View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Discuss General Topics.

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby really? » 18 Jun 2010, 02:55

Scepcop wrote:Here is a 5 part documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that debunks Global Warming. It is professional, unlike yours "really".

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA


May I ask and receive an answer to what fundamentally motivates you to dismiss global Warming let alone AGW ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Jun 2010, 03:54

really? wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Here is a 5 part documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that debunks Global Warming. It is professional, unlike yours "really".

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA


May I ask and receive an answer to what fundamentally motivates you to dismiss global Warming let alone AGW ?

I know that you are asking SCEPCOP this question and not me but I would like to put my two cents into the mix as I also do not feel that the whole global warning thing was what it was presented to be. I drew my conclusions from various sources no where as many as provided here and I totally dismiss global warming.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby really? » 18 Jun 2010, 10:56

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Here is a 5 part documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that debunks Global Warming. It is professional, unlike yours "really".

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA


May I ask and receive an answer to what fundamentally motivates you to dismiss global Warming let alone AGW ?

I know that you are asking SCEPCOP this question and not me but I would like to put my two cents into the mix as I also do not feel that the whole global warning thing was what it was presented to be. I drew my conclusions from various sources no where as many as provided here and I totally dismiss global warming.


Why do you trust those sources ? Could those sources be wrong ? Are the people behind these sources motivated by the perception of bad science or something else ? What are the fundamental reasons you don't trust the science ? Meaning prior to reading, hearing of or about any anti global warming why are you distrustful ?

Can you for starters explain why the Arctic is losing ice ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Jun 2010, 21:22

really? wrote:Why do you trust those sources ?

I no longer trust any media sources. They are all full of spin and I'm tired of being fed skewed garbage through the media. Just because I read or hear something doesn't make me form an opinion on it either.

really? wrote:Could those sources be wrong?

I don't think this particular topic of global warming is a matter of right or wrong. Information of any type can always be wrong.

really? wrote:Are the people behind these sources motivated by the perception of bad science or something else ?

People are motivated by many things. Pointing out 'bad science' as one possible source doesn't even touch the tip of the proverbial melting iceberg. Besideds, I don't know your definition of 'bad science'. Usually when something of this nature is skewed it's due to 'greed'.

really? wrote:What are the fundamental reasons you don't trust the science ?

Who ever said that I don't trust science? I love science. Personally I am more of a biology and chemistry girl rather than a physics or math girl but I would consider myself 'smarter than a 5th grader' when it comes to most areas of science. When put in a social setting of scientists (which used to happen quite often in my younger days) I find myself totally engrossed when they start talking 'shop'.

really? wrote:Meaning prior to reading, hearing of or about any anti global warming why are you distrustful ?

You mean back in the day when Al Gore started his whole global warming thing or before that? Are you asking me if my distrust is based on a distrust of science or government?

really? wrote:Can you for starters explain why the Arctic is losing ice ?

Rather than Google up some fancy statement and put it into common English, I would like to say that the basic concerns about global warming are not to be dismissed.

Like most things in science, it starts with a theory or hypothesis that is researched and data collected and eventually published for peer review. I think that the problems started with the "Global Warming" when Al Gore became the poster child for this whole subject.

I give him kudos for bringing the topic into the public eye. Any waste of natural resources is something that each and every human can easily eliminate. He found something that he believed in and took a stand in support of his beliefs. Naturally the opposition felt a need to combat the data for their own purposes and the battle began. The rest is history.

I personally think that they are barking up the wrong tree with 'Global Warming'. Yes, ice is melting and our climate may start changing dramatically but I don't personally think that the reasons given are the only cause. Yes, we lovely humans have been known to poison our planet. We seem to have a real knack for screwing things up. Science tends to be the number one reason for some of the really big screw ups. Well, actually not 'science', probably more 'technology' or human error but for me, they go hand in hand.

So here's a quick cut and paste using the wooly mammoth as an example that makes me not get all crazy about the latest Global Warming warnings:

Wikipedia wrote:Most woolly mammoths died out at the end of the Pleistocene, as a result of climate change and/or human hunting pressure. In 2008 a study conducted by the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Spain determined that warming temperatures had reduced mammoth habitat considerably, putting the woolly mammoth population in sharp decline, before the appearance of humans in their territory.[11] Glacial retreat shrank mammoth habitat from 7,700,000 km2 (2,970,000 sq mi) 42,000 years ago to 800,000 km2 (310,000 sq mi) 6,000 years ago. Although a similarly drastic loss of habitat occurred at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, human pressure during the later warming period was sufficient to push the mammoth over the brink.[12] The study employed the use of climate models and fossil remains to make these determinations.[11]

As old as Al Gore is, I doubt he rode one of these mammoths to school as a child. Severe climate changes have been documented by science without human intervention.
Not that I don't believe that WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR HABITS to do what little we can to make things last and to keep from adding to the problem.
We have already done enough damage to this planet to keep scientists busy for as long as we can hang in there as a species.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby Indigo Child » 19 Jun 2010, 00:13

The global warming swindle documentary makes it very clear that global warming is no threat to us. They
show using hard evidence that the temperature of the planet has been many times higher in the past, and
much less ice caps melting and sea levels rising, these were some of the most creative times on Earth.

I frankly cannot careless about global warming. It is just scare mongering in order to control the growth
of developing countries such as India and China, which are developing rapidly and will soon become developed
countries in this century and become the most powerful. Global warming is nothing more than western anxiety
over losing power to the East.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby really? » 20 Jun 2010, 03:39

Indigo Child wrote:The global warming swindle documentary makes it very clear that global warming is no threat to us. They
show using hard evidence that the temperature of the planet has been many times higher in the past, and
much less ice caps melting and sea levels rising, these were some of the most creative times on Earth.

I frankly cannot careless about global warming. It is just scare mongering in order to control the growth
of developing countries such as India and China, which are developing rapidly and will soon become developed
countries in this century and become the most powerful. Global warming is nothing more than western anxiety
over losing power to the East.


It might not matter where you live. More conspiratorial nonsense from the Global Warming camp

Ocean Changes May Have Dire Impact on People

ScienceDaily (June 19, 2010) — The first comprehensive synthesis on the effects of climate change on the world's oceans has found they are now changing at a rate not seen for several million years. In an article published June 18 in Science magazine [ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5985/1497 ], scientists reveal the growing atmospheric concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases are driving irreversible and dramatic changes to the way the ocean functions, with potentially dire impacts for hundreds of millions of people across the planet.

The findings of the report emerged from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine scientists, one from * The University of Queensland in Australia, and one from ** The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in the USA.
More http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 103558.htm


* Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
http://profiles.bacs.uq.edu.au/Ove.Hoegh-Guldberg.html
http://www.climateshifts.org/

** Dr John F. Bruno
http://galapagos.unc.edu/about/people/uncprofiles/bruno
http://web.me.com/ventana121/BrunoLab/Home.html
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby really? » 21 Jun 2010, 09:22

Scepcop wrote:http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "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."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

(Story continues below)


"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.


Climate Change - Meet the Scientists The ones that signed the petition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby Scepcop » 29 Sep 2010, 12:49

John Stossel on 20/20 debunks Global Warming.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming in petition

Postby Scepcop » 10 Oct 2010, 14:51

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron