Originally Posted by BandwidthAddictNow, once again, where is your list of PEOPLE and where do they get their funding from?You want lists of climate scientists who endorse AGW? This is a fairly difficult task for me to do… why you might ask? Because unlike the material that denialists like to claim as solid evidence (like your lovely email petition, for example) most of the “consensus” scientific material is published in peer reviewed journals which I don’t have access to (not being at a university and all that).Also, if you won't listen to a biologist, how about the 40 climatologists on the list that reckon there is no consensus Typical leftie .. how about like vs like, but then you don't like those odds SCARE & SCAM .. you just want in on it .. admit it.
It is a well-established fact that AGW is happening, and it would appear that most climate scientists are busy getting on with their jobs, trying to understand better the mode and tempo of climate change (How will it happen? How fast will it happen? not Is it happening? Or, did we cause it? – that’s already been established) rather than filling out email petitions. So I’m afraid that I can’t give you a list of every scientist who endorses climate change. What I can do is list some published climate scientists that I know of and you can feel free to do as much digging as you like into their credentials. I can also point out two peer reviewed meta-studies that indicate that the consensus view holds. See Bray & von Storch, 2003 and Orestes, 2004 (summary).
Here’s some consensus view climate scientists (all writers on the excellent Web site, realclimate.org):
Gavin A. Schmidt – climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Michael E. Mann – member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
Caspar Ammann – climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Rasmus E. Benestad – Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University.
Ray Bradley – Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Massachusetts.
Etc etc (more here if you’re at all interested.
Now let’s look at the organizations I listed in my previous post. First let’s clarify something – institutions such as the Royal Society are not “political organizations” they are learned societies. Fundamental difference there. These are very prestigious organizations that have strict entry criterion – much more stringent than, say, an internet petition that simply requires that you have a degree in “science” from any “university” *cough* Seventh Day Adventist University, lol *cough*
Perhaps you should read up on how the membership, electoral process etc. of such societies work before claiming some grand conspiracy theory that the “left” (whoever that is) is collaborating with thousands of scientists on their payroll in order to make up a global warming scam which will enable them to overthrow the evil capitalist world order. Or maybe it’s the massive renewable energy sector that’s funding all these corrupt scientists? After all wind power makes a lot more money each year than the oil companies, right?
Please provide at least some links to these claims before I bother replying.On top of that, two major components of the IPCC report have been debunked; the ice core data and the "hockey stick" graph.
I’m assuming you mean those graphs posted by the Aussie blogger?You STILL have not debunked the original temp graphs.
Oh, so because Al Gore travels around “in style” that means every AGW supporter jet sets around the world in first class seats? As I said before, Al Gore and AGW are not interchangeable terms. Therefore, attacking Gore’s lifestyle has no bearing whatsoever on the science of climate change.You have NOT explained why the so called supporters of the theory find it ok to travel around in style.
Sources please.You agreed that the polar ice caps are melting away BUT this year they are actually growing????? Oh yeah, except in those areas over the very active VOLCANOS!!! Oh yeah, volcanos are HOT, and heat melts ICE!! Wow!!
I’m not entirely convinced on the benefits of carbon trading myself. Funny that you should be anti-carbon trading though, as it’s mostly “lefties” and treehuggers that see it as a means for governments and corporations to get off the hook in terms of their pollution outputs. Nevertheless, in principal it seems like a fairly plausible way to incentivize emissions reductions and penalize those who can’t meets emissions targets. Still, what exactly does this have to do with the science of climate change?You also cannot explain carbon trading .. how come something that is so important to the world is a profit centre???? They should be doing this for FREE!!!!!!! I mean, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!!!
I’m not sure how you expect me to answer for the lifestyle choices of these “big names stars”, nor how you expect me to immediately know exactly which “big name stars” you’re referring to.How come these big name stars that support the theory don't mind living on land that, by their reckoning, will end up in the sea? Cognitive dissonance?
Again, please provide a source for your claim.How about 3000 deep sea probes that show that the sea has decreased in temperature over the last 5 years. I thought AGW was supposed to make the sea WARMER!!!
Source. Dude, you can’t just make sweeping claims without providing some kind of evidence to back them up.BTW .. I have noticed that the temperatures this year are well on track for being pretty much the same, if not a little colder, than the last couple of years. WHERE IS THE WARMENING?? Isn't GLOBAL warming supposed to be, well, GLOBAL!!!!!