Fed-up Climate Scientists Call for Strong Climate Treaty

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Fed-up scientists call for strong climate treaty

By SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press
12/06/07

Washington — For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."

A petition from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It is directed at a conference of diplomats meeting in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate the next global warming treaty.

The appeal from scientists follows a petition last week from more than 150 global business leaders also demanding the 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases. That is the estimate that scientists calculate would hold future global warming to a little more than a 3-degree Fahrenheit increase.

In the past, many of these scientists have avoided calls for action, leaving that to environmental advocacy groups. They took that dispassionate stance during the release this year of four separate reports by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But no more.

"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said petition signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."

The unprecedented petition includes scientists from more than 25 countries and shows that "the climate science community is essentially fed up," said signer Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada.
It includes many co-authors of the intergovernmental climate change panel reports, directors of major American and European climate science research institutions and a Nobel winner for atmospheric chemistry.

"A lot of us scientists think the problem needs a lot more serious attention than it's getting and the remedies have to be a lot more radical," said Richard Seager, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Several scientists who signed on talked of losing patience.

"Action needs to be taken and needs to be taken now," said Marika Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who signed on. "The longer we wait, the worse it's going to become."
Negotiators in Bali are working on the initial groundwork for a treaty that would take effect after 2012, the expiration date of the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty the United States didn't sign.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/05/warming_1206.html

I was just wondering, do the "global warming isn't real" crowd have equally esteemed and validated groups of climate scientists that back their claim?

I don't know, so I'm asking.
 
I was just wondering, do the "global warming isn't real" crowd have equally esteemed and validated groups of climate scientists that back their claim?

I don't know, so I'm asking.

Why would it matter to you? You ignore peer review when it suits you on conspiracies so why would it matter so much and count so much here?
 
Why would it matter to you? You ignore peer review when it suits you on conspiracies so why would it matter so much and count so much here?

I've offered plenty of peer review to the contrary of what you claim .. but you ignored it .. because it suited you to ignore it, so don't speak as though you're talking from Mt. Purity.

I asked because I want to see what is offered to counter the issue of global warming and what the credentials are of the people who are offering it .. unlike you my brother. You seem to believe you hold proprietary rights to the truth of the issue you're referring to .. although I've asked you plenty of questions neither you are your peer review could answer.

Can you answer the question I'm asking in THIS thread?
 
215 climate scientists from 25 countries are signing this petition. I'd be interested to see what the total number of climate scientists there are in the 218 countries in the world.
I would guess that is far from a majority but it is a guess.
I think there is a less vocal minority or perhaps majority that is not quite so definite on believing it to be that degree of a crisis, but they are afraid to speak up for a variety of reasons.
 
215 climate scientists from 25 countries are signing this petition. I'd be interested to see what the total number of climate scientists there are in the 218 countries in the world.
I would guess that is far from a majority but it is a guess.
I think there is a less vocal minority or perhaps majority that is not quite so definite on believing it to be that degree of a crisis, but they are afraid to speak up for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps they don't speak up because they don't have strong arguments.

The point of my question is to find of if ANY group of climate scientists support the argument against the reality of global warming.
 
I've offered plenty of peer review to the contrary of what you claim .. but you ignored it .. because it suited you to ignore it, so don't speak as though you're talking from Mt. Purity.

I asked because I want to see what is offered to counter the issue of global warming and what the credentials are of the people who are offering it .. unlike you my brother. You seem to believe you hold proprietary rights to the truth of the issue you're referring to .. although I've asked you plenty of questions neither you are your peer review could answer.

Can you answer the question I'm asking in THIS thread?
Except you didn't. I offered the only published peer-reviewed papers. They did not support your view. You ignored them.

As for your question in this thread.

I honestly don't know what deniers think. And I don't really care. There is plenty of good reasons to clean up the environment regardless.
 
Perhaps they don't speak up because they don't have strong arguments.

The point of my question is to find of if ANY group of climate scientists support the argument against the reality of global warming.
Why would it have to be a group? Many discoveries and sceptics like Copernicus and Gallileo throughout the ages were individuals who went against the group and were eventually vindicated.

