DailyTech - India Says it "Cannot Rely" on Biased UN Climate Panel, Forms National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology

DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/2010 10:40:02 AM , Rating: 4

"amateur researcher Al Gore." Wow. Not that any of Michael's article was all that good, but what's up with this? Gore never claimed to be a researcher and nobody claimed he was one up till now. That's great- we're no longer writing about the news, but rather, we're making it up. I could call Michael an amateur writer, but that would be a compliment.

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By mandrews on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

By mandrews on 2/8/2010 11:11:13 AM , Rating: 0

Err... Al Gore regards himself a climate researcher in the same regard that Mr. Pachauri does. Both do research in that they supervise researchers who are willing to produce studies and reports support their own conclusions.

According to one of Mr. Gore's own sites:
Source: http://www.climatecrisis.net/resources.php

quote:

Since the publication of the New York Times bestseller An Inconvenient Truth and the release of the Academy Award–winning ?lm of the same title, Mr. Gore has led more than 30 “Solutions Summits” with top scientists, engineers, and policy experts to examine every solution to the climate crisis in depth and detail . Our Choice draws on conclusions developed through those summits as well as on extensive independent research, describing how the bold choices necessary to save the earth’s climate should also be the foundations of policies world- wide to create new jobs and stimulate sustainable economic progress.

While producing a study is certainly not the same as authoring a journal paper, many regard this as a form of research. Thus the work of Mr. Gore and Mr. Pachauri could be viewed as research of a sort, albeit it would likely be disqualified from being considered serious science due to the apparent bias in both cases.

Obviously neither Mr. Gore or Mr. Pachauri are legitimate researchers, so the designation "armchair researcher" seems apt.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/2010 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 5

I only see a case for Gore being an advocate of a cause. This does not make him a researcher.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 12:45:48 PM , Rating: 1

If Al Gore isn't a researcher then why do people take Al Gore's word as proof positive man kind causes global warming?

Here's the problem. No one is doing actual research. You got guys like Rajendra Pachauri just making stuff up, cheery picking data, and ignoring data.

Then there's Al Gore promoting this propaganda that come to find out isn't true.

Here's a very valid question; Why isn't anyone going to jail?

"I only see a case for Gore being an advocate of a cause. This does not make him a researcher."

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2

"1> They take his word as a matter of faith. Just like when your parents told you when babies came from- I'll bet they didn't bring in a MD to explain it. Having told you themselves doesn't make your parent's MDs."

The Scientific Method doesn't use faith in its research.

"2> Gore's credibility is rooted in his dedication to public service, not as being a researcher."

No politician goes into public service to serve. They go in for power and money. Al gore is after power proof is in the 100 million dollars he made off this global warming.

"This includes the dismissal of the consensus of the scientific community by the right? And ignores the mischaracterizations already taking place?"

There is no consensus and there never was one. Prove your consensus. If any scientist questions the science then there is no consensus. Do you understand what that word means?

"That was a statement without backing facts. "

As much as your statements are without any facts. However I have facts I can share with you.

A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific "errors".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/70376...

This is constant though. There are errors all over the place. Not just with Al Gore. There are errors at Climatic Research Unit for hiding data, destroying data, refusing research from scientists that don't agree with global warming, errors at the UN, and errors with the chief of climate change.

How many errors does it take until you realize that these posers aren't doing any research? Democrat or republican it doesn't matter they're still lying and taking your money. I'm neither democrat or republican; I'm strictly independent.

Science is not faith. It Never was.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/2010 1:51:00 PM , Rating: -1

Yes, the scientific method uses plenty of faith. Have you proven the Earth is round? Proven that the Earth goes around the sun? ... I have not proven all the theories I have worked with to be true, but on faith I have taken many of them to be true, and have been pleased by that result. Any good engineer/scientist/researcher knows the value of good assumptions (taking things on faith). A good scientist must make assumptions, know when to test any assumption, and understand that to reach great heights faith is required. I think if you only rely on assumptions you get into trouble- but that's not what you said.

While I can't vouch for Gore, one way or the other- yes, people and politicians often do public service to serve. When I do charity work and donate a portion of every paycheck to charity- it is done for altruistic motives. If you questions things like that you are the only one with a motive.

Consensus- "majority of opinion" [dictionary.com] Yes, this word applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...

I've never even seen Gore's movie. Let me guess- there are thousands of statements. Nine or so are shown to be wrong. Thus the theory Gore is an advocate for must be wrong? No, it doesn't work like that. It doesn't prove anything about the theory one way or the other.

Good for you on being an independent without any faith.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 2:11:15 PM , Rating: 2

Are you fucking serious?

yes they proven the earth is round and that it rotates the sun. Holy crap.

I think you're confusing theories with faith. Theories are ideas that constantly change as new data is discovered. Faith is blindly accepted without any data.

Bad scientist make assumptions. I don't know a scientist in the world that would agree with you from Brian Cox to Michio Kaku.

Wow you know nothing about science.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 2:13:42 PM , Rating: 2

rotate is a bad word I got caught up in the followup's bad terminology.

Orbit is the proper terminology. Yes the earth orbits the sun.

General Relativity alone proves the earth orbits the sun.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:21:03 PM , Rating: 2

Posting a Wikipedia link on anything dealing with global wamring is a joke. They have a legion of AGW fanatics (many of which are admins) who rabidly watch all related stories, and will roll back anything dissenting, and ban anyone who persists.

One paper wrote a whole series of stories on all the bias problems they have. In one case, an actual GW researcher was trying to correct an entry about his own research, but kept getting rolled back by an admin, who was sure his own interpretation was right.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:58:35 PM , Rating: 2

There is no scientific consensus on CAGW. At the International Geological Convention I attended last year, at least half of the attendees were openly critical of CAGW. It's hard to say how many more just didn't feel like opening their mouths against it, not with their own research budgets on the line.

Lets also not forget the 30,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition protesting the advocacy and pseudo-science behind AGW.

The primary "consensus" comes from a small group of climate modelers, none of which have ever once been able to make one succesful climate prediction. And until a theory has done that, there's no reason whatsoever to believe in it.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/2010 7:14:34 PM , Rating: 1

You're we need to pick one of the societies with the most to loose if there were global warming to make the call. Seriously, why not site people who focus on climate?

The Oregon Petition does not have 30k+ scientists aboard. Where is that claim from?

You also claim they never have been right... what did the predict that was so wrong?

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:49:26 PM , Rating: 2

"The Oregon Petition does not have 30k+ scientists aboard"

They have just over 31,000 scientists who have signed, refuting AGW. Look at their site for the entire list.

"You also claim they never have been right... what did the predict that was so wrong? "

Everything. Take a look back at the very first UN IPCC report (the warming predictions have been lowered in every subsequent report). Take a look at Hansen's (the godfather of global warming) first papers from the 1980s, where he was predicting warming values of up to 15C! Take a look at all the work from NASA's GISS...by their first predictions, we should ALREADY have warmed up another full degree. Instead, global temperatures are going down, not up.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 2

"At no point have I proven the world is round. This would require space travel."

Or a simple trip around the world.

Hell, you can prove curvature of the earth, if not actual rotundity just from watching a boat sail towards the horizon, and seeing it disappear from the hull upward. Even the ancient Greeks realized that much.

"When a bunch of scientists tell me that the world is round I trust them "

This is the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority". I advise you to steer clear of it. Science involves the use of data, not blind faith in someone's credentials.

Yes, science involves making assumptions. But it does not involve "taking things on faith". Real scientists understand that.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By SlyNine on 2/8/2010 3:16:42 PM , Rating: 2

Wrong, you are using an appeal to authority fallacy.

You should listen to the arguments of the speaker and judge them based on the evidence provided. Do the premises add up to the conclusion? Are the premises valid? Is there information being suppressed? Considering the source is part of it, but it's not based on faith either.

Also Nothing can every be proven 100% outside of mathematics. Which is why we employ Occam's Razor.

Good old boolean logic. From programming computers to pointing out frauds and fallacious reasoning. It has many uses.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 8:23:55 PM , Rating: 2

"So if that's true, how do you know that so many of the scientific laws are true? At some point a leap of faith is required"

You see, statements like this are how we know you're not actually a scientist. Three is no "leap of faith" required, or taken. Real scientists understand that no "scientific law" is EVER proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We believe in them because the preponderence of evidence supports them...but if and when that situation ever changes, our beliefs change also.

Rational thought is anathema to 'blind faith'.

"At no point to I use the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Please look it up. "

Um, you're the one who admits you've never even heard of the phrase before today. I know what it means...I've known for the past 30 years in fact.

If you don't realize that you've made an appeal to authority several times in this thread, I suggest you turn to the definition again and this time read it carefully.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/9/10, Rating: 0

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
there are thousands of statements in [an Inconvenient Truth'. Nine or so are shown to be wrong. Thus the theory Gore is an advocate for must be wrong? No, it doesn't work like that

First of all, there aren't "thousands" of claims made in the film. There's a couple dozen.

Secondly, making a documentary isn't like doing the weekend football picks. You don't get a prize for batting .500. If you intentionally distort or misrepresent even ONE fact, that's a big deal.

Gore's film didn't just get one thing wrong. Pretty much all of its major claims are overstated or just outright wrong. And the sad thing is, most of the film's fans just plain don't care.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By kattanna on 2/8/2010 3:30:51 PM , Rating: 2

its only the person behind the film that made it credible at all.

i mean, if the exact same documentary had been made by micheal moore instead of an an ex VP of the US, it would have never had the same traction.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By elgueroloco on 2/10/10, Rating: 0

By elgueroloco on 2/10/2010 7:03:59 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
Let me guess- there are thousands of statements. Nine or so are shown to be wrong. Thus the theory Gore is an advocate for must be wrong? No, it doesn't work like that.

To debunk your argument let us consider the following scenario. In this scenario, the following statements are all true:
1) It has been raining heavily for the last month in this region.
2) The ground is saturated and cannot absorb anymore water.
3) There is a large creek running through our heavily populated neighborhood.
4) The creek is near flood stage in our neighborhood.
5) At the head of the creek is a dam.
6) Behind the dam is a reservoir of significant size.
7) The reservoir has reached its full capacity.
8) There is water rushing over the top of the dam.
9) The dam has developed several structural flaws.
10) These flaws will cause the dam to burst in approximately 2 hours, and we have been warned of this.
11) When the dam bursts, our houses will be destroyed and we will all be killed.
12) Flooding downstream prevents us from evacuating to anywhere that would be safe.
13) Rescuers may reach us before the dam bursts, but very likely may not be able to rescue us all in time. Many may still die.
14) Even if they save us, our houses and belongings will all be destroyed.
15) I know a ritual in which virgin girls are raped, tortured, and sacrificed.
16) I am the only person in the region who knows and can perform this ritual.

Note again that in the scenario all of the above statements are true. Now let's add 1 fallacy: If you allow me to perform this ritual on your virgin daughters, the rains will stop, the dam will not break, and we will all be saved.

See how that 1 fallacy ruins the whole thing and makes me a total asshole?

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By elgueroloco on 2/10/2010 7:05:36 PM , Rating: 2

Ok that's just lame. The system rated me to a 0 right when I posted it.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By DEVGRU on 2/9/2010 1:11:27 PM , Rating: 2

To: TheReaderRabbit,

Seriously? Just stop - you're just digging the hole deeper. To save my fellow Dailytechians from bothering to read the red rated-down posts (containing your "thoughts" and opinions), I quote:

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/2010 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 4

Mr. Andrews-

I didn't realize who I was replying too. Thanks for taking the time out to look into this issue.

Let me point out that if we take your bold 'case making' sentence " Mr. Gore has led more than 30 “Solutions Summits” with top scientists, engineers, and policy experts to examine every solution to the climate crisis in depth and detail "... we can apply this logic to numerous other circumstances were we get an advocate and not a researcher.

eg. let's try "[A local nun] has led more than 30 “[Pro-life] Summits” with top scientists, [clergy], and policy experts to examine every solution to the [abortion] crisis in depth and detail". See- still not a researcher.

or "Mr. [Andrews] has [written] more than [one column] with top scientists, engineers, and policy experts to examine every solution to the climate crisis in depth and detail" Nope still not a researcher.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By drycrust3 on 2/8/2010 1:28:54 PM , Rating: 4

quote:
Thus the work of Mr. Gore and Mr. Pachauri could be viewed as research of a sort, albeit it would likely be disqualified from being considered serious science due to the apparent bias in both cases.

There is a truth in this statement, but also an error. The truth is "it would likely be disqualified from being considered serious science due to the apparent bias in both cases". Good science leads to good science, bad science leads to bad science. While everyone has bias with regards to certain things, e.g. some people don't believe Evolution is a theory, the fact is a good scientist conducts their research and presents their results in an impartial manner, even if the results are contrary to their beliefs. Indeed, one could even go further and suggest that you can only be a good scientist if you are prepared to present results impartially when the outcome is contrary to a belief.

The error in the statement is "the work of Mr. Gore and Mr. Pachauri could be viewed as research of a sort". This sort of statement suggests Messrs Gore and Pachauri aren't able to do research because they lack particular scientific qualifications, which is incorrect. The attaining or not attaining of certain qualifications is not a reason for their investigations to not be considered research, nor should it be the reason why a person's scientific work is accepted or not accepted, nor should minor grammatical mistakes as well; but the scientific merit of what they have done should be the reason. Would you or I want to be the one who tells an Einstein that we won't publish their work because they work at the patent office?
Currently anyone can be a researcher. I am a bus driver, and if I wish to do research on anything I am allowed to. What they did was research! It may not have been very thorough research, it may have been biased research, they may even have used Wikipedia. It doesn't matter one bit, it is still research.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By SiN on 2/8/2010 11:10:37 AM , Rating: 3

I see where your coming from, but he has broadcast a movie on the theories he has about climate change and what causes it. he had to do some research.

Regardless, even the professional researchers and academics are putting out the same crap as Al Gore.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:24:34 PM , Rating: 5

"I do scientific research for a living."

Given you think that we take the earth being round as "an article of faith", I find that very difficult to believe. I bet you also think that Columbus was trying to prove the earth was round also?

BTW, aromatherapy research doesn't count.

"Before anyone takes a cheap shot- I work in industry. "

Too late... (zing!)

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/2010 7:44:29 PM , Rating: 1

I'm sorry, but rigorous proof (of the kind that distinguishes math from physics) resides only within a formal system. In physics, at some point if you believe something to be true you take a leap of faith. If you don't understand this don't worry- you're just stupid and that's okay!

At no point did I make the world being round an article of faith. Good luck with that one.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By Keeir on 2/8/2010 11:28:03 AM , Rating: 3

Errr...

So we should take the words of someone who ins't even an amateur in the field?!?

I understand what your getting at... but what are the alternatives?

Not a Researcher at all
Amateur Researcher
Professional Researcher

of those 3, clearly the 2nd is the most accurate.
Given that Gore often talks about his experiences assisting Professional Researchers in college, he is trying to create the image that he is well-read on the subject and involved with the experimentation... without of course exposing himself to risk if experimentation proves to be... less than scientific.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By chagrinnin on 2/8/2010 12:03:27 PM , Rating: 3

Cereal Researcher

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By Scabies on 2/8/2010 2:20:24 PM , Rating: 2

meaning everyone is an amateur researcher, thus Al Gore still has no credibility in this area.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:34:06 PM , Rating: 3

Has Gore performed a systemic investigation to establish facts? Yes. (of course, he failed to truthfully report any of those facts, but that's a side issue).

So is he an amateur researcher? Yes. Actually, given he wound up making half a billion dollars off his 'research', I think we should put him into the pro category.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By Keeir on 2/9/2010 1:39:56 PM , Rating: 2

Funny. Mix and match eh?

We can all agree that a researcher does research.

So the question is what is research? Here's a great example from the Houghton Mifflin 2009 American Heritage Dictionary

"2. To do research for: reach a magazine article"

Clearly either Al Gore did research for his movie or he did not. Since Movie Making is not his primary occupation (Politican or Business Man I think would be that choice), one would describe him as amateur. Phew, at least that was easy.

So which is it?

Either Al Gore -doesn't- research subjects such as Global Warming (which means we should ignore him unless he very specifically states who he is advocating for and who wrote the technical details of any particular peice of advocating)
or he is indeed an amateur researcher of Global Warming.

I think your confusing the word "Researcher" with "Experimenter" or "Scientist". Clearly Al Gore has never claimed to perform the experiments himself or directly interpert the results of data/design tests.

Maybe we should call Al Gore an amateur reader then? an Amateur student? Or maybe an Amateur Business Man or Amateur Politician?

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 5

You do realize that people see Al Gore is the GOD of Global Warming? They think he is a scientist and that all his research is credible. They also believe that 2500 scientist back Al Gore's research.

on top of that Al Gore has made over 100 million dollars on his Carbon Credits and his many books/movies. Which have thousands of flaws in his science.

That's the problem.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 1:42:23 PM , Rating: 2

"What is the backing of Gore's research you speak of?"

Al Gore's movie, books, speeches, interviews, and best of all his carbon credit company.

"Spotting a problem and making money off of it. Isn't that the American way?"

Not when billions of lives are at stake. If you don't think it is then you know nothing about climate change and the consequences of legislation.

"Okay, you take this slash like mad approach and claim to have shown us the "problem" here. You have not proven any points which dismiss global warming. "

It's all out there. Do your own research as I have done my own research. I can't post everything. You gotta do it yourself.

My research says there is no global warming but in fact global cooling which is far worst. Plants don't grow in cold.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By xxsk8er101xx on 2/8/2010 2:15:35 PM , Rating: 2

I'm pretty sure you don't get it.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By postalbob on 2/8/2010 2:38:41 PM , Rating: 2

Thereaderrabbit:

Hmmm...I once knew a guy who lived in California who went by the name Austin The Reader Rabbit. Are you by chance Austin? I think that was his name. If so, aloha, how have you been?

Now moving forward: You are incorrect about your determined hypothesis regarding "research" with Al Gore. You yourself are "researching" Al Gore on a biased level, and are forming a conclusion based on your emotions before taking in the facts.

Al Gore is a researcher in the fact that he establishes these conclusions on a wide enough of a scale to literally change and bias research in the appeal of the people who determine the result of research (AKA Mainstream public and Mainstream politics). Those are the only areas of research which are important and impact lives.

You may argue all you want that Al Gore is not a researcher, and you may be slightly correct. You are however slightly incorrect. He is the research. He compiles the research. He determines the thesis of research. He impliments bias in research. He presents what he calls "factual elements" of research, and draws a conclusion with research. Not to mention: The nine areas which were incorrect could have been 9 equations. You might have 2,000 results, all it takes is having one equation wrong and all the 2,000 results of that equation are wrong. So when you said to your debater that if 9 were wrong 1,000 facts could have been right, is wrong. That was not a researcher comment to make. I kind of doubt that you are one. If say for example, he has a chart showing what the temperature will be in 2020 (which he did) and the graph is incorrect, we can't draw a conclusion from that graph and the equation he used to back it can we? Then all the other hypothetical numbers are in question which used that or similar equations. Come now, you as a scientist surely know this.

I'm sure you may have studied physics? You take the concepts of physics and other facts, draw out a theory from those other facts which fit with your own, form a conclusion, and inform the public of the conclusion of those elements in order to start a study based on a theory. Are those people not part of the research process? My brother is currently doing this regarding what may explain dark matter. What he is currently doing nearly matches to the letter what Al Gore does for preliminary research. Al Gore is an American climate researcher, controller and gatherer of climate research, and conclusion drawer of that research. Like it or not, he's a researcher, and more than that he's one of the leading "researchers" "founders" "supporters" and "liars" regarding the global warming "hype". To ignore these facts while strong arming the ones which work to your advantage against your debater actually proves to me that you may not be a very well established scientist.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By elgueroloco on 2/10/2010 6:11:41 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
To ignore these facts while strong arming the ones which work to your advantage against your debater actually proves to me that you may not be a very well established scientist.

Quite the contrary. With behavior like that, he could be the head of GISS, IPCC or the UEACRU.

Parent

RE: DailyTech on the slide

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 2:46:17 PM , Rating: 3

"You have not proven any points which dismiss global warming. "

This is yet more indication that your claim to be a researcher is fraudulent. Real researchers realize the burden of proof lies on those attempting to PROVE a theory, not those who fail to believe it. In fact, you cannot disprove negatives...you can only prove a positive.

The "evidence" in support of CAGW (note the "c") has been shown to be based on distortions, inaccuracies, shoddy science, and outright lies. Does that in itself disprove CAGW? No. But without any support for CAGW, there is no reason to believe in it. Other than blind religious faith, of course...which was always the strongest reason people for it.

Parent

Good for you India

By drewsup on 2/8/2010 10:45:40 AM , Rating: 5

The more unbiased scientists we have looking at this whole AGW thing the better! India has some the best scientists in the world right now, lets hope they bury this whole man made climate crap 6 feet under.

P.S. Anyone who thinks the climate is a static thing should probably join the Flat Earth Society.Taking a 40 or even a 100 year measurement and trying to extrapolate that to cover the whole of the Earth s a fool hardy task. The climate is a dynamic ever changing entity that we really don't know jack about in the big scheme of things.

Yeah, I read about this on the LaRouch web site, too.

By Spacecomber on 2/8/2010 12:48:48 PM , Rating: 2

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13418

RE: Yeah, I read about this on the LaRouch web site, too.

By Spacecomber on 2/8/2010 1:32:20 PM , Rating: 3

Oops, I misspelled LaRouche, maybe because its too much like douche? ;-)

Parent

Woot!

By Kurz on 2/8/2010 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 5

Finally a country with hardly any bias wants to see for themselves if they should bet their economy on global warming.

RE: Woot!

By Mint on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

Good for them

By GruntboyX on 2/8/2010 10:35:10 AM , Rating: 3

I support India looking objectively and gathering there own data. More data and parrell research only helps paint a better picture of what is going on.

Horse and buggy

By Uncle on 2/8/2010 2:37:21 PM , Rating: 2

Good for India. See what happens when people come out of the stonage and into the horse and buggy era. They don't have to listen to the stoneagers. They can start to formulate their own data about their country and surrounding area. Hell they have lived there for thousands of years who better to know whats going on. I hope they send a man to the moon so they can prove and back the Americans that its not made out of cheese. Go India Go Go India Go.

It's getting colder and colder, the snow piling higher and higher

By tarpon on 2/8/2010 8:09:27 PM , Rating: 2

And if it were 100 degrees in WDC, just tell me the scam artists wouldn't be citing that as proof that their global warming fraud was real.

Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather, the perfect fraud -- But it will soon be so cold the snow piled so high, that everyone but Al Gore will know it was all a fraud.

Man needs to research things he can understand, and climate is sure not one of those things.

Yes the climate is changing, it's done so for billions of years on earth, and no one knows why.

hats off to India

By spepper on 2/14/2010 6:32:04 PM , Rating: 2

hats off to the government of India, which actually gets it right, and officially tells the UN to "stuff it"--

an interesting phil jones article

By kattanna on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: an interesting phil jones article

By porkpie on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: an interesting phil jones article

By kattanna on 2/8/2010 3:23:00 PM , Rating: 2

too true.

though, i'll give them a pass on the one about the netherlands. they came to that figure, supposedly, by adding the area of land that would be underwater from rivers flooding by a rise in sea level.

that one at least has an air of credibility, unlike many others.

