Once again, what is the National Registry of Environmental Professionals? What is an "Environmental Professional"? How do they define that? What is their criteria for becoming a member? For example, could a gas station worker claim to be an "Environmental Professional", pay the fee, and be a member?
Once again, you don't even understand the nature of modern science.
Here's what I cited from the article:
1) 34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
2) 41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
3) 71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
4) 33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
5) 47% disagreed with Kyoto."
Here are DIRECT QUOTES from the source you are saying disagrees with me:
1) 67 percent report they think the U.S. Government is NOT doing enough to address the effects of global warming (That matches what I said).
2) 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity (That matches what I said).
3) 71 percent of environmental professionals, however, do consider the recent increase in hurricane activity in the Atlantic through 2005 and the Pacific through 2006, to be part of a larger natural cycle and not, for the most part, attributable to human activity (That matches what I said).
4) 67 percent report they think the U.S. Government is NOT doing enough to address the effects of global warming (That matches what I said).
5) 53 percent of professionals polled consider international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, provide a solid framework from which large volume energy producing countries like the U.S. can play a positive role in combating the effects of global climate change (That matches what I said).
http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm
So no, this source I provided DOESN'T contradict anything I've said, and portraying it as some conservative fraud, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS ADVOCATING IN FAVOR OF THE LIBERAL POSITION, merely reinforces my contention about liberals and literacy. Although now I am considering expanding the mental deficiency liberals are known for to include mathematics.
:lol:
Once again, how do they define environmental professional? According to this organization, does one have to be a scientist to be an "environmental professional"? Or, can one simply claim to be an "environmental professional"?
You do realize that "environmental professional" is a generic term that could apply to just about anything and is not a field of science. Moreover, climate science is a field of physics.
What part of that do you not get?
The part where you are expressing conern that a liberal site might have called a gas station attendant an environmental scientist so that they could slant results for conservatives.
I just looked up your: National Registry of Environmental Professionals.
The website is here: http://www.nrep.org/
It is a scam...You are claiming that about 1/3 of this organization that did the study say that Global Warming is not due to human activity. The problem is that if the organization is not made up of scientists, then your claim is pointless.
Now that the typical liberal "smear first, think later" witch hunt has been debunked, let's get back to my original announcement...
A new non-partisan study further demonstrates liberals are full of crap about there being a consensus among experts on global warming.
The non-partisan group is the National Registry of Environmental professionals.
Of 793 environmental scientists and practitioners...
-34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
-41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
-71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
-33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
-47% disagreed with Kyoto.
There's your "consensus of experts." :lol:
The only people qualified to voice an expert opinion on climate change science are scientists who work in a related field who have published work in a peer reviewed journal on climate change.
SouthernDemocrat said:Actually, today the vast majority believe we are now warmer than in at least 12,000 years, and one degree short of being warmer than at least the last 1 million years.
High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years - Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.
Easy there tiger.You are an idiot dude.
You are an idiot dude.
Your above post states the following:
"environmental managers, engineers, technologists, scientists and technicians"
The only people qualified to voice an expert opinion on climate change science are scientists who work in a related field who have published work in a peer reviewed journal on climate change.
An "engineer, tech, or manager" does not fit that bill.
A scientific concensus is a concensus of scientists who work in the field related to the concensus. The opinions of managers, techs, and even engineers do not apply toward a concensus.
I guess the National Academy of Sciences is not part of the majority then...
High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years - Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600
According to my calculator, A.D. 900 was a little less than 12,000 years ago.
:lol:
Somebody's bitter. It's not my fault you keep embarrassing yourself. :2wave:
Says who? This is a desperate, arbitrary assertion. :sinking:
Environmental engineers, environmental technologists, and environmental engineers SHOULD know all about climate change, and to my knowledge, it is not standard to exclude everyone who does not sound scientific enough for SouthernDemocrat to accept while he looks for excuses to reject experts.
I guess the National Academy of Sciences is not part of the majority then...
High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years - Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600
According to my calculator, A.D. 900 was a little less than 12,000 years ago.
Warmest World in 12,000 Years
A new study by NASA climatologists finds that the world’s temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years.
