If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"George" wrote in message
... My small nitpicking point is that if the Earth wasn't doing whatever the Earth did we'd be still in the Wurm Glaciation with most of Northern America and Europe under several hundred feet of ice. I think that you and I are really on ths same page. Basically, warming would be mostly a good thing, since there is prabably more oxigen trapped in the oceans in the form of disolved CO2 than is free in the atmosphere; but the most recent warming cycle seems to have passed and we, as humans, never had much to do with it. Also, let us not forget that the same political groups were shouting about global cooling (and the comming ice age) about 30 years ago. OTOH, CO2 really is plant food; but to make full use of it requires exactly the sort of large scale water management (and conversion to nuclear energy) to which the "environmentalists" object. Peter |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Dan Luke wrote: ....Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer ... ~*~ ... Not everyone agrees the cause is human. ~*~ No, just every scientific professional organization in the world. ~*~ Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild assertion? ~*~ Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies' positions: American Association of Petroleum Geologists ..and dozens more.... /snipped/ I don't need a list of them. Your assertion was that EVERY scientific professional organization in the world agrees that humans are the cause for the past few decades being warmer than previous. If there exists just one professional organization that disputes that your wild assertion is proven false. The George C Marshall Institute is such an organization. GC Marshall IS an organization. It is a Republican think tank. That does not qualify them as a *Scientific* organization. Far from it! Here's a little essay from the guy who used to RUN this institute: [2009 essay, former Marshall Institute Executive Director, Matthew B. Crawford] wrote that after he commenced with the group in September 2001 "certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come." ~*~ Here's another note from a head of this think tank. "... in the late nineties, then GMI President Jeffrey Salmon wrote, "when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for financial support." This fall, the Institute received its first-ever grant from a corporate foundation-- the Exxon Education Foundation. (http://web.archive.org/web/200209130...rg/funding.htm) According to Media Transparency.org, the Institute received $5,757,803 since 1985 from conservative foundations including the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors), Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation. " But note: Exxon has only placed $840 thousand with them. Sincerely Brian Whatcott p.s. Take care Dan. You might just find a renta-mob comes to demonstrate outside your house like they sent to the Town Hall meetings about Health Car Reform? :-) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ... Dan Luke wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message news Dan Luke wrote: Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human. No, just every scientific professional organization in the world. Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild assertion? Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies' positions: American Association of Petroleum Geologists http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf American Geophysical Union http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html American Astronomical Society http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate American Institute of Physics (2004) http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm American Chemical Society http://tinyurl.com/nepc8b American Statistical Association http://www.amstat.org/about/pressrel...matechange.pdf InterAcademy Council Joint Science Academies http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=7821 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx European Academy of Sciences and Arts http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/me...ct._2008.p df Network of African Science Academies National Academy of Science/National Research Council (US) http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/...2008_final.pdf International Council for Science European Science Foundation http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-co...=311&year=2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf Federation of American Scientists http://tinyurl.com/neaehf World Meteorological Organization American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009ge...statement.html Royal Meteorological Society (UK) http://www.rmets.org/weather/liverpool.php Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society http://tinyurl.com/kpsnbz Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences International Union for Quaternary Research American Quaternary Association http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Max Planck Institute http://tinyurl.com/knuex6 European Geosciences Union Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences Geological Society of America http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 I'd be interested to see your list of professional scientific organizations who say human activities are *not* responsible for the warming of past few decades. I don't need a list of them. Your assertion was that EVERY scientific professional organization in the world agrees that humans are the cause for the past few decades being warmer than previous. If there exists just one professional organization that disputes that your wild assertion is proven false. The George C Marshall Institute is such an organization. *Scientific professional organization*, McNicoll, i. e., an organization of science professionals. You know, people whose careers are in the sciences. People who actually *do* science. My assertion isn't wild, it's factual. The George C. Marshall Institute is not a scientific professional organization, it is a think tank. What are you going to offer next, the Heartland Institute? Keep trying. I know a couple of fake ones; see if you can find them. As usual, you are playing your ultra literalist game. Shaving the issue down to an atomic scale point relieves you of the burden of being relevant, doesn't it? And where are those cites you promised? -- Dan T182T at 4R4 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Dan Luke" wrote:
wrote: Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human. No, just every scientific professional organization in the world. The scientific organization I belong to didn't poll its members before adopting its position. I have no doubt the statements issued by many organizations were decided by the leaders of said groups. Anyway, so where is the IEEE position? Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team? Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
brian whatcott wrote:
GC Marshall IS an organization. It is a Republican think tank. That does not qualify them as a *Scientific* organization. Far from it! The GCMI is an organization, it has scientists on staff, thus it is a scientific organization. If having political or government connections is disqualifying then the list provided by Dan Luke is wiped out as well. Gotcha! |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Dan Luke wrote:
*Scientific professional organization*, McNicoll, i. e., an organization of science professionals. You know, people whose careers are in the sciences. People who actually *do* science. My assertion isn't wild, it's factual. The George C. Marshall Institute is not a scientific professional organization, it is a think tank. What are you going to offer next, the Heartland Institute? The GCMI is an organization, it has scientists on staff, thus it is a scientific organization. If having political or government connections is disqualifying then the list you provided is wiped out as well. Gotcha! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . "Dan Luke" wrote: wrote: Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human. No, just every scientific professional organization in the world. The scientific organization I belong to didn't poll its members before adopting its position. I have no doubt the statements issued by many organizations were decided by the leaders of said groups. So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships? Anyway, so where is the IEEE position? Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team? Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping. The IEEE is an engineering association. QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group. Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept? -- Dan T182T at 4R4 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Dan Luke wrote:
So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships? I suggest you review their position on AGW. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message m... Dan Luke wrote: *Scientific professional organization*, McNicoll, i. e., an organization of science professionals. You know, people whose careers are in the sciences. People who actually *do* science. My assertion isn't wild, it's factual. The George C. Marshall Institute is not a scientific professional organization, it is a think tank. What are you going to offer next, the Heartland Institute? The GCMI is an organization, it has scientists on staff, thus it is a scientific organization. If having political or government connections is disqualifying then the list you provided is wiped out as well. Gotcha! Not hardly, McNicoll. You cannot falsify my assertion by making up your own definition of a scientific professional organization. Keep trying--a little harder next time, please. -- Dan T182T at 4R4 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Dan Luke wrote:
Not hardly, McNicoll. You cannot falsify my assertion by making up your own definition of a scientific professional organization. Keep trying--a little harder next time, please. Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support AGW and another standard for those that do not. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming The debbil made me do it | Denny | Piloting | 442 | April 5th 08 12:26 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 10:47 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 09:21 PM |
I have an opinion on global warming! | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 89 | April 12th 07 12:56 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: CBS Spotlights Aviation's Effect On Global Warming!!! | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 1 | August 3rd 06 07:24 PM |