Global Warming - petition
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Have a look at the following info at** Global Warming Petition Project**
Some more information in this video: Global Warming; 31,487 Scientists say NO to Alarm
Comments
-
Uh oh Wolfgang, you are going to blow the consensus argument! Good find.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Have a look at the following info at** Global Warming Petition Project**Some more information in this video: Global Warming; 31,487 Scientists say NO to Alarm
This "petition" has been around in some form since 1999. Its signatory list is... let us be generous in our understatement... suspect. For a rather detailed statistical takedown of the list click HERE. (Spoiler alert: It turns out the list is quite unimpressive!)
If you want additional reason to question this "petition," research the founder of its backing organization, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a man whose name is Arthur Robinson. Mr Robinson is quite the character (he once argued that diluted nuclear waste could be safely, even beneficially, "sprinkled" over the oceans, even over land masses, thanks to a process called "hormesis")... but not quite the scientist climate change deniers hope he is.
Eighteen year old misleading petitions can't and don't change the facts of modern day science:
-- The climate is changing
-- The earth is warming
-- Human activity is the principal cause of that warming
-- And the VAST majority of scientists worldwide agree with the first three items in this listPost edited by Bill_Coley on -
This "petition" has been around in some form since 1999. Its signatory list is... let us be generous in our understatement... suspect. For a rather detailed statistical takedown of the list click HERE. (Spoiler alert: It turns out the list is quite unimpressive!)
Yes, the list has been around a long time and has grown a lot. It won't go away, will it? Just keeps growing.
Yes, the skeptical article goes to great length and very unconvincingly attempts to discredit the signatures. But those are real people and real scientists. This project is run by a prestigious American university institution.
The facts are that 31,487 American scientists alone have signed this petition so far,
including 9,029 with PhDs. The petition is signed based on an extensively peer-reviewed document. The range of scientists covers a wide range of disciplines and knowledge base. Very impressive! -
@GaoLu said:
Yes, the skeptical article goes to great length and very unconvincingly attempts to discredit the signatures. But those are real people and real scientists. This project is run by a prestigious American university institution.The facts are that 31,487 American scientists alone have signed this petition so far,
including 9,029 with PhDs. The petition is signed based on an extensively peer-reviewed document. The range of scientists covers a wide range of disciplines and knowledge base. Very impressive!The history and reputation of the "petition" are suspect, at best.
- It was not signed by 31,000+ scientists (there are lots of signatories who are medical doctors, for examples) And those 9,029 PhDs? Research how many of them had anything to do with earth sciences, let alone climate science, because...
- ...only a small percentage of the signatories specialized in earth science (12%) - climate change science (0.1%), for example.
- Founder Robinson has acknowledged that some percentage of the names on the petition were added by what he called "pranksters" _(Did you know "Perry Mason" and the M**A*S*H doctors don't believe in climate change?!)_
- Because the petition initiative created a paper made to look like something from a National Academy of Science journal, the prestigious Academy issued a statement that read in part,
“...this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.
"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."- And on NO list of what you call "prestigious American university institution(s)" will you find the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. If you haven't done so, check out its website. Many adjectives apply to the organization depicted there; "prestigious" is not one of them.
Finally, whatever the petition said that its signatories attested to, it remains unchallenged, as I declared in a previous post:
-- The climate is changing
-- The earth is warming
-- Human activity is the principal cause of that warming
-- And the VAST majority of scientists worldwide agree with the first three items in this list -
I respect your right to ignore the petition of 31,487 scientists and extremely well-educated people across multiple disciplines (+/- a couple pranksters that have probably already been deleted) in your belief that you know better than they do.
-
@GaoLu said:
I respect your right to ignore the petition of 31,487 scientists and extremely well-educated people across multiple disciplines (+/- a couple pranksters that have probably already been deleted) in your belief that you know better than they do.In this latest post, Gao Lu, you modify your description of the petitioners from "31,487 American scientists" (your previous post) to "31,487 scientists and extremely well-educated people across multiple disciplines (+/- a couple pranksters that have probably already been deleted)." In my view and in the view of the evidence to which I have previously provided links, your amended description is more accurate than your previous one.
About the only remaining step is for you to acknowledge that EVEN IF all 31,487 of the petitioners were scientists - though we both now acknowledge they weren't - they would make up just a tiny fraction of all scientists, and their presence on the petition does not change the fact that the VAST majority of professional scientists worldwide accept humanity's principal role in global climate change evidenced in the warming of the earth.
All that compels me to you that I appreciate your respect for my right to disagree with the 0.3% of the professional science community, and that I respect your right to disagree with 90-95% of the professional science community (perhaps "in your belief that you know better than they do"?)
I suspect that we're both very comfortable with the communities we trust, though I have a clear memory of one of your ChristianDiscourse posts in which you acknowledged to be thinking differently about the issue of climate change - even to the point of acknowledging that the earth is warming and as a result of human activity! Perhaps we'll one day gain access to our archived CD posts so that I can confirm my recollections.
-
In this latest post, Gao Lu, you modify your description of the petitioners from "31,487 American scientists" (your previous post) to "31,487 scientists and extremely well-educated people across multiple disciplines (+/- a couple pranksters that have probably already been deleted)
Yeah, I didn't check each one of the 31,487 for scientist status. Maybe you did check each one and do know. I took your word for it that some might only be science-trained professionals from a broad range of perspectives and not presently acting scientists. Or, maybe you didn't know about each one of those people, and I was thus mistaken to take your word for it. If so, I apologize. Perhaps you just choose to not believe without checking.
A prestigious university sponsors/hosts the scientist peer-reviewed study and petition. You don't have to agree, of course.
Yes, there are a lot of scientists around the world--more than that paltry 31,000 that signed the petition. I know some of them in countries where if they don't say what the government or peers tell them to say, they are out of a job or worse. Maybe in America, it isn't like that. Or maybe it happens there too. Food for thought.
Yes, I do think climate may be warming, from time to time. Now and then in cycles. Might appear to be warming now on some graph, depending which time frame we isolate. And it cools. Man does affect it, no doubt. Everything we do has some effect. Is our contribution significant? Probably not. Not in the larger scope of things, as in the end, God will control it all within bounds. I think that has always been my position.
-
The problem @Bill_Coley is that the very same arguments you bring up about the scientists in this petition go against the "consensus" the science community has on climate change that you so proudly tout.
There is no consensus on man-made climate change. It is pretty arrogant to think that man permanently alters what only God controls. Besides, it goes in cycles and global warming nutcases ignore that. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
-
@GaoLu said:
Yeah, I didn't check each one of the 31,487 for scientist status. Maybe you did check each one and do know. I took your word for it that some might only be science-trained professionals from a broad range of perspectives and not presently acting scientists. Or, maybe you didn't know about each one of those people, and I was thus mistaken to take your word for it. If so, I apologize. Perhaps you just choose to not believe without checking.
I did a Google search for a handful of randomly selected names from the list, a search that turned up PhDs in non-earth science fields, including medicine. I also reviewed the work of several online outlets that had reviewed the list and conducted their own surveys of petitioners' credentials.
As for taking my word for it, I suggest the better course is always to do the work yourself. Google searches are quick and, at least in my experience with this list, informative. For example, you might consider Googling Scientific American's 2001 assessment of 30 randomly selected members of the list.
A prestigious university sponsors/hosts the scientist peer-reviewed study and petition. You don't have to agree, of course.
If it's your contention that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a "prestigious university," then in fact, I disagree.
Yes, there are a lot of scientists around the world--more than that paltry 31,000 that signed the petition. I know some of them in countries where if they don't say what the government or peers tell them to say, they are out of a job or worse. Maybe in America, it isn't like that. Or maybe it happens there too. Food for thought.
It's not clear to me, so I will ask: From what you've read about the published and peer-reviewed professional science literature on the matter, what is the majority view of the "lot of scientists around the world" when it comes to human involvement in global climate change?
@davidtaylorjr said:
The problem @Bill_Coley is that the very same arguments you bring up about the scientists in this petition go against the "consensus" the science community has on climate change that you so proudly tout.I don't know what you mean, David. Which specific arguments of mine "go against the 'consensus'" which I "so proudly tout"?
There is no consensus on man-made climate change.
Can you cite a published and peer-reviewed study that concludes there is anything OTHER than a clear consensus among professional scientists that global climate change is real and that human activity is a primary cause?
It is pretty arrogant to think that man permanently alters what only God controls. Besides, it goes in cycles and global warming nutcases ignore that.
I contend the science of climate change makes clear that it's pretty dangerous to ignore the ongoing alterations of the planet, and pretty gratuitous to label people "global warming nutcases."
-
NASA is out with its finding that year 2017 was the second warmest year on record. NOAA, which uses slightly different data analysis methods, concluded that 2017 was the third warmest on record. Both agencies concluded that year 2016 was the warmest on record, and that the five warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2010.
Some climate change deniers will likely argue that it's "normal" for the five warmest years on record to have all occurred within the last seven years. But if that's the case - if it's normal for recent years to be the warmest years on record - then those folks are essentially acknowledging that the earth is warming. And, well, we can't have that.
-
I did a Google search for a handful of randomly selected names from the list,
In my view that is not valid or reliable research regarding science.
If it's your contention that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a "prestigious university," then in fact, I disagree.
I have personal friends, prof's there. They think it is one of the better science institutions, and I once considered attending there, so I may be comfortably biased.
It's not clear to me, so I will ask: From what you've read about the published and peer-reviewed professional science literature on the matter, what is the majority view of the "lot of scientists around the world" when it comes to human involvement in global climate change?
Did your mother never teach you that following the crowd was sometimes a bad idea? There is no logical reasoning that concludes a fact based on majority belief. Many tens of thousands of dissenting respected scientists across a broad range of disciplines is a lot, especially in the present peer-pressure distorted academic world (I am sure that close to 100% of scientists will agree with this).
On the other hand, we are given a sort of stewardship of the planet and should be aware of science and wise of our use of our planet. Wisdom includes not being swayed wildly by the latest political propaganda sweeping the "majority."
-
@GaoLu said:
I have personal friends, prof's there (the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine). They think it is one of the better science institutions, and I once considered attending there, so I may be comfortably biased.
To my knowledge, and according to the Institute's website, it has a "faculty" but offers no classes or degree programs of any kind. In fact, I'm not aware that it has EVER offered classes or degree programs. So I am particularly curious about the program of study you once considered pursuing at the Institute.
Did your mother never teach you that following the crowd was sometimes a bad idea? There is no logical reasoning that concludes a fact based on majority belief. Many tens of thousands of dissenting respected scientists across a broad range of disciplines is a lot, especially in the present peer-pressure distorted academic world (I am sure that close to 100% of scientists will agree with this).
If somehow you were able to consult 100 specialists regarding the treatment of a serious medical condition your wife had contracted, and 90 of those specialists recommended course of action A, a few were undecided, and 3-5 of those specialists recommended course B, how would the fact that 90 of 100 specialists agreed on course A affect your decision making? Would that result make it more likely that you would decide for course A, or would you more likely decide that there's "no logical reasoning" to conclude that course A is better simply because 90 of 100 specialists recommended it?
If your response to that question is the latter option - no logical reasoning - then were you to consult two specialists regarding treatment options, would you also likely conclude that there was no logical reasoning to accept their shared/majority opinion on the same grounds?
On the other hand, we are given a sort of stewardship of the planet and should be aware of science and wise of our use of our planet. Wisdom includes not being swayed wildly by the latest political propaganda sweeping the "majority."
I encourage you to review some peer-reviewed journal articles in climate change science, whereupon, I predict, you will agree with me that the practice of the professional science of climate change and "political propaganda sweeping the 'majority'" have little or nothing in common, except perhaps in the political agenda of those who have decided the issue for themselves, the findings of professional science to the contrary notwithstanding.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
There is no consensus on man-made climate change.
Can you cite a published and peer-reviewed study that concludes there is anything OTHER than a clear consensus among professional scientists that global climate change is real and that human activity is a primary cause?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Can you cite a published and peer-reviewed study that concludes there is anything OTHER than a clear consensus among professional scientists that global climate change is real and that human activity is a primary cause?@davidtaylorjr said:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.phpThe link takes me to a compendium of links to climate change paper authors (though it's hard not to notice that more than half of the authors listed have no identified papers). You will do me a great favor, David, if you identify for me the paper(s) in this list that satisfy the request I made: for a study that concludes "there is anything OTHER than a clear consensus among professional scientists that global climate change is real and that human activity is a primary cause."
There are several studies that put the consensus among professional scientists in the high 80s, low-to-mid 90% that climate change is real and human-caused. What I asked you for were studies that conclude the consensus percentage is actually in the 40s (or lower), 50s, or 60s% range.
I know there are scientists who dispute climate change. My claim - and the claim of the peer-reviewed studies I have seen - is that those scientists make up a very small percentage of the professional science community. I'm looking for a peer-reviewed study that concludes those scientists actually represent a much higher percentage of the professional science community.
-
To my knowledge, and according to the Institute's website, it has a "faculty" but offers no classes or degree programs of any kind. In fact, I'm not aware that it has EVER offered classes or degree programs. So I am particularly curious about the program of study you once considered pursuing at the Institute.
None of this is relevant to anything I said. Clarify for me if you think beneficial.
If your response to that question is the latter option - no logical reasoning - then were you to consult two specialists regarding treatment options, would you also likely conclude that there was no logical reasoning to accept their shared/majority opinion on the same grounds?
Apples and oranges. Can you come up with a relevant example that better illustrates your point?
I encourage you to review some peer-reviewed journal articles in climate change science, whereupon, I predict, you will agree with me
Oh, I do. I have tried to keep up on that and love science. I agree with 31,000 American scientists alone who are involved in professional science at this point. (Imagine if we added scientists from other countries how that number would mushroom--if they were free of academic peer-pressure to distort science)
-
@GaoLu said:
None of this is relevant to anything I said. Clarify for me if you think beneficial.It's relevant to the fact that in a previous post you said you "once considered attending" the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, an announcement that drew my curiosity because by my reading of the Institute's website, the organization offers no courses or courses of study, and has never done so. Because they offer no courses and have no students, I'm curious as to what you envisioned yourself doing at the Institute back when you considered attending there.
BILL: If your response to that question is the latter option - no logical reasoning - then were you to consult two specialists regarding treatment options, would you also likely conclude that there was no logical reasoning to accept their shared/majority opinion on the same grounds?
GAO LU: Apples and oranges. Can you come up with a relevant example that better illustrates your point?
Perhaps the "relevant example" is the one from my previous post that you chose not to address. This one....
If somehow you were able to consult 100 specialists regarding the treatment of a serious medical condition your wife had contracted, and 90 of those specialists recommended course of action A, a few were undecided, and 3-5 of those specialists recommended course B, how would the fact that 90 of 100 specialists agreed on course A affect your decision making? Would that result make it more likely that you would decide for course A, or would you more likely decide that there's "no logical reasoning" to conclude that course A is better simply because 90 of 100 specialists recommended it?
.
BILL: I encourage you to review some peer-reviewed journal articles in climate change science, whereupon, I predict, you will agree with me
GAO LU: Oh, I do. I have tried to keep up on that and love science. I agree with 31,000 American scientists alone who are involved in professional science at this point. (Imagine if we added scientists from other countries how that number would mushroom--if they were free of academic peer-pressure to distort science)
Is it your claim that a consequential percentage of the scientists characterized in the following peer-reviewed articles conform their findings to "academic pressure to distort science"? If so, what factual evidence do you have to support your claim?
- J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
- J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
- W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
- P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
- N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
-
It's relevant to the fact that in a previous post you said you "once considered attending" the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine....
I am trained in biochemistry and for a time pursued Medicine. I have personal friends there. I have a son in medical school who has also done neurobiological research and has just had his research published a journal. He has an upcoming article for JAMA and is working on a short documentary with NBC. He had some connection with the institution in the recent past. Yeah, I am bragging.
None of that is related to Climate change. What you offer is a red herring. I am not interested in your red herring except to brag about my son. I prefer to remain on topic. I stand behind my assertions on the other points and don't wish to argue them further at this time.
