There Is Still No Consensus on Global Warming
November 15th, 2007 at 07:20pm Matt Margolis
My earlier post on the Democrats’ war on science sparked some interesting debate on the three issues I highlighted where Democrats ignore science in favor of ideology.
Well, here’s the latest contribution to the argument over the alleged “consensus” in the scientific community over global warming:
A new survey of American members of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that there is not firm scientific consensus on global warming, as proponents of swift action to curb carbon emissions have suggested.
DemandDebate.com, a Web site skeptical of global warming “alarmism” that advocates more debate on the topic, released the results of its poll on Nov. 8. The group attempted to survey the 345 American scientists affiliated with the IPCC.
And yes, the survey size was small, but that’s hardly reason to dismiss the data:
While the survey’s size was small, Milloy said, “I certainly think that it’s large enough to indicate that the IPCC members really ought to be probed as to what they think.”
There’s also another interesting nugget of information worth mentioning here.
The issue over global warming sparked a typical debate of the the legitimacy of sources. Naturally, liberals think any source cited by a conservative is flawed, while theirs is treated gospel. Of course, the IPCC’s latest report was cited as ironclad evidence of global warming’s existence and that it is man-made. However, the results of the aforementioned survey clearly challenge the claim of global warming alarmists that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. The story also made this interesting point:
The 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, published in three sections by three separate working groups, is written by selected IPCC members. Some members who have criticized the reports complain that their objections to some of its claims are ignored.
“There’s reason to ask these people more questions,” Milloy said. “I don’t think the debate is over. Al Gore is rushing to close the debate because the more data we get … the flimsier the science gets.”
There have been plenty of rebuttals to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but these criticisms are coming from scientists associated with the IPCC. If liberals want to play the sources game, then they have to give equal scrutiny and even skepticism of the sources they cite too.
Entry Filed under: Environment
70 Comments
1. neocon | November 15th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
The Democrats are trying to end the debate on Global Warming before more facts are revealed much like they’re trying secure defeat in Iraq before all facts are revealed.
I sense desperation.
2. Tractatus | November 15th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Naturally, liberals think any source cited by a conservative is flawed, while theirs is treated gospel.
You mean like how “liberals” think any report from the dreaded “MSM” that they don’t like is hopelessly biased and never to be trusted, whereas various talk radio gasbags offer nothing but top-notch reporting and analysis?
Oh, wait, that’s you guys. Hypocrisy never goes out of style for you, huh?
3. Rabble Rouser | November 15th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I doubt there is any global warming. It’s all a liberal conspiracy. So is the idea that the earth is round. I have scientific facts that show that it is indeed flat!
4. french student | November 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Ok I had to dig a little to find the results but here they are :
http://demanddebate.com/ipcc_survey.pdf
question by question, here is the way I see it
all the other answers state human activity is an important factor. That is 94%
again, 92% state that man-made CO2 has an important role in the climate change. And the last answer includes other man-made factors.
Wow! NOBODY sait it would have no impact?
Again, 91% say it would have a visible impact.
86% think it is either an all-time high or going there.
A little les consensusy than the rest, is it?
Wait that means the guys who actually disagree ther IS a global warmin are actually …
pfew that is a debate.
Now we have a whooping 9% who did not feel they could answer the question.
Only 4% thought a 1 degree increase would be desirable.
The rest (yes, that is 87%) believe at least some people would be harmed. But I suppose it is true that some countries like Iceland or Groenland would welcome a little increase in the mean temperature.
Remember, the question is about a one-degree increase, while models predict a lot more than that.
and for the last question :
Now think about it a little. The question is not about an ideal wheather for human life but about an ideal wheather in general. That life would go on, or at least pick up after an adaptation (dare I say evolution) period has never been into question.
But even then , only 2% of the surveyed people believe that such an ideal climate would be warmer than the present one.
And 87% of the same people think this is the direction the climate is going
And 94% of the same surveyed people say man is an important cause of this change.
And not one of these people think an effort to control CO2 emissions would have no effect.
Nope, no consensus here…
And, of course, this is the source that Mark selected, so I guess this is as conservative as it can get.
5. Almiranta | November 15th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Tract, you make no sense. True liberals tend to believe what they are told by the MSM, because it is hard for them to believe they are being lied to by agencies they once trusted, but they are learning to investigate what they are told and to look at other sources of news. Hard-core radical Liberals, on the other hand, buy into everything the Agenda Media tell them because it is, for the most part, exactly what they want to hear. When it isn’t what they want to hear, they ignore it or claim someone was paid off to say something that doesn’t toe the radical BS line.
Note how you refer to talk show hosts as “gasbags”—unbiased, huh?
What you Libs are so determined to ignore, overlook, hide—or maybe just don’t have the smarts to understand—is that radio talk show hosts DO NOT PRESENT THEMSELVES AS OBJECTIVE REPORTERS. Well, Ranty Rhodes pretends to be presenting the actual news, which is the biggest joke going. But when you listen to Rush, or Sean, or Bill, or any of the other radio personalities, they come right out and tell you that they are offering THEIR OPINIONS.
There is no deception. There is no hidden agenda. As opposed to, say, Dan Blather, who —-acting as a REPORTER—blatantly presented what he knew to be forged material, over the objections of those hired to verify those documents, and then lied, said that the documents had been verified when they had not, and even when caight defended himself by saying that he believed the material to be accurate even though it was false. He pretended to be a true journalist, and pretended to be presenting real news, when in fact he was offering his opinion, lying about its veracity, and hiding the fact that what he was really doing was trying to dress up his personal opinion as fact, in an effort to win an election for the guy he personally wanted to win.
Journalism? Hardly.
It is those who posture as reporters but who ignore what used to be the basic tenet of “journalism” — which was to simply present the news as it happened, wtihout bias, without trying to influence those who heard it—who generate the scorn for what is now known as the Mainstream Media, what I personally have dubbed the Agenda Media.
Look at how you BS radicals get your panties in a wad over the one cable station that does present actual news which has been overlooked by the MSM–Fox News. Their affrontery in daring to show the public the stories buried by the Agenda Media has you BS Liberals in such a tizzy, you invent stories about Fox being “paid off” and other equally ridiculous insanity, and refer to it scornfully. It doesn’t matter that Fox presents both sides of an issue—how dare they present more than the accepted Leftist cant put out by the Agenda Media?
Sorry you don’t like hearing that peers of the scientists you hold up as the very last word in climate predictions don’t buy into the ooohing and ahhhing about this emperor’s new clothes. How sad for you.
Sorry you don’t like hearing that some of those who have been quoted about supporting the Sky Is Falling Theory Of Global Warming are now complaining that they have been misquoted. How sad for you.
But for those of us who actually like getting both sides of the story, it’s interesting.
And not hypocritical at all, you hypocrite.
6. AgentFear | November 15th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
The earth is in great shape.
There is plenty of fish.
Earth’s rain forest’s are just getting trimmed.
There is plenty of oil.
Bush has a sound energy policy.
Our ecomony is robust.
The markets are normally adjusting.
Weak dollar? Not here!
Bush did and continues to do a great job post Katrina.
Blackwater is being railroaded by lies and accusations.
The Kurds and Turks are old pals.
Pakistan is going to do what WE want them to do.
Russia is old and has no power.
Europe is old and has no power.
China is still a favored nation.
Bush is a great statesman.
Rudy will lead us to the promised land.
We do not torture! Honest.
Our soldiers are almost home.
We are going to turn over the 14 military bases to Iraq.
The U.S. Embassy in Iraq is the biggest and most expensive money can buy.
Rush, Sean, Glen, Michael, Ann, and Melanie represent the main stream.
Dick Cheney is the bestest Vice President ever.
The list goes on and on. This is your world. Reality.
Reality.
Yeah, right.
7. KCJ | November 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
french student, it’s interesting see your cherry picking and spinning of data.
You omitted from Q1 that 63% said that “human activity drives climate change, but natural variability is also important,” and that 11% say “Natural variability drives climate change, but human activity is also important.” So right there you got a majority that recognize that natural variability has an impact on the climate.
Again, let’s look at that same question.. According to the survey, only 20% say “human activity is the principal driver of climate change.”
Nice try french student… i love how you prefaced your cherry picked data with “here is the way I see it” — yeah, you saw only what you wanted to see.
8. french student | November 15th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
actually KJC:
First I gave the link.That is more than Mark did in the full disclosure game.
Second, I said up front it was the way I saw it. I did group up some answers.
I never said, nobody ever said, that nature had no role in the climate. But on Q1, all the answers I grouped stated that the human factor was either the primary or an important one. Just as I said right after.
Yes, I did group the answers. That is because my point was that the debate there is left is one of degree, not of kind. The debate is not about if mankind is responsible or not for climate change, the debate is about wether it is the only cause, the primary cause, or an important cause.
The debate is not about the fact that earth is warming, that we are at least in part responsible, nor about our ability to act to counteract it. In fact, the debate is on points of details.
And I notice you did not argue about my analysis on the other five questions, KJC.
I’m sorry, but you are the one who writes in bad faith, here, not me.
9. mitche | November 15th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Mark Noon is a complete, 100% automiton. And excuse my spelling.
Instead of creating unresolveable arguements Mark, why don’t you just look outside.
Lets see what we have.
Austrailia is enduring a 1000 year drought, as is Georgia and the Los Angles basin.
Both the artic and antartic are melting, as is most of the worlds glaciers.
San Diego almost burnt to the ground because of fires started 100 milles to the north.
Over 1 million people in the Tabasco region of central Mexico were forced to leave their homes because of floods.
And yet you want to parse the word “consensus”?
The word means to agree, dumkoff!!
Deny all you want. The earth is warming and christianists such as yourself cannot and will not and are unable to bring about the phantasmagorical change that you so desperately require.
10. KCJ | November 15th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
“And I notice you did not argue about my analysis on the other five questions, KJC.”
Why should i have to? It’s basically the same thing as question one over and over..
i exposed your spin tactics easily enough with the first question, your credibility was already destroyed.
11. Ricorun | November 15th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
KJC: i exposed your spin tactics easily enough with the first question, your credibility was already destroyed.
You concluded that on the basis of the answer you provided? Interesting.
12. KCJ | November 15th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
wasn’t very hard ricorun. french student’s selective quoting of the survey results was extraordinarily misleading.
13. Bigfoot | November 15th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
mitche,
No one is denying the floods, droughts and fires to which you refer, but you offer ZERO evidence that any of these are the result of man-made global warming. Also, we are not denying that the Earth is warming. We merely disagree as to how much is due to human activity. If you don’t like me saying that, let me explain something. By disagreeing with you and other alarmists, we skeptics are offering something called “dissent”, and it’s our right to do so, just as much as the anti-war crowd has the right to criticize Bush’s war in Iraq.
A bit of climatic history for you:
Around 12,000 years ago, when the human population, and its CO2 production, was a tiny fraction of what it is today, the earth’s sea level rose by at least 300 feet. That reflects an amount of polar, temperature lattitude, and glacial melting far beyond anything we’ve seen today.
A few more inconvenient facts:
Although CO2 increased from 1940 to 1970, the Earth’s average temperature experienced a slight decrease.
There were more major hurricanes during the 1930s, when CO2 was lower, than in the last decade or two.
Most of the greenhouse effect, about 95%, is caused by water vapor. The dreaded CO2 contributes about 3 to 4 percent. Of that, about 5 percent is man-made. So if you want to believe that 5 percent of 3 or 4 percent is causing droughts here and floods there, go right ahead.
But do us a favor and learn how to spell “Australia”, “Los Angeles”, “Arctic”, “Antarctic”, and (last but not least) “Noonan”.
14. Ricorun | November 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Bigfoot: Around 12,000 years ago, when the human population, and its CO2 production, was a tiny fraction of what it is today, the earth’s sea level rose by at least 300 feet. That reflects an amount of polar, temperature lattitude, and glacial melting far beyond anything we’ve seen today.
Say, isn’t that around the time them Injuns were supposed to have crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia? Where are you getting your data anyway?
15. neologizer | November 15th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ scientist
Individual Societies and Organizations
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Academy for Advancement of Sciences (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Federal Climate Change Science Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society - (world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world’s oldest and the United Kingdom’s largest geoscience organization
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
American Association of State Climatologists
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
World Meteorological Organization
United Nations Environment Program
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
International Council on Science
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
Pew Center on Climate Change
World Wildlife Fund
Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements: Australia Belgium Brazil Caribbean Canada China France Germany India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Russia South Africa Switzerland United Kingdom USA
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm#Administrative_Officials
16. Ricorun | November 15th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
KCJ: wasn’t very hard ricorun. french student’s selective quoting of the survey results was extraordinarily misleading.
Jeebers. Perhaps we should ask Alice. When she’s ten feet tall.
17. Rana Quijotesca | November 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am
KCJ:
First of all, not only are you nitpicking… you are, in essence, a small kid poking a larger one and yelling “I BEAT YOU UP!!!!!”
As Lewis Black once said:
18. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 1:20 am
French,
Ah, but only 20% say that human activity is the PRIMARY driver of global warming - ie, only a small minority agree with the alarmist view.
19. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 1:22 am
mitche,
The article was written by Matt, not by me…and as he is Jewish, he’d make a strange Christianist.
You might want to grab a clue or two before you comment.
20. Poptech | November 16th, 2007 at 2:35 am
NO ‘Consensus’ on “Man-Made” Global Warming
Skeptical Scientific Organizations:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
“…we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But what you don’t hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science.” - James Inhofe, B.A. Economics
21. Poptech | November 16th, 2007 at 2:37 am
19,000 Scientists declare that “man-made” global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign ‘The Heidelberg Appeal’ (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)
150 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of ‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action’ (ISA)
105 Scientists sign ‘The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change’ (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
77 Skeptical Scientists (Business and Media Institute)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the ‘Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming’ (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, ‘The Deniers’ (National Post, Canada)
An Inconvenient Fact: …only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane” - Marcus Aurelius
Skeptical Scientists:
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc. Earth Sciences, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
Meteorologists:
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified, Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Asmunn Moene, former Chief Meteorologist, Oslo, Norway
Austin W. Hogan, AMS Certified, Meteorologist, USA
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Boe, Director of Meteorology Weather Modification Inc., USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Dan Maly, Retired Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Don Webster, Retired Meteorologist WEWS-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Grant Dade, Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of ‘The Weather Channel’, Chief Meteorologist KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Lee Eddington, Meteorologist Geophysics Branch, U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Mark Scirto, B.S. Meteorology, University of St. Thomas, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Morgan Palmer, AMS Certified, Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Randy Mann, AMS Certified, Meteorologist KREM-TV, USA
Richard (Rich) Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, Meteorologist WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Thomas B. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, M.Sc, Colorado State University, Retired Head of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Social Scientists:
“The assessment of regional environmental and social impacts is a multidisciplinary task that involves natural and social scientists working in tandem with policy makers.” - American Meteorological Society
Andrey Illarionov, Ph.D. Economics, St. Petersburg University, Russia
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Daniel R. Simmons, B.A. Economics, Utah State University, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Margo Thorning, Ph.D. Economics, University of Georgia, USA
Myron Ebell, M.Sc. Economics, London School of Economics, USA
Richard Tol, Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, Columbia University, USA
Robert Bradley, B.A. Economics, Ph.D. Political Economy, University of Houston, USA
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Colorado, USA
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
William Nordhaus, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, USA
Deceased:
“Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead” - James Hansen, 2006
Adrian H. Gordon, Meteorologist, University of South Australia, Australia (Died: April 12, 2000)
August H. Auer Jr., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)
Duwayne M. Anderson, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Texas A&M University, USA (Died: October 4, 2002)
George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, USA (Died: January 25, 2004)
Heinz Lettau, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Wisconsin, USA (Died: August 4, 2005)
Helmut Metzner, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Botany, University of Tubingen, Germany (Died: September 20, 1999)
James P. Lodge Jr., Ph.D. Consultant in Atmospheric Chemistry, USA (Died: December 14, 2001)
John R. Apel, Ph.D. Physics, Johns Hopkins University, USA (Died: August 16, 2001)
Larry H. Brace, B.S. Physics, University of Michigan, USA (Died: August 28, 2005)
Michael J. Higatsberger, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria (Died: January 7, 2004)
Paul Handler, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Illinois, USA (Died: January 24, 1998)
Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of Southern California, USA (Died: August 12, 2001)
Roland (R.A.D.) Byron-Scott, Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Meteorology at Flinders University, Australia (Died: January, 2004)
Thomas Gold, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, Cornell University, USA (Died: June 22, 2004)
Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, Sweden (Died: June 27, 2007)
William (Bill) A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: September 10, 2000)
William Mitchell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Oxford, UK (Died: October 30, 2002)
Skeptical Scientific Organizations:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Skeptical Organizations:
AccuWeather, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
FAEC - Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, Argentina
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center, USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
The Association of British Drivers, UK
The Environmental Conservation Organization, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA
22. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 3:40 am
And I am accused of cheery-picking?
As I said, 92% of those surveyed in the survey you provided state that human activity is either an important cause or the primary cause of global warming.
What the survey did was basically to provide one answer for the “nays” and to split the “aye” vote into three, and it was the same for each question. Then they point to one of the “aye” answers, and say that there is debate between “aye” and “nay” because the answer they pointed to is not a supermajority.
poptech
You see, the reason the topic of the post is the IPCC is that the IPCC does meta-studies of the global warming phenomenon. That is, they do not do a study in their own lab,and then publish it.
They are the ones who read every single scientific publication about global warming, review each one of them for scientific accuracy and relevancy, and compile them ino a readable report.
So I am sure if these associatins you cited had any valid scientific points, they would be echoed in the IPCC report.
Remember, the IPCC is international, and it is not for profit. They do not gain anything either way their conclusions go. Can you say the same of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, whose members, I guess, are not climatorologists (but geologists), and are probably in majority employed by oil companies whose financial interest is that global warming is made to appear less threatening?
As for your list down there, while it is most impressive and I do not have the time to make a background check on each and every one of them, let me tel you about one name that jumped to my face.
Claude Allegre is on your list. He is listed as a scientist who deisagrees with global warming. He is, in fact, a failed geologist. When he did not gain the approval of his peers int his field of choice, geology, he turned to politics. He went as far as the minister of education.
He is the one minister of education in my lifetime who managed to unite the whole of the french school system and of the students in my pre-graduatng lifetime.
That is right, he united them all … in a big strike / protest that lasted for weeks. Hell he is the only minister that sent me chanting into the streets, and my French teacher encouraged our class to skip his lecture to go there. And that was the year where there was the bac francais (kinda like the language SATs, except there are no multiple choice questions in the bac).
So not only is he not a very good scientist, he is a bad politician also. And, being a politician first and a scientist a distant second these days, I would say he is more subject to lobbyist pressures and more enclined to succumb to these pressures than the average IPCC member.
As I said, I have no time to do a backgroung check on every one of the names you gave.
However, considering your previous post citing organisations, and the background of the names I do know, I think it is safe to dismiss the list.
Remember, if these guys had valid scientific points against global warming, they would have made it into the IPCC report.
23. RYan | November 16th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Or, Frenchstudent, you could also say that if they had provided more varieties of ‘No’ more of the ‘yes’s might have defected to one of the others. You can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps if it had been a binary poll, more of the people that took one of the intermediate andwers woudl have taken an exdtreme answer - either way. It could just as easilty have been that some people inclined to say ‘no’ took one of the intermediate answers just because they dislike extremes - the factor you cite is just as likely - if not more likely - to cut against than for you.
24. RYan | November 16th, 2007 at 5:38 am
And your statement about the IP{CC is laughable - given that many of those people were misquoted, or in many cases _INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF THOSE AGREEING_ _Over their objections_.
25. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 6:00 am
I do not think, Ryan, that anybody who chose to say that human activity is an important reason for climate change (and that is the weakest of the three “yea” answers) would have said that it is, in fact, not important, given more options to say it is not important.
The point of Matt writing this post was to say that the poll proved that the IPCC report did not reflect the opinion of the IPCC members.
So let’s compare the results of the poll and the IPCC report sconclusions shall we?
question 4 : 86% of those surveyed think the climate is either at an all-time warmest or getting there.
question 2 : 92% think said emissions are at least an important factor in the increase in globally averaged temperatures.
None of the survey questions tackled this topic.
Question three : not a sinle one of the surveyed people believe human efforts to curb CO2 emissions would have no effect. 91% say the effect would be visible.
Other natural and/or human-related factors are the principal drivers of climate change. 6%
And that is not a question about natural factors being the only cause, so… (btw, if there had been one, how many would have taken that answer, you think?)
Now the question most related to that in the survey is question 5. It takes into account a best-case scenario (an increase of only one degree) and asks if the outcomes would be desirable. And 87% say it would be harmful to all or part of the population.
Once again, it is true that some countries could benefit from “more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall”, although I do not see who would benefit from more cyclones and/or droughs.
Not discussed in the survey.
So tell me again how the survey is supposed to prove that the IPCC report does not reflect the opinions of the IPCC members?
26. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 6:04 am
The source of the quotes is the wikipedia entry for IPCC, chapter “IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007″.
27. RYan | November 16th, 2007 at 6:17 am
But in fact, studies on polls show that just such things happen. YOu could, for example, argue over what the term “Significant’ means in different people’s minds. Also, as with any poll, I want to see the sample. I haven’t yet but I would just about be willing to bet money that the poll A: Over samples democrats and B: Undersamples Democrats, and C: Undersamples moderates - because almost every poll you ever see does those three things.
28. RYan | November 16th, 2007 at 6:18 am
ANd perhaps they could begin by not including as supporters the names of scientists who ask not to be included as supporters?
29. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 6:24 am
as documented in the post, the survey was released by “DemandDebate.com, a Web site skeptical of global warming “alarmism” “.
I suppose they made an effort to make sure the polling sample was not biased…. in the direction of “alarmism”, that is. Yo ucan’t have a site promoting debate cheating in order to make a false impression of consensus, can you?
See, sometimes the source games can backfire, too.
30. RYan | November 16th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Since I am not citing that poll or site in particular, why is that poll relevant? Deflection is not a valid tactic.
Nice try, no dice.
31. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 6:55 am
nope, I was just going back to the topic of the post, the demanddebate.com-released survey.
32. RYan | November 16th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Because you didn’t like the question?
Wether or not that particular poll is valid has no bearing on if the poll you cited is valid. Both could be wrong. I personally despise polls in general and think they are a large part of what is wrong with modern politics, making for politicians who stick their finger in the air every chance they get rather than ones who make decisions based on the facts they know and then reap the rewards or suffer the consequences based on the results. A poll of people who are not experts on the topiuc and don’t know half of the facts involved - which make up a majority of the people polled in any given poll(Look at the portions of just about any poll that say “Know little about the topic’ ‘aren’t paying close attention’ or the like.
“First thing, lets kill all the pollsters’
33. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Wait wait wait
What poll are you referring to? If you are referring to none in particular, haw are you even relevant to the topic here?
How is me talking about the survey of the IPCC members, speialists one and all, which is the topic of the post, how is that “deflecting the question”?
You say “polls can be wrong” and you believe that invalidates this particular survey, just because you do not like the results?
You say “polls can be wrong because of A and B and C” and when I show that in this case, A and B and C are wrong, you say I’m evading the question?
Could you please make a rational, coherent argument?
Spell out clearly what you think of the topic of the post, this survey and how it is supposed to invalidate the credibility of the IPCC report?
34. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 8:46 am
By the tone of the posts from our resident lemmings; french, agent, etx., there appears to be a growing desperation amongst them bordering on complete intolerance towards questioning their belief system on AGW.
Well the fact is that there is even some doubt amongst the highly touted and often quoted IPCC members.
That’s gotta sting.
35. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 9:25 am
neocon?
Please read my posts for more than tone (which you miniterpret, btw. I am becoming exasperated with Ryan’s non sequiturs, not desperate).
Matt went to the trouble of finding a source alleging there was a debate over global warming.
He then quoted a source that quoted a source that interpretated the data from a survey.
I went back to the data from the survey, gave you a clear link to it, and showed, quoting the data itself, that the survey does in fact show that there is no debate on the points made by the latest IPCC report.
Now Ryan came and started attacking my reading of the survey, so I showed the relation between the survey questions and the related IPCC conclusions.
Then Ryan started touting reasons why polls can go wrong, especially if the pollster is biased. I pointed out to him that in this case, the pollster is an organisation that promotes debates on the GW issue, and that the studies show there is virtually no disagreement on the IPCC report conclusions. I concluded that if anything, the study was biased the other way, and still could not find traces of a widespread debate over the IPCC report conclusions.
Ryan then went on to attack the very principle of polling, and touted a rather boring list of people he claimed were scientists that were in disagreement with global warming. This very moment is when he went off-topic, since the post is about the survey quoted in the post.
However, skimming the list, I found one name I recognised as a former geologist who could not gain peer approval and went to have a disastrous career in politics, over a decade ago. I remarked that this guy did not strike me as a) qualified to judge on climatology issues and b) the most unbiased scientist there is (since he is a politician, in fact). While I do not have time to do a background check on every person on the list, I believe that this list, without any source nor the criteria to be included on the list, is meaningless.
Now you arrive and declare victory in this debate?
I had come to expect better from you, neocon. This is of the level of Ryan, not you. (I would not go so far as to say you sunk on the level of keith or Jeremiah…yet).
Please read the backlog and come to me with reasonned arguments, so we can have a true discussion (frankly, the one with Ryan is becoming a little too surrealist for me)
36. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 9:40 am
French,
First of all, I don’t care what Ryan said. Secondly, I didn’t declare victory, at all!!!!!! (of course that is what AGW supporters try and do all the time)
I merely pointed out the FACT that there is some disagreement about AGW within the sacred halls of the IPCC.
And that should lead someone to ponder just a bit more.
37. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 9:43 am
And to do that, you disregarded the actual results of the survey, as I showed.
38. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 10:01 am
french,
I assume you consider yourself one of thought and reason. Well, when it comes to AGW, liberals like yourself are anything but.
The fact is that mans contribution to AGW and the dire prognostications spouted by the far left are very much in question, which would lead someone of more rational thought to continue to study and question that propaganda.
If only liberals would put as much thought into AGW as they do into the GWOT.
39. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Are you saying the results of the survey (as you see them) should end all debate?
40. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 10:19 am
No, neocon, I am saying that the piece brought forth by Matt does not say what Matt says it does. It does in fact prove that the IPCC members surveyed agree with the ipcc report conclusions to the rate of roughly 90%
You’ll remark that Matt did not even link to the survey results , but to a site interpretating the interpretation of the survey results, a survey which asks its question in an way that I (personal opinion, here) find biased.
As for the permatently ending the debate, as long as people think and record data, there will be a debate. Hell there is still a debate on the existence of God, and we’ve been going at it since… well since forever. The question is not wether there is a debate, but what the debate is about. What was showed here is that there is no debate about the IPCC report conclustions from the IPCC members.
Since the IPCC is the only comprehensive study of the whole of the litterature pertaining to global warming, and there is no proven dissent on the actual results, I assume it is the most accurate report on the state of the research on the phenomenon.
The IPCC also offers garantees of objectivity in that it is independant from any government (since it is multinational) and is not in a position to make any profit from the results of the research either way, or subordinated to any organisation that is.
In short, the guys which have access to more data than anyone else, the skills to interpret that data, and no reason to spin the results are overwhelmingly agreeing on the IPCC report conclusions. That makes the conclusions trustworthy to me.
Now is my reasonning clear, or do you need me to break it up a little more for you?
41. Retired Spook | November 16th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Are you saying the results of the survey (as you see them) should end all debate?
Neocon, I think most on the AGW Alarmist side are not intellectually sophisticated enough to suggest that the debate is over because of the results of some survey. The vast majority of the Lemmings who side with the Alarmist community do so simply because James Hansen or Algore says the debate is over. The fact that people like Hansen and Gore are making money hand over fist from the debate just goes right over the pointy little heads of people like French Student.
As Ricorun has so astutely pointed out in a number of GW threads, where the disingenuousness of the Left really becomes apparent is when you try to get beyond the “debate” and start looking at real world solutions to making this planet a better place to live. I thinks that’s because, deep down, most Leftists view winning the Global Warming/Climate Change debate as a means to an end (political power), rather than as a means to a better quality of life for all.
I used to have this huge (and I do mean HUGE) archive of GW articles, studies, graphs, charts, etc. that I would draw on to refute some of the more intellectually dishonest claims made by Alarmists. I freed up a whole bunch of space on my hard drive a couple months ago when I deleted all that information. There’s really no logical and sane reason to debate people like French Student. The Internet is a virtually endless resource of information (much of it inaccurate or out and out false), and people like French Student will always come up with something to refute whatever you say, because, as I said, it’s not about solutions, it’s about winning the debate, and how one sees the debate through the prism of his or her world view. I suspect that, deep down, people like French Student want the debate to be over
while the “consensus” appears to favor their world view, because they’re afraid continued debate may reveal truths that will result in a shattering of their world view.
42. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Retired spook
This thread is not about solutions, it is about the presence o not of debate.
I merely try to stay on-topic. I would gladly want to see solutions on the subject of global waming. I personnally think getting your cars’ gas mileage up to the standards we have to follow in western Europe would be a first, easy step.
But that is not the debate of the thread. I did not choose the topic, I merely try to stay in it.
You claim I get my information on the net and that a lot of information on the net is false. You mean to imply that the information I use is false.
Can you prove it? Do you have reliable information proving that I have sayed anything false on this subject? Because if you do, please send it to Matt, he just had one source blow up under him.
43. AAR | November 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am
french student,
Can you prove that most of the global warming is caused by human activity and not part of the natural cycles?
Can you prove that all of the information you believe and quote is correct?
AAR
44. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I can do better than that , and I did : I can prove that unless wikipedia is lying through its teeth on the results of the IPCC report, the IPCC believes it. And that the IPCC is an association of the guys most qualified to judge on that matter, with access to the most data, and the least inclined to be biased .
as for the fiability of wikipedia on this matter, you can check yourself by reading the report directly :
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
But you’d better have ome time before you.
Read the backog, I do not have to repeat myself every time a new one of you logs in.
45. Retired Spook | November 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
This thread is not about solutions, it is about the presence or not of debate
And, from what I’ve read here, you seem to have done a credible job of debunking Matt’s contention that there is still debate over the IPCC’s report. Let’s concede that you won this debate. Fine; but now I’m asking where to from here? What people like you seem to relish are circular arguments that never accomplish anything other than the perception that you won.
You mean to imply that the information I use is false.
I meant to imply that, given the total amount of false information available on the Internet, the chances of you’re referencing information that’s false is quite high, whether or not it was intentional, and particularly if you search only for information that supports your POV. That’s why I say the debate is rather senseless. About all it accomplishes at this point is keeping politicians whose views people like you share and support, out of my wallet. What it does not do, IMO, is further the advance of science.
Science is not, and never will be, a debating society, at least I hope not, because then it will cease to be science. Consensus has no place in science other than to serve as an impetus to inquiring scientific minds to challenge that consensus, not declare that the debate is over. Now if there were scientific proof that supported the supposed consensus, then you might have a leg to stand on, but there is not.
46. Retired Spook | November 16th, 2007 at 11:47 am
chances of you’re referencing
That should have been “your” referencing; sorry keefer — my bad.
French Student, you seem to have mistakenly confused agreement with a report produced by a largely political organization as “scientific proof”. If that’s what scientific proof has come down to, then we’re all in a heap of trouble.
47. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Retired spook
First, you do not seem to understand what science really is.
In the world of ideas, there would be no debates in science. In the world of men, it is because at any time, someone can come up with new evidence, because everything can be put in question, that science progresses. The greek definition for the word from which “atom” derives was something along the lines of “cannot be split”.
When someone demonstrated that the atom could be split, it was a debating point at first, and it was debated. Then someone found a way to prove that it could, by doing it, and building the apparatus to detect the fission. Now there is no debate any more on this point, but there still is debate on how far we can slit it, how to get the best energy conversion rate from the fission, etc.
However, until new facts come in, the debate on the veracity of the IPCC conclusions is pretty moot. There has been no new arguments that have not been taken into consideration by the IPCC and that are putting hose conclusions into question. The point is not to make the same debate again and agin, it is about making the debate go forward.
And to answer your question, off-topic as it is, here are my two cents.
The real problem is how to go through the next 30 to 50 years. After that time, Fusion energy will most likely have been perfected. The advantage of fusion is that it runs on the most prevalent resource in the universe : hydrogen (although early forms of man-controlled fusion will probably run on deuterium, but that can be extracted from seawater, not exactly a rare commodity).
But during this transition period, there will be a tremendous demand on our planet’s energy supplies. China and India, who total over 2 Billions citizens, are beginning to use energy on a level comparable to our countries on a per habitant basis.
So we have to face both the problem of global warming, and of an energy crisis.
To solve the energy crisis, we must develop every solution to create energy, from nuclear to solar to coal to bioenergy and back to windpower. We have to cut back on our energy intake, not through a reduction in our standards of living but through innovation in the energy-saving technologies. Better cars who use less gas (I have a Diesel that can go 1000km on 40 liters of diesel, twice the mileage of the car I had before), better-made houses that use as little energy to regulate the temperature or to be lighted as possible, and so on and so on.
To achieve that, we have to start a real, coordinated R&D effort, and if possible a worldwide one. We have to give incentives to use less energy, like simply taxing gas (our prices are in the range of 1.40€ per liter of unleaded, do the maths), by educating more youngs to do research on the subject.
As for global warming itself, I pretty much said we would not stop using gas. I stand by it. What we have to do is to find ways to trap the CO2 instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Recycling it the way we do nuclear waste. Find energy-efficient ways to trap it, and use it once more.
Yes, I want to put a lot of money into R&D. I believe it is our best chance. and we cannot afford to squabble amongst ourselves, of hope the market will make such R&D interesting on its own. By the time the fossil fuels run out enough to make the prices go high enough, we will not have time to develop the technologies we need in time to deploy them. It has to be a concerted effort, with as much political weight behind it as we can put.
France is the place where ITER, the prototype of a fusion plant, is being built. We have much tighter environmental laws than you do, and our economy did not tank because of it. Sure, our richest people are not as rich as yours, but that is not the point.
The thing is, if the US really wanted to throw its weight in the project, you could push others into doing it. You re the economic elephant in a china shop, no-one can afford not to notice you.
But you have to start as soon as possible. And to do that, I am sorry but you will have, as a nation, to stop looking at your navels, slap a few of your fortune 500 guys who make most of their money from the statu quo, and get down to it.
In fact, there are only two ways to get through this energy crisis for a given country : to control the resources, or to make better use of what you have.
Controling the resources (oil in iraq) is what this administration chose to do. I believe it is an ultimately self-defeating position, because all you will get is worldwide resentment. And even with a hardware superiority, you cannot hold the whole world at gunpoint. China alone could mobilize two soldiers for every one of your citizens, for Pete’s sake! That does not even count thir economic warfare capabilities.
So I am thinking what needs to be done is a new Manhattan project.
An arms race of a new genre, where the weapons sought are energy efficiency, new sources of energy, and carbon-conserving technologies. If the US started it, it would take less than a decade before the other countries in the world were forced to follow. The prospect of an America free of energy dependency, making more with energy they produce, would be too scary. The technologies would leak to other countries, even if they were not shared (which I believe they should), and benefit everyone.
You are probably the only country in the world who has the ability to start this movement.
You are the only one who has the manpower and education system to make it work.
It is not the time to be squabbling over whether or not manmade CO2 is harmful. It is not the time to believe in the market, which has an attention span of an hour and the foresight of a two-year old to solve a problem that has such a delayed action clause as global warming.
Now is the time to invest in R&D and push as hard as you can.
You wanred my opinion : here it is. You wanted the course of action I recommand? Start taxing gas. Start investing the money in energy and carbon-capturing technologies. Start regulating the amount of CO2 your gaz-guzzlers can emit, finig both the owner and the maker of the car if the levels are too high, forbid the car altogether i it is way too high, and you will see new, more efficient engines appear. Start training students in energy physics, and paying for their research.
It’s a 10-year investment, people, but it might be the most profitable of all.
48. french student | November 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
While I agree with you in general terms, in this case I have to differ : the report states that AGW has been proved, agreeing wit it is agreeing it has been proved. Since the qualified guys agree, I believe we should listen to them.
The report is not about the scientific proof. It is about getting it where the public can read it, and more importantly understand it. I am no climatologist, neither are you. But this report states that the climatologists have reviewed all the evidence thay had, and concluded that AGW is a reality (or at least they are 95% sure of it).
49. AAR | November 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Telegraph.co.uk…
What will the Liberals propose as the solution for Global Cooling when it begins — as it inevitably will?
More taxes, higher taxes, more restrictions, more controls, more Liberal solutions!!!
AAR
50. SteaM | November 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Is it just me or is there an effort to confuse the masses as to whether global warming exists and especially that if it does it’s not caused by humans and that the biggest source of this confusion is the energy companies who aim to profit from this created confusion?
Just sayin…
51. neologizer | November 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
poptech try to do your homework. THis took 15 seconds to debunk…..
