Statisticians reject global cooling

[drtom2005]

"A physicist studies physcis, not Earth sciences" Thanks for the update there DOC. as usual you missed the point that it is possible for people to switch from one field to another.
I know it is hard to understand.


"I am sorry you only look for infromation that goes with your preconcieve notions. I am sorry you can not see this is a legimate criticism. I am sorry you can not take apart the article I presented about Earth scientists. Did you even read it?"
Actually I did read it and I found a few flaws. First off right off the bat I will throw out 7 percent due to the fact they only have masters degress. And another 5-7 percent I will throw out because they study Palentology. So 10-12 percent I have already discredited.
And another 30-35 percent of the poll you presented it does not state what they do , So we are up to 40 percent give or take so now we are looking at around 1900 people surveyed that would fit under you qualifications.

I have provided a link to census data from 2000. If anything the number will be around the same or higher when the 2010 census data come out.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...-redoLog=false

Minority Opinion anyone?

By the way if you had bothered to read anything in the other global warming threads you will see right there in black and white that I think it is happening and I think that we as humams have some effect just not sure how much. So before you say that I am only looking for data that supports my side of things you may want to go back into some other threads and take a look.

and Once again I ask you to please provide me all of the names that say they do, just as I have provided the names to you please

A petition is not a poll. This a much lower level of evidence because it does not state their fields. It is not a random slice of what Earth scientists (the experts) think. This is all that is needed to be stated.

[Williy@anker]

A petition is not a poll. This a much lower level of evidence because it does not state their fields. It is not a random slice of what Earth scientists (the experts) think. This is all that is needed to be stated.

And in the poll theat you provided 40% are not stated what they do.

So did you go back and read any of my old posts when I said I think global warming is real, or do you not care. I for one do not look only for evidence that supports my views unlike yourself

and Once again I ask you to please provide me all of the names that say they do, just as I have provided the names to you please

[drtom2005]

And in the poll theat you provided 40% are not stated what they do.

So did you go back and read any of my old posts when I said I think global warming is real, or do you not care. I for one do not look only for evidence that supports my views unlike yourself

and Once again I ask you to please provide me all of the names that say they do, just as I have provided the names to you please

There is no point. You do have not addressed my issues with it. You look at evidence that does not provide their field. By the way, at least my paper was honest. It stated what all their fields were if reported. This petition does not. It just states that they are scientists. What is their fields?
Just because someone puts their name on something doesn't mean their right. But I am not as gullible as other people.

[Williy@anker]

There is no point. You do have not addressed my issues with it. You look at evidence that does not provide their field. By the way, at least my paper was honest. It stated what all their fields were if reported. This petition does not. It just states that they are scientists. What is their fields?
Just because someone puts their name on something doesn't mean their right. But I am not as gullible as other people.

40% dont have a field and another 10-12% are Master Degree holders and palentologists so they dont count, at least by your standards, so how can you even use that poll when you dont even count close to half of the people polled by your own standards??

Once again I consider both sides and do not look for data to only one side of the topic as admitted in other topics. Dont think I have ever seen you admit to anything other than your own amazing research studies on every topic know to man I still dont understand why you dont have at least a dozen pulitzer prizes
And I have addressed your issues you asked for proof that these poeple are against it and I provided it to you.
and Once again I ask you to please provide me all of the names that say they do, just as I have provided the names to you please

As to this point you have not provided me with this list.

[drtom2005]

40% dont have a field and another 10-12% are Master Degree holders and palentologists so they dont count, at least by your standards, so how can you even use that poll when you dont even count close to half of the people polled by your own standards??

Once again I consider both sides and do not look for data to only one side of the topic as admitted in other topics. Dont think I have ever seen you admit to anything other than your own amazing research studies on every topic know to man I still dont understand why you dont have at least a dozen pulitzer prizes
And I have addressed your issues you asked for proof that these poeple are against it and I provided it to you.
and Once again I ask you to please provide me all of the names that say they do, just as I have provided the names to you please

As to this point you have not provided me with this list.

You have not address why the list is not faulty. I will show you another list just like yours.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...niers-47011101

It seems people who put this list together do not care what their field is. They just have to be a "scientists." Your list does even define what they mean by scientists.

So please continue with this faulty belief that just because some undefined "scientists" says something it is true. That list is not good until they tell all what their fields are.

