Rutan on Global Warming

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
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.

Why?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
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.

I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific professional
organization. You apparently think any organization that employs a
scientist fills the bill. That would include Kraft Foods. You have to do
better than this, McNicoll.

Dan Luke wrote:

Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support
AGW and another standard for those that do not.


I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific
professional organization.


So none of the groups you listed have any political or government
connection?

Dan Luke wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
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.


Why?


Because it's not what you imply it to be.

Jessica wrote:

"Climate Scientists" = global warming believer.


There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW.

An anonymous poster, writing as "Jessica" wrote:
[Dan] ... You apparently think any organization that
employs a scientist fills the bill. That would include Kraft Foods.


Huh? Nobody said anything about Kraft Foods until you hauled it into
the discussion as a phony red herring. Nice try.

Perhaps I can help clarify this concept.

Kraft is a commercial food processor, and distributor.
Kraft employs one or more scientists.
Question:
Is Kraft a Scientific organization?
No; it is a food processor and distributor.

Marshall is a Republican think tank.
Marshall employs one or more scientists.
Question:
Is Marshall a Scientific organization?
No; it is a Republican think tank.

Do you see how this goes now? :-)

Brian W

"Dan Luke" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote:
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.

So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You
specifically included:

"International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences"

QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group.

The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group - not
a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I don't?

(It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like
"Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the
world...."

This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect
is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.)

Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for
doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept?

I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific
organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not
only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a
research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on.

On Aug 9, 2:16*pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
*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. *

You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
seriously flawed computer models. FACT

Cheers

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Dan Luke wrote:

Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support
AGW and another standard for those that do not.


I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific
professional organization.


So none of the groups you listed have any political or government
connection?

Did I say that?

Irrelevant to the definition, anyway.

Give it up, McNicoll.: the goalposts stay where they are.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Dan Luke wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
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.


Why?


Because it's not what you imply it to be.
Naked assertion with no backup or parameters.

Par for you.