Moonbox Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Perhaps this is in the wrong sub-forum, but this is a pretty solid follow-up to a lot of the discussions that we've been having here confirming a lot of what I, and others have been saying. Please note that the article isn't flat out denouncing man-made climate change. It's merely pointing out some of the giant gaping holes in current climate arguments (ie the planet hasn't warmed for heading towards 20 years) and that the claims that green house gases are responsible for more, and more damaging, extreme weather events are bogus. Here's the article: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/ Of note is the suggestion that any attempted reductions we're making today are going to be grossy expensive and almost entirely ineffectual, and to abandon the current course and move towards mitigation rather than prevention with currently available data. Edited November 30, 2012 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Perhaps this is in the wrong sub-forum, but this is a pretty solid follow-up to a lot of the discussions that we've been having here confirming a lot of what I, and others have been saying. Please note that the article isn't flat out denouncing man-made climate change. It's merely pointing out some of the giant gaping holes in current climate arguments (ie the planet hasn't warmed for heading towards 20 years) and that the claims that green house gases are responsible for more, and more damaging, extreme weather events are bogus. Here's the article: http://opinion.finan...125-scientists/ Of note is the suggestion that any attempted reductions we're making today are going to be grossy expensive and almost entirely ineffectual, and to abandon the current course and move towards mitigation rather than prevention with currently available data. There are some dubious names on that list. J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, Professor of Marketing How many publications on climate science in this bunch me wonders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 William Happer, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A. There are some accredited heavy-hitters on that List!! Impressive list of talent... William Happer has spoken at UofT on a few occasions! Great speaker, great mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Both sides are guilty of publishing these kinds of lists. They are absolutely meaningless unless they have actual done some real WORK to arrive at these conclusions, and are willing to explain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) There are some dubious names on that list. How many publications on climate science in this bunch me wonders. Michael I thought you smarter than that, or at least less of a hack. Come on man. There's 129 names on that list, 90+% of them are PhD's, and you're taking exception to the fact that ONE of them is a marketing PhD (one who happens to specialize in analyzing models and forecasts - climate ones in particular). Both sides are guilty of publishing these kinds of lists. They are absolutely meaningless unless they have actual done some real WORK to arrive at these conclusions, and are willing to explain it. Umm...I'm pretty sure most of these guys HAVE done their own work. If you look at their credentials and their areas of expertise, you'd assume that they know something about the topic.... Edited November 30, 2012 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Michael I thought you smarter than that, or at least less of a hack. Come on man. There's 129 names on that list, 90+% of them are PhD's, and you're taking exception to the fact that ONE of them is a marketing PhD (one who happens to specialize in analyzing models and forecasts - climate ones in particular). Umm...I'm pretty sure most of these guys HAVE done their own work. If you look at their credentials and their areas of expertise, you'd assume that they know something about the topic.... I've learned from the past, you see, and energy consultants, geologists (for some reason) and weather men seem to always show up on these 'open letters', petitions etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I've learned from the past, you see, and energy consultants, geologists (for some reason) and weather men seem to always show up on these 'open letters', petitions etc. So people who aren't getting paid to claim they believe in AGW? That increases their credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So people who aren't getting paid to claim they believe in AGW? What climate scientists are being paid to say they believe in climate change? Their opinions are formed upon where their research leads them, unlike many of the "skeptics". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I've learned from the past, you see, and energy consultants, geologists (for some reason) and weather men seem to always show up on these 'open letters', petitions etc. and the irrelevant tim ball a geographer who claims to be a climatologist at the U of Winnipeg which didn't have a climatology department...he's a paid energy sector shill that works for "friends of science" ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So people who aren't getting paid to claim they believe in AGW? That increases their credibility. go ahead name some legit national science organizations that dispute CC...the list of national and international science organizations that do support CC/AGW is a very long one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So people who aren't getting paid to claim they believe in AGW? That increases their credibility. If you applied that theory to every profession you'd be in a strange state of mind most of the time. "I'm not going to go to that traditional doctor, he's paid to perpetuate the traditional view of medicine." The analogy is a reach, but my point is that there is a professional body of experts in this field (and every field) and it's just easy and lazy to point out that they're paid for their work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Michael I thought you smarter than that, or at least less of a hack. Come on man. There's 129 names on that list, 90+% of them are PhD's, and you're taking exception to the fact that ONE of them is a marketing PhD (one who happens to specialize in analyzing models and forecasts - climate ones in particular). Umm...I'm pretty sure most of these guys HAVE done their own work. If you look at their credentials and their areas of expertise, you'd assume that they know something about the topic.... Rhythms of Life unveils, in simple language, Dr. Susan Crockford’s ground-breaking scientific theory on the role of thyroid hormone in evolution ... Canada's 'climate expert'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) go ahead name some legit national science organizations that dispute CC...the list of national and international science organizations that do support CC/AGW is a very long one.... The letter did not dispute climate change. It stated that the UN should be working to mitigate the inevitable rather than spending vast fortunes on almost entirely hopeless efforts at reversal. Edited November 30, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 ...it's just easy and lazy to point out that they're paid for their work. The analogy is also nonsensical since climatologists will get paid to study climate regardless of whether global warming is happening or not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The letter did not dispute climate change. It stated that the UN should be working to mitigate the inevitable rather than spending vast fortunes on almost entirely hopeless efforts at reversal. Read the letter. They are indeed disputing climate change. It is the opening paragraph of the letter. "Global warming that has not occurred..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 They didn't dispute global warming by man. They stated, as a fact, that the world hasn't warmed anywhere NEAR what the climate models had predicted in their hysteria, and that this lack of warming couldn't have been responsible for things like Tropical Storm Sandy. Their conclusion, ultimately, was that the science was unclear and that the politicking needs to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 go ahead name some legit national science organizations that dispute CC...the list of national and international science organizations that do support CC/AGW is a very long one.... The IPCC disputes the assertion that we're causing extreme weather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 there was another disingenuous attempt to claim no warming for the past 14 yrs just this past week claiming warming has plateaued since 1998...the kicker is the start date for the claim 1998, the record breaking el Nino year...it was a not so clever cherry picking of data.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) The IPCC disputes the assertion that we're causing extreme weather. you don't need to be a scientist to know that bs's, grade school science is all that's required, you cannot add energy into a system without effecting change, it's IMPOSSIBLE!...and the IPCC does no such thing...here's the IPCC 594 page report on what you claim they didn't do... http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf Edited November 30, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Who needs experts in climatology, ecology, etc? Everyone can be an expert. You just need an opinion. Edited November 30, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I've learned from the past, you see, and energy consultants, geologists (for some reason) and weather men seem to always show up on these 'open letters', petitions etc. Geologists study the history of the earth, and can see changes in the climate through history via ocean and lake sediments, fossils, glaciers and their carven paths and their rock/sediment remains. Geologist can also study ice and ice cores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Read the letter. They are indeed disputing climate change. It is the opening paragraph of the letter. "Global warming that has not occurred..." The letter didn't dispute climate change: "Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically." The letter said that the earth hasn't warmed significantly, so technically they are disputing recent global warming not climate change. Edited November 30, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Impressive list of talent... *Looks at the list* or lack thereof. It's a poorly formatted letter. Who cares if you have 125 'scientists', where is the raw data to back up their claim? Anyone can send a petition denouncing or demanding the most ridiculous of things without explaining in details why. Edited November 30, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Geologists study the history of the earth, and can see changes in the climate through history via ocean and lake sediments, fossils, glaciers and their carven paths and their rock/sediment remains. Geologist can also study ice and ice cores. which doesn't make them experts on current AGW CC...they only verify what everybody already knows the earth experiences climate change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Haven't had a chance to read the letter yet, and no time right now, but it's hard to find fault with the summary at the top. Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.