Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  06:21:08  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Link to citation

The claim of "world wide scientific consensus" has officially been debunked.

Fixed link.

Kil




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25977 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  06:38:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
You claim that the government is trying to perpetrate a hoax, so the linked-to document - coming from the Senate - cannot be trusted.

And of course, a handful of scientists changing their minds doesn't affect the consensus. Especially when there appear to be only four climate scientists listed.

Who gives a damn that a mathematician changed his mind about global warming? Only those who would use such information to claim that the consensus "has officially been debunked."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  06:44:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
I like this one:
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences), was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ... has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.
Now that is a guy you want on your team. His track record speaks for itself!
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  06:45:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
"Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago."


This guy doesn't count?



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  06:49:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Each scientist seems to be disputing the conclusions to the data in their respective fields.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  07:00:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

"Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago."


This guy doesn't count?
We've talked about him before (I'll look for the thread later). If you look at his research-- the "100 scientific articles"-- you'll find that none of them are on climate change. Not one. So while he may be smart, his opinion is not as valid as, for instance, an actual climate scientist.

(ETA: See this thread for more, esp. my post on his research. Yeah.)
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/16/2007 07:13:05
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  07:12:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre

"Many of these papers are seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth, especially using isotopic evidence."

Would not the study of the the evolution of the earth give special insight into climate evolution?

Climate is a major factor in the change of the earth, would you not agree?


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  07:15:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre

"Many of these papers are seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth, especially using isotopic evidence."

Would not the study of the the evolution of the earth give special insight into climate evolution?

Climate is a major factor in the change of the earth, would you not agree?
Read the links in the edit to my above post. He's published nothing in a peer-reviewed journal on climate change. Moreover, real climate scientists have objected to his arguments re global warming. Plus, I doubt Allegre would say anything about some giant multi-national government "scam" to promote global warming.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13458 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  07:59:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

"Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago."


This guy doesn't count?



Dr. Claude Allegre was named in this one sided piece that seems to have been put together by man made global warming deniers, and is therefore not without bias, to demonstrates that that some scientists do no agree with the consensus (Duh !). Allegre has moved his position to “unknown”, given the complexity of the systems. He does not take the position that man made global warming doesn't happen. He suggests a more neutral position.

What he is upset about is the do nothing way that the dangers of global warming has progressed, at least at the time he voiced his objection.

Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.”


He is also upset that the issue has fallen into the hands of profiteers. Being the socialist that he is, that is not a surprising objection and not without merit, but really has nothing to do with the reasons of global warming which he concludes is “unknown”. “Unknown” is a respectable position and not a deniers position, as this article would have you believe…

I suggest you also look at Cune's links, above this post. It would be nice if the guy actually was an expert in the area of climate change, don't you think?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  08:13:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Jerome, I recommend that you look up the meaning of the word consensus.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  07:02:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
furshur---I took your advice and determined what the ipcc constitutes as a consensus.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth was one of the leading 30 authors of the ippcc report.

www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5237493

It seems that the consensus was reached by a much smaller amount of scientists than the claimed 2500.

"A full report that's the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors "

"approved by the 300-some representatives from 113 nations "



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  07:10:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
I also found these statements revealing:

"The approval process is very demanding, as it requires unanimous consensus on the text, which is approved line by line."


"The rationale is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments help determine how it can best be said."


It seems as if the scientist provide the data and government provides the presentation.

www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5237493

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  07:22:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Just doing the math here:

604 scientist(lead and contributing authors)

The drafting looks to be reduced to the 154 lead authors.

Final meeting with 300 representatives comprised of 30 lead authors and 270 government agents.(this is where the consensus is reached)

The consensus seems to have been reached by 30 scientists (.012% of the claimed 2500) and 270 government agents.

The ratio of scientist to government agents is 1 to 9.





What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  07:36:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Just doing the math here:

604 scientist(lead and contributing authors)

The drafting looks to be reduced to the 154 lead authors.

Final meeting with 300 representatives comprised of 30 lead authors and 270 government agents.(this is where the consensus is reached)

The consensus seems to have been reached by 30 scientists (.012% of the claimed 2500) and 270 government agents.

The ratio of scientist to government agents is 1 to 9.
But, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions, the science presented conforms to all the other science presented in myriad other journals, interviews, lectures, and so on-- none of which is controlled by any government in any way.

So either governments are somehow manipulating the science outside the report in ways we can't even imagine, or there's no conspiracy.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  07:52:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
The consensus was reached by 30 scientists and 270 government agents.

"world wide scientific consensus"

The phrase is incorrect and misleading, and i believe intentionally so.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  07:54:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The consensus was reached by 30 scientists and 270 government agents.

"world wide scientific consensus"

The phrase is incorrect and misleading, and i believe intentionally so.


So have the other 99% of scientists no listed objected en masse or not?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.84 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000