barrett, Ph. D.
Marcia Baker, Ph. D.
David Archer, Ph. D.
Shawn M. Barron, M. S.
Michelle A. Baker, Ph. D.
Martin R. Arford, M. S.
Henry L. Bart, Jr., Ph. D.
Richard G. Baker, Ph. D.
Karla R. Armenti, Sc. D.
Patrick J. Bartlein, Ph. D.

1 Reply

@parados,

Who are these people Parados? How do I know they are not some highschool science teacher who has read or done no research of any kind but simply drank the kool-ade as some on this thread apparently have done? Or how do I know the names were not made up?

You rejected the list of 31000 scientists who signed the Petition Project.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

That's a far larger number than what you are claiming for your side.

So give me the backgrounds, their verifiable statements, the proof of their opinions as Ican is doing with his 400.

Then we might have a valid debate on that subject.

Otherwise, I will continue to assume that Ican's 400 outweighs your lists. And if you aren't willing to do that, then I think my 31,000 from the Petition Project outnumber both your lists by a huge amount.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Who are these people Parados?
If you bothered to read the letter and the link, you would find all are listed with their credentials and place of employment. All of them have degrees.

Where can I find the place of employment and science degree for those that signed OISM Fox?

1 Reply

@parados,

I haven't made any claims about any individual who signed OISM. I only claimed that there's a lot more of them than there are people on your lists.

I say that the 400 Ican has been posting along with their credentials and their verifiable statements are far more believable than big numbers or uncredentialed names with nothing to verify or support why they signed whatever they signed. But if your number being bigger than Ican's number is credible, then my number trumps you both.

I was just offering you a chance to provide an argument with more substance than simply saying that 'my number is bigger than your number'. Surely you can see how silly that sounds.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I do love the signers of the OISM project Fox.
For instance..
Don Bahnfleth appears to be an HPAC "engineer" and teaches about air conditioning at an architectural school.

Thomas Barfknecht, PhD appears to work for a pharmaceutical company and specializes in eye drops

Alex Baskous appears to be a medical Dr in Anchorage.

Wayne Machon Beasley appears to work in the area of dental fillings

Bob Belfit doesn't seem to appear in google other than as a signer

Tiffany Bendorf appears to be a Captain in the army that specialized in thermal detection of IEDs in Navy graduate school

Oswald R. Bergmann appears to have coauthored a paper on the effects of explosive shockwaves on ceramics.

So.. speaking of people that have done no research of any kind and simply drank the kool-ade, that would be the OISM project. I just picked names out at random, googled them and not a one has come up in the area of climatology or even a related science.

But if you want to compare internet petitions Fox..
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/
It seems that 1,305,912 have signed this one compared to your mere 31,000.

1 Reply

@parados,

Lets see your links and proof Parados if you want to be credible in discreding signatories of the OISM.

But more importantly, I'm still waiting for you to identify the credentials of those 31000 on your list along with posted opinion. Surely you can come up with at least a few hundred out of all those.

And your list of a million+ who want to stop global warming, is impressive, but hardly inconclusive and there isn't even a list provided, so how credible can that be?

However if we want to go with larger numbers:

Quote:

Friday, April 17, 2009
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment/only_34_now_blame_humans_for_global_warming

In case you've forgotten, the "Poltical class" are the leftwing outspoken types who see government as the cure for most of society's ills; i.e. modern American liberals.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You asked about the credentials of the people that had signed the letter I had posted. Obviously you didn't bother to check and see if their credentials were listed.

What sounds silly is your question about their credentials when the source lists those credentials. It means you aren't willing to do any work on this topic. Rather you want to argue that people that specifically sign a letter that states their opinion either haven't given an opinion or their credentials don't exist. Both do exist, you just seem to want to pretend they don't.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

The credentials and where they work are listed HERE Fox..

Read the thing and stop looking like a fool
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/THE_STATE_OF_CLIMATE_SCIENCE.pdf

1 Reply

Parados,

SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACTS AND LOGIC. SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON POLLING RESULTS.

The more than 400 scientists I have been quoting gave their facts and logic for thinking it unlikely that greenhouse gas emissions caused global warming. How about the alleged more than 1700 scientists you have been quoting? What are their reasons for thinking it likely that greenhouse gas emissions caused global warming?

WHY DO "U.S. Scientists and Economists' THINK "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" ARE LIKELY TO BE "heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming?"

WHY DO THE "more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" CONCLUDE "the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations?"

IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

By the way, the more than 400 scientists I have been quoting exceeds the more than 100 members of the IPCC who allegedly signed the IPCC reports.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The credentials and where they work are listed HERE Fox..

Read the thing and stop looking like a fool
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/THE_STATE_OF_CLIMATE_SCIENCE.pdf

Okay, though I didn't count them and it looks like a lot fewer than the numbers you've been citing that is a start. So the next step is to rule them out as academic kool-ade drinkers or professors protecting their professional standing. Please post what they specifically have concluded about anthropogenic global warming and why they are supporting your consensus as Ican is doing with his list.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACTS AND LOGIC. SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON POLLING RESULTS.

Yes, it IS.

So why pray tell are you posting Inhofe's list? It isn't science.

2 Replies

@parados,

Well if the guys on Inhofe's list are not scientists speaking from a scientific point of view, please define for us what would qualify as science in your eyes.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Please post what they specifically have concluded about anthropogenic global warming and why they are supporting your consensus

Already posted it here
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-709#post-3718057

Quote:

Okay, though I didn't count them and it looks like a lot fewer than the numbers you've been citing that is a start.

The letter is 32 pages long, the list of those that signed it starts on page 2 so roughly 30 pages of names. Page 3 has 34 names. That works out to over 1000 names.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know