Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that is a group whose very existence and income depends on further government funding - which depends on them concluding that Global Climate Change is not only real, but is happening at an alarming rate, and if we don't spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on it, will result in the total destruction of the earth.
Just to clarify for others who may be reading this ... the government funding you speak of is funding from the US government as well as dozens and dozens of other governments:
The IPCC is funded by regular contributions from its parents’ organizations WMO and UNEP, the UNFCCC and voluntary contributions by its member countries. WMO also hosts the IPCC Secretariat and WMO and UNEP provide one staff member each for the IPCC Secretariat. Information about contribution received and expenditures incurred is provided by the Secretariat to the Panel. It is contained in the document on programme and budget.
The contributions form the IPCC Trust Fund which is administered under the Financial Regulations of the WMO. The Trust Fund supports the IPCC activities, in particular the participation of developing country experts in the IPCC work, and publication and translation of IPCC reports.
Governments provide further substantial support for activities of the IPCC, in particular through hosting Technical Support Units, supporting the participation of experts from their country in IPCC activities, hosting meetings etc.
31,000 scientists have signed the petition. They say 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. 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.
I like the signature on the example posted at the top of the page: "Edward Teller, PhD Physics" - has been dead almost 10 years, and if you google his name and "global warming" you'll find he supported the theory.
How were the signatures verified? Other articles have noted that several of the "PhDs" are "Doctors of Divinity" which would not be my idea of a scientist.
This petition was circulated quite a few years ago but I'm not sure when. It's not something new but I don't know if it's older that 10 years. Assuming it's legitimate and I have found nothing convincing enough to say otherwise it would be better labeled a list of academics that don't agree with it. The senate list I linked to previously is much more focused group.
Quote:
and if you google his name and "global warming" you'll find he supported the theory.
The argument is not whether the globe is warming. It's been warming and cooling for the entire length of time it's been existence. Where the division occurs at this point in time is whether it's caused by humans specifically CO2 emissions.
Supposing it is caused by humans even the effects of this are debated:
........“His mind is still so open and flexible,†Sacks says. Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.†Dyson — a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory — not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten, the “high priest of string theory†whose office at the institute is just across the hall from Dyson’s. Yet instead of hewing to that fundamental field, Dyson chose to pursue broader and more unusual pursuits than most physicists — and has lived a more original life.
Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do
This petition was circulated quite a few years ago but I'm not sure when. It's not something new but I don't know if it's older that 10 years. Assuming it's legitimate and I have found nothing convincing enough to say otherwise it would be better labeled a list of academics that don't agree with it. The senate list I linked to previously is much more focused group.
That's pretty much the problem with the petition - it's really part of the old "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" petition, for which the majority of signatures were emailed in and never verified as legitimate. To stir all of that questionable data in with a later effort to get the petition going was a huge mistake on the part of the originators, because it makes an unknown percentage of the signatories completely unverifiable. All you had to do was fill in a name and check a box which claimed a science degree.
31,000 scientists have signed the petition. They say 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. 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.
Are they lying?
While the petition itself may be bogus. the premise is accurate enough.
The current hysteria surrounding "global warming", which incidentally has been changed to "climate change" in the politics of hysteria, is based soleley on conjectur and opinions.
31,000 scientists have signed the petition. They say 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. 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.
Other scientists who don't 'specialize' in climate change (which seems like it would have its own self-servicing issues) can still weigh in as they know how to properly look at, interpret, and give credibility to scientific 'studies' and 'data.'
I don't have a degree in weather, but I can point out why some of the 'stats' quoted that claim to 'prove' global warming is man-made have weaknesses.
Other scientists who don't 'specialize' in climate change (which seems like it would have its own self-servicing issues) can still weigh in as they know how to properly look at, interpret, and give credibility to scientific 'studies' and 'data.'
I don't have a degree in weather, but I can point out why some of the 'stats' quoted that claim to 'prove' global warming is man-made has weaknesses.
That's fair, Stan. It's easier for a scientist to go through the literature, sure. And I've found methological flaws on both sides. But, at the same time, even though I'm a chemist, I can't claim to have a reasonable opinion on the subject. For one, there is a lot of data to go through. A scientist would have to be a hobby climatologist (imo) to have a somewhat solid grasp of what's possibly going on. OTOH, it's reasonable to assume that other scientists can weigh in on particular papers/research. Although, I've never been very good at blowing through papers outside my area of specialization, quickly finding the talking points, and weaving it all together as a cohesive body of knowledge.
Any way, none of this is to say that I think global warming is man-made. Taking time to understand the science is enough. Throwing in possible human contributions goes right over my head. Regardless of the topic, though, if any funny business is found in a paper, or this petition, specifically, I tend to throw it out and move on.
I mean, you and I know that you actually have to learn how to read a scientific study.
It makes me nuts when the media just gloms on a number that sounds dramatic, splashes it across the headlines, and takes advantage of the fact that most people don't understand how it was derived or its actual statistical significance.
X increases your risk of cancer by 30%!!!!! Yeah, well, if your original risk was 0.0003%, a 30% increase is hardly newsworthy...but there you go. And I notice the media never talks about NNT (number needed to treat). I don't expect the drug companies to, but the media is supposed to be 'unbiased.'
Frankly, I have not been exposed to any data regarding global warming that would lead me to believe that it isn't part of the natural cycle of cooling and warming the earth goes through (or influenced by recent increased sun activity). That being said, I think we as a species are incredibly wasteful and dirty and could really work on that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
