Scientists call global warming BS

[Coach is Back!]

31000 of them 9000 with PHD's. Dicuss..haha

[Swlabr]

You do realise 'scientists' doesn't mean shit, right? Why should I give a fuck about what a theoretical physicist (for example) thinks about global warming?

[DK II]

Well, if you think about that the earth has seen all sorts of climate throughout the millenia, it's pretty sure climate change happens, but to think that humans are responsible for all this is BS.

[DK II]

You do realise 'scientists' doesn't mean shit, right? Why should I give a fuck about what a theoretical physicist (for example) thinks about global warming?

 

[Swlabr]

[Board_SHERIF]

Well think of the billions of cars,trains,factories that have pumped trillions of tonnes of toxins in the air,water,earth to start with - only a complete imbecile would miss this point

[240 is Back]

scientists for BOTH sides are nothing more than nerds who stayed in school for a decade so they could take paychecks (from govt grants or corporate lobbyists) to say things that serve other people's interests.

They're all full of shit, using flawed information to draw conclusions with SOME level of certainty.

Nobody KNOWS 100% of what is to be known about global warming.   Is it manmade?  I believe NO.  However, morons like sarah palin have said they do believe it's cause by man.  Maybe she's right, who knows. 








Hi, Glen Rice!   

[#1 Klaus fan]

But what does the data say? Have you looked at the data Coach?

[240 is Back]

What did Michelle say?

[Stavios]

global warming is as credible as Jay Cutler's bicep injury

[Parker]

 Coach, you go tell that to all the walruses that are losing their ice sheets...and go tell that to the Polar bears which are losig the ability to hunt, as the snow and ice that they need to blend in has melted.

[mitchyboy]

Coach, you go tell that to all the walruses that are losing their ice sheets...and go tell that to the Polar bears which are losig the ability to hunt, as the snow and ice that they need to blend in has melted.

Your right. Just like the hundred other times the same thing has happened To even think that in just 60 -100 years man could have any effect on the earth as a whole, is not only assanine but narsasistic and giving man way to much credit. In 1000 years they will be talking about how man is causing global cooling and somthing needs to be done now.

[lyquid]

gobal warming. Is happening. From humans? Hm maybe  00000.0001 percent. From natural causes mainly. Many reasons. For instance the sun next year reachs its solar maximum. Every 12 years it recycles in a sense. We are right near the peak in one year. On top of what others have said the earth has had constant natural ups and downs by huge degrees since forever.

I'd be more worried about the super volcanco that I believe is 30000 yrs over due to erupt. Which would cause a catastrophic event for all mankind.

[Rami]

Al Gore is a con artist, it's so obvious. The climate is always changing

Look up the medieval warm period when the climate was so hot they grew grapes in England during the 1200s.


Must have been all those SUVs back then  

[Nirvana]

you could say it's just the earths cycles

i've heard we're supposed to be going into an ice age though, not be getting hotter

still pics like this are interesting

[makaveli25]

It's a big lie. Assholes like Fag Gore want to make money on all of their "Green" ventures.

[Rami]

you could say it's just the earths cycles

i've heard we're supposed to be going into an ice age though, not be getting hotter

still pics like this are interesting

Guess what, Greenland use to be green! That was it's natural state around 800-1300 AD.

[The True Adonis]

I don`t even know why I bother with you Roach and others but I guess I will once again.

You do realize that this 31000 Scientist myth has been debunked already right?  Many on that list are Religious Leaders, Intelligent Designers, Creationists and the like.  Some were even dead.  Not only that, none are even credible and really are not "scientists".

Exhibit A:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[The True Adonis]

Exhibit B:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html


Kevin Grandia Managing editor
Posted: July 22, 2009 04:47 PM
BIOBecome a Fan Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

 

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.

I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].

This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the 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 automatic authority in all things science.

In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

 
The Petition's Sordid Beginnings

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

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.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. 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.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "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."

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]

"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon

"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

[Coach is Back!]

Exhibit B:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html


Kevin Grandia Managing editor
Posted: July 22, 2009 04:47 PM
BIOBecome a Fan Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

 

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.

I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].

This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the 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 automatic authority in all things science.

In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

 
The Petition's Sordid Beginnings

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

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.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. 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.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "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."

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]

"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon

"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

The Huffington Post hahaha........... no agenda there. LOL



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

[Coach is Back!]

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

It urged the US government to reject the treaty and said: "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."

It added: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable 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."

The petition was reissued last year by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research group, partly in response to Al Gore’s film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.
Related Articles

    Pakistani nuclear scientist says his confession was forced
    30 May 2008

Its president, Arthur Robinson, said: "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can’t continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject."

One of the signatories, Frank Nuttall, a professor of medicine, said he believed the Earth was becoming warmer, despite his signature.

"This issue is whether the major reason for this is from human activities. I consider that inconclusive at the present time," he said.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.”

[The True Adonis]

[The True Adonis]

[garebear]

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

It urged the US government to reject the treaty and said: "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."

It added: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable 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."

The petition was reissued last year by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research group, partly in response to Al Gore’s film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.
Related Articles

    Pakistani nuclear scientist says his confession was forced
    30 May 2008

Its president, Arthur Robinson, said: "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can’t continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject."

One of the signatories, Frank Nuttall, a professor of medicine, said he believed the Earth was becoming warmer, despite his signature.

"This issue is whether the major reason for this is from human activities. I consider that inconclusive at the present time," he said.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.”

Do you trust the Philip Morris scientists on the link between smoking and cancer?

[The True Adonis]

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Oregon-Petition:-How-Can-31,000-Scientists-Be-Wrong?&id=5141096

Supposedly, 31,000 outraged scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, which says that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind". That is an impressive sounding number of scientists, but considering there are 23 million scientists and engineers in the U.S., that is 0.13% of them - a mere drop in the bucket. Moreover, many of those who signed were misled and many were not scientists at all.

Who circulated the petition? The Petition Project was sponsored by the little known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), founded by Arthur B. Robinson. Dr. Robinson was the author the infamous 1997 Wall Street Journal article headlined "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth" The article turned out to be a hoax. Dr. Robinson was aided by Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Science. However in the 70′s, Dr Seitz abandoned his career as a scientist and became a consultant to the tobacco industry. In spite of 45 million dollars of tobacco funded research, he couldn't seem to find any link between smoking and cancer. When asked about the moral implication of taking money and shilling for big tobacco, Seitz stated, any money was good "...as long as it's green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue."

Were all the signers scientists? In 1998, the Petition and a packet of materials was sent to thousands of Bachelor of Science students in Universities across the U.S. The packet included a copy of "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", a letter from Dr. Seitz urging action, and a supposedly "peer reviewed scientific article" claiming "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate". The mailing collected 17,000 signatures. However, many of the "scientists" who signed were undergraduate students in Bachelor of Science (BS) programs. As well the sciences, one may get a BS degree in fields such as journalism, sociology, education, philosophy, and many other programs.

Were the materials misleading? Dr. Seitz identified himself in his letter as the past president of the NAS but did not mention his stint with the tobacco industry. The "peer reviewed scientific article" included in the packet had been published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a journal that often publishes articles in conflict with mainstream medical opinion and certainly not a place where one would publish climatology articles. The paper had been "peer reviewed" by a board at the OISM, not by a legitimate science organization. The paper was formatted to look as if it was from the National Academy of Sciences Proceedings, which it was not. The National Academy of Science quickly responded saying the article did not come from the NAS, it had not been peer reviewed, and that "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

What about the other signatures? After the initial mailing, the Petition gained an additional 14,000 or so signature over the next ten years. The petition was on the OISM website for a time and could be signed without any form of verification. After numerous complaints about the authenticity of signatures, the OISM took the Petition off its website and is now sending the materials and a copy of the petition upon request. The site lists 35 of the signers as climatologists. However, a recent survey of scientists found: " The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

(c) 2010 J.C. Moore

Dr. J.C. Moore is a physical chemist whose interests are spectroscopy,computational chemistry, professional ethics, and science education. He taught chemistry, physics, and general science at the college level for 38 years. Since retirement, he has established http://JCMooreonline.com, a website that examines current events from a science and research perspective.



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5141096