Remember me
▼ Content

Those Against:


Those Against:10-07-2017 20:00
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
By Lawrence Solomon
Question: How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.
The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as — and was — the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations — virtually every nation in the world — including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world's environmental groups came too — they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.
In February of that year, in an attempt to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," decrying "the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action."
To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world's most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.
Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal, and released to the public at the Earth Summit. By the summit's end, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal.
These scientists — mere hundreds — also mattered for nought in the face of the tens of thousands assembled at Rio. The Heidelberg Appeal was blown away and never obtained prominence, even though the organizers persisted over the years to ultimately obtain some 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.
The earnest effort to demonstrate the absence of a consensus continued with the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change — an attempt to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Its 150-odd signatories also counted for nought. As did the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship in 2000, signed by more than 1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world's poor.
Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.
The Oregon petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The petition drew media attention, but little of it was for revealing to the world that an extraordinary number of scientists hold views on global warming diametrically opposite to those they are expected to hold. Instead, the press focussed on presumed flaws that critics found in the petition. Some claimed the petition was riddled with duplicate names. They were no duplicates, just different scientists with the same name. Some claimed the petition had phonies. There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and soon removed. Other names that seemed to be phony — such as Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series — were actually bona fide scientists, properly credentialled.
Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto's corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back.
"E-mails started coming in every day," he explained. "And they kept coming. " The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. "We decided to do the survey again."
Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go — most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.
Why go to this immense effort all over again, when the press might well ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who are standing up against global warming alarmism?
"I hope the general public will become aware that there is no consensus on global warming," he says, "and I hope that scientists who have been reluctant to speak up will now do so, knowing that they aren't alone."
At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn't be done by poll, he explains. "The numbers shouldn't matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them."
Some 32,000 scientists is more than the number of environmentalists that descended on Rio in 1992. Is this enough to establish that the science is not settled on global warming? The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Club in Washington.
10-07-2017 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Consensus is not used in science.
10-07-2017 21:33
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science.


Since you're not a scientist how would you know? You don't even understand what it means.
11-07-2017 01:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science.


Since you're not a scientist how would you know? You don't even understand what it means.


This from the guy that doesn't understand heat or statistical math or probability math. Who doesn't understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy, and who spends their time arguing over which manufactured numbers to use.

Consensus is not used in science. Consensus is a political or religious term.

Science is not consensus. Science is not scientists. It is is not government agencies, credentials, peer reviews, research programs, or some kind of Holy Priesthood with white lab coats. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is just the falsifiable theories that describe nature and are compatible with each other.. That is all that science is. That IS the body of science.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 01:19
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science.


Since you're not a scientist how would you know? You don't even understand what it means.


This from the guy that doesn't understand heat or statistical math or probability math. Who doesn't understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy, and who spends their time arguing over which manufactured numbers to use.

Consensus is not used in science. Consensus is a political or religious term.

Science is not consensus. Science is not scientists. It is is not government agencies, credentials, peer reviews, research programs, or some kind of Holy Priesthood with white lab coats. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is just the falsifiable theories that describe nature and are compatible with each other.. That is all that science is. That IS the body of science.


Take you total lack of any scientific understanding elsewhere. You who thinks that "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy" or that "statistical math" can't be used to correctly assess large scale readings of thermal radiation.

You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.

When they say "stupid is as stupid does" they have you in mind.
11-07-2017 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science.


Since you're not a scientist how would you know? You don't even understand what it means.


This from the guy that doesn't understand heat or statistical math or probability math. Who doesn't understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy, and who spends their time arguing over which manufactured numbers to use.

Consensus is not used in science. Consensus is a political or religious term.

Science is not consensus. Science is not scientists. It is is not government agencies, credentials, peer reviews, research programs, or some kind of Holy Priesthood with white lab coats. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is just the falsifiable theories that describe nature and are compatible with each other.. That is all that science is. That IS the body of science.


Take you total lack of any scientific understanding elsewhere. You who thinks that "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy"

It is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
or that "statistical math" can't be used to correctly assess large scale readings of thermal radiation.

It can't. Also, math is not science.
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 23:37
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


Another dumbazz statement:

noun, Thermodynamics. 1. heat energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves in contrast to heat transmitted by conduction or convection. ... A molecule of carbon dioxide traps heat, radiant heat, the long wave end of the spectrum.
12-07-2017 00:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


Another dumbazz statement:

noun, Thermodynamics. 1. heat energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves in contrast to heat transmitted by conduction or convection. ... A molecule of carbon dioxide traps heat, radiant heat, the long wave end of the spectrum.


This is not thermodynamics. Now do you want to try to use the dictionary as science textbook yet again? Perhaps you would like to use a dictionary as a philosophy or mathematics textbook this time.

Did you know that dictionaries do not define words? That's right...they are not the authoritative definition of a word. No dictionary owns a word.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-07-2017 00:36
12-07-2017 00:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


Another dumbazz statement:

noun, Thermodynamics. 1. heat energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves in contrast to heat transmitted by conduction or convection. ... A molecule of carbon dioxide traps heat, radiant heat, the long wave end of the spectrum.


You cannot trap heat.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 16:11
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote: "This is not thermodynamics."


That's all you have to say. You have NEVER been in physics of any kind. You probably are a crappy programmer as well.
12-07-2017 16:59
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


Another dumbazz statement:

noun, Thermodynamics. 1. heat energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves in contrast to heat transmitted by conduction or convection. ... A molecule of carbon dioxide traps heat, radiant heat, the long wave end of the spectrum.


This is not thermodynamics. Now do you want to try to use the dictionary as science textbook yet again? Perhaps you would like to use a dictionary as a philosophy or mathematics textbook this time.

Did you know that dictionaries do not define words? That's right...they are not the authoritative definition of a word. No dictionary owns a word.


It must be hell playing scrabble with you.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
12-07-2017 18:14
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


Another dumbazz statement:

noun, Thermodynamics. 1. heat energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves in contrast to heat transmitted by conduction or convection. ... A molecule of carbon dioxide traps heat, radiant heat, the long wave end of the spectrum.


This is not thermodynamics. Now do you want to try to use the dictionary as science textbook yet again? Perhaps you would like to use a dictionary as a philosophy or mathematics textbook this time.

Did you know that dictionaries do not define words? That's right...they are not the authoritative definition of a word. No dictionary owns a word.


It must be hell playing scrabble with you.


Can you imagine how he defines "PhD"?
12-07-2017 19:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: "This is not thermodynamics."


That's all you have to say. You have NEVER been in physics of any kind. You probably are a crappy programmer as well.


Insults are not an argument dude.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You who don't even know HOW heat can be detected via electromagnetic radiation.
...deleted insults...

It can't. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no electromagnetic radiation.


Another dumbazz statement:

noun, Thermodynamics. 1. heat energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves in contrast to heat transmitted by conduction or convection. ... A molecule of carbon dioxide traps heat, radiant heat, the long wave end of the spectrum.


This is not thermodynamics. Now do you want to try to use the dictionary as science textbook yet again? Perhaps you would like to use a dictionary as a philosophy or mathematics textbook this time.

Did you know that dictionaries do not define words? That's right...they are not the authoritative definition of a word. No dictionary owns a word.


It must be hell playing scrabble with you.


Scrabble does not use definitions. It uses spelling. Dictionaries are good at standardizing spelling.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 21:30
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: "This is not thermodynamics."


That's all you have to say. You have NEVER been in physics of any kind. You probably are a crappy programmer as well.


Insults are not an argument dude.


The cause of the insult is.
12-07-2017 22:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: "This is not thermodynamics."


That's all you have to say. You have NEVER been in physics of any kind. You probably are a crappy programmer as well.


Insults are not an argument dude.


The cause of the insult is.


Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 22:57
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote: Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".
13-07-2017 01:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Hey...it was YOU that said the cause of your insult was an argument. That means a valid argument.

You still think an insult is a valid argument. Sad.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2017 16:22
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Hey...it was YOU that said the cause of your insult was an argument. That means a valid argument.

You still think an insult is a valid argument. Sad.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".
13-07-2017 18:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Hey...it was YOU that said the cause of your insult was an argument. That means a valid argument.

You still think an insult is a valid argument. Sad.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article YOU quoted, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
15-07-2017 21:46
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Hey...it was YOU that said the cause of your insult was an argument. That means a valid argument.

You still think an insult is a valid argument. Sad.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article YOU quoted, dumbass.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean". Are we surprised when he shoots off his mouth using incorrect English definitions.
16-07-2017 17:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Thank you for accepting my argument. You just agreed that "This is not thermodynamics" is a valid argument.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Hey...it was YOU that said the cause of your insult was an argument. That means a valid argument.

You still think an insult is a valid argument. Sad.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article YOU quoted, dumbass.


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean". Are we surprised when he shoots off his mouth using incorrect English definitions.


Heat is the flow of thermal energy...even in the article YOU quoted.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Those Against::

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact