Hundreds of scientists dispute that global warming is man made. Why hasn't this received more press?

Question

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Answer 1

Because the press is liberal, and liberals want global warming to be man-made. Liberals think that humans are bad, and everything they do is bad. So this is the ultimate opportunity for them. Now they can claim that humans have ruined the whole planet. This better than whining about the Spotted Owl, the California Condor, or the Siberian tiger. This is the WHOLE planet. The libs just foam at the mouth over this.

Answer 2

It's not being reported because it's not true.

From the website touting the book:

"Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics"

"more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming"

Sounds like they're misinterpreting papers that acknowledge (mostly) man made global warming, but disagree about some detail, and say they "dispute" global warming.

Expect more than a few of the scientists listed to protest being lumped in with people who don't believe in well proven science.

Here's the truth:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Answer 3

Basically it's meaningless because it's incredibly vague. It talks about 500 scientists, there are at least 30 million scientists in all, in real terms they're talkking about just one in 60,000 scientists.

The criteria for establishing a 'dispute' is ridiculously low - just one single element of the many hundreds to choose from. Unless a scientist shows 100% concurrence with the findings that humans are contributing to global warming then they're eligible for inclusion amongst the 500.

Figures are easy to manipulte, using their findings it can also be stated that over 99.998% of scientists agree with more than 99% of the evidence that humans are contributing to global warming.

The people behind the 'report' are Dennis Avery and Fred Singer. Singer is paid by big oil and tobacco and to this day still denies the risks associated with smoking. Avery claims the world will be saved from disaster by chemical pesticides, intensive agriculture and banning organic foods. I haven't made this up, Google them and see for yourself their somewhat questionable backgrounds and dubious claims.

A good rule of thumb - if Singer and Avery say X then the answer must be Y.

Answer 4

Because the President of the United States does not believe in it. If we had a president that was beating the global warming drum, the press would support anyone with reasonable credentials who had an opposing view.

Answer 5

Hundreds of scientists do not. There is not a reputable scientific organisation in the world that has not endorsed the fact that global warming is man made. However Exxon-mobil and other oil, gas and coal interests have funded a well orchestrated campaign of denial and it is organisations and PR groups representing their interests that have spread the disinformation that you and others are regurgitating.

Answer 6

Don't worry. There's a giant asteroid headed directly for Earth. All the knowledgable scientists know this to be true. Anyone who denies it is a fool. It will destroy us before global warming does.

Answer 7

The article you give was written by Dennis Avery, the author of "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every Fifteen Hundred Years" and put out by the Hudson Institute, an ultra-conservative think-tank.

This fact alone made me very suspicious of it, to say the least. And my suspicions were confirmed when I read this paragraph: "We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events..."

*sigh* This just seems like yet another propaganda piece parading as a news story. Sadly, this sort of nonsense is simply par the course for the denier crowd.

Answer 8

Because the earthtimes is run by The Hudson Institute, which is a right-leaning U.S. think tank,
founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by the futurist Herman Kahn and other colleagues.

Because intelligent people see through the idiot clamor of lobby groups.

Answer 9

Because no legitimate scientists are disputing the fact that global warming is man-made. False statements on "skeptics" websites dont change that.

Answer 10

The press reports what people want to hear...if there is nothing that can be done then they only get one or two stories out of it...if it's a problem that people can be active in the the stories are limitless. The media isn't a public service; it's a business delivering a product.