Quote:
Originally Posted by TheChief
Is that the part your refering to? if 3/11 of the thirty were legit that would come to around 200 yes but how do you account for the 3 that said they don't remember and five who were just to afraid to pick up the phone? sounds like there being terrorised..
|
And the six that no longer agree. It suggests to me that they weren't infact contacted, or didn't give signing it the correct amount of thought. What bizarre reason can you have for assuming they're being terrorised? Do you assume that everytime someone doesn't answer the phone when you call them?
Quote:
|
And what about the 2,660 scientists in the list trained in psysical or enviromental sciences? or the ~4000 scientists trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences? do these not count as the scientific community because there not undergoing active research in the field?
|
Well, I'll note again that I see this list as basically worthless as its almost impossible to independantly check. Assuming though that they're legit, and have the same failure rate as the other sample, thats maybe 500 more scientists?
Quote:
|
This petition even though a decent chunk of its crap is still large and shows what the scientific communisty really thinks.
|
Right thats a compelling argument. Its junk or its not, we have no idea how many are legit. Not to mention its old now anyway.
Quote:
|
More than what we can say for the IPCC consensus....paid out much?
|
Its palpably incredible that you apply this level of scrutiny(well sceptsicism rather) to the IPCC, when you apply absolutely bubcas to your list. Arguably, the IPCC one is far more reliable, being that they actually give some identification. Also incredible, and this gets me every time, that we are supposed to believe that money is influencing scientists because their governments want them to find AGW is true (???) compared to the huge amount of money doing the rounds from resource companies that have an obvious conflict of interest.
Seems Mannie has addressed that area better than I could, but I will pick up where I wanted to anyway, with an analysis of specific names you offer- so Richard Lindzen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...ing_the_report
"Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[23]
According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." [23]"
Link to said op piece:
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
And Exxon Secrets:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets
Quote:
|
This list contains only about 1300 names (show me the rest it!). no qualifications are stated. Several of these names are just names with nothing under them. The vast majority are names with a university under them but no indication as to what they do there. (Student, Proffessor, Admin, janitor?)
|
What list are you talking about? doesn't seem to be the one Mannie mentions- you better hope you didn't just stand still.