Man-Made Climate Change ... take 78

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by troutman

1. Dr. Giggles
2. Dr. Zhivago
3. Dr. Doctor
4. Dr. Pepper

I kid, I kid.

They do address the criticism of funny names and repeated names by pointing out that statistically speaking such thinks are bound to occur. They do their best to check their lists for accuracy.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Of those 31,000 names, less than a third have PhDs in any field. But it gets worse. Only 40 are climatologists. DFF's question (to wit: what scientists? what are their qulifications?) seems apropos here.

9000 plus PhDs is significant. All of these professionals have access to peer-reviewed studies and I'm confident they didn't sign their names without giving some thought to what they were signing.

I'm not sure how many climatologists there are out there but, I am sure the majority are benefiting greatly by this current environmental scare.

[Calgaryborn]

I've noticed a lull in reporting on global warming lately. You only hear about it in the political realm and generally associated with new taxes.

So much for settled science:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...eb8fa9081a&p=1

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

9000 plus PhDs is significant. All of these professionals have access to peer-reviewed studies and I'm confident they didn't sign their names without giving some thought to what they were signing.

I'm not sure how many climatologists there are out there but, I am sure the majority are benefiting greatly by this current environmental scare.

I think you are probably right about climatologists; the field is an emerging one with recent trends in the global climate. As for your contention that 9000 Ph.D.s is "significant", I completely disagree. As a doctoral student—and I'm sure that IFF can speak more intelligently to this than I can—I am painfully aware on a fairly consistent basis of the absolute overabundance of Ph.D.'s in practically every field. It is the reason why I and a few of my colleagues fell victim to cutbacks at the University where I am employed, and why the tenure requirements at most institutions continue to increase. Take a look at the following report from ABC News for further proof of this:

"The latest federal data show about 45,600 Ph.D.s were awarded in 2005–06, 5.1% higher than the year before. It was the fourth straight increase and tied for the largest percentage gain since 1971."

Think about that: 45,000 Ph.D.s awarded in the United States alone in one year. 9000 is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've noticed a lull in reporting on global warming lately. You only hear about it in the political realm and generally associated with new taxes.

So much for settled science:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...eb8fa9081a&p=1

That editorial is missing the same point as most critics of the consensus theory: that "climate change" and "global warming" are not necessarily synonymous.

[transplant99]

Well I started this thread on its own, but it seemed to not catch anyones attention. I think both sides should have a quick read.


http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=58517

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That editorial is missing the same point as most critics of the consensus theory: that "climate change" and "global warming" are not necessarily synonymous.

Climate change is occurring all the time. No one disputes that. The argument is to what extant man is causing climate change. Those who believe that man is causing significant change by carbon emissions point to rising temperatures as proof. They have gone so far as to predict future temperature increases and the effects on the environment from said increases. The consensus theory does predict continual warming and severe consequences to the environment caused by those extra heat units.

We are putting more carbon into the atmosphere than ever before and yet we haven't increased in world temperature since 1998. Last year was the coldest in thirty years. None of the temperature models have come true or even close to true.

Does any of those facts disprove the theory? Nope. What it does though is put the theory in some doubt. The only thing that we know for sure is the temperature models were very wrong.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Last year was the coldest in thirty years.

Where did you hear that?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1751

Hot, hot, hot: The 11 warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the past 13 years says the WMO.

This year is set to be one of the warmest on record and the decade of 1998 to 2007 is to be the hottest ever documented, according to the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

With 18 days left in the year, 2007 is on track for being the seventh warmest year since record keeping began, the agency said, adding that the year had also been characterised by brutal and exceptional weather events.

In the northern hemisphere, 2007 is poised to the second-warmest year, while the average annual temperatures in the southern hemisphere have been the ninth warmest, it said.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well I started this thread on its own, but it seemed to not catch anyones attention. I think both sides should have a quick read.


http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=58517

I did read the article. It needs a link to the full article.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Of those 31,000 names, less than a third have PhDs in any field. But it gets worse. Only 40 are climatologists. DFF's question (to wit: what scientists? what are their qulifications?) seems apropos here.

A fair point...

What's Suzuki's PhD in again? And what makes so many believe he should be taken seriously at all when it comes to climate change, other than he acquires most of his not-insignificant personal wealth from blathering on about the subject?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by old-fart

A fair point...

What's Suzuki's PhD in again? And what makes so many believe he should be taken seriously at all when it comes to climate change, other than he acquires most of his not-insignificant personal wealth from blathering on about the subject?

Zoology. University of Chicago, 1961.

How many people honestly take Dr. Suzuki seriously anymore? There are many other much more reputable, actual climatologists and earth scientists who argue strenuously for man-made climate change.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by troutman

Where did you hear that?

I was incorrect. 2007 was the coldest since 1993:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...eb8fa9081a&p=1

The temperature peaked in 1998 and has moderated since then. No upward trend.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I was incorrect. 2007 was the coldest since 1993:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...eb8fa9081a&p=1

The temperature peaked in 1998 and has moderated since then. No upward trend.

1997/1998 there was a major El Nino event

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Zoology. University of Chicago, 1961.

How many people honestly take Dr. Suzuki seriously anymore? There are many other much more reputable, actual climatologists and earth scientists who argue strenuously for man-made climate change.

Exactly my point. I'm not suggesting I don't believe or I do believe in climate change, or more specifically the extent to which man is responsible for said climate change. Just that listening to Suzuki prattle on about it has grown tiresome. He was just on CTV's "Question Period" on Sunday and introduced as "famed environmentalist Dr. Suzuki". I personally think if he is in fact a "famed environmentalist" they shouldn't use the "Dr." part of his title in relation as it is, in fact, not related and perhaps lends additional credence to his opinions.

If, for example, I told you about a growth I had but I had it checked by a doctor you'd probably assume I meant an actual medical physician and might be inclined to accept his position of "nothing to worry about". If you later learned that "doctor" was actually a PhD in Sociology or, god forbid, Chiropractic Medicine , you might be right to think a second opinion by a "real" doctor would be appropriate.

Is Suzuki still postulating about having scientists (or any others) that question the nature and extent of man-made climate change jailed?