17,200 scientists say no to man made global warming

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm extremely curious to know what the results would be of a verification campaign... emailing 100 randomly chosen from this list with the question, "Did you knowingly sign this petition?"

I'm just curious...

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

[narcimund 0]

Quote

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

Quote

SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS

Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

I particularly like this part of the petition:



The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind.

I must be plain dumb, or maybe I have forgotten how to read English. I cannot see anywhere in the quoted text a statement saying we should increase our CO2 output. .

So what, exactly, do you infer from "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I particularly like this part of the petition:



The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind.

I must be plain dumb, or maybe I have forgotten how to read English. I cannot see anywhere in the quoted text a statement saying we should increase our CO2 output. .

So what, exactly, do you infer from "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

I infer exactly what it said. It's not all negative you know. It just that some people think there are more negative than positive aspects to CO2.

It's the media hype that annoys me. If we just stuck to what is reasonably expected from increased CO2 I would be happier. The fact that the hype has gone so overboard is ruining the credibility of any theories about global warming and CO2. If the AGW advocates hype it, then it's fair game for me hype the opposite.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[speedy 0]

Suppose Benny J Peiser is a crackpot too.

“The scientific consensus on climate change”
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[narcimund 0]

Quote

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Quote

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Quote

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."

I sure can imagine how our usual quality control proctors, Dorbie, mnealtx, and ncclimber would be SCREAMING if someone posted such trash in justification of a position they didn't favor.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I particularly like this part of the petition:



The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind.

I must be plain dumb, or maybe I have forgotten how to read English. I cannot see anywhere in the quoted text a statement saying we should increase our CO2 output. .

So what, exactly, do you infer from "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

I infer exactly what it said. .

What is SAYS is that INCREASES in atmospheric CO2 are BENEFICIAL. You don't consider that an endorsement? You do indeed have a strange understanding of English.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Suppose Benny J Peiser is a crackpot too.

“The scientific consensus on climate change”
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish

SO? Authors who write poor quality or PREVIOUSLY REPORTED articles are generally refused publication in any reputable journal, and often get very disgruntled about it. Nature publishes a very small % of the articles submitted. This is evidence of nothing at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Suppose Benny J Peiser is a crackpot too.

“The scientific consensus on climate change”
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish

SO? Authors who write poor quality or PREVIOUSLY REPORTED articles are generally refused publication in any reputable journal, and often get very disgruntled about it. Nature publishes a very small % of the articles submitted. This is evidence of nothing at all.

I love their reasoning:

Quote

After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter.

WTF?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Suppose Benny J Peiser is a crackpot too.

“The scientific consensus on climate change”
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish

SO? Authors who write poor quality or PREVIOUSLY REPORTED articles are generally refused publication in any reputable journal, and often get very disgruntled about it. Nature publishes a very small % of the articles submitted. This is evidence of nothing at all.

I love their reasoning:

Quote

After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter.

WTF?

Have you ever tried to get a letter or article published in Nature? If not, I suggest you first find out just how difficult it is before you waste a lot of sympathy on a whiner who was not published. Nature is under no obligation to publish every crank article it it receives.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,114]

>What is SAYS is that INCREASES in atmospheric CO2 are BENEFICIAL.

Well, it says that increases in CO2 produce many beneficial effects, which is literally true. They also produce many undesireable effects. In terms of direct effects, beneficial effects would include acceleration of growth of some plants. Tests have shown weeds and many trees grow significantly faster in a high-CO2 environment, but corn and sugar cane do not, and photosyntheic rates drop off after about 400ppm (we're at about 380ppm now.) Pineapple is not affected at all by changes in CO2.

In terms of animals, increased CO2 is a hindrance but not a big one; it if changes slowly evolution will allow adaptation. (Note that evolution means that some animals/people will die; that's how evolution works.)

Marine animals and plants will see a more direct effect. As the increase in CO2 makes the oceans more acidic, some strains of plankton and most strains of coral will die. We have already lost a significant amount of the planet's coral to bleaching caused directly by CO2 (increasing acidity) and indirectly (warmer waters.) Evolution will likely allow plankton to adapt to the lower ocean pH, as long as the change does not happen too rapidly. Since plankton supports all animal life on earth, it would behoove us to _not_ force that change too rapidly.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Well, it says that increases in CO2 produce many beneficial effects, which is literally true.

Watch out, Kallend interprets that as ....
"We should increase our CO2 output."

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Suppose Benny J Peiser is a crackpot too.

“The scientific consensus on climate change”
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish

SO? Authors who write poor quality or PREVIOUSLY REPORTED articles are generally refused publication in any reputable journal, and often get very disgruntled about it. Nature publishes a very small % of the articles submitted. This is evidence of nothing at all.

I love their reasoning:

Quote

After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter.

WTF?

Have you ever tried to get a letter or article published in Nature? If not, I suggest you first find out just how difficult it is before you waste a lot of sympathy on a whiner who was not published. Nature is under no obligation to publish every crank article it it receives.

For such a well respected publication, their rationale for rejecting seems exceptionally low brow. Weak sauce.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

For such a well respected publication, their rationale for rejecting seems exceptionally low brow. Weak sauce.

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

For such a well respected publication, their rationale for rejecting seems exceptionally low brow. Weak sauce.

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow.

What rationale for "accepting the OP's linked bullshit" are you talking about?

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

***After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter.

WTF?
Parachutist won't publish a picture that's been published somewhere else either (like, for instance, Skydiving). It's not unrealistic. If you can get it anywhere, why would you want to get their magazine?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

For such a well respected publication, their rationale for rejecting seems exceptionally low brow. Weak sauce.

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow.

I don't complian about other posters linked bullshit. There is no call for you to complain about my linked bullshit.
According to your linked bullshit 11 of 30 from my linked bullshit still agree with my bullshit. I make that over 30%. And 30% of 1400 is not 200. That really would be bullshit.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow.

What rationale for "accepting the OP's linked bullshit" are you talking about?

Ah! Now you put the Proctor's hat back on.

Excellent -- except it doesn't fit very well. Maybe you can get it resized at the costume shop you bought it from.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[quade 4]

Further reading material;

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0107/msg00321.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,114]

>I don't complian about other posters linked bullshit.

Speedy sez, on Oct 31, 2006, 10:00 AM: "That is the biggest load of codswallop I have ever heard."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow.

What rationale for "accepting the OP's linked bullshit" are you talking about?

Ah! Now you put the Proctor's hat back on.

Excellent -- except it doesn't fit very well. Maybe you can get it resized at the costume shop you bought it from.

Atta boy, Chester.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

***After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter.

WTF?
Parachutist won't publish a picture that's been published somewhere else either (like, for instance, Skydiving). It's not unrealistic. If you can get it anywhere, why would you want to get their magazine?

Wendy W.

Do you really think Letters to the Editor are held to the same standards and copyright issues as photos?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Do you really think Letters to the Editor are held to the same standards and copyright issues as photos?

Yes.

Have you ever looked at a real scientific journal? I don't mean Scientific American or OMNI but a real research publication?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[livendive 8]

Quote

Parachutist won't publish a picture that's been published somewhere else either (like, for instance, Skydiving).

Wasn't the cover of both magazines the same a few months ago? (quad-plane with deathstrap)

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)