31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming
Briefing | By Melinda Zosh | May 22, 2008
“Half the world will be hungry.”
Presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that “we have to get used to the idea that we can’t keep our houses at 72, drive our SUVs and eat all we want.” Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a different response.
“I don’t want to give up eating all I want because of a failed hypothesis,” said Robinson at the National Press Club here on May 19. Robinson said global warming is not a threat to America. He said that the global temperature increased by just .5 degrees in the last century.
Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”
“World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”
Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.
Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.”
The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away.
When the U.N. and others want to limit hydrocarbons, which account for 85% of the current United States energy supplies, the consequences are disastrous, Robinson said.
“America is buying 30 percent of its energy abroad... Now we’re getting to the point where we can’t afford energy abroad,” said Robinson. “The problem was created by state and federal taxation against…now they want to [make]…further regulations that will stop these hydrocarbons.”
Robinson said that the results of high taxation and regulation of energy is evident in America right now with gas prices hitting over four dollars per gallon. When you take away energy, you lose critical technology, he said.
“Industry is required to give you all the things you want, ranging from pencils to cars,” said Robinson. “When you take away technology, you lose all those things. Anything that was created with any sort of technology was created by energy.”
Robinson said that without necessary energy, the world will see the “greatest technological genocide you can imagine.”
“We wouldn’t have six billion people on Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.”
Avery said that a vast number of people are already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes.
“The indoor cooking fires in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.”
In addition, Avery said that energy restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.” However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen fertilizer, even more people will suffer.
“If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.”
Robinson said that the U.N. is doing more harm than good.
“Every individual has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness….and the right to access technology that will help him prosper whether he is a wealthy man in the U.S. or an African that can barely feed himself,” said Robinson.
Robinson said that war could also result from limited energy and technological resources.
“There could be vast human suffering, death, and terrible wars, because big wars usually start over resources,” said Robinson. “And there’s no way people will understand what’s happening… when you start starving large portions of the population and diminishing the prosperity of others.”
Robinson said that people need to look at the facts, and realize that “correlation does not prove causality.” 31,000 scientists agree. But what about the rest of the American population?
“Winston Churchill once said that Americans always do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else,” said Robinson. “Maybe that’s what we’re going to do this time. But there will be a lot of suffering.”
Melinda Zosh is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
68 Comments | Post a Comment
I love the argument about how our society as a world will break down in pieces if we decided “technological genocide” and a further separation of the haves and the have-nots. Definately some good points to reconsider… whether we are at the stage of global warming or not. I think we are.
David’s point should be well taken. When I first read Obama’s point, I did not think about hydrocarbons and global warming. I thought about the cost of everything going up. I would agree with Obama’s statement in the context that we need to change our lifestyles because many of us can’t afford to continue to sustain the current consumption.
BTW, a .5 degree increase is a pretty big jump, when it only takes a 2 degree increase to begin creating problems.
Finally, representatives of the scientific community, that I knew had to exist out there somewhere, have voiced their opposition to what I believe has become nothing more than a fad embraced by the vacuous hollywood elite and corrupt environmentalists and politicians who want nothing more than to rake in the money flowing around in this fad(follow the money)and control over private property and lives. It’s obvious to me and anyone who does just a little research, and relies on more than the evening news for information, that the man-made global warming movement is based on faulty computer models, that have yet to predict a single year correctly let alone decades in the future, and speculation not worthy of a scientist who bases his conclusions on facts instead of flawed theory.
Ethanol has been a hoax all along, and the evidence has been out there for some time now.
I realized the other day that the politicians have finally managed to tax people for air!
Air has always been plentiful and free, but no longer.
While I believe in environmental causes in that we shouldn’t be dumping poisons into our rivers (fluoride is a by-product of producing aluminum…and it is a poison; talk about effective PR, turning it into a net positive by claiming it helps promote dental health, another myth that has been busted), while our air should be clean, simply making stuff up in order to throw billions of dollars (and our economic health) at it is sheer, if evil, genius.
Al Gore is planning on making a fortune on “green” stocks (that he recommends). I’d love to see his college records re where he studied meteorology.
It’s time that our gov’t stop taking all the good options off the table BEFORE making energy policy. Build more oil refineries, follow the lead of other nations and build nuclear power plants, drill for oil that’s there for the taking, eg, ANWR (yes, the ban on drilling ANWR is another legacy of Jimmuh Cottuh, along with the sub prime mess; you can look it up!), while perhaps offering tax incentives to those enterprising capitalists who can come up with effective alternative sources, eg, solar power, geothermal energy (heat rises, and in certain areas, it does so rather predictably, so the rising hot air - perhaps we could use politicians for this and turn their BS into a productive measure for a drastic change - will turn turbines which produce energy), and wind farms. The list goes on.
Ethanol is the Beverly Hillbillies way of providing “clean-burning” (NOT!) fuel. But if you want to kill a bunch of men, women, and children all over the planet just to “experiment” with a hoax, this is a great way to go about it. Sorry, kid, but you can’t have anything to eat because I need to fill up my SUV!
(This is the common link between pro-ethanol heavyweights: SUVs and personal/private jets they use on a level that dwarfs that of the average consumer. How many times have you read about THAT? And Barbra Streisand can hang HER clothes on a clothesline to dry…but do you think she takes her own advice? Liberals consider consistency to be the hobgoblin of little minds, as the saying goes: sacrifice for thee, but not for me!)
And every alternative mentioned is already in motion to some extent, if not drilling ANWR and off our east and west coasts (which would produce revenue for the states with offshore reserves, while the gov’t, of course, would get a nice slice of the dough).
The oil co’s have a profit margin of 9¢ on the dollar, while the average for the S&P;500 co’s is 13¢ on the dollar. Oil co’s make profits on a large scale, but pay more in taxes than they make in profit. You’re already paying the gov’t taxes for the privilege of buying gasoline. They want to screw some more out of you.
Now you can pay taxes for “free” air. (Free air has become an oxymoron.)
Oh, we could also stop force-feeding cows corn and anti-biotics and let them eat grass (cows don’t eat corn unless force-fed) as they have ever since there were cows. They’ve cut production time in half and raised the prices of beef… and it simply doesn’t taste as good as it used to. And anti-biotics lose effectiveness when over-used, or used up to a point where, say, someone taking an anti-biotic starts to feel better, discontinues use, but still has whatever he/she was being treated for, whereupon anti-biotics lose effectiveness as the underlying problem remains. (It’s much like giving anti-biotics a “flu shot.”)
It would be nice if our politicians would at least pretend to be sane. But I’ll sit down while I wait for this to happen.
Another note on Gore:
It’s going on 16 years since Al Gore became vice-president…and while scientists who bought into global warming received funds, positions, and subsidies, those who didn’t fall for the gag were shown the door.
I can see where someone would “believe” in global warming if not doing so would cost that person his/her job.
Al Gore’s specialty has always been making himself look ridiculous, eg, hiring a woman to teach him how to be an alpha male.
Al, don’t go away mad; just go away!
According to many climate scientists (other than Al Gore 
,
1. The planet has been heating up since the last ice age, and
2. There are shorter heating and cooling cycles within this overall warming.
A 0.5 deg change over a hundred years may or may not be a large change, but where is the proof that man-made activity had anything at all to do with this. And by proof I don’t mean 600 scientists rendering an opinion. We already have some scientists backing away from the claim that AGW is causing an increase in hurricanes and their intensity.
Dan, I think part of the reason it has taken so long for the rest of the scientific community to react is that this debate has entered the realm of emotion, name-calling and political correctness. For instance, according to Heidi Cullen, meteorologists who don’t toe the mark on AGW should have their license revoked. Its difficult to get level-headed scientific arguments through that kind of environment.
A .5C increase ocurred during last century when the global warming cycle was peaking—in the 1930’s and before nearly all of the “sinful” recent industrialization! Further, we are now, even by UN/GORISTA admission, in a rapid cooling period which has been in effect since 1998 and has at least another 10 years to go. And last year, by “consenus” and actual measurement, we lost .7C—all of the prior warming was wiped out by one year of the current cooling cycle. This socialist crap has to be stopped before we lose our economy, way of life and individual freedoms—starting with the egomaniacal McCain.
Before our economy gets damaged further, we should burn the politiicians, journalists, and environmentalists who supported this, as an energy source, then get back on the right track. Or maybe nothing will change.
The best way to win in any contest, sport, negotiation, etc, is to get force the other side to make the first move. The state of the world hasn’t changed much through human history. But the issues that have charted our historical course have. WWII significantly changed the physical and political landscape, but it was over nothing more than ideology. Such is the way of the GW debate. The idea of GW is going to bring about more change than the actual effects. But what will not change in this country however is politicians saying one thing and doing another. Seemingly being worthless and/or selfishly motivated, yet everything turns out OK in the end (at least for us anyway). And in this regard our politics are the best in the world.
I have though long and hard about the seeming disinterest in the truth on the issue of GW. Obviously the science is wrong, and obviouisly politicians are ignoring it for a reason. But how well publicized was the Manhattan Project? How much has the government rejected the idea of UFO despite space age technology appearing seemingly out of nowhere over the past 50 years? As such I’m pretty confident there is more to it. I feel the government wants us all to feel like all of mankind is ruining the planet. Why? We will be conditioned to lower our standards of living, and feel less guilt when “expected” shortages of resources lead to mass suffering and death (“they had it coming”). But at no point in time is in any politician’s best interest for the strentgh of this country to be compromised. Instilling this mentality is a means to an end. It would go something like this: Coerce/force the world into less efficient, less viable sources of energy. Absorb the high cost of fuel in the near term, while draining the OPEC supply. With all the oil gone, and with the flimsy insuffient “green” technologies failing as they are destined to do, we take the world to the brink of catastrophic energy shortage. What happens next? We open up the strategic oil reserve, and start pumping the ANWR dry. Boo-ya! With the worlds biggest intact oil/energy supply we win the endgame. You see most people see the whole GW issue and think “reduced supply of energy”. Fact is WE, AMERICA, are sitting on a HUGE supply of energy, while the rest of the worlds’ is being sucked dry. So our supply is going nowhere. However the demand will soon skyrocket, especially if when the global energy supply is crippled by crappy hippie-pipe-dream green technologies.
You see for all their misgivings, and as ridiculous as things seem to be, I just cannot buy the idea that our politicians are really dumb enough doom us to the bleak future we’re inclined to believe they’re sending us towards. Especially when both parties seem to be on board. Republicans could easily embrace all the data showing GW to be a scam, and run away with this year’s election. Instead they inexplicably toe the same line. I believe this is the setup for the next century of world Superpower-dom. Sure it’s dirty pool, but like it or not you live in America, and this is how your standard of living has been maintained up till now. It makes us all feel better to hide from it, but we must face facts eventually. Do you think a guy like John McCain is really going to roll over and let the Saudis gouge us on oil prices. He’s just biding time until it’s time for the last laugh. And that last laugh will be his. What a beautiful world it will be when the Saudis come to us begging to trade oil for sand. That is when America’s golden age will really begin. Folks you got to have faith. What looks like the beginning of the end, may very well just be the beginning of the beginning.
David Adams has a good point! Isn’t some (most) plastic material a derivitive of petroleum products???
This is funny like so many other things that I read and hear about global warming. To get directly to the heart of the matter. The people who worry about global warming and the people who don’t think there is global warming are both WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not about global warming at all, although the end result could be global warming. It is about the amount of actual kinetic energy that the human footprint adds to the earth’s atmosphere each year, and how that extra energy is manifested. Like extra large and more powerful hunricanes and tornatos with more frequency. More rapid temperature shifts, which could destablize all of the frozen methane in the oceans.
So you know it’s the little stuff like that. We read and analysis the slight changes in temperatures and still can’t get conclusive proof that global warming is real, so idiots think it is not and other idiots don’t recognize the real problems.
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion” what a dumb response! How stupid!
I wish some of these so-called educated people would
EDUCATE themselves properly, and stop jumping on Al Gore’s “new age religion” bandwagon!
Americans believe in Global Warming because they don’t live outside. They live in their cars and in air-conditioned homes and offices, and obsess about death and children’s safety.
The graphs from the EPICA Antarctic ice cores are enough for me. CO2 rises 400-600 years after a temperature spike. Ergo- CO2 is not the heat exchange culprit. Done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
The Government scientists can spin the talk all they want. The spikes don’t match.
Why is it that we did not see anything about this petition in the the major news medias. I found it here and in NewsMax but nowhere else. Is it me, or was it posted elsewhere?
There are people out there who are bashing ethanol production. I couldn’t care less if it pollutes more or less than oil. My reason for pushing it, is because we can make it HERE in this country. voxoreason is worried about the world food supply. It’s about time this country stopped shipping millions of tons of grain overseas to people who are trying to kill us, just to keep the U.N. happy. Lets use it here to help power ourselves instead of being held over a barrel by the Arabs and Venezuala. voxoreason can keep supporting those idiots by buying their crude. I’d rather run American produced ethanol, than arab oil. You can’t grow corn in the desert, but we can grow it here. Let the Arabs drink their oil! My reasons are not so much environmental as they are a matter of survival as a country.
To grow that corn for ethanol you have to use tons of fertilizer. Unfortunately, that doesn’t come from from trees. It comes from Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Trinidad.
It’s made from natural gas and too often that gas comes from the same place as oil.
Corn based ethanol is a fiasco manufactured by government to enrich their cronies. Using corn for fuel is stupid when so many other things can be made itno ethanol or better, methanol that don’t involve using food stocks.
But our government decided that they knew better than the market place how to compete with foreign oil and now we have billions invested in an infrastructure to produce corn based ethanol, funded by the American citizen.
Derek mentioned that the US will be left holding the majority of energy resources. I agree since we already do today and that will continue. But it isn’t because of some grand lan by our smart politicians.
It is because the US sits on vast fields of oil sands, coal and oil that aren’t going to be tapped because of the green scare.
Eventually that will fade and more drilling and more minimg will result. While that is occurring the MExicans oil will dry up, the Sauds will see their production cut by 2/3rds, the Russians will be on the downside and the Chinese will be nearly out of coal and oil.
It isn’t by design, it may be by luck and it all may not even matter because our politicans have fallen into the we must save the world BS and they are sure to vote away our liberties to save the planet.
The argument is already being made by Obama, “we can’t keep driving SUVs and heating the house tro 72 degrees…..” What I suppose we have to do is allow the UN and the IPCC to dictate to us what we can and cannot do…..you know , for everyones benefits. Otherwise we will all die as catastrophe happens. They will save us. (and the Polar bears too.)
RAC55
You lack the intelligence to restate what I have clearly stated. I can speak for myself and do a better job of it.
Yes, I have some concern for people starving around the world, but how is the $2 corn to $4 corn to $6 corn (with wheat skyrocketing because everyone jumped on the ethanol hoax bandwagon) working out for you?
Well, if you enjoy beef made from cows who came in at an average of 10% smaller than last year (and which should not be fed corn in the first place), you’re in luck!
Further, you distort my views on oil: we’ve got plenty of it…but people of your ilk (low-powered mentality) won’t allow us to drill for oil RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA!
But everyone has a right to his or her “opinions” (moronic or ill-informed as they may be), so I’m not going to bother replying to your kind in the future. Intelligent people know when they are talking to or otherwise corresponding with other intelligent people.
You, however, must stand outside the ring and take pot shots at those of us who have a clue. You are simply not bright enough to understand nor address my concerns.
Good to you, sir, madam, or it
This petition is a rehash of the Oregon Petition from the 90s, which is largely rubbish. Some of the so called “scientists” are people like “Dr.” Geri Halliwell (ginger spice, from the spice girls) and Robert C. Byrd (the senator).
It was set up by Frederick Seitz who, after being hired by Philip Morris to do research on tobacco, said that he “is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”
Seitz also denied that CFCs were causing a hole in the ozone.
The list is useless, all the “PhDs” had to do was check a box saying they had a PhD, that’s it. No proof, no verification, nothing. It’s garbage.
Global Warming does exist, I call it summer!!!
Only fools believe in Politicized AGW.
It is just a hugh tax on America!!!
someguy-
Since signing the petition amounts to political suicide in the current Luddite climate, I would hardly call it worthless. At least their names are on record. Try to find a list of the 600 participants in the Paris conference…
Frederick Seitz doing consulting work doesn’t diminish the career of a man who helped pioneer solid state circuitry. Nor is questioning CFC ozone depletion or questioning Global Warming a bad thing. Questioning and testing assumptions is what science IS.
Geri Halliwell is a UK citizen- not sure how she’d sign a petition circulated only in the US.
And nobody needs a Phd to read the Vostok Ice Core data, unless they believe they do.
