31,000+ scientists (9000+ w/Phds) say CO2 not causing global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bruxley

New member
First the link:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

31,072 scientists including 9,021 Phds have signed off on a petition urging the United States Government to reject Kyoto and any other similar proposals citing that reduction in such greenhouse gases would harm the environment among other damaging effects.

They cite a peer reviewed study done by the established scientific method with the repeatable results that establish credibility in the scientific community. A standard that has yet to be met by those promoting the 'squishy' CO2 scare.

The study, the list signers, and any other disclosure one would like is available for review.

Lately the CO2 emission cause of the slight increase in global temperature that ended aprox. 10 years ago has faced great scrutiny. More and more the scientific community is finding that no such causation exists.

There are those that see potential seizure of wealth and control on the momentum the near religious clinging to this again debunked claim. Hopefully now that there is proof that this is not the case those true believers can find that their faith has been misplaced and we can all return to a sane approach to being good stewards of our environment.
 
Carbon Tax. Yay. This is the reason, in my opinion, that the opposing side of this issue is being so conveniently swept under the rug. The inconvenient truth is right..ha.
 
Do your really believe the media, the so called Celebrities of Hollywood, and the Democrats are going to read, let alone believe contray evidence. No they are going to hold onto Global Warming until glaciers cover the Midwest as far south as Texas.
Why, because it gives them power, power because of the gullibity and fear the masses have. Save the Planet, Go Green. and all that jazz.

What they could never accomplish through socialistic programs, the can accomplish through love of the planet. Anything that gives them control and power over someone else they will keep like a three your old holds onto a piece of candy.
 
Not too long ago I was shouted down and called a 'flat earther' on this very forum for pointing out that the only research that had direct corolation was solar activity. Well guess what..........:D
 
While the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming may well be false, this petition doesn't mean much does it? Most of the people who signed it are not in a field of science that deals with the environment, most have never studied or conducted environmental research, and many are not even verified to exist.
 
While the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming may well be false, this petition doesn't mean much does it? Most of the people who signed it are not in a field of science that deals with the environment, most have never studied or conducted environmental research, and many are not even verified to exist.
Click to expand...

So, it's the same as the MMGW supporters, eh?
 
31,000+ scientists (9000+ w/Phds) say CO2 not causing global warming
Click to expand...

I 'Googled' to read the latest on Global Warming and one of the first things I found was this list of 500 scientists who's field is actually researching Global Warming.

The list includes researchers from many of the world’s top research institutions, such as the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory affiliated with Columbia University, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysical Research, the Woods Hole and Scripps Oceanographic Institutes, Sweden’s Upsala University, New Zealand’s Waikato University, South Africa’s Witwatersrand University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Their research found the following:

1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;

2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.

3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;

4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

5) Fewer human deaths are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the Earth is always warming or cooling;

6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating; or

7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power

Wait a minute, none of that agrees with what the famous scientist Al Gore says on the subject.
 
While the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming may well be false, this petition doesn't mean much does it? Most of the people who signed it are not in a field of science that deals with the environment, most have never studied or conducted environmental research, and many are not even verified to exist.
Click to expand...

If you actually go to the site and review the information there you will see that there is a peer reviewed scientific publication done by the established scientific method available for download and review that they have attached to the petition.

This is what is considered by the scientific community to be as close to proof as it gets. It's not a hypothosis anymore. CO2 has been proven to be advantages to the environment. These aren't poloticians or interns, these are scientists very capable of evaluation of scientific publications and performing peer review of such. The link leaves little to question on content, review process, credetials, etc.
 
If you actually go to the site and review the information there you will see that there is a peer reviewed scientific publication done by the established scientific method available for download and review that they have attached to the petition.
Click to expand...

Actually what the "Marshall Insitute" did was in 1998 send a mass e-mail with an attachment that purported to be a published, peer-reviewed article. Specifically, the mass e-mail doctored the article to look as though it was part of the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Oopsy!
 
I 'Googled' to read the latest on Global Warming and one of the first things I found was this list of 500 scientists who's field is actually researching Global Warming.
Click to expand...

