OT: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science

It's the AGW mothership, looking for Sloman.

--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

And honesty. :(

--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

Is 1700 a uinanimous vote?

Is 1700 the number who knuckled under to group pressure?

How were these ""votes"" collected?

Who did it?

Is there no "Confirmation Bias" involved?

It amazes me, John, how people who propose to be intelligent can continue to dismiss the voluminous number of papers that present data refuting anthropogenic global warming. They don't seem to be able to come to grips with the natural variance of climate. These traits seem to be specific to the majority of left wing socialist nutters evident in all communities.

These same GW advocates play down or ignore the significance of the emails from the Uni of EA that demonstrate a total lack of ethics on the part of those supposedly at the forefront GW research (if you could call them researchers), those who have promoted and facilitated the manipulation of temperature data to suit the hidden agenda of the UN and many governments. The shortage of common sense these people demonstrate through their narrow minded focus is cause for compassion and understanding however much ridicule we feel like directing at them.

Unfortunately in the public mind there is still controversy about whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled. We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding). And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.

But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving. Indeed some of the same practitioners have been working as Exxon sponsored denialists that were involved in keeping the suckers smoking tobacco. Their product is spreading uncertainty in the public mind to prevent people making a rational informed decision. It was so bad at one point that the UK's premier scientific society wrote an open letter to Exxon complaining about them deliberately misrepresenting the science.

(facsimile of the actual letter)

There is some point in scientists standing up to be counted on this one rather than ceding the high ground to handful of ultraright US free market think tank spokesmen who pretend that the science is unclear. It is curious that extremes of left and right both deny climate science.

In the UK it was the right wing Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that first put the issue on the agenda so we do not have the same rabid political polarisation of the issue as in America.

But for reasons of "balance" TV debates frequently put up one denialist and one mainstream scientist for a discussion without making it clear that there is a big difference in the validity of their arguments. The denialist arguments are well honed to appeal to the general public with a cunning mixture of half truths and plausible lies. Pretty much the same happens with UFO abductees - and the devil has all the best tunes.

I don't really like petitions, but scientists do have to stand up for the truth. I am reminded of 100 authors against Einstein and his retort "Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!".

Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.

Regards, Martin Brown

On Dec 11, 7:32=A0am, "APR"

to

In fact the - limited - number of papers presenting hypotheses that claim to refute global warming that get presented on denialist web- sites were falsified shortly after after publication. In at least one case, the supporting data was shown to be wrong. The counter-arguments naturally don't show up on denialist web-sites .

On the contrary, any serious discussion of anthropogenic global warming talks about the gradual warming involved being swamped by the short term noise in the global climate. The claim that anthropogenic global warming inplies a slow and steady increase in the global temperature is a totally implausible straw man invented by the denialist propaganda machine, which isn't aimed at a particularly sophisticated target audience.

As opposed to the gulible right wing nutters who seems willing to swallow any kind of nonsense.

ails

.

As much as our little band of conspiracy theory nitwits would like to claim this, the private e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia don't support any such claim. By judicious text-chopping, some phrases can - if taken out of context - be made to look as if they are consistent with such a hypothesis, but only the brain-dead could be taken in.

w

ule

It is funny you should mention that.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

what

What you don't understand doesn't exist? Odd, since you "understand" quite a lot of stuff that exists only in your fertile imagination.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:32:55 +1100, "APR" >>

I don't believe that the issue is by any means decided. I do think that there's a great deal of very bad, some corrupt, science being used by politicians and activists to determine policy that could be very, very harmful if done wrong.

There's a modest probability that there is no systematic warming going on at all... just random variation and bad/cooked data.

There's a good probability that if earth is currently warming, it's not primarily caused by human-generated CO2.

There a high probability that moderate planetary warming and increased CO2 are both good things for most of the life on earth.

It's unknown and likely unknowable how warming will affect specifics of future regional weather, except for a likelyhood of somewhat increased worldwide-averaged precipitation.

I don't think any of those statements are unreasonable, especially in s.e.d., but they will, predictably, make the climate squirrels go ballistic.

I think I'll play with some latching relays today. I need to store enough energy in enough capacitors to have an FPGA set the states of

75 relays *after* a power failure. About 12 volts, 1.5 amps for around 6 milliseconds should do it.

John

know what

If you;re doing science, tell us about it. Electronics ditto. This is an electronics discussion group, not a bluster-and-insult venue.

I think you are 98% hot air and 2% old stories. By choice.

John

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

1000 scientists voted for 2 x 2 = 5 1500 scientists voted for 2 x 2 = 3 Does this mean 2 x 2 = 3 ? Scientific facts can't be decided by voting.

VLV

So you would like to believe. Odd then that the same bunch of pathological liars who worked for big tobacco now find gainful employment manufacturing propaganda for the AGW denialist camp.

Statistical analysis by would be climate sceptics *has* to include GHG forcing after about 1970 or they cannot fit the observed data. Satellite monitoring of the solar flux prevents hand waving "the sun got brighter" just so explanations.

You should look at the science. The vast majority of scientists across all disciplines (not just climate scientists) are now convinced that the effects of AGW have been demonstrated conclusively. The high impact of the long term damage of climate change means that the expectation value of future insurance losses is already getting dangerously high.

If you looked at the real scientific evidence rather than faked CO2 is good for you "dittohead science" on denialist websites you seem intelligent enough to be able to come to the same conclusion.

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that evidence.

Regards, Martin Brown

w

fE...

f

htm

d.

I can completely destroy your hysterical pro-AGW "science" with two words: water vapor

...no political agenda involved.

You can't fool us. You are a nym of Bill Sloman.

Which means you haven't done any interesting electronics in years either.

John

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000) it happened Martin Brown wrote in :

There is no evidence. And even if the A in GW was significant, in the sense more then the 2 sigma Sloman claims, the solution is to have nuke power plants. More power plants, CO2 production will not go down in this industrialised world. An on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now, palm trees, sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, kill the AGW weenies. Kill the energy taxes, And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too:-) Give it to them!

E...

tm

The problem with AGW is that, whatever it amounts to, it's buried in the noise of ordinary variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation, ~12-18k years ago. If man's adding to that, it's subtle. And, because the changes are noisy and small, the interpretation is subjective. The alleged AGW component is

If it involves ripping off millions of wage-earners to transfer funds to the parasite class (which cap & tax does), then absolutely!

In fact, it should be a 2/3 majority or unanimous, which a simple majority isn't.

Hope This Helps! Rich

Pure democracy (which, from the original Greek means "mob rule"), can have its flaws, e.g.: "Let's all vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

That's why the Founding Fathers wrote checks and balances into the Constitution, which the current regime seems to be using for so much toilet paper.

Thanks, Rich

Not so. The "Smoking causes cancer" thing was proclaimed by the edict of a group of 12 anonymous antismokers. Like with climategate, all of the evidance that was contrary to Henry Waxman's antismokerist agenda was suppressed.

I know this, because I was a paralegal assistant during the big money grab of the 1990's (my job title was "document coder"), and I saw thousands of documents related to both the P. Lorillard and Philip Morris trials.

Waxman is the Harry Anslinger of the antismokerist era.

I hear that now he's a major player in AGWism.

Thanks, Rich