Fed-up Climate Scientists Call for Strong Climate Treaty

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

I listened to experts and ignored government sponsored peer reviews about the threat of Saddam and WMD and came to the correct conclusion even before the war began.

I listened to and ignored many peer reviews about the safety of electronic voting and came to the correct conclusion about that too.

Your need for peer reviews is OK by me.

Again, what's your argument? You seem to believe that your peer reviews answers all questions and closes the door to anyother thought even when the evidence supports it. It does not.

On the issue of GLOBAL WARMING, I'm not touting the conclusions of this group because they have published any peer review, but that they are CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and wondering if the opposition to what they're saying had an equal numbers and quality of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
 
IHG said:
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

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.
Click to expand...

Credentials aren't the only factor in coming to a conclusion, but if my heart starts beating irreguarly, I'm going to want to talk to a heart specialist, not a dentist, no matter how eloquently the dentist can explain my problem.

Then I'd seek out another heart specialist, and perhaps another before coming to a conclusion.

Additionally, I was more interested in the scientific credentials of those who don't believe global warming exists at all. No matter what the catalyst, human or natural, the more important question is what can we do about it.
 
blackascoal said:
Credentials aren't the only factor in coming to a conclusion, but if my heart starts beating irreguarly, I'm going to want to talk to a heart specialist, not a dentist, no matter how eloquently the dentist can explain my problem.

Then I'd seek out another heart specialist, and perhaps another before coming to a conclusion.
Additionally, I was more interested in the scientific credentials of those who don't believe global warming exists at all.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the analogy, all the scientists in that list have decent credentials with at least some or complete relation to what's involved in climate research.
If I had posted a link to say biologists opinion on global warming then your analogy would make sense.

blackascoal said:
No matter what the catalyst, human or natural, the more important question is what can we do about it.
Click to expand...
What can we or should we? I think the drive to do something about it stems from a desire to preserve the environment of where some people live. But no such precedent exists.
People and animals adapt to changes in their environment and always have, that is pretty much the basis of all life leading to this point, to stop that and shift to changing or stabilizing the environment to suit the beings within it just strikes me as wrong and unnatural.
 
blackascoal said:
I listened to experts and ignored government sponsored peer reviews about the threat of Saddam and WMD and came to the correct conclusion even before the war began.

I listened to and ignored many peer reviews about the safety of electronic voting and came to the correct conclusion about that too.

Your need for peer reviews is OK by me.

Again, what's your argument? You seem to believe that your peer reviews answers all questions and closes the door to anyother thought even when the evidence supports it. It does not.

On the issue of GLOBAL WARMING, I'm not touting the conclusions of this group because they have published any peer review, but that they are CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and wondering if the opposition to what they're saying had an equal numbers and quality of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Click to expand...
Hence the reason I supplied a link with a list of climate scientists who had an opposing opinion. Again you decided to talk about how great you are for ignoring peer reviews rather than looking at the information you asked for.
 
Credential and consensus don't matter in science. The ability to use a theory to predict outcomes matters. So far, I have seen a lot where the consensus on global warming has been wrong at being able to offer accurate predictions. That does not necessarily mean the overall notion is wrong. There are a lot of variable factors involved that can be missed on this subject.

Another area where the left rejects consensus and credentials is on trade (and frankly economics in general). I don't know of a single legitimate economist that does not acknowledge the truth of comparative advantage and it has been proven in practice. Yet the radical lefties (and it is only the radical lefties) and a few nAHZi types deny it.
 
uscitizen said:
Damo did you look at the editing history of that wiki tiki article you linked to ?
Click to expand...
No. He wanted a list of scientists. I put one up.

This isn't my favorite issue. I don't really care about it. I think we should clean up the environment regardless of global warming.
 
IHG said:
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.
Click to expand...


The science has bypassed the flat earthers, IHG.

Hoping against hope that the deniers will someday be deemed latter-day Copernicus' and be proven "right", is really not a viable way to discuss this.

Every major scientific body and organization on the planet, with expertise in climate science, is in agreement of the basic parameters and causes of global warming. Every single nation on the planet signed off, and agreed with the conclusions of IPCC.

You'll always be able to troll around cyberspace to find someone who has a meterology or economics degree, who disagrees with the scientific consensus. In fact, you'll still be able to find people who have science degrees who disagree with the nearly universal scientific consensus that second-hand smoke is a major health risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top