On 10/10/2011 11:35 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.
Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org
**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:
Henry W. Apfelbach, MD
Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated
Harvard in 1946.
http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-ap...h-2237598.html
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp
Not much experience in climate reseach.
And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on
the planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if
some of those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or
even Mickey Mouse.
So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone
like Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll
consult the people who specialise in that area.
The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?
The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science
"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming
On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contribu tors
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org
In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"
It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.
**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at
random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.
I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.
**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it
as an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.
There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?
**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science
is science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to
present solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a
specialist in a particular area of scientific research makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a
non-specialist makes a claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with
that clima, unless there is some compelling science to accompany it.
If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,
**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."
Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.
What is your problem with Spencer?
**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science'
as part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked,
discredited and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet.
Spence is a religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.
Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.
**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the
denialist camp. He is a big target.
Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,
**So?
It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.
**Of course.
Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics
**Don't they?
, don't deal with economic impacts,
**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.
and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.
**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to
support that claim?
Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.
**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.
If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.
**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.
That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.
**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread.
Since he was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with
bringing him up. If you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may
do so at any time.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Without snipping.
I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your
position with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath,
you insist that valid input on the subject can only come from experts -
that's climatologists according to you - and that any non experts,
regardless of what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have,
are just fools, dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft
of other derogatory names.
**Incorrect. I will attempt to clarify my position:
* The Oregon Petition has been discredited. Many times. It is very
seriously flawed.
* Dr Apfelbach has signed the petition, but, AFAK, has never published
any original science to validate his position. Since Dr Apfelbach is
deceased, we can't even know if his position was aligned with the
perpetrators of the Oregon Petition. Dr Apfelbach is not likely to be
the only scientist in that situation. IE: Dead, unpublished (in the area
of climatology) and possibly not in agreement with the position espoused
by the Oregon Petition.
* ANY person (specialist or non-specialist) who makes new claims WRT any
area of science, must also provide healthy, peer-reviewed science to
back that claim.
* A specialist in a particular area of science must be assumed to have
knowledge of that area of science and should always be granted a
reasonable level of credibility.
Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter.
**The climate scientists are the ones that have submitted the data. The
IPCC has collated that data. The people who collate data, make policy
decisions and provide technical input on possible solutions don't
necessarily need to be qualified in the area of climatology, nor do they
necessarily need to be scientists. For instance: A specific area of the
debate centres around the ramifications of a carbon tax or an ETS.
Scientists are not necessarily qualified to provide expert opinions on
the ramifications of such actions. Economists, however, are just the
kinds of people that are required to provide the opinions.
You
further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all
peer reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to
you that many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee,
are not qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to
climatology, your answer is "so?"
**Peer-review people are ALWAYS in the same area of expertise as those
who are doing the research. ALWAYS. IOW: Climate research is
peer-reviewed by climatologists, not nuclear physicists.
Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and
validating with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in
its conclusions ? The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ?
**That was not the comment made, nor was it related to my response. The
IPCC requires the expertise of a large number of disparate people. Not
all are climatologists. Some are economists, for instance.
If they are
not properly qualified to understand the subtleties and nuances of the
subject, then their opinions carry no more weight than any person of a
reasonable education level, randomly picked off the street.
**Irrelevant. I suggest you read up on the IPCC, it's charter and what
it does. It would be helpful for you to read IPCC AR4 too. I guess you
won't be doing that any time soon though.
You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name
was odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be
qualified in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much
to do with climate research.
So I have to say, back at you - so ?
**The Oregon Petition was put foreward as an example of 39,000
scientists who (allegedly) disputed the theory of AGW, the IPCC and the
research performed by climatologists. That is why I say: so? It's
irrelevant. Let's put it into context:
I was service manager for Marantz Australai for 5 years, from 1974 -
1979. I have more than passing familiarity with Marantz products
manufactured from 1972 - 1980.
Let's say a client brings you a Marantz 2325 reciever in for service.
The fault is one that causes the amplifier to make a sudden,
intermittant noise, sometimes tripping the protection relay.
You ask 200 plumbers, 200 electricians, 200 doctors, 200 hi fi
sales-people, 200 TV techs and 200 geologists what the problem is. You
recieve the following answers:
* Output transistors are faulty. (200 opinions)
* The on/off switch is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The front end diff amp pair is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The fueholder is faulty. (200 opinions)
* You need an (expensive) mains filter. (200 opinions)
* It's cosmic radiation. (200 opinions)
From that list, you'd reasonably assume that the front end diff amp is
the most likely cause of the fault, yet a mere 200 out of 1,200 people
tell you that is the cause.
If you asked me, I'd say: None of them. It's one of the varistors in the
output stage. For safety, replace all 4 (two in each output stage)
Who're you gonna trust? The guys that offer a completely plausible
reason, based on no experience? Or the one, lone opinion, from the guy
who knows the 2325 back to front and inside out?
You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data
needs to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to
climatology in order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or
not. You cannot embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the
fancy takes you, to refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to
you by various people.
**I believe you've misread what I wrote. I'll take the rap for not
stating my case with adequate precision. Sorry.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au