Senior Member
Here's another dead one, maybe 5th on the signer's list with a ph.d: Ursula K. Abbott.
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/mem...bottUrsula.htm
I'm betting the work of an 85 year old animal husbandry technician gave us a lot of insight into climate change. And she died 2 years ago.
Last edited by waywardgs; 03-31-2014 at 07:43 PM.
Senior Member
Let's just see how far I get, actually. I've got some free time tonight. Going right down the list, looking only at the Ph.D's.
Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, an engineer. http://investing.businessweek.com/re...Global,%20Inc.
Philip H Abelson, PhD- Nuclear physicist, died in 2004. Sounded like a pretty smart guy though.
https://library.gl.ciw.edu/GLHistory/pgabelson.html
Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD- a DuPont chemist.
(pausing for a second, here's the form used to verify credentials by this petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/GW_Petition.pdf
Too funny...
Senior Member
Continuing on. we have:
Paul Abramson, Ph.D- a psychologist who teaches human sexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Abramson
Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD- works with the San Diego Police Department as a traffic engineer.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Ahmed-Aburahmah/247224722
Daniel T. Achord, PhD- President at Achord Consulting LLC
"ACHORD Consulting is a computer consulting firm for individuals and small business. We offer customized care for your hardware and software needs, including troubleshooting and repair for your computers, peripherals, and networking. We analyze your specific requirements, recommend hardware, software and training. "
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-achord/4/375/115
Angry Combat Veteran
Clearly, these are the 3% of scientists in that aren't part of the 97%. Who compiles all of the IPCC data for their reports? Look up their qualifications next! And then compare.Originally Posted by waywardgs
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine.
Lightning has killed more Americans in the last forty years than terrorism.
Senior Member
Robert K. Adair, PhD- nuclear physicist, and ding ding ding first one I can find reference to who may have worked on climate science.
"Later, in his retirement, he studied the effects of extremely low frequency (weak) electromagnetic fields on human health and among other responsibilities served on the Committee of the American Physical Society (APS) established to investigate the APS Statement on Global Warming in 2007, which was not without its own internal controversy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...28physicist%29
Brian D. Adam, PhD, agricultural economist. Pertinent article: "Whole-chain traceability, is it possible to trace your hamburger to a particular steer, a U. S. perspective." I've always wanted to put a face to my burgers.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Adam/
Bryant L Adams, PhD- board member of a pharmacological company?
http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/p...rgetid=profile
http://www.healcorp.net/
Daniel Otis Adams, PhD- mechanical engineer
https://mech.utah.edu/people/faculty...ams-professor/
Senior Member
Would this be the sound of backpedaling?
Senior Member
Well, I assume that since they're publishing papers on climate science, they're some kind of climate scientists. But you're right, I'll do that next.
Senior Member
Gail D. Adams, PhD Another DEADER!! lol Medical physics, radiation oncology.
http://www.jacmp.org/index.php/jacmp...File/3413/2000
So I've done... let's see, 15? so far, and three dead. I'm just going down the fucking list, folks. Can't make this shit up.
Senior Member
Here's an article about group that calls itself the NIPCC. Some of the points and counterpoints are pasted below along with the link. One thing I noticed is that they are really harping on CO2 though the global warming research seems to have moved past CO2 to include many other gases and situations in general. You'll see that even though the IPCC claim doesn't mention CO2 the NIPCC seems to hit on it in almost every rebuttal.
The guy who wrote is President of the Heartland Institute which is a Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets so buyer beware.
IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”
NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”
IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”
NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”
NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”
NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”
IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”
NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”
NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”
NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”
IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”
NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...imate-science/
Last edited by cwolff; 03-31-2014 at 08:22 PM.
Senior Member
Maybe it's like the Latter Day Saints. They baptize them after they die.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote