Utter nonsense, Einstein won the Nobel prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect at the age of 42. He completed his PhD at age 26, which is about normal. He had an academic post within 3 years of getting his PhD, and a full professor within 6 years. He wasn't some ignored genius for his entire life.

Physics 1921

I'm sorry I should have been much clearer. Einstein never won the Nobel Prize for his theories in Physics. He did not win it for his theories of special relativity or general relativity. Theories that he came up with in his Wonderful Year of 1905. The Nobel committee gave him the prize 16 years later for the discovery of the photoelectric effect, not directly for his theories of physics. You have to read a couple of his biographies rather than a couple of web pages to see how the physics community felt about a patent clerk putting his nose into their work.

I hope that clears that up.

Obviously he was not an ignored genius his whole life, but I did not make that claim.

I wonder how long it will take the world to realize that Al Gore and Hansen are not prophets or saviors and that those who we should be listening to are more likely to come from the list above or lists like it.

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

The others either have no cognitive content and are simply empty rhetoric, or else are restatements of one of the two points I listed. If they are empty rhetoric there is no point in dealing with them at all. If they are restatements of one of the two points I listed, then there is no point in dealing with them separately.

The links you presented along with this statement do not support it, not if you're saying (as the above literally implies) that they do not believe human activity contributes to global warming at all. The belief that there may be other causes as well is quite ordinary, and the somewhat weaker belief that other causes cannot be absolutely ruled out is, I would say, universal. However, this does not support your assertion in this thread.

As I said, you needed to clarify your claim. I do not believe you will find any reputable climate scientists willing to assert that human activity literally represents NO contribution to global warming. Certainly you will not find many. You may find quite a few who assert that it is not the ONLY cause, and a minority who assert that some other cause is more significant.

Let's cut to the chase here. You are claiming that everyone on your list has expressed this belief. It is important to clarify what you mean. If you mean that everyone on your list has expressed the belief that human activity does not contribute to global warming AT ALL, you are making a false statement, indeed an absurd statement, plain and simple, and can be ignored. If you mean that everyone on your list asserts that human activity does not represent the ONLY cause of global warming, then you are almost certainly correct, but the assertion is without significance and you can still be ignored.

Only if you are asserting that everyone on your list claims that human activity is not the MAIN cause of global warming (but is a partial cause) does your claim have both significance and the potential to be true. If this is what you're saying, then I will ask for further evidence. If you mean either of the other two things, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

As far as it goes, that is also obvious, but it does not translate into "global warming will be beneficial." Especially if you mean by "beneficial" the common-sense interpretation "beneficial for human beings." Our agriculture is based around the adaptation of our food plants to certain climate conditions, and a change in those climate conditions will not be beneficial to us even if, in the long term, it improves the plant biomass of the planet overall.

"What warming has occurred has happened during the winter and at night" is a factually incorrect statement; however, it is true that a warmer climate will reduce the incidence of death by hypothermia. This does not translate into a belief that global warming will be beneficial, though -- merely that it will not be a COMPLETELY unmixed curse, which as far as I know nobody has asserted.

We are still dealing with lost coastal land, increased storm activity, increased zones of climate-restricted diseases, and disruption of agriculture. This more than outweighs the reduced risk of hypothermia in temperate zones.

Again, you need to clarify what you are asserting. If you mean that everyone on your list has asserted that global warming may have some beneficial aspects, you are stating only the obvious. If you mean that everyone on your list has asserted that global warming will be a NET benefit (which is the only significant assertion of this kind that can be made), then you need to provide some evidence, which so far you have not done.

Mmmm... he published general relativity in 1916, not 1905. The experimental proof of GR was rather slim 5 years later in 1921. His theory explaining the photoelectric effect (not discovery of) was one of the papers he published in 1905, as you say his "Wonderful year".

It would be nice to see something other than your typed words to support your 0.01% assertion of "eligible" scientists with "credentials". You may want to start with what you mean by an "eligible scientist", then move on to what "credentials" are satisfactory to you to make them "eligible" and for what these scientists are "eligible".

Otherwise, your post has little meaning.

Hello TSG,

It appears that someone has a comprehension problem.

No, I am not. I clearly stated that individuals on this list hold several different beliefs regarding AGW.

Please look at the orignal post. I clearly stated the, "One thing most of these individuals do agree upon is that any kind of policy like Kyoto or a Kyoto II or those recommended by the most recent IPCC would not stop global warming and would be very damaging to the world economies."

I wrote: They believe that a rise in CO2 will help plant growth, this has already been confirmed and is well established in the scientific literature within several fields.

Those individuals who believe that global warming would be a net benefit for human beings point to the benefits of an increase of CO2 on plant life, a longer growing season, the ability to grow food crops in higher latitudes. As evidence to support those claims they point to the Medieval Warming Period which was a great benefit for human beings. The Romans used Britain for its wheat basket to feed the empire and enjoyed wine made with English grapes. Two crops that cannot grow in Britain currently.

Not according to the National Climate Data Center. It shows that between 1930 and 2005 there are marked trends in warming during the winter (0.013 F) and the spring (0.16 F) with marked trends of cooling during the summer (0.03 F) and fall (0.01 F). Bjorn Lomborg also presents this data along with the data that shows most of the warming is happening during the night in his book Amazon.com: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World: Bjorn Lomborg: Books

Then you are wearing blinders. As an historical example, the Medieval Warming Period was beneficial for human beings.

False. What coastal land has been lost due to global warming?

False. There has been no increased storm activity and no increase in the intensity of storms.

False. There has been no increase in climate-restricted diseases due to climate change.

False. There has been no disruptions of agriculture. In fact our agricultural food production has increased.

The reduced risk of hypothermia has not been outweighed by things that are not happening. I have already posted links that contradict all of these doomsday claims.

Here is the last paragraph I wrote in the original post: "One thing most of these individuals do agree upon is that any kind of policy like Kyoto or a Kyoto II or those recommended by the most recent IPCC would not stop global warming and would be very damaging to the world economies. Accepting policies like carbon caps or other dragonian restrictions to reduce carbon emissions would put a strangle on world economic development and will be strongly resisted by many nations. Both India and China have said that they will not accept any restriction that slow down their own growth. This is probably wise since the current understanding of the effects of these policies are that they will either not do anything to stop warming trends (if they are occurring) or will only delay the predicted warming of 2100 by 5 to 6 years. When we understand that this is at a cost of trillions for either nothing or a delay of 6 years, we must ask ourselves -- Can't our money and time be put to better use? I say yes."

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

Then you are erecting a straw man. Naturally the Kyoto treaty would not stop global warming. It wasn't nearly strong enough, being the outcome of politics on the part of those who were trying to balance competing interests and weren't treating the problem with the seriousness it deserves.

But here we run into a kind of deceptiveness. You present this massive list of names, call it a "list of those who do not accept the AGW dogma," and create the impression of a blizzard of PhDs who think that global warming is all poppycock. Yet now you are saying merely that some of these people don't approve of the Kyoto treaty?

Dude, I don't approve of the Kyoto treaty MYSELF! What the heck do you think that proves?

Vagueness, generalities, misleading statements, misdirection -- this isn't a scientific argument. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Please present a separate list of those who have claimed this, with links so we can verify who they are and that they have actually said it.

It's nonsense, but let's see who does claim something that silly.

I've seen data very much to the contrary of this, and so have you. Don't make a controversial statement like that as if you were stating a fact.

So far, only very low-lying tropical islands. The major losses are projected.

Yes, there has. This has already begun to occur.

LOL. Yes, there has. We could keep this up all day, I bet.

Not YET. This is a projected result of climate change, just as the saving of lives from warmer winters -- which ALSO hasn't happened yet, please note.

As I've already pointed out in the other thread, the only action which needs to be taken against global warming which doesn't need to be taken ANYWAY
because of peak oil is to avoid coal as the energy source we replace oil with. Every bad economic result from any other step to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is one that will result no matter what we do.

However, I agree about Kyoto. As I said above, this is claiming nothing.

So you want to enact restrictions on the economy that are more strict than the Kyoto Protocols? How far back do you want to force humanity?

The deceptiveness is on your part. How can I "now" be saying that "some of these people don't approve of the Kyoto treaty" when I stated it in the original post that began this thread?

Considering the reason you don't approve the Kyoto treaty is that it "it wasn't nearly strong enough" I'd say that proves that you are more interesting in enacting a draconian environmentalists agenda than actually help your fellow human beings.

Yes, that is what we have come to expect from the extreme environmentalist movement.

I have already supplied the list you require. The fact that you haven't realized that tells me that you have not hit any of the links or read the material.

No, I have heard and seen many make the claim, but I have not seen any data that contradicts the numbers provided by the National Climate Data Center that stands up to close scrutiny.

I have provided link after link to support my claims. You need to do likewise. There are no low-lying tropical islands that had to be evacuated due to global climate change. Projections are not facts.

Again provide a link. You are either uninformed, blinded by your mythic ideas, or a liar. There has been no increase in storm activity or in the intensity of storms.

Again provide a link. I am sure you could continue pushing your propaganda all day long.

So you are presenting as evidence something that has not happened yet? Talk about misleading statements and propaganda. None of the "projected" results of climate change have happened. For example: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/chris...gless_etal.pdf All of the projections are based on computer climate models that have never provide accurate.

Milder (warmer) winters have happened and when they have fewer have died. That's a fact.

I consider the "peak oil" theory with a little suspicion. Every time someone promotes the idea they soon have to rework the numbers as more reserves are found. When we do run out of oil it will be decades if not hundreds of years from now. How are you going to insure that we avoid coal? Ban its use. A wise approach would be to use clean coal technology so we can still benefit from a cheap energy source will limiting its harmful effects. CO 2 is not a harmful effect.

Please provide a link that supports that understanding of economics. The economic damage of a forced reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be devastating for human beings. A natural (unforced) move from fossil fuels toward other forms of energy as they emerge as competitive alternatives will not cause economic damage anywhere near a Kyoto on steroids.

Yea, you want Kyoto on steroids.

Please present links that support your extremist views and claims. Something other than RealClimate or the other alarmist websites.

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

I want to see us transition away from a fossil-fuel economy altogether and to a high-efficiency, low-throughput, renewable-energy economy. All of which would be steps forward, not back.

The point is that you were extremely vague about what you meant, and lumped together a large number of divergent views who objected to some aspect or other of the pastiche of scientific/speculative/political views that you are labeling "the AGW dogma." Nobody who actually believes in AGW holds all of the views you are lumping together, and nobody besides a detractor would mix them into such a hodge-podge and assert that this mess is anyone's "dogma."

If you want to say that a large number of people object to the Kyoto protocol, say THAT -- do not imply that because people do so, they do not accept AGW. By that argument, I don't accept AGW myself, and of course that is nonsense.

No you haven't, except as an unidentifiable portion of a massive list intended to give the false impression of controversy about the idea of AGW. Please separate out the names that object to the Kyoto protocol, rather than the idea of AGW. Present THAT list, not the one you presented.

Better yet, separate those names from the list you did present. Also, remove any names that have only raised questions about whether human activity is the only cause of GW, or who have speculated that GW might have some benign aspects along with the bad ones. Leave a list of people who actually believe that human activity isn't a significant cause of GW at all, or who actually believe that GW represents a net benefit.

If you do that honestly, your list will be very short.

No, because we're not starting on equal ground here. You are presenting a positive claim; the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have to prove jack-diddly. All I'm doing is calling your own assertions into question.

Which says a great deal about where you're coming from.

Never mind, Mahasatva. I'm adding you to my ignore list as a propagandist who isn't worth having a discussion with. If you want to answer my assertions for the benefit of others, go ahead, but you and I are done.

I hope you'll reconsider, TS. I know it's tedious but you provide a valuable service to the board by breaking down his dissembling.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Very good thread you've created here.

I have little to say other than it's nice to see that there DO exist those that haven't been brainwashed into beleiving in Al Bores man caused global warming hysteria.

He desperately claims that there's a "consensus" on

It's comical really.

So much so that I've found it to be a COMPLETE waste of time arguing/discussing this issue with those who HAVE been brainwashed.

In time, you'll find that too I suspect. If you haven't already

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

If you are for a forced transition away from fossil fuels by following a plan that is more strict than the Kyoto Protocols than you will be embracing restrictions on the economy that will lead to an economic depression. I have already supplied you with links to pdfs that outline the economic difficulties of following either the Kyoto Protocols or a Cap in Trade plan like the Lieberman/McCain plan. A plan that is even more strict than Kyoto would be even more damaging to the economy. A lot more damaging.

By making this statement I now know for sure that you have not taken the time to read any of the material I have linked to. I have presented THAT list. Actually I presented a few lists that fit that description.

Ah ... now I understand. You are the superior. The master that does not need to support their claims. What you say is de facto truth, just by you saying it.

And each one of those assertions has been backed up with material that I have linked to. Throughout all of these environmental posts and threads I have supplied numerous links. How many have you and your liked-minded friends posted? Jack-diddly.

Ohh, so sad to see you go. I was having fun! I think any objective reader will be able to read these threads and can determine who is promoting myths and propaganda. Those who rely on reason and the truth tend to support their claims with something other then rhetoric or an elitist attitude that expresses itself with comments like, I don't have to prove jack-diddly.

Perhaps for a new thread I'll post all of the links I have posted regarding the environment or AGW. Not that I believe you would read any of them.

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

Thank you Captain.

Well, he is the grand poohbah of their religion. If you cannot laugh at their priest what fun is there.

Oh its not a complete waste. I get to practice my debating skills against entrenched sycophants who refuse to accept any rational argument no matter how clearly stated. Who knows, may be a lurker or two will be swayed to dig a little deeper from these words?

I do enjoy a good debate with someone who wont budge. Unfortunately I have only met a couple who fit that bill. For the brainwashed, they have their place and purpose. I believe it was Stalin who called them "useful idiots."

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

Well, the minimum credential on that list is a Bachelor's. Not all of them are in hard sciences. Most are in a "hard science" but there are also some random degrees like economics scattered in.

Now calculate how many people with a bachelor's exist in a world with 6+ billion people. For the US in 2003, it was 40 million people according to the NSF, of whom 5 million held science degrees. The US is a small fraction of the world's total (and the list included international members).

How's this for a little dissembling. Go: As you said above, we should do what we can for the environment based on our current knowledge. The information we have currently tends to indicate that CO2 may not be the greater driver of temperature that the Algoreans claim it is and enacting draconian restrictions on CO2 emissions may have no real or measureable effect on global temperatures.

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?