On 10/10/2011 1:15 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
**It's a strawman, in the sense that you were previously referring to a completely different situation, concerning 1,000 scientists. 30,000 scientists, which do not necessarily have any experience, knowledge or interest in climatology is pretty much irrelevant, given that there are MILLIONS of science degree holders. In fac, 30,000 is a drop in the ocean, by comparison. **ANYONE is entitled to an opinion. Regardless of educational qualifications. 30,000 people who have no experience, nor knowledge of climatology means nothing. The Oregon Petition is an exercise in complete futility. A **Your guess is duly noted. I have no idea how many are bogus. I know that at least one MD is dead and is still on the list. I don't know how many more are dead, bogus or just disinterested bystanders.That's not a
**For the most part, here in Australia, dead people don't get to vote. They are removed from the electoral rolls. **Dunno and I don't care. 30,000 people who have no experience of, nor interest in climatology means squat. **It is sufficient to prove that an ALLEGED 30,000 scientists (out of a total of MILLIONS) have ALLEGEDLY signed a petition. That is all it means. Nothing more, nothing less. **I've had a little. **Then you have several issues: 1) A nonsensically expensive medical system, which is geared to provide huge profits to large corporations (HMOs), that has almost no control by government authorities. 2) No trustworthy local doctor.Where I live, I am able to rely upon the same doctor I've used for the last 30 years. He has never steered me wrong and has always provided honest accurate and economical advice. Moreover, like many fair skinned Aussies, the most serious problem I've had in my life, has been the appearance of pre-cancerous skin problems. My doctor has a very keen eye (gained by hard years of study and 40 years' of experience) and has treated many of these growths by freezing or small surgical procedures. A goodly number have been on my back. A hit with the liquid nitrogen or the scalpal and I am back at work, losing a mere 40-odd minutes from my day and, maybe $20.00 from my wallet. Can't complain about life-saving procedures at that price. All your internet searches would be worth diddly under such circumstances. The system we have here in Australia is tightly regulated by the government and HMOs do not have the ability to gouge consumers in the way they are in the US. Last time I looked, Australia's health system cost the nation around 9% of GDP, whilst the US system cost the US people around 13% of GDP. Even better, our system is truly egalitarian. Some years ago, Australia's richest man (now deceased) suffered a major heart attack and was rushed to hospital. The surgeon who operated on the man was the best in the counbry. The very next day, that same surgeon may well have operated on a homeless person, or a plumber, electrician, whatever. Everyone in the nation has (theoretically, at least) access to the best (life-saving) health care. At low cost.
**Like I said: You have a serious problem with the medical system where you live. **Points:
- No they're not, though SOME are.
- Weather prediction has reached quite a high standard of accuracy. Somewhere around 90% for 24 hours. 80% for 48 hours and so on.
, but are expected to do the
**Not the same thing. Weather prediction is not the same as predicting climate changes in 100 years.Yes, I know that there's a difference
**If you had taken the time to read IPCC AR4, you would already have the answer to that question. The risk is that the cost of inaction may be impossible to fund. **Sure: First off, here are the precise words that the alleged scientists allegedly signed their names to:"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."
Pretty 'rubbery' stuff. No outright claims that the climatologists are wrong. Just a claim that "catastrophic heating" will not occur.
Here is another claim from the delightful liars at the Oregon Petition:
"Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly."
These words constitute an outright lie. And here is what Scientific American found:
"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 petition---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."
I did some digging and
**It may be, but it is still irrelevant, unreliable and nonsensical. As I have stated, ad nauseum: It doesn't matter what a an orthopaedic surgeon (allegedly) claims about global warming. That surgeon has not published any credible science, relating to AGW anywhere that I can find. Can you? **ONE bug can make a calculator utterly useless. It depends on the bug. I just selected a name that would be easy for me to research. No other reason. The results I turned up were disturbing. Not conclusive. Just a reminder that the Oregon Petition is just that: An informal petition of dubious usefulness. **Indeed. What it does show is the lack of rigorous standards applied to how the petition was conducted. **No, I did not. By ANYONE, I mean ANYONE. Science degrees or not.Precisely what qualifications do you believe
**None, whatsoever. I believe I already clearly stated that.That doesn't
**Appropriate education in some form of climate science is appropriate. Something like atmospheric physics, for instance.Do they need to have a degree? Experience in
**Not always. Sometimes, idiots need to shut the f*ck up and listen. **Absolutely not. However, ANYONE that embraces Creationism has serious problems with their ability to think critically. Critical thinking is essential for any scientific discipline. Ever wondered why we no longer see major scientific advances from societies mired in religious fundamentalism?If
**Partly, yes. Spencer, however, has been proven wrong many times.Man
**And I support a person's right to be an idiot. Spencer is an idiot. Or do you, too, embrace Spencer's idiotic religious compulsions?Now that almost anyone
**Of course. ANYONE who embraces Creationism is a fool and may be summarily disregarded, as a serious scientist. **"Target", in the sense that he is easy to dispute, due to his preference of religius belef over science. **YOu would need to prove that the science presented in the IPCC reports has been seriously altered from the original work, to make your claim stick.-- Trevor Wilson