Paging Mr. Gore......

[Danzig]

More Than 17,000 Scientists
Protest Kyoto Accord


Has everyone forgotten this? In April 1998, more than 17,000 scientists,
two-thirds of whom hold advanced academic degrees, signed a Petition against
the Kyoto climate accord. The Petition urged the US government to reject the
Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States .

In signing the Petition, the 17,000 basic and applied scientists -- an
unprecedented number for this kind of document -- expressed their profound
skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. The atmospheric
data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that
are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord
as "proof" of a major future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the
Petition, signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller
University and a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
states it well:

"The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on
climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To
the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
is environmentally helpful."

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against
the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming
catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working
scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate
debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda," said Dr. Seitz.

The Petition drive was organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon
Institute for Science and Medicine (Cave Junction, OR) and a vocal critic of the
shaky science used to support the Kyoto Accord. It was staffed by volunteers
and supported entirely by private donations, with no contributions from industry.

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement
that was written in Kyoto , Japan , in December 1997, and any other similar
proposals. 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.

[Danzig]

Top astrophysicist denies global warming exists


2 Feb 07 - Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states.

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate. -- nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states.

His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

[Danzig]

i could continue...but that's a fair amount of reading material, anyone can do a search for more.

but, it all depends on what you choose to believe, as there are scientists on both sides. just like some still believe in creation, and some in evolution.

enjoy.

[GenuineRisk]

Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison. Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

First post:

<<August 09, 2006

In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world.

Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray.

As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists.

The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources.

I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>>

That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig?

Next post: the 17,000 scientists:

[GenuineRisk]

<<Were They Duped?
In response to the the claim that the Anti-Global Warming Petition Project had gathered 19,000 signatures of scientists who allegedly downplay the significance of climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote this response to suggest that many of the signees might have been duped.

"In the spring of 1998," the Union writes, "mailboxes of US scientists flooded with a packet from the 'Global Warming Petition Project,' including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed 'Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,' a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that 'increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,' a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide 'would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.'

"The sponsor, the little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, 'the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.'

"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.">>

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/cit...0347/C396/L396

[GenuineRisk]

And here's the biggest thing in this whole debate, and why I must respectfully disagree with your accusation that I am the liberal version of Timm ( )- I hope scientists are wrong about global warming. I really do. Because I think, if they're not, it's too late to fix it. And while I don't have any kids, and probably won't live to see the effects of it, the kids of my friends and peers likely will. And I'm not selfish enough to not care about that. But wanting it to be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. But that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to do something about man-made CO2 emissions. Maybe I'm right, and it's too late to affect 100+ years of burning carbon. But maybe not. And better to try than to not try. Finding alternative energy sources will end a dependence on a finite energy source, and get us out from under the thumb of the Middle East, which would have enormous ramifications for the political situation there. So why not try to limit CO2 emissions? Other than it'll be a hassle and we're lazy?

And of course, you won't live to see the effects either, so if you don't want to believe it's true, then don't. It's not going to affect your life in any noticeable way, and if it affects future generations, hey, we'll all be dead anyway, so who cares, right?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, if it is too late, then what is the point of all the environmental BS? We're already fukked! And all the environmental stuff is completely and entirely irrational!

Eat. Drink. Be Merry. For tomorrow we die.

Because some of us think future generations are worth the effort. Even those of us who haven't created any of our own.

I think, in a funny way, it's why I was so affected by the final scene in "Angel," which ended with our heroes on their way into a hopeless battle, because it was still the right thing to do. I can be such a sap.

(Now, there's a test to see how devoted Somer is to the Whedonverse... will he sniff out this carefully hidden reference to one of his favorite shows... tucked away in a global warming thread? tee hee)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison. Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

First post:

<<August 09, 2006

In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world.

Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray.

As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists.

The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources.

I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>>

That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig?

Next post: the 17,000 scientists:

i put that as a point of comparison due to the vast amount of people who want to teach creationism/intelligen design in science class as a rebuttal to the theory of evolution. try telling them it doesn't fit! but that's a whole different subject.

back to global warming tho. some scientists think it's true, others do not. both have credentials. so how to move forward?
having grown up during a time when the next ice age was rapidly approaching, i guess i'll take the warnings of the exact opposite suddenly occuring with a grain of salt.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i put that as a point of comparison due to the vast amount of people who want to teach creationism/intelligen design in science class as a rebuttal to the theory of evolution. try telling them it doesn't fit! but that's a whole different subject.

back to global warming tho. some scientists think it's true, others do not. both have credentials. so how to move forward?
having grown up during a time when the next ice age was rapidly approaching, i guess i'll take the warnings of the exact opposite suddenly occuring with a grain of salt.

I understand your first point- I just disagree with it as a comparison, because creationism/intelligent design/whatever people want to dress it in, is still a religious belief, and whatever else one says about the global warming debate, I haven't seen any religious arguments form the basis for either side.
This one, I think, is affected by business and political arguments, and in the end, the anti-global warming side is likely to win, because all they have to do is create enough doubt to stall any sort of action on the issue- it takes a major catastrophe to get real action on anything (and sometimes that's not even enough- Katrina) and right now we're not at catastrophe stage. So, I suspect we're going to find out whether they're right.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison. Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

First post:

<<August 09, 2006

In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world.

Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray.

As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists.

The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources.

I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>>

That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig?

Next post: the 17,000 scientists:

Genuine Risk,
Though "evolution" is called a theory, developmental biology isn't.
Someone said that science must be observable and replicable. No arguement with that.
Early studies involving "primordial soup" (and I'll need to find the research to give the link) showed that basic protien chains (previral) could be created in a lab.
If you're interested, here's a book that might get you started. Note Dawkin's take on it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Clues-...dp/0521398282/

[Downthestretch55]

Are you saying that virus is non-living?

[Downthestretch55]

Here's something (off the topic of "global warming" and Gore, but interesting)
It's about the creation of a new living organism from a previously existing one, synthetic life. Genome replacement. This is just the beginning.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0628232413.htm

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Are you saying that virus is non-living?

Here's an early experiment by Dr Miller (1953) that has been followed.
Amino acids can become protiens, no? Protiens can become genetic structures, no? Genetic structure can become viruses, no? Viruses are not alive???
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/S...dial_soup.html