valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Some people on these forums lazily suggest that all climate scientists who disagree with AGW being a dominant driver of our climate are not real scientists. While the assertion is most definitely only made by the laziest, I will post a list below of just some of the so called "deniers" and hopefully will put an end to the ridiculous notion that only AGW scientists are real climate scientists: 1. 1973 Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever, 2. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences, 3. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, 4. Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 5. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: 6. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, 7. William Happer, physicist, Princeton University, 8. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada, 9. Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia There is also a list currently held by the U.S. Congress with over 3,000 scientists who disagree with the notion that AGW is the predominant reason for the past century's warming trend. I respectfully disagree with AGW, but when we hear the believers start trying to discredit and villify all opponents, it just makes AGW look worse to the public. Source And those scientists are mostly not climatologists. Science doesn't work on petitions. I could easily come up with 1,000 'scientists' who are creationists, but also don't do a thing in the field of Biology. It doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make a consensus. There are 1200 Architects and even a top level Biologist who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Does that also make them right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I think the problem is that the scientists and politicians lining up to support AGW are contemptuous and money grubbing at best, and sully the entire effort by their behavior. Take Mann for instance. He continue to fight a FOIA request to understand how he came up with his numbers. Why wouldn't a scientist acting in good faith freely give this information up if he didn't have anything to hide? Some of us cannot get by such antics. I'm glad to see some of you can stomach this bahavior. It speaks to your ethics as well. Could you actually answer the question? What would change your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 And those scientists are mostly not climatologists. Science doesn't work on petitions. I could easily come up with 1,000 'scientists' who are creationists, but also don't do a thing in the field of Biology. It doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make a consensus. There are 1200 Architects and even a top level Biologist who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Does that also make them right? Why are you debating me here? You are agreeing with me that they are still scientists. I don't understand what else there is to say other than you are looking for any problems with your oppositions' statements and pointing them out. It makes you more of an annoyance and isn't necessary. Anyhow, I am doing this instead of my job. Time to not try and get fired anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 It's easy to not cite anything you accuse your opposition of. Namely being funded primarily by the Tobacco industry and the Koch brothers. Sadly, I have not seen this to be the case for many independent scientists not funded by the Multi-trillion dollar industry that is AGW. To even try comparing one side's funding with the other displays a complete lack of grasp or understanding or reality. Huh...really? As an actual scientist, I've never seen this trillions of dollars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 It's easy to not cite anything you accuse your opposition of. Namely being funded primarily by the Tobacco industry and the Koch brothers. Sadly, I have not seen this to be the case for many independent scientists not funded by the Multi-trillion dollar industry that is AGW. To even try comparing one side's funding with the other displays a complete lack of grasp or understanding or reality. What? The Tobacco Industry was an example of how corporations lied and hid science to sell a product that kills people. You obviously don't understand the history of the 1960s and 1970s and even 80s as the government found out about what tobacco really did to people, and how much money the tobacco companies spent to hide the actual science in order to sell more tobacco. You think the AGW side is a multi-trillion dollar industry? So you think it is comparable to 1/3 of the US economy? Do you even realize that Exxon until very recently was the largest company by capital in the entire world, and currently has a market cap alone of 350 BILLION dollars? That's just ONE oil company. Do you even think about what you post before you post it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Huh...really? As an actual scientist, I've never seen this trillions of dollars... Maybe you aren't important enough yet? Just kidding there, really. But as for money: The truth hurts... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf This is only focusing on the US btw...consider Europe and elsewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Why are you debating me here? You are agreeing with me that they are still scientists. I don't understand what else there is to say other than you are looking for any problems with your oppositions' statements and pointing them out. It makes you more of an annoyance and isn't necessary. Anyhow, I am doing this instead of my job. Time to not try and get fired anymore... You totally missed the point. You have no idea what a consensus is. I'm speechless how you could have missed what I tried to tell you. I guess 9/11 is a conspiracy now and creationism must be true since over 1,000 'scientists' say so. I'll spell it out for you. Having degrees or being retired doesn't make you a scientist. If you are not actively doing work, it doesn't make you a scientist. If you are not in that related field, then you have no room to talk. A consensus is not done by polling people and asking what they think, regardless of whether or not they are currently working. A consensus is built on the body of evidence, not body of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 You totally missed the point. You have no idea what a consensus is. I'm speechless how you could have missed what I tried to tell you. I guess 9/11 is a conspiracy now and creationism must be true since over 1,000 'scientists' say so. I'll spell it out for you. Having degrees or being retired doesn't make you a scientist. If you are not actively doing work, it doesn't make you a scientist. If you are not in that related field, then you have no room to talk. A consensus is not done by polling people and asking what they think, regardless of whether or not they are currently working. A consensus is built on the body of evidence, not body of opinion. You are a kooky consipracy theorist. And in more areas than one. Good day sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Maybe you aren't important enough yet? The truth hurts... http://scienceandpub...imate_money.pdf Really? did you even read this? The only reference to "trillion" is by some guy saying a carbon trading commodity market could be worth $2 trillion....commodity markets.not_equal.research funding. Sorry try again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Maybe you aren't important enough yet? Just kidding there, really. But as for money: The truth hurts... http://scienceandpub...imate_money.pdf This is only focusing on the US btw...consider Europe and elsewhere... I googled for that PDF. It said... "$79 billion, trillions in the making" How in the hell do you go from 79 billion to trillions? Also as for scienceandpublicpolicy.org, do you really want to listen to a site tied that is heavily filled with Lord Monckton? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 You are a kooky consipracy theorist. And in more areas than one. Good day sir. So you can't answer my questions, you can't stay on topic, and you can't make any real points. The best you can do is "I know you are but what am I" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Ok, really my last post for a bit. But anyhow, for anyone interested in learning more about just SOME of the funding for the Green Movement, here is a great read below, with citations and all. It will still be disputed, and predictably so, by our AGW friends. But why else are they called Alarmists? Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Ok, really my last post for a bit. But anyhow, for anyone interested in learning more about just SOME of the funding for the Green Movement, here is a great read below, with citations and all. It will still be disputed, and predictably so, by our AGW friends. But why else are they called Alarmists? Source Wow you're shifty.....have you already misplaced your trillions of dollars argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Ok, really my last post for a bit. But anyhow, for anyone interested in learning more about just SOME of the funding for the Green Movement, here is a great read below, with citations and all. It will still be disputed, and predictably so, by our AGW friends. But why else are they called Alarmists? Source Sweetliberty.org? You're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Sweetliberty.org? You're just digging yourself a deeper hole. It is fun to watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 It is fun to watch... Not really. It's enough to make a 60 year old cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Not really. It's enough to make a 60 year old cry. Anyone want to take a stab at the source of the next link he will post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 when have I ever denied that CO2 increases are driven by man? In fact, most CO2 that enters the atmosphere does so though natural means, but man's component is increasing. When have I ever denied that increased CO2 will cause a greenhouse effect? I've said so in this very thread. Where we differ is AGW. I do not believe most of the warming seen is caused by man, but by the sun. you previously said that you believe the sun has caused outgassing of the oceans which have caused the rise in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm. If you would like to correct that statement, and acknowledge that the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm is directly attributable to human emissions of CO2, go right ahead. I am glad to see you are learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Yeah this really is too easy. Mann, East Anglia, et al. are using Tax Payer dollars, in other words Public resources, to fund their research. This is why they MUST produce their emails. Private operators use private funding and therefore only need to adhere to their clients. What are you trying to say here? Do you honestly think that it does not matter one side is funded by Public money, while the other is not? Well, I think the issue is a bit more complicated than you've laid it out. First, let me say that I think we are in complete agreement that the research, that actual work, being subsidized by taxpayers should be open and transparent. This includes the data, the analysis and the report. If taxpayers paid for something then they should be able to access it. (There are limitations, of course, for sensitive or classified research, but even there the data should be released ASAP. Submarine data on arctic ice is an example.) But correspondence, physical or electronic, is a different matter. And I think this is where we differ in opinion. Emails are not the research being performed on taxpayer dollars The taxpayers don't own the researcher, just the research, You'll never see a research contract specifying that all of the correspondece during the term of the research have to be made available. It would stifle open research if that happened. Or it would lead to researchers circumventing the rules much like the Executive Office did by setting up private emails to avoid complying with email preservation requirements. But if you feel that taxpayer subsidy of research means that emails should also be released, then where does that end? Taxpayers subsidize oil, gas and coal companies to the tune of bllions of dollars each year. That's a direct subsidy. Should every company receiving subsidies be forced to release all of their corporate emails? If not, why not? How about farmers and crop subsidies - shouldn't taxpayers be able to access their emails since we are paying them money? For that matter, every tax break is some flavor of subsidy - let's make every big company, every small company, and every individual accepting taxpayer subsidies open up their email archives. We paid for it, we should get to see it, right? Now let's look at non-profit organizations. The tax exemptions most non-profit organizations benefit from are indirect taxpayer subsidies. The Heartland Institute, for example, is a 501c(3) non-profit and as such doesn't have to pay taxes on the contributions it receives. The rest of us taxpayers have to reach into our pockets to make up for that exempted tax revenue. Why shouldn't non-profits have to release their emails if researchers have to release theirs? Both exist at the expense of taxpayers. And, for my last example, let's talk about weathermen. Weathermen use a variety of products from the NWS, and other federal agencies, in their day to day work. The NWS is, of course, funded by taxpayers which means that weathermen are subsidized by taxpayers unless they pay for each and every byte of data they use. (I think we can agree they don't) So if subsidized researchers should release their emails, why should subsidized weathermen get a free pass? Obviously, I've carried my point to extremes. But I'm trying to show that using the existence of a subsidy as justification for forcing the release of personal correspondence is a very dangerous precedent. There needs to be a better reason to require that release. Now, if there is probably cause to believe that illegal actions took place, and that evidence of those illegal acts may be in the emails then the courts have generally sided with demainding disclosure. But that's not the case with the Mann FOIAs. That is simply a witch-hunt against a prominent climatologist. Here's a link to a Washington Post column in the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 temps have been largely within a particular range for 13 years now. Not much of a trend either way. I like how you cherry picked a low in 2008 to then say, "temps have risen significantly since 2008". More shenanigans from the AGW alarmist side. The 13 year trend is quite positive. Your statement that "there is not much of a trend either way" is quite simply, a lie. The only way you get no trend is if you start in the strong Nino of 1998 and end in 11 years at the mod/strong Nina of 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Some people on these forums lazily suggest that all climate scientists who disagree with AGW being a dominant driver of our climate are not real scientists. While the assertion is most definitely only made by the laziest, I will post a list below of just some of the so called "deniers" and hopefully will put an end to the ridiculous notion that only AGW scientists are real climate scientists: 1. 1973 Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever, 2. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences, 3. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, 4. Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 5. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: 6. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, 7. William Happer, physicist, Princeton University, 8. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada, 9. Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia There is also a list currently held by the U.S. Congress with over 3,000 scientists who disagree with the notion that AGW is the predominant reason for the past century's warming trend. I respectfully disagree with AGW, but when we hear the believers start trying to discredit and villify all opponents, it just makes AGW look worse to the public. Source Only a few of those on the list of 7 you provided actually have any sort of qualifications to comment on AGW (Lindzen for example). Several of them, it would be akin to me with my B.A. in Biology saying AGW is a hoax, or any met on this board for that matter. There are a few that actually have some legitimate credentials and publication in the field, but coincidentally they are the ones who say AGW is real, but not as bad as some say. The list of 3,000 is of 'scientists' is no different than myself or any met on this board. You sir are the intellectually lazy one here, as you have failed to actually investigate who these people are and what their involvement in climate science is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 The 13 year trend is quite positive. Your statement that the "there is not much of a trend either way" is quite simply, a lie. Additionally, the level trend I mentioned was with surface temps only and ONLY for the period between 1998 and 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Additionally, the level trend I mentioned was with surface temps only and ONLY for the period between 1998 and 2008. Which of course as the paper explains is due to starting in a strong Nino and ending in a mod/strong Nina + the declining solar cycle. But deniers only read the bits that they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Anyone want to take a stab at the source of the next link he will post? Eat your heart out (and continue to simply mock the name of an original source without disputing what it has to say. Intellecutal laziness, no matter how you try and paint it, is what describes your posts. One of the least savory traits of climate-change advocates is how they've tried to bully anyone who keeps an open mind. This is true of many political projects, but it is or ought to be anathema to the scientific method. Ain't that the truth! Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Eat your heart out (and continue to simply mock the name of an original source without disputing what it has to say. Intellecutal laziness, no matter how you try and paint it, is what describes your posts. Ain't that the truth! Source Please practice the open mind, before you preach to me. Alarmists and deniers (like yourself) are the same in my book....usually not educated in topic, but you sure can yell the loudest. Much like you leave your health decisions to your doctor...i'd consider leaving the science to the professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Much like you leave your health decisions to your doctor...i'd consider leaving the science to the professionals. Any remnant of that philosophy which has played a big part in modern America is quickly going down the tubes. We don't need authorities or experts anymore.. everybody is an expert today no matter how stupid or uneducated. Everybody is special. Everybody is entitled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Any remnant of that philosophy which has played a big part in modern America is quickly going down the tubes. We don't need authorities or experts anymore.. everybody is an expert today no matter how stupid or uneducated. Everybody is special. Everybody is entitled. Exactly. Who needs experts and science when we have 'common sense' and 'folksy wisdom'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstoned Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I agree. Vermont and Montana have never had floods, and droughts in TX have never been experienced. Tornados are specific weather phenomena. I'm surprised Skierinvermont and Weatherusty didn't skewer you for that one. Oh that's right, you are an alarmist like them. You're going to fit right in here with the doom and gloom crowd. Of course these have always occured. A given. It's the increasing frequency of extreme events that is evidence of climate change, as predicted by those same scientiists castigated by those interested in business as usual at all costs. It is neither alarmist nor to be a doom meister to point this out. Where I live in central MA, 100 year extreme events are becoming commonplace to the extent that they're probably going to have to be re- classified as 5 year events. I speak specifically of deluges, but a host of other extreme weather phenomena are also being experienced. Such increases in extreme conditions are being noted world wide. But being "Sunny and Warm" I can understand how it may be your nature to block out such inconvenient truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Only a few of those on the list of 7 you provided actually have any sort of qualifications to comment on AGW (Lindzen for example). Several of them, it would be akin to me with my B.A. in Biology saying AGW is a hoax, or any met on this board for that matter. There are a few that actually have some legitimate credentials and publication in the field, but coincidentally they are the ones who say AGW is real, but not as bad as some say. The list of 3,000 is of 'scientists' is no different than myself or any met on this board. You sir are the intellectually lazy one here, as you have failed to actually investigate who these people are and what their involvement in climate science is. Do you have qualifications to comment on AGW, and if so, how do they differ from all those on the list??? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstoned Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I don't understand why this debate matters. The AGW side has lost the public's confidence. They have been reduced to this: debating on an internet forum, while their Environmentalist policies are being killed or stopped by various governments worldwide. I am happy they have found the safety of Internet forums, where they can continue agreeing with each other, and posting to their hearts' content. Spoken like a true Tea Partier, reincarnated from the 19th century order of "Know Nothingers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.