A statistically representative climate change debate
- Thread starter Pekelo
- Start date
"In 2012, 50 NASA scientists and experts, with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience, sent a letter to the NASA Administrator, stating that the Goddard Institute for Space Studiesâ and NASAâs claims that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated in light of thousands of years of empirical data.
The letter further stated that hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists further decried NASAâs fool-hardy statements under the Obama administration. Obviously, the science is not settled, as claimed by Obama and his climate religion disciples.
The âGlobal Warming Petition Projectâ has 31,487 scientists that have signed a petition to reject the global warming, stating âThere is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earthâs atmosphere and disruption of the Earthâs climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant life and animal environments of the earth.â"
http://explorernews.com/northwest_chatter/article_cd02c828-dade-11e3-bf56-001a4bcf887a.html
<b>The bald faced liars promoting the global warming hoax need to be shouted down in our society.</b>
The letter further stated that hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists further decried NASAâs fool-hardy statements under the Obama administration. Obviously, the science is not settled, as claimed by Obama and his climate religion disciples.
The âGlobal Warming Petition Projectâ has 31,487 scientists that have signed a petition to reject the global warming, stating âThere is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earthâs atmosphere and disruption of the Earthâs climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant life and animal environments of the earth.â"
http://explorernews.com/northwest_chatter/article_cd02c828-dade-11e3-bf56-001a4bcf887a.html
<b>The bald faced liars promoting the global warming hoax need to be shouted down in our society.</b>
There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
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.
No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:
The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
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.
No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:
The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.
32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)
According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.
There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.
Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)
According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.
There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.
Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
the science orgs are a bunch of political hacks who falsely claim to speak for everyone.
it's like al sharpton and jesse jackson claiming to speak for all blacks.
the left need people to be stupid enough to think they actually do speak for everyone and the libtard media is only too happy to help.
how does it feel fc, to know deep down that there are people who are aware of what kind of people you are that are trying to pull this scam.
settled science
oh, thats if you don't count the tens of thousands of scientists who say its a crock of shiat
you're in the wrong forum, futurefraud
you need to be over at huffpo or someplace where you can spout utter bullshiat and not be called on it.
around here, you're just exactly like freethinker
someone to be pointed at and laughed at
it's like al sharpton and jesse jackson claiming to speak for all blacks.
the left need people to be stupid enough to think they actually do speak for everyone and the libtard media is only too happy to help.
how does it feel fc, to know deep down that there are people who are aware of what kind of people you are that are trying to pull this scam.
settled science
oh, thats if you don't count the tens of thousands of scientists who say its a crock of shiat
you're in the wrong forum, futurefraud
you need to be over at huffpo or someplace where you can spout utter bullshiat and not be called on it.
around here, you're just exactly like freethinker
someone to be pointed at and laughed at
97% of the world's climatologists, most of which receive funding for "crisis" like global warming, actually support the theory that gets them paid? Say it isn't so!
Science as McCarthyism
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall