To The Bush Haters

[akoff 0]

Fact...LOL... Please put the Kool aide down.... Do you think they many might "agree or Say Nothing Contrary" due to the money that is blowing into them now with the Global Warming Scare Tactics?? Billions and Billions ....of Dollars..."I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years." Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. "The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. "After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

These people have obviously been misquoted, i have read a thousand times on here that the sky (ice) is falling (melting)...it it universally agreed upon and and anyone who isn't on board is a fool. Those are the facts...i have read posted here and other places them by wanna be scientists for the last severals years....I would expect we see a post from Z soon!!

[akoff 0]

if we try to be more environmentally friendly and it turns out global warming was a myth then we lose nothing. if we dont change how we treat the planet, and it turns out Al Gore is right, then we lose everything (our planet).fits the metaphor to me.

this would be a first!! Has anyone read the Oliver North transcrips from the Iran contra thing in the 80's...that was awesome. Al gore being correct, LOL your killing me. thanks for the laugh though.

[vbnautilus 48]

Fact...LOL... Please put the Kool aide down.... Do you think they many might "agree or Say Nothing Contrary" due to the money that is blowing into them now with the Global Warming Scare Tactics?? Billions and Billions ....of Dollars...

I presented to you evidence that most scientists believe in global warming. I cited one of several studies that have come to the same conclusion. I'll be happy to provide the others for you upon request. Basing a conclusion upon evidence is hardly "drinking kool aide". If you have evidence which contradicts my data about the proportion of scientists who believe in global warming, by all means present it here. Finding individual scientists who do not believe in global warming is not inconsistent with my point that there is a broad consensus on the issue in the scientific community.If you want to find out what most scientists believe, you would put together a good sampling technique and ask them. (That is what the study did which I presented to you). Or, you could just continue search the internet for individuals who do not believe in global warming. Who of the two of us is epistemologically challenged?

[hblask 1]

<If you want to find out what most scientists believe, you would put together a good sampling technique and ask them. (That is what the study did which I presented to you).

I saw that study when it came out, and the first question is: how did they decide who to poll? I have not seen an explanation of it yet.I can't really think of any meaningful definition of scientist that would lead to a meaningful result. Is it people who make a living off studying climate change? Because that sample is already skewed because funding only goes to people who will toe the line. Is it people who have published research reports on climate change? Because that sample is skewed by the first problem.So while the study is convincing, it'd be interesting to see how they solved this problem, because it seems intractable to me.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I saw that study when it came out, and the first question is: how did they decide who to poll? I have not seen an explanation of it yet.I can't really think of any meaningful definition of scientist that would lead to a meaningful result. Is it people who make a living off studying climate change? Because that sample is already skewed because funding only goes to people who will toe the line. Is it people who have published research reports on climate change? Because that sample is skewed by the first problem.So while the study is convincing, it'd be interesting to see how they solved this problem, because it seems intractable to me.

I understand your concern, but I've worked in the area of foundation funding for six years (arts, not sciences, though). Having seen foundations at work, it just isn't realistic to me to think that they get together, decide on a "line," and then punish everyone who doesn't toe it. Other than individual scientists complaining that they weren't funded (and there can be a LOT of reasons for that), I've never seen any convincing evidence that this kind of conspiracy of funding actually exists. So to say the sample is skewed should require you to first prove that it is.I'm not dismissing your concern, though, because when I see polls, I think the same thing: who did they ask, what did they ask, and how exactly did they ask it? You can get totally different answers just by a slight re-wording of the question, and you can certainly cherry-pick your respondents to get answers you want.

[vbnautilus 48]

I saw that study when it came out, and the first question is: how did they decide who to poll? I have not seen an explanation of it yet.I can't really think of any meaningful definition of scientist that would lead to a meaningful result. Is it people who make a living off studying climate change? Because that sample is already skewed because funding only goes to people who will toe the line. Is it people who have published research reports on climate change? Because that sample is skewed by the first problem.So while the study is convincing, it'd be interesting to see how they solved this problem, because it seems intractable to me.

They contacted 10,000 scientists listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. 3,146 responded. They recorded IPs to make sure each person only responded once. 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. They broke down the results by subfield, for example climatology researchers agreed 97% while petroleum geologists (funded by gas companies) only believed 47%. The question of why the scientists have come to their conclusions and are they biased by funding opportunities is an interesting one, but the fact that the majority of them do indeed believe in global warming is not really in dispute.

[hblask 1]

They contacted 10,000 scientists listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. 3,146 responded. They recorded IPs to make sure each person only responded once. 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. They broke down the results by subfield, for example climatology researchers agreed 97% while petroleum geologists (funded by gas companies) only believed 47%.

OK, that seems like about the best they could do. I think this study will have to be considered to be the definitive one until someone with an equal or better methodology comes along.I think it's time to stop asking "is it real?" and instead ask "what should we do about it?" I've previously posted a couple of links discussing that question, if anyone missed them and is interested, just ask, I can dig them up again.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

OK, that seems like about the best they could do. I think this study will have to be considered to be the definitive one until someone with an equal or better methodology comes along.I think it's time to stop asking "is it real?" and instead ask "what should we do about it?" I've previously posted a couple of links discussing that question, if anyone missed them and is interested, just ask, I can dig them up again.

Precisely. I think there is a booming economic engine in new energy -- new sciences, new jobs, new manufacturing fields, new types of cars to sell, new appliances, etc. -- that is pent up by foot-dragging politicians, just because an ideological enemy was the first to get on the bandwagon. Whether it makes a difference to the globe or not, technology has been a way out of recession for at least the last fifty years.

[Balloon guy 158]

Precisely. I think there is a booming economic engine in new energy -- new sciences, new jobs, new manufacturing fields, new types of cars to sell, new appliances, etc. -- that is pent up by foot-dragging politicians, just because an ideological enemy was the first to get on the bandwagon. Whether it makes a difference to the globe or not, technology has been a way out of recession for at least the last fifty years.

While I agree with you that a new technology would boos tthe economy, how does government fit into that equation?The private sector has all the motivation in the world to create new technologies. ProfitThe government has the track record of being an ineffecient mess when it comes to technology.It's not like GE has an idea for making a fusion engine, but won't dump and money into R&D because they don't want the hassle of paying taxes on a brazillion dollars.

[Balloon guy 158]

Some things are worth repeating

[Southern Buddhist 1]

While I agree with you that a new technology would boos tthe economy, how does government fit into that equation?The private sector has all the motivation in the world to create new technologies. ProfitThe government has the track record of being an ineffecient mess when it comes to technology.It's not like GE has an idea for making a fusion engine, but won't dump and money into R&D because they don't want the hassle of paying taxes on a brazillion dollars.

Private industry had all the motivation in the world to create the airline industry, but it's still government-subsidized to the tune of over a billion dollars a year.McDonald's has all the motivation in the world to advertise itself overseas, yet they get a government subsidy to do it.Drug companies get government write-offs and direct subsidies to research new drugs.I haven't checked, but I'm reasonably certain that oil companies also get subsidies to underwrite exploration, even though they have a profit motive to find new oil.I don't see the government researching, building, or selling the technology, but providing the same kind of subsidies and underwriting that it already provides to nearly all sectors of industry today. The above companies are not willing to dump money into R&D, not when they can get the government to dump the money for them while they keep the profits of products that work and write off the losses of those that don't.I think there's a fine argument that government should not underwrite industry at all. But I'm realistic enough to say that it isn't going to stop cold turkey any time soon. If they've underwritten all the dirty technologies that got us here, and plan to continue underwriting them, then they should do the same for new technologies.

[85suited 0]

stuff

I am much more of a common sense conservative. I believe in tax cuts to promote economic growth. I support for capitalism and free trade . I support privatization of some infrastructure and government services on the belief (described by critics as a market theology) that the private sector is not only more efficient but more effective at providing such services. I support streamlining government and reducing regulation, usually in an effort to reduce barriers to business. I believe in you are responsible for you...not the government and finally... I know how to sepnd my money I make better than the Govt...I came across the common sense Bill of Rights and found it entertaining... although I am not that in lock step with article 8ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you happen to stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, ***** intentionally ***** or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure. ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We all hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

[Zeatrix 0]

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

I just read the two first and kind of chuckled. What are these quotes (that are full of "...", meaning missing content) really saying?If we start with the second one. Dr Simpson is saying that she is no longer affiliated with an organization and therefore can be frank. Ok check. Then she says she is skeptical. Ok check.What does this tell us? She is not an active scientist and she is skeptical. Did you know that skepticism is a cornerstone of ALL science. All scientists are skeptical of everything unless they can prove it correct. If you take scientific methodology 101 that's the first thing you learn! So I don't see how that quote is for or against global warming, it's just a general statement.I tracked the original quote down and from my interpretation she isn't saying at all that global warming is not man made, but that the causes of global warming need to be investigated further since the she feels the climate models might not be accurate. She goes on saying that mans treatment of the earth could be equally important. This is a quote from her without "..." "No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas." So, she is not a global warming denier, she just isn't convinced that CO2 emissions are the sole reason.Now the first quote. Prof Giaever is a norwegian physisist that has done no work at all on climate. He won a nobel prize for something entirely unrelated. He ALSO says he's a skeptic (see science methodology 101 for why) and he thinks global warming is a new religion. What does that tell us? Not much. He believes that the current global warming craze has similarities to religion. I can see why he thinks that, for example if you read these boards. Also, for this to be against global warming religion itself has to be a negative. I also tracked down where this quote is from, it's from a Nobel laureate discussion about global warming and energy. What he IS saying in the quote is that he doesn't like that you aren't supposed to go against global warming. In his mind it's proof that is the most important factor, not consensus. That makes sense. Also, I found another speech by him where he said that he doesn't deny that it is getting warmer, he just hasn't seen any proof that it is caused by humans. Fair enough. But on the other hand, there is no proof that it isn't man made either so he can't be a denier or the opposite, he's agnostic!So, it's nice to see that the top two quotes that I research aren't "proof" that global warming is false, it's just two quotes from two well regarded scientists that have been distorted and misinterpreted to fit the deniers agenda. I don't have time to research the rest, but I'll be surprised if some of them aren't misintrepreted too.

[akoff 0]

I just read the two first and kind of chuckled. What are these quotes (that are full of "...", meaning missing content) really saying?If we start with the second one. Dr Simpson is saying that she is no longer affiliated with an organization and therefore can be frank. Ok check. Then she says she is skeptical. Ok check.What does this tell us? She is not an active scientist and she is skeptical. Did you know that skepticism is a cornerstone of ALL science. All scientists are skeptical of everything unless they can prove it correct. If you take scientific methodology 101 that's the first thing you learn! So I don't see how that quote is for or against global warming, it's just a general statement.I tracked the original quote down and from my interpretation she isn't saying at all that global warming is not man made, but that the causes of global warming need to be investigated further since the she feels the climate models might not be accurate. She goes on saying that mans treatment of the earth could be equally important. This is a quote from her without "..." "No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas." So, she is not a global warming denier, she just isn't convinced that CO2 emissions are the sole reason.Now the first quote. Prof Giaever is a norwegian physisist that has done no work at all on climate. He won a nobel prize for something entirely unrelated. He ALSO says he's a skeptic (see science methodology 101 for why) and he thinks global warming is a new religion. What does that tell us? Not much. He believes that the current global warming craze has similarities to religion. I can see why he thinks that, for example if you read these boards. Also, for this to be against global warming religion itself has to be a negative. I also tracked down where this quote is from, it's from a Nobel laureate discussion about global warming and energy. What he IS saying in the quote is that he doesn't like that you aren't supposed to go against global warming. In his mind it's proof that is the most important factor, not consensus. That makes sense. Also, I found another speech by him where he said that he doesn't deny that it is getting warmer, he just hasn't seen any proof that it is caused by humans. Fair enough. But on the other hand, there is no proof that it isn't man made either so he can't be a denier or the opposite, he's agnostic!So, it's nice to see that the top two quotes that I research aren't "proof" that global warming is false, it's just two quotes from two well regarded scientists that have been distorted and misinterpreted to fit the deniers agenda. I don't have time to research the rest, but I'll be surprised if some of them aren't misintrepreted too.

Atta boy, I knew you wouldn't let us down.

[85suited 0]

please give me a report on all 31,000 US scientists that have signed a petition stating Global Warming is a not happeningOne by One... I can post their names if you would like

[Sheiky 0]

please give me a report on all 31,000 US scientists that have signed a petition stating Global Warming is a not happeningOne by One... I can post their names if you would like

I'm assuming when you say that you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming which you posted before?If so, then both statements in your post are incorrect. No scientist on the list signed a petition, the list was created by a 3rd party. Secondly, there disagreements are not 'global warming is not happening'. Indeed, they cannot even be called global warming sceptics. Or more directly -scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.

[Loismustdie 0]

please give me a report on all 31,000 US scientists that have signed a petition stating Global Warming is a not happeningOne by One... I can post their names if you would like

It wouldn't matter if it was 3 million. You can't argue with a faith based believer.

[hblask 1]

Private industry had all the motivation in the world to create the airline industry, but it's still government-subsidized to the tune of over a billion dollars a year.McDonald's has all the motivation in the world to advertise itself overseas, yet they get a government subsidy to do it.Drug companies get government write-offs and direct subsidies to research new drugs.I haven't checked, but I'm reasonably certain that oil companies also get subsidies to underwrite exploration, even though they have a profit motive to find new oil.I don't see the government researching, building, or selling the technology, but providing the same kind of subsidies and underwriting that it already provides to nearly all sectors of industry today. The above companies are not willing to dump money into R&D, not when they can get the government to dump the money for them while they keep the profits of products that work and write off the losses of those that don't.I think there's a fine argument that government should not underwrite industry at all. But I'm realistic enough to say that it isn't going to stop cold turkey any time soon. If they've underwritten all the dirty technologies that got us here, and plan to continue underwriting them, then they should do the same for new technologies.

But those private companies wouldn't stop doing what they are doing if the subsidies went away. They are taking the money because they can get it, not because it is necessary or fair -- just as I would take some mortgage bailout money if it were available. "Corruption happens" is a poor justification for future corruption.If you want a true discussion of the economics of global warming, look up Bjorn Lomborg (there's a good link at reason.tv, another at TED Talks). He takes the consensus of scientists, and compares it to the consensus of economists, and ranks problems and solutions of world problems on cost effectiveness, both in the short term and the long term. He does this with different groups of people from different backgrounds, and the results are always the same:It's cheaper to solve the problems caused by global warming than it is to prevent global warming. Worried about the spread of tropical diseases due to global warming? It's cheaper to eradicate the diseases. Worried about the heat waves? Actually, more people die from cold than heat, so global warming save lives, plus it's cheaper to give air conditioners to at-risk people than to prevent global warming. Worried about coastal areas being flooded? It's cheaper to just move the people affected.He does support investments in green technology, but that seems to be an afterthought and a concession. Economists agree it is a net loss for the govt to invest in green technology; it's just a small loss (something like 8 cents on the dollar), compared to the carbon reduction strategies, which are a huge loss, pretty much all waste, no gain.

[Balloon guy 158]

I just read the two first and kind of chuckled. What are these quotes (that are full of "...", meaning missing content) really saying?If we start with the second one. Dr Simpson is saying that she is no longer affiliated with an organization and therefore can be frank. Ok check. Then she says she is skeptical. Ok check.What does this tell us? She is not an active scientist and she is skeptical. Did you know that skepticism is a cornerstone of ALL science. All scientists are skeptical of everything unless they can prove it correct. If you take scientific methodology 101 that's the first thing you learn! So I don't see how that quote is for or against global warming, it's just a general statement.

Except darwinian evolution. In this they are sure without the facts

[mk 11]

[vbnautilus 48]

please give me a report on all 31,000 US scientists that have signed a petition stating Global Warming is a not happeningOne by One... I can post their names if you would like

Oh, I bet you can!

[Nimue1995 1]

please give me a report on all 31,000 US scientists that have signed a petition stating Global Warming is a not happeningOne by One... I can post their names if you would like

What I would be more interested in would be what percentage is 31,000 of the overall number of scientists in the world? Plus what percentage of that 31,000 are actually involved in research in the climate field? And what percentage are those of the overall number of scientists involved in research in the climate field? You can throw that 31,000 around all you want but until we know the answers to the above questions, the number doesn't have much value. P.S. I am not necessarily for or against on this issue. But I hate people throwing around unclarified numbers in the hopes that nobody will look any further into it. You do more for your cause if you research your side of the debate better instead of just taking the word of whoever writes the wikipedia article.

[vbnautilus 48]

What I would be more interested in would be what percentage is 31,000 of the overall number of scientists in the world? Plus what percentage of that 31,000 are actually involved in research in the climate field? And what percentage are those of the overall number of scientists involved in research in the climate field? You can throw that 31,000 around all you want but until we know the answers to the above questions, the number doesn't have much value.

I already presented that data and he's ignoring it. Its about 9 to 1. But posting those 31,000 names would help him get towards his daily lines copy-and-pasted quota.

[Sal Paradise 57]

this is simply hilarious

[Sheiky 0]

Except darwinian evolution. In this they are sure without the facts

What?