The Great Global Warming Swindle

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]

All of your explanations were based on fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works, which why it is not usually a good idea for a non scientist to explain to a scientist how scientific experimentation works. The only way for what you have described to happen is a massive worldwide conspiracy.

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

Do any of my fellow scientists on here know anything about this? I will also be contacting many of my associates in various fields about this. If I have to downgrade to a small office in the basement with only a small desk, an “I Want To Believe” poster, and a beautiful but skeptical partner who eventually learns the value of my way of thinking as we fall in love over the next 9 years I am willing to make that sacrifice.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]

All of your explanations were based on fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works, which why it is not usually a good idea for a non scientist to explain to a scientist how scientific experimentation works. The only way for what you have described to happen is a massive worldwide conspiracy.

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

Do any of my fellow scientists on here know anything about this? I will also be contacting many of my associates in various fields about this. If I have to downgrade to a small office in the basement with only a small desk, an “I Want To Believe” poster, and a beautiful but skeptical partner who eventually learns the value of my way of thinking as we fall in love over the next 9 years I am willing to make that sacrifice.
[/quote]

Look into the history of epidemiological studies regarding nutrition and you will find plenty.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]

All of your explanations were based on fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works, which why it is not usually a good idea for a non scientist to explain to a scientist how scientific experimentation works. The only way for what you have described to happen is a massive worldwide conspiracy.

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

Do any of my fellow scientists on here know anything about this? I will also be contacting many of my associates in various fields about this. If I have to downgrade to a small office in the basement with only a small desk, an “I Want To Believe” poster, and a beautiful but skeptical partner who eventually learns the value of my way of thinking as we fall in love over the next 9 years I am willing to make that sacrifice.
[/quote]

Look into the history of epidemiological studies regarding nutrition and you will find plenty.

[/quote]

I am going to limit my search to hard sciences, since that is what we are discussing.

Why is it always the Jesus people that deny global warming?

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]

All of your explanations were based on fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works, which why it is not usually a good idea for a non scientist to explain to a scientist how scientific experimentation works. The only way for what you have described to happen is a massive worldwide conspiracy.

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

Do any of my fellow scientists on here know anything about this? I will also be contacting many of my associates in various fields about this. If I have to downgrade to a small office in the basement with only a small desk, an “I Want To Believe” poster, and a beautiful but skeptical partner who eventually learns the value of my way of thinking as we fall in love over the next 9 years I am willing to make that sacrifice.
[/quote]

Look into the history of epidemiological studies regarding nutrition and you will find plenty.

[/quote]

I am going to limit my search to hard sciences, since that is what we are discussing.[/quote]

No, that is what YOU are discussing and, indeed, it does not lend itself to to manipulation.

Alas, nutrition could and should be a hard science, and, alas, you do not regard it as such.

Why might that be?

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Why is it always the Jesus people that deny global warming? [/quote]

Because they do not require a secular religion.

They already have one.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]

All of your explanations were based on fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works, which why it is not usually a good idea for a non scientist to explain to a scientist how scientific experimentation works. The only way for what you have described to happen is a massive worldwide conspiracy.

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

Do any of my fellow scientists on here know anything about this? I will also be contacting many of my associates in various fields about this. If I have to downgrade to a small office in the basement with only a small desk, an “I Want To Believe” poster, and a beautiful but skeptical partner who eventually learns the value of my way of thinking as we fall in love over the next 9 years I am willing to make that sacrifice.
[/quote]

Look into the history of epidemiological studies regarding nutrition and you will find plenty.

[/quote]

I am going to limit my search to hard sciences, since that is what we are discussing.[/quote]

No, that is what YOU are discussing and, indeed, it does not lend itself to to manipulation.

Alas, nutrition could and should be a hard science, and, alas, you do not regard it as such.

Why might that be?[/quote]

Climatology is the topic of this thread, which is a hard science and the very reason I am going to limit the scope of my inquiry to hard sciences, and specifically climatology and AGW. Nutrition is a very general term and when was that brought up? Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and patterns of health-events, health-characteristics and their causes or influences in well-defined populations, which by the very nature of things like “risk factors” inherently excludes it from the hard sciences so there is no point in discussing it within the context of this thread.

