Who is still falling for Man Made Global Warming?

Question

Given overwhelming evidence such as found here.

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

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report
outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who
participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

hi johnathanapples - Its actually a government report. I'd hate to think you have your blinders on already and are unwilling to learn anymore.

Answer 1

The Earth is no longer warming. 2007 was a year of global cooling.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

"Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards."

This is one of the reasons why the UN is in such a panic to get everyone to sign on to Kyoto. And the reason why 2012 is the doom and gloom year. The UN must rush into this scheme as it's going to be colder in the next few years.

Now they are trying to change the name to "climate change" and convince people that cold is cause by man as well.

Answer 2

One report does NOT prove anything: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

The same Senate reporting that talked about WMDs in Iraq? Come on it is science and there will be those who won't go by the majority of scientists consensus. And the 400 in this report are NOT the consensus.

Answer 3

Since when has one report proved that global Warming isn't real?

People like you are always saying "oh we need more data to prove that its not real, so how can one report suddenly be all that you need eh?"

And what's one year and one thing to say that man made global warming isn't real. People have taken several years into consideration and there is a trend of warming.

Jello: WOW one year doesn't mean anything. Just because 2007 is a "year of cooling" it doesn't mean global warming has stopped. Your always telling the believers that we need more solid information and one year doesn't make a difference.

Answer 4

Yeah I think it's kind of ridiculous.....sure i agree that we should be respectful to the earth...clean up and try to limit the amount of pollution....but seriously Global Warming is like a cult.....Stephen Harper got ridiculed for saying that he didn't think that the Canadian government should fund money for the Kyoto protocol (he was skeptical so what)...and Al Gore is an attention whore we all know it....him and Tom Cruise should be sent into space together far away or something...And what ever happened to the whole "Hole in the Ozone thing" i was told that we "fixed it"????? what???? how can you "fix" it if there is still cars and factories? come on seriously....I've tried studying that & the whole Global warming thing and it confuses the hell out of me.....Personally I'm a fan of the "theory of evolution" i think its a good concrete theory......the Gaia hypothesis is interesting to....but Global Warming seems like a scam to me.... Plus there are many other decent theories about climate change out there but you never hear all the hype about them? I'm glad you brought this up! I'm not a republican either i guess you could say i'm neither..

Answer 5

Anyone who is even mildly skeptical about (isn't falling for) ExxonMobil's propaganda isn't going to be fooled by the "400 skeptical scientists" report published by the Republicans on EPW committee.

Even a brief glance at the actual "report" reveals clearly that the majority of them are making reckless comments far outside their field of expertise:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

The Oregon Petition claimed to have 19,000 scientists who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming. What happened to the other 18,600? (I almost signed it myself until I spent 5 minutes looking into the facts.) When you lift the covers, both lists mean nothing.

Perhaps more relevant to the discussion of "skeptics":

Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian statedthat Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[underwriting] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[funnelling] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."

Answer 6

Yep. Me and....

Most all of the world's scientists.

EVERY major scientific organization.

Most all of the worlds leaders. Etc.

Just a bunch of fools, I guess.

And if you think the nonsense from Senator Inhofe (the Senator from Big Oil) is going to change that.....

Expect loud protest from many of the 400 he listed, since they know mostly man made warming is scientifically proven. They simply have questions about minor details.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Answer 7

The Summary for Policymakers is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look at the entire IPCC report, instead of just the summary, there are over 2000 authors and reviewers. The references cite over 4600 papers by at least 10,000 authors. And that's just ONE scientific report out of dozens that are published every year.

On the other hand, if you look at Inhofe's list, you'll find that it's composed of people from all sorts of fields, including economics and engineering. If you added up all the world's scientists, economists, and engineers, you'd have at least two million people to draw from -- and after five years of searching, Inhofe found only 400 skeptics from that pool.

So out of the entire pool, Inhofe found that 99.98 % support the AGW consensus? Hmmmmm.

Answer 8

There are millions of scientists around the world. Inhofe's study managed to scrape up 400 (100 of which were a cop out). Wow. Not only that, but there are approximately 20,000 climate scientists in the world, maybe twelve are named in Inhofe's study. Overwhelming? Maybe not so much.

Also, while there may have only been 52 scientists who contributed to the IPCC AR4 SPM, there were around 650 who wrote the actual report, as well as around 2000 reviewers. And the report is made up of information from well over 4000 peer reviewed articles. So, that argument's a dud too.

Inhofe is trying to deceive you, my friend. Apparently it's working.

Answer 9

I'm over 50 years old and live in a northern area. Last year, we didn't have snow until the second week of January. I have never seen anything like this before and neither had people in their nineties. I have friends who live in the far north and they have said that ice has melted there that existed as long as the oldest members of their communities could remember. I don't rely on scientists as they are often wrong. I do however trust my own eyes. Global warming is a fact and it is happening now and rapidly.

Answer 10

I just Hope global warming can bring the tempature up to normal after the global cooling that happened in the 70s.