Love That Smell of Carbon.

If you saw it on the internet, it must be true.

What, exactly, defines the foreseeable future that these world renowned scholars insist holds no risk.

I suggest you read the entire page, it impressed me. the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

Some carbon dioxide in here since 1972

Fredski, When you opened with "...my kind of scientists! I'm thinking their opinion carries weight..." you inadvertently illustrated the many good counterpoints that follow, namely that birds of a feather flock together. I have the credentials to sign the petition, but would you feel better about it because I did, and worse yet, would it somehow magically add credibility to the petition (except for the additional vote)? I think not.

I have said it before, here on this topic, but you can find adequate defence for whatever you want to believe about "global warming" "on the internet"; and, all of it by people with some kind of credentials. It all boils down to 'who' you want to believe, and 'why'. If those reasons are primarily, because you are a political ideologue, then your reasons are suspect in my view. Especially, if you FOR any litigation, that promotes taxing me for breathing CO2 and water vapor!

In 1941 comedy team Abbot and Costello joined the Navy. Lou was creating 7 batches of 13 donuts each. He "proved" using three different methods that he had only made 28 donuts. 70 years later we have eminent "scientists" trying to "prove" AGW using Costello's proofs. Abbot and Costello after 70 years, unlike the AGW folks are far more prescient. (The entire skit, as well as "Who's on First" can be found on the internet). That makes it true.

I'd love to sit in on a peer review session of someone using Abbot and Costello's proofs to prove global warming. They could make a great skit about that.

Please post a link of a scientist, eminent or not, using Abbot and Costello to support AGW.

Here's an example of someone using them to DISPROVE AGW.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/1070738/Re-Love-That-Smell-of-Carbon

According to the Skeptical Science link:

"According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

According to the petition's web site, of all the 31,487 signatures, 39 were actually climatologists, 112 were in Atmospheric Science and 343 were in Meteorology. The rest are described as having "appropriate" degrees, including medicine and agriculture.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

They don't describe the methodology that they used to distribute the petition, except that it was sent by U.S. Postal Service, was accompanied by a 12 page fake "paper" about global warming, and included a letter by Frederick Seitz, an ex-President of Rockefeller University. At that time Seitz had already been retired for 10 years as a spokesman for the Tobacco Institute because he was too senile.

Here is a link to an analysis of that "paper" by a climate scientist who received it.

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

The following link gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

I spent a chunk of my life as a meteorologist. Not, a climatologist. But, I did study climatology and enjoyed it. However, at that time the current gripe was climate cooling caused by greenhouse gasses, with CO2 taking most of the blame. And yes it was a lot colder year after year.

Don't expect a petition to change anything in an area of scientific thought (or the lack thereof) that is driven by political motivation. It generally has far too much invested in the outcome by way of money in the politicians' pocketbooks.

I completely agree. The petition had a purely political goal, not a scientific one. Why else invite anyone with a BS or higher degree in any scientific field whatever to offer their opinion? It was to make it look like there were actual scientific people who disagree with AGW.

Real scientists don't use petitions to determine anything, and the idea of inviting MD's and DVM's to offer an opinion on a climatology issue says it all, not to speak of their admission that they never checked their credentials at all and there were plenty of fake names included. I wonder how many of them were Exxon employees. At the time of the petition Exxon had around 80,000 all by itself.

Canary: I guess we all which bunch of blithering idiots you belong to now. I really don't give a rat's patoot what you believe, there ain't no dern Global Warming.

If I want to burn tires with insufficient oxygen, that is my prerogative. If I want to burn hydrogen with pure oxygen (except doing so in a fuel cell) that is also my choice. What galls my britches is people (apparently in some bizarre world you are a part of) think they can or even have the right to dictate to me about how I conduct my business. How about you just mind your own end of the block, and I will take care of mine? We will see who comes out ahead in the end.

Every time someone even offers evidence contrary with your pet religion (GW/HCCC), you have a mental blowout over, and start immediately trying to discredit anyone associated by linking them to "BIG X", whoever that is. Or accuse them of being senile. May I suggest all that weed you've been smoking is affecting your mental capacity?

Hi James.

Your assurance that there ain't no dern Global Warming does not bring me much comfort, unless you can back that up with some good data.

I have never seen any data that contradicts the research on global warming. If you have some, please share. But I reserve the right to analyze it to make sure it actually is correct. If I see that actual data cited from that POV is obsolete, incomplete or just incorrect, I will point that out. This forum is supposed to be based on engineering and science. What do you think that petition is based on? Definitely not science.

I don't expect you to believe me. Just find some good data that is not a blogger's misinterpretation of something actually proving AGW.

I have no intention of dictating to you or anyone else what they can burn or conduct their business. If you're emitting pollution, your local statutes may have something to say, but as far as I can tell, burning tires is no worse than burning gasoline as far as CO2 emissions go. I drive a car so I emit CO2 too, though I do try to limit it as much as I can.

What I hope to do is point out to people the actual science on the subject so that perhaps they will voluntarily reduce their CO2 emissions. I try to show that most people can actually save money and improve their lives from burning less fuel, help decrease the number of wars for oil, reduce pollution, reduce refinery explosions, and reduce oil spills.

Anything there you don't like?

And if anyone also feels like they are helping reduce global warming by reducing emissions, then they can add that reason to it.

As for Mr. Seitz, is there anything about what I said that is not true? Was he not retired as spokesman for the Tobacco Institute because he was getting senile 10 years before he lent his name to this letter? Being a spokesman for the Tobacco Institute does not indicate that is is wrong (neither does being senile), but to me it does mean that he can be bought. If anything I said was not correct, I will retract it, apologize for it, and never say it again.

Sorry, I don't smoke weed or anything else.

OK, I take back the crap about smoking weed or anything else. I will accept your comments about Mr. Seitz, when you accept this about Al Gore: I heard this morning on NPR about how people, once they learn that an algorithm can make a mistake, they do not trust the algorithm even as much as people who are far more prone to err. I don't trust Al-Gore-isms either! Pardon my punitive way of speaking.

Algore's dad was a politician long-standing in office, and well known for the old-school good-old-boy, backroom deal making that typically characterizes Washington dirty politics. Al is an apple from the same poison tree, who has always landed on soil near that tree. Do you really think Al Gore, his minions, and other like him cannot be bought, or have not already been bought? Really? I submit that given the "right" level of filthy lucre to be gained, many, many people can be and have been bought.

I am not accusing you, or indicting myself on this one, as I am assuming our hands are clean. Yes, we are supposed to be the "adults in the room" on this. So let's start looking at real data sets, or at least what people are putting forth as real data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c

After you view this, how about replying back. I think one might be hard pressed to refute NASA data that has been collected for a goodly number of years now, and to also pay attention to what is missing in the real data relative to the climatologist's predictions/claims.

CO₂ is not a blanket, but it is a heavy gas compared to normal atmospheric composition. The only way it can rise in the atmosphere to great heights is by thermal convection where the CO2 is considerably hotter than surrounding air, but once mixed or already dispersed within a hot air stream, it should be carried aloft.

CO₂ has a well understood infrared absorption spectrum, dominated by the 10.6 micron band, of which the CO₂ laser is based upon. Now it is also my understanding that energy transfer in the vibrational bands of small (and large) molecules can take place by molecular collisions, or by intra-molecular energy transfer to other vibration-rotation quantum states, and that this takes place quickly, also that whatever excitation the CO₂ receives can be dissipated to thermal (kinetic) energy rather quickly. Once this energy is downgraded in temperature from the solar spectrum to the local thermal spectrum, whatever radiation takes place is not likely to be re-absorbed, but scattered by Raman scattering, general collisional transfer, etc. As this radiation is integrated away from the original molecule of CO₂ that "trapped a photon", even though the intensity of this thermally spread out radiation source is low, the area of the source becomes infinitely large compared with a molecule, therefore all of this energy radiates either to ground or to space. The "blanket" effect is an invisible piece of apparel.