Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

[Poptech]

@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.

Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist. As for the list all the names and qualifications are available. Oh and the submissions were not over the Internet put mailed and signed.

[Phatlewt]

I would be “qualified” to sign the petition. I have a BS in engineering, yet have absolutely no education or qualifications related to climate whatsoever.

Science isn’t a democracy.

[Poptech]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

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.

They don’t because you cannot prove the membership body supports those positions. It really is simple, please prove your position. So far all I have is evidence that a small number of scientists from each organization support those positions not the tens of thousands of members. This is basic logic, if no vote was taken then you cannot assign someone guilt by association.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Poptech

They don’t because you cannot prove the membership body supports those positions. It really is simple, please prove your position. So far all I have is evidence that a small number of scientists from each organization support those positions not the tens of thousands of members. This is basic logic, if no vote was taken then you cannot assign someone guilt by association.

If you want me to prove my position (that the membership body supports the message of the organization they’ve chosen to join), then you first need to prove your position (that the list you provided is accurate). I thought you were playing backwards-day debating, inasmuch as you wanted me to prove your position for you, so it’s only fair that I asked you to prove my position for me.

Incidentally, “basic” and “bad” are two different words.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Lobohan

I wonder if it’s embarrassing to post something as poof,

I nominate this as the best unintentional spelling error this month!

(At least I think it was unintentional…could just be brilliance)

[Poptech]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If you want me to prove my position (that the membership body supports the message of the organization they’ve chosen to join), then you first need to prove your position (that the list you provided is accurate). I thought you were playing backwards-day debating, inasmuch as you wanted me to prove your position for you, so it’s only fair that I asked you to prove my position for me.

Members join an organization for the membership benefits not the position statements it releases. The fact is you cannot support your claim of consensus. I’ve provided all the names for you. You cannot even provide a basic head count, thus you claims are debunked.

[Bridget_Burke]

So, you joined the SDMB (as a Guest, not a paying member) just to unload this pile of rancid crap.

Why don’t you give us a brief account of your personal credentials? And what you, personally, believe. Extra points awarded if you use sentences & actual paragraphs.

Do you really think you are going to convince anybody?

[Sitnam]

@Poptech

No the Holocaust has empirical evidence to support the event.

Please tell me what percentage of the worlds glaciers are growing.

[Lobohan]

@Poptech

Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist. As for the list all the names and qualifications are available. Oh and the submissions were not over the Internet put mailed and signed.

You’re wrong. The initial submissions, some 20k were off the internet. The remainder were mailed in, and no attempt was made at verification. So a bunch of conservative morons with an axe to grind mailed in rubbish to inflate the numbers.

Also, I would say a climate scientist would be someone who works in climate science. Not a high school physics teacher.

[Poptech]

@Sitnam

Please tell me what percentage of the worlds glaciers are growing.

Sure after you show me the database of every single one of the world’s glaciers.

[Poptech]

@Lobohan

You’re wrong. The initial submissions, some 20k were off the internet. The remainder were mailed in, and no attempt was made at verification. So a bunch of conservative morons with an axe to grind mailed in rubbish to inflate the numbers.

Really I am wrong? You need to stop reading worthless sites like Sourcewatch. Prove a single one of your accusations.

@Lobohan

Also, I would say a climate scientist would be someone who works in climate science. Not a high school physics teacher.

What is the scientific procedure to determine if someone “works in climate science”.

[Lobohan]

@Poptech

Really I am wrong? You need to stop reading worthless sites like Sourcewatch. Prove a single one of your accusations.

Wait. You have a problem with Sourcewatch? And you’re defending the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?

Those fucking hillbillies are in the scientific capitol of cutting edge research, Cave Junction. Have you ever been to Cave Junction? Jesus-fucking-Christ-on-a-stick, these people aren’t world class scientists, they aren’t world class anything. The biggest feather in their cap is they have an association with the dude who said that Cigarette smoke is good for you. :rolleyes:

What is the scientific procedure to determine if someone “works in climate science”.

