Science – So Sen. Inhofe issued a report in which he claims over 400 "prominent scientists" voiced objections on man-made warming. "Padded" would be an extremely generous description of this list of "prominent scientists." For instance, since when have economists, become scientists?
This is what's called 'fuzzy science' come on guys---get with the program!
tc,
Very fuzzy, indeed!
Just like hairy caterpillars! Devouring everything in their reach to satisfy their insatiable appetite!
Inhofe is the hungriest of all those worms!
Duhh...I wonder what Inhofe could possibly stand to lose here. Hmm...Oh, wait... I just remembered something. Rumor has it that the state of Oklahoma produces a whole helluva lot of our country's natural gas, oil, and food. Imagine that. I wonder if neocons are aware of this. ;-p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma
See, there is the real issue I have with all this -
"Get with the program" If you don't believe, 100% that GW is real and is man's fault, you are not "with the program".
I remember when it was "Be different, be a Pepper".
Than it was "I'm a pepper, he's a pepper, she's a pepper, we're all peppers, wouldn't you like to be a peeper too?"
Now it's "If you ain't a pepper, you are wrong"
The article states quite clearly why this population of 'scientists' is more than questionable. I was being flippant---let me apologise.
Fuzzy science has been used to rid our country of many of the environmental protections that were in place. Trying to make people think that these men are qualified is a little underhanded to say the least.
I, above most people, can't not give anyone a hard time for being flippant! Often it is what I give the pluses for ;^D
Did you accept it when the exact same arguments were used against the people on the IIPC? This is, on both sides, part of the thing Clintons decried, while doing, the politics of personal destruction (and they are not the first or last).
The problem with the brave new world is that people are willing let beliefs drive their science, instead of the other way around. When you see me arguing here, if I am not able to back up my arguments, ping me on it.
But, my having a supporting argument that you disagree with is not the same as not my having a supporting argument ;^)
Why are the global warming alarmists ignoring this data:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
I know that it's an inconvenient truth that proves that we cannot do much to change anything and it's immediately attacked with, "So, you want to pollute the planet?" type responses in an effort to muddy the water (so to speak).
What's your take on this info?
Inhofe is a crackpot.
He is also in the pockets of the big corporations who don't want to do anything about the raping and polluting they commit against the planet, as that would eat into their huge profits and bonuses.
He is in just about every environmentally unfriendly corporations pocket. Just take a look at the top contributing industries to his campaigns:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.as...
Oil & Gas, Utilities, Lobbyists, Mining, Automotive, Trucking, Air Transport, Chemical & Related Manufacturing. The list reads like he was Mr Burns from the Simpsons.
What besides a movie, Indians and the dust bowl is Oklahoma famous for? Their large reserves of oil and natural gas! Of course a senator from Oklahoma would be in their pockets. AOG is still raping us in Arkansas over the ice storm of '01. wouldn't want to mess with those profits would we.
Steers and queers? No, that was "Officer and a gentleman" not "Oklahoma", my bust.
Wait, "Oklahoma" had Clint Eastwood's one singing piece, IIRC.
Sorry, Eastwood sang in "Hitch Your Wagon". "Oklahoma" was the Broadway play/movie that became a classic.
Your right, it wasn't Oklahoma, it was paint your wagon.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
nopatacious
daviannewton651975
hatukabu
adamhowe1980
JoshuaL.Peters
RonaldJ.Bond
JamesC.Senecal
reversemonster
BJTJ
reviewer
razmataz
bonnieweelass
whatsnews9
Helixbuilder
GraceCheng1
ModernDemocrat
webtime
nyogtha
Kenneth.A.Watts
shead
Nathaniel.K.Gans
Amazing1
Basant1
deezin2
eugenegerard
iugin
mesodude
thgdriver
JOEY EVANS
HomeGMan
popeller
Nmall
geo767
doppich
crespi
jeannie35
jimdoze
dwemm
Monte G
totalmania
GHOSTWHOWALKS
mattadooby
ClickHere
pagey
TonyCage
GregD
Itachirumon
startbas
emberjohn
juvel
135)
Here are a couple more links to sites that have been looking into the "400 prominent scientists" backrounds. If anyone knows of others, please do post them in the comments. I think we all know that a large portion of these 400 have no credibility or were quoted out of context by this report.
http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scienti...
http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/inh...
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/20/s...
Here is the story that is with the program - with 500 comments.
Spazmat, You do realize that all the 'report' is was Marc Morano using google to find quotes right? It's why his report lists Economists and TV Weathermen as "Prominent Scientists."
Don't get me wrong, i have no doubt some of these 400 are qualified and smart people. But the fact of the matter is this report is padded beyond belief. If this wasnt the case, he wouldnt of had to put people with no degree's in science in it. And would have had more than just a handful of actual climate scientists.(seriusly look at the 400, VERY few specialize in the science of climate or even earth sciences)
Sorry Aidenag, hit the wrong button. Wanted to say thanks for the submission; again, sorry.
No worries tkyrchncs, it happens. Just glad you enjoyed the submit.
If you take the time to go over Al Gore's list, I think that you will find the same kind of "padding". This, of course doesn't include all the "so called experts from the entertainment world"--most of whom are real "no-nothings" when it comes to science.
How dare you attack these men of science just because you don't like the message!
Al Gore is doing his part to save the only planet we have and all you can do is... what? Buy an SUV?
You should be ashamed.
Rightly written 'grandpawh', PRECISELY!
This story was placed October 2006
http://science.propeller.com/story/2006/10/11/s...
Today is also backed up with pure Science.
Now over a year since, , scientists from three Universities have come to the conclusion it is indeed our sun.
http://science.propeller.com/story/2007/12/27/s...
So after not being able to find anyone else looking into the scientists. I decided to do so myself. Up to #50 so far. And just in that, ive found one guy who has 52 of his fellow profs at his university trying to get him removed for distoring facts.
http://ia340934.us.archive.org/1/items/UofOWatc...
Another who is literally just an instuctor at a community college. One who is a Amateur Astronomer(aka never went to college). 3 out of the first 50 have taken money from Big Oil. One guy Inhofe lists as a "climate expert" in his own words says he is no such thing! and best of all, one is a creationist who is affiliated with "Reasons to Believe" which is a science/faith based think tank that and i quote was "established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God"
Im up to #100 now, going to finish the full 400 between now and new years. Once i get it all compiled im going to start breaking it down into stats that make it easier to look at as a whole.
If anyone thinks this story, or Aidenaq's other posts 'refute' the objections of the 400 antropocentric global warming (AGW) skeptics listed in the Inhofe report, then they are obviously not objective.
It is apparent that not every single one of the 400 listed absolutely rejects AGW theory, but they all raise objections to the popular notions of imminent catastrophe being promoted not by the IPCC report, but by AGW theory promoters like Al Gore and the politicians who interpret the IPCC experts' work.
Aidenaq is flatly wrong when he states that 'we know that a large portion of these 400 have no credibility or quoted out of context'.
The author of the original story, Joseph Romm, mentions by name only TEN of the 400 by name, and of those, SEVEN he attacks for being scientists, but NOT climate scientists. But as someone who posted on that blog pointed out, JOSEPH ROMM, the author of this story IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!
"If anyone thinks this story, or Aidenaq's other posts 'refute' the objections of the 400 antropocentric global warming (AGW) skeptics listed in the Inhofe report, then they are obviously not objective."
--I see...So objectivity, in your mind, is completely disregarding the fact that the opinions of those 400 experts conflict with the opinions of many thousands more experts? Up is down and down is up, right?
mesodude,
I think the REAL FACT is that there are NOT 400 'experts' skeptical of anthropogenic global warming theory and 'thousands' who support it.
Most of these so-called 'experts' are not actually experts in the field. Does that mean that one should not listen to them?
No, but I think it does mean that coming to scientific conclusions based upon 'votes', or polls is an extremely UNSCIENTIFIC way to validate a scientific hypothesis.
Science should be based upon empirical data and experimental evidence, not upon votes or surveys, or 'consensus'.
It's frightening to think of some of the so-called 'scientific theories' which were once supported by consensus, rather than empirical, experimentally reproducible evidence.
"Most of these so-called 'experts' are not actually experts in the field. Does that mean that one should not listen to them?"
--No. It means we should listen to both sides with a critical ear.
"Science should be based upon empirical data and experimental evidence, not upon votes or surveys, or 'consensus'.
--Um, of course it should be based on consensus? Where do you think the term "scientific consensus" came from? What I find funny is that people who put the word consensus in quotes, usually don't know how to define it. For the record, consensus does not mean that every single scientist representing a consensus opinion agrees on the matter. It means they *generally* agree.
mesodude:
" --Um, of course it should be based on consensus(?)"
If you really believe that, then do you think the theories of Galileo regarding a heliocentric solar system were not scientific? Do you think the theories of Louis Pasteur were not scientific? Do you think the theories of Charles Darwin were not scientific?
None of these men propounded theories that at the time could be described as 'scientific consensus', yet by extending your reasoning, and that of others, it would seem that on the questions and issues they raised, the 'case' was 'closed', and their theories were outside the bounds of accepted science, and should have been rejected.
Is that truly how you feel scientific progress is made, by 'consensus'?
mesodude,
As I have stated elsewhere, I think it is incorrect, and, frankly, dangerous, to simply assert scientific truth based upon votes, or polls, or head counts.
Mankind would still be laboring under some very primitive ideas if this is how scientific progess was acheived, by 'consensus'.
Is the goal of science to advance knowledge through popularity contests?
I hope not.
The problem that keeps ALL scientists from agreeing are certain evidences that run afoul of the "consensus".
For example:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
This shows a conclusive link between solar wind and climate change on Earth. When asked about this data, it's not denied, it's not affirmed... it's simply ignored as too inconvenient.
You should be blocked for submitting confusing jibberish that only causes people to be misled by you and your other criminal neo-con friends.
You need to look at yourself and ask how you can live with your lies.
You didn't look at the chart, did you.
Joseph Romm, the author of the original story, commits LOGICAL SUICIDE, by attacking some of the 400 in the Inhofe Report for not being climate scientists, when he is NOT a climate scientist. He argues that HE has studied and read the literature, but he presents NO EVIDENCE that the SEVEN scientists he assails have not also read the literature and understood it, perhaps more perceptively than himself.
As for Aidenaq's two other links, the Desmo blog only questions the credentials of SEVEN names on the list, while A Siegal's blog list only FIVE names from the report.
These are NOT impressive challenges to the credibility of the Inhofe Report. Impassioned, yes, but impressive? No.
Svensun, you should look at Al Gore's list of experts. I did.
I found a geologist, English teacher, landscape engineer, hotel administrator, and a gynecologist just to name a few.
There are significant problems with Al Gore's scientists' conclusions including an ignorance of some very "inconvenient truths" such as this solar wind chart:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
Be careful. If you look at that chart, you'll be called a "flat-Earther".