Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:yZUHj.52698$yk5.46206@newsfe18.lga...
>
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
> news:2vkvu3ljk40jj6imkk7an3v3146khvbdfi@4ax,com ...
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>>That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history has
>>>such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually has
>>>been
>>>in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>
>> True-ish.
>
> Not true at all.
>
>> Usually, but not always. Rapid climate change is not
>> unprecedented.
>
> But the 1F rise over the last 100 years is not at all unusual.
>
> AAMOF, it's been quite stable compared to other eras and epochs.
Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer review
from a porno magazine.
Paul
>
>
>
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:yZUHj.52698$yk5.46206@newsfe18.lga...
>
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
> news:2vkvu3ljk40jj6imkk7an3v3146khvbdfi@4ax,com ...
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>>That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history has
>>>such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually has
>>>been
>>>in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>
>> True-ish.
>
> Not true at all.
>
>> Usually, but not always. Rapid climate change is not
>> unprecedented.
>
> But the 1F rise over the last 100 years is not at all unusual.
>
> AAMOF, it's been quite stable compared to other eras and epochs.
Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer review
from a porno magazine.
Paul
>
>
>
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer review
> from a porno magazine.
Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
many close-up beaver shots, right?
Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer review
> from a porno magazine.
Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
many close-up beaver shots, right?
Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>> review
>> from a porno magazine.
Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
difference there).
http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
support for AGW was found to be bogus?
"Gore says:
“There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming
and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero.“
Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study that
he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi Oreske.
Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to verify
Oreske’s study. The following is his summary:
“I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All
abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
keywords (‘global climate change’) were assessed. The results of my analysis
contradict Oreskes’ findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117
abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’. However, 34
abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main
driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’.
Oreskes claims that ‘none of these papers argued [that current climate
change is natural]’. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play
a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes’ results concern abstracts
that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts
reject what Oreskes calls the ‘consensus view’. In fact, there are almost
three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of
anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it.”
Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the critical
assertion, “human activity is causing climate change” only 55.8% agreed, 30%
disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly unanimous agreement.
In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer
listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed that climate
change is a natural phenomenon.
There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in science.
Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around.
>
> Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
> many close-up beaver shots, right?
>
> Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."
"Peer reviews" are when you decide where you want to go fishing.
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>> review
>> from a porno magazine.
Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
difference there).
http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
support for AGW was found to be bogus?
"Gore says:
“There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming
and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero.“
Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study that
he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi Oreske.
Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to verify
Oreske’s study. The following is his summary:
“I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All
abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
keywords (‘global climate change’) were assessed. The results of my analysis
contradict Oreskes’ findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117
abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’. However, 34
abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main
driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’.
Oreskes claims that ‘none of these papers argued [that current climate
change is natural]’. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play
a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes’ results concern abstracts
that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts
reject what Oreskes calls the ‘consensus view’. In fact, there are almost
three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of
anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it.”
Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the critical
assertion, “human activity is causing climate change” only 55.8% agreed, 30%
disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly unanimous agreement.
In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer
listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed that climate
change is a natural phenomenon.
There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in science.
Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around.
>
> Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
> many close-up beaver shots, right?
>
> Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."
"Peer reviews" are when you decide where you want to go fishing.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
>
> "I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results.
> All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
> keywords ('global climate change') were assessed. The results of my
> analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:
> Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus
> view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human
> activities are the main driving force of 'the observed warming over the
> last 50 years'.
>
> Oreskes claims that 'none of these papers argued [that current climate
> change is natural]'. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors
> play a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
>
> The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts
> that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
> of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of
> abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there
> are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the
> notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse
> it."
>
> Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
> conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
> countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the
> critical assertion, "human activity is causing climate change" only 55.8%
> agreed, 30% disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly
> unanimous agreement.
>
> In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred
> Singer listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed
> that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
>
> There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in
> science. Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around.
>
>>
>> Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
>> many close-up beaver shots, right?
>>
>> Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."
>
> "Peer reviews" are when you decide where you want to go fishing.
Typical: quote Al Gore as an authority rather than the spokesman he is,
confuse peer review with publishing, conflate consensus with unanimous
agreement. And you clearly do not know why they refer to these things as
"theories" hint - it is not the definition you understand it to be. Like
the :"theory" of evolution or the "theory" of quantum physics or the
"theory" of gravity. Yes, gravity is a scientific theory. <sound of Tom's
head exploding> Eveb the famous "theory of relativity" while accepted is
still a theory. If you knew the first thing about science you would know
that challenges to theories are what it is all about. It is those very
challenges that lead to further discoveries and greater understanding. Any
respectable scientists expects his or her work to be scrutinized and they
never present it as a closed case. Those that do, such as the ones you
mention, are violating a fundamental rule of science. You trivialize a
number like 55.8 percent agreement like it was nothing but in the scientific
world it is nothing short of phenomenal.
So the more you try to prove some qualifications by cutting and pasting AEI,
CATO Institute, or some other extremely biased think tank (and well paid too
I might add) editorials the more you show that you don't know anything.
And a very quick search yields this regarding two of your sources:
Bray and von Storch, 2003
A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch [44] [45]
Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the
survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[46][47] The
survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the
questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate
change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1
indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The
results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly
agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same
survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate,
and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty
about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate
policy decisions."
The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the
web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or
to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and
password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing
list and elsewhere on the internet.[48][49]. Bray and von Storch have
recently defended their results[50] and accused climate change skeptics of
interpreting the results with bias.
So there you go Tom. - their survey was rejected because it could not meet
any scientific criteria nor could its results be verified. See that is call
verification and replication and unless somebody else can come to the same
conclusions you did then your work is of no value.
Let me read to you the conclusion again:
The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as
accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough
uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for
immediate policy decisions."
See you left that little part out, you quoted part of the survey which
supported you and rejected the other conclusion.
Paul
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
>
> "I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results.
> All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
> keywords ('global climate change') were assessed. The results of my
> analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:
> Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus
> view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human
> activities are the main driving force of 'the observed warming over the
> last 50 years'.
>
> Oreskes claims that 'none of these papers argued [that current climate
> change is natural]'. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors
> play a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
>
> The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts
> that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
> of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of
> abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there
> are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the
> notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse
> it."
>
> Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
> conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
> countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the
> critical assertion, "human activity is causing climate change" only 55.8%
> agreed, 30% disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly
> unanimous agreement.
>
> In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred
> Singer listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed
> that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
>
> There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in
> science. Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around.
>
>>
>> Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
>> many close-up beaver shots, right?
>>
>> Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."
>
> "Peer reviews" are when you decide where you want to go fishing.
Typical: quote Al Gore as an authority rather than the spokesman he is,
confuse peer review with publishing, conflate consensus with unanimous
agreement. And you clearly do not know why they refer to these things as
"theories" hint - it is not the definition you understand it to be. Like
the :"theory" of evolution or the "theory" of quantum physics or the
"theory" of gravity. Yes, gravity is a scientific theory. <sound of Tom's
head exploding> Eveb the famous "theory of relativity" while accepted is
still a theory. If you knew the first thing about science you would know
that challenges to theories are what it is all about. It is those very
challenges that lead to further discoveries and greater understanding. Any
respectable scientists expects his or her work to be scrutinized and they
never present it as a closed case. Those that do, such as the ones you
mention, are violating a fundamental rule of science. You trivialize a
number like 55.8 percent agreement like it was nothing but in the scientific
world it is nothing short of phenomenal.
So the more you try to prove some qualifications by cutting and pasting AEI,
CATO Institute, or some other extremely biased think tank (and well paid too
I might add) editorials the more you show that you don't know anything.
And a very quick search yields this regarding two of your sources:
Bray and von Storch, 2003
A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch [44] [45]
Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the
survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[46][47] The
survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the
questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate
change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1
indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The
results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly
agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same
survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate,
and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty
about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate
policy decisions."
The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the
web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or
to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and
password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing
list and elsewhere on the internet.[48][49]. Bray and von Storch have
recently defended their results[50] and accused climate change skeptics of
interpreting the results with bias.
So there you go Tom. - their survey was rejected because it could not meet
any scientific criteria nor could its results be verified. See that is call
verification and replication and unless somebody else can come to the same
conclusions you did then your work is of no value.
Let me read to you the conclusion again:
The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as
accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough
uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for
immediate policy decisions."
See you left that little part out, you quoted part of the survey which
supported you and rejected the other conclusion.
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
Did a little, and I mean very little research and discovered that Benny
Peiser is a social anthropologist. Naomi Oresek is a history professor. So
you tell me what either of them possess to be qualified to speak on the
subject of global warming?
Paul
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
Did a little, and I mean very little research and discovered that Benny
Peiser is a social anthropologist. Naomi Oresek is a history professor. So
you tell me what either of them possess to be qualified to speak on the
subject of global warming?
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <k76Ij.9705$p97.4508@trnddc03>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Did a little, and I mean very little research and discovered that Benny
> Peiser is a social anthropologist. Naomi Oresek is a history professor. So
> you tell me what either of them possess to be qualified to speak on the
> subject of global warming?
Every bit as much as you or I. Or Al Gore, for that matter. Again,
don't attack the men, attack the message, if you can. Properly
documented data, prepared with accepted logic, should hold up even if
Satan himself delivers it. Or Dick Cheney, for that matter ;)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <k76Ij.9705$p97.4508@trnddc03>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Did a little, and I mean very little research and discovered that Benny
> Peiser is a social anthropologist. Naomi Oresek is a history professor. So
> you tell me what either of them possess to be qualified to speak on the
> subject of global warming?
Every bit as much as you or I. Or Al Gore, for that matter. Again,
don't attack the men, attack the message, if you can. Properly
documented data, prepared with accepted logic, should hold up even if
Satan himself delivers it. Or Dick Cheney, for that matter ;)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
More info on Peiser: his work was rejected by scientific journals on the
grounds that he employed a contrived technicality as his basis. Reviews of
his abstracts were described as "completely unststainable." His work was
utterly panned by his peers. His peer review failed in other words. Oh and
his peer reviewer for his work was none other than the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists.
I'd say that says it all about his impartiality. I'm guessing he probably
made a cool 6 figures on that deal.
Mr Peiser seems to know a lot about ancient sports, though. Also seems to
be an expert on predicting the devastation of a meteor strike (my guess:
lots of people will die) But a climatologist he is not.
Pathetic, Tom. Really pathetic.
Paul
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
More info on Peiser: his work was rejected by scientific journals on the
grounds that he employed a contrived technicality as his basis. Reviews of
his abstracts were described as "completely unststainable." His work was
utterly panned by his peers. His peer review failed in other words. Oh and
his peer reviewer for his work was none other than the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists.
I'd say that says it all about his impartiality. I'm guessing he probably
made a cool 6 figures on that deal.
Mr Peiser seems to know a lot about ancient sports, though. Also seems to
be an expert on predicting the devastation of a meteor strike (my guess:
lots of people will die) But a climatologist he is not.
Pathetic, Tom. Really pathetic.
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
>
> "I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results.
> All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
> keywords ('global climate change') were assessed. The results of my
> analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:
> Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus
> view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human
> activities are the main driving force of 'the observed warming over the
> last 50 years'.
>
> Oreskes claims that 'none of these papers argued [that current climate
> change is natural]'. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors
> play a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
>
> The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts
> that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
> of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of
> abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there
> are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the
> notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse
> it."
>
> Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
> conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
> countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the
> critical assertion, "human activity is causing climate change" only 55.8%
> agreed, 30% disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly
> unanimous agreement.
>
> In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred
> Singer listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed
> that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer whose other
claims to fame include being a skeptic regarding CFCs and ozone depletion,
the link between UVB radiation and skin cancer and he thinks second hand
smoke is not linked to cancer. OK, perhaps he has something on that last
one. He appears to be a professional skeptic and publishes books deboured
by same. He seems to make a great deal of money just being a naysayer with
no qualifications. Good gig if you can land it.
But an electrical engineer is not a geologists, he is not a physicist, he is
not a meteorologist, he is not a climatolgist.
OK on to Dennis Avery:
He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U. of
Wisconsin. He is a tireless crusader against organic farming of all things
and thinks the only way we can survive is with petroleum derived fertilizers
and pesticide. Wow, that's interesting. I wonder if his benefactor and
client Monsanto, has anything to do with that? Naaahhhhh, not possible.
Yet another qualified source to quote. Again, not a climatologist and in
fact not even a scientist - he's an economist.
You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep trying. I
suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
Paul
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:WgWHj.1754$3N1.1237@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
>>> review
>>> from a porno magazine.
>
> Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
> difference there).
> http :// www .independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
>
>
> Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
> support for AGW was found to be bogus?
>
> "Gore says:
>
> "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
> article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
> sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
> disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming
> and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
>
> Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study
> that he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi
> Oreske. Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to
> verify Oreske's study. The following is his summary:
>
> "I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results.
> All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
> keywords ('global climate change') were assessed. The results of my
> analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:
> Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus
> view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human
> activities are the main driving force of 'the observed warming over the
> last 50 years'.
>
> Oreskes claims that 'none of these papers argued [that current climate
> change is natural]'. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors
> play a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
>
> The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts
> that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
> of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of
> abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there
> are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the
> notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse
> it."
>
> Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
> conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
> countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the
> critical assertion, "human activity is causing climate change" only 55.8%
> agreed, 30% disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly
> unanimous agreement.
>
> In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred
> Singer listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed
> that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer whose other
claims to fame include being a skeptic regarding CFCs and ozone depletion,
the link between UVB radiation and skin cancer and he thinks second hand
smoke is not linked to cancer. OK, perhaps he has something on that last
one. He appears to be a professional skeptic and publishes books deboured
by same. He seems to make a great deal of money just being a naysayer with
no qualifications. Good gig if you can land it.
But an electrical engineer is not a geologists, he is not a physicist, he is
not a meteorologist, he is not a climatolgist.
OK on to Dennis Avery:
He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U. of
Wisconsin. He is a tireless crusader against organic farming of all things
and thinks the only way we can survive is with petroleum derived fertilizers
and pesticide. Wow, that's interesting. I wonder if his benefactor and
client Monsanto, has anything to do with that? Naaahhhhh, not possible.
Yet another qualified source to quote. Again, not a climatologist and in
fact not even a scientist - he's an economist.
You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep trying. I
suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
[snip]
> OK on to Dennis Avery:
>
> He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U. of
> Wisconsin.
[snip]
> You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep trying. I
> suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
Wow, Paul -- a double ad hominem! I'm impressed.
Next time, rather than attacking the people who bring a message you
don't like, why not try attacking the message, itself. Go ahead, see if
you can find something wrong with it -- some flaw in their data, some
mistake in their logic.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
[snip]
> OK on to Dennis Avery:
>
> He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U. of
> Wisconsin.
[snip]
> You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep trying. I
> suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
Wow, Paul -- a double ad hominem! I'm impressed.
Next time, rather than attacking the people who bring a message you
don't like, why not try attacking the message, itself. Go ahead, see if
you can find something wrong with it -- some flaw in their data, some
mistake in their logic.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-1F7EA1.08045631032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
Fred Singer was once the head of the US Weather Bureau. His Bachelors degree
is EE, which is a good foundation for his PhD in that it entails a heavy
dose of study in Physics.
[S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia]
What qualifications does Algore have, other than getting only a C- in his
only college science class (Basic Science).
> [snip]
>> OK on to Dennis Avery:
>>
>> He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U.
>> of
>> Wisconsin.
> [snip]
>> You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep trying.
>> I
>> suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
Oddly, there were a few Landscape Architects on the IPCC "team".
>
> Wow, Paul -- a double ad hominem! I'm impressed.
Typical left (reactionary) response.
>
> Next time, rather than attacking the people who bring a message you
> don't like, why not try attacking the message, itself. Go ahead, see if
> you can find something wrong with it -- some flaw in their data, some
> mistake in their logic.
>
Methodological snob!
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-1F7EA1.08045631032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
Fred Singer was once the head of the US Weather Bureau. His Bachelors degree
is EE, which is a good foundation for his PhD in that it entails a heavy
dose of study in Physics.
[S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia]
What qualifications does Algore have, other than getting only a C- in his
only college science class (Basic Science).
> [snip]
>> OK on to Dennis Avery:
>>
>> He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U.
>> of
>> Wisconsin.
> [snip]
>> You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep trying.
>> I
>> suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
Oddly, there were a few Landscape Architects on the IPCC "team".
>
> Wow, Paul -- a double ad hominem! I'm impressed.
Typical left (reactionary) response.
>
> Next time, rather than attacking the people who bring a message you
> don't like, why not try attacking the message, itself. Go ahead, see if
> you can find something wrong with it -- some flaw in their data, some
> mistake in their logic.
>
Methodological snob!
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:CObIj.21459$KJ1.1133@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-1F7EA1.08045631032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
>
> Fred Singer was once the head of the US Weather Bureau. His Bachelors
> degree is EE, which is a good foundation for his PhD in that it entails a
> heavy dose of study in Physics.
>
> [S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia]
>
> What qualifications does Algore have, other than getting only a C- in his
> only college science class (Basic Science).
>
>
>> [snip]
>>> OK on to Dennis Avery:
>>>
>>> He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U.
