Re: Consensus or senseless con?

So only so called experts in thier respective fields are qualfied to
render not opinions but unchallengable assertions of fact the impact
of which could fundementally change man's place on the planet.

**Of course. Who would you trust for the following?

* A cancer diagnosis. Would you trust a person trained in (say)
econometrics, or one trained in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer?

**Inability to answer duly noted.


No, idiot, econometrics and medecine are not related. Many of the disciplines
I referred to are.

* Quantum mechanics. Would you trust a person trained in (say)
econometrics, or one trained in quantum mechanics?

No, idiot, econometrics and quantum mechanics are not related. Many of the
disciplines I referred to are.



**Inability to answer duly noted.

* Economics. Would you trust a person trained in (say) heart surgery,
or one trained in economics?

No, idiot, economics and heart surgery are not related. Many of the
disciplines I referred to are.


**Inability to answer duly noted.

* Climatology. Would you trust a person trained in (say) econometrics,
or one trained in climatology?

Why yes when the proposed solutions are so costly and damaging to the
economic welfare of the entire planet I want as many seconf opinions as
possible.


**Inability to answer duly noted.


All nonsequitors. You picked disciplines pretty far removed from each
other.

**So are many of the disciplines of those who signed the list.
Climatology is the issue, not physics, nor a host of others. THAT was my
point.

Uoi don't have a point. Many of the disciplines are interrelated. Which you
don't seem to grasp.

Are you really willing to put our civiliazation's future into the hands of a
small percentage of people?

Did they bot teach you school that our climate has vareied tremendously over
the millenia before man appeared on the planet for reasons quite unrelated to
talipipe emmisons. Or is that bit basic science overlooked for it's
inconvenience.

Did you look at the temprature chart provided in the abstract? That pretty
puts the lie to the man made part of globale warming.

And I'd also like to point out that in the 1970s we were all going to freeze
to death in a new ice age. They've been wrong often and 180 degrees from each
other and the economic damage from thier solutions, which coincidentally
reduce human freedom and puts power into fewer, unaccoutable hands that I
think a little scepticism is healthy.


The majority of the scientists listed are in disciplines that impact or
are impacted by climate research.

**So? They're not climatologists. They do not study climatology. They may
study the effects of climate. They may even study a subject which has an
input into climatology, but they do not study climatology.

Aside from thenfact the climate research seems
to be a somewhat inexact science.

**So? Quantum mechanics is an inexact science. That does not make it any
less real.

Indeed but 35 years ago we were facing a new ice age. Now it's man made
global warming. In both cases the answer was more government control, less
personal freedom. You can see why people might be a bit suspicious.



You don't think that any other discipline listed has something to say
regarding the supposed impact of "man made global warming" or it's
causes?

**Nope. Others may, indeed, have a say. Their opinion as to the reality
of global warming is, however, irrelevant. Their opinion on the effects
may well be relevant, however.

Climatology is not an exact science. 35 years ago we were facing a new ice
age. Now it's man made global warming. They can't even get the weather right
7 days in a row.


So
you are saying we should accept the word of a small minority of
scientists

**Just a reminder: The vast majjority of climatologists accept the
relaity of global warming. So far, only 40 (out of thousands) of
climatologists have claimed (allegedly) that global warming is not a
reality. That a bunch of chemists, biologists and others dispute this, is
not relevant.

How many climatologists do you personally know? How many who claim to support
global warming are in a situation where such support assures continued
government funding? Where a contraian view may result in no funding.



and take actions based on thier recomendations when other scientists
will tell you that the supposed impact (in thier area of expertise) is
false?

**If a climatologist claimed that operation of the Super Hadron Collider
was a dangerous experiment, I would disregard his opinion, as that is not
his area of expertise. If a physicist trained in high energy particle
experiments suggested that operation of the Super Hadron Collider was a
dangerous experiment, I would be more inlcined to take his advice
seriously.


yes I saw the news. Man made black holes will swallow us all next year so
future climate issues are irrelevant.


Are you a religious man?

**Of course not. Religion is a last resort of the terminally stupid.


Clearly. Global warming is a religion in every sense. There are articles of
faith which cannot be questioned. No?

Becuase what you are sayiong is we should accept
this as an article of faith and that we cannot and should not question
it. That is hardly a scientific viewpoint.

**I accept that those trained is a particular discipline are likely to
know far more about that topic than those who are not so trained.

So basically you are a follower who always accepts the opinions of "ecperts"
in all cases?





You may not have any faith in your own ability to rationally examine
assertions and refute them but I assur that many people can.

**Sure. In the final analysis, however, those trained in a specific
field of study will almost always have the requisite knowledge to
provide an accurate diagnosis. If I feel sick, I don't go to my local
gun dealer. I visit my doctor.

Nonsequitor.

**Nope. A perfectly valid comparison. Gun dealers (unless they are
trained in medicine) are not likely to be much help in medical matters.
Bio-chemists (unless they are trained in climatology) are not much use in
climatology.

Guns and medecine have nothing to do with one another. Climatology, such as
it is, is hardly a stand alone discipline. It is quite dependent on other
matters of science.



All the following disciplines impact or are impacted by "man made global
warming". Are you suggesting that "Atmospheric Science" has nothing
rational or informed to say about all this? That Environmental Science,
Forestry, Oceanography, Biology, Ecology, Entomology, Zoology, Animal
Science, Agricultural Science, Agricultural Engineering, Plant Science
and Food Science have no legtitmate or informed position on the supposed
impact? Odd
indeed.

