Climate Change: Is There Debate?
February 15, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
17 000 scientists in biological and climate sciences say yes. (Hat Tip to Canadian Blue Lemons)
So much for consensus.
Now, can we finally put away the neo-nazi rhetoric and have an intelligent discussion, or are all these scientists in the pockets of Big Oil?
And how does one verify from that list what the qualification of an individual is, or for that matter, if the person exists?
I followed the links to the site of the list, and it explains how the signatories are confirmed as accredited scientists and where they are employed, and what fields they practice in.
“SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS
Many conservatives regard the “scientific consensus” about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn’t 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See http://www.oism.org/pproject and http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petitionâ€â€one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers–a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”
that came from http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?.....9EC588EF21
It’s flattering to know that the Liberal party members like Tom read this blog and feel the need to try and suppress it with paper clips and glue.
The only debate to be had in climate change seems to be amongst like-minded folks. Once you mix the two, you get climate change denier labels slapped across your forehead and more op-ed material like Tom cites here.
Uhhh, have you looked at that list? Any scientist will pop up immediately in a google search, with their affiliation. You will also see records of conferences attended, etc.
I googled a few of the M’s. Two were MDs, one was an architect, and the others only had about six hits, at least two related to this petition. Nice list…
Good points as liberals lie and cheat to win and the slow witted public is too scaredy to call them on it. But we have too.
What if global warming was the first phase of global cooling which was caused by events external to our solar system? Then what, is Kyoto wasting human resources to prop up global socialism for nothing?
I’ll bite on the trolling by Kelly.
I agree that the word consensus should not be used to describe opinion on climate change. Nonetheless, if this list is bogus or at the least misleading, that should be pointed out. If you have a problem with that I think there’s some phrase about a kettle and a pot…I forget the details.
Are these the same “scientists” who believe in intelligent design?
P.S. Tom didn’t write that… his name was in the name field when I opened up this page, and I didn’t catch it until I posted my comment. Sorry for the confusion.
Which part/individual of the Liberal party do you work for Tom?
I’m open to serious review and criticism of the signatores on the petition (as the original poster).
Of course the IPCC pimps and whores will try to discredit such a thing in their inquisition.
I’ve been starting to check the credentials of the IPCC scientists. It’s too big a job for me alone – drop me a note if some people wanna get together on this. Or go for it if ya dont have anything better to do.
Tom said,
“Tom wrote:
And how does one verify from that list what the qualification of an individual is, or for that matter, if the person exists?”
The answer is in part, by their publication record, especially if it’s still active, and certainly not simply from the alphabet soup that follows their name.
The beauty of the information age, everybody is an expert, except the experts.
I don’t work for the liberal party or an member there of. Not to say I never will. But here are some facts:
I used to be a member of the Progressive Conservative party both federally and provincially.
I voted for Mike Harris.
I have a cousin who used to be a federal cabinet minister in the Mulroney government.
by not working for a memeber I mean a mp or liberal party offical…one of my bosses might be a member…that I’m not sure of.
and….ooo…some more for you kelly…
I’ve never voted Liberal in a federal election (didn’t vote for Eves in ontario).
I’ve voted PC in all the federal elections except the last, well they didn’t exists so I really couldn’t vote PC that time. I voted NDP last time but I won’t make that mistake twice.
I believe Kelly must have sustained a head injury. Prayers up! (there, you can have a drink).
In Kelly’s world, anyone who doesn’t kneel at the Shrine or Rand is a “Liberal”.
But seriously Tom, which department do you work in at the CBC? LOL.
Brian Lemon – that’s an excellent suggestion. I will drop you a note, I’ll be happy to help out. Here’s the deal, we discuss findings (perhaps on an ongoing basis) here and elsewhere, regardless of whether the results support our respective current opinion. Fair enough?
Kelly, wanna play too?
Following up on my previous comment, I thought I’d spend a few minutes trying to understand the institute and grab a petition list (from 1998).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....d_Medicine
Read the “case study” portion.
If this is what passes in your world for credible alternative opinion, there’s really nothing left to talk about.
People here seem to jump from trying to convince themselves that climate change isn’t real, to trying to minimize evidence that humans have played a significant role, to suggesting that dealing with it is pointless and an economic disaster.
You’re scrambling around trying to scrape up any nugget of information that supports your preconceived notion.
What’s wrong with you people?
BTW Kelly, if you play your drinking game every time Christian, Jesus or Rapture comes up describing the founder and members of this “institute”, you’ll be dead of Alcohol poisoning.
Over and out, thanks for letting me comment here. I wish all of you the best.
S
You’re right…kelly is a little off her rocker today.
I must correct myself. I might have voted liberal two elections ago, I forgot about that one….but once again that was because the good old PC party, which used to be about sensible government with reasonably progressive polices didn’t exist anymore. Maybe they’ll come back to me some day.
Do you even realize how contemptuous you sound?
No, scrambling is not what is happening here. It is this lack of even wanting to understand the reasons for opposition that such arrogance as yours is not uncommon – even as you try to breathe respect and tolerance, you exhibit the very opposite.
You mentioned 3 things: Is climate change real? Is the evidence of climate change that serious? Is dealing with it pointless?