Matthew Rensen,
I am the author of this article, and there were at least six or seven journalists at the National Press Club on May 19.
In fact, CNN was there covering the event. Also, several French journalists covered the event.
A writer named Bob Unruh wrote an article for World Net Daily Web site.
Here is the link:
Someguy,
I need to clarify a few statements that you made which are incorrect.
A few journalists at the Press Club also questioned the accuracy of the signatures.
Geri Halliwell, a former Spice Girl, did in fact sign the petition…
However, her name was discovered, it was removed immediately from the petitions.
Actually, the names and degrees of the Ph.Ds are verfied. There are several people working full time verifying the science degrees. Dr. Robinson said that he has actually accumulated about 32,000 signatures, because about 1,000 people are still in the verification process.
All signatures are filed. This petition is extremely accuract. When scientists die, asterisks are even placed by their names.
In fact, Robinson said only 50 people have been removed from the list in the past 10 years.
So there is proof and verfication. And garbage isn’t the best term for this petition.
voxoreason
I will not restate what you have stated, not due to my “lack of intelligence”, but to your lack of creativity. The only thing you do a good job of, is making assumptions about people you know nothing about. First off, I am not one of those tree huggers that you have a big problem with. I am ALL for drilling where ever we have to for the oil we need to run this country, Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast, under the White House….WHERE EVER!
My whole point (which you missed completely) is that we should use EVERY resource we can develop to compliment our oil usage, and to get us out from under the yoke of the Arabs and other countries that will use oil as a weapon to control us. We have become TOO dependent on other countries for our basic needs…just to save a buck.
Also, you don’t have to tell me anything about cows, feed, fertilizer, or the costs associated with them. I could spit out of my kitchen window and hit a cow. This is another one of your mis-guided assumptions you make. I will not waste any more time on that subject as YOU don’t seem to have a clue about it. You are too narrow minded, or lack the will to try multiple approaches to solve a particular problem. Washington is infested by people like you, our “braintrust” who stick to the status quo. This is why we are in this mess. We are supposed to be the nation that has the creativity to tackle any problem. You just want to sit there in your little puddle of oil, and hope it doesn’t run out before you die.
Just as human caused global warming has been jammed down the worlds throat via misinterpreted facts from sources with their own agendas, so too has the idea that only petroleum based fertilizers can maintain our present level of food supply been blatantly falsified and propagandized by global chemical companies.
The fact of the matter is that modern permaculture and sustainable agricultural techniques at least equal but usually greatly surpass chemical farming yields in virtually all crops.
I look forward to the day the sustainable agriculture industry gets its own Robinson.
Martha
“The fact of the matter is that modern permaculture and sustainable agricultural techniques at least equal but usually greatly surpass chemical farming yields in virtually all crops.” Care to back up this claim with a reference or two? I certainly hope it doesn’t involve the Rodale Institute and their organics. In the real world (as opposed to the world of modeling) organics almost always yield 10-20% less than conventional.
To Melinda Zosh,
I think your article is brilliant. But beyond that you did something rarely seen regarding articles published on the internet: you participated in the comments section. It’s nice to know that the author reads comments and takes the time to reply to others. I wish other authors would do the same
Mike,
Thank you. I like to see what people are saying about my writing and current issues.
It’s nice to see that you check the AIM site to see what people are saying.
Thanks for commenting. 
i don’t believe in global warming if you want to reach me go to ... (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
It’s great to see so many paranoid Yanks in one place and yet another convincing rebuttal of the socialist theory of Global Warming!
31,000 “scientists” have signed this petition over the past 10 years! WOWEEE!
Got a college degree?! Doesn’t matter what it’s in! Sign up and you’re now a “Climate Expert”!! Don’t have a college degree?! Nevermind! Sign up anyway and pretend you do! Now you’re a “Climate Expert” too! You’ve just become part of an elite group of 31,000 people who’ve signed a petition! Bravo! This proves once and for all Global Warming is just another socialist lie created to destroy the USA!
I’d like to thank the wacko half of the USA for bringing the truth to the attention of the world!
Come back in 30 years and see if you still think Global warming is fake.
Global Warming is real and It will take severe impacts of it before people will truly start believing.
We need to stop treating our planet as a trash compactor and start having alternative energy and moving away from oil
Dave,
Yeah, like Al Gore is a “Climate Expert”? The fact is that I was surprised as I browsed the petition of the colleagues that I saw on there. It may be the “wacko half” because we don’t buy-in “hook, line, and sinker” to the BS of AGW.
I for one like the biofuel approach as one that diversifies our options (biodiesel, corn/pellet stoves, biomass processes and polymer, ethanol from cellulose, fuel cells). But it should not be pushed at the expense of our economy and the world as a whole because of a leftist media and self-proclaimed intelligencia simply because they are crying that the sky is falling as fuel for their power grab. I don’t buy it, and neither do MANY others who are probably much smarter and well-informed than you.
if everyone jumps up and down at the same time, we’ll push the Earth out of it’s orbit, too.
Google ‘Vostok EPICA ice core’ and read the chart. Anyone can read it. Spikes in CO2 correspond w/temperature drops. CO2 is not the culprit in temperature change. Water vapor is. What controls water vapor? The sun.
Round and round we go. AGW enthusiasts don’t read the graphs and everyone else is in denial.
ScienceDada,
Al Gore never professed to be a climate expert. What he did was present the huge body of peer reviewed data accepted by the vast majority of mainstream climate experts in a way that was easy for ‘Joe Public’ to understand. As the weigh of evidence was overwhelming there was no need to resort to presenting worthless petitions as credible data! 31,000 of the how many millions of science grads from the past 10 years signed it!?!
Maybe I was a little inaccurate saying ‘the wacko half’. It’s probably more like wacko 10-15%; gun nuts, religious cranks (who insist the Earth is 7000 years old!!), New World Order conspiracy theorists, militia crackpots, the list of deranged Yanks goes on and on. Aren’t these damaged people the bread and butter of sites like this?! They’re the only people paranoid and gullible enough to believe pseudo-scientific, corporate funded garbage being peddled as valid scientific opposition!!
Ah, the all powerful leftist media! I suppose everyone must look like a leftie when you’re so far out to the right yourself, even those people holding the moderate middle ground.
Since you know next to nothing about me, it’s not a very smart assumption to suggest that your denier pals are smarter or better informed than I.
Don’t you global warming deniers like to say ‘follow the money’ with regards to climate scientists toeing the line to get their funding!!? Maybe you really should follow the money trail right back to ExxM’s $1.5billion A DAY revenues. Sorta puts the entire climate science research budget for the year into context!
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
Dave,
First off, of course the globe is warming. No one will argue about that because it is measurable and demonstrable objectively. The difficulty that the largely leftist (academic and media) establishment has is in proving that it is anthropogenic. Logical fallacy, rhetoric, and insults will not change that, but it will just anger the other side. Many Americans are fiercely independent, and won’t just accept what they are spoon-fed (in contrast to say the Europeans or Chinese). The majority don’t buy junk science, and we are getting tired of the 30+ years of doomsday predictions. 31,000 signatures, many of whom are highly qualified scientists who don’t buy your BS. The louder you shout, the more tired we get of it.
The media is measurably leftist and has a loud and obnoxious presence. But the last 2 presidential election years have demonstrated that they are not on-board with most leftist rhetoric. I believe this will be demonstrated this election year with McCain not winning (because most of the right are so disgusted with having the Republican party abandoning their conservative base, not because Obama is so great).
It is much more plausible than a “Big Oil” conspiracy, which is a leftist favorite… and still does not explain the gaping *inconsistencies in the data*. Your use of Ad Hominem and Bandwagon fallacies will not change that. Sorry, but the left is doing a very poor job getting people on-board with your hoax.
ScienceDada
(B.S. Physics, M.S. Engineering, Working on Ph.D. at one of our the more conservative of the leftist academic establishments here in the U.S.)
Bravo SD for another lip-trembling soliloquy that could only come from the lips of a paranoid and easily controlled Yank! You claim that everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your point of view is ‘spoon fed’, but in fact it’s you and the readers of all the supposedly ‘fair and balanced’ right-winged sites that are exactly what you accuse others of being! (keep repeating, fair and balanced, fair and balanced, fair and balanced!!)
How many sites like this are there?! The American Stars and Stripes foundation for Media Truth - Giving Americans the truth in a leftist dominated world!! Talking about propaganda for the paranoid few! The rhetoric is like something out of the Soviet era! And all pushing the same extreme and biased agenda by making out that it’s the mainstream that’s precisely what they are! As I said before, if you’re way out to the right, everyone else must appear far to the left. It’s purely a matter of perspective.
