One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Some Useful FACTS About G****l W*****g and C*****e C****e
Page <prev 2 of 23 next> last>>
Sep 24, 2014 10:36:02   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
What true science? Just because science doesn't agree with you its not true? I can see that pigeon kicking your ass.
nwtk2007 wrote:
You know, its kind of like trying to discuss creation "science" with a creation believer. Their "science" gets refuted and a few days later there is some other dude or dudette presenting the very same refuted "science". It goes on and on, so it becomes basically a waste. It's becoming the same with the g****l w*****g skeptics. I mean, its really no different. And when finally confronted with true science that they know dispels their beliefs, they go off on you and start saying you're the devils spawn, you're not saved, you haven't been given God's gift of understanding, that you've had some terrible experience that destroyed your faith, etc, etc. Of course with the g****l w*****g skeptics, they can only quote their conservative leaders who play politics with the subject. Its called "playing chess with a pigeon". First the pigeon shuffles up the pieces, then he s**ts on the board and proclaims victory.
You know, its kind of like trying to discuss creat... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 10:36:38   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Forkbassman wrote:
Anyone who believes that g****l w*****g is the most dangerous threat to our country( I wonder who said that recently), must live in a bubble. The classic Alinsky strategy is: demonize and distract. The Dems cannot run on their record so now it's time to travel the world (at our expense) and talk about g****l w*****g. What's next, methane produced by cattle? Oooh, sounds serious to me.


True, it's not the most dangerous threat to our country or the world for that matter. Of course you know, the ultra-conservatives use the Alinsky strategy to promote their own agenda, don't you?

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 10:40:42   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
JFlorio wrote:
What true science? Just because science doesn't agree with you its not true? I can see that pigeon kicking your ass.


LOL! Science is really not rue or false, but confronted with wrong science, there does then exist, true science. When 2+2=5, thats wrong math and thus 2+2=4 becomes true math. Its a figure of speech.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2014 10:51:16   #
Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
True, it's not the most dangerous threat to our country or the world for that matter. Of course you know, the ultra-conservatives use the Alinsky strategy to promote their own agenda, don't you?


the current consensus is that c*****e c****e will cause more severe meterological events to occur. These events can be disruptive to agriculture as seen in California's drought and economic impacts in the low GDP indicators during last winters cold spell in the midwest and northeast.

But as the climatologists always try to pound into us is this is weather not c*****e c****e.

We have many more pressing and possibly destructive problems that mankinds resources must be put towards solving.

But here is the major question that has put us at each other's throats.

Socialists believe the world needs to be united under a single banner to achieve what is best for us as a species. Other's believe that only through an economic engine like america's capitalist system can create the wealth needed to develope the new technologies to solve our most pressing problems.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:07:00   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
LOL! Science is really not rue or false, but confronted with wrong science, there does then exist, true science. When 2+2=5, thats wrong math and thus 2+2=4 becomes true math. Its a figure of speech.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php






This petition, circulated in the US only, lists 31,487 scientists who disagree with manmade g****l w*****g. For those of you who are too lazy to click the link, I have pasted it below. For the record, 9029 of the signers are PhDs. Since I have taken the time to post the names and qualifications of these scientists, who supposedly represent only 3% to 10% of scientists worldwide, surely one of you ejamakated Liberals can provide a list of the other 3 million plus who supposedly represent the majority? How about just thirty-one thousand? What was that, once more, about 2+2=5? I'm just a poor old redneck, deprived of the advantages of a degree from one of our bastions of Liberal thought: Enlighten me. In my elderly dotage and ignorance, I have only been able to find 31,487 scientists who disagree with you obviously educated progressives. Surely somewhere, there is a Liberal superhero who will rise to the occasion and present a list of names and qualifications of scientists, not politicians and grant writers, who will support your position? Names and quals, please. At least 31,000 of them. Are you so busy feeling superior to clueless conservatives that you can't provide some names?


Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the c*****e c****e controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused g****l w*****g hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:07:25   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
the current consensus is that c*****e c****e will cause more severe meterological events to occur. These events can be disruptive to agriculture as seen in California's drought and economic impacts in the low GDP indicators during last winters cold spell in the midwest and northeast.

But as the climatologists always try to pound into us is this is weather not c*****e c****e.

We have many more pressing and possibly destructive problems that mankinds resources must be put towards solving.

But here is the major question that has put us at each other's throats.

Socialists believe the world needs to be united under a single banner to achieve what is best for us as a species. Other's believe that only through an economic engine like america's capitalist system can create the wealth needed to develope the new technologies to solve our most pressing problems.
the current consensus is that c*****e c****e will ... (show quote)


This is the one thing the skeptics have that is correct. There is no way of predicting the weather effects in specific locales or even regions. But denying that the earth is warming is just silly. Then denying mans contribution to it is also silly.

As to your major question, I guess you are right, at least within the states. But world wide, we have even bigger conflicts. The 21st century is not the 21st century we were told to prepare for.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:15:09   #
robert66
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
You know, its kind of like trying to discuss creation "science" with a creation believer. Their "science" gets refuted and a few days later there is some other dude or dudette presenting the very same refuted "science". It goes on and on, so it becomes basically a waste. It's becoming the same with the g****l w*****g skeptics. I mean, its really no different. And when finally confronted with true science that they know dispels their beliefs, they go off on you and start saying you're the devils spawn, you're not saved, you haven't been given God's gift of understanding, that you've had some terrible experience that destroyed your faith, etc, etc. Of course with the g****l w*****g skeptics, they can only quote their conservative leaders who play politics with the subject. Its called "playing chess with a pigeon". First the pigeon shuffles up the pieces, then he s**ts on the board and proclaims victory.
You know, its kind of like trying to discuss creat... (show quote)


When I read this I saw right below it a post which described perfectly what you say. Something about an Alinsky conspiracy. Luckily I think the majority of the world will win out on the g****l w*****g problem . Whether it is man made or not , the end result will be a less polluted world. In the air, that is because some minds have been polluted irreconcilably , by man.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2014 11:17:42   #
boofhead
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
This is the one thing the skeptics have that is correct. There is no way of predicting the weather effects in specific locales or even regions. But denying that the earth is warming is just silly. Then denying mans contribution to it is also silly.

As to your major question, I guess you are right, at least within the states. But world wide, we have even bigger conflicts. The 21st century is not the 21st century we were told to prepare for.


My opinion on whether g****l w*****g (c*****e c****e, wh**ever) was anthropogenic, or even that it exists (to increase global temperatures, that is) was, based on the science alone, that it is bulls**t. However with what I am learning recently I am wavering.

What I believe now is that it is bats**t.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:19:07   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Loki wrote:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php






This petition, circulated in the US only, lists 31,487 scientists who disagree with manmade g****l w*****g. For those of you who are too lazy to click the link, I have pasted it below. For the record, 9029 of the signers are PhDs. Since I have taken the time to post the names and qualifications of these scientists, who supposedly represent only 3% to 10% of scientists worldwide, surely one of you ejamakated Liberals can provide a list of the other 3 million plus who supposedly represent the majority? How about just thirty-one thousand? What was that, once more, about 2+2=5? I'm just a poor old redneck, deprived of the advantages of a degree from one of our bastions of Liberal thought: Enlighten me. In my elderly dotage and ignorance, I have only been able to find 31,487 scientists who disagree with you obviously educated progressives. Surely somewhere, there is a Liberal superhero who will rise to the occasion and present a list of names and qualifications of scientists, not politicians and grant writers, who will support your position? Names and quals, please. At least 31,000 of them. Are you so busy feeling superior to clueless conservatives that you can't provide some names?


Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the c*****e c****e controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused g****l w*****g hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_s... (show quote)


He's a link to a critique of the Petition. It would appear that the petition itself and the method of its collection are just another example of junk science.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

But it is interesting.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:22:28   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Loki wrote:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php






This petition, circulated in the US only, lists 31,487 scientists who disagree with manmade g****l w*****g. For those of you who are too lazy to click the link, I have pasted it below. For the record, 9029 of the signers are PhDs. Since I have taken the time to post the names and qualifications of these scientists, who supposedly represent only 3% to 10% of scientists worldwide, surely one of you ejamakated Liberals can provide a list of the other 3 million plus who supposedly represent the majority? How about just thirty-one thousand? What was that, once more, about 2+2=5? I'm just a poor old redneck, deprived of the advantages of a degree from one of our bastions of Liberal thought: Enlighten me. In my elderly dotage and ignorance, I have only been able to find 31,487 scientists who disagree with you obviously educated progressives. Surely somewhere, there is a Liberal superhero who will rise to the occasion and present a list of names and qualifications of scientists, not politicians and grant writers, who will support your position? Names and quals, please. At least 31,000 of them. Are you so busy feeling superior to clueless conservatives that you can't provide some names?


Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the c*****e c****e controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused g****l w*****g hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_s... (show quote)


This is an even better rebuttal. Note the other studies cited in the article.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:23:08   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
Brian Devon wrote:
*************
You remind me of the "scientists" who worked for big tobacco and the 3% of the climate "scientists", who are paid shills for the f****l f**l companies.

Those that don't believe in man made c*****e c****e are currently in the process of getting a reality check from their sales receipts at the grocery store.

I am with the president, the E.U., the U.N. and the Democratic party on this one, as well as the current environmentally responsible generation of the Rockefeller dynasty that started this whole f****l f**l nightmare, with all its Middle Eastern wars, and degradation of the environment.
************* br You remind me of the "scient... (show quote)


...so let's assume that climatologists are unequivocally correct. Regardless of the fact that a crackpot Physics professor says that the science is all wrong. And I say crackpot because this professor supports string theory with nothing more than unobservable mathematical constructs.

What is truly the problem is that no one can provide a timeline for the effectiveness of lowering CO2 production. In other words, when are we going to truly benefit from it.

Also, if we just level off the production, won't be just as bad 50 years from now as we are today?

What if industries conform: Planes are permanently grounded, the last car comes off the assembly line, no more campfires, forest fires. No more cattle to eat. We all have to go vegan. What is the effect of that? We evolve to eat less, grow smaller, will children being born become dumber because they don't have balanced diets. Will our lungs become more efficient? The answer is no.

-Why don't we spend money on Genetically Modified plants that consume more Carbon Dioxide and create more oxygen. Encourage farming in areas where they don't exist today, such as deserts?

-Build more nuclear power plants: Thorium based fuel, so we don't produce as much nuclear waste. Build better storage of energy from solar and wind power farms?

-Bathe the earth in nanoparticles that will reflect light or magnetic field that actually are causing the problem?

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2014 11:26:02   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Loki wrote:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php






This petition, circulated in the US only, lists 31,487 scientists who disagree with manmade g****l w*****g. For those of you who are too lazy to click the link, I have pasted it below. For the record, 9029 of the signers are PhDs. Since I have taken the time to post the names and qualifications of these scientists, who supposedly represent only 3% to 10% of scientists worldwide, surely one of you ejamakated Liberals can provide a list of the other 3 million plus who supposedly represent the majority? How about just thirty-one thousand? What was that, once more, about 2+2=5? I'm just a poor old redneck, deprived of the advantages of a degree from one of our bastions of Liberal thought: Enlighten me. In my elderly dotage and ignorance, I have only been able to find 31,487 scientists who disagree with you obviously educated progressives. Surely somewhere, there is a Liberal superhero who will rise to the occasion and present a list of names and qualifications of scientists, not politicians and grant writers, who will support your position? Names and quals, please. At least 31,000 of them. Are you so busy feeling superior to clueless conservatives that you can't provide some names?


Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the c*****e c****e controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused g****l w*****g hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_s... (show quote)


Just the abstract is worthy reading in this article. Real science be much more complicated than you could have imagined.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:29:16   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
robert66 wrote:
When I read this I saw right below it a post which described perfectly what you say. Something about an Alinsky conspiracy. Luckily I think the majority of the world will win out on the g****l w*****g problem . Whether it is man made or not , the end result will be a less polluted world. In the air, that is because some minds have been polluted irreconcilably , by man.


Agreed!

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:30:24   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
He's a link to a critique of the Petition. It would appear that the petition itself and the method of its collection are just another example of junk science.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

But it is interesting.


I would hardly call this a rebuttal, and your statement that the method of collection of signatures is junk science is, in itself, junk science. The fact remains that you have not offered anywhere in the remote vicinity of names and qualifications of scientists who disagree.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:34:04   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Just the abstract is worthy reading in this article. Real science be much more complicated than you could have imagined.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article



Proper English be the same. You furnish rebuttals, but they only consist of a few people who disagree, and whose scientific bona fides are not really brought up in the numbers I provided. If I wanted to dispute this petition, I would probably resort to the same tactics you are using.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 23 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.