|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:43 pm
You like to claim that the whole science community is saying global warming and its assests are true. You even have a site that you have been regullarly posted on this site about global warming that you have been inferring is flawless. Here is to you http://oism.org/pproject/I will state part of it here for people who do not want to click the link. Letter from Frederick Seitz Research Review of Global Warming Evidence Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice. We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent. Frederick Seitz Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. President Emeritus, Rockefeller University *** that was Frederick Seitz's typing, that i pasted from the above site*** ALSO it contains over 15,000 scientists that have signed the petition.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:24 pm
Um...thanks? But you could have posted this in the thread I made instead of making a new one and PMing me your response. xd Although I'm very flattered to have a thread just for little old me.
I looked at the link, yeah, as well as the paper the guy cites. Know what's funny? I can't find any place where it says where this research was published. That means that it has not been reviewed and accepted by the authors' peers in the science community. Conclusion? Bullshit.
The other thing I noticed is how it's not research from a university. Yeah. Because the people at Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (which is NOT a school, and thus has NO oversight) are really smarter than the guys at NASA.
Oh, and just because you have a PhD, doesn't mean you're an expert in climate. Sorry. My dad could sign that stupid thing, and he knows nothing about climate. The website TELLS you that these people are real experts, but you have to take it on faith.
The whole science community IS in agreement here:
A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.
So all I can say is...I guess your research was never peer-reviewed. Which essentially makes it worthless. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:43 pm
Knola Um...thanks? But you could have posted this in the thread I made instead of making a new one and PMing me your response. xd Although I'm very flattered to have a thread just for little old me. I looked at the link, yeah, as well as the paper the guy cites. Know what's funny? I can't find any place where it says where this research was published. That means that it has not been reviewed and accepted by the authors' peers in the science community. Conclusion? Bullshit. The other thing I noticed is how it's not research from a university. Yeah. Because the people at Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (which is NOT a school, and thus has NO oversight) are really smarter than the guys at NASA. Oh, and just because you have a PhD, doesn't mean you're an expert in climate. Sorry. My dad could sign that stupid thing, and he knows nothing about climate. The website TELLS you that these people are real experts, but you have to take it on faith. The whole science community IS in agreement here: A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it. So all I can say is...I guess your research was never peer-reviewed. Which essentially makes it worthless. mrgreen 1) yes while the Ph.d are not listed, to obtain a Ph.d you have to do quite a bit of work on extensive topics, so their input is probably more reveired than two teenagers bickering on a forum. 2)second, are you REALLY willing to say that EVERY scientist that ever graduated out of any school agrees with that statement you posted. I mean that is pretty bold to take on every of the thousands of scientists' opinions and views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:46 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_SeitzFrederick Seitz was the one who started said petition. He graduated from Princeton University and invented the Wigner-Seitz unit cell system(but that is aside from the point) This guy although, is proof that there is one scientist that is not gungho with the global warming hype. Just because he is not reviewed by guys who are obviously global warming "belivers" - it is getting late and i am getting too tierd to use proper vocabulary- DOESN'T mean that he is not a scientist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:49 pm
Just as another tid-bit, the site said: Additional information available from:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. This does not mean that every person that sighned that petition is from OISM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:51 pm
Purplepiratelynn Just as another tid-bit, the site said: Additional information available from: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. This does not mean that every person that sighned that petition is from OISM.
Three posts in a row!! THIS looks legit! xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 pm
I never asserted that he was not a scientist, nor did I say that everyone who signed was from his institute. The website even says that there are only six people working there, along with many volunteers.
My point was that he himself has not done any research that has been accepted by the science community. Too bad for him, no matter how many names he has, if the work he cited was not published by a peer-reviewed journal, it shows that his work simply does not hold up.
I suppose he is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately, his opinion alone does not hold a candle to actual scientific evidence. rolleyes
Edit: I missed your first post, sorry. My point is that there is no proof that a single person who signed that petition is actually an expert in this field. the only thing you have to go on is the website itself, which insists that "the names have been independently verified." Oh, really? By whom? And why is there no link or reference to so much as an unbiased organization which has done this verification?
Just because a person has a Phd, does not mean that their name can erase the real evidence. That is my argument.
Edit: Oh, and I'm not a teenager. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:54 pm
Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
This is also for you. Both our statements cannot be true. Because my side says that he concludes that 75% supports, while your side says 100% supports global warming. Now which sounds true?
even more:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:59 pm
Facts from an actual scientific journal always hold more clout than facts from a regular article. You lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:04 pm
I would like to add that Dr, Oreskes is a geologist, and whild studying climatology-speculation she has her degree in geology and has done most of her studies on plate techtonics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:05 pm
LOL, wow. Do you even KNOW what a journal IS? It's the most credible kind of source you can get. Ask your English teacher. And the journal Science is not biased, lmao. Edit: These "Institutes" you keep making references to are almost certainly biased. They are, by definition, privately funded. Very easy to pay some scientist to agree with them even though said scientist has NO peer-reviewed research to back it up. Good Day Sir
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:26 am
Knola LOL, wow. Do you even KNOW what a journal IS? It's the most credible kind of source you can get. Ask your English teacher. And the journal Science is not biased, lmao. Edit: These "Institutes" you keep making references to are almost certainly biased. They are, by definition, privately funded. Very easy to pay some scientist to agree with them even though said scientist has NO peer-reviewed research to back it up. Good Day SirEVERY INSTITUTE AND JOURNAL IS BIASED, IN FACT EVERYPERSON IN THE WORLD IS BIASED. YOU ARE BIASED I AM BIASED, YOUR LITTLE JOURNAL IS BIASED DR. OKANWHATEVER IS BIASED, SO IS FREDRICK SEITZ. WITH THAT BEING SAID, A SCIENCE JOURNAL IS VERY MUCH BIASED JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:58 am
Institutes are generally biased, yes. For example, the Institute at Rockridge is a liberal think tank. It is privately funded, and its sole purpose is coming up with liberal ideas and arguments, which are distributed to prominent party members.
But journals earn the credibility that they have because they have a reputation of being unbiased. Like I said before, they actually try to disprove someone's research when it is submitted.
That's why it is so very hard to get published in a journal. The standards are higher than anything else, which is why journals arre considered the best source for factual information.
You can think what you want about journals, but the fact remains that they are still the best source for credible information. Just ask any of your teachers.
When I did my term papers this semester, my teachers would not accept information from private organizations or web sites, because there is no oversight or peer review in those places. There is no way of knowing that they are telling the truth. I was only allowed to use research that was peer-reviewed which has been published in the last five years.
Also...caps lock is cruise control for cool. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:44 am
Knola Institutes are generally biased, yes. For example, the Institute at Rockridge is a liberal think tank. It is privately funded, and its sole purpose is coming up with liberal ideas and arguments, which are distributed to prominent party members. But journals earn the credibility that they have because they have a reputation of being unbiased. Like I said before, they actually try to disprove someone's research when it is submitted. That's why it is so very hard to get published in a journal. The standards are higher than anything else, which is why journals arre considered the best source for factual information. You can think what you want about journals, but the fact remains that they are still the best source for credible information. Just ask any of your teachers. When I did my term papers this semester, my teachers would not accept information from private organizations or web sites, because there is no oversight or peer review in those places. There is no way of knowing that they are telling the truth. I was only allowed to use research that was peer-reviewed which has been published in the last five years. Also...caps lock is cruise control for cool. xd I am not trying to say that journals are bad, i am just trying to say that you are acting like this is the ONLY site in the world that is right, and if anything disagrees with it, it is automaticly wrong no matter if it is written by acclaimed scientists or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
