Man Made Global Warming: will we finally see a real debate about the subject?

Question

The U.S. Senate's Committee released a report about hundreds of scientists who dispute the "Man Made Global warming" claim and crushes this so called consensus touted by the U.N. and Al Gore. Apparently the wool has been pulled over the world's eyes forcefully. These scientists have come forward despite threats to destroy their career halt funding and even physical harm. These threats were made by the "man-made" global warming community.

My second question, if the Man-made globalwarming community have the truth why would they have to resort to these tactics to stop the debate?

My third question, for all of your who were decieved how do you feel now?


The global warming question is still not answered all I ask for is if their is a dispute the there should be a public debate!!!!



WHAT DO YOU THINK?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

WHO WANTS TO BET THAT WE WONT HEAR ABOUT THIS REPORT IN THE LIBERAL MEDIA?

Answer 1

This is a meaningless report. It doesn't look at climate scientists, it also looks at chemists, biologists, meteorologists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. etc. Fields with hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide, and fields which have little to do with climate science. I'm surprised they didn't look at cheerleaders' opinions on global warming too.

Out of the hundreds of thousands (probably even millions) of these scientists worldwide, Inhofe found 400 who expressed some sort of skepticism about some aspect of the man-made global warming theory. That's far less than 1%. Am I supposed to be impressed by this miniscule number, many of which have little knowledge about climate science? Plus if they said "humans are causing global warming but at this point we can't stop it", they got put on this list.

Basically the list is another in a long list of Inhofe red herrings.

Answer 2

1. Yes, the debate has been going on for years now, and will continue.

2. Not sure that they have, sounds like paranoia and lack of credibility to me. Scientists have not usually kept quiet when believing in something.

3.Great, I have not been deceived.
I do not claim that Man is the only or even the major cause of climate change, never heard anyone claim this. As humans, the things that we can do to affect the climate change are very limited. We cannot stop volcanic activity, nor cool the sun. We can conserve, cut energy usage, and find other sources of renewable energy.
This has also been a National Security mandate since Nixon, every President since has pointed out the need to supply ourselves with energy.

As the only species on Earth capable of rational thought and choosing our own actions, it makes sense that we should be the best stewards of our planet. If it turns out down the road that mans impact on climate change is negligible, the actions recommended by many scientists would still have slowed pollution at least.
That would not be a bad thing.

Answer 3

If you look carefully at your "source" you will see it is a blog by members of Senator Inhofe office, a man who has fought global warming foes tooth and nail. This isn't some government publication, it's Inhofe's staff cherry picking to put together an anti environmental tirade.

To pass this off as a document release by the Senate as a whole is misleading and bordering on lying. Here's some more information on this right wing nut:

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis. He said, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically." Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo. He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers. Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

Answer 4

I dont know how old you are or how well you know your history but in the mid 1970s, the left-wing "scientists" made claims that the earth is actually cooling and we will be having another Ice Age. Here we are a mere 30 years later and those same "scientists" are saying the exact opposite thing.

It's just another thing for the libs use as a scare tactic to get money and votes. Also, Al Gore needs some kind of legacy. Right now he's known as the guy who was Vice President during the most scandalous Presidency in US history, played second fiddle to only the 2nd President ever to be impeached, and he's also known as the guy who ran 4 (or was it 5) times for President and lost everyone.

Answer 5

No, it won't made the drive-by media anytime in the next century, at least I won't live to see it!

There will remain a divide as long as you have people who will believe either side of the question.

Personally, I am in the belief of all the reputable scientists around the world, that debunk Global Warming as a money making scam.

John A: There is a load of difference between pollution and global warming.

.
.

Answer 6

i think scientists are highly paid peoples in European countries and now a days they don't have new things to search.
many scientists have been declared that most of the third world will have a quarter of population affected by HIV but i haven't seen any HIV patient in my life
in the similar way they want to continued their shops
any one can say how much temp raise by an atomic explosion.and who is doing so and who is treated responsible

Answer 7

Debate is good. The fallacious logic used by some in the global warming crowd is ridiculous

consensus of scientist is two fallacies
1) Argument ad Populum - the number of people that be live doesn't make something right
2) Appeal to authority - being an authority doesn't make you right.

The scientific method is what should prevail.

Answer 8

I won't take you up on the bet. Global warmming is occurring, there is strong consensus in that fact, man has probably sped it along with greenhouse gasses, there is too much coincidence to suggest otherwise. The Global warming cmmuntiy is blowing the whole thing out out of proportion, they do this so they can be funded for many years to come (there's lots of money in research if the cause is "critical" enough) I for one would like to see an honest debate on the likely causes and effects rather than one based on worst case scenarios and faulty data.

Answer 9

Imagine my shock to see that this was posted by Inhofe's man, Mark Morano. Senator Inhofe, for those unfamiliar with him, is a huge denier of human activity affecting climate change, and he has received the second-highest amount of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry of any senator. In any case, 400 scientists, many of whom have dubious claims to be called experts in relevant fields, against the thousands who agree with the consensus, is not really worth mentioning.

Answer 10

The countries that have foolishly signed the Kyoto contract are failing miserably. Not only is it having the reverse effect of hurting their environment, but it is bankrupting them also. Thank God Bush was in office when that dog pile of world law came across his desk.