Easy:

[ol]
[li]Don’t live in Cave-Fucking-Junction (but if you do, you can still use number 2).[/li][li]Produce peer-reviewed science in the climate science field.[/li][/ol]

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

Really I am wrong? You need to stop reading worthless sites like Sourcewatch. Prove a single one of your accusations.
What is the scientific procedure to determine if someone “works in climate science”.

That item is just reheated baloney; as I showed before, what Sourcewatch reported was accurate. Your sources are not.

From the paper used in the misleading petition

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

To the unreliability or still minority position of the signers, this item does not show what you want. It only succeeds in allowing others to dismiss your say so’s in this matter.

Oregon Deception Project . . .

The Oregon Deception Project…

where we find John Humphreys in the graveyard resurrecting this unkillable climate denialist zombie. Tim Lambert, thermometer in hand tries to bludgeon the poor beast into eternal peace (and quiet). For those of you fortunate enough not to know what the hell Eli is babbling about, go, leave, get hence from this post, lest the spirit of love and kindness curdle in our season of good will and you try to stiff your loved ones (Ms. Rabett has informed Eli that any such attempt would be a health contraindication).

On the other hand, if you wish to plumb the depths of depraved indifference and greed, stay tuned. To come up to speed on this delightful tale, we recommend this merry case study on Source Watch. Another place to learn all about it is Myanna Lahsen’s article on deceptive climate politics tactics (see this previous comment at the Rabett hutch). Under the rubric

Defining Science in Public Relations Campaigns: The Role of Nonscientists and Simulated Scientific Authority
Lahsen describes a noxious example

The Example of the 1998 Petition Campaign

In 1998, tens of thousands of U.S. scientists received an envelope containing a bulk-mailed letter, an article, and a petition form. The letter was signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of a think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute. Seitz’s letter asked recipients to join a campaign urging the U.S. government to reject international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Kyoto Protocol.......

Seitz, of course, learned the trade from the tobacco lobby, and certainly received wonderful fellowship support from them while studying. Lahsen continues

Accompanying the petition package was an article referred to as a “scientific summary.” It was authored by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, as well as two Ph.D. astrophysicists, Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. The former two were once again affiliated with their “Oregon Institute,” while Baliunas and Soon were listed as affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute. ......

The “scientific summary”was another instance of deceptive manipulation of recognized symbols of science: it was formatted such that it looked like an article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer reviewed and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what one climate expert referred to as the “cherry-picking of facts.”15 According to the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled, as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming theory (Science 1998)......

As to the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine

Additional examples of “conjured” scientific authority emerged around the petition campaign. The letter asking people to sign the petition was accompanied by a copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial article by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, the two “chemists” quoted above. “Science Has Spoken,” read the title (Robinson and Robinson, 1997). The prestigious sounding institution with which they were affiliated — the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one room operation located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998).

Where do they get their funding from you ask, well in a 1998 article by Hill in the Oregonian, Robinson says that their income was ~$200K, split between donations and payments for home schooling material, but in 1999 their income was $400K, which gives us some idea of what their little project cost.

And what about our friends at the Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute, which was central in the 1998 Petition Campaign, presents itself as an objective source of policy advice on matters related to science, the environment, and national defense… It offers itself as an alternative to a general trend toward politicized scientific appraisals.16

The claims to objectivity of think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute emerge as another obstacle for lay recognition of bias in scientific information. The Marshall Institute was established in the 1980s to influence opinion and policy. It was established and continues to be run by means of money from wealthy conservative elites, including the Mellon Scaife’s family foundation (McCright 1998; Sarah Scaife Foundation 1996). Between 1992 and 1994 alone, the Marshall Institute, which is part of the conservative antienvironmental movement (McCright and Dunlap 2000), received more than a million dollars from just twelve influential private foundations supporting the conservative movement (McCright 1998, 62). Despite the institute’s self-description, it is not unbiased. It shows a consistent bias toward free-market forces unfettered by regulation, which it also promotes.

