How it works is that many people are aware that AGW is looking so much like a crock, one Rasmussen poll in the US quoted that 69% of those polled believed that the scientists in the IPCC had defrauded data in order to support global warming.
The public just don't buy it anymore and the same can be seen in the Australian polls on the Carbon tax, approximately 70% don't want it. If you start bringing up the subject with people generally, you cannot find anyone who wants it and almost as many don't believe in AGW to boot.
Anyone who doesnt fully believe Trevor's fantasy and his beliefs is simply not relevant. They are an "idiot" and if they are actually a scientist, he will simply claim that they are "not a scientist if they disbelieve AGW", or paid off by the "fossil fuel lobby"
Trevor worships as gospel anything that comes from the IPCC and ignores that it may not be what he thinks it is when it comes to honesty and integrity.
Strange part is that looking at Google, many of the IPCC are involved in the World Wildlife fund and they are funded by BP, so in reality you could say that many in the IPCC who are involved in this group are funded by the "fossil fuel" industry. Funny how the "fossil fuel industry" - BP for example fully support AGW and the carbon taxes.
Take a look at how many others are funded by global banks, who originally cooked up this fraud (as well as other "dirty air" scams over the last 40 odd years, and funded it in order to create fear, and rake in profits This is only the tip of the iceberg of fraud and corruption.
Trev can't see through this, and also he is very likely in my opinion also concerned that if the AGW fraud continues to collaps into dust that his wife (who according to others on here works for the CSIRO) loses her job in CSIRO, (Which is also headed by a former one of these global bank officials, and therefore not to be trusted) it will kill their household income if the institute is defunded, in order to appease a public that wants blood, after being conned - and possibly hurt future career prospects for being associated with this organisation, even if she is not involved in the "climate science" part and or wasn't knowingly being dishonest.
Its not hard, you just follow the money, and who benefits from it.
If that
of
he
ts
w
That would be about right. Its how government works.
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences 935 Computer and mathematical sciences 5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences 4,822 Chemistry 2,965 Biology and agriculture 3,046 Medicine 10,102 Engineering and general science
"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"
On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees. I would not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of the debate, were faked. There's also the question of qualifications. I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."
What is your problem with Spencer? Controversial causes and debates all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the debate.
It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly minimal, and still be correct. Climatologists usually don't do their own statistics, don't deal with economic impacts, and have minimal involvement in actual contents of the report. Climatologists and researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists, doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption. If the report required the sole participation of only climate scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.
That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not important.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Did you actually look at that study? After a thorough torturing of the data to get the desired conclusion, they ended up with *79* "climate scientists". A perfect example of cherry picking!
Try this:
formatting link
Note that Judith Curry is chair of atmospheric physics at GA Tech.
I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1]. You'll suffice. Nothing personal.
I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with his position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view. I'll even read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled temperature precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my opinions unless I also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged in any name calling, labeling, word games, or insults. I'll listen to his logic, his rationalizations, and even his dogma, as I would listen to others, who might also be religious, politically incorrect, deranged, unpopular, or insufficiently credentialed. That's because wisdom doesn't come from experts. It comes from those who question the experts.
[1] For the curious, I just trashed a laptop LCD trying to replace the CCFL backlight. Argh.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Aleready done. Jeff provided the time direction corrected graph. The presumed causal connection is voided due to the timing of the changes in CO2 and temperature. You just refuse to understand.
Ha ! No ! Today, the world of Arfa just got a bit better. A company that I used to relieve of a lot of money, but whose work slowly dried up, as that company changed hands and names over the years, seem to have just got themselves a new warranty manager. He emailed me mid week and invited me to call him regarding some new work that he wanted me to look at. It's a bunch of switch-mode power supplies, and having had a squint at a load of samples that arrived yesterday, I think there's going to be a lot of straightforward money to be had again, if he can back the numbers that he was talking !
So I'm going to still need my test equipment for the moment ... d;~}
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list. Something slightly unusual:
Henry W. Apfelbach, MD
Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard in
1946.
formatting link
formatting link
Not much experience in climate reseach.
And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey Mouse.
So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people who specialise in that area.
The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long discedited 'Oregon Petition'?
**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.
I would
**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.
There's also the question of qualifications.