Parent

RE: an interesting phil jones article

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 3:33:55 PM , Rating: 2

No, it doesn't have any credibility, because areas at risk from RIVER flooding don't experience additional risk due to sea levels. They were trying to claim over half the country would be in danger from rising sea levels.

It was an outright lie, based on a numbers shell game...like most everything else in the report.

Parent

Glad more people are waking up

By corduroygt on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By donjuancarlos on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By thereaderrabbit on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By straycat74 on 2/8/2010 12:46:52 PM , Rating: 4

Is that what you really think? Does the sensationalism keep you convinced you're right? If you take a step back and see what is proposed to counter-act "global Warming" and realize it is not in our lack of caring about our enviroment, but in the belief that we can honestly change the climate if we wanted to. If we really knew how to warm a planet up, wouldn't we start on Mars? That way when we kill our planet(we're not) we have a backup plan(et).

And if our planet is warming to its eventual destruction, which supervillian gets the ONE MILLION DOLLARS to make it stop?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By rdeegvainl on 2/8/2010 3:30:09 PM , Rating: 3

Mr. Freeze obviously.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 5:06:06 PM , Rating: 1

He never said they were part of global warming. He was stating that the main push against global warming was someone "making up" an environmental/health issue to cause businesses/people to spend money on fixing them.

That argument is so sad. Basicaly you are saying that a group of people got together and tricked every self-respecting scientists (ones that don't work for the big oil), the scientists in turn pointed out the concerns, some people/governments suggested curving these concerns, green tech started booming, and the original tricksters invested in green tech which made them a lot of money so we can't trust them. That is the stupid argument in a nutshell.

Please, someone explain another reason as the above is a huge fail even if it still being pushed on these forums. Also, please reply in words that I would not confuse you with Sara Palin.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 6:26:19 PM , Rating: 3

" a group of people got together and tricked every self-respecting scientists"

Please PLEASE stop repeating this nonsense. Tens of thousands of self-respecting scientists have loudly and repeatedly said the facts don't support CAGW...and more and more come out every day.

And for the record, if you're willing to fake experimental data (as these climate researchers have been found to be doing) its easy to "trick" other scientists. That's such a heinous offense in the academic world that most people rightly have trouble believing anyone would stoop to it.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 6:38:19 PM , Rating: 1

Actually you're wrong, the trend is the other way. Don't listen to what Rush tells you...who are these scientists, and how come every major scientific body in the world agrees that there is some anthropogenic cimate change if there are so many scientists that don't agree? Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has eased its hard rejection of anthropogenic climate change.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 6:53:22 PM , Rating: 2

"how come every major scientific body in the world agrees that there is some anthropogenic cimate change "

Son, if you can't understand the terms, don't join the debate. Of COURSE there is anthropogenic climate change. That's not even what the argument is about.

Most of man's influence on the climate is from land use changes. When you cut down a forest, that affects climate. When you divert a river or build a dam, that affects climate. When you pave over an area the size of New York with blacktop asphalt, that affects climate.

The debate centers over the effects of CO2. For 150 years, we've know it is a very weak greenhouse gas. The AGW scare started when a few modelers postulated that CO2's effects could be dramatically "amplified" by a positive feedback loop involving increased water vapour. This theory is what led to the birth of CAGW -- catastrophic runaway warming from carbon emissions.

There was never any hard evidence for this belief. In the late 1990s, a warm spike (which we know understand was due to natural cycles) caused some to believe that AGW predictions were suddenly matching the real world. Real world data and substantial research since then has shown otherwise.

The IPCC has released four reports, and every single one of them has DOWNGRADED the warming predictions made in the one before it. And even this last report has now been shown to be largely composed of claims from environmental groups and popular magazines, rather than hard science.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 6:54:53 PM , Rating: 1

I was replying to your statement that many scientists do not support global warming and that many more are coming out against it all the time. The facts as shown in another reply refute that, 'son.'

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:11:58 PM , Rating: 2

"I was replying to your statement that many scientists do not support global warming "

Again, that's not what I said. Read it again, this time stopping at any word you fail to understand. Global warming means "the earth's temperature has risen roughly 1/2C in the past 150 years". Most scientists agree with that.

What most scientist do NOT agree with is that carbon emissions are having, or will have, catastrophic effects on climate. Now do you finally understand?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 7:36:38 PM , Rating: 1

Panties in a tight wad? I'm afraid you are the one failing to read. Go ask Sara Palin for help!

Your main point is man-made global warming is false. Now you are splitting hairs with CO2 having "catastrophic" effects? I'm guessing you would not catagorize Catrina as catastrophic.

The discussion here, since you keep steering away when you are proved to be a LIAR, is whether man is having a negative affect on climate that we can correct.

The argument is not whether man-made CO2 is causing or will cause a catastrophic affect on climate. If you want to argue this by all means do so. Just don't change the subject or split hairs when you are proven to be WRONG.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:45:08 PM , Rating: 2

" I'm guessing you would not catagorize Catrina as catastrophic."

Lol, are you actually trying to embarrass yourself? Every major hurricanologist in the world has said Katrina had NOTHING to do with Global Warming. Nothing whatsover. In fact, hurricane activity this decade has gone sharply down in recent years.

Care to try that one again?

"Your main point is man-made global warming is false. Now you are splitting hairs with CO2 having "catastrophic" effects?"

What you call "splitting hairs" is the entire crux of the argument. Every time we build a parking lot, we affect climate. Every time we clear a forested area, we affect climate.

The SOLE question is what exactly ARE those effects, and are they serious enough to warrant change. So far, all the evidence says otherwise. Even if we DO believe the IPCC's (large fabricated) figures, the effects do not justify the multi-trillion dollar cost of widescale carbon reductions. In fact, a mild level of warming is likely to be actually BENEFICAL to mankind.

And that, kiddo, is the point you are unwilling to face.

" Go ask Sara Palin for help!"

Where is this coming from? I haven't voted Republican since 1984. You AGW fanatics once again show yourselves willing to stoop to anything to help support your religious beliefs.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 8:12:44 PM , Rating: 2

Reading is really hard for you isn't it? Where exactly did I say that Catrina was part of global warming? Please show me. Otherwise, stfu and stop putting words in my mouth you LIAR. I would call you a child, but that would be offending 3 year olds.

"..warming is likely to be actually beneficial to mankind." <--- Wow, seriously? Now that's is living in bizzaro land. So losing miles of coast line, some islands and entire nations going under water due to glacial melting, severe weather becoming normal, losing all our polar bears, and the millions of other things that will be affected do not outway that it will be 5 degrees warmer in the winter? LMAO!!!

So basicaly you are saying that a vast majority of scientists are wrong? Exactly what ax do you have to grind? Most modern countries, that are in a worse position than we are to support climate policy, are several years ahead of us on adaptation. Sure China and India will be last to fall suit, but Japan and Europe, what is their angle. They have much lower resources than we do. I guess it's a race to bankrupt our nations? I'm just struggling to figure out why the average man would be against doing something that most people in the know (scientists) say we should be looking at.

Oh, and I never said you voted for Sara Palin. I was just saying she may need to help out with your reading and comprehension.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 8:18:07 PM , Rating: 2

"Where exactly did I say that Catrina was part of global warming? "

You sure as hell implied it. Backpedalling now won't save your face.

""..warming is likely to be actually beneficial to mankind." <--- Wow, seriously?"

Seriously. Higher CO2 levels means plants grow faster. A warmer climate means longer growing seasons, less crops lost to freezes, more food period.

History is indisputable. The warm periods in man's past have been very beneficial to society. It was the COLD periods where mankind suffered.

"So losing miles of coast line, some islands and entire nations going under water "

Come on kid, this nonsense is getting silly. Even the UN IPCC itself is predicting a sea level rise of 20 INCHES over the next CENTURY. And 40% of that isn't even due to global warming.

So even if you take their inflated figures as gospel, we should expect a grand total of 11 INCHES of sea level rise in 100 years. So what is this crap about "entire nations underwater"?

Hollywood movies are NOT reality.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 8:27:51 PM , Rating: 1

"You sure as hell implied it."

LOL, so you were wrong again? OK, thx.

"Seriously. Higher CO2 levels means plants grow faster."

Really? Something that is learned in 2nd grade is being quoted to me as knowledge?

"Even the UN IPCC itself is predicting a sea level rise of 20 INCHES over the next CENTURY. And 40% of that isn't even due to global warming."

20 inches? Please let me know when you understand that even 20 inches is a HUGE amount when you are underwater. You are laughable. You don't even know how many miles those 20 inches will make us lose do you? Are you really using 2nd grade science to back you claims? Do you really think we will lose 20 inches of land?

Maybe you need to watch more movies. You would get more realistic information than the crap you are spewing.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 9:01:39 PM , Rating: 2

You sure as hell implied it."

LOL, so you were wrong again? OK, thx.

"Seriously. Higher CO2 levels means plants grow faster."

Really? Something that is learned in 2nd grade is being quoted to me as knowledge?

"Even the UN IPCC itself is predicting a sea level rise of 20 INCHES over the next CENTURY. And 40% of that isn't even due to global warming."

20 inches? Please let me know when you understand that even 20 inches is a HUGE amount when you are underwater. You are laughable. You don't even know how many miles those 20 inches will make us lose do you? Are you really using 2nd grade science to back you claims? Do you really think we will lose 20 inches of land?

Maybe you need to watch more movies. You would get more realistic information than the crap you are spewing.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By amirite on 2/8/2010 9:09:17 PM , Rating: 2

More scientists believe in global warming than do not.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 10:01:20 PM , Rating: 2

"LOL, so you were wrong again? OK, thx"

A smarmy attitude doesn't hide the facts. You implied Katrina was caused by global warming. It was not. Deal with it.

"Something that is learned in 2nd grade is being quoted to me as knowledge?"

Because you seem incapable of grasping it, yes. Higher carbon levels are a positive, not a negative.

"let me know when you understand that even 20 inches is a HUGE amount when you are underwater"

First of all, the IPCC says 9 of those 20 inches are predicted to occur whether or not AGW continues. Secondly, in earlier reports, they predicted 4-5 feet. Now its 20 inches. Next report it will probably be half that again.

Those numbers are based on unsound suppositions, the belief that the extraordinarily weak GHG CO2 will have its effects "amplified" by a postulated positive feedback loop for which no evidence exists, and the earth's geological record says does not exist.

Thirdly, an extra 12 inches of sea level rise does not "put a nation underwater". Every inch of coast on the planet has tide levels much greater than that. 25% of Holland is below sea level already. Some areas are more than six FEET below sea level. Holland managed to handle that with 18th century technology. Are you seriously going to suggest we can't handle 12 inches of water with the technology we'll have in the year 2100 ?

Fourthly, whether or not we CO2 emissions occur, the sea is going to KEEP RISING. Naturally. That's what the end of an ice age means. We're going to have to deal with sea level rise period, no matter what.

" Do you really think we will lose 20 inches of land?"

At an average 4% grade, the IPCC's claim of 12 inches of SLR will result in a loss of 25 feet of land, actually. That assumes of course that we take no ameliorative action whatsoever. A supposition that is, of course, highly flawed. In 100 years, we could handle that without even building a single levee or dike, just by enforcing a building code that required an additional 25 foot setback to all new structures.

So much for the "nations underwater". Want to try that one again?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By Omega215D on 2/8/2010 11:50:14 PM , Rating: 2

Hehe, people fail to understand that the area of New Orleans and other swamp lands were meant as a natural barrier to lessen the effects of a hurricane by absorbing most of its energy. The only problem is that people have built a city on this low lying marshland and fail to understand the consequence of doing so.

Porkpie is correct as the models have shown this season to be very quiet with fewer storms than usual.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By adiposity on 2/9/2010 11:21:47 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
that the area of New Orleans and other swamp lands were meant as a natural barrier to lessen the effects of a hurricane by absorbing most of its energy.

Sounds like a religious argument. Exactly who "meant" them to provide a natural barrier?

That said, I would agree with anyone who suggested building dwellings in such an area is inviting disaster, literally. Some areas of the earth don't lend themselves to populating.

-Dan

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By Omega215D on 2/10/2010 7:47:25 AM , Rating: 2

Physics and mathematics tend to be quite the characters.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By elgueroloco on 2/10/2010 6:44:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Go ask Sara Palin for help!

I like how AGW promoters keep using logical fallacies in this thread. First we had thereaderrabbit using an appeal-to-authority fallacy, and now you are using an ad-hominem fallacy (which is basically the reverse of the appeal to authority).

Also, the debate is not and has never been "whether man is having a negative [effect] on climate that we can correct." The debate has centered from the beginning on whether greenhouse gas emissions -particularly CO2- by man are causing and will cause irreversible, runaway, catastrophic global warming. The people who claim this is the case simply cannot prove it at all. Their claims are all being refuted by fact.

Though now, of course, they have changed their wording to "climate change" and keep mixing predictions of warmer and colder temperatures. They can't even tell you anymore what they are actually predicting. They can't tell you what is going to happen. All they can say is that climate will change (which it has always done without man's existence, much less help) and that it will be bad (debatable) and that it will be all man's fault. And you should give them billions of dollars to stop it. They can save you. The fact that they can't even really tell you what they are claiming or predicting should clue you in that they are scammers.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By whiskerwill on 2/8/2010 7:32:40 PM , Rating: 2

Madman, there's one thing you need to understand about these 'major scientific bodies'. They are professional organizations, no different than the ABA (American Bar Association) or the AMA (American Medical Association). They don't do research, they perform activities designed to help their members. A position statement to the effect that 'more research is needed to study man's effect on climate' costs these organizations nothing, and benefits those of their members who garner research funds from those studies.

Beyond that, you shouldn't ascribe some mystical scientific auro to those position statements. Especially when several of them (the AAAS among them) made similar statements advocating global *cooling* back in the 1970s.

Disclaimer: member of the AAAS and APS here.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/8/2010 6:49:31 PM , Rating: 2

"Please PLEASE stop repeating this nonsense. Tens of thousands of self-respecting scientists have loudly and repeatedly said the facts don't support CAGW...and more and more come out every day."

[citation needed]

And here is numbers not pulled out of your ass.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

"A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures."

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:09:01 PM , Rating: 4

"And here is numbers not pulled out of your ass..."

Repeating myself again -- if you can't understand the terms, don't join the debate. Let's look at some of the many problems with this survey. From your own link:

quote:
The authors contacted 10,200 scientists...and received 3,146 responses to their two questions: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Right away, two problems leap out. The first is simple selection bias. Two thirds of the scientists failed to respond. Obviously, someone who will take the time to reply to their questionaire is someone who cares deeply about the subject, and wants their opinion heard. In other words, the 66% who didn't reply are certainly less likely to believe than the 33% who did.

The second problem is much more serious. The key question that was NOT asked was "is mankind's activity leading to catastrophic climate change". In other words, NO ONE STATED that global warming was a serious problem. No one. Only the very weak question "has man contributed to climate change" was asked.

And even THEN, nearly a fifth of total respondents said no. Among meteorologists, the number was much higher, with 46 percent saying man has no effect whatsoever on climate.

Still worse is the fact this survey was NOT done by any independent group, but by an environmental researcher who admits the very reason he did the survey was to "effectively communicate with policy makers". In other words, he created a survey to put pressure on policy makers...and got the very results he expected. I'm sure he didn't skew the results any either.

Furthermore, this study was done in 2008....long before most scientists had any idea how badly climate researchers were altering their data and results, and didn't know how many of the UN IPCC's "official scientific" claims were based on claims from advocacy groups and student term papers, rather than actual peer reviewed science.

If you want to know some of the 32,000 scientists who disagree with CAGW (a far larger number than those who responded to this survey), take a look at the Oregon Petition:

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

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By whiskerwill on 2/8/2010 7:34:50 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
You have a problem with some people not returning the survey? Is that actualy your frist argument? Wow! Grasp for more straws.

It's actually a very serious flaw, and the primary reason Internet surveys are meaningless in a statistical sense. The people who will respond to a global warming survey are **not** a representative sample. Any basic text on statistics should clear this up for you if you don't understand why.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 7:50:27 PM , Rating: 2

Very well, I will concede your point on surveys. I will say this has more weight then a petition against global warming given by the other poster. What is your comment on that?

"Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete."

It's non-scientific, but it is a pretty good survey imo. You always get people that don't respond in surveys, even face to face surveys. Unlike most online surveys, I will say this one is much closer being scientific than any I've seen.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 8:12:52 PM , Rating: 3

" I will say this has more weight then a petition against global warming given by the other poster"

Um, do you really not understand the difference between a survey and a petition? A survey tries to extrapolate its results to a larger group of people. A petition, though, doesn't do that. The Oregon Petition simply says, "here are 31,000 scientists who don't believe in CAGW". Period.

OTOH, your survey says "because 80% of this group thinks man has had some effect on the climate, then 80% of all scientists must think that". Totally different scenario, and totally flawed.

"...and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting."

Rofl, I didn't know it was an Internet survey. Whats to keep AGW fanatics from voting ten times, using 10 different computers? Hell, the Oregon Institute lists the actual signees by NAME...that's fare more valid than random anonymous Internet surveys.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 8:47:31 PM , Rating: 2

Um wrong again! When will you be right?

The said survey never said it was trying "to extrapolate its results to a larger group of people." You must be talking about a national survey. Look up the term, you may learn something. This survey was done on a group and they reported the statistics within the group. They never said this was an indication of what all scientists think. Hint: You will see a margin of error with those types of surveys if you are still confused.

Not only that, but they had a poll expert review the questions for bias.

What's with all the lies dude? You keep leaving out information from my post. The people surveyed were invited, not "AGW fanatics." Since you won't quote the whole thing which would make your post look crooked, I will:

"In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/09011...

They contacted all "experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments." They had to log on and fill out the survey.

Who is in your petition? Wanna guess? It's so laughable I'm having a hard time typing. Your list has pediatric doctors that have nothing to do with climate change. This, in it by itself, COMPLETELY INVALIDATES YOUR PETITION as any form of information. These people may be educated, but they are not close to being geoscientists.

You really would have us believe that some pediatric doctors, that weren't even surveyed (this makes them super biased), that didn't have a say of yes or no like a survey, has more weight than a survey done on geoscientists?

Were any of the people on the petition a geoscientist? You know, the ones that would really know about this stuff?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 9:02:44 PM , Rating: 2

Um wrong again! When will you be right?

The said survey never said it was trying "to extrapolate its results to a larger group of people." You must be talking about a national survey. Look up the term, you may learn something. This survey was done on a group and they reported the statistics within the group. They never said this was an indication of what all scientists think. Hint: You will see a margin of error with those types of surveys if you are still confused.

Not only that, but they had a poll expert review the questions for bias.

What's with all the lies dude? You keep leaving out information from my post. The people surveyed were invited, not "AGW fanatics." Since you won't quote the whole thing which would make your post look crooked, I will:

"In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/09011...

They contacted all "experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments." They had to log on and fill out the survey.

Who is in your petition? Wanna guess? It's so laughable I'm having a hard time typing. Your list has pediatric doctors that have nothing to do with climate change. This, in it by itself, COMPLETELY INVALIDATES YOUR PETITION as any form of information. These people may be educated, but they are not close to being geoscientists.

You really would have us believe that some pediatric doctors, that weren't even surveyed (this makes them super biased), that didn't have a say of yes or no like a survey, has more weight than a survey done on geoscientists?

Were any of the people on the petition a geoscientist? You know, the ones that would really know about this stuff?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 10:06:16 PM , Rating: 3

"The said survey never said it was trying "to extrapolate its results to a larger group of people.""

Wrong again. The survey author -- as well as the story you linked to and even the OP who posted the link -- all tried to extrapolate the study to the result that "80% of scientists believe in global warming". If you don't make that leap, then the percentage figure is meaningless.

"they had a poll expert review the questions for bias".

Yes, and the question they DID NOT ASK was "is global warming a serious problem?" Or even "Should we take action to combat global warming?" No one who asnwered the survey claimed to believe anything like that.

So much for your survey.

I won't even get into the laughably ludicrous methodology of allowing respondents to vote multiple times, by not tying their response to their ID.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:38:13 PM , Rating: 3

"From his wiki page: "Critics say he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds"

To use your own words-- bull****. Seitz's Wikipedia page is written to try to discredit him, by the same AGW fanatics who closely monitor every page dealing with global warming on the site. Look at ANY person who has spoken out against AGW, and you'll see the same tactics on their Wiki page.

The REAL facts about Seitz are that he questioned some of the more alarmist claims about SECOND-HAND smoke and cancer links. Claims that have since shown to be dramatically overstated.

Seitz

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/8/2010 8:06:39 PM , Rating: 2

"Seitz's Wikipedia page is written to try to discredit him, by the same AGW fanatics who closely monitor every page dealing with global warming on the site." [citation needed]

:)

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 1

Wow, you are pure crap to me now. You are Sara Palin! Or at least not much smarter.

No one in their right mind would defend this guy on smoking/cancer....... but YOU DID!!!! OMFG!!!

And what kills me is you contradicted yourself in your own post. First you said something to the effect that wiki pages are bull and someone added that to discredit him. Then you went on to back up the claim on the wiki page by stating his position on second hand smoke. Are you like 5? Do you know what a huge debate second hand smoke was a decade ago? You do know there are LAWS now that you can't smoke in public places. Even here in North Carolina, the No1 tobacco producer, IT IS LAW.

I guess he was wrong about that too.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 10:15:23 PM , Rating: 2

"Are you like 5? Do you know what a huge debate second hand smoke was a decade ago? "

Public policy debate is not scientific research, son. Here is some real research, though, from the British Medical Journal:

quote:
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

http://tinyurl.com/y893spv

All Seitz said was that the dangers of second hand smoke were being overstated...a conclusion borne out by substantial research. His position was perverted and distorted by AGW fanatics, in the belief it would help to discredit him. That should come as no surprise to anyone, as its a tactic that you and others on your side regularly stoop to even here.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By mjrpes3 on 2/9/2010 5:59:17 AM , Rating: 2

I'm sorry, son, that was a seriously flawed study. The ACA noted,

The study uses data from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I). During the course of the analysis, Society researchers repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that using CPS-I data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results.

* The analysis is based on a small subset (10%) of the CPS-I data.

* The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not:

o Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone was exposed to ETS, whether or not they were married to a smoker.
o No information was collected on other sources of ETS exposure besides spousal smoking.
o No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years.
o Study participants were, on average, 52 years old at enrollment. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow-up, yet their surviving partners are still classified as "exposed" to ETS in this analysis.
o Much of the follow-up of CPS-I through 1998 pertains to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent.

I have spent the last half hour looking over studies to see how "controversial" the second hand smoke issue is. There isn't any controversy. There is a clear link, based on many *reliable* studies, between second hand smoke and a greatly increased risk of disease.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By mindless1 on 2/8/2010 8:00:13 PM , Rating: 3

Actually, most of us know by now that a poll can be constructed to support just about any conclusion the creator wants to leap to... and that doesn't even consider that they could simply reject any data that wouldn't make a good set for them, just as some scientists do by rejecting temperature reports that don't fit well into their *data* meant to support global warming.

