Gobal Warming: nonsense?

Post by **_Tarski** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:53 pm

Coggins7 wrote:
Sorry to all to be so intense about this, but this issue is a sore thorn in my paw.

The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about. I have done my homework on this and have on my side other scientists.
I am personally qualified to understand the statistics and much of the physics of the issue.

You are linking to sites not put together climate scientist. Your failure to see why this is important is telling. You are not scientifically trained are Coggins. It is clear that you do not have the slightest clue as to how to make judgments about scientific issues.

If we stick to primary literature by real top climatologists or to websites written by actual climate scientists then you will have nothing or close to nothing.
Lets try it.

Even easier is for you to give me names of top climates scientists at any of the worlds top universities
who disagree with my assessment (I got the assessment from such scientists).

Can you do just that?

What you call running away is nothing more than someone realizing that you will refuse to deal directly with the science or consult the top experts in the correct field of science.

Try it just once. Come on, just one scientific argument not debunked already by real climate scientist. How about just one name?? Of course, you need more than that in the long run because I can almost randomly choose a climatologist from any of the top rank 100 universities. I would have dozens, maybe hundreds on my side on this issue. I ask you to find one. Or, make one good scientific argument.

If you can't do the above then it is you who have run away.
You want to turn it into politics exactly because you have nothing scientific.

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:34 am

Coggins7 wrote:
Cog- have you seen the recent newsweek article on global warming? I've posted it in a couple of threads, but haven't gotten a response.

I don't read Newsweek about scientific issues, or any issues. As to general criticism of AGW, I stick with eminent authorities in the field such as Robert C. Balling, Roger Peilke, Fred Singer, Chris Landsea, Richard Lindzen, and the Idso's, who probably have the best website out there on the problems of AGW as all of their reports and analysis are linked to and developed from past and current research as reflected in the professional literature.

Time and Newsweek are the last places I would ever go for my science (and please, don't take any economic analysis you find in those puppy training papers seriously).

Oh, I just looked it up. You mean the ad hominem circumstantial smear piece by Sharon Begley that makes no substantive arguments whatever in refutation of the AGW critics arguments?

You see, this is really all the Left has...

Fred Singer--not a climate scientist

Idso is a geographer at Arizona State, not a top climate scientist and seems to be in the pocket of Exxon mobile.

Robert C. Balling is not at a top university and has nevertheless admitted to declining skepticism:

"There is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands."

Roger Peilke- is not at a top university and isn't really a skeptic of Coggins sort anyway:

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers

Chris Landsea is just some hurricane guy whose only beef seems to be whether there had been an increase in hurricanes or not. He is not at a top university (or any university).

Richard Lindzen is the one guy who has some real credentials to speak on the topic. He only claims that the IPCC report to policy makers had exaggerated language. In fact, that may be true but the exaggeration was something like 90% certain where it should have been more like 80% certain. It is my understanding that he backs up most of the science in the scientific portion IPCC of the report. He is however, in the extreme minority regarding his minor skepticism. He also claims that second hand tobacco smoke is not harmful (minority there to I suppose).

It is important to note that for every 100 climate scientists we can find a few who appear to disagree on some significant aspect of the global warming debate. So what, we have already seen this in other fields. In evolutionary theory we have Behe for example.

The question is what is the consensus and the fact is that the vast major of the best experts agree on a core of propositions which I outlined. Coggins thinks that this little handful of people with their varying degrees of skepticism undermines that fact but this is not the case.

On the other side what do we have??

This is answered at realclimate as follows:

Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.

This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about.

Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:58 am

more...

Whose on my team? (don't miss my post directly above this one)

Well besides the following,

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
*[b] National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)[/b]
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

we also have

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (Relief Society)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

For further explanation of the consensus issue see here (come on dare to look!)

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

Post by **_Coggins7** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:09 am

Tarski wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:
Sorry to all to be so intense about this, but this issue is a sore thorn in my paw.

The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about. I have done my homework on this and have on my side other scientists.
I am personally qualified to understand the statistics and much of the physics of the issue.

