Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Scientists and economist urge action

  1. #1 Scientists and economist urge action 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Two thousand US economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, are sending a letter Thursday to the Senate urging lawmakers to require immediate nationwide cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions tied to global warming.
    This is reassuring to see. And economists too, not just shifty scientists.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...global-warming


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I would argue the economists don't count because there is no real threat of global warming. I would also argue that climatologists don't count because the college requirements to be a climatologists is one more class than the requirements of being a meteorologist.

    How many times are meteorologists correct?

    I hurt that they didn't break down the numbers between economists and climatologists. Wouldn't it be funny if there's only a dozen or less climatologists?


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    economists don't count
    Then what do they do?
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    economists don't count
    Then what do they do?
    LOL...

    OK, You got me. Good job.
     

  6. #5 Re: Scientists and economist urge action 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Two thousand US economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, are sending a letter Thursday to the Senate urging lawmakers to require immediate nationwide cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions tied to global warming.
    This is reassuring to see. And economists too, not just shifty scientists.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...global-warming
    Yes, good news. One would expect that the economists understand the long-term global economic benefit of acting sooner while we have options, rather than doing nothing and then dealing with a hodge podge of makeshift adaptive strategies as the effects of climate change play out in future years.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I hurt that they didn't break down the numbers between economists and climatologists.
    It took less than thirty seconds to find.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...conomists.html

    Download the letter, signatures with affiliation are at the end.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I hurt that they didn't break down the numbers between economists and climatologists.
    It took less than thirty seconds to find.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...conomists.html

    Download the letter, signatures with affiliation are at the end.
    At least they seem to have a well rounded group of people listed. For that many disciplines, is 2,000 all they could get?
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I hurt that they didn't break down the numbers between economists and climatologists.
    It took less than thirty seconds to find.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...conomists.html

    Download the letter, signatures with affiliation are at the end.
    At least they seem to have a well rounded group of people listed. For that many disciplines, is 2,000 all they could get?
    Oooops...

    I was wrong...

    Most of them or college instructors, rather than working in the real world.
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    why are some threads just wanting to be locked.

    WC knock it off before I delete your post so we can start over.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    why are some threads just wanting to be locked.

    WC knock it off before I delete your post so we can start over.
    I'm sorry, but I find it a bit weak compared to something like the Global Warming Petition Project. I didn't mean to impugn college professors. There seems to be a near 180 degree shift of viewpoints between those in academia, and those who actually apply their fields in the real world when it comes to Global Warming. Others get away with suggesting those in the energy field have agendas. True or not, I didn't think my comment any different.
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I'll look a bit later at the thread survey.

    I do know the Oregon petition (now renamed) completely fails to have any credibility and has numerous problems including: the names aren't verified and deliberately doesn't record ways to trace the members who sign--as a result several independent investigations find duplicates, dead people and others completely unidentifiable as scientist; the term "catastrophic" is included in the original wording but deliberately left out in most reports on the topic; most of the "signatories" are not working scientist at all and have neither done science or practiced anything related to atmospheric science or one of its supporting multidisciplinary fields; inability to remove ones name...and many more.

    The other thing you don't seem to understand is a large of natural sciences, i.e, those applying their field in the real world, are being done by college professors. Many of them also conduct field work as part of their year in addition to their research work. The other thing is very little work on climatology is done by the private industry including energy--the bulk is government funded.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I'll look a bit later at the thread survey.

    I do know the Oregon petition (now renamed) completely fails to have any credibility and has numerous problems including: the names aren't verified and deliberately doesn't record ways to trace the members who sign--as a result several independent investigations find duplicates, dead people and others completely unidentifiable as scientist; the term "catastrophic" is included in the original wording but deliberately left out in most reports on the topic; most of the "signatories" are not working scientist at all and have neither done science or practiced anything related to atmospheric science or one of its supporting multidisciplinary fields; inability to remove ones name...and many more.
    Actually, they weeded these out themselves as well. Anyone can pollute the pool, then show it's polluted. It's been an arduous process, but they have verified most, if not all names. I remember when this first came out. There were famous people's names that were thrown out, and coincidentally, some that were simply actual PHD's with the same name. At the time, I downloaded the names, and looked some questionable ones up myself. I don't like getting caught with my pants down by not verifying something first. I'm satisfied that at least an overwhelming majority are legitimate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The other thing you don't seem to understand is a large of natural sciences, i.e, those applying their field in the real world, are being done by college professors. Many of them also conduct field work as part of their year in addition to their research work. The other thing is very little work on climatology is done by the private industry including energy--the bulk is government funded.
    I'm sure that's true. I fail to understand how scientists can fail to be skeptical when they are missing parts of the puzzle. What I like about the Oregon Petition, over this one, is the variety of fields and numbers.
    The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
    Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

    1. Atmosphere (579)

    I) Atmospheric Science (112)
    II) Climatology (39)
    III) Meteorology (343)
    IV) Astronomy (59)
    V) Astrophysics (26)

    2. Earth (2,239)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,683)
    IV) Geophysics (341)
    V) Geoscience (36)
    VI) Hydrology (22)

    3. Environment (986)

    I) Environmental Engineering (487)
    II) Environmental Science (253)
    III) Forestry (163)
    IV) Oceanography (83)

    Computers & Math (935)

    1. Computer Science (242)

    2. Math (693)

    I) Mathematics (581)
    II) Statistics (112)

    Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

    1. Physics (5,225)

    I) Physics (2,365)
    II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
    III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

    2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

    Chemistry (4,821)

    1. Chemistry (3,128)

    2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

    Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

    1. Biochemistry (744)

    I) Biochemistry (676)
    II) Biophysics (68) [... graphic... should be sixty-eight]

    2. Biology (1,438)

    I) Biology (1,049)
    II) Ecology (76)
    III) Entomology (59)
    IV) Zoology (149)
    V) Animal Science (105)

    3. Agriculture (783)

    I) Agricultural Science (296)
    II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
    III) Plant Science (292)
    IV) Food Science (81)

    Medicine (3,046)

    1. Medical Science (719)

    2. Medicine (2,327)

    General Engineering & General Science (10,103)

    1. General Engineering (9,834)

    I) Engineering (7,281)
    II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
    III) Metallurgy (384)

    2. General Science (269)
    There are people saying "They aren't Climatologists!" Well, so many aren't. Still, most these fields have very solid knowledge of aspects of climate science. I think one thing that upsets me the most about the AGW crowd is I get the impression that they only care about what Climatologists say. Climatology is only one aspect of the Earth Sciences, and isn't enough by itself.
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I think one thing that upsets me the most about the AGW crowd is I get the impression that they only care about what Climatologists say.
    After many months of watching you deny and weasel and disparage and dismiss the great piles of evidence presented to you from biologists and ecologists and oceanographers and geologists and paleontologists and so forth and so on, that has to be the horselaugh of the year.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    What I like about the Oregon Petition, over this one, is the variety of fields and numbers.
    The Oregon Petition is political crapola - the genuine signatories (a smaller percentage than is reasonable) often do not agree with the conclusions drawn, the signers generally have no relevant expertise or knowledge beyond the ordinary educated layman, the meaning of the actual petition is commonly misrepresented in drawing conclusions from it, and so forth.

    The petition has almost nothing to do with AGW. It's wording and intention is in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, especially its economic or political aspects. Many of the signers - including apparently (I checked a sample) most of the ones with relevant expertise - think that human boosting of atmospheric CO2 is the major driver of the current warming trend in the Earth's climate.

    Here is the language of the actual petition, complete:
    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.
    I'd almost sign that myself, if I were oblivious to the political context - and I think the evidence for AGW, and the likelihood of its creation of severe hardship etc, is overwhelming.
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    economists only care about unemployment
    when they do not have jobs
    does signing a petition help create these jobs
    question mark
    i rest my case

    severe hardship can be seen at nearly any busy intersection
    no i do not drive but i have ridden around in frank s coat pocket
    yes he is a real slob
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Making world "safe" will create a global security & optimism which will increase investment and opportunity (but this is just a psychological effect much like how speculation can influence stock price), also they create job by making hi-tech industries like: solar, batteries, and LED light flourish (this gave them demand and could create more jobs, eg: Hybrid cars company), and it promote 'energy-bubble' where investors will flock in to try to invest in new hi-tech & fringe and speculative new power source development (eg: LFTR, IEC fusion, Tokamak fusion, organic solar cell, genetically programmed hydrogen producing algea, and ect ect, much like how it happen in 'internet-bubble' in 1999), also the Carbon-Credit system allow new job to flourish: such as iron-seeding geo-engineering company, forest planting company (where they are paid by other private company to offset the companies' Carbon-Credit). The money that will be created will be enormous! This is only true if people embrace the new era of energy efficiency... else you'd be left in 21th century forever... blehh...
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Arcy, don't resurrect dead threads. This one is a year and a half old, meaning it died of disinterest and many of the contributors are no longer active. If you have something meaningful to contribute...like new science study results or something similar than it's better to start a new thread and provide a link to the old one.

    I'm locking this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •