Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

[Poptech]

@Der_Trihs

It doesn’t matter how many economists and lawyers and political science guys sign some right wing list;

None of them signed the petition of 31,478 because they would not meet the requirements of having a degree in a natural science. I did include some on my list of social scienctists though no lawyers.

@Der_Trihs

the polar ice melts just as fast. They do not “make their own reality”, no matter how much they want to believe it.

The “polar” ice is not melting because the Antarctic ice is growing,

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era (World Climate Report)
Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)

Regardless the reporting of the single day Artic summer ice minimum two years ago is hardly conclusive that it is caused by man. For various reasons,

1. Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1979.
2. There are natural explanations for the melting,

Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind (PDF) (Science)
Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (University Of Washington)

3. And the ice has melted before,

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Norwegian Geological Survey)

[Poptech]

@Bootis

One could list a hundred historians who deny the Holocaust too. Guess there’s no consensus on that either

No the Holocaust has empirical evidence to support the event.

[x-ray_vision]

@Bootis

One could list a hundred historians who deny the Holocaust too. Guess there’s no consensus on that either

@Poptech

No the Holocaust has empirical evidence to support the event.

That’s irrelevant to your consensus argument. Guess what the vast majority of the world’s climatologists base their conclusion on?

[Poptech]

@x-ray_vision

Yes, there is.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Please provide me with a poll of any of those scientific organization’s complete membership body in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming. Otherwise you have nothing.

@x-ray_vision

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says -- ScienceDaily

• 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey
• 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change
• The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 “specialists” out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.

Again you have nothing.

[Poptech]

@x-ray_vision

That’s irrelevant to your consensus argument. Guess what the vast majority of the world’s climatologists base their conclusion on?

Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist. Then prove the vast majority of the world’s climatologists support your position.

[x-ray_vision]

@Poptech

Please provide me with a poll of any of those scientific organization’s complete membership body…

Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist.

I’ll get right on that.

[Poptech]

@x-ray_vision

I’ll get right on that.

Then this statement is worthless,

“Guess what the vast majority of the world’s climatologists base their conclusion on?”

So please make statements you can support.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Poptech

The “polar” ice is not melting because the Antarctic ice is growing,

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era (World Climate Report)
Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)

Typical cherry picking. Totally ignores the “Why?” of it.

It’s the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That’s why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.

But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.

Arctic sea ice is decreasing dramatically and reached a record low in 2007. But satellite images studied by Turner and his colleagues show that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in every month of the year expect January. “By the end of the century we expect one third of Antarctic sea ice to disappear,” says Turner. “So we’re trying to understand why it’s increasing now, at a time of global warming.”

SOURCE: Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming | New Scientist (apparently needs a subscription which I do not have to see the rest of that article but enough there to make the point I think)

[Fritz]

@Poptech

Then this statement is worthless,

“Guess what the vast majority of the world’s climatologists base their conclusion on?”

So please make statements you can support.

So…if nobody provides the cites or evidence that you are calling for, you declare yourself “winner”, and all debate worldwide ends?

[Fiveyearlurker]

Not to be a snob, but having a BS in Biology does not make one a scientist.

[Poptech]

@Whack-a-Mole

Typical cherry picking. Totally ignores the “Why?” of it.

Cherry picking would be only mentioning the Arctic ice melting while ignoring that the Antarctic ice is increasing. Lying would be making statements that the Polar ice is melting. I did neither.

@Whack-a-Mole

But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.

Some scientist making predictions ten years out is laughable beyong belief.

[Poptech]

@Fritz

So…if nobody provides the cites or evidence that you are calling for, you declare yourself “winner”, and all debate worldwide ends?

No I declare his statement worthless as I did.

[Squink]

@Poptech

31,478 Scientists Reject ‘Global Warming’ Agenda (Petition Project)

Is that Edward Teller’s signature on that graphic there?
When’d they get the fancy new website?
Here’s the original: Home - Global Warming Petition Project
This is just the same old shitty ‘petition’ in new clothes.
It’s over a decade old now. Does nothing ever change for you guys?

Criticism of the Oregon Petition
A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: “Perry S. Mason”, who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, “Michael J. Fox”, “Robert C. Byrd”, and “John C. Grisham” were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.” This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake”, he said.[21]
”

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]

[Poptech]

@Squink

It’s over a decade old now. Does nothing ever change for you guys?

That is the same old nonsense that has been debunked. Any errors in the original petition were corrected. Please provide a fake name or duplicate off the current petition.

[x-ray_vision]

@Poptech

That is the same old nonsense that has been debunked. Any errors in the original petition were corrected. Please provide a fake name or duplicate off the current petition.

So, you want me to provide a poll of each scientific organization’s complete membership body, but instead of you providing proof that all those people on your list match the opinion and credentials you claim, it’s up to us to provide proof that those people are fake and have the opinion and credentials you claim, otherwise those names and credentials are legit?

[Squink]

But is that Edward Teller’s sig?
That’s the important thing here.

Heck, if you want something done right…

Apparently, it is the sig of the Father of the Hydrogen bomb.

Edward Teller, Father Of H Bomb Signature

-Cool. I knew he was a nut, just not a GW kind of a nt.

[Poptech]

@x-ray_vision

So, you want me to provide a poll of each scientific organization’s complete membership body,

Yes I want you to support the myth that because a group of council members of an organization release a position statement the membership body which never voted on it automatically agrees. I am sure you would then agree that when George Bush or the Republican Congress made decisions they were always representative of the consensus of the american people. Is this your argument?

[x-ray_vision]

Not only are you making a straw man argument, you didn’t answer my question.

[Lobohan]

I notice the OP hasn’t addressed the part where the 30+K list is made up of unverified internet submissions and in any case includes a majority of non-climate scientists.

I wonder if it’s embarrassing to post something as poof, only to have it shown to be utter, worthless rubbish. The OP should check his sources better to prevent this.

I wonder.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Nonsense, poptech. If you claim those organizations’ statements do not represent consensus (which I’m hereby defining as 97% or more of opinion being on one side of the issue), then please provide membership roles of a single organization–just ONE!–along with references for each member’s agreement with or disagreement with the organization’s official position on AGW. If you don’t do that, then your rebuttal is worthless, because you can’t show that even a single organization’s official statement misrepresents its members’ views.