EDIT: I see where you brought up nutrition, and my post above still stands. “Nutrition” itself is not a hard science, but there are many branches of biology and chemistry that deal with human metabolism.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]

All of your explanations were based on fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works, which why it is not usually a good idea for a non scientist to explain to a scientist how scientific experimentation works. The only way for what you have described to happen is a massive worldwide conspiracy.

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

Do any of my fellow scientists on here know anything about this? I will also be contacting many of my associates in various fields about this. If I have to downgrade to a small office in the basement with only a small desk, an “I Want To Believe” poster, and a beautiful but skeptical partner who eventually learns the value of my way of thinking as we fall in love over the next 9 years I am willing to make that sacrifice.
[/quote]

Look into the history of epidemiological studies regarding nutrition and you will find plenty.

[/quote]

I am going to limit my search to hard sciences, since that is what we are discussing.[/quote]

No, that is what YOU are discussing and, indeed, it does not lend itself to to manipulation.

Alas, nutrition could and should be a hard science, and, alas, you do not regard it as such.

Why might that be?[/quote]

Climatology is the topic of this thread, which is a hard science and the very reason I am going to limit the scope of my inquiry to hard sciences, and specifically climatology and AGW. Nutrition is a very general term and when was that brought up? Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and patterns of health-events, health-characteristics and their causes or influences in well-defined populations, which by the very nature of things like “risk factors” inherently excludes it from the hard sciences so there is no point in discussing it within the context of this thread.

EDIT: I see where you brought up nutrition, and my post above still stands. “Nutrition” itself is not a hard science, but there are many branches of biology and chemistry that deal with human metabolism.[/quote]

Well, “climatology” surely deals with a lot of areas that are hard science based and yet, the areas in question are entirely “epidemiological”.

This correlates with that and whatnot.

So, if there is a prevailing wisdom out there and if the funding in that exact area is predominantly dished out to pro climate change researchers the results will be what?

Because, you know, what the overall contribution of the US government is is irrelevant, what is relevant is what the amount of money is that goes into the areas that might justify another power grab.

You had it in this thread, if we could make the world “better” with a lie, should we not.

Not saying that it is one, just saying that some people do not care, especially not if its not their money.

[quote]orion wrote:

Well, “climatology” surely deals with a lot of areas that are hard science based and yet, the areas in question are entirely “epidemiological”.

This correlates with that and whatnot.

So, if there is a prevailing wisdom out there and if the funding in that exact area is predominantly dished out to pro climate change researchers the results will be what?

Because, you know, what the overall contribution of the US government is is irrelevant, what is relevant is what the amount of money is that goes into the areas that might justify another power grab.

You had it in this thread, if we could make the world “better” with a lie, should we not.

Not saying that it is one, just saying that some people do not care, especially not if its not their money.

[/quote]

Dude, google epidemiology. Climatology is a hard science unto itself. The only connection between epidemiology and global warming would be the impact of global warming on things related to the health of the general population like the abundance of clean water, which we won’t know anything about until later on if global warming is occuring. The major research (i.e. the research cited in support of AGW) are hard science studies done by real scientists.

EDIT: Also, once again, it is impossible to know the outcome of scientific research until after the study is done without directly manipulating the experiment in some way which is easy to spot, so it doesn’t matter who is funding it.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[/quote]

There’s ideas floating around like doing something like that to oceans. Or putting millions of tiny mirrors in space to deflect solar radiation and putting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect sun rays back into space but so little is known about what the effects of doing these things would do and it would be a huge feat too.

Simply put, it’s too expensive and wildly unpredictable.[/quote]

It would be horrifically stupid to try. [/quote]

X200000
[/quote]
so, we do all agree, right?
[/quote]

Simply stated , I believe Climate change COULD be a cycle , I how ever have not studied it.I think an intervention of placing mirrors in space is so fucking stupid . I am not sure if we agree or not

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[/quote]

There’s ideas floating around like doing something like that to oceans. Or putting millions of tiny mirrors in space to deflect solar radiation and putting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect sun rays back into space but so little is known about what the effects of doing these things would do and it would be a huge feat too.

Simply put, it’s too expensive and wildly unpredictable.[/quote]

It would be horrifically stupid to try. [/quote]

X200000
[/quote]
so, we do all agree, right?
[/quote]

Simply stated , I believe Climate change COULD be a cycle , I how ever have not studied it.I think an intervention of placing mirrors in space is so fucking stupid . I am not sure if we agree or not[/quote]

Well, the mirrors in space thing didn’t work out so well in Futurama or James Bond so I would have to say no on the mirrors.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Being a car guy, I am more than happy to assist you in your quest.
'69 Camaro is kind of generic. Are you looking for an original/ restored, numbers matching car, or like a ‘resto-mod’ where it keeps the look of the old, but drives new?

The former is really, really expensive, the latter still expensive, but easier to get.

Muscle cars, unfortunately, are at a premium right now. Prices have jumped 20,000% (literally) in the last 10 years. [/quote]

I am going to do this as a resto-mod car. It will be easier and take less time then a completely original, numbers matching car. I haven’t done much planning on it yet though. I don’t think I will be able to start until next summer though, what with the wedding coming up and all.[/quote]

Oh yeah, but it’s never too early to start planning though. I’d start with the kind of stance, foot print you want the car to have.
Are you looking at cars that look like what you want? I am all a-twitter. I love this shit. Going for a modest 396 or we going big, like a nice 455…Nice 6 speed tranny, Recaro seats, love the cowl induction hood look, sitin’ nice and low, exaggerated front clip with supports, slightly oversized rear spoiler.
If you’re going for high horse or forced induction you probably want lower ratio rear end otherwise you’ll just sit there and spin the tires…
Sorry, rambling… I just wish I could do that…Damn Kids, I could be driving a Bentley if it weren’t for them. And they always want shit.

Oh get a convertable! Pleeeeease?

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Well, “climatology” surely deals with a lot of areas that are hard science based and yet, the areas in question are entirely “epidemiological”.

This correlates with that and whatnot.

So, if there is a prevailing wisdom out there and if the funding in that exact area is predominantly dished out to pro climate change researchers the results will be what?

Because, you know, what the overall contribution of the US government is is irrelevant, what is relevant is what the amount of money is that goes into the areas that might justify another power grab.

You had it in this thread, if we could make the world “better” with a lie, should we not.

Not saying that it is one, just saying that some people do not care, especially not if its not their money.

[/quote]

Dude, google epidemiology. Climatology is a hard science unto itself. The only connection between epidemiology and global warming would be the impact of global warming on things related to the health of the general population like the abundance of clean water, which we won’t know anything about until later on if global warming is occuring. The major research (i.e. the research cited in support of AGW) are hard science studies done by real scientists.

EDIT: Also, once again, it is impossible to know the outcome of scientific research until after the study is done without directly manipulating the experiment in some way which is easy to spot, so it doesn’t matter who is funding it.
[/quote]

On no, some of the research reported by the IPCC was utter junk.

Remember the one on tree ring diameters and their correlation to average temperature?

Because I do.

They also silently dropped this whole pesky “peer reviewed” thing, instead of getting their house in order.

I insist that the current models are entirely epidemiological, for if they are not, pray tell, how sensitive is the climate to additional Co2 emissions?

If you can up with a number for the correlation you certainly managed to do more than climate science has done so far and even then you would only have a number for a certain area of warming.

No, what you have now is more C02, earth warmer, correlation.

Which is, in and of itself nice, but when it comes to to the whole earths climate unfalsifiable, because its kind of hard to run several tests on this here planet.

I would also like an answer to what you think the real world outcome will be if most of the money going into this area of study is supplied with an agenda in mind.

You might think that that is irrelevant, and yet, us pedestrian peeps who need to pay our bills are plenty motivated by money and we ascribe the same motives to other people, climatologist Phd or not.

[quote]orion wrote:

On no, some of the research reported by the IPCC was utter junk.

Remember the one on tree ring diameters and their correlation to average temperature?

Because I do.

They also silently dropped this whole pesky “peer reviewed” thing, instead of getting their house in order.

I insist that the current models are entirely epidemiological, for if they are not, pray tell, how sensitive is the climate to additional Co2 emissions?

If you can up with a number for the correlation you certainly managed to do more than climate science has done so far and even then you would only have a number for a certain area of warming.

No, what you have now is more C02, earth warmer, correlation.

Which is, in and of itself nice, but when it comes to to the whole earths climate unfalsifiable, because its kind of hard to run several tests on this here planet.

I would also like an answer to what you think the real world outcome will be if most of the money going into this area of study is supplied with an agenda in mind.

You might think that that is irrelevant, and yet, us pedestrian peeps who need to pay our bills are plenty motivated by money and we ascribe the same motives to other people, climatologist Phd or not.

[/quote]

If you are going to make these claims, I want to see actual studies that support AGW and your reasons for doubting those conclusions, otherwise you are just asking general questions about the topic which I am not an expert in, as well as just making general claims. I am capable of reading scientific studies and determining if there are any major faults in them. I also have friends who are climate scientists and can explain a lot of it to me.

I have already answered your question on where the money is coming from. It does not really matter usually. It is not possible to know the outcome of a scientific experiment before it is performed without knowing that you are going to manipulate the experiment to suit your needs, and it is very easy to spot this. If you think any major studies that are currently being used to support AGW are faulty in any way, provide them and I will review them myself.

Most scientists realize that falsifying data in their experiments is the fastest way to lose all credibility in the scientific community, which is a career ender, and thus will not bother to do it. I am not saying it does not happen, but it is a lot rarer than you seem to think.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Being a car guy, I am more than happy to assist you in your quest.
'69 Camaro is kind of generic. Are you looking for an original/ restored, numbers matching car, or like a ‘resto-mod’ where it keeps the look of the old, but drives new?

The former is really, really expensive, the latter still expensive, but easier to get.

Muscle cars, unfortunately, are at a premium right now. Prices have jumped 20,000% (literally) in the last 10 years. [/quote]

I am going to do this as a resto-mod car. It will be easier and take less time then a completely original, numbers matching car. I haven’t done much planning on it yet though. I don’t think I will be able to start until next summer though, what with the wedding coming up and all.[/quote]

Oh yeah, but it’s never too early to start planning though. I’d start with the kind of stance, foot print you want the car to have.
Are you looking at cars that look like what you want? I am all a-twitter. I love this shit. Going for a modest 396 or we going big, like a nice 455…Nice 6 speed tranny, Recaro seats, love the cowl induction hood look, sitin’ nice and low, exaggerated front clip with supports, slightly oversized rear spoiler.
If you’re going for high horse or forced induction you probably want lower ratio rear end otherwise you’ll just sit there and spin the tires…
Sorry, rambling… I just wish I could do that…Damn Kids, I could be driving a Bentley if it weren’t for them. And they always want shit.

Oh get a convertable! Pleeeeease?
[/quote]

I’ll e-mail you some of my thoughts later and we can discuss some things. This is going to be my first car so I am very excited about it.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Why is it always the Jesus people that deny global warming? [/quote]

Because they do not require a secular religion.

They already have one. [/quote]

LOLOLOL!!!

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I find it very suspect that I have been a scientist for about 2 decades, 95% of my friends are scientists, I am engaged to a scientist, and this is the first I am hearing about studies, which are usually the result of many months and even years of work, disappearing into thin air or scientists magically knowing what the results of experiments will be before they are conducted in order to get funding.

[/quote]

Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.”

James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: “Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story.”

Only 52 scientists agreed to IPCC 2007 summary report linking human CO2 to global warming. In contrast, 650 scientists have publicly announced their disagreement with the theory of man-made global warming. In addition, 31,000 American scientists/researchers have signed the Oregon Petition stating their direct opposition to the Kyoto global warming agreement. Approximately 17,000 signers have a PhD or a M.S.

Quote by Viv Forbes, soil scientist and geologist, chairman-Australian based The Carbon Sense Coalition: “The output of a complex computer simulation of the atmosphere is not ‘evidence’. It is a fluttering flag of forecasts, hung on a slim flagpole of theory, resting on a leaky raft of assumptions, which is drifting without the rudder of evidence, in cross currents of ideology emotion and bias, on the wide deep and restless ocean of the unknown.”

Claude Culross, organic chemistry: “Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof…There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.”

Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate changeâ?¦.As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.”

Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist: “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist…Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets…The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists…some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts…In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”

Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”

More - C3: Quotes From Global Warming Critics, Dissenters, Non-Believers & Skeptics (Sceptics)

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.”

James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: “Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story.” [/quote]

None of these are studies or are criticisms of studies, they are just people who are expressing an opinion. If they had actual evidence of major flaws with the thousands of experiments and studies done on AGW, why did they not provide it?

[quote]
Only 52 scientists agreed to IPCC 2007 summary report linking human CO2 to global warming. In contrast, 650 scientists have publicly announced their disagreement with the theory of man-made global warming. [/quote]

You mean the one that had over 600 authors, over 600 independent reviewers and cited over 6000 peer reviewed articles with the express permission of the authors of those studies? You’re off by a few thousand.

[quote]
In addition, 31,000 American scientists/researchers have signed the Oregon Petition stating their direct opposition to the Kyoto global warming agreement. Approximately 17,000 signers have a PhD or a M.S. [/quote]

I remember this one. Scientific American did an expose on it. They did absolutely no verification on the credentials people listed and many of the actual scientists who signed it had no memory of doing so. It was also signed by such illustrious scientists as Michael J Fox and John Grisham and had many duplicate signatures.

What a surprise, more quotes of people saying things about the flaws in the studies supporting AGW and absolutely zero that provide a detailed explanation of why they are making those claims or an explanation of the flaws themselves. They don’t even mention what studies they are referring to, as well as zero studies, peer reviewed or not that show that AGW is not occurring or that the studies supporting AGW are wrong.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

None of these are studies or are criticisms of studies, they are just people who are expressing an opinion.

[/quote]

True, but I was providing evidence of many credentialed scientists who don’t share the eco-statists’ opinions.

Who said they didn’t? These are merely quotations from scientists. Here’s the bio of Madhav L. Khandekar for example:

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years. Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere/ ocean/climate for over 50 years and has published over 125 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific commentaries etc. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers in various international Journals and authored a book on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling, published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar is presently on the editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards (Netherlands) and is a former editor of the journal Climate Research (Germany). He was an expert reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change Documents (AR4) published in 2007. Dr. Khandekar was interviewed in Winnipeg on June 30th, 2009.

It’s a quote from the link. I’m pretty sure they’re talking about a preliminary report that was leaked to press as opposed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1980

Seattle Times:

‘Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: “Perry S. Mason”, who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, “Michael J. Fox”, “Robert C. Byrd”, and “John C. Grisham” were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.” This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.’

[quote]
What a surprise, more quotes of people saying things about the flaws in the studies supporting AGW and absolutely zero that provide a detailed explanation of why they are making those claims or an explanation of the flaws themselves. They don’t even mention what studies they are referring to, as well as zero studies, peer reviewed or not that show that AGW is not occurring or that the studies supporting AGW are wrong.[/quote]

See above re Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
nice.[/quote]

In practice, not very.

Or did you miss all the usual suspects crawling out of the woodwork, claiming that we all should use bikes instead of cars, stop eating meat and generally repent for our sins because the end is nigh?

At least they have not burned books or art so far, but there is nothing “nice” about the impulse and it gets even less nice if those mini Savonarolas get their way. [/quote]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty dead set against things like carbon tax (like what the hell people seriously), but I’m all for finding cleaner ways of producing energy (and efficiently). These are things that will have tangible financial and environmental benefits.

Can’t forget human nature, if you tell everyone to drive a Prius (also a green scam) it’s not likely everyone will.