>>> of
>>> Wisconsin.
>> [snip]
>>> You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep
>>> trying. I
>>> suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
>
> Oddly, there were a few Landscape Architects on the IPCC "team".
>>
>> Wow, Paul -- a double ad hominem! I'm impressed.
>
> Typical left (reactionary) response.
>
Yeah reactionary - as in HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's my reaction.
Gawd man, an anthropologist? And a social anthropologist at that - a guy
who could tell you all about Roman foot races and somehow he is an expert on
climate change? Louis B. Leakey at least knew something about chemistry and
medicine. I mean who next? A kabuki actor?.
>> Next time, rather than attacking the people who bring a message you
>> don't like, why not try attacking the message, itself. Go ahead, see if
>> you can find something wrong with it -- some flaw in their data, some
>> mistake in their logic.
Actually I don't have to. Their peers did. They found plenty wrong with
all of it. A peer review by petroleum geologists? Gee, you think they have
a stake in this whole thing? C'mon man, they got data off of a web site
poll where just anyone could participate and they call that scientific?
They used the equivalent of a CNN Instant Poll. Keeeerist just what do you
think qualifies for valid data? A wet thumb in the air?
> Methodological snob!
Not one single hit on IPCC having any landscape architects on the list. Not
one, not even in the paranoid nutcase gun crazy everything is a scam web
sites you visit
Paul
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:CObIj.21459$KJ1.1133@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-1F7EA1.08045631032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
>
> Fred Singer was once the head of the US Weather Bureau. His Bachelors
> degree is EE, which is a good foundation for his PhD in that it entails a
> heavy dose of study in Physics.
>
> [S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia]
>
> What qualifications does Algore have, other than getting only a C- in his
> only college science class (Basic Science).
>
>
>> [snip]
>>> OK on to Dennis Avery:
>>>
>>> He is not even a PhD, he has a masters in agricultural economics from U.
>>> of
>>> Wisconsin.
>> [snip]
>>> You couldn't have done worse if you tried, Tom. But please, keep
>>> trying. I
>>> suppose next you'll be quoting your gardener.
>
> Oddly, there were a few Landscape Architects on the IPCC "team".
>>
>> Wow, Paul -- a double ad hominem! I'm impressed.
>
> Typical left (reactionary) response.
>
Yeah reactionary - as in HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's my reaction.
Gawd man, an anthropologist? And a social anthropologist at that - a guy
who could tell you all about Roman foot races and somehow he is an expert on
climate change? Louis B. Leakey at least knew something about chemistry and
medicine. I mean who next? A kabuki actor?.
>> Next time, rather than attacking the people who bring a message you
>> don't like, why not try attacking the message, itself. Go ahead, see if
>> you can find something wrong with it -- some flaw in their data, some
>> mistake in their logic.
Actually I don't have to. Their peers did. They found plenty wrong with
all of it. A peer review by petroleum geologists? Gee, you think they have
a stake in this whole thing? C'mon man, they got data off of a web site
poll where just anyone could participate and they call that scientific?
They used the equivalent of a CNN Instant Poll. Keeeerist just what do you
think qualifies for valid data? A wet thumb in the air?
> Methodological snob!
Not one single hit on IPCC having any landscape architects on the list. Not
one, not even in the paranoid nutcase gun crazy everything is a scam web
sites you visit
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:CObIj.21459$KJ1.1133@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-1F7EA1.08045631032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
>
> Fred Singer was once the head of the US Weather Bureau. His Bachelors
> degree is EE, which is a good foundation for his PhD in that it entails a
> heavy dose of study in Physics.
>
Talked to a guy I know with an BSEE today and told him about this
conversation. He said there was very little physics in his degree program,
2 lower division and 1 upper. Hardly a lot of physics. Here is a link to a
typical program at Purdue.
http :// posserver.ecn.purdue.edu/eceugo/degree_req.asp?degree=bsee
> [S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia]
>
> What qualifications does Algore have, other than getting only a C- in his
> only college science class (Basic Science).
He's a spokesman. Everyone including himself knows he was a journalist
before entering politics. When you need to bring important issues to the
public it helps to get the big names on your side. Certainly Al Gore
commands more attention than George Milktoast, the janitor at the NAS.
Paul
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:CObIj.21459$KJ1.1133@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-1F7EA1.08045631032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <pN6Ij.9709$p97.2324@trnddc03>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Did a quick check, Fred Singer would be an electrical engineer
>
> Fred Singer was once the head of the US Weather Bureau. His Bachelors
> degree is EE, which is a good foundation for his PhD in that it entails a
> heavy dose of study in Physics.
>
Talked to a guy I know with an BSEE today and told him about this
conversation. He said there was very little physics in his degree program,
2 lower division and 1 upper. Hardly a lot of physics. Here is a link to a
typical program at Purdue.
http :// posserver.ecn.purdue.edu/eceugo/degree_req.asp?degree=bsee
> [S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia]
>
> What qualifications does Algore have, other than getting only a C- in his
> only college science class (Basic Science).
He's a spokesman. Everyone including himself knows he was a journalist
before entering politics. When you need to bring important issues to the
public it helps to get the big names on your side. Certainly Al Gore
commands more attention than George Milktoast, the janitor at the NAS.
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
Hmmm .. check this list out:
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Quaternary Association
American Chemical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
International Council for Science
U.S. National Academy of Science
All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get their
ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
Found this on Wiki after a 10 second search:
A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a
broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a
consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term
"consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in
this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National
Academies' statement."
US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists,
Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human
activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have
assessed consensus findings on the science..."
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international
scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)."
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international
scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the
world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its
causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."
American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there
is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements
and papers-the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed
adequately-can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the
impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where
there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment
reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large
international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise
and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a
consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed
research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the
degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that
can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."
Tha last one tells it all.
Paul
Hmmm .. check this list out:
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Quaternary Association
American Chemical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
International Council for Science
U.S. National Academy of Science
All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get their
ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
Found this on Wiki after a 10 second search:
A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a
broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a
consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term
"consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in
this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National
Academies' statement."
US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists,
Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human
activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have
assessed consensus findings on the science..."
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international
scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)."
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international
scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the
world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its
causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."
American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there
is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements
and papers-the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed
adequately-can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the
impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where
there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment
reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large
international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise
and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a
consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed
research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the
degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that
can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."
Tha last one tells it all.
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <w27Ij.9710$p97.1287@trnddc03>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Hmmm .. check this list out:
>
> American Astronomical Society
> American Quaternary Association
> American Chemical Society
> Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
>
> All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get their
> ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
I believe it was you who said the engineers, specifically, don't get to
play in this game. Yes, I recall you specifically lambasting someone
for being an engineer and, hence, they couldn't possibly know anything
about the climate.
I'm not sure what you think about astronomers, groups of four or
chemists, but I can't imagine you cut them much more slack than the
engineers...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <w27Ij.9710$p97.1287@trnddc03>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
> Hmmm .. check this list out:
>
> American Astronomical Society
> American Quaternary Association
> American Chemical Society
> Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
>
> All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get their
> ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
I believe it was you who said the engineers, specifically, don't get to
play in this game. Yes, I recall you specifically lambasting someone
for being an engineer and, hence, they couldn't possibly know anything
about the climate.
I'm not sure what you think about astronomers, groups of four or
chemists, but I can't imagine you cut them much more slack than the
engineers...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3DC10D.08184031032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <w27Ij.9710$p97.1287@trnddc03>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> Hmmm .. check this list out:
>>
>> American Astronomical Society
>> American Quaternary Association
>> American Chemical Society
>> Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
>>
>> All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get
>> their
>> ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
>
> I believe it was you who said the engineers, specifically, don't get to
> play in this game. Yes, I recall you specifically lambasting someone
> for being an engineer and, hence, they couldn't possibly know anything
> about the climate.
>
> I'm not sure what you think about astronomers, groups of four or
> chemists, but I can't imagine you cut them much more slack than the
> engineers...
>
Societal epistomology (i.e., group think - where have we heard THAT before?)
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3DC10D.08184031032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <w27Ij.9710$p97.1287@trnddc03>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> Hmmm .. check this list out:
>>
>> American Astronomical Society
>> American Quaternary Association
>> American Chemical Society
>> Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
>>
>> All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get
>> their
>> ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
>
> I believe it was you who said the engineers, specifically, don't get to
> play in this game. Yes, I recall you specifically lambasting someone
> for being an engineer and, hence, they couldn't possibly know anything
> about the climate.
>
> I'm not sure what you think about astronomers, groups of four or
> chemists, but I can't imagine you cut them much more slack than the
> engineers...
>
Societal epistomology (i.e., group think - where have we heard THAT before?)
