Scientific opposition to climate change

[Oddball]

See what I mean?....31,000+ degreed skeptical scientists and they're completely discounted by the cargo cult.

Thanks for playing, Mr. Applewhite.

 

[longknife]

Oddball -

If there is ever an award for Most Gullible Man in the World, you're a cert to win it.

Honestly, if you read on the internet that Al Gore started WWI you'd be parroting it here as gospel within seconds, wouldn't you?!

Ah, c'mon now! We all know Gore's great-grandfather WAS aligned with the big arms dealers who WERE responsible for WWI!

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

It's great to see some of the great Scientific minds who signed your petition.

I. C. Ewe and approved names on the list include fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin and so forth.

Brilliant.

Longknife -

I've always suspected Al Gore came from a long line of turtle-neck sweater importers!

 

[Trakar]

See what I mean?....31,000+ degreed skeptical scientists and they're completely discounted by the cargo cult...

Even if these signatories are legitimately as they represent themselves, and they fully agree with the position statement (something that follow-ups on this petition have failed to support - many who have signed never studied the issue, many of those signees say they have since changed their position, and a significant portion have no memory of signing the petition and reject it's statements) only a minute fraction are educated and experienced in relevent fields of study. Beyond this, in comparison to the body of eligible signatories (according to the petition's qualifications), there are roughly 11,000,000 in the US alone who would be able to sign such a petition, 30k out of 11M, is a rounding error, not a significant portion of the given population. The petition discounts itself, those who point out its insignificance are guilty of nothing but straight-talking and square-shooting.

 

[Oddball]

... only a minute fraction are educated and experienced in relevent fields of study.

The same can be said of the IPCC.

Beyond this, in comparison to the body of eligible signatories (according to the petition's qualifications), there are roughly 11,000,000 in the US alone who would be able to sign such a petition, 30k out of 11M, is a rounding error, not a significant portion of the given population. The petition discounts itself, those who point out its insignificance are guilty of nothing but straight-talking and square-shooting.

So, you get to claim everyone who didn't sign the petition as buying into the hoax...Square shooting my ass.

BTW, where did you pull that 11M number from, besides out of you ass?

 

[Trakar]

... only a minute fraction are educated and experienced in relevent fields of study.

The same can be said of the IPCC.

Some can and will say virtually anything, compellingly supporting such statements is an entirely different matter.

Beyond this, in comparison to the body of eligible signatories (according to the petition's qualifications), there are roughly 11,000,000 in the US alone who would be able to sign such a petition, 30k out of 11M, is a rounding error, not a significant portion of the given population. The petition discounts itself, those who point out its insignificance are guilty of nothing but straight-talking and square-shooting.

So, you get to claim everyone who didn't sign the petition as buying into the hoax...Square shooting my ass.

That's your presumption not implicit in anything I stated. If you can explain the problems with low rigor self-selection surveys, however, you will probably be much closer to what I did state.

BTW, where did you pull that 11M number from, besides out of you ass?

Better to possess a smart ass than be the support system for a dumb ass.

That said this is a conservative approximation of the number of US graduates with the requisite field degrees since 1970, considering that most contrarian scientists are well past retirement age, we could probably push that graduation date back a bit and bring the total up to around 16 million, but I suspect that would fit your agenda even less well.

 

[Oddball]

... only a minute fraction are educated and experienced in relevent fields of study.

The same can be said of the IPCC.

Some can and will say virtually anything, compellingly supporting such statements is an entirely different matter.

Backpedal on the fact duly noted.

So, you get to claim everyone who didn't sign the petition as buying into the hoax...Square shooting my ass.

That's your presumption not implicit in anything I stated. If you can explain the problems with low rigor self-selection surveys, however, you will probably be much closer to what I did state.

Good thing that old "97% of scientists agree with AGW" meme didn't arise from self-selection, huh?

BTW, where did you pull that 11M number from, besides out of you ass?

Better to possess a smart ass than be the support system for a dumb ass.

That said this is a conservative approximation of the number of US graduates with the requisite field degrees since 1970, considering that most contrarian scientists are well past retirement age, we could probably push that graduation date back a bit and bring the total up to around 16 million, but I suspect that would fit your agenda even less well.

OK...So you pulled it from your ass...Also duly noted.

 

[Oddball]

And while we're on the subject of self-selection....Can you tell us all what percentage of research papers submitted to the IPCC for review, have actually been reviewed and included in their analysis?

 

[bripat9643]

the US government alone poured 38.4 BILLION dollars into the pro AGW machine

Right...so Bush, who denied climate change, was actually funding the research which confirmed climate change.

That's logical, isn't it?

As I've already explained, that dog won't hunt. Lifetime professional bureacrats dispense the funding for climate change "research." Any university science faculty can tell you that all you have to do to get funding for your project approved is to connect it with climate change. Presidents come and go, but the professional bureaucrats remain, and they are firmly in the pro-government statist camp.

btw. The funding you refer to was patently NOT given to companies which produce renewables. That is the figure for all research into the climate - a good 90% of which went to universities, quangos and federal agencies involved in this kind of thing. Again, there is no reason at all why anyone would think that research was anything else but first class.

There is plenty of reason to suspect the quality of the research. The Hadley CRU scandal is just one of them.

Your theory that government funded research can't be corrupted or biased is absurd on its face.

 

[Saigon]

It's interesting that of the half dozens deniers on this thread - not one can actually admit that Oddball's list of sceptical "scientists" is a handful of fraudsters and coal industry insiders.

I am surprised.

BriPat - As has been explained 20 times over - almost no research into cimate change is funded on a 'per project' basis. There is a thread explaining this, but one reason that we have bulk funded universities is precisely so governments can not use universities as sources of propaganda. Your theory is simply nonsensical, and if you step back from it and learn the facts, you will see that too.

 

[Old Rocks]

See what I mean?....31,000+ degreed skeptical scientists and they're completely discounted by the cargo cult.

Thanks for playing, Mr. Applewhite.

Now Oddie, must you always try to prove what a dumb fuck you truly are? That Petition was put out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an organization located about twelve miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. A really cosmopolitan setting for all three of the senile founders.


What if the Oregon Petition names were real? « Greenfyre?s



“Right. Real scientists would sign a petition organized by some one man Oregon backwater. They wouldn’t publish refutations of the science in the literature, nor bring it up at conferences and symposia, nor use the various professional organizations and societies at their disposal, nor work through the National Academies and various professional institutions. Nope, not a chance.

For sure they’d just sign an on-line petition put up by someone who can’t even manage decent HTML [It's improved ... the original was much worse]. Real credible … and who was supposed to believe this? brain damaged rodents? children who hadn’t read ‘How and Why Wonder Books’?”

Of course the petition turned out to be even more ridiculous than it initially seemed (links at bottom). Still, the Petition found an audience gullible and desperate enough to accept it as credible.

A history of the Petition in terms of the key players, and an excellent breakdown of the signatories can be found at “The Global Warming Debate” starting about 1/3rd down the page.

 

[Oddball]

Nice ad hominem attack, which does nothing to refute the credentials of the 31,000+ who signed the petition.

But thanks for playing, you dried up old fart.

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

Are you aware that very, very many of the people who signed the petition now say that they were either
mistaken, that they would not sign such a document today, that they were misled, or that they never signed it in the first place?

I appreciate you can scarecely read or write, but even by your standards isn't this a little dumb?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Oddball -

Are you aware that very, very many of the people who signed the petition now say that they were either
mistaken, that they would not sign such a document today, that they were misled, or that they never signed it in the first place?

I appreciate you can scarecely read or write, but even by your standards isn't this a little dumb?

OB reads and writes just fine, ya' pompous lil' pissant.......Now, seeing as though you're obviously a gullible lil' fool, I have some prime oceanfront property in Palm Springs, complete with palm trees, coconuts, surfboard, and a big titty blonde beach bunny with an apple ass...I'll give ya' a great deal on it. All you have to do is deposit the money in my PayPal account, and I will e-mail ya' the deed....What say you?

And that deal goes for any of you gullible lil' AGW loons....Let me know!

 

[Saigon]

Wicked Jester -

If you can find any coherent and on-topic post from Oddball anywhere on this forum, I'd love to see it.

You won't find one.

But as for gullibility - I couldn't agree more. In many ways the key issue with climate scepticism is that people would rather believe nutcase blogs than they would listen to genuine scientific sources.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Wicked Jester -

If you can find any coherent and on-topic post from Oddball anywhere on this forum, I'd love to see it.

You won't find one.

But as for gullibility - I couldn't agree more. In many ways the key issue with climate scepticism is that people would rather believe nutcase blogs than they would listen to genuine scientific sources.

Ya' mean like the NASA study that completely blew the CO2 myth put out by the AGWer's completely out of the water?

 

[Saigon]

W. Jester -

I'd really prefer to stick to facts and events that actually happened.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I think it is silly to pretend that we cannot see "climate change."

We know climate changes.

What we don't know is who or what is the cause of it.

There is very little quality evidence for man-caused climate change. There is no rational basis to believe that anything we can do about climate will have much impact on it changing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Wicked Jester -

If you can find any coherent and on-topic post from Oddball anywhere on this forum, I'd love to see it.

You won't find one.

But as for gullibility - I couldn't agree more. In many ways the key issue with climate scepticism is that people would rather believe nutcase blogs than they would listen to genuine scientific sources.

Ya' mean like the NASA study that completely blew the CO2 myth put out by the AGWer's completely out of the water?

Do you have a link you can share for that study?

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

Actually, the evidence linking CO2 to climate change is overwhelming. It is complex, but there is no lack of data now - which is why no major scientific organisation questions the link at this point.

I am happy to post an overview of the science for you if you like.

Ok, here it is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm