32,000 scientists agree...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MaxFisher

War Child
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
776
Location
Minneapolis
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TQF2P6TOBGR7CBP8P

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.
 
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. :der:
 
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.
 
financeguy said:
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. :der:

according to this logic then Al Gore should not be counted as a credible source when it comes to this debate.
 
deep said:
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?
 
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 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
MaxFisher said:
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.
 
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 said:


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.
 
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.
 
MaxFisher said:


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 said:
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.
 
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment

How does this make any sense?

If what we do doesn't have any impact on the overall sustainability of the planet, then how does the 'what we don't do' have an impact?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


How does this make any sense?

If what we do doesn't have any impact on the overall sustainability of the planet, then how does the 'what we don't do' have an impact?

read the cover article in this month's WIRED. It's an interesting expose into how many of the sacred cows of the environmental movement (anti-deforestation, organic farming, hybrid cars, etc.) actually contribute to global warming (if you believe in that sort of thing:wink: ) rather than deter it.
 
MaxFisher said:


read the cover article in this month's WIRED. It's an interesting expose into how many of the sacred cows of the environmental movement (anti-deforestation, organic farming, hybrid cars, etc.) actually contribute to global warming (if you believe in that sort of thing:wink: ) rather than deter it.

Oh, I realize that some of our "solutions" aren't really all that much better, but that's not what I was asking...

I'm asking why these 32,000 scientists are contradicting themselves.
 
MaxFisher said:

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.



both my mother's parents were heavy smokers.

and neither of them died from cancer.
 
Irvine511 said:




both my mother's parents were heavy smokers.

and neither of them died from cancer.

not sure what you're getting at here. no one has denied the strong correlation between cancer and smoking.
 
MaxFisher said:


not sure what you're getting at here. no one has denied the strong correlation between cancer and smoking.

at one time 32,000* scientists did





* or some other industry, pro business, anti-government interference, number of scientists did
 
deep said:


at one time 32,000* scientists did





* or some other industry, pro business, anti-government interference, number of scientists did

and they were wrong. but that doesn't mean this other group is.
 
Wow, that website makes this whole thing pretty laughable. :lol:

According to this website I would be a "scientist" being that I have a Bachelor in Science.

What a joke...:|
 
MaxFisher said:
according to this logic then Al Gore should not be counted as a credible source when it comes to this debate.

Is Al Gore forming original research? Or is he merely playing the role of a journalist; that is, presenting what credible climate science has theorized? I think, by all accounts, it's the latter, rather than the former.

Secondly, if most of these "scientists" are not in the field of climatology or similar scientific disciplines, that's obviously a problem. A "scientist" is not a blanket expert on all disciplines, including ones that they did not study.

(Of course, good luck telling "Dr. Laura" that a Ph.D in physiology--the study of mechanical, biological, and biochemical functions of living organisms--does not mean she's qualified to be a psychologist, but that's another story.)

Finally, as I've stated repeatedly in FYM, a good number of conservatives have rightly realized that the solutions to most leftist concerns about global warming are also solutions to right-wing concerns about national security. That is, a dramatic shift away from oil consumption means that we emit much less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, solving many concerns about global warming, and it means that we also are far less reliant on unsavory OPEC nations, many of whom have little regard for Western values of freedom, human rights and democracy, and some of whom are (suspected) state sponsors of terrorism. Do we not think that the money we spend every day on oil won't find its way back to the same enemies we are trying to fight against? We're fooling ourselves to think that drilling in ANWR will somehow make us self-sufficient in oil. By every realistic estimate, it will take 20 years for a single drop of oil to ever make it out of there for our consumption, even if all legislative hurdles against oil exploration and drilling there were solved today. By that time, we could have moved onto a different source of fuel.

So rather than wasting time with the usual partisan bickering, let's move forward and kill potentially two concerns simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
melon said:

Finally, as I've stated repeatedly in FYM, a good number of conservatives have rightly realized that the solutions to most leftist concerns about global warming are also solutions to right-wing concerns about national security. That is, a dramatic shift away from oil consumption means that we emit much less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, solving many concerns about global warming, and it means that we also are far less reliant on unsavory OPEC nations, many of whom have little regard for Western values of freedom, human rights and democracy, and some of whom are (suspected) state sponsors of terrorism. Do we not think that the money we spend every day on oil won't find its way back to the same enemies we are trying to fight against? We're fooling ourselves to think that drilling in ANWR will somehow make us self-sufficient in oil. By every realistic estimate, it will take 20 years for a single drop of oil to ever make it out of there for our consumption, even if all legislative hurdles against oil exploration and drilling there were solved today. By that time, we could have moved onto a different source of fuel.

So rather than wasting time with the usual partisan bickering, let's move forward and kill potentially two concerns simultaneously.



accurate as this is, it still won't allow us to put troops into harm's way in order to scare up some votes.
 
Irvine511 said:




both my mother's parents were heavy smokers.

and neither of them died from cancer.

This just goes to show how hard it is to conclusively prove any theory. We can have strong evidence, however. In my opinion, it would be pretty stupid to ignore what evidence we do currently have on man-made global warming, even though this evidence is by no means conclusive.
 
The petition website says that only 9000 of those "scientists" have PhDs. They seem to be counting anyone as a scientist who claims to have even a bachelor's degree in science.
 
Back
Top Bottom