118 replies to this topic

[JLL]

So even the BBC has finally turned slightly more skeptic... we are truly living in the end times of AGW alarmism.

[platypus]

So even the BBC has finally turned slightly more skeptic... we are truly living in the end times of AGW alarmism.

That does not change the underlying science at all though.

[platypus]

I haven't seen it demonstrated in practise that anarcho-capitalism is a) ideal and b) stable as a system.

Of course not, because nothing close to Anarcho-Capitalism has existed yet - it is merely a logical extrapolation of the consequences of ever-more free access to information and ever-greater inter-governmental competition.

Extrapolating to the extreme is somewhat naive.

That talk about "natural law" is bullcrap, there are no "laws" in nature.

So things like mathematics, physics, chemistry, economics / econometrics, etc simply don't exist? One moment 2 + 2 == 4, another moment 5?

Where exactly do these laws "exist" out there? Besides you were trying to derive "ought from is" as if the ideal social system is somehow derivable from nature.

So how can you ensure long-term (decades) endeavours in such a system? One cannot even trust that the laws or currency stay more or less stable over such a period of time.

How can you trust anything in a system controlled by governments, which can arbitrarily steal anything they want and kill anyone they want, as they have directly killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone? How can you call governments "stable" when the vast majority of them ignore their own laws, rewrite their constitutions whenever they see fit, or get ever-deeper in debt with impunity (until they default or have a war or a revolution to nullify their debts)?! The names of countries might not change, but most governments are much younger than you'd think...

With governments we can at least try to achieve democracy - I don't see how anarcho-capitalism can protect the masses from non-democratic developments. Corpotocracy can exploit people as effectively as corrupt governments.

In a private system, a contract is a contract no matter how many people it involves,

And how do you guarantee a stable legal system in anarcho-capitalism? Can you even have enforceable anti-monopoly laws? Or legal systems compete too?

[Alex Libman]

That does not change the underlying science at all though.

What "underlying science" are you referring to that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked? You've fallen victim to a many-thousand-year-old "self-fulfilling" confidence trick - everyone believes it because everyone believes that everyone else believes it too. You have nothing on your side except a manufactured "consensus" of corrupt and manipulated government pawns.

Extrapolating to the extreme is somewhat naive.

Anarcho-Capitalism is really two concepts in one: (1) a meta-system of universal individual Rights and (2) a higher-level system of private institutions that will replace all government functions. The latter is based on an extrapolation of finite economic data and I could be wrong about its conclusions, but the former is an essential mechanism of empirical inquiry into the question of human law.

The meta-system of Anarcho-Capitalism means people can band together to set up governments, even fascist / communist / theocratic ones, as long as all adults are there by choice. So if I'm wrong about economic freedom being an advantage then Anarcho-Capitalism will lead to the vast majority of people choosing to live in communist societies, but they will not be able to steal property or entrap people against their will. That of course is an extreme example - the most likely outcome would be intergovernmental competition leading to experiments in social systems similar to Georgism, Objectivism, and Constitutional Minarchism being the most successful. It's all about allowing for unlimited scientific experimentation with whatever social orders people will care to imagine, and allowing individuals to choose which society they want to be a part of like any other products and services in the free marketplace.

Where exactly do these laws "exist" out there?

Natural Laws are not "things" that exist in the material world, they are observations that describe how "things" always seem to function. If you want to plant a cornfield and you need to figure out what its area or perimeter is, knowing the laws of geometry will help you. If you want to fly to the moon, knowing the laws of physics will help you. And if you want to build or choose a society in which to live, then you need to understand the natural laws that govern interactions between "rational economic actors" (i.e. human beings).

Besides you were trying to derive "ought from is" as if the ideal social system is somehow derivable from nature.

Once again, "deriving ought from is" is a necessity for entities that want to exist, and whose existence depends on making rational choices in a world where choices have consequences.

And how do you guarantee a stable legal system in anarcho-capitalism?

How do you guarantee a stable and just legal system under government rule? The current system is anything but! (And we're talking about one of the most successful nations in the world here, the vast majority of human population lives under systems that are far worse!) What incentives does the government legal monopoly have in being just beyond what is necessary to maintain and expand its own power? Do you personally choose your legal system on the basis of merit and reputation, and if it screws you do you have an option to leave and join another one in the future? How can you even know whether a governmental system is just or not if you have no frame of reference to compare it?

The ideal legal system is one based on individual rights, restitution, "open source" documentation of justice, and a free market of arbitration agencies all keeping an eye on each-other. Just as science cannot exist without freedom of inquiry, real justice cannot come from a centralized power either - centralization creates decisiveness (i.e. blind faith), but not optimally accurate results.

Can you even have enforceable anti-monopoly laws?

You can't have a monopoly in a free society without everyone choosing to do business with that monopoly voluntarily, in which case anti-monopoly laws would be a violation of what consumers want (i.e. pointless aggression). And, as mentioned elsewhere, there seem to be many natural market forces that put large companies at a competitive disadvantage.

[bobdrake12]

So even the BBC has finally turned slightly more skeptic... we are truly living in the end times of AGW alarmism.

That does not change the underlying science at all though.

What science?



Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

http://www.newsbuste...onvenient-truth

Noel Sheppard
October 8, 2007 - 23:55 ET

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?

For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

o The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
o The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
o The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
o The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
o The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
o The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
o The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
o The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
o The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
o The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
o The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Edited by bobdrake12, 27 April 2010 - 11:06 AM.

[platypus]

That does not change the underlying science at all though.

What "underlying science" are you referring to that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked? You've fallen victim to a many-thousand-year-old "self-fulfilling" confidence trick - everyone believes it because everyone believes that everyone else believes it too. You have nothing on your side except a manufactured "consensus" of corrupt and manipulated government pawns.

What exactly has been "debunked"? Mind you that debunking does not happen in blogs but in scientific publications. Amateurs have made a lot of noise about issues they don't fylly understand but I don't see any major scientific results about AGW having been debunked. You should really read more what the professionals are saying instead of concentrating on the vocal amateur skeptics.

It's all about allowing for unlimited scientific experimentation with whatever social orders people will care to imagine, and allowing individuals to choose which society they want to be a part of like any other products and services in the free marketplace.

That sounds like a recipe for repeated crises and implosions. People are quite dumb in the end.

If you want to fly to the moon, knowing the laws of physics will help you. And if you want to build or choose a society in which to live, then you need to understand the natural laws that govern interactions between "rational economic actors" (i.e. human beings).

I think it's amply clear by now that people are not fully rational as individuals and even less as crowds.

[Alex Libman]

What exactly has been "debunked"? Mind you that debunking does not happen in blogs but in scientific publications. Amateurs have made a lot of noise about issues they don't fylly understand but I don't see any major scientific results about AGW having been debunked. You should really read more what the professionals are saying instead of concentrating on the vocal amateur skeptics.

Ah, yes, people shouldn't listen to any claims made by those "amateur" atheists. Only the Bishops and Cardinals are qualified to decide whether God exists and whether heretics are to be burned at the stake. They're the "professionals"! Now shut up and start gathering firewood.

That sounds like a recipe for repeated crises and implosions. People are quite dumb in the end.

You claim that "people are dumb", and yet you support a system where dumb people vote and have their will imposed on everyone else. In my system people's choices affect no one but themselves (and, unfortunately but inevitably, their children / dependents). This creates incentives for people to figure out the essentials. Ever-progressing technology will continue to make access to places, people, and information ever-easier. I don't think anyone who can observe life in North Korea and then in Hong Kong would choose the former, but if they do then it's their choice to make.

I think it's amply clear by now that people are not fully rational as individuals and even less as crowds.

No one is perfectly rational (if there is such a thing), but the concept of a "rational economic actor" is an entity that can be expected to take responsibility for its actions. Most human adults who are not mentally handicapped fit this category.

And, um... Your "even less as crowds" comment quite obviously works in my favor.

Edited by Alex Libman, 27 April 2010 - 11:17 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Follow the money!

http://www.telegraph...illionaire.html

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Edited by bobdrake12, 27 April 2010 - 11:20 AM.

[platypus]

What exactly has been "debunked"? Mind you that debunking does not happen in blogs but in scientific publications. Amateurs have made a lot of noise about issues they don't fylly understand but I don't see any major scientific results about AGW having been debunked. You should really read more what the professionals are saying instead of concentrating on the vocal amateur skeptics.

Ah, yes, people shouldn't listen to any claims made by those "amateur" atheists. Only the Bishops and Cardinals are qualified to decide whether God exists and whether heretics are to be burned at the stake. They're the "professionals". Now shut up and start gathering firewood.

You never seem to be able to answer my direct questions, why is that? What exactly has been debunked? You seem somewhat ignorant with regards to the merits of scientific method and peer-review and why this system produces such great results. People need to largely rely on expert opinions on most technical fields as it's impossible for a layman to become proficient in all of them.

[bobdrake12]

You never seem to be able to answer my direct questions, why is that? What exactly has been debunked? You seem somewhat ignorant with regards to the merits of scientific method and peer-review and why this system produces such great results. People need to largely rely on expert opinions on most technical fields as it's impossible for a layman to become proficient in all of them.

Exactly!

Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof.

o Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

o Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Is there *really* a concensus that scientists agree that humans cause global warming and global warming is a *proven* concern regarding our planet?

I am interested in the scientific proof to the claim shown directly above.

http://rightofmiddle...y-for-all-life/

Carbon Dioxide NOT a Pollutant! ‘Tis Necessary for All Life
By steadyjohn

Science has now proven the following very important points:

» CO2 is definitely not a pollutant. It is a friendly trace gas necessary for all life.
» Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.
» 96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.
» Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.
» CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.
» Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards.
» Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
» Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon.
» The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes.
» Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years, thanks to CO2.
» Increasing CO2 yields larger food crops. This is beneficial to a growing population.
» The Earth is not currently warming, it is in fact cooling.
» Temperatures in the past have often been much warmer than today.
» Even if it were to happen, a warmer Earth is far better than a colder one, for all life.
» Many scientists believe we are on the brink of another ice age.
» When the planet warms and cools it is purely due to the sun. Not your car.
» Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.
» Climate changes happen all the time, and have occurred much faster than anything in modern times.
» There has been no increase in extreme weather. In fact, records show the exact opposite.

Edited by bobdrake12, 27 April 2010 - 11:48 AM.

[Alex Libman]

You never seem to be able to answer my direct questions, why is that?

Awww.... did you expect me to come over and read you books like The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming each night before bedtime?

Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof.

They're the ones making extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on them.

[platypus]

You never seem to be able to answer my direct questions, why is that?

Awww.... did you expect me to come over and read you books like The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming each night before bedtime?

If you have no evidence of AGW having been "debunked" stop spreading such baseless rumours.

Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof.

They're the ones making extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on them.

The proof is the the scientific results. Sceptics have not produced very many of those. Thanks to amateur sceptic activists the general public now believes that AGW has been debunked - well that's just great!

[Alex Libman]

If you have no evidence of AGW having been "debunked" stop spreading such baseless rumours.

One can't prove a negative! I have no evidence of the bogeyman being "'debunked'" either, but it doesn't mean he's real, and it most certainly doesn't mean that we need a "bogeyman tax" to ultimately bootstrap a world government!

In the meantime, all claims produced by the alarmists continue to be proven as either highly speculative or downright false, and in the final analysis they're backed by nothing but mindless appeals to authority (i.e. ultimately backed by the tanks and nukes of state).

The proof is the the scientific results. Sceptics have not produced very many of those. Thanks to amateur sceptic activists the general public now believes that AGW has been debunked - well that's just great!

I've mentioned a number of reasons why the temperature data this whole dog and pony show is based on is invalid. You've ignored those points completely. You continue to refuse to think critically, and continue to thump your government-approved bible as if its claims were self-evident.

Edited by Alex Libman, 27 April 2010 - 01:01 PM.

[platypus]

The proof is the the scientific results. Sceptics have not produced very many of those. Thanks to amateur sceptic activists the general public now believes that AGW has been debunked - well that's just great!

I've mentioned a number of reasons why the temperature data this whole dog and pony show is based on is invalid. You've ignored those points completely. You continue to refuse to think critically, and continue to thump your government-approved bible as if its claims were self-evident.

I happen to have a ringside-seat at global change monitoring and I'm also frequently in touch with top scientists working with some aspects of Earth System Science. I seriously don't much care what the general public or even governments thinks about AGW at this moment - science gives us the best information about the state of things and where the science is less than very good it tends to right itself. Coming to your specific point the temperature record is not invalid or debunked and there are several independent temperature records. In other news mean sea-levels and mean temperatures are rising, glaciers are receding and oceans are acidifying. Even if you doubt the whole temperature record the sea-level rise and globan glacier mass-loss are strong indications that the rising temperatures are not just some instrumentation-error.

[bobdrake12]

I happen to have a ringside-seat at global change monitoring and I'm also frequently in touch with top scientists working with some aspects of Earth System Science. I seriously don't much care what the general public or even governments thinks about AGW at this moment - science gives us the best information about the state of things and where the science is less than very good it tends to right itself. Coming to your specific point the temperature record is not invalid or debunked and there are several independent temperature records. In other news mean sea-levels and mean temperatures are rising, glaciers are receding and oceans are acidifying. Even if you doubt the whole temperature record the sea-level rise and globan glacier mass-loss are strong indications that the rising temperatures are not just some instrumentation-error.

platypus,

Even though a few articles have been posted on this thread reporting just the opposite regarding some of the claims above, I respect what a person believes.

Now the question is:

Is there *really* a concensus that scientists agree that humans cause global warming and global warming is a *proven* concern regarding our planet?

Edited by bobdrake12, 28 April 2010 - 12:18 AM.

[Lallante]

The idea that some rank amateur thinks that they have a better understanding of complex historical climate data than the vast body of scientific opinion is: (pick one)
a) Hilarious
b) Tragic
c) Arrogant
d) Beyond belief
e) Idiotic
f) Evidence of mental illness
g) All of the above.














Give up? The answer is g)

[JLL]

Yeah, kind of like people thinking they have a better understanding of whether humans really need to eat bread than the vast body of health officials.

[Ghostrider]

It boggles my mind how much resources are devoted to global warming while something that WILL definitely kill us all - aging is completely ignored. Even if global warming is true, it's not going to directly kill us. But we all know that aging is currently positioned to directly kill us. I'm more worried about getting run over by a drunk driver than global warming. Why do people spend so much time worrying about secondary consequences? I guess that's why I'm here.

[Alex Libman]

It never stops being amazing how all you get from AGW skeptics are facts (ex. asphalt added around a weather station over the decades stores heat and would more than account for the 1 degree readings difference), while all you hear from the alarmists is elitist chest-pounding and Hollywood special effects...

[platypus]

It never stops being amazing how all you get from AGW skeptics are facts (ex. asphalt added around a weather station over the decades stores heat and would more than account for the 1 degree readings difference), while all you hear from the alarmists is elitist chest-pounding and Hollywood special effects...

As a layman you have no real way of assessing whether the claims made on a skeptic website are factual, to-the-point or even relevant. It's very easy to misrepresent the issues at hand and to write a text that is very convincing to a layman (= us). The sceptics have advanced the science related to AGW very little - I urge you to read the latest IPCC assessment-report, Copenhagen Diagnosis and loads of realclimate.org BEFORE you accept stuff posted on sceptic websites as Gospel.

[bobdrake12]

It never stops being amazing how all you get from AGW skeptics are facts (ex. asphalt added around a weather station over the decades stores heat and would more than account for the 1 degree readings difference), while all you hear from the alarmists is elitist chest-pounding and Hollywood special effects...

As a layman you have no real way of assessing whether the claims made on a skeptic website are factual, to-the-point or even relevant. It's very easy to misrepresent the issues at hand and to write a text that is very convincing to a layman (= us). The sceptics have advanced the science related to AGW very little - I urge you to read the latest IPCC assessment-report, Copenhagen Diagnosis and loads of realclimate.org BEFORE you accept stuff posted on sceptic websites as Gospel.

platypus,

Interesting.

Now the question is:

Is there *really* a concensus that scientists agree that humans cause global warming and global warming is a *proven* concern regarding our planet?

[Lallante]

Yeah, kind of like people thinking they have a better understanding of whether humans really need to eat bread than the vast body of health officials.

wat?

[Lallante]

It never stops being amazing how all you get from AGW skeptics are facts (ex. asphalt added around a weather station over the decades stores heat and would more than account for the 1 degree readings difference), while all you hear from the alarmists is elitist chest-pounding and Hollywood special effects...

As a layman you have no real way of assessing whether the claims made on a skeptic website are factual, to-the-point or even relevant. It's very easy to misrepresent the issues at hand and to write a text that is very convincing to a layman (= us). The sceptics have advanced the science related to AGW very little - I urge you to read the latest IPCC assessment-report, Copenhagen Diagnosis and loads of realclimate.org BEFORE you accept stuff posted on sceptic websites as Gospel.

platypus,

Interesting.

Now the question is:

Is there *really* a concensus that scientists agree that humans cause global warming and global warming is a *proven* concern regarding our planet?

There REALLY is a consensus that scientists agree that humans cause C02 increases in the atmosphere and that this is causing changes to the environment that are a major concern regarding civilisations prosperity on the planet.

[bobdrake12]

Is there *really* a concensus that scientists agree that humans cause global warming and global warming is a *proven* concern regarding our planet?[/b]

There REALLY is a consensus that scientists agree that humans cause C02 increases in the atmosphere and that this is causing changes to the environment that are a major concern regarding civilisations prosperity on the planet.

Thank you for your response, Lallante!

Have you seen this petition?:

http://www.petitionp...t.org/index.php



31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

Edited by bobdrake12, 28 April 2010 - 11:31 AM.

[platypus]

Is there *really* a concensus that scientists agree that humans cause global warming and global warming is a *proven* concern regarding our planet?

AGW is very widely accepted to be the only available explanation for the recent changes in climate, yes. One cannot hope for a wider consensus, really. Some people cannot accept evolution for example..

[Lallante]

Thank you for your response, Lallante!

Have you seen this petition?:

http://www.petitionp...t.org/index.php



31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

There are 9k "PhDs" (or so they claim by ticking a box!) signatories.
There are 2.5m PhD holders in the USA

So therefore 0.36% of US PhD holders are climate skeptics.

Congrats!

The picture looks even worse if you break it down to just climate scientists, as most of the people signing that petition are engineers.

Edited by Lallante, 28 April 2010 - 11:35 AM.

[bobdrake12]

There are 9k "PhDs" (or so they claim by ticking a box!) signatories.
There are 2.5m PhD holders in the USA

So therefore 0.36% of US PhD holders are climate skeptics.

Congrats!

The picture looks even worse if you break it down to just climate scientists, as most of the people signing that petition are engineers.

Interesting, Lallante...

And if you wish to marginalize these scientists by calling them "climate skeptics", that's fine with me.

Here is the full breakout on qualifications of signees:

http://www.petitionp..._of_signers.php

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 12,714 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 climate change 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 3,804 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 global warming 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 4,821 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 10,103 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 (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)


2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
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 (4,821)

1. Chemistry (3,128)

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 (10,103)

1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)


2. General Science (269)

And here is how the petition was circulated:

http://www.petitionp..._circulated.php

How Petition is Circulated

This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.

Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.

A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.

Edited by bobdrake12, 28 April 2010 - 11:49 AM.

[JLL]

The consensus of the best minds at the time was that the Earth is flat.

[platypus]

Poll scientists actually working with Earth Sciences, opinions of laymen are not that relevant.

[Alex Libman]

Ah, right, only the people whose job and self-esteem depend on AGW alarmism can be unbiased in evaluating its validity. Never mind that they don't have any accurate data to base their analysis on - they don't need data, they're experts.