Why can't conservatives name even three SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS against man made global warming?

Question

Why is it always editorials from a DIMINISHING handful of INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS from political and amatuer websites like CATO, Heritage, junkscience.com, and youtube.com?

And why do they have to come up with conspiracy theories all the time? Example: I come up with the ten most well established earth science scientific organizations and their official statements supporting man made global warming.

Con say: All these scientists are socialists who hate capitalism or capitalist who are just after the global warming money.

Can any conservative answer this challenge and give me a list of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS against man made global warming, when they were founded, how many members they have, and their official statements?

JUST LIKE I THOUGHT.

Cons can't answer this question. They resort to individual scientists and even then they don't provide any sources to back it up.

I wanted SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS because these represents TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists.

Sgt Midnight,

The PRIVATE ones like AMS, AGU, GSA, ACS, etc are funded by MEMBER DUES. The public ones like the prestigious organizations of NASA and the National Academy of Scienice are funded by government. Amazing that despite all these years of Republican control, they have remained consistent.

It would have been so much easier for them to just parrot what Republicans have been saying.

Answer 1

The conservatives who are posting anti-global warming statements are not making valid scientific arguments, but rather, political arguments. They are essentially saying that despite the general consensus of reputable scientists they refuse to acknowledge the reality of human contributions to climate change because, for various reasons, they simply don’t want to.

The political motivation is the deciding factor here and no amount of scientific data will convince them. Latching onto the findings of an errant skeptic is simply a ploy.

Answer 2

I like to ask a question: These scientists & organizations that claim that it is man-made, who is funding their studies? It's a common misconception that scientists are unbiased. If that's the case, then ALL of the scientists in Nazi Germany should have fled from their country.
My point is most "scientists" have agendas and commitments, just like the rest of us. They're human, like you and me.
I'm not a scientist, but consider this: Volcanos emit more toxins and polutants into the air than say an oil refinery or nuke station. Consider the fact there are sunspots and solar flares and YES, they affect the Earth. Don't forget the levels of cosmic radiation that bombard are planet as well. And before man ever became advanced, here's something to consider, there have been ice ages, mass extictions, shifts of poles, etc.
In essence, I am saying the Earth's not going anywhere -- we are! Pack your bags, because our time here is very limited. You can either make things better for your follow human or worry about something you have no control over.

Answer 3

Texan Cattle Ranch Owners Against Methane
Oil Barons Country Club Press Spokesman
and Fossil Fuels are a Gift from God Monthly

Is that enough of that sciency stuff for ya?

:-]

Answer 4

I'm not conservative and I can name three scientific organizations against man made global warming.

Exxon, Shell and BP.

So there.

====EDIT====
You found some obedient republicans. They can't answer your question so they resort to baseless personal attacks. Republicans are so predictable.

Answer 5

Diminishing handful? The numbers are growing as scientists are feeling emboldened by their peers who are speaking out at the risk of having their funding cut by the liberal grant givers.

Have you ever heard of Claude Allegre? He was one of the first to advocate the anthrocentric global warming theory. Guess what? He has recanted his views!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

How about those global warming computer models that all these gloom and doom predictions are based on? Guess what? They're worthless!

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/06/04/new-study-proves-global-warmin-1.php

And what about Mann's Hockey stick data? Fudged, and debunked.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Answer 6

They can't because they don't exist.

Global warming deniers can't even come up with a plausible scientific alternative to anthropogenic global warming:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUrYRGadqG8IBJkxgXFDDsy6IX?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX

Answer 7

Al Gore and his minnions have laid out a plan that is currently "in vogue'! While I agree that weather patterns are changing on our planet, I persist in my belief that the problem is not going to be the end of this world but that people are going to end life as we've known it!

Answer 8

Why would there be such an organization? It would make no sense to form such an organization once you understand the so called "science" of global warming.
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

Answer 9

The Republican Science Society
OPEC Science, Inc.
Exxon Scientific

Answer 10

what answer a question that props you up as an expert on a useless Chicken little mentality?

do you think maybe the minutia coinciding with the Dems
winning a useless mid-term election..might factor in to the senseless attention the activist movement receives?

treat us all like animals on a farm..to make yourself seem
smarter than you are..ever think .the condescending attitude..makes people naturally reject anything submitted