What would you expect though? You linked to a highly biased website not even a shady news organization, and conveniently that link leaves out any kind of specifics about the poll or collected data, essentially the website also cut out all the info except what they want you to read.

What we know as fact is that when these studies were done they found they NEEDED to falsify data and use skewed methodology in order to support their target conclusion, that the data did not support it otherwise, that the data disproved it.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/8/2010 7:03:42 PM , Rating: 1

And this:

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

"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:14:36 PM , Rating: 2

Lol, a Wikipedia link. Why am I not surprised? Given that most of the claims made in the last UN IPCC report are turning out to be based on sources even less credible than Wikipedia, I guess this is a step up.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By mindless1 on 2/8/2010 8:03:52 PM , Rating: 2

Did you seriously just link to the encyclopedia that anyone with too much time and an agenda can edit?

Global warming isn't a popularity contest. It is mere speculation, guesses, that thus far have no scientific backing at all unless you use data that was deliberately altered to support an agenda.

They altered it because they saw plainly that their guess wasn't supported... and India now seems to see that too.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 7:12:26 PM , Rating: 2

I guess you still don't get it. Tens of thousands of scientists DO support the idea of global warming, not the other way around. I would have said higher, but over 90% do believe in this idea. It is very crooked to come on the forums and say otherwise. Propoganda is defined as spewing out missinformation to support your cause. Since you are stating blatent lies, you are the one throwing up the propoganda on these forums.

Let me know when 90% of the scientist side with your Sarah Palin argument.
------------------------------------------------- ------------
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/8/2010 6:49:31 PM , Rating: 2

"Please PLEASE stop repeating this nonsense. Tens of thousands of self-respecting scientists have loudly and repeatedly said the facts don't support CAGW...and more and more come out every day."

[citation needed]

And here is numbers not pulled out of your ass.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

"A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures."

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:17:26 PM , Rating: 2

" Tens of thousands of scientists DO support the idea of global warming"

No. No one here has posted anything that comes close to supporting this fallacy. Your linked survey merely claims that 3000 scientists believe the earth has warmed slightly in the past 150 years. That's a LONG way from believing that cabon emissions are having serious climate effects.

Here's a list of 31,000 scientists that explictly reject the idea of CAGW:

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

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 8:51:23 PM , Rating: 2

Um, your petition is not one of scientists. Most are medical doctors that have no clue on global warming. You are a fallacy.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 8:58:54 PM , Rating: 2

3,804 of the 30k plus were educated in the field of earth sciences. The rest.... were not. All you need is a 4 year education in ANY science to sign this petition (not a survey). And you don't need to have worked in the field of your education.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 10:23:37 PM , Rating: 2

"3,804 of the 30k plus were educated in the field of earth science"

Which alone makes a larger number of scientists than those who answered your survey....not that anyone in that survey even explicitly agreed that AGW was a serious issue. There are also several thousand more who hold Ph.Ds in physics, statistics, and other related sciences.

Let's also not forget that a substantial number of the "climatologists" claiming that GW exists were never educated in the earth sciences either. James Hansen, the godfather of global warming and the head of NASS GISS? Nope...his education was in physics. How about Raj Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC? Nope...economics. Gavin Schmidt, one of the most prolific AGW researchers on the planet? Nope again-- his degree is in mathematics.

In short, your entire premise is flawed. You don't need a degree in earth science to understand (or even publish peer-reviewed research) on global warming.

Want to try again?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By sigmatau on 2/8/2010 9:00:17 PM , Rating: 2

He never said they were part of global warming. He was stating that the main push against global warming was someone "making up" an environmental/health issue to cause businesses/people to spend money on fixing them.

That argument is so sad. Basicaly you are saying that a group of people got together and tricked every self-respecting scientists (ones that don't work for the big oil), the scientists in turn pointed out the concerns, some people/governments suggested curving these concerns, green tech started booming, and the original tricksters invested in green tech which made them a lot of money so we can't trust them. That is the stupid argument in a nutshell.

Please, someone explain another reason as the above is a huge fail even if it still being pushed on these forums. Also, please reply in words that I would not confuse you with Sara Palin.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By straycat74 on 2/8/2010 5:28:03 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Are you Sarah Palin?

No, I'm Tina Fey. I bet you're one of those people that thought Tina's quotes from SNL were Palins.

P.S.
I'm starting to think you voted for Obama.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 5

"Acid rain, smog, PCP [sic] contamination of the Hudson river, fecal related contamination of shellfish..."

A wonderful example of the red herring fallacy. None of the above have anything to do with global warming, now do they?

Furthermore, acid raid was one of the most overstated environmental scares of the 20th century. In the early 1970s, we were being taught that acid rain meant the end of nearly all tree life in North America within 30 years. The reality was acid rain was no more than a slight annoyance...some plant life is mildly susceptible, but other types actually flourish and grow better under the more acidic conditions.

The environmental movement has a long history of telling bald-faced lies about the environment, starting with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (hint: it was silent because pesticides had killed every bird on the planet).

Unfortunately, the people that lapped up lies like Carson's grew up and became environmental scientists-- and then decided to push an even bigger scam on an unsuspecting public. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Who cares if its really true or not, as long as it boosts research budgets, and convinces people to drive their cars less?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 6:32:52 PM , Rating: 3

Hey moron, weather != climate. Also you might want to look in to El Nino and how it affects weather patterns. Turns out that WARMER ocean temperatures in the Pacific cause El Nino conditions which lead to an altered jet stream pattern. The large snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region of the USA happen when low pressure high moisture warm air systems from the Gulf of Mexico move up and hit high pressure cold air masses from Canada.

So in fact 'global warming/climate change' perfectly explains the weather pattern which you look at in the mouthbreather way of 'derkaderka, snow=global cooling, lol!' Leave science to the scientists please.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 6:42:51 PM , Rating: 2

"The large snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region of the USA happen when low pressure [systems] from the Gulf of Mexico move up..."

What explains the fact that globally, temperatures have been declining for the past ten years? It's not just a single snowstorm we're talking about here.

"So in fact 'global warming/climate change' perfectly explains the weather pattern "

That's the basic problem with global warming. No matter what happens anywhere in the world, AGW advocates say it "fits the theory". A basic requirement of any scientific theory is disprovability. If no possible outcome can contradict a belief-- then it's faith, not science.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 6:59:41 PM , Rating: 2

It's clear where your 'beliefs' lie...go learn something about El Nino and the effects on weather patterns which are broadly agreed upon. Or don't, I know learning can hurt :( plus that way you can remain ignorant and spew hyperbolic rhetoric rather than have to alter your views.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 7:19:59 PM , Rating: 2

I'm quite confident I know more about ENSO oscillations than you. Otherwise you wouldn't try to claim ten years of global cooling can be caused by an El Nino event ... when we've gone through several El Ninos (warming) and La Ninas (cooling) over that same period.

Oops. Care to try that one again?

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 8:39:20 PM , Rating: 3

You're right, I wouldn't try to claim that because I didn't try to claim that. Not only are you making up things I wrote but you're reversing what one might even be able to infer from what I wrote.

I was primarily debunking the moronic 'weather=climate' based on 'look ma, snow!' statements. Do you think that it makes any sense to infer global climate from weahter conditions? Mid-atlantic snow patterns such as we're seeing right now are caused by El Nino conditions, right? One aspect of El Nino is higher ocean temperatures, right? El Nino conditions have been more frequent and La Nina less frequent in the last several decades, right?

These are yes/no questions, please answer them as such.

Now, what might be causing higher ocean temperatures?? Hmm...that's a hard one.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 8:42:04 PM , Rating: 2

"Now, what might be causing higher ocean temperatures?? Hmm...that's a hard one. "

It's an easy one, actually. We're still coming out of an ice age. The seas have been warming (and the icecaps melting) for the last 12,000 years. What's surprising about that trend continuing?

