Cimategate 2 - Climate study shows no change: man made global warming is bunk (biased, compare)
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.
This is the letter sent with the petition, authored by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, USA ... President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.
After pushing uncertainty on tobacco smoking and the ozone hole, Seitz moved on to creating doubt on AGW. Don't feel bad if you've swallowed his campaign of disinformation, he had plenty of time to hone his skills.
BTW he started that petition in 1998. So less than 3000 scientists per year have signed it on average. I think that qualifies as a trace amount of annual science graduates.
Last edited by Turboblocke; 11-01-2011 at 10:57 AM..
Reason: typo
After pushing uncertainty on tobacco smoking and the ozone hole, Seitz moved on to creating doubt on AGW. Don't feel bad if you've swallowed his campaign of disinformation, he had plenty of time to hone his skills.
BTW he started that petition in 1998. So less than 3000 scientists per year have signed it on average. I think that qualifies as a trace amount of annual science graduates.
Don't tell me - you STILL haven't read the BEST article...because if you had, you would know it confirms the irrelevant "warming" (1/2 degree over 150 years) had stopped some 13 years ago.
But, how does one of the cult believers explain the planet was much, much warmer in the past?
And how do they explain that apparently Co2 has continued to increase (even though it's STILL only a minute amount in the scheme of things) and warming has stopped?
Don't tell me - you STILL haven't read the BEST article...because if you had, you would know it confirms the irrelevant "warming" (1/2 degree over 150 years) had stopped some 13 years ago.
But, how does one of the cult believers explain the planet was much, much warmer in the past?
Natural climate change, which means that temperatures can go up and down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
And how do they explain that apparently Co2 has continued to increase (even though it's STILL only a minute amount in the scheme of things) and warming has stopped?
If it were true that warming had stopped it would be because natural climate change is still going on in a downward direction, with man-made climate change added to it. What do you expect? That all natural climate change stops and temperatures rise steadily with increasing CO2? Surely not, because that would be daft.
No, your gasp of reality is the only matter in question here.
The small detail that you seem to be missing is that these "Peer Reviewed" publications only publish that which agrees with AGW. So in that sense, they surely can claim 100% consensus. But whether that constitutes 5 climate scientists, or 500 ... it's still totally bogus to claim "scientific consensus" with a petition signed by 31,000 + credentialed opponents claiming that AGW is total hogwash.
This should be obvious to you ... that it isn't, speaks volumes.
After pushing uncertainty on tobacco smoking and the ozone hole, Seitz moved on to creating doubt on AGW. Don't feel bad if you've swallowed his campaign of disinformation, he had plenty of time to hone his skills.
BTW he started that petition in 1998. So less than 3000 scientists per year have signed it on average. I think that qualifies as a trace amount of annual science graduates.
No, not according to my math, when compared to the claim of 2,000 Scientists on board with the IPCC report, it looks like the petition eclipsed the total number of IPCC scientists each and every year for the past 10 years strong.
Looks like 15 to 1 .... according to my calculations. But the reality is, the claimed 2,000 IPCC scientists who agree is a totally bogus figure itself, since many of them have come forward to protest their association with this report after their contrary conclusions were omitted, while claiming they agreed. Some had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed.
Of course that might only be pertinent to someone with severe math challenges who aren't able to recognize the overwhelming nature of a 31,000 to 2,000 majority in disagreement.
For those people ... the condition is not a laughing matter
After pushing uncertainty on tobacco smoking and the ozone hole, Seitz moved on to creating doubt on AGW. Don't feel bad if you've swallowed his campaign of disinformation, he had plenty of time to hone his skills.
BTW he started that petition in 1998. So less than 3000 scientists per year have signed it on average. I think that qualifies as a trace amount of annual science graduates.
Oh no ... gasp .... he didn't do that, did he? He questioned the ozone hole?
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? The Ozone Hole that ate New York never showed up .... in the 1980's, just after the "Global Cooling" scam fell flat on it's fraudulent face, the great Ozone Hole threat was dreamed and schemed up to take it's place. And even now, after it has been repeatedly proven to be a fraud for 30+ years, you "Flat Earthers" are still afraid to take a cruise to the Bahamas for fear of sailing off the edge of the horizon.
Don't tell me - you STILL haven't read the BEST article...because if you had, you would know it confirms the irrelevant "warming" (1/2 degree over 150 years) had stopped some 13 years ago.
The BEST data not only shows warming stopped 13 years ago, it shows it stopped numerous times since 1975. See my post:
Did you read the BEST paper? I have. If you had read it carefully you would have notice it does not confirm 0.5°C warming in the last 150 years, but 1.48±0.13°C. More specifically, that the last decade was warmer by 1.48±0.13°C (that's 2.67±0.23°F) than the average for the 19th century.
The slope of the trend line (from ordinary least squares) is only 0.03 deg.C/decade. It’s fair to call that “flat.” But the standard error from that calculation — even if we use a white-noise model — is 0.13 deg.C/decade. So the real value could be as high as 0.29 deg.C/decade
...
Or, based on that margin, it could be as low as -.23C/decade...
RCCCB, you won't change the minds of the global warming fanatics on here. Global warming is their Scientology. Both are being led down the primrose path while bilking them out of their money
This is a perfect response for the clueless who cannot understand science and. therefore, substitute paranoia/economics for an argument they are ill suited to argue in the first place.
It has to be a money making scheme to "bilk you out of your money".
Even though the science is overwhelming. No matter, to the paranoid and uninformed, it is the perfect scam, scientists from all over the world, of every nationality and personal belief lining up behind the peer reviewed measurements and climate models.
Sadly, this country remains the most clueless industrialized country in the world, thanks in large part to propaganda outlets like FOX, expert in spreading disinformation to their challenged audiences.
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.
gasp 
