Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Concensus on MMGW
#1
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...1.htmhttp:
Reply
#2
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with a PhD. There is NO consensus. But, even if there was a consensus, scientific truth is not determined by a show of hands. Galileo stood alone, but he was right. So, even though a consensus does not prove the theory is correct--there is no consensus to begin with!


[Image: Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg]

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#3
[Image: headshot.jpg]
Kevin Grandia

Managing editor, http://www.energyboom.com
Posted: July 22, 2009 04:47 PM







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





To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

[Image: 2009-07-22-oregoninstituteheadquarters.jpg]
The Petition's Sordid Beginnings

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
An Unverifiable Mess
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
For example,
"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

[url=http://www.twitter.com/kgrandia][/url]
Reply
#4
Yeah,good old Art Robinson.He ran as the Tea party candidate against our progressive representative Peter DeFazio in 2010.He got whipped..........

:hobbyhorse:
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
Reply
#5
Cabal's Heartland Institute Denies Peer-Reviewed Science

Friday, 27 September 2013
Connor Gibson Questions Heartland Institute Pres. Joe Bast.
Please click on the photo to watch the video.
Yesterday, (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) the Heritage Foundation hosted (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) The Heartland Institute's CEO Joseph Bast, along with two of Heartland's contracted climate denial scientists (Willie Soon andBob Carter), to present their new report that denies the seriousness of [Image: Heartland-Institute-leaders-caricature.png]global warming. Greenpeace was there to ask Heartland about the report's funders, including billionaire Barre Seid, and to challenge Heartland's assertion that their work has any scientific validity (it doesn't).
Heartland's "Climate Change Reconsidered," written by the usual climate denier suspects under the guise of the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" (NIPCC) is intended to undermine new scientific findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer-reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.
You'll notice that Heartland's climate denial report isn't being published in any scientific journals, but rather from Heartland itself. This is because the document is a public relations tool intended to keep politicians and the public doubting that global warming is worth addressing.
While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.
Heartland doesn't care, or even recognize, that global warming is already costing the global economy $1.2 trillion dollarsand contributing to 400,000 deaths each year. They don't care that billion-dollar weather disasters, intensified by climate change, are on the rise and impacting the U.S. economy and our infrastructure. Nor do they accept repeated research indicating the overwhelming consensus among credentialed climate scientists that human fossil fuel use is the primary driver of unnatural global warmingin fact Heartland's staff have repeatedly lied to cast doubt upon that research.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#6
Anthropomorphic Global Warming (recently amended to "climate change" when it was proven that the planet has cooled in the past decade) Alarmism is at its finest when those who--by their own admission, know next to nothing about the subject and who have, again by their own admission--failed to conduct sufficient research into the subject to have an informed opinion (you know who you are) chime in.

Incidentally, that a person or an institution is in error wittingly or otherwise (in your opinion) regarding subject A does not mean that that person or institution is therefore also in error regarding subject B (and/or every other subject). Poisoning the well should not be the standard upon which arguments are advanced amongst rational investigators. Labeling those who question the conclusions, criticize the methodology employed, or challenge the validity of the processes upon which the conclusions were based as: "Climate Denial Scientists" -- or referring to laypersons who challenge the IPCC's motives as: "Climate Denialists" or similar derogatory labels constitutes ad hominem.


Magda Hassan Wrote:Cabal's Heartland Institute Denies Peer-Reviewed Science

Friday, 27 September 2013
Connor Gibson Questions Heartland Institute Pres. Joe Bast.
Please click on the photo to watch the video.
Yesterday, (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) the Heritage Foundation hosted (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) The Heartland Institute's CEO Joseph Bast, along with two of Heartland's contracted climate denial scientists (Willie Soon andBob Carter), to present their new report that denies the seriousness of [Image: Heartland-Institute-leaders-caricature.png]global warming. Greenpeace was there to ask Heartland about the report's funders, including billionaire Barre Seid, and to challenge Heartland's assertion that their work has any scientific validity (it doesn't).
Heartland's "Climate Change Reconsidered," written by the usual climate denier suspects under the guise of the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" (NIPCC) is intended to undermine new scientific findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer-reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.
You'll notice that Heartland's climate denial report isn't being published in any scientific journals, but rather from Heartland itself. This is because the document is a public relations tool intended to keep politicians and the public doubting that global warming is worth addressing.
While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.
Heartland doesn't care, or even recognize, that global warming is already costing the global economy $1.2 trillion dollarsand contributing to 400,000 deaths each year. They don't care that billion-dollar weather disasters, intensified by climate change, are on the rise and impacting the U.S. economy and our infrastructure. Nor do they accept repeated research indicating the overwhelming consensus among credentialed climate scientists that human fossil fuel use is the primary driver of unnatural global warmingin fact Heartland's staff have repeatedly lied to cast doubt upon that research.
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#7
Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#8
Magda Hassan Wrote:Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#9
I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.
Greg Burnham Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#10
Climate Crock:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKBq53f7t...BFDC78FA33
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)