There are several dozen that are mentioned here, though by no means all of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 
Why would it have to be a group? Many discoveries and sceptics like Copernicus and Gallileo throughout the ages were individuals who went against the group and were eventually vindicated.

There are several dozen that are mentioned here, though by no means all of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I agree with that too.

But in deciding the strength of any scientific or technical argument, the credentials and expertise of those making the argument has to be factored.

That's all I'm trying to do

Your list only had one scientist who doesn't believe global warming isn't occuring.
 
Last edited:
Except you didn't. I offered the only published peer-reviewed papers. They did not support your view. You ignored them.

As for your question in this thread.

I honestly don't know what deniers think. And I don't really care. There is plenty of good reasons to clean up the environment regardless.

Give it up dude. You listened to what makes sense to you and discounted what you didn't want to believe no matter what the credentials of the person or group may be.

Published "peer reviews" like Popular Mechanics, previously best known for how to unstop your toliet, has been proven to be nothing but contrived excuses, and like you, can't answer a host of questions.
 
Give it up dude. You listened to what makes sense to you and discounted what you didn't want to believe no matter what the credentials of the person or group may be.

Published "peer reviews" like Popular Mechanics, previously best known for how to unstop your toliet, has been proven to be nothing but contrived excuses, and like you, can't answer a host of questions.
I love the dismissive nature of your posts. However, in order to be "respected" as a scientist one must publish peer reviewed papers.

One of the strongest arguments against the deniers claims is that all the peer-review is on one side. It is the same with your conspiracy.

I mentioned in that thread, and will here too. I am always amazed by the way people are able to give such credence to such peer review in one area but totally reject it in another.

There is not even one published peer reviewed paper that supports your side, there are several (not all in "Popular Mechanics" as you claim) on my side.

Either you can find some peer review on this or you should accept those websites with all those scientists listed that are against global warming. They have exactly the same credence.
 
I love the dismissive nature of your posts. However, in order to be "respected" as a scientist one must publish peer reviewed papers.

One of the strongest arguments against the deniers claims is that all the peer-review is on one side. It is the same with your conspiracy.

I mentioned in that thread, and will here too. I am always amazed by the way people are able to give such credence to such peer review in one area but totally reject it in another.

There is not even one published peer reviewed paper that supports your side, there are several (not all in "Popular Mechanics" as you claim) on my side.

Either you can find some peer review on this or you should accept those websites with all those scientists listed that are against global warming. They have exactly the same credence.

I have no problem with your hiding behind "peer reviews" or needing them to believe anything. I don't have such a need and I don't need them now. What I'm looking for are the credentials and expertise of those who suggest global warming isn't real. Unlike you, I'm interested in what experts have to say.

A group of "peers" like Pilots for 9/11 Truth with their enormous credentials and expertise should be listened to. It doesn't matter that you don't want to hear them and you'd rather rely on your brother, who I suspect does not have their credentials and expertise. That's your call.

And given that there are scientists, experts, or websites with an opposing view does not mean that anyone should simply accept what they say.

I mean, what the hell is your argument? You've accepted what you believe about 9/11 no differently than anyone else has, and no differently than what you believe about global warming, whatever that is.

If you don't mind, some of us like to hear both sides of the argument.
 
Last edited:
Well, it appears that you didn't bother going to the link with the list of scientists that give that other side.

I offered that as well...

As I said, I find it fun and amazing.

You call it "respected", but I know in those circles to be "respected" it takes peer review. Ignoring that when it is convenient is just sad.
 
It's so gay to post GW data to bash the nuckleheaded 1% who still dissagree.
George freaking "denial" Bush even thinks it's a serious problem.
I know right now your kicking sand in a little kids face, get back to this 1% bashing later.
 
I agree with that too.

But in deciding the strength of any scientific or technical argument, the credentials and expertise of those making the argument has to be factored.

That's all I'm trying to do
I disagree that credentials are what should decide who is right, that is an appeal to authority. What counts more is the contents of their arguments, and then specifically in regard to existing observations over proposed theory.

"At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." - Jan Veizer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Your list only had one scientist who doesn't believe global warming isn't occuring.
Right, they are non-standard views, with a variety of different opinions on the subject, most sound very objective and are not adhering to accepting or denying all parts of either side.
 
Back
Top