**Impact, yes. The reality of global warming, no.

You are a complete idiot, or you are a true believer.

Article of faith #1. Global warming is real.
Article of faith #2. Global warming is mad made.
Article of faith #3. Climatologists, the high priests, may not be questioned.
Article of faith #4. The fact that climate has varied over the millenia for
reasons unrelated to man are no resaon to question this new belief.

Applicable sciences

1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )

2. Earth (2,148)
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)
1. Biochemistry (768)
I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)
I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)
I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)
Article of faith #3. Climatologists, the high priests, may not be questioned.


Data can in fact be manipulated.

**No. Data is data. The interpretation of that data can be incorrectly
interpreted and the conclusions manipulated. Data, by it's very nature,
cannot be manipulated.

Then you really are asimpleton or a rtrue beleiver.


And since you are not knowledgable you are
in no position to evaluate the factual content of any data you present,
going by your own standards anyway.

**Wrong. I just present the data.

But since you are not knowledgeable, by your admission, how do you know it's
true?



Sorry don't have time I refer anyone interested to refer to Google. Oh
wait, Trevor has a "friend" who is an expert shooter who can "stop his
heart" when he's ready to tkae a shot. Need I say more?

**Your inability to supply evidence is duly noted. I accept that you
cannot supply evidence of this alleged "nonsense" you speak of.


"inability to supply evidence" is your nickname on this board.




Sorry when proposals are being made by people being paid by the state
to find the precise results that will stifle human activity, reduce
wealth and put control over every aspect of our lices under government
control I think listening to a few contrarian views is worthwhile.

**I never suggested otherwise. We should examine all the possible
scenarios. Unfortunately, the data is now irrefutable. This planet is
in deep trouble.

No the socialist agenda is in trouble and needs a new cause. What data
is irrefutable?

**That the planet is warming at a rate faster than at any time in the
400,000 years.

So what? The earth is how many billions of years old!

* That there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last
400,000 years.

Gee I thought that plant life liked CO2 and that it helped them grow which
produces more oxygen and has the added benefot of beinh able to feed people.

* That the Polar ice caps are experiencing unprecedented melting.

Again, so what? Would you prefer that we have glciers in the Ohio Valley
again. Many fertile areas of growth were once covered by glaciers.


How is "the planet in deep trouble"? Please cite specifics and
sources.

Certainly (unlike you, I DO supply cites):

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

I will not accept EPA on anything. I did some work for them on the Superfund
and found thier methodologies political and dishonest.

Studies were being fone on the mtility of certain chemicals through soil,
water and air. One would think such chemistry would be a well established
fact by now. Instead the sample were sent to multiple labs who results ofter
varied greatly and we wer directed to ALWYAS use the worst case even if was
statistically way off from the others.


"
a.. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's
atmosphere.
Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
b.. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is
largely
the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Than stop exhaling.

c.. An "unequivocal" warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from
1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

And larger warming trends appear in the geological record, which may be why
you don;'t want other disciplines involved.

d.. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in
the
atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore
virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
will continue to rise over the next few decades.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

e.. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
All this, from your own US EPA. An organisation which is paid by a
government which is not only clearly pro-fossil fuel, but is led by a man
who is on record as stating that global warming is bunk.

Apaprently you are unaware that many of the pissant agencies have thier own
agenda which they pursue despite being in oppostion to the then elected
government. They are unionized and protected by rules that prevent political
interference (at least the kind they don't like) and they get support from
the leftist scumbags in our Congress.

Sorry EPA is not a valid source for anything other than more bureaucratic hot
air.


http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html





And if even 40 climatolagists disagree with the intial premise then
there is no consensus.

**Well, we have the words of 40 ALLEGED climatologists, vs. thousands.

What method are you going to use to dismiss the 40 now that
you've reduced 31,072 scientists to 40?

**I'm not. I would like to see their reasons, their credentials and
their complete arguments. I do not want to just see a signature.



Then go to this website:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Click on Summary of Peer Reviewed Research
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

Preamble:

Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of
specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an
understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that
encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves
as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.

When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific
scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review
articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in
the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and
updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new
discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced
to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader
can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more
detailed information about aspects that interest him.

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming
hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article
in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF or figures alone in
powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.


Though primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood
without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many
scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and
submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the
publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of
a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate
change, which the United Nations asserts is "authored" by approximately
600 scientists. These "authors" are not, however - as is ordinarily the
custom in science - permitted power of approval the published review of
which they
are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text,
but
the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments.
The
final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building
support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

***
Perhaps you should read it unless of course you lack of formal training
prevents it. In any case I've looked at the UN report and found it
laughable at best and a self serving power and wealth grab at worst.

**Tell me about your qualifications, which entitle you to be more
believed than the scientists who co-authored the report. Tell me how they
are operating a "power and wealth grab".



Ah, but I am not claiming any qualifications for me. I would suggest your
assertions (based on your EPA sourcing) could be said to be no more reliable
than mine.

I do have this though:

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a
voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change,
which the United Nations asserts is ?authored? by approximately 600
scientists. These ?authors? are not, however ? as is ordinarily the custom in
science ? permitted power of approval the published review of which they are
putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the
final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final
text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for
world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

This is undeniable if you look at the UN report fine print.

This alone in my mind is enough to discard any such assertions.

Frank
.