31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming
- Thread starter AK-74me
- Start date
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
wildsage
earthling
Maybe they meant "Scienticians." This name gathering has been going on for 10 years and has a lot of questionable aspects.
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Case Study: The Oregon Petition
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists.
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon.
In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet [update: now you click for a mail-in form], and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center."
The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all... Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature: "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot.
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Updated campaign
In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a petition closely similar to the Oregon Petition... Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute." This renewed distribution has continued until at least February, 2008.
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
Right, and the man made "global warming" hysteria has none and should just be excepted as fact I guess?
wildsage
earthling
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has been peer-reviewed by people who study it and the conclusion is overwhelmingly supported. There are a few climate-scientists who disagree with it and the most vocal ones are paid by the fossil-fuel & growth-at-all-costs industries. Do you suppose the first group is somehow paid-off by the endangered species? By the planet itself? Who is getting paid more to shill for which side?
Bottom line: this crackpot at the OISM published & mass-mailed a petition. He claimed that the info was peer-reviewed (it wasn't), made it to look like an official NAS release (it wasn't) and hasn't verified the validity (names OR professional background) of the signatories. He claims a list with 31,000 purported degree-holders who said they disagree with the Global Warming theory. He may as well have asked you "do you disagree" and then claimed that your opinion carried the same weight as someone on the IPCC.
The Answers in Genesis website lists about 200 people holding degrees who believe that the planet was created 6,000 years ago. In the face of that, do we throw out the "notion" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
Sorry about my typing error I was distracted when I was writing that.
You are going to have fun here on this board if you are person that is sold on the hysteria of man made global warming.
DailyTech - Researchers: Global Warming Halts Until 2020
FOXNews.com - Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
ICECAP
All American Blogger » 10 Reasons to Doubt Global Warming is Man-Made (Part 1)
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR
Fact is that the climate will always be changing and that the "global warmist" are much like a cult. I guess the china syndrome was a legitimate fear too?
Show me some proof of man made global warming. The GLOBE was actually cooler last year than it has been in sometime!??
Last edited:
johnycarcinogen
New Member
The Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. We are in a generally cool period, it will get warmer, then cool again. 15 million years ago it was so warm here that the ocean stretched to Washington D.C. (polar ice melted away). Other times we would have hundreds of feet of beach (probably marsh/grass areas) beyond the current coastline. It just happens, it is a cycle.
Otter
Nothing to see here
And cuz you say its so, all this is true?? How bout some legitimate links other than your word..Thanks.
wildsage
earthling
See 3rd post in this thread for OISM debunk links.
For consensus statements on the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (not all of them in agreement) see Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For an explanation of the dispute see Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A report on "who pays the skeptics" (and why) ABC News: ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming
Also, Wiki has a comprehensive list of global warming skeptics -- List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One of the best known is Dr. Patrick Michaels; read Sourcewatch's entry on him at Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch
If you don't know the science behind the findings and don't have a PhD, a good primer on the subject is Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Another good one is An Inconvenient Truth which, I suspect, most of the Al Gore beaters on this forum have never seen even though they hold strong opinions about its content.
You are welcome.
wildsage
earthling
I'm not disputing that global temps are cyclic. What I believe is that the rate of warming is accelerating. All you have to do is look at the receding glaciers worldwide to see that.
The IPCC concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" and the vast body of scientists knowledgeable in the pertinent fields are in consensus with those findings.
Consensus isn't "proof." It means they believe that the data is valid enough to convince them. There is still disagreement on some of the details but the overall theory is substantial enough to make knee-jerk naysaying a dangerous response.
I say "dangerous" because the natural global phenomena, to which man-made effects contribute, are positively reinforcing. One example: ocean water warms, hold less dissolved carbon dioxode (just like your beer), the gas is liberated to the atmosphere where it traps more heat, the oceans warm more, hold less dissolved carbon dioxide...
wildsage
earthling
For some, proof of global warming might be the shrinking of glaciers & disappearing ice caps, worldwide. If you are the type who gets his news from WorldNetDaily and his science from Rush Limbaugh, I don't know if I can show you any proof.
Not sure how you define "sometime" but I guess "last year" means 2007?
"The Earth's temperature for the first six months of the year was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today."
2007 global temperature the 2nd-warmest ever recorded - USATODAY.com
"The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. in 2007 is officially the tenth warmest on record... The agency also determined the global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record."
2007 Was Tenth Warmest For U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide
I am not hysterical about it, just convinced. The hysteria comes from the oil/coal/gas lobby that spends millions convincing people that the "greenies" want us all shivering in the dark. First it was, "we need more study" then 10 years later it was "the models are invalid" and 10 years later they're saying "see? we're not all dead yet." Business-as-usual is very, very good for them and any delay they can manage suits them fine. Now 20 years of extra data and refining the climate models have solidified the predictions and justified the early warnings.
Once the effects become so obvious that no one can deny them -- when corn & wheat won't grow south of Canada, when the ocean starts to reclaim Florida -- it will be impossible to stop or slow the cycle. If we start reducing emissions, what, we save energy for your kids & grandkids to use?
blazinlow89
Big Poppa
For the record I have seen Gore's movie, which to me was nothing more than Gore trying to keep an image for himself. He made the film very dramatic as with the aspect of 30meters of sea level rise, uncontrollable temperature variations, more severe disasters(which by the way it seems when we had a mild hurricane season last year global warming was causing it be mild, so which is it more mild disasters, or more severe). It’s bad when the scientist trying to make a statement about how bad it will be can’t even come to some consensus on the models when they all should be using the same data.