“19,000 Scientists declare that ?man-made? global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)”
WRONG…….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
More lack of homework from you (another 15 seconds)
..AAPG The new statement, adopted July 2007, states that “Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions
The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:
IN CONCLUSION:
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate……………………………………………………………. SOUNDS LIKE A CONSENSUS
PS
from which ideological non-scientifically based website did you cut and paste from??
52. AAR | November 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, Nov 13, 2007…
First it was the next ICE AGE with North America buried under a thick sheet of ice…. Now it’s Global Warming which Liberals are blaming for everything under the sun (except of course the sun’s warming)!
What new crisis, conspiracy theory, or world catastrophe will the Democrats (Liberals) and their fringe Left-Wing’ers dream up tomorrow?!!!
How about Nuclear Winter if the Democrats and Liberals around the world don’t support action to stop Iran or the Islamic extremists in Pakistan… although, that will reduce Global Warming!
AAR
53. Retired Spook | November 16th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
French Student,
You actually got my attention with many of your ideas about energy policy, but then you lost me when you stated “You wanted my opinion : here it is. You wanted the course of action I recommand? Start taxing gas. Start investing the money in energy and carbon-capturing technologies.
Why must the solutions to problems always involve punishing behavior you don’t like rather than rewarding behavior that you do like? I guess that’s essentially one of the biggest differences between Liberals and Conservatives.
54. AAR | November 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
The solution to any human influence on Global Warming is for America to work aggressively to produce new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting fuels and energy — including nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc. — not the Democrat’s plan to tax, restrict, tax, control, tax, and lower America’s standard of living!
That will take time, however. In the mean time, we will continue to rely on petroleum in the immediate future — and it should be AMERICAN oil, gasoline, and natural gas. As we work to develop and produce those new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting energy sources, we must start drilling in ANWR, along our coasts, and other areas for the oil we need — AMERICAN OIL — NOW!
AAR
55. neologizer | November 16th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
AAR
Is Investor’s business Daily your source for all worldly advice (medical, child care, education) or only science? -LOL
PS
Are you quoting this Fredrick Seitz??? -LOL LOL
Frederick Seitz was born on July 4, 1911 which makes him about a hundred years old.
In 1979 Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Ten years later in 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that “Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” Dr. Seitz was 78 years old at the time.
56. AAR | November 16th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
neologizer,
No, I’m quoting Investor’s Business Daily. In case you missed it, Investor’s Business Daily is a widely read publication. The fact that they or anyone else quotes a person whose opinions you don’t like does not in anyway discredit that person or the source!
Typical Liberal… attack the person when you disagree with their opinions! When did you start attacking people because of their age? Yes, I know, you’d prefer the opinions of teenagers or new indoctrinated graduates from the Liberal universities who think more like you do, but older people have experience and wisdom, to go with their book knowledge and knowledge gained over a lifetime. As to the comments from Reynolds Tobacco Company, it sounds like a typical “excuse” to remove him because of his opinions without creating the impression of age discrimination!
If you don’t like Seitz’s comments, the article quoted others as well. And there are others we can quote if you don’t like those people because they don’t dress or look to suit you!!!
The fact is, neither you nor the rest of the Algorian “experts” can prove that all of the global warming is being caused by humans. You can’t say with certainly or prove what percentage of the warming is or might be caused by human activity.
AAR
57. Poptech | November 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am
1. Do not ever use Wikipedia to source anything as it is completely useless as an accurate source. Anyone who checks it to debunk anything is a computer illiterate fool.
2. Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France - has all the qualifications necessary to give his position on Climate Change. You smearing him does not change his qualifications or the weight of his position.
Your “dismissal” of the list in no way invalidates it or changes the reality that it exists and an overwhelming number of skeptical scientists exist.
3. The IPCC is a POLITICAL body and writes it’s reports with politics in mind, this is why it is called The InterGOVERMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.
Neologizer you didn’t debunk anything, the petition is legitimate and so is the organization as are all the names, deal with reality and stop using Wikipedia as it is a completely unreputable, unreliable source that anyone can edit. Even on your worthless Wikipedia site they are listed as non-committal.
Both organizations hold Skeptical views of climate change, what you do no realize is many skeptical scientists acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change in some way (this can be 1%) but do not acknowledge that humans are the main driver or the cause of climate change least of all catastrophic.
There is no consensus. All the facts are here:
NO ‘Consensus’ on “Man-Made” Global Warming
58. neologizer | November 17th, 2007 at 2:55 am
LOL
taking
investor’s buisness daily as a legitimate source of climate science while ignoring peer reviewed real scientific journals
only one answer -LOL LOL
Taking a deceitful petition writen by a 100 year old tobbacco scientist that’s been debunked several dozen times over as truth while calling wikipedia as illegitamate - only one answer LOLOLLOLLOLLOLLLOLLOLLOLLLOLLOLLLOOL
PS
Allegre is a French politician … get it FRENCH and a politician (hasn’t done any science in decades) only one answer LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLLOLOOOOLLOLLOOLOLLOOLLLLOLLOOLLOLLLOOOLLLLOLLOOLLLOLLL
Conclusion: global warming skeptics scraped the bottom of the scientific barrel, found nothing, and had to go elsewhere (political, economic, ideological )
LOLLOLLOLLLOLLOLLOOLOOLOOLOOOLLOLLOLLOLOLLOLLOOLLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLLO
59. french student | November 17th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Poptech
the thing with wikipedia is hat while anyone can edit it, it means anyone can chalenge the articles written on it. In cases of conflicts, a panel of moderators judge.
Anyway, the article I quoted, as I said earlier, refers other sources. Instead of broadly attacking wikipedia, you have to either prove those sources were misquoted bt wikipedia, or that they were wrong. Just saying “wikipedia has some lies in it, so everything it says is wrong” is not gonna cut it.
Usig wikipedia is possible, it just requires a little fact-cheking afterwards, which I did.
As for Claude Allegre, had you even heard his name before? I have.
SteaM :
I do not believe it is just you.
Retired Spook :
See, the reason I propose to start taxing gas is threefold :
First, it does not, if it is done gradually, kill the economy. In France, the taxes bring the price of gas to 6.6 dollars per gallon. But since the price of gas has always been in these price ranges, it is commonly accepted.
Second, I am a firm believer of using both the carrot and the stick.
As I said, it is a really great incentive to buy and develop cars with a better mileage. Mine is a compact, on the small side, and goes nearly 60 MPG, running on diesel. I know I gave these figures before, but this time I converted the units so it speaks to you better. You will never see a gaz-guzzler in France. Might be hard for those who need a penile substitute, but other than that, no real problem.
And third, the additional revenue is needed to finance the research and incentives. Remember, I am not proposing to shut down other research venues. I am talking about increasing the amount of research done or paid for by the government. The money has to come from somewhere, and I believe taxing those who pollute is the smartest way to go about it.
60. Eric T | November 17th, 2007 at 10:27 am
French Student
The Penile Substitute????
Do you need me to show you what a hard di– looks like? Keep Your French Renault LeCar. The reason they didn’t sell good over here is they ride rough, they are slower than molasses. No fun at all to drive. Your government is ripping you off on your gas prices, I feel bad for you, Bringing that style of government over here is not the answer. I like my pick-up truck, I’ve owned camaro’s and corvettes and they are fun. I owned big smooth riding luxury cars that ride nice and smooth. Keep your putt-putt car. Don’t talk about taxing me more cause you watched some Al Gore propaganda.
61. neologizer | November 17th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Wrongtech
you’re not worthy of a rebuke that takes more then 15sec of my time. Hence the wikipedia …. prove it yourself
meanwhile…….
Climate change is “severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action” can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday.
The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in Valencia, Spain, warned that some of the effects of rising levels of greenhouse gases may already be irreversible.
The U.N. head said the situation was already “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action” could head off the crisis.
62. AAR | November 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
A member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says he and many other scientists do not see global warming as a developing catastrophe and there is no smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for the warming that does occur.
John Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He and thousands of others on the U.N. panel share half the Nobel Prize also awarded to Al Gore. But he says he cringes when he hears 100-year weather forecasts when it is incredibly difficult to accurately predict the weather five days from now.
He writes in The Wall Street Journal, “Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us.”
He points out that a recent CNN report on climate change made much of the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover, but did not mention that winter sea ice around Antarctica set a record maximum last month.
AAR
63. AAR | November 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
neologizer,
And readers should believe your comments above those of an expert quoted in a national publication like Investor’s Business Daily? Talk about a laugh!!!
What’s your “problem” with Investor’s Business Daily? Not authored and published by KOS or MoveOn.Org?
Do you understand what quote means?
AAR
64. neologizer | November 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Its a business magazine …. get it business, not science, business. Business experts, business writers, business commentators. No science experts, no science writers only business. A magazine with a slant towards business interests to give information on business
Would you use that magazine to get information on the best treatment for a health condition (ie how to manage your diabetes)? maybe if you were suicidal!
Would you use that magazine to get information on the safety of lead in your childrens toys made in china? - maybe if you don’t care about your childern.
Would you use that magazine to get information on the safety and efficacy of this years flu vaccine? - maybe if you didn’t care about yourself.
Now why you would use that magazine to learn about climate science …. could it be you don’t care about your environment?????
65. neologizer | November 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Dear AAR
“But he says he cringes when he hears 100-year weather forecasts when it is incredibly difficult to accurately predict the weather five days from now.”
of course he does ….. weather is not climate.
You can’t predict weather a week in advance it is unpredictable and unstable.
Climate is predictable and stable
If you actually knew what the difference was you probably wouldn’t be arguing right now
66. AAR | November 17th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
neologizer,
RE: “Climate is predictable and stable…”
Yeah. Right!
It almost looks like you Algorians took the report about the on-rushing Ice Age, and changed the words to say Global Warming! ! ! ! ! !
It’s a good thing that we didn’t all panic like you Liberals and immediately start dumping soot all over the Artic to melt the ice cap the way the Climatologists, Scientists, and Liberals wanted — to prevent the IMMINENT ICE AGE!
AAR
67. AAR | November 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Can’t we just all get along? ! ! !
Can’t you Liberals just agree that the solution to your panic stricken Algorian Global Warming hysteria is the same as that for America’s rising energy costs, and America’s need to reduce dependence on foreign oil?
The solution to any human influence on Global Warming (real or imagined, small or not) is for America to work aggressively to produce new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting fuels and energy — including nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc. — not the Democrat’s plan to tax, restrict, tax, control, tax, and lower America’s standard of living!
That will take time, however. In the mean time, we will continue to rely on petroleum in the immediate future — and it should be AMERICAN oil, gasoline, and natural gas. As we work to develop and produce those new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting energy sources, we must start drilling in ANWR, along our coasts, and other areas for the oil we need — AMERICAN OIL — NOW!
AAR
68. Poptech | November 18th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia is a legitimate source for anything is computer illiterate. Actually…
Only computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming. Do you not understand they have no proof of “Global Warming” being caused by man outside of useless computer models?
All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a “super computer” that costs “millions of dollars” it is infallible. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong data combined with poorly understood systems into a “model” that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. I am a computer analyst and can make a computer model do whatever I want by “tuning” it (adjusting variables until I get the answer I want or think is right). The more complex the model the more “mysterious” it seems. Processing more complex data in more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But since the models have been “tuned” (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results you want) they get results that “seem” likely, except it is based on a complex serious of junk calculations and data.
The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers, without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term “computer” they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.
Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or multiply those numbers and that “right answer” you have no way to confirm because it is 50 years from now. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global Climate Modeling.
What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise. These same climate models computers are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now! Give me a break.
Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for everything? Because they can’t, not even remotely. Some of them work “sort of” for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding.
Modeling 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don’t be fools, I do this for a living, Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth’s climate.
“Man-Made” Global Warming is an invented hysteria and Al Gore is largely responsible.
69. Steven C | November 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
It looks like you have a busy site. I appreciate the fact that you are permitting the comments from all sides. However, I do hope that the people here could argue a little more civilly.
I do not have strong political bias. As a father of two young children, my main objective is to make sure that my children and the children of the world will have necessary resources when they grow up. The resources I am talking about are clean air, water, land, energy, and a livable climate. I believe that all people, liberals and conservatives alike, care about the future generations.
So, my question to you and my conservative friends is the following;
Do you truly believe that your children and the future generations will have the necessary resources when they grow up if we keep using the fossil fuels at the rate we are using?
Please help me out on this. Thanks.
70. ohtwsxke&hellip | December 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
ohtwsxke
ohtwsxke