[Poptech]

@Lobohan

Wait. You have a problem with Sourcewatch? And you’re defending the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?

Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

• Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

These “exposes,” which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities… […]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: “You don’t need any special credentials to participate – we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.” […]

…The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

• Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing “public relations spin and propaganda”.

In CMD’s view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides “information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists,” characterizes CMD as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization.” […]

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center’s Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD’s Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan’s efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of “social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism.”

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: “These guys come from the far side of liberal.”

• Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)

The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

@Lobohan

Those fucking hillbillies are in the scientific capitol of cutting edge research, Cave Junction. Have you ever been to Cave Junction? Jesus-fucking-Christ-on-a-stick, these people aren’t world class scientists, they aren’t world class anything.

Lets see who worked there,

Martin D. Kamen, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry. He co-discovered of the isotope carbon-14 for which he received in 1995 the Enrico Fermi award, the highest honor in physics awarded in the United States.

Robert Bruce Merrifield. He invented and perfected solid-phase peptide synthesis, with which he carried out the first chemical synthesis of an enzyme. In recognition of these accomplishments, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1984.

@Lobohan

Easy:

[ol]
[li]Don’t live in Cave-Fucking-Junction (but if you do, you can still use number 2).[/li][li]Produce peer-reviewed science in the climate science field.[/li][/ol]

So all of these are then climate scientists,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

[GIGObuster]

His blog is his cite!

That would help… Not.

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies

The other day I posted “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers” and the response has been interesting.

This has given fodder for sharing some more examples and reasons why the list is total nonsense.

By sampling approximately one third of the references from “450 320 299 286 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” I showed that, of the references I looked at, all were:

*
      o
            + not  peer reviewed, and/or
            + known to be false, and/or
            + irrelevant, and/or
            + Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or
            + not supportive of climate change Denial*

*(I use the appropriate term (Denier) with respect to what the author was struggling to say when he mis-used the word “skepticism“).

*
      o Pielke dumps (on) the list
      o Energy & Environment is peer reviewed
      o Some more struck from the list
      o Poptart and other Denier’s respond react say stuff
      o What did anyone expect?

The author of the 450 list (Andrew) has commented on this blog 45 54 65 (and counting) times. (aka Poptech and more, rechristianed “Poptart” because he keeps popping up all hot and smoking, but turns out to be ‘nutritionally’ valueless). Some of his comments are worth sharing for the insight they give into the alleged thinking that went into compiling the list.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Poptech

Members join an organization for the membership benefits not the position statements it releases. The fact is you cannot support your claim of consensus. I’ve provided all the names for you. You cannot even provide a basic head count, thus you claims are debunked.

This is barely coherent, let alone convincing. What’s your point here–do you think your method of argument is persuasive, or are you here for some purpose other than persuading people?

[BlackKnight]

The good ol’ Gish Gallop. “Here’s a giant bunch of stuff I made up - prove it wrong or I’m right!”

Once again I’m amazed at the similarities between global warming denialists and creationists.

Poptech, you are in desperate need of evidence in support of your data dump. Don’t try to shift the burden of proof. Don’t evade.

[Squink]

@Poptech

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

LOOK, peer Reviewed Climatology:

The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming
(Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992)

• Patrick J. Michaels

The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, where everyone should go for all their climatological needs.

Or perhaps:

The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (PDF)
(Journal of Information Ethics, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007)

• Donald W. Miller

When come back, bring 500 refs that do what you say they do, and maybe consider doing a little reading around in the Journal of Information Ethics. Your information has a distinctly bogus taint to it.

[John_DiFool]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is barely coherent, let alone convincing. What’s your point here–do you think your method of argument is persuasive, or are you here for some purpose other than persuading people?

FUD (and I ain’t talking about Elmer either).

[dragoncat]

Poptech, I don’t really understand why you are arguing with every point the other posters make. If a “consensus” of so many scientists indicated that global warming doesn’t exist, then your OP ought to speak for itself. Clearly it doesn’t.