Slashdot Mirror

I'm not disputing that I may have been hoaxed (see my reply to the post above yours) but I don't see her name or any breakdown by field (no one is labled "biologist" etc. that I can see.). How did you determine that she was listed as a signator?

Please do some research before posting bogus links as science.

I never claimed it was science; I claimed that it was the pettition that the poster I was replying to had mentioned.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. And here's an interesting thing to try: go to the list of names, choose one at random (pref. an odd one, e.g. "Ismail B Haggag") and do a web search on them. Most of them seem to be real people at least. When the ones I tested should up in lists (e.g. faculty rosters) I tried picking a random name off the roster and searching for it on the pettition (to see if they had "harvested" the names off of university web sites. None of them were there.

All these scientists that signed the 2nd paper discounted what the
1st guys said and they did it with an overwhelming number of people

This discussion should have happened about two weeks ago. There was a special report by John Stossel regarding this whole issue and how the media has basically decided its a fact that Humans have caused global warming and that the US is the worst offender of them all.

Some of the key Items I've picked up over the past few weeks of doing some indepth research on these issues:
1,600 Scientists signed a letter saying that humans are to blame. But on the other hand, 17,000 scientists signed a report saying that there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. the report is here:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.

The next big thing that people keep kicking around is the Kyoto Treaty. It should have died LONG ago. Originally, back in 1997, Vice President Al Gore signed this treaty. He did _NOT_ have teh support of the US behind it, but it looked like good PR in the least. When the KYOTO treaty was discussed in Congress it failed with 95 / 100 voting against it. No one voted for it. There were MANY big problems w/ the Kyoto treaty. It did not include the _BIGGEST_ polluters in the world, India and China - they were not held to any standards and could continue to pollute as they have been. The other BIG problem was that no one knew how to account for a countries 'absorbtion' of pollution. The US does pollute a LOT. BUT, our country is so BIG, and since Tree cover (which is the SAME as it was in 1920) is sooo great, we absorb almost all of that pollution. This doesn't work out for these other poorer countries that want us to buy 'pollution permits' from them...

To "FIX" the "Problem" that humans aren't even causeing would cost TRILLION's of dollars, and MAY only affect temperaturs by 1/2 degree. You think our economy is bad now? wait until the extremist 'environmental plans' get instituted, then we're all in trouble.

Also, other people mentions Smog in LA and other Californian Cities. In the past 25 years air quality has greatly improved. Smog days are much less common than they used to. In fact, of the top 5 pollutants (not included CO2), all have decreased. In fact, our lakes and rivers are cleaner now than ever before. (see the John Stossel report, these are EPA findings).

We have only been _really_ studying our environment for 25 years. We have our hypothesees, but we don't have all our data yet. The Sunspot cycle is an 11 year cycle. Our technology, as we all know it, keeps getting better, faster, and cheaper. If in another 25 years of studying the environment there is even more evidence, only this time actually conclussive, and not easily debunked like most of the data today, then there will be reason's to 'drastically cut back' on emissions. As for now, our current conservative cutbacks and changes have been more than enough to allow for us to provide for a better, cleaner future for 'the children'. And heck, as was said earlier, we're going to run out of gas in 100 years anyways, - we're only re-releasing CO2 that was trapped in the earth -, and so we need an alternative to transition too. The Market is the most effective and efficient means to change. If the consumers demand change it will happen faster with better results than any changes that are instituted by the heavy hand of government.

-- dave

For those interested in both sides of the global warming debate, the review "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" may be of interest. From the abstract, "Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge."

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

About the only people in the scientific community that don't believe in what you say are the very few who get research grants from big oil companies to make up research poopooing global warming.

Ahh, yes. That would be why over 15,000 scientists signed this petition supporting the conclusions of this paper detailing how greenhouse gases have had little or no measurable effect on the global climate. That consensus. Stooges of the oil and gas industry, every one of 'em.

Of course, if they are puppets of big oil, their fraudulent or misleading or incorrect research and conclusions ought to be relatively easy for you to expose, rather than making essentially ad hominem attacks.

About the only people in the scientific community that don't believe in what you say are the very few who get research grants from big oil companies to make up research poopooing global warming.

Ahh, yes. That would be why over 15,000 scientists signed this petition supporting the conclusions of this paper detailing how greenhouse gases have had little or no measurable effect on the global climate. That consensus. Stooges of the oil and gas industry, every one of 'em.

Of course, if they are puppets of big oil, their fraudulent or misleading or incorrect research and conclusions ought to be relatively easy for you to expose, rather than making essentially ad hominem attacks.

"During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life."

Kyoto is the greatest exercise in propganda ever. Why does the truth get no traction even on Slashdot?

It's interesting that when people talk about this issue they aren't interested in a true debate. They have a hypothesis and only seek find the data that supports the hypothesis.

If we really wanted a debate, we'd at least hav some points of view seen on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, et al. But they talk about it as though it were a forgone conclusion. It's not, it's very worthy of study, and genuine study.

The scientific method is based the princlple that one collects data and draws a conclusion from all the data collected.

