Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

Leonid, you said you would provide links to papers that would back up your point. Adding the stipulation that tastywheat prove he has an account is ridiulous, and makes it seem as if you are trying to find a way out a hold you dug yourself into.

 

It doesn't matter if he has an account or not. If you provide the references he can look them up on his account, look them through university, look them up through a public library etc. Like Wewise for anyone following the discussion who would be able to access Nature article, they can't because you won't back up your point. Whether Tastywheat has an account or not has absolutely nothing to do with the points being argued.

1. I don't have the papers saved on my hard drive.

2. That means I will need to search dozens of journals for the papers

3. Given that the papers are protected by a paywall which you need an account for (which he does not have), he will never read a single one of those papers.

4. Therefore all my effort is wasted. On you. And on him.

5. Given this effort to collate a dozen papers I no longer remember the name of, will take at least a full day, and given that I get paid $640 per day for my work, proving someone wrong on the Internet for a cost of $640 to myself simply isn't worth it - especially when its you and tastywheat - arguing with religion is like arguing with a brick wall.

7. I've enough of a record on Atomic for people to believe me, especially with posts like this, this or this (where you will notice tastywheat displaying his usual lack of knowledge)

 

Just for the record, to show you why it is absolutely and simply impossible for humans to have added *all* the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1950, consider the fact that temperature is a positive CO2 feedback - as in higher temperature produces more CO2. This is pretty evident from the Law Dome and Vostok cores.

 

If humans added all the CO2, it leaves zero room for Earth's natural feedbacks such as the aforementioned temperature feedback and increased vegetative rotting. As it is we're responsible for at least half the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1950. But not all. Only a fool who knows nothing of the carbon cycle would claim *all*, or even a figure as certain as 1.5pptv.

 

What we do know, from tracking our emissions, is that over the last 30 years we've contributed around 40GtC of CO2 to the atmosphere. That represents only about 5% of the total CO2 content in the atmosphere, however with carbon life spans, that figure is compounded. But it's not 100% - that much is certain.

 

I would also suggest you stop making absolute assumptions, at least about myself.

I made no assumptions. I clearly stated that you believe because you've outsourced your thinking to "experts" you can't even name.

 

That ain't no assumption. You said so yourself. Did you not say that you believe because there's a consensus?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Midnighter.

 

Just to clarify some things. When I referred to there being links in the link I link I posted, I was referring to people posting links. There is a discussion going on much as this one, except much larger in scale. Many people are providing links to support there claims, and that is what I was referring to. Likewise, I really didn't want to dig through them all and repost them that much.

 

When I refer to a majority, it was not limited to the people who signed that letter. Over the last...year maybe, since I have started paying any attention this issue it seems like every notable institution or organization tends to agree with the view presented by the link I provided. Leonid made a good point however, that since the boards may state something, this is not necessarily backed up by the people who make up those organizations.

 

I'm not going to provide more than I have, because I don't really have time to do that, and I am not interested in proving anything. I just think it makes sense to accept the view of experts in a field, when they seem to largely be in agreement. Perhaps I am not at all informed...if it is in fact a majority that disagree I would be interested to see something showing this. As it is, for me personally, it seems that it is a majority that agrees and so that is good enough for me.

 

1. I don't have the papers saved on my hard drive.

2. That means I will need to search dozens of journals for the papers

3. Given that the papers are protected by a paywall which you need an account for (which he does not have), he will never read a single one of those papers.

4. Therefore all my effort is wasted. On you. And on him.

5. Given this effort to collate a dozen papers I no longer remember the name of, will take at least a full day, and given that I get paid $640 per day for my work, proving someone wrong on the Internet for a cost of $640 to myself simply isn't worth it - especially when its you and tastywheat - arguing with religion is like arguing with a brick wall.

7. I've enough of a record on Atomic for people to believe me, especially with posts like this, this or this (where you will notice tastywheat displaying his usual lack of knowledge)

1. You don't need them saved, you just need to cite them.

2. What you sated implied you already knew what they were. From your original claim it is implied that you could cite them as and when needed.

3. You don't need to have a personal account, as I explained previously. That's a poor excuse not to follow through on a claim.

4. That's quite an assumption without any merit. Tastywheat seems an intelligent enough guy that I am sure he would examine the evidence and admit if he were wrong.

5. OK, So you don't have time to do it. So don't make a claim you're not prepared to follow through on next time.

6.

7. I haven't been on here long enough to accept that, but what I have seen is many people getting into arguments with you. It's enough for me to take what you say with a grain of salt.

 

Just for the record, to show you why it is absolutely and simply impossible for humans to have added *all* the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1950, consider the fact that temperature is a positive CO2 feedback - as in higher temperature produces more CO2. This is pretty evident from the Law Dome and Vostok cores.

 

If humans added all the CO2, it leaves zero room for Earth's natural feedbacks such as the aforementioned temperature feedback and increased vegetative rotting. As it is we're responsible for at least half the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1950. But not all. Only a fool who knows nothing of the carbon cycle would claim *all*, or even a figure as certain as 1.5pptv.

 

What we do know, from tracking our emissions, is that over the last 30 years we've contributed around 40GtC of CO2 to the atmosphere. That represents only about 5% of the total CO2 content in the atmosphere, however with carbon life spans, that figure is compounded. But it's not 100% - that much is certain.

I never disputed that it was impossible for humans to have added all the C02 in the atmosphere since 1950.

 

I made no assumptions. I clearly stated that you believe because you've outsourced your thinking to "experts" you can't even name.

 

That ain't no assumption. You said so yourself. Did you not say that you believe because there's a consensus?

The thread is full of assumptions about myself and others on what I have read and about my level of education. It just seems arrogant, that if anyone disagrees with you they must not be as educated as you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You don't need them saved, you just need to cite them.

To cite them, I need to remember their titles. If they were saved on my drive, I'd be able to check their titles.

 

2. What you sated implied you already knew what they were. From your original claim it is implied that you could cite them as and when needed.

I could - if I thought there was a benefit.

 

3. You don't need to have a personal account, as I explained previously. That's a poor excuse not to follow through on a claim.

Yes, you can browse from an affiliate university. I laid tastywheat a challenge - one I've given him several times before - to show me that he is able to access these articles. If you want, I lay the same challenge to you - show me that you can access studies, and I'll happily see if I can find those studies for you.

 

Until you do so there would be no point of citing articles you cannot read and that I would spend ages finding. Even the abstracts won't help - from memory, one of the studies were focused on Palaeozoic-era CO2 emissions from the oceans and comparison of oceanic carbonate content today - the CO2 argument was a small part in a large study.

 

4. That's quite an assumption without any merit. Tastywheat seems an intelligent enough guy that I am sure he would examine the evidence and admit if he were wrong.

Psychonaut has not admitted to being wrong once in this forum, either as tastywheat or as Psychonaut. Even though he has been continuously and consistently shown to be so on almost all matters of his understanding of environmental sciences.

 

5. OK, So you don't have time to do it. So don't make a claim you're not prepared to follow through on next time.

I will follow through on it, even if it takes up a day of my time - I like giving people the tools to make themselves smarter. But I want my efforts rewarded - I don't want to be spending time posting studies that you won't read because you don't have accounts.

 

Everybody wants something for their labour. This is what I want - evidence that you'll appreciate it.

 

7. I haven't been on here long enough to accept that, but what I have seen is many people getting into arguments with you. It's enough for me to take what you say with a grain of salt.

You really haven't been here long enough then. Because that kind of attitude will get you nowhere.

 

I never disputed that it was impossible for humans to have added all the C02 in the atmosphere since 1950.

And therefore, any warming that results is conclusively not all human?

 

The thread is full of assumptions about myself and others on what I have read and about my level of education. It just seems arrogant, that if anyone disagrees with you they must not be as educated as you.

It's not an assumption, and neither is my statement on your level of education. Anyone with a minor education in science at tertiary levels would never believe something because of a consensus.

 

It's an indication that you've vacated your brain and let someone else drive it.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Midnighter.

 

Just to clarify some things. When I referred to there being links in the link I link I posted, I was referring to people posting links. There is a discussion going on much as this one, except much larger in scale. Many people are providing links to support there claims, and that is what I was referring to. Likewise, I really didn't want to dig through them all and repost them that much.

 

When I refer to a majority, it was not limited to the people who signed that letter. Over the last...year maybe, since I have started paying any attention this issue it seems like every notable institution or organization tends to agree with the view presented by the link I provided. Leonid made a good point however, that since the boards may state something, this is not necessarily backed up by the people who make up those organizations.

 

I'm not going to provide more than I have, because I don't really have time to do that, and I am not interested in proving anything. I just think it makes sense to accept the view of experts in a field, when they seem to largely be in agreement. Perhaps I am not at all informed...if it is in fact a majority that disagree I would be interested to see something showing this. As it is, for me personally, it seems that it is a majority that agrees and so that is good enough for me.

 

Basically, you've been hearing/reading enough stuff tat shares your point of view, and you accept it is the "majority". You're happy to make unsubstantiated claims, but don't feel you have to prove them. "I'm not going to provide more than I have, because I don't really have time to do that, and I am not interested in proving anything. I just think it makes sense to accept the view of experts in a field, when they seem to largely be in agreement." This, really, says volumes. And not good volumes. The only thing you're accepting is the word and views of people who share your own views. Then you claim you'd be happy to be shown anything proving it is not a majority. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You made the claims, you provide the evidence. So far, all you've done is make claims, and while you seem like a reasonable person, your stance here is anything but. You are the one in denial. We are just supposed to take you at your word, because you believe. That's really all it is. If you're fine with accepting tat, great, but don't go making claims that this is fact, which you have indeed been doing, if you cannot support it in any way. It just gets annoying, and repetitive. And badly undermines your credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I smell a large rat when it comes to CO2 and climate politics.

 

The first world has a lot to gain in controlling the fastest growing economies (China and India) who are the World's fastest growing CO2 producers of scale capabilities. This reads to me like Weapons of Mass Destruction, let's go invade ... all over again!

 

Climate by definition means change and long term we don't know what causes the 11,000 year cycle deep freezes - I suspect the Sun's activity levels, cloud cover and plate tectonic cycles has alot more correlation to temperature cycles over the millennium than Carbon levels in the atomsphere.

 

Man made carbon represents about 0.9% of carbon in the atomsphere - so controlling it a bit of a misconstrued approach.

 

I seem to recall adding around a three million kgs of H2S (rotten egg case) per annum to the World's upper atomsphere for three years would conteract all of the supposed temperature gains attributed to CO2 within the last 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid - is all that peer review process for real? Did not know that much detail. Damn. And here I was thinking publishers actually cared about their content. Ah well, you learn a new thing every day I guess.

Yes. It's for real.

 

There are only a handful of journals that require data release with all studies - and no journal actually replicates the study before publishing. Peer review is simply an election by acclamation. It's not an examination of validity or suitability for purpose.

There is nothing wrong with the peer review process. If publishing a paper required that a study be replicated all of scientific advance would grind to a halt. It must occur exactly as you've described. The peer review process is supposed to stop complete garbage from entering journals and is supposed to ensure that the papers published are valuable and conducted with a minimum of quality control. It is not supposed to verify the work.

 

Reserch verification is what publishing is for. So that the research can reach the wider community and be criticised appropriateky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with the peer review process.

There is actually, have a look at the other thread.

 

My problem isn't so much with peer review - it's with people who assume peer review guarantees science that is valid.

 

The only way to verify science is via repeatable experimentation. In climate science this has never been done.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, you've been hearing/reading enough stuff tat shares your point of view, and you accept it is the "majority".

Everything you said seems to stem from this point.

 

I don't only read stuff that reinforces my point of view. That's just bad practice.

 

I didn't have an opinion when I started reading up on it. My opinion after reading up on it is that the the majority of people in a position to have a relevant opinion accept it to varying degrees, while bloggers and people not in a position to have a relevant opinion deny it.

 

I've been up front that I'm not going to provide further links, and so I have no expectation for you to do so. However, if you were inclined to show me something that would show popular opinion in the climatology community is in line with yours and Leonid's opinion, I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

willm, you keep missing the point. "popular opinion" is irrelevant. Facts and evidence are what matter. Hence why I keep asking for them. Popular opinion is only seen as valid in school playgrounds. In the open world, facts and proof are king, not wild claims and hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, you've been hearing/reading enough stuff tat shares your point of view, and you accept it is the "majority".

Everything you said seems to stem from this point.

 

I don't only read stuff that reinforces my point of view. That's just bad practice.

 

I didn't have an opinion when I started reading up on it. My opinion after reading up on it is that the the majority of people in a position to have a relevant opinion accept it to varying degrees, while bloggers and people not in a position to have a relevant opinion deny it.

 

I've been up front that I'm not going to provide further links, and so I have no expectation for you to do so. However, if you were inclined to show me something that would show popular opinion in the climatology community is in line with yours and Leonid's opinion, I'd appreciate it.

 

Again. The word "popular" and denial of the fact that a minority of people in a relevant position have a critical opinion. I'm happy to rattle off a list of 100 employed scientists with dissenting views - that's double the amount that wrote the relevant chapter in AR4.

 

You think the entire sceptic community is bloggers? What are you, blind, as well as scientifically illiterate?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with the peer review process.

There is actually, have a look at the other thread.

 

My problem isn't so much with peer review - it's with people who assume peer review guarantees science that is valid.

Well those people would be wrong. Published papers are valuable, not right. They don't become wrong or right until other scientists (or anyone, really) verify them.

 

The only way to verify science is via repeatable experimentation. In climate science this has never been done.