The study appears in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, authored by James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, N.Y. and colleagues from Columbia University, Sigma Space Partners, Inc., and the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). The study concludes that, because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which has lasted nearly 12,000 years. This warming is forcing a migration of plant and animal species toward the poles.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Glaciers Are Melting at Their Fastest Rate for 5,000 Years [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Steve Connor[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mountain glaciers are melting faster now than at any time in the past 5,000 years because of an unprecedented period of global warming, a study has found.
Ice cores taken from mountains as far apart as the Andes in South America and the Himalayas in Asia have revealed how climate change is leading to a full-scale retreat of the world's tropical glaciers.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
These photos released by the Glacier National Park Archives show the dramatic recession of the Grinnell Glacier as seen from the Grinnell Glacier Overlook off the Highline Trail in Glacier National Park, Montana. The first view taken in circa 1940 shows the early formation of Upper Grinnell Lake, a proglacier lake visible at the terminus of the glacier. The 2004 photo shows a dramatic increase in the size of the lake as a result of melting ice. (AP Photo /1940 c. Unknown; 2004 Karen Holzer, USGS/Courtesy of Glacier National Park Archives)
[/FONT] Scientists have warned that human activities over the past 100 years may have nudged the global climate beyond a critical threshold which could see most of the highest ice caps disappearing within the near future. Melting glaciers in South America and Asia not only contribute to rising sea levels, they are also vital sources of freshwater for many millions of people who live within their range at lower altitudes, the scientists said.
The scientists, led by Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, present three lines of evidence pointing to a dramatic melting of glaciers in both the Andes and the Himalayas: a change in the chemical isotopes of the ice cores, the widespread retreat of glaciers and the uncovering of frozen plants that had been buried for thousands of years.
"These three lines of evidence argue that the present warming and associated glacier retreat are unprecedented in some areas for at least 5,200 years," the scientists wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. "The ongoing global-scale, rapid retreat of mountain glaciers is not only contributing to global sea-level rise but also threatening freshwater supplies in many of the world's most populous regions."
Professor Thompson said the research was based on nearly 50 scientific expeditions to seven mountain glaciers over the past three decades, including the Huascaran and Quelccaya ice caps in Peru, the Sajama ice cap in Bolivia and the Dunde and Puruogangri ice caps in China. He said: "We have a record going back 2,000 years and when you plot it out, you can see the medieval warm period [from 1000 to 1300] and the little ice age [from 1600 to 1850]. And in that same record, you can clearly see the 20th century and the thing that stands out is how unusually warm the last 50 years have been. There hasn't been anything like it, not even in the medieval warm period.
"The fact that the isotope values in the last 50 years have been so unusual means that things are dramatically changing."
The most dramatic evidence comes from 28 sites where the retreating ice has exposed plants that have been frozen and preserved for between 5,000 and 6,000 years by the glacier's base.
"This means that the climate at the ice cap hasn't been warmer than it is today in the last 5,000 years or more," Professor Thompson said. "If it had been, then the plants would have decayed."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited[/FONT]
Yes, they should know all about global warming. As should a good chunk of the population.Environmental engineers, environmental technologists, and environmental engineers SHOULD know all about climate change
Yes, when they reviewed Mann's 9 year old study, they found that the evidence presented in it was only strong enough to show that we are the warmest in 400 years.
Yes, they should know all about global warming. As should a good chunk of the population.
The problem is that unless they are conducting the research themselves it's meaningless else it is nothing but repetition of the thoughts of someone who knows what they are talking about.
For example: Take a small sample of 5 scientists. 4 of which believe global warming is a problem, and one which does not. If the one who does not has more funding he may have plenty of technicians working for him where as the 4 scientist's do not.
Upon taking a poll, there might be a 50-50 split even though there is a majority among the people who have the background and experience to actually be credible.
"People come to me and say: 'Stop talking like this; you're hurting the cause." -Dr. Robert Giegengack, Geologist at the University of Pennsylvania, commenting on reactions to his noting unhelpful facts about greenhouse gases...like the fact that most of them aren't man-made.
-Nitrous Oxide: 95% naturally occuring.
-Methane: 82% naturally occuring.
-C02: 97% naturally occuring.
-CFCs: 34% naturally occuring.
Funnily enough this is incorrect, but then the guy is a geologist and doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the atmosphere...but still it's suprisingly incorrect for a claim to be made in public.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?