|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:50:47 [Permalink]
|
1. Whats interesting is you discount Seitz because he worked for tobacco.
He was fired for not "going along" with what tobacco wanted.
This shows his science does not conform to the conclusions his employers desire.
This fact makes him more not less credible.
2.Roger Pielke has been by this forum claimed a trusted climate scientist.
"Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists."
You will continue claim "world wide scientific consensus" is an agreement between a few dozen.
"smattering of scientists" would be a few dozen.
|
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 - 05/19/2007 : 12:44:20 [Permalink]
|
Amazingly climate scientists are coming out of the wood work.
August Auer was a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years.
www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
"carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total."
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,"
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years,"
Its funny I try to stop and climate scientists keep coming out as deniers.
|
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 - 05/19/2007 : 14:07:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Amazingly climate scientists are coming out of the wood work.
August Auer was a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years.
www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
"carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total."
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,"
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years,"
Its funny I try to stop and climate scientists keep coming out as deniers.
|
Gee whiz, I guess this means August Auer does not hold with the consensus view then.
The next quote is a repost. It was ignored by Jerome the first time around. It fits in nicely here.
Gristmill, 'There is no consensus':
The conclusions reached in this document [IPCC 3] have been explicitly endorsed by...
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. |
Of course, consensus is not synonymous with unanimous. Jerome hasn't figured that part out yet…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 14:20:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
1. Whats interesting is you discount Seitz because he worked for tobacco.
He was fired for not "going along" with what tobacco wanted.
This shows his science does not conform to the conclusions his employers desire.
This fact makes him more not less credible. |
No, he was mocked for working for tobacco. He was discounted because his area of expertise has nothing to do with climate science. We don't know why we was fired, but in '89 they seemed to think that he wasn't at the top of his game in terms of science.
"Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists."
You will continue claim "world wide scientific consensus" is an agreement between a few dozen. |
As long as you refuse to acknowledge any of the data that we've put forward here, you'll continue to be a fraking idiot. You lie when you conflate led with written. Myriad people participated in the early stages of the report. Moreover, as I noted long ago-- and which you seem to have forgotten-- is that there is waaaaaay more to the argument than just the IPCC. You focus on that because it allows you to harp on your government conspiracy angle, but even then it doesn't hold water.
As Kil has noticed, scores of international scientific bodies from nations across the world have endorsed the conclusions. By any reasonable definition, this is a consensus.
"smattering of scientists" would be a few dozen.
[/quote] |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 19:26:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
"smattering of scientists" would be a few dozen.
|
I was hoping that it would turn out to be the proper collective noun, but alas, it is not so.
It would be nice, don't you think to have a "Smattering of Scientists" right in between "a constellation of satellites" and "A disworship of Scots" ?
(Even more OT, I also kinda liked a "Scare of security engineers")
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 05/20/2007 19:26:58 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 07:45:23 [Permalink]
|
I like a "fifth of Scotts"  |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2007 : 10:31:24 [Permalink]
|
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 |
Yes, that's all very well but how many of them are named, Steve?
Sorry, but I'm way past the point where I can continue to take this conversation seriously....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 16:04:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
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 |
Yes, that's all very well but how many of them are named, Steve?
Sorry, but I'm way past the point where I can continue to take this conversation seriously....
|
I'm not sure this thread was ever really meant to be taken seriously. Not too seriously anyhow. Jerome just likes to argue, and he has stated that many times now. Besting our logic is more important to Jerome than actually being correct. Plus, he doesn't mind a good trouncing. If he is a troll, and I don't really think he is, he is the most benign troll I have ever encountered.
I kind of like him. I can't tell if he is twisted or not. Frankly, I can't even tell if he is putting us on or not. One thing I have figured out. He doesn't give a rats ass about changing anyone's mind here. He is just having fun…
|
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 - 05/31/2007 : 21:21:39 [Permalink]
|
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
WORLD WIDE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS DEBUNKED BY NASA
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 03:48:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
WORLD WIDE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS DEBUNKED BY NASA |
You must have reading comprehension problems. Do you understand what the NASA guy is saying? His argument isn't that there's no global warming, or even that there isn't man made global warming. Instead, he makes the utterly ludicrous argument that global warming may lead to a better climate, and that no one has a right to decide that the present climate is the optimal one.
NASA IS PART OF THE WORLD WIDE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, YOU IDIOT. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 07:37:11 [Permalink]
|
Jerome - You still don't understand the meaning of consensus. I'm sure a 10 year old could understand it...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 07:50:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by filthy
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 |
Yes, that's all very well but how many of them are named, Steve?
Sorry, but I'm way past the point where I can continue to take this conversation seriously....
|
I'm not sure this thread was ever really meant to be taken seriously. Not too seriously anyhow. Jerome just likes to argue, and he has stated that many times now. Besting our logic is more important to Jerome than actually being correct. Plus, he doesn't mind a good trouncing. If he is a troll, and I don't really think he is, he is the most benign troll I have ever encountered.
I kind of like him. I can't tell if he is twisted or not. Frankly, I can't even tell if he is putting us on or not. One thing I have figured out. He doesn't give a rats ass about changing anyone's mind here. He is just having fun…
|
Agree. He's sort of like a less mad verlch, isn't he? I greatly enjoyed the Big V and wish he'd return. A healthy dose of Masonry/Illuminati/&/Stuff is saluberous for the funny-bone as well as the vocabulary.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 08:33:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
WORLD WIDE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS DEBUNKED BY NASA |
Of course Jerome picks the opinion of a political appointee who was previously an engineer and executive as a refutation of a scientific consensus.
A political appointee who is trying to answer a question that the scientific consensus doesn't even address. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 08:49:41 [Permalink]
|
| To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate |
I can't decide if Mr. Griffin is arrogant, mouthing the adminstrations position, or just plain stupid.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
