Ruh Roh The warmers are losing teh Royal Society!
- Thread starter westwall
- Start date
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Present evidence that AGW is incorrect, old fool.
American Institue of Physics;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Go ahead, show Scientists or organizations that are scientific in nature that can show that the evidence presented by the American Institute of Physics is incorrect.
And when you finish with that, perhaps you can refute the evidence presented by the AGU. Of course, you cannot do either, you can just parrot the idiocy spouted by a junkie with a radio mike.
- Thread starter
- #23
Pretty soon you will be able to piss further up a rope than there will be people believing your religion old fraud. Whistle yourself off to extinction ASAP!
- Thread starter
- #24
Even the Times is reporting on the Royal Societies revolt.
Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism - Times Online
Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism - Times Online
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Lordy, lordy, this is going to be humorous. The result is going to be a far stronger statement on AGW from the Royal Society. 43 out of 1300, none with credentials in the field of climate research, and most retired from working in science.
Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism - Times Online
The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause
......................................................................................................................................
Sir Alan, 72, an electrical engineer, is a member of the advisory council of the climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
He said: “I think the Royal Society should be more neutral and welcome credible contributions from both sceptics and alarmists alike. There is a lot of science to be done before we can be certain about climate change and before we impose upon ourselves the huge economic burden of cutting emissions.”
He refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired.
“One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labelled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”
Only a fraction of the society’s 1,300 Fellows were approached and a third of those declined to sign the petition
Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism - Times Online
The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause
......................................................................................................................................
Sir Alan, 72, an electrical engineer, is a member of the advisory council of the climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
He said: “I think the Royal Society should be more neutral and welcome credible contributions from both sceptics and alarmists alike. There is a lot of science to be done before we can be certain about climate change and before we impose upon ourselves the huge economic burden of cutting emissions.”
He refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired.
“One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labelled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”
Only a fraction of the society’s 1,300 Fellows were approached and a third of those declined to sign the petition
- Thread starter
- #26
Boy are you going to be shocked when they are done old fraud. You see The Royal Society at 350 or so years of age is (or was) the preeminent scientific organization on the planet and they have violated one of their core principles
"… it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always
adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject,
either of Nature or Art, that comes before them."
But the last two presidents of the Society Lords Rees and May politicised the Society with a corresponding loss of credibility. So you see the fact that a "mere 43 fellows" could generate that much traction is very significant....you don't piss away 350 years of credibility so that a few members can make a bunch of money.
And I love how you try to minimise the importance of the Fellows by pointing out that they are electrical engineers or some other non-climatologist related science. You don't have to be a climatologist to figure out what bad science is...any good scientist can do that.
Last edited:
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Well now, I guess we will see who is correct then, ol' Walleyed.
There was one other Scientific Society that had a similiar debate. The governing board of the Petroleum Geologist of America bluntly denied the reality of AGW. The members forced a retraction of that statement, a lukewarm call for more research.
There was one other Scientific Society that had a similiar debate. The governing board of the Petroleum Geologist of America bluntly denied the reality of AGW. The members forced a retraction of that statement, a lukewarm call for more research.
- Thread starter
- #28
And see that is the fundamental difference between you and me(and any good scientist for that matter) I value the process, if there is such a thing as AGW I want to know about it. I want legitimate research that is uncorrupted by political and monetary reasons. I want it to be open and unsullied. I want the world to know once and for all if there is AGW.
You on the other hand don't care about the process at all. You have convinced yourself that it exists whether there is evidence or not, whether that evidence is manufactured or not doesn't trouble you in the slightest. You prostitute science in the name of making yorself feel better.
Science is not about money or politics or making yourself feel better, it is about the quest for truth and if the petroleum geologists wrongly prevented legitimate research then they should be ashamed for that debasement of the scientific method. Just because they were on my "side" doesn't make them right.
That is the difference between a scientist and a propagandist.
- Thread starter
- #29
One other thing struck me as I was thinking about your attack (for having the temerity to have an opinion in a science they were not degreed in) on the Fellows of the Royal Society old fraud.
Just imagine poor Alfred Wegener and all of his work in the field of geology (he is the first person to properly define plate tectonics you know) and all of the misery he endured at the hands of his fellow scientists who KNEW he was wrong. He was drummed out of virtually every scientific organization on the planet and was only able to get a teaching job in Austria before his untimely death at the age of 50 up on the Greenland ice sheet.
What is amusing to me is that while he is most known for his geological work (which in the end was found to be based on very solid observations and as we now know fundamentally correct) he was in fact NOT A GEOLOGIST but a METEOROLOGIST! So I guess in your twisted little world Wegener can't have an opinion about geology because....welll....he's not a geologist!
Just imagine poor Alfred Wegener and all of his work in the field of geology (he is the first person to properly define plate tectonics you know) and all of the misery he endured at the hands of his fellow scientists who KNEW he was wrong. He was drummed out of virtually every scientific organization on the planet and was only able to get a teaching job in Austria before his untimely death at the age of 50 up on the Greenland ice sheet.
What is amusing to me is that while he is most known for his geological work (which in the end was found to be based on very solid observations and as we now know fundamentally correct) he was in fact NOT A GEOLOGIST but a METEOROLOGIST! So I guess in your twisted little world Wegener can't have an opinion about geology because....welll....he's not a geologist!
Last edited:
pans trogladyta
Liberal, Atheist
If you're going to quote someone, quote the royal society itself, not some political blog.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Is the UK Telegraph not a relatively mainstream publication?
pans trogladyta
Liberal, Atheist
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
The question is self-addressing.
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
pans trogladyta
Liberal, Atheist
Whether it is ot not is irrelevent. If you are going to quote the royal society quote them directly. they have a website. That is what is called a primary source, the telegraph is, at best, a secondary source.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
I'll score that a "yes"...The UK Telegraph is a relatively reputable mainstream source.
Relevant, no doubt, as well.
pans trogladyta
Liberal, Atheist
I say there are not relevent and you score that as a yes they are? I don't know what you are smoking, but you should definitely share.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
I'm smoking nothing but your ass with the bat of reality.
The Telegraph is no doubt a source that you may well cite, if the conclusion came up your way, despite an equal lack of attribution...So, your "just a blog" argument falls flat.
Just sayin'
The Telegraph is no doubt a source that you may well cite, if the conclusion came up your way, despite an equal lack of attribution...So, your "just a blog" argument falls flat.
Just sayin'
- Thread starter
- #39
Hi Dude,
Just goes to show you these clowns aren't bright enough to figure out why I used the source I did. I will make it simple for them. I used the Telegraph site because they were huge proponents of AGW theory and for them to now report this emphasizes just how far the warmers have lost the plot.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
One other thing struck me as I was thinking about your attack (for having the temerity to have an opinion in a science they were not degreed in) on the Fellows of the Royal Society old fraud.
Just imagine poor Alfred Wegener and all of his work in the field of geology (he is the first person to properly define plate tectonics you know) and all of the misery he endured at the hands of his fellow scientists who KNEW he was wrong. He was drummed out of virtually every scientific organization on the planet and was only able to get a teaching job in Austria before his untimely death at the age of 50 up on the Greenland ice sheet.
What is amusing to me is that while he is most known for his geological work (which in the end was found to be based on very solid observations and as we now know fundamentally correct) he was in fact NOT A GEOLOGIST but a METEOROLOGIST! So I guess in your twisted little world Wegener can't have an opinion about geology because....welll....he's not a geologist!
Once again, you prove your vast ignorance of geology.
Alfred Wegener was a German climatologist and Geophysicist. And he was certainly not the first to notice the fit of the continents.
Continental drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wegener and his predecessors
The hypothesis that the continents had once formed a single landmass before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations was fully formulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912.[2] Although Wegener's theory was formed independently and was more complete than those of his predecessors, Wegener later credited a number of past authors with similar ideas:[3][4] Franklin Coxworthy (between 1848 and 1890),[5] Roberto Mantovani (between 1889 and 1909), William Henry Pickering (1907)[6] and Frank Bursley Taylor (1908).
For example: the similarity of southern continent geological formations had led Roberto Mantovani to conjecture in 1889 and 1909 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent (now known as Pangaea); Wegener noted the similarity of Mantovani's and his own maps of the former positions of the southern continents. Through volcanic activity due to thermal expansion this continent broke and the new continents drifted away from each other because of further expansion of the rip-zones, where the oceans now lie. This led Mantovani to propose an Expanding Earth theory which has since been shown to be incorrect.[7][8][9]
Some sort of continental drift without expansion was proposed by Frank Bursley Taylor, who suggested in 1908 (published in 1910) that the continents were dragged towards the equator by increased lunar gravity during the Cretaceous, thus forming the Himalayas and Alps on the southern faces. Wegener said that of all those theories, Taylor's, although not fully developed, had the most similarities to his own.[10]
Wegener was the first to use the phrase "continental drift" (1912, 1915)[2][3] (in German "die Verschiebung der Kontinente" translated into English in 1922) and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart. Although he presented much evidence for continental drift, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce (Polflucht) of the Earth's rotation or by a small component of astronomical precession was rejected as calculations showed that the force was not sufficient.[11] The Polflucht hypothesis was also threated by Paul Sophus Epstein in 1920.
Wegener gathered the known fossil evidence from the geologically similiar areas on the various continents, and demonstrated through strata, geo-chemistry, and fossils the relationship in time and place.
What he could not do was show how it was possible for the fragile continental rock to plow through ocean basalt. The explanation had to wait for the seminal paper of Vine and Mathew in '63.