The first question is a valid one to ask. Science is about testing hypotheses, and without doubt, without skepticism, we would still be in the stone age. Why do you ask us to abandon all skepticism?
The second one is connected to the first. If you have skepticism about the question, you must question the “proofs”. Again, why don’t you want the question to be asked? Why doesn’t anyone seem to want the question asked?
The third one is critical. Sometimes it is best to take a step back and look at the solutions offered. Assuming the first question is yes, it is real, do the proposed solutions solve the problem? This is a scientific question. If you invent a cure for cancer, what do you do with it? You expose it to scrutiny, peer review. If it fails that test – if it truly does not cure cancer, do you then put it on the market and charge people money for it, just because of all the hard work that was put into it? Do you implement it because doing something ineffectual is better than doing nothing? (Of course, “doing nothing” really is doing something because you are working on another solution.)
Those are both typical liberal responses. Going through with something for appearances is no way to govern. You ought to be ashamed for endorsing such hogwash. If you are out, then good riddance, for your efforts to stifle dissent, quiet the questioning, and silence legitimate scientific engagement of a hypothesis.
Because don’t forget, I have not seen a single document yet supporting global warming that does not include some kind of probability statement. Global warming has not been proven, even by the believers. It may not even be provable in our lifetimes. This makes it a hypothesis, a theory, not a fact.
Scott, that SourceWatch article is laughable. I can only disagree if you are suggesting that it is a thorough refutation of the OISM. I analyzed their arguments and support not long ago in a discussion with Dr. Dawg at:
http://www.haloscan.com/commen.....14/#156107
(As you’ll see if you follow the link, I really liked their “same font†conspiracy theory.)
In the comment following that one, I showed how easy it is to slap together a similar hit piece – on SourceWatch.
Similarly, Scientific American’s “rough extrapolation†(cited by Tom) is gibberish if it is only supported by the accompanying very unscientific presentation of their survey methodology and results.
If the petition itself can be shown to be fallacious, then by all means do so. But the half-assed hit pieces quoted “didn’t get it doneâ€Â. (Where have I heard that before?)
In the larger scheme of things, it’s only a petition, and does nothing to advance the debate of anthropogenic global warming. It does, however, demonstrate that there are at least two sides to it, contrary to the sometimes shrill denunciations of AGW supporters.
Nope no head injury Scott, just half in the can after playing rounds after rounds of “Scott blames Jesus”. I gotta stop reading your comments or move to American beer. I’ll be disappointed if you leave the comments section of thepolitic.com and don’t start your own blog. But I understand that you feel the most comfort in commenting (shooting down) others beliefs that are not in line with your own. I’ll scan the BT roll for you to pop up again.
Tom, if you’re not in the Liberal party, that’s cool. I just wanted to mention to someone there that the link you posted to the Harper letter the other day has draft documents in the public directory off liberal.ca/pdf/docs/
Keep up the commenting Tom, we will need to backfill a current opening!
2Sheds, drop me an email at, greg@mediablitz.ca. I’ve got a few questions I’d like to ask you,
Thanks!
This petition is laughable – I have googled some of the supposed scientists who have signed this petition, and the results are pretty funny.
Some of them do not register a single hit on Google other than links related to this piece.
One ‘scientist’ on the petition is famous for being a prominent Catholic, and you can sign up to get her e-newsletters on upcoming Catholic camps.
Several dozen under the letter ‘N’ are MD’s.
One guy is a specialist in fats and cholesterol.
One guy is an MD specializing in ‘hand surgery’.
One guy’s biggest claim to fame is a study on “Distribution of Aerially Applied Ratbait in Hawaiian Sugarcane”.
One guy is a specialist on mining.
One guy won an award for “Personnel Management”.
One is Bob Novak – remember him? He outed an active American Spy – possibly endangering her life.
One of the guys first hits was that he was slapped with a restraining order and not allowed to enter the building of a company he defrauded.
One of them is a public notary.
One of them works for the American Military News Service.
And the list goes on and on and on. This is alot of fun – and you guys are completely nuts!
Throbbin is using the AGW PR strategy.
Aggressively discredit everyone who disagrees with their eco-catechism.
And of course Brian Lemon, is using the same AGW PR strategy to attack Dr. Fruitfly (aka Suzuki), cause after all Suzuki is a Biologist and has absolutely no qualification to be able to inteliigently discuss the GW/GCC debate. Yet Public Notaries, Bob Novak, Mining Specialists, specialist in fats and cholesterol all are.
Of course once you actually try to to discuss the science that was used to generate this petition and the methods that were to fake it’s creditails and validity, Brian simply deletes those comments and runs away.
Oh don’t even bother trying to discuss the “scientific Method” with Brian, that just really gets his panties in knot.
The very simple fact of the matter is that the majority of the scientific work which was used to generate this petition was based on Idso work in the 1990′s. The data set that Idso used were in error (hint to both sides if this issue, Idso original data sets were used by both sides of issue) and have since been correct. Idso work is still valid, but the extent to the forcings caused by solar activity on the Earth’s current temperature flux was reduced and is currently used in new IPCC data sets.