Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas

Interesting.

 

"global warming hoax"

For those in the know and those that want to cover their bases it is now climate change - that will cover the fact that the earth has been cooling last few years. :thumbs:

 

Fascinating!

 

Misleading. These people are not climate scientists. A random sampling of the list produced the following as the "qualifications" of those who signed:

W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.

Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."

Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

Roger L. Allard is Assistant Vice president and principal engineer at FM Approvals. Allard joined FM Approvals in 1974 as a mechanical engineer in the Hydraulics Section and held the positions of senior engineer, assistant manager, and group manager before assuming his present position as principal engineer in 2004. He is a registered professional engineer, and a member of the Rhode Island Society of Professional Engineers, the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Carlton L. Austin: wrote an article for "Veterinary Pathology", titled, "Ocular protothecosis in a dog"

Dr. Charles H. Antinori practices Cardiothoracic Surgery and General Surgery in Cape May Court House, New Jersey. Dr. Charles Antinori graduated with an MD.

So we have a veterinarian, a kidney specialist, a heart surgeon, a mathematician, a mechanical engineer, and a dentist who has been eleceted to the Indiana basketball hall of fame.

Hardly people with relevant qualifications in respect to climate science.

 

Oh my, not this again:

The fact that CO2 is natural and does good things does not mean that too much of it is OK. Water is natural too. Does this mean that its ok for a human to be submerged in water (without air)?

And the "its only trace" arguments is equally silly. Radioactive uranium is "natural". Would any of you will be willing to take 38 radiactive uraniums atoms, mix them with 100,000 nitrogen atoms (making 38 parts per 100,000) and stick the mixture down your shorts?

 

Hardly relevant...wouldn't that apply to Al Gore too? It cuts both ways...

Besides...Coleman's allegations are still strong.

 

I agree about Al Gore, but that's not my point. The 31,000 members of the list are not climate experts. The fact that Al Gore is not one either, while true, does not make the views of these 31,000 any more relevant to the issue.

And the material that I extracted from Coleman proves that he is incompetent in relation to the subject matter - his statements about CO2 are misleading and incorrect.

Whatever else he might say in his article, the stuff about CO2 is smoking gun evidence that he either does not know what he is talking about or is trying to take advantage of the scientific illiteracy of the public.

 

Another misleading item from Mr. Coleman's article. He compares the 31,000 scientists (who we know are not climate experts at all) to the 2500 member of the IPCC panel and says the 31000 "dwarfs" the 2500.

Need I point out the error here? Bearing in mind that the 2500 members of the IPCC base their assessments mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature (from wikipedia), this is like a situation where 2500 scientists analyze the scientific literature and conclude that trans-fats are bad for you while 31000 people, the vast majority of whom know nothing about trans-fats and have not done this review, take the opposing position.

Numbers obviously do not always make the case.

 

Well go ahead and give us the credentials of all 31000 since you seem to know what they are. Please do not leave one of them out. And wiki's credentials are spurious at best.

 

The list is in the public domain, so you are free to access it. And on what basis do you suggest that wiki's credentials are spurious? Please be specific Are you questioning the assertion that the member of IPCC base their assessments on the scientific literature? Are you willing to state that you believe that this claim is factually false? I am glad to pursue the details if you are willing to make such an assertion.

 

OK, we're more in my realm now (originally a chemical engineering major).

This is a red herring. Your CO2/H2O comparison isn't valid...no one is suggesting a toxic or lethal situation (a more plausible comparison: compare the relative humidity in Phoenix, AZ with Charleston, SC. Two very different levels of humidity in the atmosphere, yet neither are lethal.

In addition, keep in mind: CO2 is a necessary product for life on this planet. Without it, nothing green ("green" not referring to Algore's business model, but instead all the planet's photosynthesis-related processes) would survive. U-238 (or U-235 for that matter) is nice for an atomic bomb or a nuclear plant, but it is not an essential building block for planetary life. CO2 is.

Coleman hit the nail on the head. Here are some problems with the man-made global warming fiasco:

1. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that CO2 levels are tied to "global warming" of the man-made variety. In fact, since there have been periods of warming pre-Industrial revolution, this becomes even more problematic. Not to mention there hasn't been firm evidence that ties CO2 levels to atmospheric/climate harm. Now...were we talking about carbon monoxide (CO) or Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), there might be an argument...but at this point, I
2. We have no reliable empirical data as to temperature changes beyond ~120 years ago. Yet we throw the "scientific method" out so that our agenda is not harmed.
3. In pushing our "global warming" agenda (man-made), we leave out an important factor: One cannot accurately evaluate large-scale warming without considering variations in the heat source. All this stuff never mentions the sun. How can that be? Unless there's a giant radiator I don't know about, we all are heated by one and the same source. Yet, these scientists totally discount the fact that our sun is not static in its output. To ignore that is irresponsible, if not junk, science.
4. The cascade of cause/effect is almost laughable. Any weather event that happens is suddenly a "global warming" consequense. Proof, empirical evidence, repeatability, etc., are not impoortand.
5. Our illustrious "Scientific community" doesn't exactly have a stellar record regarding forecasting future doom. In the mid 1970's, the Ice Age was coming.
6. (Tied to the sun issue). We must really be messing up...our cow poots and SUV's are so bad, they're making Mars heat up. (that's sarcasm, BTW). Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

You've just gotten enough from a layperson, no less, to certainly cast aspersions on a co-ordinated plan to wreck our economy, mortgage our future, and on top of all that...the US would pay a price that other nations wouldn't (for more, see the anti-American Kyoto Protocol).

Let's face it. This is a huge leap, based on (at the very least) dubious evidence.

 

Wiki is not reliable. Anyone can publish on there. Who wrote the article? What are that persons credentials.

Anyway you made a claim that none of the 31000 are climate experts. Provide the info on that. Fact is you dont know what the credentials of all the 31000 are.

The truth is that they are qualified:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

 

Yes, but your analogy to humidity might not be valid either. The fact that 50 % humidity is not lethal and neither is 99% does not mean that the same is true of CO2. I trust that your argument is not "since CO2 is 'natural', it therefore follows that any level of it is not lethal". That would be an incorrect argument.

The fact that CO2 is necessary for life and U-238 is not, simply does not, in and of itself, legitimize a conclusion that too much C02 cannot be harmful. Water is necessary for life, but too much of it in your lungs will shorten your life rather quickly.

I have no comments in relations to Mr. Coleman's other assertions. I merely point out 2 clearly invalid lines of argumentation in his material, and those glaring errors really do not reflect well on his overall credibility, whether or not there is some merit in the rest of his material.

His statements about CO2, while true in and of themselves, do not in any way support the conclusions that he connects to them. Sure CO2 is natural, but this does not mean that too much of it is not bad - and Coleman essentially argues otherwise. Sure, there are only 38 parts per 100,000, but that does not mean this amount is harmful, and again Coleman essentially argues otherwise.

 

In what sense are they qualified? From the reference that you provided:

The careful reader will note that this statement never asserts that they did evaluate the material, just that they are qualified to evaluate the material.

There is another huge red flag here. While I do not deny that many of the 31,000 have the training to evaluate material related to climatology, nowhere is there is any statement that they actually did evaluate the material.

If you can give the readers reason to believe that they actually did evaluate the scientific literature on climate change, then perhaps there is more of a case here than I think there is.

Already, one can be suspicious. Since the authors of the material you post are clearly motivated to do so, why have they made no statement that significant numbers of these people actually evaluated the material.

And we also need to know how many similarly qualified people evaluated the material and came to the opposite conclusion.

Granted, 31000 is a large number. And if there are, say, 31000 qualified people who came to the opposite conclusion, then you have a point. If the number is, say 200,000, then things are different.

And it seems implausible that these 31000 would have the time needed to actually evaluate the material. But, if they have done so and this can be shown, I will grant it.

 

Talk about reaching.

 

Does the material you posted make a clear statement that these 31,000 people performed the necessary evaluations or does it say they are merely qualified to do so?

The answer is that the material says nothing about them actually doing the analysis of the climate data.

This is like saying there are 31,000 people qualified to look into a room and tell us whether it contains an elephant or a tiger, and then they all express the opinion that it contains an elephant, without actually looking into the room.

Now that's a reach.....

 

Yea well.. good luck with that.

 

On what specific grounds do you believe that the majority of climate experts, who do believe that global warming is real and influenced by mankind, are engaging in a complex hoax?