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 <<first <prev 3 of 23 next> last>>
Sep 24, 2014 11:35:22   #
robert66
 
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)


http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654 A little about the list.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:36:42   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Loki wrote:
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.


Note the other links I have offered. And the opinion that it is junk science is not mine but those authors. Please continue.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:38:51   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Note the other links I have offered. And the opinion that it is junk science is not mine but those authors. Please continue.


I intend to, but I am afraid you will have to wait your turn. I have other things to do than spend all day on this forum.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2014 11:39:04   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
robert66 wrote:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654 A little about the list.


LOL. Some dead? Good post.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:40:16   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Note the other links I have offered. And the opinion that it is junk science is not mine but those authors. Please continue.


Still doesn't meet the criteria.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:40:19   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Loki wrote:
I intend to, but I am afraid you will have to wait your turn. I have other things to do than spend all day on this forum.


Sure Loki. I love the gorilla flipping off everyone. Is that you?

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 11:55:04   #
skott Loc: Bama
 
Try this one. I read through some of the "facts" on here. They aren't real, which make them lies.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2014 12:01:37   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
skott wrote:
Try this one. I read through some of the "facts" on here. They aren't real, which make them lies.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html


If I could read your mind, I would know which facts you think NASA is lying about.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 12:05:23   #
robert66
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
LOL. Some dead? Good post.


http://egbertowillies.com/2014/09/23jon-stewart-exposes-congress-ignorance/ This is interesting.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 12:08:59   #
skott Loc: Bama
 
robert66 wrote:
http://egbertowillies.com/2014/09/23jon-stewart-exposes-congress-ignorance/ This is interesting.


I don't think NASA is lying. The original post here said we are cooling. NASA does not agree.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 12:11:03   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
robert66 wrote:
http://egbertowillies.com/2014/09/23jon-stewart-exposes-congress-ignorance/ This is interesting.


I guess that committee gets its funding directly from the oil companies.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2014 12:16:11   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
I guess that committee gets its funding directly from the oil companies.


Maybe only these congressman need common core.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 12:24:33   #
robert66
 
skott wrote:
Try this one. I read through some of the "facts" on here. They aren't real, which make them lies.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html


Why are they lies ? I looked at this and then searched for " warmest years on record" . Plenty agree.

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 12:27:57   #
Brian Devon
 
robert66 wrote:
Why are they lies ? I looked at this and then searched for " warmest years on record" . Plenty agree.








************
Robert,

You think Republicans are going to believe NASA? When the wingnuts go boating they still worry that they will fall off of the earth when they reach the horizon?

Reply
Sep 24, 2014 12:32:45   #
robert66
 
Brian Devon wrote:
************
Robert,

You think Republicans are going to believe NASA? When the wingnuts go boating they still worry that they will fall off of the earth when they reach the horizon?


Hey, a lot of people used to believe the world was flat. Why should that change now ? Those pictures from the space station are another lie. I'm sure Obama is behind that too. Ask Alinsky , he knows.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 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.