**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some compelling science to accompany it.
**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.
Controversial causes and debates
**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist camp. He is a big target.
**Of course.
Climatologists usually don't do their
**Don't they?
, don't deal with economic impacts,
**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.
and have minimal
**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Climatologists and
**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.
**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.
**Not likely. Unlike you, Mr Liebermann is conducting himself reasonably, rationally, intelligently and is peppering his posts with appropriate cites. You, OTOH, are engaged in little more than sniping. Your posts are tiresome, ignorant and without substantive content. You remind me of a 10 year old.
I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your position with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath, you insist that valid input on the subject can only come from experts - that's climatologists according to you - and that any non experts, regardless of what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have, are just fools, dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft of other derogatory names.
Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter. You further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all peer reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to you that many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee, are not qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to climatology, your answer is "so?"
Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and validating with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in its conclusions ? The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ? If they are not properly qualified to understand the subtleties and nuances of the subject, then their opinions carry no more weight than any person of a reasonable education level, randomly picked off the street.
You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name was odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be qualified in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much to do with climate research.
So I have to say, back at you - so ?
You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data needs to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to climatology in order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or not. You cannot embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the fancy takes you, to refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to you by various people.
What strawman? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. How does citing a petition signed by 31,487 alleged scientists constitute a misrepresentation of YOUR position.
No never answered my question. What would you consider to be the minimum qualifications necessary to have an opinion in the matter? A college degree? Ability to understand the data massaging? Carnal knowledge of statistics?
Incidentally, the last time I checked, representative democracy only requires that the voter be able to read (but not necessarily understand) the ballot, and sign their own name. There's no minimum standard for intelligence, logic, political experience, or even that they understand English. If the founding fathers wanted the government run by academics, they would have done things quite differently.
My guess is at least half the list of signers are bogus. That's not a wild guess. That's from experience working with the local elections officials counting petitions and ballots (before computers made voter fraud easy. At the time, a typical local ballot petition would require about 25,000 valid signatures. There was not enough time or resources to check everyone, so we picked out a few "sheets" of signatures, each of which had either 20 or 40 signatures. Based on the ratio of valid to signatures on a sheet, we extrapolated the total number of valid signatures. If it exceeded 25,000, the petition was deemed valid. If low or close, we grabbed another few more random sheets and did it again. From experience, at least half the signatures were bogus. On politically volatile issues, which tends to invite fraud, we were lucky to get 20% of the signatures valid.
So, using 20-50% valid, would 6,300 to 15,700 valid signatures be sufficient?
True. Quantity is not a great substitute for quality, but in this case, I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that not everyone is a true believer in the IPCC view of global warming.
Apparently, you haven't had much dealings with the medical profession. My experiences have been that much of the medical profession leans towards useless procedures, defensive medicine, and padding the bill. If I want to know something about medicine, I will ask the medical profession for their opinion, do my own research, and then decide for myself. Throwing oneself to the mercy of the medical profession is suicide.
Same with climate experts. These are often the same people that can't predict tomorrows weather successfully, but are expected to do the same 100 years in the future. Yes, I know that there's a difference between weather prediction and climate research, but if you look carefully, you'll see that almost everyone with weather experience is now also considered an expert on climate (because that is where the funding goes). Passing our economy and our lifestyle into the hands of the climatologist is equally dangerous. Following their lead, we may solve or delay global warming, but at what price?
Please show me where it has been discredited? I did some digging and all I could find was a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and word games, such as:
If you use the same criteria that the elections commission uses for petitions, and samples the signatories, the petition would be anywhere from 20-50% valid, which I consider good enough.
I have a calculator, with a substantial collection of known bugs. Duz that make the calculator useless?
Of course not. Even if half the buttons were broken, there would still be enough functionality left to make the calculator usable. Same with a petition. Even if half the signatures are bogus, the remainder is sufficient to make the petition useful.
Please show me where it has been discredited. Finding a few invalid names does not magically discredit the entire petition.
You avoided my question. Precisely what qualifications do you believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject? That doesn't mean an uninformed opinion, but rather one that you would consider to be authoritative? Do they need to have a degree? Experience in writing papers? Well known in their specialty? Involved in weather or climate in some manner?
Wisdom does not come from experts. It comes from those who question the experts.
