Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't know 6... I think understanding something vs not is quite apparent...

For the most part taking data on a scatterplot and applying a linear regression fit is only honest if all the points on the plot are accounted for in the regression fit. If you wanted to manipulate points and call them outliers the honest thing to do would be to literally interpret them as such instead of leaving it up to misinterpretations. Furthermore, these kinds of organizations of data are not very indicative of actual trends across climactic epochs, as the authors sometimes suggest. Again, it usually boils down to what they're trying to prove, and furthermore, what part of the chain of consequence they are looking at. Cause, effect, or both?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Linear regression is a just statistical approximation, not really a concrete set of data.

[HAL 9000 96]

Linear regression is a just statistical approximation, not really a concrete set of data.

BINGO

Tell that to our Excel-using friends at OISM.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know 6... I think understanding something vs not is quite apparent...

For the most part taking data on a scatterplot and applying a linear regression fit is only honest if all the points on the plot are accounted for in the regression fit. If you wanted to manipulate points and call them outliers the honest thing to do would be to literally interpret them as such instead of leaving it up to misinterpretations. Furthermore, these kinds of organizations of data are not very indicative of actual trends across climactic epochs, as the authors sometimes suggest. Again, it usually boils down to what they're trying to prove, and furthermore, what part of the chain of consequence they are looking at. Cause, effect, or both?

I think any actual data (even if that data is misinterpreted or presented in a misleading way) has the appearance of legitimate, quality work - certainly when compared to something wholly discursive like Intelligent Design.

Cheney's closed door energy policy, and the influence of current/former big oil lobbyists in the EPA and the CEQ have done a good job at confusing the issues for the general public - to the extent that this is reflected in opinion polls on the issue. There is more doubt over GW in the US than there is in other developed countries.

I guess there are different degrees of pseudo-science. That the debates on both of these issues (ID and GW) seem to be peculiar to the US (in other words they aren't happening anywhere else) speaks volumes - IMO.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Linear regression is a just statistical approximation, not really a concrete set of data.

BINGO

Tell that to our Excel-using friends at OISM.

Funny, those are the very same type of graphs that are used to "prove" man made GW.

Edited May 20, 2008 by GaryC

[Jack and Barbara 0]

From other googling it appears that others are questioning the legitimacy of the 30,000 scientists. The document stated "(I)t is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few."" Are these really scientists and what would constitute being a scientist, according to the Oregon group? A major in chemistry? biology? physics? A minor in them? After all, one of my friends graduated from a university with a biology degree but I wouldn't call him a scientist. Maybe one day, but not yet. Regardless of whether he turns out to be a scientist or not, if he is no subject matter expert in climate control and the other areas of the GW debate, would his opinion matter any more than a layperson?

Also taking into account that the group in Oregon apparently allowed petitions over the Internet, I wonder how long it would take using their "scientific" method of determining who are scientists and who are not to get 30,000 scientists in favor of the theory of GW.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Jack and Barbara

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From other googling it appears that others are questioning the legitimacy of the 30,000 scientists. The document stated "(I)t is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few."" Are these really scientists and what would constitute being a scientist, according to the Oregon group? A major in chemistry? biology? physics? A minor in them? After all, one of my friends graduated from a university with a biology degree but I wouldn't call him a scientist. Maybe one day, but not yet. Regardless of whether he turns out to be a scientist or not, if he is no subject matter expert in climate control and the other areas of the GW debate, would his opinion matter any more than a layperson?

Also taking into account that the group in Oregon apparently allowed petitions over the Internet, I wonder how long it would take using their scientific method of determinging scientists to get 30,000 scientists in favor of the theory of GW.

That is a perfectly fair criticism.

[HAL 9000 96]

Linear regression is a just statistical approximation, not really a concrete set of data.

BINGO

Tell that to our Excel-using friends at OISM.

Funny, those are the very same type of graphs that are used to "prove" man made GW.

Again proof that brother Gary doesn't understand the data:

See Fig 7. 110 year trend for increasing rainwater accumulation. Linear regression fit is good. Is that a climactic observation? Nope. We'll see where the observations occured and, at what frequency, and most importantly, if they are binned for the entire contiguous US States. I though GW was a global phenomenon, not just a country-specific pattern.

See Fig 8. 56 year frequency trend observation of "decreased" frequency for violent tornado occurrences in the US. Then the authors state with authority that WORLD hydrocarbon use has increased. This is an apples to oranges comparison AND, the linear regression fit does not fit.

See Fig 9. 106 year Atlantic landfall observation of hurricanes. The linear regression is the mean for the data, not an actual linear regression, and as such, the authors are disqualified from stating a statistical assertion as they do.

See Fig. 10. 62 year Wind speed observations for hurricanes per annum (again mean values, not linear regressions), and

violent hurricane occurrences, with mean values used to represent linear regression incorrectly.

So where this graphs make any sense, and furthermore, how they only make sense to those that want to understand without understanding the actual data, is beyond me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From other googling it appears that others are questioning the legitimacy of the 30,000 scientists. The document stated "(I)t is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few."" Are these really scientists and what would constitute being a scientist, according to the Oregon group? A major in chemistry? biology? physics? A minor in them? After all, one of my friends graduated from a university with a biology degree but I wouldn't call him a scientist. Maybe one day, but not yet. Regardless of whether he turns out to be a scientist or not, if he is no subject matter expert in climate control and the other areas of the GW debate, would his opinion matter any more than a layperson?

Also taking into account that the group in Oregon apparently allowed petitions over the Internet, I wonder how long it would take using their "scientific" method of determining who are scientists and who are not to get 30,000 scientists in favor of the theory of GW.

Above and beyond, I think Gary is trying to make a debate that doesn't really exist and he vacillates between two arguments - one over whether Global Warming is being accelerated by human activity and another entirely different argument - whether we are actually in a Global Warming. They are two separate arguments but often confuses them as being one and the same.

[GaryC 7]

Linear regression is a just statistical approximation, not really a concrete set of data.

BINGO

Tell that to our Excel-using friends at OISM.

Funny, those are the very same type of graphs that are used to "prove" man made GW.

Again proof that brother Gary doesn't understand the data:

See Fig 7. 110 year trend for increasing rainwater accumulation. Linear regression fit is good. Is that a climactic observation? Nope. We'll see where the observations occured and, at what frequency, and most importantly, if they are binned for the entire contiguous US States. I though GW was a global phenomenon, not just a country-specific pattern.

See Fig 8. 56 year frequency trend observation of "decreased" frequency for violent tornado occurrences in the US. Then the authors state with authority that WORLD hydrocarbon use has increased. This is an apples to oranges comparison AND, the linear regression fit does not fit.

See Fig 9. 106 year Atlantic landfall observation of hurricanes. The linear regression is the mean for the data, not an actual linear regression, and as such, the authors are disqualified from stating a statistical assertion as they do.

See Fig. 10. 62 year Wind speed observations for hurricanes per annum (again mean values, not linear regressions), and

violent hurricane occurrences, with mean values used to represent linear regression incorrectly.

So where this graphs make any sense, and furthermore, how they only make sense to those that want to understand without understanding the actual data, is beyond me.

My point is that this very same type of data collection and application has been used to "prove" GW. You seem critical when someone uses the very same science to disprove GW. You have a double standard for your level of proof.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I found something for you...

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Also, in case you didn't already know who is in on the Global Warming conspiracy, here's the dirty perpetrators.... (I say we burn them at the stake for heresy)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming....tent/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK (RS)

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html

American Institute of Physics

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

.....

Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued 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)

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

and this one that includes the above signers plus:

- 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

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

.....

But perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing than those of the pointy-headed intellectuals? BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world has this opinion:

There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

...

Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

...

Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

....

That's an awful lot of climate scientists and industry giants cohorting this conspiracy....it's going to take a lot of wood to burn them all at the stake. Are you ready to take on the task, Gary?

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I found something for you...

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Also, in case you didn't already know who is in on the Global Warming conspiracy, here's the dirty perpetrators.... (I say we burn them at the stake for heresy)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming....tent/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK (RS)

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html

American Institute of Physics

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

.....

Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued 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)

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

and this one that includes the above signers plus:

- 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

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

.....

But perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing than those of the pointy-headed intellectuals? BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world has this opinion:

There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

...

Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

...

Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

....

That's an awful lot of climate scientists and industry giants cohorting this conspiracy....it's going to take a lot of wood to burn them all at the stake. Are you ready to take on the task, Gary?

I can quote an equal number of companies and scientists that disagree. But I won't since they get picked apart and the conversation always sinks to new lows. Plus the positions of these companies are based on old data that has since been disputed. The lag time is apparent between the data and the positions.

[HAL 9000 96]

Linear regression is a just statistical approximation, not really a concrete set of data.

BINGO

Tell that to our Excel-using friends at OISM.

Funny, those are the very same type of graphs that are used to "prove" man made GW.

Again proof that brother Gary doesn't understand the data:

See Fig 7. 110 year trend for increasing rainwater accumulation. Linear regression fit is good. Is that a climactic observation? Nope. We'll see where the observations occured and, at what frequency, and most importantly, if they are binned for the entire contiguous US States. I though GW was a global phenomenon, not just a country-specific pattern.

See Fig 8. 56 year frequency trend observation of "decreased" frequency for violent tornado occurrences in the US. Then the authors state with authority that WORLD hydrocarbon use has increased. This is an apples to oranges comparison AND, the linear regression fit does not fit.

See Fig 9. 106 year Atlantic landfall observation of hurricanes. The linear regression is the mean for the data, not an actual linear regression, and as such, the authors are disqualified from stating a statistical assertion as they do.

See Fig. 10. 62 year Wind speed observations for hurricanes per annum (again mean values, not linear regressions), and

violent hurricane occurrences, with mean values used to represent linear regression incorrectly.

So where this graphs make any sense, and furthermore, how they only make sense to those that want to understand without understanding the actual data, is beyond me.

My point is that this very same type of data collection and application has been used to "prove" GW. You seem critical when someone uses the very same science to disprove GW. You have a double standard for your level of proof.

Nay Gary,

I'll be critical when the data is questionable. It would most definitely be a double standard to not subject "pro-GW" data to the same standards that I subject the pseudoscientific points you brought up. The difference I need you to understand is that one is science and the other is not.

[Marilyn. 340]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nice.