Originally Posted by MannieD

If numbers impress you, here's a list of organizations that accept the evidence for AGW.
Royal Meteorological Society (UK) has 3000 members.
American Meteorological Society (AMS) has 11,000 members.
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) 79,000 members
American Association for the Advancement of Science 120,000 members
European Academy of Sciences and Arts

Starting to get the picture? 19,000 still seem like a large number?

Thanks for the economic link. I'll read up on it.

Originally Posted by bugalugs

So it seems the answer is no.

You can't show us how many of these 19,000 "scientists" have actually ever published any research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which argues that AGW is not occuring.

You cannot find even 1 for me?

The opinions of these 19,000 "scientists" doesn't really count for much if none of them have ever published any research supporting their opinions, does it.







Another thing - who are these 19,000 "scientists" who don't agree with the IPCC? Why do you continually make things up?

I thought you were referring to the Oregon Petition when you quoted these 19,000 "scientists". It is claimed that these "scientists" signed a petition agreeing to the statement:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Where does that mention the IPCC? I'm sure there are many scientists who would agree that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Could you show me where the IPCC says that there is there is convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

I am not convinced that AGW will result in catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere I understand that there is considerable evidence that the impact of moderate heating of the earth's atmostphere may have impacts upon human habitation that in some instances may me catastrophic. But not that there will be catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere

So, who exactly are these 19,000 "scientists" who don't agree with the IPCC? Where did you get that from?

(and for those who want to read more about the wonderful Oregon Petition - please go here:
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition)

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Throughout history many an intelligent man has made failed predictions in their fields of expertise. We need not jump to conclusions until the pro global warming scientists can produce convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate and disprove the alternate theories with hard science. Until such a time, no legislative action should be taken.

Failed Predictions:

Computer Technology:

* "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.

* "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
-- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

* "But what... is it good for?"
-- IBM executive Robert Lloyd, speaking in 1968 about the microprocessor, the heart of today’s computers.

* "We will never make a 32 bit operating system."
--- Bill Gates

Aircraft

* "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible."
- Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later. Newcomb was not impressed.

* "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

* "It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere."
-- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895.

* "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904.

* "There will never be a bigger plane built."
-- A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people.

Automobiles

* "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad.”
-- The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903.

* "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, Jan. 2 edition, 1909.

* "The ordinary "horseless carriage" is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
-- Literary Digest, 1899.

Miscellaneous technology

* "By 1985, machines will be capable of doing any work Man can do."
-- Herbert A. Simon, of Carnegie Mellon University - considered to be a founder of the field of artificial intelligence - speaking in 1965.

* "The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most."
-- IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959.

* "I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea."
-- HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901.

* "X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

* "Very interesting Whittle, my boy, but it will never work."
-- Cambridge Aeronautics Professor, when shown Frank Whittle's plan for the jet engine.

* "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous."
-- Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916.

* "Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Those officers and men are wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war."
-- Fourth Lord of the British Admiralty, 1915.

* "How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat, 1800s.

* "The phonograph has no commercial value at all."
-- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s.

* "If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said 'you can't do this'."
-- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3M "Post-It" Notepads.

* "Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever."
-- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).

* "Home Taping Is Killing Music"
-- A 1980s campaign by the BPI, claiming that people recording music off the radio onto cassette would destroy the music industry.

Television

* "Television won't last. It's a flash in the pan."
-- Mary Somerville, pioneer of radio educational broadcasts, 1948.

* "Television won't last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."
-- Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.

* "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming."
-- Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926.

Lightbulb

* "... good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men."
-- British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison’s light bulb, 1878.

* "Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress."
-- Sir William Siemens, on Edison's light bulb, 1880.

* "Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure."
-- Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, on Edison's light bulb, 1880.


There is no room to post them all, but you should have the idea that we need not jump to conclusions regarding Global Warming, let the science play out...why the bums rush by Al Gore?

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

We know how many make the IPCC consensus and we know how many signed the petition I quoted. Wouldn't it be better for you to admit how many scientists support the IPCC on global warming, rather than be embarrassed when I do?

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Do they all agree and come publicly by signing a petition clearly stating “There is convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing a catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”?

Your argument is like saying the NEA accepts Barack Obama for President, since they has 3.2 million members therefore Barack will get 3.2 million votes.

Originally Posted by TheChief

Those who don't vote don't get counted 'oow i got this mad petition of 120,000 people!' well theres 6 billion on earth so rack up at least a billion and then well talk.. it's really stupid.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Do we know how many of the 19,000 are qualified to review the research?
Frank R. Boehm a safety engineer? nope
I found you one that isn't qualified. Find me one from the list that is.
.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Do we know how many of the 19,000 are qualified to review the research?

Originally Posted by MannieD

I've listed 4 out of 31 organizations with membership numbers totaling 213,000 scientists and engineers. 1 percent is 2130 scientists; from 4 organizations. Any way you add it up the number will far exceed your 19,000.

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

I love it Tim Lambert! Does he teach anything weather or climate related at the University of South Wales? Here's a link to his school page.

What he Teach's:

* Computer Graphics
* Advanced Graphics
* Engineering Design and Innovation
* Computational Geometry

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/

The opinion of computer teacher doesn't really count for much if:
1) He has absolutely no education in climatology
2) Has never published any research supporting his opinion.

Does it.

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

What then is the IPCC basing it's man made global warming claims on? A ouiji board?

Originally Posted by bugalugs

But re my previous questions - still no answers huh?

You can't show us how many of these 19,000 "scientists" have actually ever published any research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which argues that AGW is not occuring. You cannot find even 1 for me?

And you have no evidence of who these these 19,000 "scientists" who don't agree with the IPCC are - you appear to have just made that up

Much of it is based on genuine research published in peer-reviewed journals.

Can you show me any published research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which argues that AGW is not occuring?

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Try looking up Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: "There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons." He has, beyond that I will not do your research FOR you, however, I do charge $200 per hour for research and would be happy to research your theory's for you at that price.