You are linking to sites not put together climate scientist. Your failure to see why this is important is telling. You are not scientifically trained are Coggins. It is clear that you do not have the slightest clue as to how to make judgments about scientific issues.

If we stick to primary literature by real top climatologists or to websites written by actual climate scientists then you will have nothing or close to nothing.
Lets try it.

Even easier is for you to give me names of top climates scientists at any of the worlds top universities
who disagree with my assessment (I got the assessment from such scientists).

Can you do just that?

What you call running away is nothing more than someone realizing that you will refuse to deal directly with the science or consult the top experts in the correct field of science.

Try it just once. Come on, just one scientific argument not debunked already by real climate scientist. How about just one name?? Of course, you need more than that in the long run because I can almost randomly choose a climatologist from any of the top rank 100 universities. I would have dozens, maybe hundreds on my side on this issue. I ask you to find one. Or, make one good scientific argument.

If you can't do the above then it is you who have run away.
You want to turn it into politics exactly because you have nothing scientific.

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declaratio ... vised.html

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declaratio ... vised.html

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declaratio ... ppeal.html

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

You're claim that I am linking to sites not put together by climate scientists indicates either a deep intellectual dishonesty on your part, or some kind of organic cognitive problem (and I hope its that latter).

Here is S. Fred Singer's bio:

Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

Singer has received numerous awards for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently testifies before Congress.

Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and public policy journals...

Here's Lindzen's:

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

Here's Peilke's:

B.A., Mathematics, Towson State College, 1968
M.S., Ph.D., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1969, 1973

Roger A. Pielke Sr. is currently a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and a Senior
Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Program in Atmospheric
and Oceanic Sciences (PAOS) at the University of Colorado in Boulder (November 2005
-present). He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University.
Pielke has studied terrain-induced mesoscale systems, includiPielke has studied terrain-induced mesoscale systems, including the development of a three-dimensional mesoscale model of the sea breeze, for which he received the NOAA
Distinguished Authorship Award for 1974. Dr. Pielke has worked for NOAA's
Experimental Meteorology Lab (1971-1974), The University of Virginia (1974-1981),
and Colorado State University (1981-2006). He served as Colorado State Climatologist
from 1999-2006. He was an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina (July 2003-
2006). He was a visiting Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the
University of Arizona from October to December 2004.
He has served as Chairman and Member of the AMS Committee on Weather Forecasting
and Analysis, and was Chief Editor for the Monthly Weather Review for 5 years from
1981 to 1985. In 1977, he received the AMS Leroy Meisinger Award for "fundamental
contributions to mesoscale meteorology through numerical modeling of the sea breeze
and interaction among the mountains, oceans, boundary layer, and the free atmosphere."
Dr. Pielke received the 1984 Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award,
and also received the 1987/1988 Abell Research Faculty Award. He was declared
"Researcher of the Year" by the Colorado State University Research Foundation in 1993.
In 2000 he received the Engineering Dean's Council Award from Colorado State
University.
He has authored a book published by Academic Press entitled Mesoscale Meteorological
Modeling (1984) with a 2nd edition in 2002, a book for Routledge Press entitled The
Hurricane (1990), a book (co-authored with W.R. Cotton) for Cambridge Press entitled
Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (1995; 2nd Edition 2006), a book (co-authored
with R.A. Pielke, Jr.) entitled Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society published
in 1997 by John Wiley and Sons, and was Co-Chief Editor (with R.A. Pielke, Jr.) of a
book entitled Storms, published by Routledge Press in 1999.
Dr. Pielke was elected a Fellow of the AMS in 1982 and a Fellow of the American
Geophysical Union in 2004. From 1993-1996, he served as Editor-in-Chief of the US
National Science Report to the IUGG (1991-1994) for the American Geophysical Union.
From January 1996 to December 2000, he served as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of
Atmospheric Science. In 1998, he received NOAA's ERL Outstanding Scientific Paper

And Robert C. Balling:

Balling is director of the Laboratory of climate sciences at Arizona State University.

