31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Wheres Mavivaro? Reading his books to find an answer? Prolly avoiding this like the plague.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wheres Mavivaro? Reading his books to find an answer? Prolly avoiding this like the plague.

Actually if you'll read back - you'll see that this was posted previously. In the form of a 9 page thread. You can check it out if you're so inclined.

[endoftheroad 1]

... There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Ah let the denier right wing wackos have their fun. They think if they repeat lies enough that it is suddenly a truth. It takes five seconds on Google to see their "petition" is a fabricated joke.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

PLEASE! Six, just answer me this. Why is it that you and others are so so so critical of somethings, yet so willing to dive into a pool of bullshite? Then once your swimmin in it you try to convince everyone to jump in! My god man!

[GaryC 7]

... There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Ah let the denier right wing wackos have their fun. They think if they repeat lies enough that it is suddenly a truth. It takes five seconds on Google to see their "petition" is a fabricated joke.

Really? Then take 5 seconds and back that statement up please.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

PLEASE! Six, just answer me this. Why is it that you and others are so so so critical of somethings, yet so willing to dive into a pool of bullshite? Then once your swimmin in it you try to convince everyone to jump in! My god man!

I believe in the consensus. Simply put - I don't believe in a debate that seems to be largely peculiar to the United States and which doesn't reflect the dialogs going on in other countries.

As far as I will delve into this debate - I will and do acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge. I am not a scientist, I have no particular understanding of climatology or meteorology; but I can appreciate that there's something fishy going on when a petition is trotted out as some sort of smoking gun, when there is a perfectly reasonable criticism pertaining to the method of data collection, and the verification of the credentials of the signatories.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Number 6

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

PLEASE! Six, just answer me this. Why is it that you and others are so so so critical of somethings, yet so willing to dive into a pool of bullshite? Then once your swimmin in it you try to convince everyone to jump in! My god man!

I believe in the consensus. Simply put - I don't believe in a debate that seems to be largely peculiar to the United States and which doesn't reflect the dialogs going on in other countries.

As far as I will delve into this debate - I will and do acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge. I am not a scientist, I have no particular understanding of climatology or meteorology; but I can appreciate that there's something fishy going on when a petition is trotted out as some sort of smoking gun, when there is a perfectly reasonable criticism pertaining to the method of data collection, and the verification of the credentials of the signatories.

A consensus is all you need then? No matter where it comes from? Cmon Six, your smarter than that! The IPCC is made up of goverment appointed ppl. That would mean that the governments put ppl in place that agree with theyre agendas.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

PLEASE! Six, just answer me this. Why is it that you and others are so so so critical of somethings, yet so willing to dive into a pool of bullshite? Then once your swimmin in it you try to convince everyone to jump in! My god man!

I believe in the consensus. Simply put - I don't believe in a debate that seems to be largely peculiar to the United States and which doesn't reflect the dialogs going on in other countries.

As far as I will delve into this debate - I will and do acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge. I am not a scientist, I have no particular understanding of climatology or meteorology; but I can appreciate that there's something fishy going on when a petition is trotted out as some sort of smoking gun, when there is a perfectly reasonable criticism pertaining to the method of data collection, and the verification of the credentials of the signatories.

A consensus is all you need then? No matter where it comes from? Cmon Six, your smarter than that! The IPCC is made up of goverment appointed ppl. That would mean that the governments put ppl in place that agree with theyre agendas.

Sure and we can boil everything down to agendas if you really want to do that. The folks behind that petition by the way are also involved with another one on Creationist theory. That is a little more damaging IMO.

And to clarify the IPCC is a multinational organisation.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

PLEASE! Six, just answer me this. Why is it that you and others are so so so critical of somethings, yet so willing to dive into a pool of bullshite? Then once your swimmin in it you try to convince everyone to jump in! My god man!

I believe in the consensus. Simply put - I don't believe in a debate that seems to be largely peculiar to the United States and which doesn't reflect the dialogs going on in other countries.

As far as I will delve into this debate - I will and do acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge. I am not a scientist, I have no particular understanding of climatology or meteorology; but I can appreciate that there's something fishy going on when a petition is trotted out as some sort of smoking gun, when there is a perfectly reasonable criticism pertaining to the method of data collection, and the verification of the credentials of the signatories.

A consensus is all you need then? No matter where it comes from? Cmon Six, your smarter than that! The IPCC is made up of goverment appointed ppl. That would mean that the governments put ppl in place that agree with theyre agendas.

Sure and we can boil everything down to agendas if you really want to do that. The folks behind that petition by the way are also involved with another one on Creationist theory. That is a little more damaging IMO.

And to clarify the IPCC is a multinational organisation.

The "I" in IPCC stands for inter governmental. That should be a warning sign dont you think? I am beggining to beleive GW is a backdoor way of destroying our nation and you can see the beginning of it via food and energy prices.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I already posted a story about this. Mav says that since he disagrees all these other scientists don't count.

Good enough. LONG LIVE ALGORE!

If I remember rightly the criticism was that there was no means of verifying the credentials of who actually signed the petition - and that there were a number of extremely dubious names in there that had to be weeded out: including Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell.

There was a bit in Scientific American about it a few years ago.

Scientific American took a 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.

You have got to be joking? Wish-wash!

Claiming-you mean they didnt verify?

Were able- did they even check?

Respectable number- Opinion?

Crudely exstrapolating=

It think its pretty clear - they examined a sample of 30 names on the list, identified 26 of them - and received mixed feedback as to whether those people supported (or even remembered) the petition.

In any case this isn't the only piece of criticism that looks at that aspect of the petition. But I'm sure you know all about that.

PLEASE! Six, just answer me this. Why is it that you and others are so so so critical of somethings, yet so willing to dive into a pool of bullshite? Then once your swimmin in it you try to convince everyone to jump in! My god man!

I believe in the consensus. Simply put - I don't believe in a debate that seems to be largely peculiar to the United States and which doesn't reflect the dialogs going on in other countries.

As far as I will delve into this debate - I will and do acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge. I am not a scientist, I have no particular understanding of climatology or meteorology; but I can appreciate that there's something fishy going on when a petition is trotted out as some sort of smoking gun, when there is a perfectly reasonable criticism pertaining to the method of data collection, and the verification of the credentials of the signatories.

A consensus is all you need then? No matter where it comes from? Cmon Six, your smarter than that! The IPCC is made up of goverment appointed ppl. That would mean that the governments put ppl in place that agree with theyre agendas.

Sure and we can boil everything down to agendas if you really want to do that. The folks behind that petition by the way are also involved with another one on Creationist theory. That is a little more damaging IMO.

And to clarify the IPCC is a multinational organisation.

The "I" in IPCC stands for inter governmental. That should be a warning sign dont you think? I am beggining to beleive GW is a backdoor way of destroying our nation and you can see the beginning of it via food and energy prices.

With all due respect - I think there are better and more substantial criticisms of the IPCC and its work than what the acronym stands for. Picking that apart isn't really going to get us anywhere.

Cutting to the chase here - you're not any more qualified to discuss the validity of the science than I am. You however buy into the debate that's taking place in this country. I don't. As I said.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

With all due respect - I think there are better and more substantial criticisms of the IPCC and its work than what the acronym stands for. Picking that apart isn't really going to get us anywhere.

Cutting to the chase here - you're not any more qualified to discuss the validity of the science than I am. You however buy into the debate that's taking place in this country. I don't. As I said.

I have never profesed to be knowlegable on the subject. However I do see what its leading to.

[Heracles 417]

Elitism:

1: leadership or rule by an elite

2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>

3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

4: a term used by the self-deluded and irredeemably stupid to make them feel better about themselves

Whatever helps you sleep at night mate..

[Heracles 417]

With all due respect - I think there are better and more substantial criticisms of the IPCC and its work than what the acronym stands for. Picking that apart isn't really going to get us anywhere.

Cutting to the chase here - you're not any more qualified to discuss the validity of the science than I am. You however buy into the debate that's taking place in this country. I don't. As I said.

I have never profesed to be knowlegable on the subject. However I do see what its leading to.

The irony is that #6 seems to be in every single thread. Even though most here probably know little about his actual background.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

With all due respect - I think there are better and more substantial criticisms of the IPCC and its work than what the acronym stands for. Picking that apart isn't really going to get us anywhere.

Cutting to the chase here - you're not any more qualified to discuss the validity of the science than I am. You however buy into the debate that's taking place in this country. I don't. As I said.

I have never profesed to be knowlegable on the subject. However I do see what its leading to.

The irony is that #6 seems to be in every single thread. Even though most here probably know little about his actual background.

Ooh the mystery

BTW - How many people on here can you say that you know well?