32,000 scientists agree... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-20-2008, 02:35 PM   #1
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 05:53 AM
32,000 scientists agree...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/glob...2P6TOBGR7CBP8P

Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?'

Marc Sheppard
The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.

On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question:

"How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"

How many, indeed?

Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that

"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."

How might anyone of clear mind consider these words from these numbers and still accept claims of scientific consensus? Or calls for any -- let alone immediate -- action?

Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science."

But will their sheer numbers nullify the "settled science" argument?

Not if the alarmists have any say it won't. Solomon offers a brief history of attempts to bury all such previous accords. First by mocking the limited number of signatures on earlier appeals, and then -- when the original Oregon petition boasted 17,800 signatories -- claiming duplicate or fraudulent names. And even when all names were ultimately verified as authentic (save one actually planted by agents of Greenpeace), the MSM still ignored their consequence.

Sixteen years ago, the Rio event attracted over 7,000 journalists who dutifully spread the word of man's inhumanity to his habitat to an appreciative world. Will today's official announcement of 32,000 men and women of science who, by their physical signature, reject mankind's guilt capture any media attention at all?

Or, for that matter, that of climate experts Gore, Boxer, Lieberman, Warner, Clinton, Obama, or, most despicably -- McCain?

As the science no longer appears to concern any of them -- don't hold your CO2 polluted breath.

Yet their denials change nothing - the wheels continue to fall off the warmist dungwagon.
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:51 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:53 AM
It would be interesting to find out how many of these scientists specialize in the area of climatology.

How valid is the perspective of a physicist on the issue, for example? Answer: not very - unless he or she happens to specialise in climatology on the side (which would be unusual)

I believe that when a previous global warming sceptics' survey was released, upon closer examination it not only included scientists with no expertise in climatology, but some of the so-called scientists weren't really scientists at all e.g., statisticians and economists were included. I wouldn't call myself a scientist because I analyse economic data for my work.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:52 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 PM
32,000 (if that is a correct number) vs.

how many millions in the main stream opinion.

I would say these 32,000 are probably in the 1-3% range.


Max, this is a losing battle for conservatives. We have the Bush Administration buying into "man made" climate change.


Just look are the recent listing of the "polar bear" as endangered, because of the shrinking polar ice.

I know this a "red meat" for the conservative talk shows. But , it is now the losing side. Most likely around 60% are on board.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:56 PM   #4
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
It would be interesting to find out how many of these scientists specialize in the area of climatology.

How valid is the perspective of a physicist on the issue, for example? Answer: not very - unless he or she happens to specialise in climatology on the side (which would be unusual)

I believe that when a previous global warming sceptics' survey was released, upon closer examination it not only included scientists with no expertise in climatology, but some of the so-called scientists weren't really scientists at all e.g., statisticians and economists were included. I wouldn't call myself a scientist because I analyse economic data for my work.
according to this logic then Al Gore should not be counted as a credible source when it comes to this debate.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:58 PM   #5
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
32,000 (if that is a correct number) vs.

how many millions in the main stream opinion.

I would say these 32,000 are probably in the 1-3% range.

Most likely around 60% are on board.
do you have any basis for your numbers?
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:59 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 PM
no

but, I will say the 60% is pretty close
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:05 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 PM
how many scientist are employed by carbon producing companies ?

most likely, much more than 32,000


in any court case, each side can find "expert" witnessed that will conclude two very different outcomes


also, I am old enough to remember the 'Scientists' that gave sworn statements that there was "no evidence" to prove a link between tobacco and cancer.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:05 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
according to this logic then Al Gore should not be counted as a credible source when it comes to this debate.
I agree. He should not.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:10 PM   #9
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
how many scientist are employed by carbon producing companies ?

most likely, much more than 32,000
but like you admitted before, you don't have any factual numbers.

your responses have deepened my opinion that alarmist-end-of-the-world-man-made-global warming is semi-faith based for many of its adherents.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:17 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
but like you admitted before, you don't have any factual numbers.

your responses have deepened my opinion that alarmist-end-of-the-world-man-made-global warming is a semi-faith based for many of its adherents.
if my beliefs are "semi-faith based"

it is because I have seen where man's effects on environments have had drastic results

as for "faith based" beliefs

this seems to be the biggest driver behind the non-believers in climate change

that the Earth is just "too" vast and God would not let "us" destroy it.


good chance, there are "polls" that will indicate if my "60 percent" number is reasonable.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:22 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 PM
I don't believe in an "end of earth" extinction.

I do believe a major collapse, is possible.

Is a 30- 65% collapse worthy of some sacrifices?
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:28 PM   #12
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


if my beliefs are "semi-faith based"

it is because I have seen where man's effects on environments have had drastic results

as for "faith based" beliefs

this seems to be the biggest driver behind the non-believers in climate change

that the Earth is just "too" vast and God would not let "us" destroy it.


good chance, there are "polls" that will indicate if my "60 percent" number is reasonable.
deep, I find you to be one of the more rational people on FYM. I always enjoy your posts. however, on this issue, your viewpoints seem to be mostly constructed on anecdotes and feelings.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:44 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 PM
I did do some checking

and the number is anywhere from 47% to 70%, many in the 60% range

we live in a day where anyone can find a link posted by some "source" to support their arguments


I will admit to "going" with a feeling.

It is an "aggregated" feeling (belief) from reading at least one entire newspaper everyday of my adult life
along, with other sources to try and get some credible, sources of information
(I do believe much of the Gore film to be alarmist, simplistic and exaggerated)

instead of just listening to an "opinion" maker and regurgitating his/her arguments.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 05-20-2008, 04:01 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


but like you admitted before, you don't have any factual numbers.

your responses have deepened my opinion that alarmist-end-of-the-world-man-made-global warming is semi-faith based for many of its adherents.
Some definitely shoot over the top, though your response on the other hand seems to go just the over direction.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 04:14 PM   #15
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Some definitely shoot over the top, though your response on the other hand seems to go just the over direction.
I don't have faith in non-man-made Global Warming. I'm simply skeptical of a man-made effect that would usher in vast or global doomsday scenarios.
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com