Refereed Publications
Balling, Robert C. Jr., and Mark L. Hildebrandt 2000: Evaluation of the linkage between
Schumann Resonance peak frequency values and global and regional temperatures,
Clim Res, 16, 31-36.
Hildebrandt, Mark L. 2000: A Climatological Analysis of Lower Atmospheric Ozone
Transport Across Phoenix, Arizona, Papers and Proceedings of the Applied Geography
Conferences, 23, 145-153.
Ellis, Andrew W., Mark L. Hildebrandt, Wendy M.Thomas, and H.J.S. Fernando 2000:
Analysis of the climatic mechanisms contributing to the summertime transport of
lower atmospheric ozone within metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, USA, Clim Res,
15, 13-31.
Ellis Andrew W., Mark L. Hildebrandt, and H.J.S. Fernando 1999: Evidence of lower
atmospheric ozone "sloshing" in an urbanized valley, Phys Geog, 20, 520-536.
Balling, Robert C., Jr., Jeffrey M. Klopatek, Mark L. Hildebrandt, Cherie K. Moritz, and
Christopher J. Watts 1998: Impacts of Land Degradation on Historical Temperature
Records from the Sonoran Desert, Climatic Change, 40, 669-681.

Proceedings Publications
Balling, Robert C., Jr., Mark L. Hildebrandt, Jeffrey M. Klopatek, Cherie K. Moritz, and
Christopher J. Watts. 1997: Impacts of Land Degradation on the Temperature Records of
Northwest Sonora, Proceedings of the American Meteorological Society's 10th Conference
on Applied Climatology, 248-252.
Hildebrandt, Mark L. 1997: Changing Land Use Patterns Along the USA-Mexican Border:
Effects on Climate Feedbacks, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, 32.

Book Chapters
2000: “La Niña, “ Dictionary of Physical Geography, 3rd Edition. Thomas, D., and A. Goudie,
eds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
2000: “El Niño, “ Dictionary of Physical Geography, 3rd Edition. Thomas, D., and A. Goudie, eds.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Other Miscellaneous Publications
Hildebrandt, Mark L., and Robert C. Balling, Jr. 1998: Climate Variability at the World's Windiest
Weather Station, Windswept: The Quarterly Bulletin of the Mount Washington Observatory,
39 (4), 34-40.
Hildebrandt, Mark L. 1995: The Observatory's Snow Record, Windswept: The Quarterly Bulletin
of the Mount Washington Observatory, 46 (1), 24-26.
Hildebrandt, Mark L. 1993: How Normal Are the Normals? Mount Washington Observatory News
Bulletin, 44 (3), 86-87.

Presentations

Please see Curriculum Vitae

Funded Research
Internal
2001: Funded University Research, “An Assessment of Diurnal Air Pollution
Transport Across Kathmandu,” monies for research assistant (funded).
2001: Excellence in Undergraduate Education, “Proposal to Develop and
Procure Equipment for a ‘Snow and Ice Processes’ Field Course,”
$6,228 (funded).
2001: [with L.M Snell, W. Weiler, and W. Snell], Excellence in Undergraduate
Education, “Proposal to Develop Laboratory Experiments in Geography,
Education, and Construction Courses,” $9,075 (not funded).
2001: [with C. Santanello, L. Laine-Timmerman, and S. Morgan], Excellence
in Undergraduate Education, “Enlivening Teaching: Using Discipline-Based
Cases to Improve Learning and Teaching” $ 3,860 (funded).
2000: Institute for Urban Research, “Ozone Exceedances in Metro East,”
$12,136 (funded).
2000: Excellence in Undergraduate Education, “Proposal to Establish a Cooperative
Weather Station on Campus,” $8,729 (funded).
2000: Excellence in Undergraduate Education, “Proposal to Demonstrate Meteorological
and Climatological Processes to Geography Students,” $4,447 (not funded).
2000: Funded University Research, “Spatial Considerations in Understanding Lower
Atmospheric Ozone Transport Across Metropolitan St. Louis, $1,785, Graduate School
(funded).
1999: Summer Research Fellowship, “The Synoptic Climatology Associated with Lower
Atmospheric Ozone Exceedances in Metropolitan St. Louis,” $6,000, Summer 2000
(funded).
1999: Research and Development, Faculty Development Fund for Travel to Augment
Dissemination of Results of Research; $870 (funded).
1999: Faculty Development Fund ($376.50; $200 Department, $176.50 College of Arts and
Sciences), September (funded).
External:
2000: [with L.M Snell, W. Weiler, and W. Snell], Environmental Benefits of Concrete:
Development of Laboratory Experiments for High School Physics and Earth Science
Courses, American Concrete Pavement Association, $20,000 (pending).
2000: [with A.W. Ellis, A.J. Brazel, H.J.S. Fernando, and A. Grundstein], Cold Boundary
Layer Dynamics: Turbulent Energy Transfer Over Snow, National Science Foundation,
$ 326,742 (SIUE: $ 85,288; not funded).
1999: [with M.J. Starr] Assess Weather Data in Striptrial Fields, Monsanto Corporation,
$19,000 (not funded).
1998: A Study of the Meteorological and Chemical Processes That Cause Exceeded Pollution
Levels in the Phoenix Area During the Summer, Cyprus-Amax Minerals Company, $3640
(funded).
1998: (with Robert C. Balling, Jr.) Evaluation of Schumann Resonance as an Additional
Method for Accurately Measuring Global Temperatures, Exxon Corporation, $50,000
(funded).

