Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:59 am    Post subject: US Senate: Man Made Global Warming Claims Disputed Reply with quote

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"


http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....63dc2d02cb
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Prominent scientists ... Reply with quote

I have just been googling that list of "prominent scientists" ...and its kinda weanie.

Prominent scientists should have Phd's ..many on that list don't.

There are bunch of TV weathermen on there. A TV weatherman is not a prominent scientist.

There are a bunch of guys in non science fields (Anthropology, Economics)

Some believe in global warming, but feel its a good thing.

Others don't discount global warming, they just whine its tough to make an accurate computer model

There is a "field biologist who works in remote part of Africa" -gee there is someone with the academic background to comment on climate models.

Tim Ball made the list. I would say a few things about him, but he likes to sue people.

Most with hard science degrees have areas of research unrelated to climate change. Someone who spent his entire life studying the orbit of hydrogen atoms is not qualified to talk about global warming.

There is one guy who seems to misunderstand the carbon cycle...

A bunch appear to be retired.



Yes, there are legitimate scientists who do research in the field who disagree with global warming, but there are not a whole heck of alot of them. Calling that group "400 prominent scientists" is a lie.
Also, if you read the excerpts, many of these people disagree with each other. Some feel the warming calculations are in error, others feel its hapening but its a good thing, others feel its a natural cycle.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Prominent scientists ... Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
Tim Ball made the list. I would say a few things about him, but he likes to sue people.

May I ask a simple question or two?

Do you have any substantial references to the alleged lawsuits instigated by Dr. Tim Ball (I see you neglected his honourific) or are you simply regurgitating something you read in the MSM or on a biased and non-credible source like desmogblog which specializes in unsubstantiated personal attacks?

If Dr. Ball has, in fact, sued anyone, are you suggesting those lawsuits lacked substance or it was inappropriate for him to sue someone?

-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:37 pm    Post subject: Dr Ball Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you have any substantial references to the alleged lawsuits instigated by Dr. Tim Ball


It was one lawsuit against a group of people. I believe a newspaper, a professor and a university. It got a fair bit of media coverage. If you can't google it, I will find a link for you. I believe the court papers are online somewhere.

Quote:

I see you neglected his honourific


Not intentional - I know he has a Phd.

Quote:

If Dr. Ball has, in fact, sued anyone, are you suggesting those lawsuits lacked substance or it was inappropriate for him to sue someone?


I believe "slap suits" are inappropriate. A slap suit is an attempt to intimidate a legitimate critic into silence with the threat of a lawsuit. There is no intention to win the case, just to shut people up with the threat. It got to be such a common thing in some US states they passed a law against them.

I believe that Mr Ball's suit was just that. I He probably felt that they would just apologize and shut up rather than going through the expenses and cost of a court case.
When the parties he was suing responded in court, he dropped the suit, having to pay costs.
If the lawsuit had any substance, he should have went forward rather than pay money to the people he sued.

Why launch suit if you are only going to pay court costs in the end ? Probably because you don't have a leg to stand on.

Besides. Mr Ball's academic background was exagerated. If he didn't do it, he should have corrected it.
















[/quote]
Quote:
Quote:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Dr Ball Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
It was one lawsuit against a group of people. I believe a newspaper, a professor and a university. It got a fair bit of media coverage. If you can't google it, I will find a link for you. I believe the court papers are online somewhere.

No need. I was aware of only the single lawsuit. The way you wrote, I wondered if there was more than that one. Based on that single lawsuit which he eventually abandoned, you're willing to make the judgement that Dr. Ball "likes to sue people"? Interesting.

peter_puck wrote:
Not intentional - I know he has a Phd.

Not intentional. That certainly explains why, for the rest of your reply, you refer to Dr. Ball as "Mr. Ball" and you've yet to address him as Dr. Ball, right? If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Ball's Phd is in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology. That sure sounds like someone who wouldn't no a single thing about climate change to me. I wonder what he taught at the University, hmm?

peter_puck wrote:
I believe "slap suits" are inappropriate. A slap suit is an attempt to intimidate a legitimate critic into silence with the threat of a lawsuit. There is no intention to win the case, just to shut people up with the threat. It got to be such a common thing in some US states they passed a law against them.

I agree SLAPP suits are inappropriate. The appropriate acronym is SLAPP as in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

I'm not certain Dr. Ball's case is truly a SLAPP since SLAPPs are done by well-funded individuals and/or organizations and they tend to run the full court process as a means of seeking injunctions against continued criticism or draining resources (financial and/or emotional) from an opponent. Since Dr. Ball abandoned the lawsuit rather than taking it to full process, I suspect his action doesn't fit the definition.