I am done. You can continue with this belief that this petition is real evidence all you want. It does not make it so by a scientific standard.

[Williy@anker]

You have not address why the list is not faulty. I will show you another list just like yours.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...niers-47011101

It seems people who put this list together do not care what their field is. They just have to be a "scientists." Your list does even define what they mean by scientists.

So please continue with this faulty belief that just because some undefined "scientists" says something it is true. That list is not good until they tell all what their fields are.

I am done. You can continue with this belief that this petition is real evidence all you want. It does not make it so by a scientific standard.

Uh so the list that you provided is a list made by somebody of people that he thinks should have no say becasue they have been paid off.
This is not a nice big list of people who have signed onto the global warming

Ok here is a breakdown for you, all you had to do was look, but seems as though you did nothing of the sort since it is against what you believe in. and you love to bash on people and say that they never read the "info" that you provide.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
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 (985)

I) Environmental Engineering (486)
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 (5,810)

1. Physics (5,223)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,818)

1. Chemistry (3,126) 2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,964)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,437)

I) Biology (1,048)
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)

so just in the Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment there are 3,803 signers, I guess you just disqualify all of these.

[ensbergcollector]

You do not understand and I am not surprised. You think science changes all of the time. And as usual, another general statement without evidence.

This what you people make me do.



It is really like talking to the wall.

Please make more general statements without evidence, all of you.

LOL. LOL.

i know it feels like talking to a wall. That's what happens when you egotistically believe that you are smarter than everyone else you are talking to. Rather than listen to anything anyone says, you approach them with the assumption that you are smarter and they are wrong. There is no proof that you could be given that you wouldn't find a reason to say it is not relevant.
What is your degree in if I may ask? Because you throw out all the names on the list given because their field doesn't make them qualified. And yet, you present yourself as though your opinion matters on every subject related to science. I would like to know your degree so that we only have to listen to you when we talk about that subject.
Just so you don't think I am being biased, my degree is in Christian Ministry. As such, I have never placed myself in a place of expertise in anything except religion related topics.

[WantToTrade]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and then re-assess the argument. I do think that Medical Doctors should be excluded as well as any irrelevent sciences. I think every category listed was legitimate from what I saw. Although, if there is people on that list that went to school for Nutrition & Food Science or any oddball sciences their oppinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

I havent really seen much against global warming except the constant bashing of James Hansen, which may or may not be correct. I have seen a lot more evidence for it than aagainst it. From various studies around the country both the atlantic coast and pacific coats ocean temperatures have been rising as well as the sea level. These studies are the yearly average so you cant say "oh they measured those areas during the summer".

I am for global warming but its getting harder to debate. There is a couple articles here and there that trip me up. All we can do is actually read scientific magazines with factual data and interpret them ourselves. Even though there are people that will read an article with graphs and charts and just claim that its all a lie and some conspiracy to get tax money and control the world.

[ensbergcollector]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and then re-assess the argument. I do think that Medical Doctors should be excluded as well as any irrelevent sciences. I think every category listed was legitimate from what I saw. Although, if there is people on that list that went to school for Nutrition & Food Science or any oddball sciences their oppinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

I havent really seen much against global warming except the constant bashing of James Hansen, which may or may not be correct. I have seen a lot more evidence for it than aagainst it. From various studies around the country both the atlantic coast and pacific coats ocean temperatures have been rising as well as the sea level. These studies are the yearly average so you cant say "oh they measured those areas during the summer".

I am for global warming but its getting harder to debate. There is a couple articles here and there that trip me up. All we can do is actually read scientific magazines with factual data and interpret them ourselves. Even though there are people that will read an article with graphs and charts and just claim that its all a lie and some conspiracy to get tax money and control the world.

you touch on a lot of why this debate is going in directions it shouldn't. None of us are fighting the facts that warming is going on. The issue is whether it is man made. We do not have enough sample data to know how much of this is the natural heating and cooling of earth and how much is man made.

[WantToTrade]

I hear what you are saying. Is the debate really about if it is man made or not though? There is alot of skeptics saying that there is no such thing as rising sea levels and temperatures at all. Most of these skeptics are top scientists and professors but their only argument is that these organizations that provide the data doctored them up.

I think it is commonly accepted that from evidence of hundreds of thousands of years proves that when the temperature is up the CO2 and GHG levels are the highest. How this connection operates I'm not sure.