Where you here 1000 years ago to know that the glaciers and ice caps may not have existed. I know there are ice core samples but there are bigger parts to the atmospheric temp than CO2. Another thing is that it is very easy to manipulate data, which it seems the global warming nazis manipulate the data quite often to put a model into their favor. Also look at the fact that Gore left out the all important medieval warming trend when temperatures where at least 2-5 degrees hotter than they are now, he used s graph that left this out, and called it a hockey stick. Interesting how he can manipulate a graph to make it seem that today’s warming trend is far greater than any in the past. You also might want to find a graph showing the correlation between CO2 and average temperature, how is it that the temperature raises before the CO2 level does. If CO2 is the main culprit then how does the temperature change without the level of CO2 in the atmosphere doing so first?
Nice job blaming it on the oil industry, because they are the root of all problems (or is it Bush I forget). I will agree we need cleaner, more efficient ways to make energy, not just for an environmental standpoint, but also consider that we have used the same ways to create energy for how long. However a catch 22 is if we stop using fossil fuels we put millions of people out of work, we will put our sole basis of energy on things that are far more expensive, not as efficient, and if we start using new forms that have not been tested long enough we could have a $50 billion fusion generator that doesn’t work properly.
I do believe in global warming, but from the standpoint that man has a massive effect on it I do not believe. The earth has shown in the past that we go through cycles, naturally. Look at time magazine covers from the last century, they switch from global warming to the next ice age in what appears to be every 15-30 years. I know technology is better now but it seems that the scientist today cannot even agree on any correlations between the data and their own models versus each others. How can 100 scientists come up with different numbers, and different models?
Also wiki is not a 100% reliable source neither is mainstream media so you might want to find some new links. On a side note I will be looking forward to the mild summers for the next 12 years or more.
Where you here 1000 years ago to know that the glaciers and ice caps may not have existed. I know there are ice core samples but there are bigger parts to the atmospheric temp than CO2. Another thing is that it is very easy to manipulate data, which it seems the global warming nazis manipulate the data quite often to put a model into their favor. Also look at the fact that Gore left out the all important medieval warming trend when temperatures where at least 2-5 degrees hotter than they are now, he used s graph that left this out, and called it a hockey stick. Interesting how he can manipulate a graph to make it seem that today’s warming trend is far greater than any in the past. You also might want to find a graph showing the correlation between CO2 and average temperature, how is it that the temperature raises before the CO2 level does. If CO2 is the main culprit then how does the temperature change without the level of CO2 in the atmosphere doing so first?
Nice job blaming it on the oil industry, because they are the root of all problems (or is it Bush I forget). I will agree we need cleaner, more efficient ways to make energy, not just for an environmental standpoint, but also consider that we have used the same ways to create energy for how long. However a catch 22 is if we stop using fossil fuels we put millions of people out of work, we will put our sole basis of energy on things that are far more expensive, not as efficient, and if we start using new forms that have not been tested long enough we could have a $50 billion fusion generator that doesn’t work properly.
I do believe in global warming, but from the standpoint that man has a massive effect on it I do not believe. The earth has shown in the past that we go through cycles, naturally. Look at time magazine covers from the last century, they switch from global warming to the next ice age in what appears to be every 15-30 years. I know technology is better now but it seems that the scientist today cannot even agree on any correlations between the data and their own models versus each others. How can 100 scientists come up with different numbers, and different models?
Also wiki is not a 100% reliable source neither is mainstream media so you might want to find some new links. On a side note I will be looking forward to the mild summers for the next 12 years or more.
Last edited:
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
Fact is those claiming global warming take a pinch of evidence and claim it to be science and fact.
Temps have increased 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950's a very normal variance in temperature change.
I am not against being more effecient with our energy, I just don't want to hear BS from some A-hole like Al Gore, the F'ing hypocrite, about carbon credits and all the supporting science when in my eyes it is a mixed bag at best.
I have looked at alot of articles and "data" from both sides and I am not convinced........sorry.
ImnoMensa
New Member
I dont know much and am not a scientist. I see the industrial revolution started about 150 years ago and brought this country to great riches, now it seems the only way we can fight the harm done by the industrial revolution is to kill two/thirds of the world's population and go back to the stone age.
Somehow I will go to that extreme kicking and screaming.
Somehow I will go to that extreme kicking and screaming.
edinsomd
New Member
there are always going to be sceptics.... i totally agree with you that we are contributing to the green house effect and global warming
but even if we didnt why not try to improve our way of living, trying to be more efficient...
i mean theres plenty of room for the trash tthat we throw away every day but it damages the environment... thats why we recycle, thats why even if theres plenty of oil left and it doesnt causes global warming why not try to do a better job and be more conservative...
Last edited:
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
Yea, all the water sensors around the globe show a drop in temp. but the looneys think we're melting....
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Watch, in disbelief, as I pen a new, soon to be, widely used word.
WIKI-Moron!!
Try doing some REAL research and get out of wikipedia, and Al Gore.