So, you only listen to those who completely agree with your values? If I ran background checks on my favorite scientists, politicians, and engineers, I would find a very mixed bag of religions, party affiliations, philosophies, and mystical practices. The mistake you're making is that you're judging the person, not the content. Man has fought many revolutions and wars in the name of freedom of speech, thought, religion, philosophy, and economics. Now that almost anyone has the right to an opinion, without risk of official retaliation, you offer the principle that only those that are academically qualified, politically correct, and follow the correct religions, are considered authoritative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "target". Assassination is not a useful method of argumentation.
Some do, most don't. One of the reasons you see a large number of names as authors on global warming papers is that the effort usually involves a team of specialists. Sometimes its in collaboration with other climatologists, but usually some of the names are statisticians, professional writers, proof readers, and editors.
Not directly. Try reading the book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis:
The author is an epidemiologist, and one of the authors of the IPCC working group III (Mitigation) report.
In her book, she details how some cell phone research reports were allegedly edited to conform to the position of those paying the bills. By the time the various reports were published, they had allegedly been edited sufficiently that even the authors would have difficulty recognizing their own work. In one case, the summary and conclusion were changed to show a result different from what the data demonstrated. These anecdotes were meant to alarm the readers, but is really a fair description of how things are done in research.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**Incorrect. I will attempt to clarify my position:
The Oregon Petition has been discredited. Many times. It is very seriously flawed.
Dr Apfelbach has signed the petition, but, AFAK, has never published any original science to validate his position. Since Dr Apfelbach is deceased, we can't even know if his position was aligned with the perpetrators of the Oregon Petition. Dr Apfelbach is not likely to be the only scientist in that situation. IE: Dead, unpublished (in the area of climatology) and possibly not in agreement with the position espoused by the Oregon Petition.
ANY person (specialist or non-specialist) who makes new claims WRT any area of science, must also provide healthy, peer-reviewed science to back that claim.
A specialist in a particular area of science must be assumed to have knowledge of that area of science and should always be granted a reasonable level of credibility.
**The climate scientists are the ones that have submitted the data. The IPCC has collated that data. The people who collate data, make policy decisions and provide technical input on possible solutions don't necessarily need to be qualified in the area of climatology, nor do they necessarily need to be scientists. For instance: A specific area of the debate centres around the ramifications of a carbon tax or an ETS. Scientists are not necessarily qualified to provide expert opinions on the ramifications of such actions. Economists, however, are just the kinds of people that are required to provide the opinions.
You
**Peer-review people are ALWAYS in the same area of expertise as those who are doing the research. ALWAYS. IOW: Climate research is peer-reviewed by climatologists, not nuclear physicists.
**That was not the comment made, nor was it related to my response. The IPCC requires the expertise of a large number of disparate people. Not all are climatologists. Some are economists, for instance.
If they are
**Irrelevant. I suggest you read up on the IPCC, it's charter and what it does. It would be helpful for you to read IPCC AR4 too. I guess you won't be doing that any time soon though.
**The Oregon Petition was put foreward as an example of 39,000 scientists who (allegedly) disputed the theory of AGW, the IPCC and the research performed by climatologists. That is why I say: so? It's irrelevant. Let's put it into context:
I was service manager for Marantz Australai for 5 years, from 1974 -
1979. I have more than passing familiarity with Marantz products manufactured from 1972 - 1980.
Let's say a client brings you a Marantz 2325 reciever in for service. The fault is one that causes the amplifier to make a sudden, intermittant noise, sometimes tripping the protection relay.
You ask 200 plumbers, 200 electricians, 200 doctors, 200 hi fi sales-people, 200 TV techs and 200 geologists what the problem is. You recieve the following answers:
Output transistors are faulty. (200 opinions)
The on/off switch is faulty. (200 opinions)
The front end diff amp pair is faulty. (200 opinions)
The fueholder is faulty. (200 opinions)
You need an (expensive) mains filter. (200 opinions)
It's cosmic radiation. (200 opinions)
From that list, you'd reasonably assume that the front end diff amp is the most likely cause of the fault, yet a mere 200 out of 1,200 people tell you that is the cause.
If you asked me, I'd say: None of them. It's one of the varistors in the output stage. For safety, replace all 4 (two in each output stage)
Who're you gonna trust? The guys that offer a completely plausible reason, based on no experience? Or the one, lone opinion, from the guy who knows the 2325 back to front and inside out?
**I believe you've misread what I wrote. I'll take the rap for not stating my case with adequate precision. Sorry.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.