It hasn't been done in evolutionary science either. It's not the only way. It can be verified via prediction as well, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

willm, you keep missing the point. "popular opinion" is irrelevant. Facts and evidence are what matter. Hence why I keep asking for them. Popular opinion is only seen as valid in school playgrounds. In the open world, facts and proof are king, not wild claims and hyperbole.

By popular opinion I was referring to popular opinion in the climatology community. I.e. a consensus.

 

I was not referring to the popular opinion of bloggers and otherwise unqualified people.

 

Which is why I asked for some evidence to the contrary. Not specious claims but actual proof.

 

The best proof your going to get from me is from the wiki. What I am pasting is backed up by reliable references, which are good enough for me. If you can show me something more reliable, which contradicts this it would be appreciated.

 

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[27] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[29]

 

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved", dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.

 

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[33] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[34] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."[35]

 

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[36] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[37][38]

 

A January 19, 2009 survery of over 10,000 scientists as listed by the American Geological Institute showed 90% agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200 years, and 82% agreed that human activity played a significant role.[39]

I've highlighted the parts which support my view.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well those people would be wrong. Published papers are valuable, not right. They don't become wrong or right until other scientists (or anyone, really) verify them.

Exactly.

 

It hasn't been done in evolutionary science either. It's not the only way. It can be verified via prediction as well, for example.

Actually, we've seen some verification via lab experiments in evolution - speciation specifically.

 

Furthermore, the art of prediction only shows that your data is correct for a limited set of variables and could in fact be correlation - not causation. Interesting, in climate science, there's not so far been a good record of prediction.

 

The best proof your going to get to me is from the wiki.

Midnighter, I'm going to leave this ignoramus alone. Maybe you ought to do the same.

 

When someone comes along and in a science thread claims wiki is the best proof available, there's a very big degenerative process going on between their ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I accept well written, researched and referenced sections of the wiki over the claims of questionable forum posters.

 

Funny that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I accept well written, researched and referenced sections of the wiki over the claims of questionable forum posters.

Then I'll go and edit wiki with references. And you can believe what I edit.

 

Here you are crowing about peer-reviewed studies, and then you give us wiki. Why I would even bother providing you with studies now is simply an exercise in fruitlessness. You'd try refute them with wiki.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I accept well written, researched and referenced sections of the wiki over the claims of questionable forum posters.

Then I'll go and edit wiki with references. And you can believe what I edit.

 

Good luck. They actually do a pretty good job of checking the edits these days, especially on the controversial articles where folks like you tend to vandalize them.

 

You'd try refute them with wiki.

Of course not. I'd probably skim wiki to see if it referenced any articles of interest though.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck. They actually do a pretty good job of checking the edits these days, especially on the controversial articles where folks like you tend to vandalize them.

That's why they fired climate alarmist William Connolley from the wiki editing team. He kept editing out inconvenient truths (pardon the pun) about uncertainties, about the existence of the MWP and the likelihood that we're witnessing a recovery from the LIA.

 

Of course not. I'd probably skim wiki to see if it referenced any articles of interest though.

And wouldn't read them, because you don't have the means to do so. And because you're beyond scientifically illiterate. You're quite literally, scientifically clueless.

 

And you use wiki for proof. You're now my new favourite whipping boy - even tastywheat doesn't stoop as low as wiki.

 

Maybe you should read a little bit more on wiki though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method

Are you going to argue that? Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And wouldn't read them, because you don't have the means to do so. And because you're beyond scientifically illiterate. You're quite literally, scientifically clueless.

 

And you use wiki for proof. You're now my new favourite whipping boy - even tastywheat doesn't stoop as low as wiki.

This is why it's hard to accept what you say. You misrepresent people and needlessly insult them.

 

In the sentence above you have:

 

1. Made an incorrect assumption - namely that I don't have the means to read journal articles. I do.

2. Resorted to insults, namely that I am scientifically illiterate and clueless.

3. Made a further assumption, although not baseless, in that I use the wiki for proof. I use wiki as an indication and to get a general idea. It would be more correct to say I rely on the journal articles referenced as proof.

 

I have not insulted you once, only disagreed with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Made an incorrect assumption - namely that I don't have the means to read journal articles. I do.

Prove it. Here are some studies:

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Study 4

 

In all of the above studies/letters, please write the last sentence of the paragraph immediately following the abstract.

 

2. Resorted to insults, namely that I am scientifically illiterate and clueless.

That's not an insult. That's a statement of fact. If I had wanted to insult you, I'd call you something you're not.

 

3. Made a further assumption, although not baseless, in that I use the wiki for proof. I use wiki as an indication and to get a general idea. It would be more correct to say I rely on the journal articles referenced as proof.

And which journal articles would they be in the text you quoted?

 

I have not insulted you once, only disagreed with you.

I have not insulted you either. I have simply stated that undeniable observation of most people in the two threads where you've attempted to use wiki to shoot down my arguments and miserably failed on both counts.

 

So again, my statement of fact: You are scientifically illiterate and scientifically clueless.

 

As evidence I present the fact that the only contribution you have made is our observations that your complete knowledge comes from wiki and from ceding your gray matter to experts whose work you haven't read nor have the scientific literacy to understand.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the display of arrogance is boring me. I'm done.

Next time you want to play with the big boys in the big sandpit, bring a bigger shovel.

 

And by bigger shovel, I don't mean a cached copy of wiki on your hard drive. A good start would be an answer to my challenge.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re living through this other scam of global warming, a scam well documented in a book put out by the guys who invented the idea, The Club of Rome, the two founders, in the book called “The First Global Revolution,” stated quite clearly – because they like to boast, being good psychopaths – that they tried to find a way to unite the whole planet under an obedient system and they found that only in wartime situations did the people obey and sacrifice, right down to the home and what you eat and everything else through rations. Therefore war was necessary; but war on what, in a global system? They said “we hit upon the idea of blaming human kind for causing global warming,” they said “that would fit the bill.” That would fit the bill. And from this big premier think tank, the Club of Rome, the idea was put out to the other think tanks, the ones that work it into being, the ones who distribute funding through foundations, to schools and universities and lesser media, to convince the people gradually over time, we’ve had thirty years of this gradual preparation, that we are causing incredible global changes. Therefore we must change our entire way of living – entire means entire way of living – to save the planet. It means that you’re going to be brought up in the eugenicists’ dream.

quote src

 

so there you have it. you want to start looking where this scam was planned from, you don't have to go much further than the literature from these ruling multi-billion dollar foundations.

Edited by Layers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading this link on slashdot : http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/05/07...ience?art_pos=3

I've finally read the letter (the non-Guardian version - the one actually released to journal subscribers). And it's a train wreck. Since it is common to see the “but he/she is not a climate scientist” argument used against people that offer views differing to “the consensus”, here are the impeccable climate science credentials of the first 20 signatories:

 

Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD

Richard M Amasino – Biochemist, UW Madison

Edward Anders – Geologist, University of Chicago

David J. Anderson - Biologist, Cal Tech

Luc Anselin - Geographer, ASU

Mary Kalin Arroyo – Biologist, University of Chile

Dr. Berhane Asfaw – Palaeoanthropologist, Rift Valley Research Service

FRANCISCO J. AYALA – Professor of Biological Sciences, UC Irvine

Dr. Ad Bax – Physics, NIH

Anthony Bebbington – Professor of Nature, University of Manchester

Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer

MICHAEL VANDER LAAN BENNETT – Neuroscientist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Jeffrey Bennetzen - Geneticist, University of Washington

May R. Berenbaum – Entomologist, UIUC

Overton Brent Berlin – Anthropologist, University of Georgia

Pamela Bjorkman – Biologist, Cal tech

Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn – Biologist, UCSF

Jacques Blamont – Astrophysicist

Michael Botchan – Biochemistry, Berkeley

John S. Boyer – Marine Biosciences, University of Delaware

 

6/20 have degrees vaguely related to climate science. I included the biochemists only to lift the letter's batting average. Biochemists have close to fuck-all to do with climate science. The first biochemist (RM Amasino), for example, only has papers relating to genetic variations and evolutionary traits of flowering plants. Ad Bax, a physicist, is a biophysicist - he deals with cell physics and biological stimuli responses - I've only included him to save the reputation of the letter. Several of the other highlights have not a single research paper to their record, which is generally a requirement for opinion acceptance in the scientific community.

 

The other 14 are not even close to climate scientists, but some of them did see Al Gore’s film. They talked about it over lunch.

 

Two of fourteen (Gordon Bell and Luc Anselin) don't even have science degrees.

 

Anyone care to go through the other names on that list, see what other manner of unrelated fields the consensus can find? Because right now this letter is an insult to intelligence.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, reading thru the comments on the stuff in your link, it's quite an amusing read. If this is what you see as "evidence" of a "conspiracy", then you need help. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, reading thru the comments on the stuff in your link, it's quite an amusing read. If this is what you see as "evidence" of a "conspiracy", then you need help. :)

I've given up on the conspiracy crowd. Layers disbelieves in global warming, thinks 911 was an inside job and probably thinks Jews run the world.

 

Frankly, it just gets old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×