Can you believe there is going ot be a conference in NYC on GLOBAL COOLING??!!!

[Attero Dominatus]

blah blah blah

Why trust liars?

Why trust Al Bore?

[The Night Owl]

Why trust Al Bore?

I have never cited Al Gore's work as the basis for anything I've written about global warming.

[djones520]

TNO...  lets take this from the top.  You claim Frederick Seitz is "mentally imbalanced".  You reference some scanned document typed in 1989.  It makes the assertation that some person by the name of Bill (William) Hobbs claims that Seitz is pretty much losing it.

Who is Bill Hobbs?  Why he was the Chief Executive Officer of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.  He is not a psychiatrist, or a doctor who would be sufficiently capable of making a judgement of someones mental faculties.

So you slander the names of many extremely prominent scientists based on this one scan, which references one persons claim, when that person isn't even certified to make such a judgement.

And you call these people the bad scientists...  

[The Night Owl]

Here is what one respected science journal had to say about the fraud perpetrated by the OISM...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/280/5361/195a

Science 10 April 1998:
Vol. 280. no. 5361, p. 195
DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5361.195a

News & Comment
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Advocacy Mailing Draws Fire
David Malakoff
In early March, tens of thousands of U.S. scientists received a bulk-mailed letter from a former president of the National Academy of Sciences inviting them to sign a petition urging lawmakers to reject the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty. Now some scientists and environmentalists are crying foul because its centerpiece is an article that looks like--but is not--a reprint from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[Attero Dominatus]

Why trust Al Bore?

Global warming is teh true religion! all bow down for al gore. Bush is teh evil!!11!1

No thanks.

[Randy]

Why trust liars?

You're finally getting the point. No one here trusts Al Bore....or you.

[Bondai]

Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?

My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.

Let me guess...."consensus" right?

[djones520]

I don't know why you guys are putting trust in Fred Seitz and the OISM. According to the OISM website, the study which was used as the basis for the OISM petition on global warming has been peer reviewed, but the study has never been published in a peer reviewed science journal...

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

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

So, which scientific journal has published the study on the OISM webpage? None have.

Why trust liars?

Published in "Energy & Environment" volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999

As well as "Climate Research" Vol. 13: 149-164, October 26 1999

And I'm sure there are many many more to find, but I didn't want to try to hard...

[The Night Owl]

Published in "Energy & Environment" volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999

As well as "Climate Research" Vol. 13: 149-164, October 26 1999

And I'm sure there are many many more to find, but I didn't want to try to hard...

Energy & Environment and Climate Research are not recognized as peer reviewed science journals. You've been had by Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD.

http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Publications//
http://www.sciencedirect.com/

[Rebel]

Let me guess...."consensus" right?

Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? 

[Randy]

Let me guess...."consensus" right?

Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? 

Dunno but I'm willing to bet the term Box of Rocks is involved.

[NHSparky]

Let me guess...."consensus" right?

Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? 

Dunno but I'm willing to bet the term Box of Rocks is involved.

Actually, I was leaning more towards "bag of hammers" myself.

[djones520]

Published in "Energy & Environment" volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999

As well as "Climate Research" Vol. 13: 149-164, October 26 1999

And I'm sure there are many many more to find, but I didn't want to try to hard...

Energy & Environment and Climate Research are not recognized as peer reviewed science journals. You've been had by Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD.

http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Publications//
http://www.sciencedirect.com/

You do raise a good point, and my limited time at the moment has stopped me from doing an extensive online search for a journal.  I have contacted the OISM through email and have asked for the information.  Being a Weather Forecaster, I'm reasonably hopeful they'll respond to my request.

I'll hopefully have a response by tomorrow when I get back to work.  As for now, I must prepare for shift change.

[djones520]

In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.

[The Night Owl]

You do raise a good point, and my limited time at the moment has stopped me from doing an extensive online search for a journal.  I have contacted the OISM through email and have asked for the information.  Being a Weather Forecaster, I'm reasonably hopeful they'll respond to my request.

I'll hopefully have a response by tomorrow when I get back to work.  As for now, I must prepare for shift change.

For the record, I don't blame anyone for being duped by the OISM. The OISM appears, upon casual inspection, to be a legitimate scientific organization.

I've known about the OISM for about a year and I've never been able to find out why people who have solid credentials have associated themselves with it.

[djones520]

You do raise a good point, and my limited time at the moment has stopped me from doing an extensive online search for a journal.  I have contacted the OISM through email and have asked for the information.  Being a Weather Forecaster, I'm reasonably hopeful they'll respond to my request.

I'll hopefully have a response by tomorrow when I get back to work.  As for now, I must prepare for shift change.

For the record, I don't blame anyone for being duped by the OISM. The OISM appears, upon casual inspection, to be a legitimate scientific organization.

I've known about the OISM for about a year and I've never been able to find out why people who have solid credentials have associated themselves with it.

I haven't conceded anything yet, and I still say your remarks where offbase and derogetory.  You yourself say that you don't understand why people with such solid credentials would associate themselves with it.  Well maybe it's because you are wrong in your thinking about the OISM.

[Lord Undies]

Wild-eyed socialists crackpots who all share the same goal of destroying the economy of the USA = Climate experts

Reasonable climate scientists who disprove the socialist crackpots' "theory" = Enemy of Mankind

Go figure.  

[The Night Owl]

In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.

The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.

[TheSarge]

The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what Seitz says about global warming.

So...yet again...basically you can't back up your stupid claim.

[Rebel]

The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.

Is there a consensus on it? Or are you just taking that one guy's word for it? 

You seem to be very inconsistent in your approach.

[djones520]

In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.

The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.

So by your judgement, if I where to say your opinion could not be relied apon, that is simple grounds enough for people to go around on the internet and call you a crack pot?

The man holds a PhD in Physics.  He was the President of the National Academy of Sciences.  He was the President Emeritus of Rockefeller Univerisity.  The man is a genius, but because one guy who has no qualifications at all to make such a judgement, says he's not right in the head, that gives you grounds to slander him.

Your not doing yourself any favors bud.

[The Night Owl]

Wild-eyed socialists crackpots who all share the same goal of destroying the economy of the USA = Climate experts

Reasonable climate scientists who disprove the socialist crackpots' "theory" = Enemy of Mankind

Go figure.  

Neither Fred Seitz nor Arthur B. Robinson, the scientist who conducted the study which Seitz uses as the basis for his opinion on climate change, are climate scientists. Go figure.

[TheSarge]

Roy Spencer...Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was also a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

The fact is, science doesn't understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade.

For instance, you might have heard claims to the effect that no peer-reviewed scientific study has refuted the claim that global warming is manmade. Well, there have indeed been some papers that have at least questioned the theory that our current warmth is manmade....but the publishing of alternative explanations is hindered by the fact that our long-term global climate observations (e.g. of cloud characteristics) are not good enough to measure the small changes that might offer an alternative explanation for our current warmth.

Science can not deal with what we can not measure. But scientists could at least admit to incomplete knowledge -- unfortunately, most of them do not.

I can not overemphasize this -- the theory that our current warmth is manmade is largely the result of not having good enough global observations over a long enough period of time to rule out natural causes. Therefore, the current widespread support for the theory of manmade global warming is NOT because the alternative explanations have been ruled out. It is because our poor understanding of natural climate variability does not yet permit alternative explanations to be investigated thoroughly.

Thus, while it is indeed possible to explain much of the warming over the last 100 years with manmade greenhouse gas increases, this is only one possible explanation -- one that necessarily ignores or minimizes any natural sources of temperature variability.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

You were saying TNO?

[The Night Owl]

So by your judgement, if I where to say your opinion could not be relied apon, that is simple grounds enough for people to go around on the internet and call you a crack pot?

The man holds a PhD in Physics.  He was the President of the National Academy of Sciences.  He was the President Emeritus of Rockefeller Univerisity.  The man is a genius, but because one guy who has no qualifications at all to make such a judgement, says he's not right in the head, that gives you grounds to slander him.

Your not doing yourself any favors bud.

Fred Seitz may be a PhD and a celebrated scientist but he is also close to 100 years old.

[TheSarge]

Neither Fred Seitz nor Arthur B. Robinson, the scientist who conducted the study which Seitz uses as the basis for his opinion on climate change, are climate scientists. Go figure.

Too bad you can't try the same routine on the source I used.