Awards
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Research Fellow, Institute of Urban Research, 2001
Summer Research Fellowship, 2000
Honorary Member, Gamma Theta Upsilon, 2000
Arizona State University
Edna Bailey Sussman Trust Fellowship, 1998
ASU Forecasting Hall of Fame, 1997
Graduate Academic Scholarship, 1996
Graduate Tuition Scholarship, 1995-96
Kent State University
Mount Washington Observatory Scholarship, 1995
APCO Conservation Service Award, 1991
John Allan Clark Service Award, 1991
Geography Major Award (4.0 GPA), 1991
Golden Key National Honor Society
Dean’s List, 1989-91
President's List (4.0 GPA), 1989

Here's Chris Landsea's

# August 1994 Doctoral Degree in Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Advisor, Prof. William M. Gray Dissertation: "Climatic Variability of Intense Tropical Cyclones"

# May 1991 Master's Degree in Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Advisor, Prof. William M. Gray Thesis: "West African Monsoonal Rainfall and Intense Hurricane Associations"

# December 1987 Bachelor's Degree in Atmospheric Sciences University of California, Los Angeles

Tim Ball:

Tim Ball

Environmental Consultant and Former Climatology Professor
University of Winnipeg

Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, Dr. Ball’s comprehensive background in the field includes a strong focus on the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Dr. Ball is a researcher/author of scientific papers on a range of environmental issues. He has recently (December 06) co-authored a paper for the scientific journal, Ecological Complexity, with Baliunas, Dyck, Soon, Baydack, Legates, and Hancock entitled Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? He is also co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 - McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World’s leading authorities on arctic birds.

And Frederick Seitz:

Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University and a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, is a distinguished physicist and educator who has held key government posts for over three decades. In 1973 he received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest award in science, for his contributions "to the foundation of the modern quantum theory of the solid state of matter." In 1983 he received the Fourth Vannevar Bush Award presented by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation and the R. Loveland Memorial Award of the American College of Physicians. From 1978 to 1983 he served as vice chairman of the board of trustees of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Seitz was appointed president of The Rockefeller University in 1968. Under his administration, new basic research programs were started in reproductive biology, cell biology, molecular biology, and the neurosciences as well as new clinical investigations at the University's 40-bed research hospital

And Mr. Idso:

SHERWOOD B. IDSO assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on 4 October 2001. Prior to that time he was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, where he worked since June of 1967. He was also closely associated with Arizona State University over most of this period, serving as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology. His Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines.

As a result of his early work in the field of remote sensing, Dr. Idso was honored with an Arthur S. Flemming Award, given in recognition of "his innovative research into fundamental aspects of agricultural-climatological interrelationships affecting food production and the identification of achievable research goals whose attainment could significantly aid in assessment and improvement of world food supplies." This citation continues to express the spirit that animates his current research into the biospheric consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

Shall I go on with another several thousand Tarski?

You're either a very poor demagogue or have a reading comprehension problem.

How do these credentials stack up against your magnificent knowledge of climate sceince, generally speaking?

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:09 am

don't read this auntil you read the last two posts of mine (this is just another couple examples of who is on my side):

The Petition - 11,885+ individual scientists listed by name

A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers. Here is an excerpt from that petition:

“For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.”

We, the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:

1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.

Kenneth Bowman
Sarah D. Brooks
Larry Carey
Ping Chang
Don Collins
Andrew Dessler
Robert Duce
Craig Epifanio
Rob Korty
Mark Lemmon
Don Lucas
Shaima L. Nasiri
John Nielsen-Gammon
Gerald North
Richard Orville
Lee Panetta
R. Saravanan
Gunnar W. Schade
Courtney Schumacher
Thomas Wilheit
Ping Yang
Fuqing Zhang
Renyi Zhang

and more...

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:19 am

Coggins,

Are you or are you not scientifically trained?

Do you or do you not understand the meaning of the word consensus???????

Lets check. You have a handful of people who's science you do not understand.

You fill up a pages on the vitas of your 4 guys. What if I did the same for my 11,000 guys???

I have the following:

The Petition - 11,885+ individual scientists listed by name

A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers. Here is an excerpt from that petition:

“For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.”

the support of

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
*[b] National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (Relief Society)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

[/b]

There is more if you want it.

You are up to 4 or 5 questionable characters against my thousands and the support of the major scientific organizations.

SO, YOU LOSE ON THE QUESTION OF CONSENSUS--PERIOD.
If you can't see that then you have an IQ problem.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am

Yip, Yip, Yahoo. Follow the links I provided to the 4,000 scientists world wide who signed the Heidelberg Appeal and the 17,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. Over 100 scientists signed the original Leipzig Declaration, and then there's this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/fina ... b87559d605

Tarski is hiding behind the now discredited claim of mainstream consensus regarding AGW. No such mainstream view exists. The fact of the matter is that the mainstream view is that the jury is and has always been out on what is actually going on globally relative to the modest warming that has occurred over the last century and the mechanisms responsible for it.

The mainstream view is loaded with uncertainty, ambiguity, and massive gaps in basic knowledge. But of course, ideology tolerates no such inconveniences and stubborn facts. The Left needs AGW to be true just as it needs their to be no God just as it needs its noble savages in Muslim lands and inner city ghettos just as it needs its lumpen masses of oppressors and oppressed just as it needs Darwinian fundamentalism and Marxian economic mythology.

It needs these things because without them, it theoretical framework falls to peices at the touch of a feather.

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:44 am

Coggins7 wrote:Yip, Yip, Yahoo. Follow the links I provided to the 4,000 scientists world wide who signed the Heidelberg Appeal and the 17,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. Over 100 scientists signed the original Leipzig Declaration, and then there's this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/fina ... b87559d605

Tarski is hiding behind the now discredited claim of mainstream consensus regarding AGW. No such mainstream view exists. The fact of the matter is that the mainstream view is that the jury is and has always been out on what is actually going on globally relative to the modest warming that has occurred over the last century and the mechanisms responsible for it.

The mainstream view is loaded with uncertainty, ambiguity, and massive gaps in basic knowledge. But of course, ideology tolerates no such inconveniences and stubborn facts. The Left needs AGW to be true just as it needs their to be no God just as it needs its noble savages in Muslim lands and inner city ghettos just as it needs its lumpen masses of oppressors and oppressed just as it needs Darwinian fundamentalism and Marxian economic mythology.

It needs these things because without them, it theoretical framework falls to peices at the touch of a feather.

Oh, yes the Oregon petition. that's the one that has one of the Spice Girls on it and also Michael J Fox (supposedly.) John Grisham and ficticious names like Perry Mason (TV lawyer).

From Wiki

The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[2] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

The Petition Project itself states:
“ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[1] ”

In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[10] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[11] ”

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[12]

Post by **_Coggins7** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:24 am

Are you or are you not scientifically trained?

