|
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warm
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.
>LINK<
i don't know maybe it has something to do more with the UN heading up this whole climate crusade thing, seeing how feckless and mis-utilized they are.
read some of the quotes from the scientists. it's truly eye opening how this is shaping up. |
|
|
| Kinezi |
| With falling oil prices, global warming is dead. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| this should be interesting! |
|
|
| diesel_tron3000 |
the whole global warming thing will actually work the other way around i think. the earth will start to cool in an effort to reach an equilibrium level of energy which would otherwise be too high because of green house gasses trapping heat.
mark my words gentlemen! and it will make all the difference for energy pricessss |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| I note one of the peer-reviewed studies to come out of the 650 scientists concludes that global warming is only 50% related to carbon emissions, rather than the 90 specified as likely by the IPCC. 50% still sounds like a pretty high amount. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Long time ago I have talked extensively about Russian Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of the pioneers of this movement ... don't recall him saying the 50% thing, but actually his view on the Sun's effect on Earth's climate change.
A guy with some serious credentials, researched over years. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: |
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. |
maybe i don't fully understand geology, but what the hell do rocks have to do with global warming? |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
maybe i don't fully understand geology, but what the hell do rocks have to do with global warming? |
They use it for historical comparison with times when man-made CO2 didn't exist as it does today. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Long time ago I have talked extensively about Russian Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of the pioneers of this movement ... don't recall him saying the 50% thing, but actually his view on the Sun's effect on Earth's climate change.
A guy with some serious credentials, researched over years. |
a single researcher isn't exactly the same as entire institutes providing much more research though.
im a science noob so many of the other studies linked by Q5 i found difficult to read, but the one i did understand still seems to agree that carbon emissions are contributing to climate change. so im not sure why that study would be included in the "650" figure when it really agrees (though to a lesser extent) with the general principles of man-made global warming. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
They use it for historical comparison with times when man-made CO2 didn't exist as it does today. |
Ah.....but there are so many variables existing thousands of years ago when those rocks were formed, which the rocks don't capture, that it seems any geologic evidence would be highly speculative anyway. (and got an A in geology - it's amazing how quickly you forget this stuff). |
|
|
| Renegade |
First of all, being a "scientist" (which, I presume, includes everyone with a science degree) does not in itself give you any privilaged insight into the realities of global warming. There are, for instance, "scientists" out there who believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that autism is caused by childhood vaccinations. Their qualifications should have no bearing on how seriously we take their claims, which should live and die by the evidence presented, not by specious claims to authority.
Second of all, even if we were to allow the argument from authority as a legitimate one in this case, most of the scientists who have signed this letter are not even close to be being authorities on the subject. Just browsing through the list of signatories (which starts on page 218 here), the first name on the list is a "social scientist", the second name is a physicist, the third name is a biosystems engineer, the fourth and fifth names are both physicists, the seventh name is a biologist, the eighth name is a geographer, the ninth name is a "remote sensing scientist"... do I really need to continue? These are scientific disciplines with - at best - tangential relevence to the discipline of climatology. They have presumably done little applied research in the field of global climate change, so what evidence can they possibly bring to the table in support of their claims? What papers on the subject have they published in a journal of scientific review? How many of these papers have passed muster with those scientists most intimately involved with the subject? I think we all know the answer to those questions (none).
Thirdly, even if we were to presume that each of these 650 signatories were authorities on the subject and could bring some credible evidence to the table in support of their claims, 650 - in a global context - is a vanishingly small number. The AGU, for instance, has over 50,000 accredited members, all trained in the Earth sciences that are relevent to the discussion of climate change. The position taken by the AGU is fairly unambiguous:
| quote: | The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
[...]
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. |
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/p...hange2008.shtml
Even if the 650 signatories were reliable authorities, they would constitute barely 1% of the reliable authorities who (nominally at least, by virtue of their membership in the AGU) believe the exact opposite. A quick search of that document tells me that only 4 of those 650 are noted as being members of the AGU. Considering that the AGU is comprised of individuals who are trained in the Earth sciences relevent to climate change (and should therefore be the first body of scientists that one should canvass on this issue) the complete lack of apparent dissent concerning the anthropic origins of climate change within this body is telling.
Finally, this petition appears to have been organised by James Inhofe, whose baseless and irrational objections to anthropogenic climate change are extremely well-known. Without wishing to over-generalise, his efforts are sadly typical of Republican attempts to politicise science during the past 8 years of the Bush administration. Sadly for Inhofe and those who take him seriously, science doesn't lend itself to the partisan rhetoric of politics: you can't win the debate just by having the majority on your side (especially ironic given that Inhofe doesn't even have a fraction of that to begin with). Science is dependent on research and evidence, and any dissenting opinions without that on their side are doomed to be left out in the cold.
My advice to climate-change skeptics is simple: find the evidence to support your position, collate that evidence into a paper that meets universal scientific standards, submit that paper to an accredited journal of scientific review and be ready to have convincing answers to the objections that other qualified scientists are sure to raise. The fact that the skeptics can hardly get past the first stage speaks volumes. In this context, I'm sure you can appreciate why I (or anyone else with sympathies for the scientific method) consider the submission of 650 signatures to the US senate to mean absolutely all. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Inhofe is worse than any ing creationist twit I've ever seen. It would behoove you to dispense of literally every word he spews when it comes to climatology.
One of the studies he cites, well surprise surprise, the little turd quote mines from the author. It's well worth reading the author's reply:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...ure-since-1850/
And Renegade makes a very valid point about the scientists - of what authority are they, and are we going to label every ing scientist as an "expert" in any given field of research, despite the fact that they may have little to no credentials in that field of research in question?:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...cientists_e.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...mpared.php#more
What a joke.
You can read more on this silly document here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/senator-j...-warming-screed
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...e-fooled-again/
I had said long ago that this argument was shaping up into a creationist-evolution argument. It's pathetic yet predictable to see how so many wingers cling to the wrong side of both issues that completely counter what science research demonstrates over and over. In fact, unfortunately you're ing worse than the dip creationists:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...than_the_di.php
You share all the same things in common with creationists - blatant dishonesty, quote mining, conclusions created on belief and agenda and then cherry-picking evidence to support those unsupported conclusions, disdain for scientific methodology, and on and on. I gave creationists the benefit of the doubt before I knew better about them, just as I gave climate skeptics the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to make sure they were perhaps being naive - hell I even entertained their ideas and conclusions and examined their so-called evidence with an open-mind.
But just as the creationist screeds, the climate skeptics are nothing but cherry-picking, quote-mining, dishonest ing liars. |
|
|
|
|
