|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 30, 2008 7:52:34 GMT
So, who's on the other side? 31,000 people who have qualifications in Science have signed the following petition...  Not a lot of economists or filing clerks in this lot... From Global Warming Petition the document that was circulated with the petition...
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)
1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)
2. Earth (2,148)
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)
3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)
Computers & Math (903)
1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)
Physics & Aerospace (5,691)
1. Physics (5,106)
I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
2. Aerospace (585)
I) Aerospace Engineering (585)
Chemistry (4,796)
1. Chemistry ( 3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)
1. Biochemistry (768)
I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)
2. Biology (1,365)
I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)
3. Agriculture (791)
I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)
Medicine (3,069)
1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)
General Engineering & General Science (9,992)
1. General Engineering (9,751)
I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)
2. General Science (241)
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Oct 30, 2008 11:38:04 GMT
Yes it seems that the IPCC whilst it claims to be scientific is anything but.
As the cold increases so do the skeptics of AGW.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 30, 2008 20:34:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 30, 2008 20:40:36 GMT
Some time back I went looking to find out just who the IPCC was - what made them '2500 of the world's leading scientists'? From ‘IPCC scientists; the butcher the baker the candlestick maker’ ..so we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. Also… We were surprised by the results. Was the prevalence of social scientists from the UK representative of the whole group? We decided to repeat the test for the contributors based in the USA.
Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn’t clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography. If you want to find the scientists look in WG1. If you want to imply there are hardly any scientists look in WG2 "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" without mentioning that.. |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Oct 31, 2008 6:27:24 GMT
funny it doesnt make note of any of their qualifications - how do we know the janitor didnt sign it. Also doesnt make note of their comments - which could be ignored A good assessment of the IPCC contributing authors is here; newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/what-media-won-t-tell-you-about-u-n-climate-panelscienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html - 308 reviewers examined the chapters of the Second Order Revision (i.e. penultimate draft) of the Working Group 1 report, with the average number of reviewers per chapter being 67 (minimum 34, maximum 100). - 214 reviewers (69%) commented on two chapters or less and 60 reviewers averaged fewer than 3 comments for all chapters they examined - Only 5 reviewers, specifically 3 individual reviewers and 2 government reviewers, commented on all chapters and just 49 reviewers (16%) made more than 50 comments in total Only 22 governments had designated reviewers but 5 of these commented on only one chapter and 5 averaged less than 3 comments per chapter. The United States of America and Australia, both non-signatories to the Kyoto Agreement, commented on all 5 chapters and made the greatest number of comments. On average the editors rejected at least 25% of those reviewers' comments for any chapter but many of those rejections are contentious. The critical chapter, that which attributed recent warming to human activity, was reviewed by 54 individual and 8 government representatives but almost 1/3rd of reviewers made just one comment. - 31 of the 54 had a vested interest in the report, as editors or having papers cited - 26 authored or co-authored papers cited in the final draft - 10 reviewers explicitly mentioned their own papers in their review Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis of a significant human influence on climate, and one other endorsed only a specific section. The reviewers' comments show that is actually little support for the IPPC's contention that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming. The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and a corruption of the normal scientific process. |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Oct 31, 2008 6:28:40 GMT
Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis of a significant human influence on climate, and one other endorsed only a specific section.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 31, 2008 7:34:10 GMT
And how about Al Gore's Advisory Committee for We can solve the climate crisis.www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/34/Frances Beinecke, Masters Forestry and Environmental Studies Pete Cartwright, BS MS Engineering Karen Florini, Environmental Defense (Lawyer) David Foster, Trade Unionist. Dr. Michel Gelobter MS & BA. in conservation and resource studies PH.D.(race and income distribution of air pollution) KC Golden, no qualifications that I've found Paul Gorman, a graduate of Yale, Oxford University Left learning "religious" group Jonathan Lash, Lawyer Bill Mitchell, No qualifications I can find. Billy Parish, Yale drop out - Climate change more important! Carl Pope, Harvard College only then Peace corp. Jerome Ringo, College education Rob Sargent, B.A., Political Science Read Smith, (Farmer, soil conservationist) Stephen Smith, A Vet "trained" by Al Gore in climate science! Hard Scientists (Physics, Chemisty, Astronomy? Zero) Some Science: Vet, Engineer: 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 31, 2008 22:22:56 GMT
Input-Output Accounts Data (BEA)Here is support for the assertion that Energy is the Commodity essential to all Industries (you can't do without Energy) in Reply #1 . Author: Bureau Of Economic Analysis U.S. Industry Economic Accounts from the Bureau Of Economic Analysis. " 1998-2006 Supplementary Industry-by-Commodity Total Requirements Table after redefinitions at the summary level" Download from URL www.bea.gov/industry/io_annual.htmDownloads the table: www.bea.gov/industry/xls/Sum_IxC_TR_98-06.xls"Contains estimates of the inputs for each industry that are directly and indirectly required to deliver a dollar of the commodity to final users: (XLS - 813KB)" Accessed: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:51:40 AM Note that the following energy-specific Industry/Commodity PubIndCodes are "required by" (essential to) every other Industry. - 211: Oil and gas extraction
- 22: Utilities
- 324: Petroleum and coal products
There is an energy entry under each industry; it is the existance of an entry that is important, even although the entry values are the fraction of GDP. Sorry that 2006 is the most recent available from BEA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 31, 2008 22:45:07 GMT
Not sure if this belongs in this thread or not, but it's to do with politics & GW... Over in the Autumn/Fall Watch 2008 I posted on 27/10... I'm not sure about the rest of Oz, but Melbourne weather can be so variable day-to-day I don't know if most people have realised yet how chilly it's been. We were meant to have our 1st 30º day on Saturday - it warmed a bit but I don't think it got there. This time last year it had already hit 34º. a week or so earlier. It doesn't help matters when the weather reports keep telling people how warm they are - I guess it'll make the crunch time rather harsh when people realise they're being conned. So that's on the 26th October we were meant to have our first 30ºC day... I went looking because it didn't seem like a 30º day to me & the max for that day was 28.7ºC. I then checked Oct 07 & posted in the thread. I just went for a looksee at the full month of October & found the data is altered. Now, Sunday 12th, Saturday 18th and Sunday 26th are ALL 30º or above. The October 07 data has also been 'touched up' - the 34.5º I recall is now 33.5º. Somebody is 'correcting' the data... Net effect that I can see is to make last year cooler & this year warmer to bolster the agw case. Wish I'd kept a bloody snapshot of the prior data - but who expects the Bureau to go altering stuff like this? I'd have thought they'd rely on people's laziness to check the headlines against fact to conceal the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 31, 2008 22:51:19 GMT
I just had a look at Sept 07 vs Sept 08 - my memory isn't as clear on this one but I'm sure there wasn't a 6º spread in favour of '07 being colder - my recall is there was not a lot of difference with Sept 07 being maybe a degree cooler than 08 but I couldn't swear to it - I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed Sept 08 being 6º warmer than Sept 07.
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Oct 31, 2008 23:20:47 GMT
I just had a look at Sept 07 vs Sept 08 - my memory isn't as clear on this one but I'm sure there wasn't a 6º spread in favour of '07 being colder - my recall is there was not a lot of difference with Sept 07 being maybe a degree cooler than 08 but I couldn't swear to it - I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed Sept 08 being 6º warmer than Sept 07. They do it with the Sydney stats repeatedly as well - Im sure thwey will say they are smoothing the data to make it more 'accurate' Ive even seen things happen like on one day when they were releasing the Garnaut report the temperature at Observatory Hill climbed 2 degrees in 1 hour whilst the rest of Sydney consistently dropped more than 1 degree during the same period. If the temperature at Observatory Hill hadnt climbed that 2 degrees we would have got one of the coldest days on record - inconvenient for releasing a global warming report. |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 0:25:32 GMT
Things To Come: Carbon Content Tax LegislationCarbon Tax Summary: Summary of Draft Carbon Tax LegislationAbstract: "The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause. We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem. The world’s best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to do just that. This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must accomplish this goal; our future and our children’s futures depend on it. In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. "In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable. - Tax Carbon content ($50/ton) - Tax Gasoline ($0.50/gallon in addition to $50/ton) - Phase out mortgage tax deduction (on houses over 3000 sq ft) - Expand Earned Income Tax Credit, but phase out based on income "Transfer the revenue to: - Gas tax to mass transit (40%) and road (60%) trust funds - Carbon emissions to other accounts" Website: House of Representatives, John D. Dingle www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml Accessed: Saturday, May 31, 2008 12:21:29 PM Notes:1) Carbon Content Tax: $50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation) e.g., Coal, including lignite and peat, Petroleum and any petroleum product, Natural gas 2) A tax on gasoline: $0.50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based) etc… The $0..50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax) (added to current gas tax) (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation). (Exemption for diesel) 3) (Your Home: )Phase out the mortgage interest deduction on large homes. These homes have contributed to increased sprawl and longer commutes. Despite new homes in and of themselves being more energy efficient, the sheer size, sprawl and commutes lead to dramatically more energy use – or to put it more simply, a larger carbon footprint. (You should feel guilty, guilty, guilty by now. No more suburban living for you, Bucky. Join the huddled masses yearning for liberty in Metropolis.)4) Spread The Wealth Goodies: - The Earned Income Tax Credit will be expanded. This helps lower income families compensate for the increased taxes on fuels.
- The revenue from the gas tax goes into the high way trust fund, with 40 % going to the mass transit and 60 % going to roads. The revenue from the tax on jet fuel goes into the airport and airway trust fund.
- More Goodies: The revenue from the fee on carbon emissions will go into the following accounts:
- Medicare and Social Security
- Universal Healthcare (upon passage)
- State Children’s Health Insurance Program
- Conservation
- Renewable Energy Research and Development
- Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
|
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Nov 1, 2008 0:35:19 GMT
So do they include wood in the carbon tax? Seems to me they shouldn't, as wood is a renewable resource. AND, its a carbon sink (evil grin) And the 50 cents a gallon gas tax goes to mass transit (a suprisingly inefficient means of travel) and to ROADS??? ok... Let me get this straight... We drive too much and too far, and they want to make it EASIER for us to do so by spending more money on roads?  WTF??? And the same WTF for the airport taxes. This plan is stereotypical Democrat Tax and Spend. Of course, the Republicans haven't been very good at NOT doing that lately. Belushi TD |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 0:41:40 GMT
Troubles To Come: Carbon Content Tax LegislationCarbon's Power BrokersAuthor: George F. Will Abstract: " If carbon emissions are the planetary menace that the political class suddenly says they are, why not a straightforward tax on fossil fuels based on each fuel's carbon content? This would have none of the enormous administrative costs of the baroque cap-and-trade regime. And a carbon tax would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits sector-by-sector, industry by industry. So a carbon tax would be a clear and candid incentive to adopt energy-saving and carbon-minimizing technologies. That is the problem. ...Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be "about $7 trillion by 2050." Will that staggering sum pay for a $7 trillion reduction of other taxes? Speaking of endless troubles, "cap-and-trade" comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so that government could sell what it had made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade's perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right ("allowances") to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself-- an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans' exercise of their traditional rights." Website: WashingtonPost.com Date: Published Sunday, June 1, 2008 in Richmond Times-Dispatch, page E3 URL: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002521_pf.html Accessed Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:05:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 0:58:13 GMT
Another Woe To Come: Carbon Content Tax LegislationDingell to Take On Global WarmingAuthor: Geof Koss Abstract: "The climate bill he’s writing would likely seek to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050, which would require deep reductions across virtually the entire U.S. economy. The cuts would come from a previously untested national cap-and-trade program, under which the government would set annual emission levels of greenhouse gases and issue pollution permits that could be traded or sold by companies to meet the limits. The cap would be tightened over time." Website: Roll Call - CongressNow Date: August 28, 2008 URL: www.rollcall.com/issues/54_23/news/27688-1.html?type=printer_friendly Accessed: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:24:39 AM Notes: 1) "...reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050, which would require deep reductions across virtually the entire U.S. economy. The cuts would come from a previously untested national cap-and-trade program," (Remember, the last time the U.S. achieved a leveling or slight decline in CO2 levels is now known as the Great Depression.)2) "...under which the government would set annual emission levels of greenhouse gases and issue pollution permits that could be traded or sold by companies to meet the limits. " 3) "The cap would be tightened over time." 4) "Many economists believe that cap-and-trade can achieve the necessary reductions, but they also agree the plan will come with a big price tag — costs that are expected to be passed on to ordinary Americans in the form of higher energy bills. " 5) “I’ve been trying to warn everybody there’s going to be a huge cost increase, and I’ve gotten a rich flow of denunciation for that,” he said. “ Let’s be honest, cap-and-trade is going to result in a very significant increase in energy prices.” -- John Dingell
|
|
WTF???