You undoubtedly forget to mention, first, that the list of points is from the book "Unstoppable Global Warming."

And, second, that the list of scientists is from the citations in the book, and the authors of the list and the book take pains to point out that "CITATION OF THE WORK OF THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEY NECESSARILY SUPPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS."

(The emphasis is theirs.)
 
This 12 page review was published in 2007. I see no reference to the Marshal Institute having authored it 10 years ago and has been peer reviewed by at least the 31,000 signatories on the petition. It was published in an established scientific publication and I further see no citations to it being found to be doctored as you allege the Marshal Institute publication 10 years prior may have been.

What is your assertion?
 
The petition signers are a wide range of science-related professionals. What does the opinion of, say a cancer chemotherapy doctor, have to do with the debate on global warming?

Here is a snippet from the Seattle Times about this petition:

"In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said."
 
Did you join The Firing Line just so you can talk about Global Warming?
Click to expand...

I didn't.

But maybe it's a short step from, "Gee, is my rifle barrel too hot?"

(You have to admit, Perry Mason signing that petition is very cool. Pun intended.)
 
That petition and this one are different items. Let's not stay confused. The OP is referring to a 2007 publication not some earlier one. 2006 and prior date commentaries are obviously not related to a 2007 peer reviewed scientific publication. Unless muddy water is the GOAL relevant commentary would be appropriate.
 
That petition and this one are different items. Let's not stay confused. The OP is referring to a 2007 publication not some earlier one. 2006 and prior date commentaries are obviously not related to a 2007 peer reviewed scientific publication. Unless muddy water is the GOAL relevant commentary would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Now I figure you're joking -- but, damn, it's good for a laugh. There's only one "petitionproject." Read the link I posted. The decades-old petition and signature list was just recirculated. Same hoax, just rejuvenated.

Also, you might want to examine the link you posted to start this thing.

The little signature card at the beginning? The one this "project" is so proud of? Purporting to be from a famous guy?

That's Edward Teller.

He died in September, 2003.

How carefully do you think Dr. Teller reviewed this "2007" article?

Lol.
 
While I don't believe CO2 is causing global warming and have a Ph.D., as a Ph.D. I have to laugh at the sheer silliness of the petition. I did not sign it.

I don't see where many of those people, being scientists or not, have any experience in the necessary fields to have a valid opinion on whether CO2 causes global warming or not. How many MDs or DVMs (animal doctors, LOL) really know squat about global warming? At least one of the signers is from Texas and I know him. He has a Ph.D. He is a kinesiologist.

In checking Texas names, I see seismologists, astronomers, social scientists, etc. to go with the medical and veterinary doctors.

So a bunch of educated people signed off on the petition. That is great, but just because they are "scientists" doesn't make their opinions on the subject any more valid than my "scientific opinion" materials to MDs and DVMs.
 
Well I was under the impression that scientific journals were reluctant to publish rehashed hoaxes. I am apparently mistaken.

And I was also under the impression that peer review was about scientific method. That the data presented was derived in the standard scientific method and met the criteria of being repeatable and that the same results would be achieved should another perform the same analysis. I didn't realize every peer had to be expert in that discipline. I wasn't aware they didn't teach scientific method to all Phds.

From the summary:
Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

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.

The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written 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.
Click to expand...

Atypical ? Not at all. In fact it follows the same methodology as any publish scientific paper doesn't it......

Are there any peer reviewed works that have been published in scientific journals that are peer reviewed by only experts in climate change (is there such a thing as Phd in climate change?) that find that CO2 and climate change is causational or that it damages the environment, the survival of species, etc.?

31,000 scientists including 9000 Phds duped but you saw right through it.

Suuure...........

As a scientist maybe you could help us with what about this current peer reviewed publication is dubious. The vague innuendo attacking the signatories aside perhaps you could apply some real critique to the paper and share that with us.

Interesting note about the much touted UN IPCC report so many true believers hold up as 'established science':
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.
Click to expand...
In short not only NOT peer reviewed but NOT truly authored by those referenced or subject to aproval by said 'authors' after edit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top