In addition, people always seem to gravitate to the Kyoto treaty when this issue is put on the table. I find it curious that we never hear about the Leipzig Declaration, the Heidelburg Appeal, the and the Oregon Appeal.

They have signatures from over 4000 scientists who say:
"The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. "


So, as the original posting of the aricle says.. What does this mean for global warming? Nobody knows.

At least according to some. Funny, this data is about an order of magnitude more complete than anything I've ever seen supporting the theory of global warming.

A very comprehensive review on solutions for something that many scientists don't think is happening.

Current research suggests we may be having less effect than many environmentalists would have us believe. On the other hand, the research also shows that "greenhouse gases" are increasing steadily without regard to volcanic eruptions, or other natural or artificial disasters.

Bush's statements on global warming were actually much milder than the reality that there is no consensus whatsoever among scientists that humans have affected global temperatures. See the Petition Project, which has been signed by something like 19,000 scientists, for details. It asserts: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Rather than wondering whether Bush is too stupid to understand this issue, maybe you should worry that you are too willfully ignorant to comment. Beware of getting your opinions about science from Time magazine.

Also, I'd admit Bush's response to the 'hate crimes' law should have been more explicit. But he did point out that punishing the intention as well as the crime itself was redundant. And he did not falsely assert that the Texas law (the one that did not die in committee) does not cover anti-gay hatred.

Finally, it is well-known that Gore favors the registration of firearms. He has not empahasized it because he wants to win in gun-toting Michigan and Pennsylvania. It's difficult to understand what you are saying here, but of course Gore has not favored outright universal confiscation. But many gun owners (don't forget there are 60 million or so of them) believe that registration will precede confiscation, as it did in Australia and England.

"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."

And link to the petition directly is here.

I was wrong about it being 19,000 scientists. It's actually "only" 17,100 scientists.

Here's the explanation with some stats on the people signing the petition--

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

An interesting appeal to authority claim. Many of those Nobel prize winners have nothing whatsoever to do with climate or weather studies.

But if it is petitions you want, check out the Oregon Petition which has over 15,000 signatories denouncing the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.

If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500

Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example.

In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus!

You are aware that the Petition Project has signed non-climate specialists and such "scientists" as TV weather announcers, while the UCS petition signers are largely climatologists?
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -

If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500, or b) the temps before 1500 may have been this high. In the case of global temperatures, the answer is b. Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example. Climatologists acknowledge that temperatures rose in medieval times, dropped around 1400, spiked up higher than now around 1500 (thus the quote from BBC), and then we entered what they call a "little ice age" in the 1700's. That's what we're coming out of now.

The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.

In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus! Each year, humans put about 5.5 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere. The surface ocean and the atmosphere exchange 90 Gt, vegetation and the atmosphere 60Gt, etc, etc. These numbers are all estimates, of course, and, unlike you, I will cite a scientific paper written by climatologists that reviews the current evidence of global warming.

Finally, your assertion that climate scientists are running for the hills or packing their bags for Mars is inaccurate. There is, for example, the Petition Project, an effort circulated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, that has garnered over 17,000 signatures of qualified scientists. It states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A competing pro-warming petition, circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997, had secured a paltry 1,559 signatures. See this article for details.

You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.

If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500, or b) the temps before 1500 may have been this high. In the case of global temperatures, the answer is b. Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example. Climatologists acknowledge that temperatures rose in medieval times, dropped around 1400, spiked up higher than now around 1500 (thus the quote from BBC), and then we entered what they call a "little ice age" in the 1700's. That's what we're coming out of now.

The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.

In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus! Each year, humans put about 5.5 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere. The surface ocean and the atmosphere exchange 90 Gt, vegetation and the atmosphere 60Gt, etc, etc. These numbers are all estimates, of course, and, unlike you, I will cite a scientific paper written by climatologists that reviews the current evidence of global warming.

Finally, your assertion that climate scientists are running for the hills or packing their bags for Mars is inaccurate. There is, for example, the Petition Project, an effort circulated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, that has garnered over 17,000 signatures of qualified scientists. It states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A competing pro-warming petition, circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997, had secured a paltry 1,559 signatures. See this article for details.

You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.

If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500, or b) the temps before 1500 may have been this high. In the case of global temperatures, the answer is b. Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example. Climatologists acknowledge that temperatures rose in medieval times, dropped around 1400, spiked up higher than now around 1500 (thus the quote from BBC), and then we entered what they call a "little ice age" in the 1700's. That's what we're coming out of now.

The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.

In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus! Each year, humans put about 5.5 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere. The surface ocean and the atmosphere exchange 90 Gt, vegetation and the atmosphere 60Gt, etc, etc. These numbers are all estimates, of course, and, unlike you, I will cite a scientific paper written by climatologists that reviews the current evidence of global warming.

Finally, your assertion that climate scientists are running for the hills or packing their bags for Mars is inaccurate. There is, for example, the Petition Project, an effort circulated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, that has garnered over 17,000 signatures of qualified scientists. It states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A competing pro-warming petition, circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997, had secured a paltry 1,559 signatures. See this article for details.

You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.