[brite750]

also notice the hypocracy, its been colder than normal for my area, late season snow storms etc. and not one word about, hey what happened to global warming in the media, I think theyre afraid of all the global warming nutcases. How ever wait til the first hot spell in July, it will be all over the news, global warming, how many will die? etc. total and utter hypocracy and anything that the leftist environmental nazis are trying to push this hard you know is BAD for our country. the Earth is a dynamic system that is very hard to predict, for every model you can create to show one chain of events, you can find 2 more to disprove it

also the last time I looked science wasnt a consensus, after all at one time the consensus was that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth, show me any of this that can be proved through scientific method and I'll start listening, right now it is just the shrill bloviating of the evironmental wackos and some loser ex-vice president who has no other way of making a living other than to play on the fears of a few nutcases who are bent on believing the sky is falling.

[sy2]

17,100+ Scientists Dispute Global Warming
Link to petition and excerpts explaining who signed:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

And here's a link with a lot of excerpts from the report that accompanies the petition, which can be found at the above link.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...Global_Warming

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by sy2

17,100+ Scientists Dispute Global Warming
Link to petition and excerpts explaining who signed:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm



And here's a link with a lot of excerpts from the report that accompanies the petition, which can be found at the above link.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...Global_Warming

Did you know this deceitful petition, which has been around for a long while already, has been thoroughly discredited ... along with its accompanying article which was full of half-truths at best? See here:

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

And, maybe you missed this little know pearl about The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine --

describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

Hmmm ... I'd say it's all basically garbage

Btw, the quotes I posted are from this LINK, if that's not enough for ya then just Wiki for more info/links that will enlighten you further about the 'Oregon Petition'.

[sy2]

I didn't know any of that, thanks.

Like I said earlier, when I just post links it usually means I don't have time to go in-depth to the articles because I'm usually at work, but thanks for all that info. This was coming up on Digg.com and none of the comments there mentioned any of what you wrote.

I'll check your link out at lunch when I can give it more than 5 minutes

[sy2]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Did you know this deceitful petition, which has been around for a long while already, has been thoroughly discredited ... along with its accompanying article which was full of half-truths at best? See here:

And, maybe you missed this little know pearl about The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine --

Hmmm ... I'd say it's all basically garbage

Btw, the quotes I posted are from this LINK, if that's not enough for ya then just Wiki for more info/links that will enlighten you further about the 'Oregon Petition'.

Does the petition say anywhere that it's even associated with the NAS? The only reference that I even see to the NAS at all on the petition site is in the signature of the guy who wrote the introduction:

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

It doesn't seem to claim that it has the backing of the NAS, so I'm not sure the NAS saying "We didn't do this" is really relevant.

What is interesting is the claim that it hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed paper. If that's true then this petition is making false claims - a serious charge. I also couldn't find anywhere on the petition site where it mentioned where, exactly, the paper was published, so I'll have to look into that later.

As far as the Oregon Institute of Science goes, I'd rather look at the material that all of these people have apparently signed off on as opposed to dismissing it because some people question one of the universities associated with it. The petition also mentions George C Marshall University, before OIS actually, and sourcewatch doesn't seem to have a problem with them.

On a funny note, I went to Wiki at your suggestion and looked up sourcewatch here.

"Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular."[2]

"a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.[3]

"As a journalist frequently on the receiving end of various PR campaigns, some of them based on disinformation, others front groups for undisclosed interests, [CMD's SourceWatch] is an invaluable resource."

I include those quotes not to necessarily discredit sourcewatch, but to demonstrate why I think it's more important to attack the actual ideas put forward as opposed to trying to discredit the source. If you look hard enough you can rationalize discrediting almost anyone.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi LAN,

You should'a been here in the Boston area on May 11, 1974. That's how late it has snowed here, thre record is a little later than that. Also, I remember in August of 1984? it snowed up at Killington, VT and they had a picture of a skier skiing down one of the trails.

-- Tom

Snow for you on Thursday. Rain to follow the next 5 days after that.

Enjoy.

[LANMaster]

The leftist religion of global warming is little different than the leftist religion of evolution.

They walk hand-in-hand.

[bill.aam]

April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years

Weather Trends International Forecast Highlights
4/9/2007

AgWeb.com Editors



Following are weather forecast highlights from Weather Trends International:

LAST WEEK’s WEATHER TREND (1-7 APR): Temperatures plummeted as a strong Arctic cold front dove deep into the South late in the week. There were 100s of record low temperatures across the U.S. with the Southwest being the one exception. Hard freezes most likely did 10s of millions of dollars damage to trees and crops in the Southeast over the Easter weekend. Snowfall was also the most in at least 14 years with dozens of record snowfall totals from Texas to the Middle Atlantic and throughout the interior Northeast and Great Lakes. Even Dallas had a trace of snow which was the latest snowfall in 69 years.

Record?

[sy2]

Hehehe...

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by sy2

I just post links it usually means I don't have time to go in-depth to the articles

Yeah, I noticed. I also noticed they're mostly pro-deniers, with lot of them using old info (10 yrs old in this case). Hard hodling back sometimes, labelling it mis-info ... but I did use the word garbage previously ... even that is often relatively mild

Originally Posted by sy2

Does the petition say anywhere that it's even associated with the NAS? The only reference that I even see to the NAS at all on the petition site is in the signature of the guy who wrote the introduction

Maybe it doesn't say so, explicitly, but obviously the NAS felt strongly enough there was an effort to disguise it as such, hence their terse rebuttal/dissociation.

What is interesting is the claim that it hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed paper. If that's true then this petition is making false claims - a serious charge. I also couldn't find anywhere on the petition site where it mentioned where, exactly, the paper was published, so I'll have to look into that later.

Precisely, but that's not the only reason the petition reeks of misinformation. Its whole premise and MO are basically laughable (lack of better word). Btw, more than one source points out its material was not peer-reviewed, Source Watch is just one of them.

As far as the Oregon Institute of Science goes, I'd rather look at the material that all of these people have apparently signed off on as opposed to dismissing it because some people question one of the universities associated with it. The petition also mentions George C Marshall University, before OIS actually, and sourcewatch doesn't seem to have a problem with them.

That's not a university to my knowledge, it's an institute ... a "right wing think tank" and a PR group who do "not conduct any original research" ... maybe you realize there's a difference.

On a funny note, I went to Wiki at your suggestion and looked up sourcewatch here.
I include those quotes not to necessarily discredit sourcewatch, but to demonstrate why I think it's more important to attack the actual ideas put forward as opposed to trying to discredit the source. If you look hard enough you can rationalize discrediting almost anyone.

Please do, and while you're at it see if you can rationalize OISM-Zach Robinson's conclusion that:

" ... pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing .... This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".

Now that endeavour all by itself should prove to be really funny, IMO, so I'll end this on that "note"


edit: sp

[brite750]

Again As Far As I Know Science Doesnt Work By Petition, Something Is Either Proven True Through Scientific Method Or Remains A Theory Until Such Time That It Can Be Proven, Even Evolution Is A Theory, There Is Evidence But No Definative Proof, A Hell Of A Lot More Proof Than There Is Of Man-made Global Warming. The Other Thing Is Ok You Rpoved Man-made Global Warming, What Now? We Only Account For 5% Of Gh Gases, So What Do You Do, Shut-down Civilaiztion, Go Back To Cave Man Times?, Its Not Going To Happen, China, India, Russia, Iran, Etc. Are Not Going To Close Up Shop And Go Back To Cave Man Times, Nobody Is, So This Is A Bs Topic, Move On.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by brite750

Again As Far As I Know Science Doesnt Work By Petition,

Right on!

A Hell Of A Lot More Proof Than There Is Of Man-made Global Warming.

"Hell of" must be a lot, so it should be easy for you to provide proof. So far I haven't seen any such effort from you.

We Only Account For 5% Of Gh Gases

Hmmm, you still don't seem to understand this concept. How shall I put this ... ok, let's try this.
Did you know that we need Greenhouse gasses to survive on this planet? That with the absence of their heat-trapping ability the Earth's temp would be about 30 deg. colder on avg? Plus, the daily and annual fluctuations would be so extreme as to preclude human existence?

That should re-focus the importance of the 5% swing of the total for ya, I hope. If not, Google for a more detailed explanation.

So What Do You Do, Shut-down Civilaiztion, Go Back To Cave Man Times?

No, if we wanted to do that we'd just sit idly by and continue to spew as before, in a dumb-fat-and-happy way. What we do is find and implement solutions in such a way that we not only help the GW problem but also create new opportunities, etc.

Its Not Going To Happen, China, India, Russia, Iran, Etc. Are Not Going To Close Up Shop And Go Back To Cave Man Times, Nobody Is, So This Is A Bs Topic, Move On.

Here I'm tempted to say yours is an ignorant BS rant ... instead I'll let it speak for itself.



edit: sp

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

The leftist religion of global warming is little different than the leftist religion of evolution.

They walk hand-in-hand.

Huh? .... what's religion got to do with science??

Btw, I see you're getting your ignorant clock cleaned, very nicely, in the evo vs cre thread too!!

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years

With January, February and March being the warmest so far?

That may (not May) make the score 3 to 1 IF the 2/3 of remaining April stay on track ... but don't count them chickens yet!!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Huh? .... what's religion got to do with science??

Btw, I see you're getting your ignorant clock cleaned, very nicely, in the evo vs cre thread too!!

Both require a certain level of faith.

.... and thank you for noticing.