|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:27:39 [Permalink]
|
Boron10---Good to hear of your success in your field.
Frederick Seitz
# Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
# President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
www.oism.org/pproject/
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."
www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
What do you think about this scientist?
|
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 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Boron10---Good to hear of your success in your field.
Frederick Seitz
# Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
# President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
www.oism.org/pproject/
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."
www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
What do you think about this scientist?
|
What does it matter? Previous experience has shown that when we demonstrate that the scholar you've put forward who rejects man-made global warming is a poor authority on the subject, you immediately switch to some other topic without even having the decency to acknowledge that we're right. Moreover, given that for every person you can cite who rejects global warming, I can cite myriad more in favor, what are you trying to prove? That some reject global warming? Who cares?!? We never doubted that! What's your point?! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:57:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Boron10---Good to hear of your success in your field.
Frederick Seitz
# Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
# President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
[snip]
What do you think about this scientist? |
Ha! According to this, Dr. Seitz's research is in steady-state physics. Hardly a climate scientist. Moreover, I found this amusing. Apparently, late in his career, Seitz went to work for RJR as a consultant, and in 1989 a memo went out that Seitz was "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." The WSJ op-ed you cite was from 1996.
Just FYI. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:20:54 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist---The point of showing Frederick Seitz Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. was this statement in particular:
"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
The funny thing is that; according to you, every scientist that does not agree with mmgw must have some reason to be doubted.
Shall I list all scientists on record as not agreeing with the "world wide scientific consensus" so you can crush there credibility?
I show various scientist with views that show problems with the methodology of the ipcc report, ippc authors that disagree with the report, and an author that was one of the latest 30 top authors of the current report.
Yet you continue to claim "worldwide scientific consensus"
The methodology is in question in the scientific community.
The conclusions are in question in the scientific community.
Examples of these two facts have been show; and you discount them as if they are heresy.
I contend at this point "Man made global warming" is a religious belief.
|
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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:24:19 [Permalink]
|
By the way how many of the 2500+ quoted so many times are climate scientists?
According to your logic, if they are not climate scientists then their opinions must not be counted in the 2500+ figure.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:28:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way how many of the 2500+ quoted so many times are climate scientists?
According to your logic, if they are not climate scientists then their opinions must not be counted in the 2500+ figure. |
Since I'm not quoting them, it's not my problem.
ETA: But I'll play along. Look at the list Boron10 cited earlier. The people listed include:
Susan Solomon (climate science);
Richard Alley (climate science);
Terje Berntsen (climate science);
And so on... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/18/2007 19:40:09 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:51:01 [Permalink]
|
Frederick Seitz:
Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program.
By 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." [2] However, in 1994, Seitz authored a report published by the George C. Marshall Institute, of which he was a founder and chairman of the board, entitled "Global warming and ozone hole controversies. A challenge to scientific judgment." In a broader discussion of environmental toxins, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances."
Seitz continues to question whether global warming is anthropogenic [4]. He supports the position of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) on global warming and in an open letter invited scientists to sign the OISM's global warming petition. Seitz also signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.
Seitz questions the view that CFCs are damaging to the ozone layer.[5 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
So I looked at the article on OISM:
It has 6 faculty members,[1] and is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, a scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] OISM was established by Robinson in 1980, after he fell out with his mentor Linus Pauling.
Located about 7 miles from Cave Junction, Oregon, the OISM is known mostly for the role it played in 1998 in circulating the Oregon Petition, a "scientists' petition" on global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences. |
Stick with the French guy, Jerome. At least he's a credible scientist.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:55:56 [Permalink]
|
Past President, National Academy of Sciences
Something wrong with this organization also?
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:03:46 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
I contend at this point "Man made global warming" is a religious belief. |
Hey, what a coincidence. That's what creationists call the science of evolution! Also a consensus among scientists.
That puts you in swell company Jerome.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:06:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Past President, National Academy of Sciences
Something wrong with this organization also?
|
Absolutely not. I just have to guess Seitz is a bit past his prime… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:13:03 [Permalink]
|
| Hey, here is a neat online exhibit at a museum site sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:45:14 [Permalink]
|
Kil---I knew that. I was hoping that would be the reply.
It humors me to see the organization claimed correct if it agrees with the theology, and the former president of the same organization claimed heretic.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:50:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil---I knew that. I was hoping that would be the reply.
It humors me to see the organization claimed correct if it agrees with the theology, and the former president of the same organization claimed heretic.
|
I knew you were going to say that. Okay, your turn. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 21:03:12 [Permalink]
|
 |
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 03:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---The point of showing Frederick Seitz Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. was this statement in particular:
"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
The funny thing is that; according to you, every scientist that does not agree with mmgw must have some reason to be doubted.
Shall I list all scientists on record as not agreeing with the "world wide scientific consensus" so you can crush there credibility? |
I'm sure there are respected climate scientists who have problems with MMGW. The irony in all of this is that the people you've chosen to highlight aren't them. And yet when I demonstrate how their opinions aren't particularly valid, instead of working to find an informed climate scientist, or pausing to question the fact that you've put stock in someone whose scientific credentials in the topic at hand are less than ideal, you just scurry through the internet to drudge up another guy who says what you want to hear. The only person who's acting religious in this is you!
I show various scientist with views that show problems with the methodology of the ipcc report, ippc authors that disagree with the report, and an author that was one of the latest 30 top authors of the current report.
Yet you continue to claim "worldwide scientific consensus"
The methodology is in question in the scientific community.
The conclusions are in question in the scientific community.
Examples of these two facts have been show; and you discount them as if they are heresy. |
We had this discussion already. You have some distorted view of what worldwide scientific consensus" is. For you, once you find one person who has a PhD in some field of anything that might remotely be called science who disagrees, there is no longer a consensus. That's why you keep throwing name after name-- "what about this guy"?
Yet, in what can only be called a hypocritical twist, once you find that one person who disagrees, that then allows you to say that the results of such research "are in question in the scientific community." Really? The entire community is now represented by a smattering of scientists? Most of whom work outside the field of climate science, and in the employ of RJR Nabisco?
You aren't interested in getting to the truth, JdG. You're just looking for validation of your paranoid views. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/19/2007 04:30:03 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
