Fall 2015 Recreation Brochure: Fill & Download for Free

No.Takeaway :The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign31 000 might appear to be a large number, but this is only 0.3% of american scientists. Most of the signatories are engineers! Now, there is nothing wrong with being an engineer, but you are not a climate scientist.Only 39 (0.01%) of the signatories of the Oregon-petition are related to climate matters. That’s a very very tiny fringy tracy number. Its so fringe it’s even hard to see without a microscope. It’s like a drop in the ocean where the ocean is the evidence for AGW.Oregon Petition - WikipediaThis is totally in tune with a consensus of 97–99% for AGW.The consensus on AGW did not arise from a vote, a poll or a gathering. It speaks to the evidence. They came to a consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW.RATIONAL WIKI:The validity of science is determined by the veracity of the evidence, not the number of people who think a scientific proposition is true. Thus the petition is little more than an example of argument from popularity.Even if scientific truth could be derived from the people who accept it, the number of signatures is only a small fraction of all scientists.Even by the admission and records of the petition itself, only a tiny fraction of the people who signed the petition hold a degree in any field relevant or related to climatology, with the plurality of signatures coming from engineers,[7] who are not scientists. The petition might as well be from the general public.Before we go on, let me say a few words about the cranky men behind the scammy charady Oregon Petition 31 000 list.Frederick Seitz[…] “in the 1980s, Seitz decided to become a shill for any corporation willing to pay him enough. He, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute (a right-wing think tank named after a famous liberal Democrat) in 1984 to hype Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. One of the initial goals of the organization was to attack the work done by Carl Sagan and his colleagues on nuclear winter. During this time, he was also employed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and helped spread propaganda denying links between smoking and cancer. ““In the early '90s, Seitz joined the board of another think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), headed by another physicist-turned-shill, S. Fred Singer. Singer and Seitz's career paths were mirror images. The two co-authored a few works together, denying the dangers of ozone depletion and global warming. Through the Marshall Institute, Seitz helped Arthur Robinson spread the bogus Oregon Petition of 30,000+ "scientists" who "disagreed with the consensus on global warming." The NAS repudiated him.”Frederick Seitz - RationalWikiArthur Robinson“Arthur B. "Art" Robinson (1942-) is a former chemist and current crank, woo-meister, and fringe political figure. Robinson was a professor of chemistry at the University of California-San Diego until 1972, when he resigned. In 1980, he created the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). In 1997, he co-authored the brochure that accompanied the Oregon Petition with his son and Willie Soon.”Yes, that’s the same Willie Soon who took money from Exxon to write junk science reports, the same Willie Soon now a Heartland crank."At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie SoonDeeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate ResearcherArthur Robinson - RationalWikiThe brilliant greenman3610 (greenman3610) sums it all up in this Climate Denial Crook of The Week video: Watch and see the cynical and evil motivations behind the petition from the same people who denied the hazards of tobacco smoking.Its rather boring and desperate that climate deniers are still feeding this dead horse. But when you don’t have arguments, all you can do is spew whatever nonsense you can find.The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.What are the leading fact checkers saying?The Pulitzer Prize winning fact checker Politifact:“The use of the word "scientists" is misleading, since a signatory need not be a scientist today and need not have done more than earned a bachelor of science degree in any field. The actual number of climate-related specialists is about 12 percent of the total. And these are not currently confirmed signatories as the list has been circulating since 1998.”For all these reasons, we rate this claim Pants on Fire.The worlds leading fact checker Snopes:“ Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “Star Wars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band.“FACT CHECK: 30,000 Scientists Reject Anthropogenic Climate Change?SUMMARY:“The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science"The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked PropagandaNext..BONUS:ON THE CONSENSUS:Climate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 99% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming, Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”“For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.”Why Climate Skeptics Are WrongIn science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.Consilience - WikipediaThe research gives us very unequivocally and clear data from a number of scientific fields, which, individually and together, come to the same conclusion: since the 1950s, humans ARE the main cause of nearly all of climate change. These are not forecasts, hints or models. These are OBSERVED data from pollen, rings, ice cores, corals, glaciers, polar ice melt, sea level rise, ocean temperatures, ecological changes, the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the indisputable temperature rise globally.Scientists are working on the details and are improving the knowledge database every day. New finding and corrections are happening on a daily basis. This is science at work, it doesn’t mean the main theory is wrong.“Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high understanding of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Poorly understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood.”The scientific method does not produce, nor is meant to produce, absolute truths and knowledge, but increased knowledge. Such is the case - and so it must be - in climate research as for all other research. Major theories are generally always based on a large amount of smaller scientific findings. Because these little discoveries are made through the implementation of the scientific method, they makes the major scientific theories so robust and credible. In other words, there are infinite many filters, tests, corrections and objections until one gets a conclusion.That humans contribute most to climate change with our C02 emissions is such a conclusion.“Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.The theory of gravity is not “settled” either, but it will be regarded as settled until we see apples falling upwards.The opinion of any single individual scientist is irrelevant. Consensus matters in science. You will find individual scientist who dispute Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and that’s fine. That’s how science works, but the consensus holds until the evidence convinces otherwise.The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.One (1) study, a new hypothesis, is not evidence of anything yet. New hypotheses must be able to be recreated by others through new experiments, thus confirming them. Or improve them. Then they can eventually be elevated to a theory. It is only when there are many, often hundreds of studies that support each other and improve each other, that we can talk about new knowledge.If the study fails to be tested by the Scientific method, it remains alone, it remains only a hypothesis rejected by better science.Consensus is not based on a (1) study. You can't overlook the 99.99% other studies that find another conclusion