by BurnTheShips 79 Replies latest members politics
"Was everyone aware that this cap & trade bill (as imagined by the house & Pelosi) contains a clause that forces ANYONE in the U.S. who sells a house to "upgrade it to clean energy standards" at the sellers expense?"
That's ridiculous. Are you sure it's not just referring to the new homes built after (if) the bill actually passes? You should really provide proof for statements like that. Some of us actually have a bullshit detector instead of an "OMG, the sky is falling!" panic button.
PS - was that an embedded suggestion in the way you spelled insignifcunt (sic)? :-)
Oops!
@Jwoods
That study was just one scientific opinion out of many which question the idea or say that the data is not consistently complete.
Can you point to any peer reviewed primary source material published by a climate scientist that includes an 'opinion'?
Do you think climate change is primarily a policy matter or a physical phenomenon?
Edit - what does 'not consistently complete' mean?
Can you point to any peer reviewed primary source material published by a climate scientist that includes an 'opinion'?
All of them. In every science, too. All data is interpreted by a human being. No data speaks for itself.
BTS
Yes BTS and the peer review proces makes sure the human beings are not talking bullshit.
When enough of them agree it becomes a 'theory' - and thats where AGW is now.
The so-called 'controversy' is limited to ideological and political circles where you prefer to debate.
The science has left your building a long time ago.
The so-called 'controversy' is limited to ideological and political circles where you prefer to debate.
Well that's just trash. Many scientists have expressed good faith disagreements.
BTS
This is the reason one should not ever take deniers posts seriously:
From the GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER
PHANEROZOIC TIME
ROBERT A. BERNER and ZAVARETH KOTHAVALA
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109
(the model posting the highest CO2 levels during the paleozoic, nicely provided by BURN)
the conclusion, after noting the high CO2 levels??
"This means that over the long term there is
indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the
atmospheric greenhouse effect."
YES Burn there was life; will increased temperature, which comes with higher CO2, as noted by the chart referenced by yourself, change life as we know it?
YES.
Many scientists have expressed good faith disagreements.
yes they have expressed it in the blogosphere, via the Weather Channel or in some cases published their own book- ahh blesss.....
Of course scientists are on a continuum of certainty - 'most' climate scientists have moved way beyond the denier argument and are pushing the boundaries of knowledge, not dealing with cavemen deniers - they leave that to the media, politicians etc
Just like the tobacco industry tried a few decades ago - make sure the public is convinced there is confusion in the science - doesn't matter about being right or winning the argument - just so long as Joe Public thinks the scientists aren't sure YET......same characters same tune same outcome
.......ends conversation due to lack of substantive content...........
Of course scientists are on a continuum of certainty - 'most' climate scientists have moved way beyond the denier argument and are pushing the boundaries of knowledge, not dealing with cavemen deniers - they leave that to the media, politicians etc
Hi Besty I have to disagree, I think that Besty you have unintentionally/intentionally? dismissed the opinions of over 31,000 scientists who have signed the petition against the conclusions of the Kyoto treaty about man made Global Warming. I respect your posts but I think your jumping a little bit ahead of science yourself. "RGB aka Shakespeare" and other aliases. Sorry the post is so long, I am trying to prove my point.
"Qualifications of Signers
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)3. Environment (985)
I) Environmental Engineering (486)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,810)
1. Physics (5,223)
I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,818)
1. Chemistry (3,126)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,964)
1. Biochemistry (744)
I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)2. Biology (1,437)
I) Biology (1,048)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)3. Agriculture (783)
I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)2. General Science..."
RGB : your post is not long - your cut and paste on the other hand is ...erm .....long.
Why not be a gentleman and answer my question:
ok shakespeare - how many ppm of atmospheric CO2 would you set as a maximum upper limit?
Couple of words should do it - no need for cut and paste. Just a figure.
Then I will put your Oregon Petition Project in the trash where it belongs :-)