Irrelevant. Don't pull the credentialist tap dance on me Tarski. You're hiding behind those credentials because you have nothing but smoke and mirrors to argue your case. One does not need any special training to understand the fundamental scientific issues and facts as they stand.

Do you or do you not understand the meaning of the word consensus???????

Yes, and besides the fact that no such thing exists in the scientific community, consensus is alien to science (which, if your actually a scientist yourself, you would understand, and you wouldn't have posted such rubbish).

Lets check. You have a handful of people who's science you do not understand.

Let's check, you are a scientist who has sold out his intellectual honesty to ideology.

You fill up a pages on the vitas of your 4 guys. What if I did the same for my 11,000 guys???

And what if I did the same for my 21,000 (excepting the few hundred that, according to your sources, may be phonies and redundancies (and I don't necessarily trust your sources here, most of them being mainstream daily papers notorious for the dubiousness and partisanship of much of what they report. I'm not sure Scientific American is even a good source, given some of its behavior regarding this issue in the recent past)). I noticed you only attempted a smear on the Oregon petition, and then the best you could do was the tiniest fraction of the whole. You didn't mention the Leipzig Declaration, the Heidelberg Declaration, or the Canadians. But don't worry, if you troll around the Soros funded think tanks and PACs long enough you'll eventually find some dirt you can use (I'm just wondering what the percentage of the scientists and organizations you've listed rely substantially or solely on government money to fund their research, and how this might influence their "consensus"?)

The fact of the matter is, of course, that those people I did post curriculum vitae for are, in point of fact, most probably far more credentialed and experienced than you in the relevant specialized fields, as well as having advanced credentials in your own.

You are such a sad, typical leftist Tarski. All you have is your little black bag of ad hominem circumstantials, smears, and innuendos. That's all you have because AGW is part of a fanatic ideology that can only be defended by destroying and impugning its philosophical opponents. It cannot exist in the open arena of ideas without that little black bag. It has no scientific support (and even if a consensus existed, this would mean next to nothing. The empirical evidence either exists or it does not, regardless of in-group consensus among scientists).

You need AGW because AGW is the camel's nose in the tent that will finally bring about the social changes you and the rest of the Left desire (and the destruction of that which you detest), and all in the name of "saving the planet". Yes Tarski, the Left can finally destroy liberty, capitalism, and traditional religion at a stroke all the while wrapping its dark heart in the noble folds of social conscience.

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:04 pm

Coggins7 wrote:
You are such a sad, typical leftist Tarski.

Let me just explain what an idiot you are. I am a centrist by comparison to most people who think of themselves as on the left. I believe in a responsible free market, democracy and individual rights. I do not follow Chomsky or Hugo Chavez.
I am left of you for sure but then so are half the republican senators!!

Almost half of my scientific friends and colleges at my university in the south voted for bush.
All of these scientists accept the minimal statements I made about GW.

Republican scientists are frustrated with their own party on this issue.

Scientists in all those academies I listed aren't all leftists. It is a mix.

Your picture of the world is a rabies induced delirium.

So I am not a "leftist". In many countries I would be considered to be on the right.

Second, you are so untrained that you can't realize that

a. The consensus became large after your partly faked, unprofessional, and politically motivated Oregon petition. Most of all it was reactionary.

b. The worlds premier skeptic Michael Shermer and a host of critics changed their mind based on evidence well after that silly petition (which is old and half of a random sample said they wouldn't sign it again while others didn't even remember signing it).

The evidence was correlated and the evidential situation clarified after that time. The Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007" took place recently and was where and when the total and also latest evidence was hashed out in it's most comprehensive and convincing form. You are out of date.

The fact that you are not scientifically trained is the reason you can't tell the difference between the Oregon (pseudo-)petition
and the IPCC report and the endorsement of every major scientific society.

You just don't have a feel for truth as is witnessed by your belief in everything from demons, disappearing gold plates, seer stones and your imaginary cartoon caricature of a "leftist" to fairy tales like Noah's Ark and angels with flaming swords commanding new wives.