Whether it "fits" or not, I'm not a fan of using the court systems in this manner. If Dr. Ball didn't like what the letter to the editor said, he should have responded in the same forum.

peter_puck wrote:
I believe that Mr Ball's suit was just that. I He probably felt that they would just apologize and shut up rather than going through the expenses and cost of a court case.

Perhaps he did expect a simple apology and didn't realize just how expensive court would be... both in money and negative publicity?

peter_puck wrote:
When the parties he was suing responded in court, he dropped the suit, having to pay costs.

Sucks to be Dr. Ball but this leads me to believe he doesn't like suing people unless he has masochistic tendencies... and if he does, it's surprising he hasn't sued more people, eh?

peter_puck wrote:
If the lawsuit had any substance, he should have went forward rather than pay money to the people he sued.

You're assuming a great deal. Not very scientific.

peter_puck wrote:
Why launch suit if you are only going to pay court costs in the end ? Probably because you don't have a leg to stand on.

More assumptions...

peter_puck wrote:
Besides. Mr Ball's academic background was exagerated. If he didn't do it, he should have corrected it.

Again, I agree. If Dr. Ball took issue with the substance of the letter to the editor, he should have corrected it in the appropriate venue.

-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:04 am    Post subject: Dr Ball Reply with quote

Quote:

No need. I was aware of only the single lawsuit. The way you wrote, I wondered if there was more than that one. Based on that single lawsuit which he eventually abandoned, you're willing to make the judgement that Dr. Ball "likes to sue people"? Interesting.


While I was one lawsuit, it involved a number of parties. Thats where "people" came from. Among the people being sued were the critics employer.

Quote:

I'm not certain Dr. Ball's case is truly a SLAPP since SLAPPs are done by well-funded individuals and/or organizations and they tend to run the full court process as a means of seeking injunctions against continued criticism or draining resources (financial and/or emotional) from an opponent.


From my understanding, SLAPP suits are not intended to go the whole distance. When you are going to loose in the end, espcially in the embarassing way Dr Ball would have lost, you don't go through with them. The threat of bankrupting some is usually enough.
Even if the large organization wins, it can be really embarrasing.

Among the people Dr Ball sued was the employer of his critic. What purpose does that serve but to try to intimidate this critic ?

As for being well funded, well, again, Dr Ball can release the list of donors to his "grassroots" organization.
Besides. It was a really simple lawsuit. If he had evidence, he could have simply presented it.

Quote:

Not intentional. That certainly explains why, for the rest of your reply, you refer to Dr. Ball as "Mr. Ball" and you've yet to address him as Dr. Ball, right?


*SIGH* are we not being a little picky? I have said Dr Ball has a Phd. I have refered to him as Dr Ball in these forums before. Just for the record "yes I understand Dr Ball has a Phd". Ok ? For the record, how many times do people put "Dr" in front of "David Suzuki" (SP). I work with a guy with a Phd, I call him "Peter". Does that mean I don't think he has a Phd?


Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Ball's Phd is in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology. That sure sounds like someone who wouldn't no a single thing about climate change to me. I wonder what he taught at the University, hmm?


I believe he has a Phd in historical Geography, his thesis had something to do with climate, but more climates effect on people if I remeber correctly - I coudl be wrong. Now, of course he taught at a University. What he taught, and how long he taught it is a little confusing. Perhaps if he did not bail out of the lawsuit, we would have a better idea.

Now, if he was a serious climate researcher, I am sure you could point to all the peer reviewed scientific papers he has written.


]
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Dr Ball Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
*SIGH* are we not being a little picky?

Yes, we were, weren't we? I shall endeavor to be more tolerant of others... and I suggest you might do well to undertake the same endeavor.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It strikes me, the pro global warming scientists, it seems that their credentials are never questioned. In fact, I have never even seen them.

PS. It seems, for a guy who lamented attacking Al Gore instead of the science behind Al Gore, that he is doing an awful lot to attack the people on the other side rather that the arguments. Seems kind of ironic.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, just for fun, lets examine the arguments of the self proclaimed scientist and expert on all areas of science peter_puck.

He states "a bunch seem to be retired". I now ask for the scientific evidence that retired people cannot be right. Otherwise, aren't you just attacking the people instead of the science behind them?
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

self proclaimed scientist


These "self-proclaimed" have Phd's and have spent their lives doing hard research. Most of the more prominent ones earned reputations long before the global warming debate started. Their work has had to stand up to peer reviewed studies. They are not "self-proclaimed" anything. Hard science Phd's (atleast outside the creation science community and "bible colleges") are probably the most difficult intelectual achievement.

Quote:

He states "a bunch seem to be retired". I now ask for the scientific evidence that retired people cannot be right. Otherwise, aren't you just attacking the people instead of the science behind them?


My point was this. The poster said he had a list of "400 prominent scientists" and that this list debunked consensus". I was pointing out the list was anything but.

What I meant by being retired was this. The list is very very short on anybody who does any serious, current research into the subject. Since most of the anti-global warming crap is new (the old stuff got debunked years ago), it is doubtful anybody did any serious research on the subject. I found they were retired because I googled many pf them trying to find whatever accomplishment made them prominent. All I came up with was the fact that they were retired.

Again, I was not attacking the people, I was just pointing out they were not "prominent scientists (in may cases they were not even scientists).
I attacked Mr Ball, because well.....go read the court documents.


Quote:

t strikes me, the pro global warming scientists, it seems that their credentials are never questioned. In fact, I have never even seen them.


Go ahead, try and attack them. Please....please..please..please..please, pretty please. It should be sooooooo easy. There are so many of them.

Do you think that Rush Limbaugh is pulling punches ???
You make fun of Al Gore, cause he is all you got.

Come on, name me one major anti-global warming scientists with the resume problems of some of the global warming scientists.

And again, its not all anti-global warming scientists who are being attacked like that. Its the ones who have become academic jokes.
There is a guy who does serious research who wants to place the blame for global warming on a change in ocean currents. Nobody attacks him.

Go look at what happened to the scientists OJ's defense team When you lie, the scientific community jumps on you
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette, I guess these prominent scientists are like the Borg; nameless pieces of the "Consensus" and, according to peter_puck (who still hasn't named who funds his research), all will be assimilated.

Gee, peter_puck, you must really hate guys like physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, who has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970. Why would you hate him? Well...

Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about man-made climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006, "By the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement" about several key points regarding man-made climate fears. Stilbs announced that the scientists, concluded: "There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998."

Stilbs also noted, "There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the 'Mann hockey-stick curve' are by now totally discredited." Stilbs concluded by noting that the team of international scientists concluded: "There is no doubt that the science behind 'the climate issue' is far from settled. As so many cosmic effects are omitted from climate models, there is no credibility for arguments such as 'there is no other explanation' [than anthropogenic generation of carbon dioxide]. This must be remembered when making future political decisions related to these matters."

Stilbs also was one of the signatories of the December 13, 2007 letter critical of the UN IPCC's climate view.

What did that letter say again, peter_puck?

"These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."

Gosh, peter_puck... you'd better rush off to desmogblog and see if they've attacked Dr. Stilbus yet.

-Mac
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o

A little treat for peter_puck...

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally, someone posted some actual verifiable claims, instead of just asserting that all skeptics were senile retired people, or not scientists, or not climate scientists, and even if they were they weren't well respected.

That appeal to emotion and such must play really well when peter_puck is singing to the choir. Here, not so much.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Finally, someone posted some actual verifiable claims, instead of just asserting that all skeptics were senile retired people, or not scientists, or not climate scientists, and even if they were they weren't well respected.

That appeal to emotion and such must play really well when peter_puck is singing to the choir. Here, not so much.\


I have looked back on the thread, and I don't anyone who has said that.
Someone refered to a list of "400 prominent scientists".
All I said was that a prominent scientist should be someone who :

A) IS a Scientist
B) Has a Phd
C) Does some sort of current work in the field

I will ask you again. Do you have anything to dispute my assertion that the list does not contain "400 prominent scientists" ?

Do you have any evidence that I have said anything like:

"all skeptics were senile retired people, or not scientists, or not climate scientists, and even if they were they weren't well respected"

I have stated that there are some scientists who hold anti-AGW views. Some of these are likely "prominent" . All I was pointing out that there were not 400 prominent scientists on that list. Instead of discusing that point, you have made up yet another strawman.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:33 am    Post subject: Video is gone ... Reply with quote

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o

A little treat for peter_puck...

-Mac


Video was taken down. Perhaps the CCC got it :-)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


US Senate: Man Made Global Warming Claims Disputed

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB