From: Jared Nance <nancejk@...>
Date: 2009-04-19T08:50:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Goodbye Ruby - Hello Earth

It's worth pointing out that, in point of fact, there is a clear  
consensus in the climatology community
as delineated by peer reviewers.  In a survey of papers published  
between 1993 and 2003 (a sample
size of ~1000), the number of papers published which disagreed with  
the anthropogenic model of
climate change was exactly zero - also the number who argued that the  
earth's climate is naturally warming.
Here's a citation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

As to the argument that many 'scientists' have signed a statement to  
the effect that climate change is not
caused by humans, I wish to quickly point out that because a person is  
a scientist does not make them
an expert on science in general.  I am a neutrino physicist, and I  
consider myself completely unqualified
to offer an expert opinion on many sub-disciplines within physics -   
let alone those entirely outside it.  Asking
a generic scientist is the climate is changing based on the data is a  
bit like asking an electrical engineer
to evaluate the safety of a building.  Right idea, wrong guy.

If you're going to listen to ANYBODY on this argument, you should be  
listening to the people who are
publishing scientific and peer-reviewed papers on the topic - and the  
consensus there is entirely
unambiguous.



On Apr 18, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

> Phlip wrote:
>>> Now, do I believe the earth's climate is changing? Absolutely. It  
>>> has
>>> been in a state of flux since the beginning of time - why should  
>>> it stop
>>> now? Do I think man is the reason? The jury is out on that one.
>>
>> Actually, >95% of all scientists agree the cause is anthropogenic  
>> (us).
>
> As before ... exactly where does that statistic come from? What is its
> source? It's very easy to throw around numbers that have been tossed  
> out
> - but many if not most statistics (from both sides) are simply made  
> up.
>
> As I pointed out in the previous post, there are over 30,000  
> scientists
> who signed a statement that they do *NOT* believe that. There is no
> comparative list of those who believe that it is. In and of itself,  
> that
> doesn't say that it isn't. After all, there was once a vast majority  
> of
> scientists who believed the earth was the center of the universe.
>
> This is my main complaint with this type of argument. Those in the
> argument - on BOTH sides - seem to be incapable of rational thought.
> They hear a statement and don't question it. Worse, they accept - or
> reject - facts just because it happens to support their personal bias.
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>