The scientists reply

[Si modo]

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. ....

And, which denier is doing that? Perhaps you could show evidence of anyone whom you think is adenier doing so.

.... 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.

Oh, so now a denier is one who actually doubts that the "science is settled".

Which is it, Rocks? A denier is one who denies the 'process of science' itself? Or one who doubts that the 'science is settled'?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I'm a scientist and I know global warming is bullcrap.

 

[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!!!

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.

analogy fAiL for you s0n...........if that were so, Cap and Trade would be a chip shot field goal. Instead, its a radioactive topic on Capitol Hill right now..........because the "science" is now considered bogus by the public.

so much for garage procedures................

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm a scientist and I know global warming is bullcrap.

You are a fraud, and I know that your statement is bullcrap. Scientists provide evidence of their statements, not just unsupported bullshit. You post like a politician, not a scientist.

 

[skookerasbil]

From the US Senate Comittee on Environment And Public Works...................

Volumes and Volumes of evidence that a "consensus" does NOT exist


.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.



[Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK ]


RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS - Russian scientists 'reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming' - The Hindu – India’s National Newspaper: July 10, 2008:

Excerpt: As western nations step up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming. Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO2 emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. Under the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is human-generated greenhouse gases, and mainly CO2, that cause climate change. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.” [...] When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” (LINK)


'Considerable presence' of global warming skeptics exist, science group admits – July 16, 2008 – Australian's The Herald-Sun

Excerpt: What consensus? The American Physical Society reports: There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. - So it has opened a debate, kicked off by Christopher Monckton: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity… More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful. (LINK)


India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears – July 9, 2008

Excerpt: India issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change in June 2008 disputing man-made global warming fears and declared the country of one billion people had no intention of stopping its energy growth or cutting back its CO2 emissions. […] The report declared: “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.” (LINK)


Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists in 2008 reveals 68% disagree that global warming science is ‘settled’ – March 6, 2008
Excerpt: A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of." (LINK) & (LINK) [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. - LINK & LINK - In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists - LINK ]






Team of 13 International Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ - 14th of July, 2008 (LINK)

Australian scientist reverses view on man-made warming - Now a Skeptic! Now says 'new evidence has seriously weakened' the case - (By Mathematician, Rocket Scientist & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government) – July 18, 2008 (LINK)

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, Declares Himself Dissenter: ‘I am a skeptic’ - 'Global warming has become a new religion' - July 2, 2008 - (LINK)

Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’ – June 27, 2008 - By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. (LINK)

New scientific paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000% - Published in Physics and Society journal of the American Physical Society – July 2008 (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis showing UN IPCC models ‚significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ - June 17, 2008 – (LINK)

Four prominent scientists warn 'global warming out, global cooling in'- ‘Potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature' - July 12, 2008 (LINK) & (LINK)

Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 - July 18, 2008 – (LINK)

Australian astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun's activity 'significantly diminishes' – June 29, 2008 – (LINK) & (LINK)

New Study Exposes UN IPCC as ‘single-interest organization’ with echo chamber process – July 15, 2008 – By Climate data analyst John McLean (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Tennekes: 'Sun may cause some cooling' - 'No evidence at all for catastrophic global warming' - July 14, 2008 (By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.) (LINK)









LMAO............go to the link............you can scroll down for about 5 mintues and find scores of links decimating the "science" embraced by the true believers.




epilogue..................

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

 

[skookerasbil]

in other words................................

I love this forum.............ever have a fantasy about getting to spend 5 minutes in a room with a child molester??? Thats what coming into this forum is like..............you get to smash k00ks upside of the head.................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Skookerasbill has the best answer

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Skookerasbill has the best answer

Yo Frank...........the best thing about this forum is to post up our stuff and know that the environmental k00ks have zero recognition of the political realities as they relate to the "science". Its an epic train wreck for the k00ks...........yet still, they spend their ENTIRE FCUKKING LIVES falling all over themselves to post up the same 5 or 6 k00k links/graphs.................



as if it matters for shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Si modo]

I'm a scientist and I know global warming is bullcrap.

You are a fraud, and I know that your statement is bullcrap. Scientists provide evidence of their statements, not just unsupported bullshit. You post like a politician, not a scientist.

Can't answer my question, huh Dodge?

I thought so.

You just dodge.


You are the paradigm of an enemy of science.

Howvery pathetic you are; you are an epic fail at being even a dilettant.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm a scientist and I know global warming is bullcrap.

No scientist calls themselves a "scientist". That's like a quarterback going around calling himself a "sports player". The term scientist is applied by lay people because they have no clue what specialty of research is being performed.

analogy fAiL for you s0n...........if that were so, Cap and Trade would be a chip shot field goal. Instead, its a radioactive topic on Capitol Hill right now..........because the "science" is now considered bogus by the public.

so much for garage procedures................

I'm not here to argue the specifics of this case, just the general concept of scientific research vs political agenda. You see science uses evidence to support claims. You, on the other hand, think you have a point because you type "fail".

It does not matter if the science is considered bogus by the public. The public at one time believed vaccines cause autism. Hell the public at ONE time believed the earth was flat. The ONLY thing that matters is the evidence behind the claim, and the ONLY way to debunk a claim is to find fault in the evidence supporting that conclusion. Angry mobs cannot overrule supporting evidence, which is the thing you appear to be overlooking. 1000 lay people combined STILL cannot produce the knowledge needed for a single open heart surgery, so why is it that you think uninformed lay people combined equals expertise?

Again, I'm neither supporting not defending the individual topic yall are yelling about. But these basic tenets of logic still stand, regardless of how many times you type "fail" or post amusing pictures.

 

[Si modo]

I'm a scientist and I know global warming is bullcrap.

No scientist calls themselves a "scientist". ....

Really?

 

[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.

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?

I love you guys. Your lack of understanding science is amazing. It's like arguing that brain surgeons are a "select" group that shouldn't be taken seriously in matters involving the brain. They think they know so much.

Only,

they do.

 

[nraforlife]

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.

.........................

If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.

 

[rdean]

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.

.........................

If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.

And scientists have that history? Yea, unlike Republicans. Iraq anyone?

 

[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.

.........................

If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.

So you're saying you'd use EVIDENCE refuting a claim? Interesting.

 

[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?

I love you guys. Your lack of understanding science is amazing. It's like arguing that brain surgeons are a "select" group that shouldn't be taken seriously in matters involving the brain. They think they know so much.

Only,

they do.

I am continuously astonished at your delusional point of view.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Could you please elaborate, westwall? I don't quite understand your point in that last post with respect to the latest rdean post you quoted. Brain surgeons ARE a select group that DO know more about the brain than most people.

 

[rdean]

Could you please elaborate, westwall? I don't quite understand your point in that last post with respect to the latest rdean post you quoted. Brain surgeons ARE a select group that DO know more about the brain than most people.

Shhhhh, it thinks it made a point. It's gone now. It has a ring to protect.

 

[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.

.........................

If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.

And scientists have that history? Yea, unlike Republicans. Iraq anyone?

Well lets see now, Tuskeegee experiments, Eugenics, the medical establishments ignoring Pellagra and terming it a genetic trait of the lower classes till the rich started suffering from it and it was finally discovered it was a nutritional disorder, Autism caused by vaccines, etc. etc. etc. The list is longer than anything the Republicrats have done boyo.
Much longer. That's why everyone needs to ALLWAYS question everything.