The scientists reply

[Old Rocks]

Once more we have non-scientists such as Monkton and Watt lying and spreading misinformation before Congress. This time the scientists choose to reply.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

On May 6, 2010, Mr. Christopher Monckton testified by invitation to the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Monckton, who is not a scientist, gave testimony that was in stark contrast to that of the
scientists who were present at the hearing as well as the many official statements produced by the
world’s premiere scientific organizations, about the growing dangers of climate change.
Here, a number of top climate scientists have thoroughly refuted all of Mr. Monckton’s major
assertions, clearly demonstrating a number of obvious and elementary errors.
We encourage the U.S. Congress to give careful consideration to the implications this document has
for the care that should be exercised in choosing expert witnesses to inform the legislative process.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Right, Congress should only consider Pro-Global Warming propaganda from approved "scientists".

Yep.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you have a cancer, you give equal weight to the opinion of a dentist to that of an oncologist? For that is what you are suggesting.

Neither Watt nor Monkton are scientists, let alone scientists in the field of climatology. The reply to the Congressional testimony of Monkton is written by people that are actively doing research, and publishing that research, in that field.

 

[skookerasbil]

Once more we have non-scientists such as Monkton and Watt lying and spreading misinformation before Congress. This time the scientists choose to reply.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

On May 6, 2010, Mr. Christopher Monckton testified by invitation to the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Monckton, who is not a scientist, gave testimony that was in stark contrast to that of the
scientists who were present at the hearing as well as the many official statements produced by the
world’s premiere scientific organizations, about the growing dangers of climate change.
Here, a number of top climate scientists have thoroughly refuted all of Mr. Monckton’s major
assertions, clearly demonstrating a number of obvious and elementary errors.
We encourage the U.S. Congress to give careful consideration to the implications this document has
for the care that should be exercised in choosing expert witnesses to inform the legislative process.

LOL............Ummmm..........Old Rocks meant to say, "My Scientists!!!"


Indeed...........for Old Rocks, the only scientists out there are the ones that agree with his views!! Follow these threads closely and it becomes painfully clear!!! He posts only the information from the "scientists" that are payed handsomely for the stuff they publish!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

When you have a cancer, you give equal weight to the opinion of a dentist to that of an oncologist? For that is what you are suggesting.

Neither Watt nor Monkton are scientists, let alone scientists in the field of climatology. The reply to the Congressional testimony of Monkton is written by people that are actively doing research, and publishing that research, in that field.

Nope s0n...........analysis fail................

This whole debate is more akin to a cardiologist at one hospital wanting to put a stent into a patients artery and another cardiologist at another hospital wanting to do open heart surgery instead. Either way...........there is a vast amount of uncertainty!!!

 

[westwall]

When you have a cancer, you give equal weight to the opinion of a dentist to that of an oncologist? For that is what you are suggesting.

Neither Watt nor Monkton are scientists, let alone scientists in the field of climatology. The reply to the Congressional testimony of Monkton is written by people that are actively doing research, and publishing that research, in that field.

And your scientists in the field of climatology can't recreate the weather (with their computer models that they have spent untold millions of dollars and 20 years on) that occured 10 days ago. You want us to trust them? To use your metaphor at least a dentist understands the use of anesthesia, and has spent untold hours learning how to keep a sterile field. Your boys don't even know how to wash their hands yet.

 

[Old Rocks]

With no real scientists on your side of the debate, such drivel as you just posted is all you have, Walleyes.

 

[westwall]

With no real scientists on your side of the debate, such drivel as you just posted is all you have, Walleyes.

That has to be the most inane response I've heard from you in oh, at least a week olfraud.

All I can say is sure buddy, you can think that's true all you like. Fortunately for the planet, those who think (or can't as the case may be) your way are in the minority and falling fast as the smarter ones figure out truth.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why are these scientist wrong when they have PHD's and Monkton is not even a scientist...It would be like me going before congress and saying that the earth is about ready to flip over. What points of the scientist do you disagree with and why?

 

[rdean]

Browsing the websites of different colleges, a prospective biology student finds an unusual statement on the page of the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University:

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The Great Mutator - Jerry Coyne, The New Republic - RichardDawkins.net

Bottom line - just being a scientist doesn't mean you are an expert in every field.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL............Ummmm..........Old Rocks meant to say, "My Scientists!!!"


Indeed...........for Old Rocks, the only scientists out there are the ones that agree with his views!! Follow these threads closely and it becomes painfully clear!!! He posts only the information from the "scientists" that are payed handsomely for the stuff they publish!!!
__________________

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So is it Climate Change? Global Warming? Faith Based Climatology? The Great Climactic Googly Moogly? What are we calling it today?

 

[westwall]

Browsing the websites of different colleges, a prospective biology student finds an unusual statement on the page of the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University:

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The Great Mutator - Jerry Coyne, The New Republic - RichardDawkins.net

Bottom line - just being a scientist doesn't mean you are an expert in every field.

And just because you hate religion doesn't make you smart either. And you are kind of proving my point about AGW being a religion, only a SELECT small group are capable of interpreting what is going on....I wonder if they will adopt Latin as their official language next?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Walleyes, perhaps you are going to tell us the hour and date of your lecture at the AGU conferance in which you show all those other scientists making presentations the errors of their ways?

Or perhaps you will do it at the GSA conferance in Denver? Perhaps you will have someone else read your papers at one of the conferances? Or maybe you could tell us ahead of time that someone else will carry the deniar water at one of the conferances?

But you will not, and no one else will, because the evidence is totally against you.

 

[skookerasbil]

Now Walleyes, perhaps you are going to tell us the hour and date of your lecture at the AGU conferance in which you show all those other scientists making presentations the errors of their ways?

Or perhaps you will do it at the GSA conferance in Denver? Perhaps you will have someone else read your papers at one of the conferances? Or maybe you could tell us ahead of time that someone else will carry the deniar water at one of the conferances?

But you will not, and no one else will, because the evidence is totally against you.

s0n............do you realize that you have the political IQ of a small soap dish?? Posting up all this fake statistical shit and bogus science articles is nothing more than an exercise in navel contemplation...................



Cap and Trade; Dead or Alive
Submitted by Paul Johnson on Tue, 08/24/2010 - 18:17
in cap and trade
“I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.” –Barak Obama; 2010 State of the Union.

One the most intriguing legislative agenda pieces for the Obama Administration has been Cap and Trade. The on and off again malignant bill has been repeatedly forced into remission by voter discontentment, Senate and House in-fighting and the botched and actual lack of “overwhelming scientific evidence.”

The administration persisted however. With each setback the Obama Administration pushed harder with more determination and vigor insisting the tax revenue was worth the farce surrounding the science of so called “man made global warming.”

In May a devastating blow was dealt to the Obama legislative efforts from the scientists; not the politicians. ICCC-4 was aptly entitled, “Reconsidering the Science and Economics.” The panel determining the cause and effect of “man made global warming” tucked their tails between their legs and conceded that the representations of the science were more myth than fact as they moved to step back; not forward.



none of this debate matters anymore

 

[westwall]

Now Walleyes, perhaps you are going to tell us the hour and date of your lecture at the AGU conferance in which you show all those other scientists making presentations the errors of their ways?

Or perhaps you will do it at the GSA conferance in Denver? Perhaps you will have someone else read your papers at one of the conferances? Or maybe you could tell us ahead of time that someone else will carry the deniar water at one of the conferances?

But you will not, and no one else will, because the evidence is totally against you.

As I stated before I am not presenting at the conference. I will however be in attendance as will a good many of my colleagues. A good friend from the DRI will be driving down with me and we will have a great time! I am not a member of the GSA so will not be attending that one.

 

[konradv]

Browsing the websites of different colleges, a prospective biology student finds an unusual statement on the page of the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University:

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The Great Mutator - Jerry Coyne, The New Republic - RichardDawkins.net

Bottom line - just being a scientist doesn't mean you are an expert in every field.

And just because you hate religion doesn't make you smart either. And you are kind of proving my point about AGW being a religion, only a SELECT small group are capable of interpreting what is going on....I wonder if they will adopt Latin as their official language next?

What does not believing in God have to do with it? You've just exposed the extent the deniers will go to in order to win an argument. They'll throw out any irrelevancy, just to see what sticks and hope nobody notices that logic really isn't on their side. What you've done is commonly called "poisoning the well" and is one of the logical fallacies preferred by those who have a political bias regarding the subject, but don't have the scientific goods.

 

[Si modo]

Browsing the websites of different colleges, a prospective biology student finds an unusual statement on the page of the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University:

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The Great Mutator - Jerry Coyne, The New Republic - RichardDawkins.net

Bottom line - just being a scientist doesn't mean you are an expert in every field.

And just because you hate religion doesn't make you smart either. And you are kind of proving my point about AGW being a religion, only a SELECT small group are capable of interpreting what is going on....I wonder if they will adopt Latin as their official language next?

What does not believing in God have to do with it? You've just exposed the extent the deniers will go to in order to win an argument. They'll throw out any irrelevancy, just to see what sticks and hope nobody notices that logic really isn't on their side. What you've done is commonly called "poisoning the well" and is one of the logical fallacies preferred by those who have a political bias regarding the subject, but don't have the scientific goods.

And again...

What are the deniers denying, Rocks?



I fully expect you to dodge this question yet again.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is well stated in the paper that the scientists in the OP presented. And I have answered that question. So I will give another answer here.

What the deniars are denying is the process of science itself. There has been more than ample evidence presented to prove AGW beyond a reasonable doubt. But, just as with the cigarette controversy, the deniers continue to deal in doubt, just as you do.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

When you have a cancer, you give equal weight to the opinion of a dentist to that of an oncologist? For that is what you are suggesting.

Neither Watt nor Monkton are scientists, let alone scientists in the field of climatology. The reply to the Congressional testimony of Monkton is written by people that are actively doing research, and publishing that research, in that field.

Nope s0n...........analysis fail................

This whole debate is more akin to a cardiologist at one hospital wanting to put a stent into a patients artery and another cardiologist at another hospital wanting to do open heart surgery instead. Either way...........there is a vast amount of uncertainty!!!

Actually his analysis is much better than yours. To be honest, I haven't looked at the published data on this topic directly myself. But when it comes to research and scientific knowledge, you trust the peer reviewed and scrutinized published results over a non-scientific politician with an agenda and no evidence. To correct your example, one is a cardiologist wanting a stent, and one is a guy you met in an ally who can do a different procedure in his garage for half price.