32K Scientists Petition U.S. to Reject Global Warming

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Dec 30, 2014.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Interesting turn of events, especially for a matter that some argue was so easily settled, long ago.

    The he text of the petition reads as follows:
    [​IMG]

    The site also includes some good info (for either side of the debate), and things like credentials, etc.

    Your move, hippies.

    Link: http://www.petitionproject.org
     
  2. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    Paging IP. This thread has potential to be awesome.
     
  3. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    This thing is 6 or so years old, or at least that was when I first saw the thing. If I remember correctly, and I could probably do a simple Google search to confirm, but the names on the list were pretty sketchy. I seem to remember some people doing some random checks of names on the list and finding a lot of bullshit in their presence, i.e. things like they had no information available or they had degrees in various, non-related subjects (like computer science or architecture). There were exceptionally few people who signed this petition from the actual field of study related to this science.

    Otherwise, I can assume that IP is more hip to this "smoking gun", that has existed for many years, and will likely eviscerate the study better than I can.
     
  4. A-Smith

    A-Smith Chieftain

  5. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    Man, you guys just gotta come in here and ruin the fun before it begins?
     
  6. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Especially since only 39 out of a whole 31,000 are actually climatologists. Well, supposedly, because there were people who tried to follow up with those 39 and found people who didn't remember the petition, disagreed with the petition and even were dead, unable to sign the petition.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    What sort of evidence would you like, Tenny? This is an old thing you have shared that has been debunked many times. Simply google it. If you have any nagging questions or evidence you require, let me know what they are and I can address them. This isn't a scam or a game. We're already ****ed at this point anyway, we are just in a window of time where we are deciding how ****ed we want to be.
     
  8. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I did find this thread amusing though. Trying to convince me this isn't happening is like trying to convince a librarian there are no books.
     
  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Here's my honest-to-goodness take, IP. No traps, no feigned retreat, no Socratic method.

    I don't feel that I understand (or worse, am even remotely aware) all that is either at play or at stake, in the whole global warming debate, so as to be capable of even beginning the basic formation of having an educated opinion, one way or the other.

    My understanding of either side is utterly exhausted at any point beyond the knowledge that one side claims that man-made pollution is hurting the atmosphere, and placing us in great peril, and the other side claims that we cannot be certain of what effect it may be having, and what risks may be associated with it, at all, or if any.

    But when I see that 32K "scientists" have petitioned the US to reject the very notion of global warming, it gives me pause, insofar as the debate seems something less than settled. Especially, and admittedly perhaps even in error, I'm naturally cautious whenever scientists infer that something is so plainly obvious as to be self-evident, and there is no need for further debate. It's closely akin to whenever I hear someone suggests that the "government" is a necessary or even a suitable solution to almost any problem - and red flags begin to briskly wave in my mind's eye. Each position (science silencing debate, or the government being a good solution) can certainly be true, but my personal burden of an issue being "beyond debate" seems to be much more stringent than mainstream science, at least at times, and even while fully admitting my own ignorance and bias.

    I certainly don't understand what is at stake for either side, what they propose to do, if anything, and whatever possible motivations that each side may have.

    I am sincerely happy to be educated, in all regards.
     
  10. Oldvol75

    Oldvol75 Super Bigfoot Guru Mod

    It always seems to me that when any scientist that says something contrary to the "norm", they are always brought up as hacks or not really scientists. Seems that if science was really what it is supposed to be, it would eagerly welcome any debate and look at both sides facts. But I guess its just too easy to say they're not real scientists.
     
  11. InVolNerable

    InVolNerable Fark Master Flex

    I bet you could convince the Library of Alexandria's librarian.
     
  12. kmf600

    kmf600 Energy vampire

    Scientists are never wrong. They have theories, and when their theories are shown to be wrong, they change it until it is correct again. Its called evolving, I think.
     
  13. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    But a lot of the guys that sign these petitions for global warming (pro and anti) really don't have any sort of professional knowledge that would qualify them as an expert on the subject.
     
  14. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    I have a Bachelor of Science, can I sign one of these?
     
  15. XXROCKYTOPXX

    XXROCKYTOPXX Chieftain

    I do too, where do I sign?
     
  16. InVolNerable

    InVolNerable Fark Master Flex

    I like to practice my signature. Show me where to put my Herbie Hancock.
     
  17. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You cannot ignore that fact, if true.

    However, doesn't a simple awareness of the basic principles of the scientific method transcend the need for distinct specialization, at some point?

    For example: TennTra is not a veterinarian (allegedly). As such, he is undoubtedly less capable of fully deducing the nuance of a study on the efficacy of a particular equine treatment, than a practicing veterinarian may be. But even given that, wouldn't his mere understanding and practice of science, even if in a completely separate scientific arena, just as likely mean that he would be much more capable of coming to an informed opinion on the matter, than say someone with no scientific training, whatsoever?

    On its face, I agree that a climatologists' opinion would be most valuable in the discussion on global warming, than say a physicist or an astronomer. But still, their opinion would seem to be just as likely more informed and experienced than someone in a non-scientific field, altogether?

    And frankly, it doesn't sound to me like they are trying to tackle the minutiae of the theory (perhaps in error), but are simply saying that the evidence has not thus far supported such an unavoidably certain conclusion, at least as it is being proposed, or merely suggest that there are other and important areas (eg the potential benefits which these same gases may cause to occur) which have been ignored, or not fully considered.
     
  18. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    Thank you for evoking one of my biggest pet peeves. I swallow hard, bite my tongue and smile whenever someone says "put your John Henry right here."

    As for the scientists, the one shown was a physicist. That would be like me signing off on something about botany because I have a math degree.

    The science around global warming is solid and at this point, irrefutable (based on my limited knowledge of the subject). Where the rub is at is what it will actually cause and will it be bad. Sea levels are rising, some pacific ocean island countries are already feeling it. Should we scrap our entire economy to reverse it? Should we just cross our fingers and hope for the best? Or should we simply do the best we can to mitigate continued growth of the CO2 problem?

    THAT is where the debate is, not the science.

    EDIT: And I agree, Tenny. If someone is in the smallest degree aware of the scientific method and can read data, I believe they can come to a conclusion (such as mine above with my limited knowledge). But to call an entire field wrong simply because you think there might be something wrong without deeply studying the field is ludicrous.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2014
  19. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I would assign more weight to a scientific petition of 32K people with a BS, than one which did not.

    Is that not a safe assumption?
     
  20. InVolNerable

    InVolNerable Fark Master Flex

    [youtube]NpEoX8VtHIU#t=30[/youtube]
    Go to :30 mark
     

Share This Page