Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics?

Question

I know this will probably will get taken down asap because people don't want to read the truth. But here's the link.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Answer 1

The BBC put on an entire 2 hour special about the Global Warming Hoax. It claimed that many of the scientists listed on the UN report had resigned in disagreement, but their names were left on the report. Crazy.


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

Answer 2

If you're going to make up a scientific background for yourself, why choose geology over climatology?

Regardless, given what we KNOW... logic would dictate that mankind has little impact on global climate shift.

For example the fact that the planet has had been through periods with MUCH warmer average temperature. Including a point in history where Alaska had a tropical climate. Given this was LONG before human industrialization, or even human existence, logic would tell us human activity is not a pre-requisite in climate change.

Or, the fact that Mars is getting warmer at the same rate the Earth is. Again... Clearly showing there are factors, other than human industrialization, that are the cause.

Or even more obvious... the last ice age ended before anybody drove an SUV.

Answer 3

Here is the problem with the idea of consensus. It is not science. I state all the time that I do know why the global warming crowd so fears questioning of their model. Science demands constant re-evaluations of the evidence, but in global warming they have tried as hard as they can to silence all debate. Use of such tactics by anyone always leave me wondering what they are hiding. What they are hiding in this instance is that while they can make an observable case for the effects of global warming, they cannot prove that it is a man made phenomenon. More and more scientists are acknowledging this fact. What does the global warming crowd do in response? Another old stalling tactic which is to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees, rather than examine this as having possible merit. In short, we have a long way to go before any real conclusions can be drawn on man's true effect on climate change and the global warming crowd is the one headed for a wake up call as more of this type of activity occurs weakening their arguments. They call those who seek honest critical review and demand evidence to support the rhetoric flat earthers, but who is really trying to retard proper discovery of the facts here?

Answer 4

A few things to keep in mind: The EPW committee is run by politicians who get money from the oil companies. Do not trust the government.

Also the '60 scientists' against are mostly from, or associated with, the American Enterprise Institute, also bank rolled by the oil companies. Do not trust the AEI.

And close to a thousand scientists have submitted peer-reviewed papers in support of human activity influencing global warming.

Lastly, what possible motive would there be for a conspiracy in support of taking a bit better care of the planet? How does your average scientist benefit by that? The oil companies VERY much benefit by people thinking global warming is a scam.

Follow the money. In the end I'll trust the word of someone without a vested interest in the outcome over someone who does have one. The worse case scenario for believing in global warming is a cleaner backyard, the worse case for denying it is we trash the planet.

Do you feel lucky?

Answer 5

Great link. As more ans more information comes out people will wake up and realize that there is not enough factual information to determine whether man is the cause for temperatures rising or if we are to what extent. The vast majority of the Man Made Global Warming Critics just want there to be proof of what is being claimed before expensive knee jerk plans are put in place to battle something that may or may not exist.

Edit - Rob read the whole link. There are many scientists who disagree with you.

Answer 6

I don't have a strong opinion on Global Warming. There are so many important issues that I let of other argue this particular issue. So anyone who reads my answer then know I am not pro-Green or anti-Green.

On every scientific issue there are real scientific experts on both sides. If one scientist says that the Big Bang theory is totally wrong but 400 scientists say it is right.... well, I tend to listen to the 400.

Does this help?

Answer 7

I have always thought that Global Warming was just massive paranoia. A simple understanding like our climate will change as we orbit around the galaxy and our planet is affected by pressure from other galaxy's would seems to be more logical and appear less like the end of the world. I do believe that greenhouse gases and other environmental concerns cause the changes in our planet to be more drastic but to believe that 150 years from now our planet will not have moved elsewhere in our galaxy and would still have the same forces being applied to it seems to go against the understanding that our planet moves around in the solar system.

Answer 8

Excellent Post!

It is good to see both sides of the issue getting some "credible" press.

Assuming that scientist ultimately agree on the errors in the human caused Global Warming theory and revise their predictions, will Al have to give back his Oscar?

Answer 9

Did you notice that half that article quotes Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) as some sort of environmental expert? This is the same nut who thought that the Abu Ghraib abuse was basically a good thing, and who starts every sentence with "the Bible says....". Because the Bible doesn't say anything about Global Warming he doesn't believe in it. Not a good article for reliable information.

Answer 10

lots of those claims, and claims comparable, are made by making use of people who're the two afraid of the certainty, or who desire to cajole human beings it would not exist for company motives (i.e. oil businesses, etc). of course you do get a small share of persons who do no longer have faith in it because of the fact they do no longer locate it logical or do no longer see the sense in it yet back, that's a very small share! i in my opinion have faith in it. immediately forward answer: specific they might back up a number of them yet no longer almost sufficient to coach it incorrect. right that's a record of what's backed up and what isn't: • the present warming is led to by making use of organic cycles - NO • international warming has ended and the Earth has been cooling for X kind of years - NO • Scientists have admitted that they invented international warming, fabricated the evidence etc - NO • international warming has no longer led to any substitute interior the climate – droughts, floods, hurricanes etc - NO • international warming is led to by making use of the city warmth island consequence, floor stations are incorrectly sited etc - probable yet no longer likely • Scientists have deleted the uncooked archives, the artwork of scientists can’t be validated - NO • It’s warmed quicker interior the previous - probable and specific • The kind of glaciers is becoming, glaciers are increasing etc - NO • Volcanoes emit extra CO2 then human beings do - NO (There are around 6.8 Billion human beings in the international and not almost sufficient volcanoes. • all of the laptop fashions interior the previous have been incorrect - NO • the different planets are warming hence it’s the sunlight - NO regular those "international warming skeptics" can't back up their claims.