Only in the sense that God would also be part of the physical world because the concept arises in the mind of man. I am not sure evolutionary advantage can be considered part of the physical world although genes certainly can.
Clive Crook, The Atlantic: Why Intellectuals are Not Conservatives Martin Robbins, Guardian.co.uk: Liberal Bias: Science Writing's elephant in the room? Taylor Burns, Scitable (at Nature.com) A More Perfect Science Neil Levy, Practical Ethics (Oxford U.) Affirmative Action in Social Psychology? OllieGarkey, Daily Kos, Liberal bias in academia? Perhaps. Problem? No. Doug Kenrick, Psychology Today Blog, Does Psychology Discriminate Against Political Conservatives? Will Wilkinson, Prefrontal Nudity (at Forbes.com) The Case of the Missing Conservative Social Psychologists Jose Duarte, a grad student in social psych, posted this commentary about the controversy, giving an example of how partisanship may lower the bar for research that reaches favored conclusions. Russell Nieli, Minding the Campus: A double shock to liberal professors. Dave Frame, Practical Ethics Blog: The diversity that dare not speak its name.
Follow the Money MOST Grants are given to prove a point, not for pure discovery. Prove Man Made Global Warming. Prove this medicine is safe and effective. Prove there is no negative environmental impact. And the most dastardly Science of them all, Vaccines are good for you and you should have more and more of them. Logical. The 6 items I got, 3 polios and a D + P + T has become 24 items today. No ill effect ? ? ? The incidence of autism has paralleled the increase in the number or items in vaccines today. And the grant science was still on mercury after they took all the mercury out. The most dastardly Science of them all, vaccine science. Crippling a newborn's brain with Scientific impunity for profit. Moi r > g No
And my personal favorite, Stephen Colbert: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - - - Updated - - - Try submitting a grant application stating that you're going to prove something we already know and let me know how it works for you.
That would be another Vaccine Safety Good For You The More The Better grant. Something we already know because science has proved it repeatedly. Thinking people know better. Yes they do. Slow it down. Limit the number. 6 to 24, not wise. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=368485&page=9&p=1064226000#post1064226000 for 6 to 24 explanation Moi r > g No
Another stinging rebuke of the Cook, et al bogus 97% paper. Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
Do you understand the fatal flaw in this ? The issue has become politicized, Republicans who know nothing about the science of global climate buy into the party line. Their opinion means nothing, if you asked who they voted for, you'd find a huge correlation between deniers and Romney voters, what should stand out is that in a country with millions of scientists, only 31,000 signed this, and that includes a lot of people who teach "science" at Christian academies and believe that the world is 6000 years old....
So, you making it a political statement is politicizing it. How about the scientists that don't buy into the alarmism? Plenty of those and most are older, more experienced, and no longer rely on the government gravy train of cash to keep working. Government has spend close to 10 billion now on global warming. Follow the money.
OK, name the reputable scientists who support AGW denial, the ones who are members of the National Academy of Science, start there..... Global Warming Denial is a phenomena caused by oil and coal companies hiring PR firms to do "tobacco science" and delay the onset of regulations. The denialists are the same as the people who bought into all that crap about "not a single case of lung cancer has ever been definitely tied to smoking", and all that other nonsense.
Ah, you repeat the CAGW meme to a tee. If you were more widely read, you would know different. Try Dr. Revelle, the father of global warming who wrote to Congressmen trying to calm them down from the hysteria.
And your reputable scientist who says AGW is bunk, actually didn't say AGW was bunk, and he's been dead for 23 years. Maybe he had a point 23 years ago, but that's 23 years of data he hasn't seen, so if that's the best you've got.....
A simple test proves it. Were it true, the nations would have joined to construct dikes around areas threatened. Were it true, the use of carbon scrubbers would be done all over. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/06/22/synthetic.tree.climate.change. ccs/ Were it true, so many scientists would not allege it is bogus. Were it true, this would not be the case. [video=youtube;nq4Bc2WCsdE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE[/video]
No problem but they are AGW Skeptics, Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968 ); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978 ); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-2013); Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2013-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); ISI Highly Cited Researcher "Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished." - Richard S. Lindzen Freeman J. Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941); B.A. Mathematics, University of Cambridge, UK (1945); Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945); Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (19461947); Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (19471948 ); Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (19481949); Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (19491951); Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953); Fellow, Royal Society (1952); Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994); Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964); Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965); Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966); Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968 ); Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968 ); Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969); J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970); Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975); Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975); Harvey Prize, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (1977); Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981); National Books Critics Circle Award - Non-Fiction (1984); Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988 ); Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988 ); Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989); Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989); Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991); Britannica Award (1990); Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990); Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991); Enrico Fermi Award, U.S. Department of Energy (1993); Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994); Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994); Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996); Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996); Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999); Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999); Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000); Templeton Prize (2000); Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003); Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004); Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present); 21 Honorary Degrees "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952); Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964); Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (19541956); Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (19561958 ); Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (19581988 ); Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965); Nobel Prize in Physics (1973); Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974); Member, National Academy of Science (1974); Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975); Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975); Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975); Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005); Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present) "I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever William Happer, B.S. Physics, University of North Carolina (1960); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1964); Research Physicist, Columbia University (1964-1965); Professor, Department of Physics, Columbia University (1965-1980); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1966); Co-Director, Columbia Radiation Laboratory, Columbia University (1971-1976); Director, Columbia Radiation Laboratory, Columbia University (1976-1979); Member, JASON Advisory Group (1976-Present); Alexander von Humboldt Award (1976); Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1980-1991); Chairman, Steering Committee, JASON Advisory Group (1987-1990); Member, Board of Trustees, MITRE Corporation (1987-2011); Class of 1909 Professor of Physics Award, Princeton University (1988 ); Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy (1991-1993); Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1993-1995); Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1995-2003); Chairman, University Research Board, Princeton University (1995-2005); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1996); Herbert P. Broida Prize, American Physical Society (1997); Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, American Physical Society (1999); Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award, Research & Development Council of New Jersey (2000); Member, Science and Technology Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2002-2005); Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Member, American Philosophical Society; Fellow, American Physical Society (APS); Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University (2003-Present) "Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated." - William Happer
Name them and quote where they believe the world is 6000 years old, then defend how they represent "a lot".
Yes, but his student was Al Gore who made this political. Another prominent climate scientist is Dr. Roy Spencer (another old guy). Professor Judith Curry often writes of the problems with the IPCC. Plenty in between and now. Now you need to understand that all scientists believe in climate change and global warming, along with global cooling and that the alarmism is based solely on models and hypothesis and not on observational science. All scientists believe man contributes to warming, especially over land. Much is still unknown and cannot be modeled and the actual debate is over the following. How much warming is manmade? How much warming is natural variability? What is the actual sensitivity to CO2? Is warming bad? Are the models accurate?
That's why all the nations of the world banded together as one to outlaw tobacco.... It's why no scientists urged caution or disputed the findings that cigarettes were linked to lung disease.....
You didn't date your quotations, and that makes a difference, because data keeps coming in and the arctic ice keeps retreating. And the fact that you only found 4 with vague skeptical quotes, what you don't have is someone saying it's a scam, and that is the point you are claiming these people support, but they don't do they, only the wack jobs with the mail order science degrees say it's a scam......
Actually, Arctic ice has advanced and if the 60 year cycle Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) past history is any indication of what will happen (it is at just past it's peak temperature), the Arctic will be in for 30 years of cooling.