What IS surprising, however, is that fully half of the warming we've seen in the last 150 years came from 1910-1940..a period BEFORE we had significant carbon emissions. It's also surprising that in the past decade -- the period in which emissions have been by far the highest -- temperatures have actually DECLINED.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 9:11:57 PM , Rating: 2

Why do you keep saying temperatures have declined? A source for that would be nice, really multiple sources since I could just pull the 'That's a biased source!!11' line ;)

btw I think you need to make yet another account to further uprate your posts more and downrate mine. lol!

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 10:42:46 PM , Rating: 2

"Why do you keep saying temperatures have declined? A source for that would be nice"
World temperatures since 1979. If you need a version with a sliding-window trendline, just ask...but I think anyone competent to read a graph can see the decline without that:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07...
Another source:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.ht...

Another story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SP...

"btw I think you need to make yet another account to further uprate your posts more and downrate mine. lol! "

That's really uncalled for. Look at any of my posts on IP issues (which all automatically get -1s) and I think its obvious that I'm not uprating myself.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By corduroygt on 2/8/2010 8:42:42 PM , Rating: 1

Your attitude shows who the real moron is, dipshit.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By MadMan007 on 2/8/2010 10:30:36 PM , Rating: 3

No, my attitude shows who gets frustrated when presented with stupidity. Was I nice? No. Was I correct in pointing out the fallacy of weather=climate (snow=climate cooling)? Yes, especially in this case since it's not cooler but rather warmer ocean temperatures (El Nino) that create this weather pattern.

Parent

RE: Glad more people are waking up

By porkpie on 2/8/2010 10:47:07 PM , Rating: 2

Your argument fails for three reasons. Firstly, the AGW crowd has never tired of using a single hot summer, or a single bad storm (Katrina, anyone?) to call attention to global warming. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

Secondly, while a cold winter does not make a trend, it does bring up one important point. If after 150 years of global warming, we're still having far more problems from COLD than from HEAT, then perhaps some people are overstating the effects of a mild amount of additional warming.

Thirdly -- it's not just one cold winter. It's ten years of declining world temperatures. All during a period in which human carbon emissions are higher than ever before in human history. That's a serious problem, no matter how you slice it.

Parent

Fascism

By Nfarce on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

By Nfarce on 2/8/2010 10:36:09 AM , Rating: -1

"Mr. Pachauri, who holds a doctorate in economics but no formal climate training, has been a controversial figure, suggesting that people worldwide give up luxuries such as meat to fight climate change despite reportedly living an affluent lifestyle personally"

Mr. Pachauri and those kook junk science quacks can shove it right up their fascist noses. I will be living and eating how I deem fit for my needs and wants. If these nut jobs want to go live in a cave and eat plants to save the world, then they can do so on their own merit.

However, I'm not giving up my lifestyle and I sure as hell don't want to see my tax dollars and those of corporations going to this snake oil of "climate change" legislation which in reality would be nothing more than forced global wealth redistribution.

Anything and everything can be mindlessly blamed on global warming/climate change. If it rains too much, it's global warming; if it doesn't rain enough, it's global warming; if it's too hot, it's global warming; if it's too cold and snowing like mad (as it is currently in the Northeast), yep, you guessed it, global warming.

And by the way: what exactly is formal climate training? We can't even forecast hurricane seasons accurately (the last 4 hurricane seasons had to have a reduction in the forecast numbers) and have any degree of accuracy in determining next week's weather. It's all based on computer modeling and data forecasting - just like so-called climate change.

RE: Fascism

By kattanna on 2/8/2010 10:51:50 AM , Rating: 5

http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/30/return-to-almor...

there is also this little tidbit about this guy

quote:
Rajendra Pachauri was apparently too busy to check into glaciergate problems in December. We now know why. Instead of proofreading climate articles, Pachauri has been busy launching a softcore novel about the sexual adventures of a climate expert in his late 60s

LOL

Parent

RE: Fascism

By Connoisseur on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: Fascism

By Nfarce on 2/8/2010 11:10:32 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
I'm kind of curious to find out the point at which people WILL consciously change their ways

When we KNOW for a FACT how much our lifestyles affect global weather. That's the entire premise of doing actual research and not getting emotions in the way of facts.

quote:
Let's say it's been proven that: "Every time someone take a bit of beef, someone in the world dies (caused directly by the aforementioned beef consumption)." Would THAT convince people to stop eating meat? Or something else that's so ingrained into our daily lives?

That's an absurd attempt at correlation. Why not just say turning on a light bulb kills someone overseas? Or every hour of PC gaming kills a person somewhere? But in any event, I've got news for ya: NOTHING is going to stop me from eating meat, whether I buy it in the store or hunt and kill it myself.

Parent

RE: Fascism

By Connoisseur on 2/8/10, Rating: 0

RE: Fascism

By Connoisseur on 2/8/2010 11:48:26 AM , Rating: 2

Note that "WILLINGLY" is the operative word here. Obviously, there's a big difference between that and another entity (say a government) forces you to give up X.

Parent

RE: Fascism

By Kurz on 2/8/2010 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 3

Or when it becomes economically beneficial to give up X for another letter.

Parent

RE: Fascism

By mindless1 on 2/8/2010 8:20:27 PM , Rating: 2

But you conveniently oversimplified the question.

What if doing X caused something really terrible Y, BUT not doing X causes a different something terrible?

You are asking a deceptive question when posing just two variables, when quite obviously X only exists because of more variables.

Fact is, humans are rapidly evolving and this comes from choosing things beneficial in our lives. Can we exist without meat? Yes. Can we be as productive without this biological process which turns limited amounts of protein in plants into concentrated protein? No.
The reason is simple, you cannot get sufficient amounts of protein from plants in their natural form without an excessive amount of carbohydrates for today's couch-potato and internet addicted society.

A similar issue exists with cooking food. Some would say we should eat all raw food, certainly this requires less energy to prepare it, but we do not have the digestive systems to process enough of that food for peak health, our productivity would go down and our quality of life.

Short version: We humans do the things we do because doing so has benefits. So to sum it up, We do X because it is of more benefit than not doing X. The tipping point is obvious, when it is of more benefit to stop doing X then individuals will.

Parent

RE: Fascism

By SiN on 2/8/2010 11:14:15 AM , Rating: 1

Computer models work on the basis that everything is already known. Chaos Theory suggests something like this will never be understood which I would believe. We can never know everything that is influencing such systems.

Parent

DailyTech hired someone logical

By Breathless on 2/8/10, Rating: -1

RE: DailyTech hired someone logical

By krichmond on 2/8/2010 10:43:52 AM , Rating: 5

Michael Andrews is the other name Jason Mick writes under

Parent

RE: DailyTech hired someone logical

By kattanna on 2/8/2010 10:52:52 AM , Rating: 4

i also think he logs in as reader1 to help drive postings

haha

Parent

RE: DailyTech hired someone logical

By The0ne on 2/8/2010 5:20:19 PM , Rating: 2

That is cruel :/

Parent

RE: DailyTech hired someone logical

By bighairycamel on 2/8/2010 11:40:49 AM , Rating: 3

Both of whom are 2 characters created and played by Fred Savage.

Parent

RE: DailyTech hired someone logical

By krichmond on 2/8/2010 11:19:58 AM , Rating: 5

PS. you cant blame Jason really, since he just copies and paste other online sources -

Parent

RE: DailyTech hired someone logical

By mindless1 on 2/8/2010 8:08:00 PM , Rating: 2

I am not blaming (anyone) because I don't have this blanket generalization about the topics, but if we want to nitpick, anyone chooses what to copy and paste.

I don't have a problem with what Jason copies and pastes, but I do take issue that in general there is not the implied significance in whether someone rewords or copies and pastes.

Parent