Thankfully, you’re part of a small, increasingly ridiculous and desperate sounding minority; about 75% of Americans believe Global Warming is real. McCain and Obama have access to all the accurate peer reviewed science published by qualified and prestigious scientists. Both have been advised by experts. The garbage from sinister corporate funded pressure groups and laughable ‘free and balanced’ type, well where you are nows, has been discarded (and rightly so!)
“The louder you shout, the more tired we get of it.” You’d better start training your voice pal, because your numbers are getting very close to wacko baseline that’ll always fall for this type of paranoid, xenophobic BS!
(If you’re going to convince me that you do actually have those qualifications, then at least get the acronyms correct!!)
When I said Global Warming in the 3rd paragraph of my last post, what I meant Anthropogenic Global Warming.
You seem a very uptight person SD! When I was in university nobody even gave a thought as to what political orientation that university was, if indeed it had a slant! Only in the USA!
You don’t happen to be another Bible bashing nut, do you?! Swallowing a rambling, ambiguous, contradictory, paper thin heap of crap like the Bible is the ultimate in been spoon fed and falling hook line and sinker for utter trash!!
Dave,
Hit a nerve, did I? As a scientist, one learns very early on that *correlation does not imply causation*. In the case of AGW, the data *does not even correlate*, as
* Vostok Ice Core data shows CO2 lags warming periods
* NASA temperature data was plagued by Y2K bugs and quietly revised
* Arguments over use of surface data vs. ocean temperatures are currently controversial
* Other planets are warming as well (Jupiter and Mars)
In America, the silent majority don’t swallow what we are spoon-fed… it is that simple, and the AGW argument is being addressed now because it is gaining political momentum in the leftist camp. Period. If that bugs foreigners, I pity them for being so fragile.
The burden of proof is on the AGW camp, whose “evidence” has been largely error riddled docu-ganda films, legislation, public opinion polls, and indoctrinated professionals. The University system across the world is (and has always been) largely liberal, which can be “good” oir “bad” depending on the issue, and this can (and has been) measured. The American media is largely liberal. And AGW is championed largely by liberals. These are all measurable facts. And by-and-large, the Americans reject liberalism because of how it has decimated the world, so we see through the AGW smokescreen. Your fallacies and personal insults will not change that.
COMMENT DELETED DUE TO OFFENSIVE CONTENT
Dave, you’ve been warned! Further comments like this one will result in your being immediately blocked from leaving comments on this site. We don’t ask you to agree, but we do ask you to be respectful.
~AIM
And that comment right there is enough to make me never come back to this website again…
Funny jabs and all can be fun…but this has all digressed a bit…hopefully the moderator of this blog has the sense to ban users of this sort of behavior.
Users, please remember to be courteous and avoid using offensive language or personal attacks when posting comments on this website. We reserve the right to delete any objectionable comments and/or ban the offending user from posting.
Thanks for your cooperation.
~The AIM Team
How dare you say the earth is round when we know it is flat!?
We have a consensus about this… all the scientists agree…
I read somewhere that 9.000 of the people signing that petition were scientist in related fields. That would throw a new twist in the veracity of this petition. Manmade global warming don’t think so. If it’s man made why is mars warming. Last time I looked through a telescope there wern’t any people or suv’s or cow’s there. Why are supporters of global warming so afraid to simply let be studied & debated. The UN & 600 scientists, most in unrelated fields, are not consensus. The only one’s willing to debat this are the ones that say it doesnt exist. Ethanol 30% less power & higher production cost’s from the farmers fuel to the fertalizer to our gas tank’s. You get fewer mpg with ethanol. I whish the dude from CNN would make sure his network would get this out in primetime. Let’s drill here & then get our scientists buts in gear finding alternatives for the future. We still need to conserve but florescent bulbs won’t fix everything either
I don’t know where those three comments came from, but they certainly didn’t come from myself.
“Science"Data
I seriously doubt your credentials as a scientist. The fact that you fluffed your acronyms alludes that your list of qualifications is bogus.
You claim there’s no correlation in the vast wealth of peer reviewed data from eminent climate scientists. This also suggests that you have no idea of standard validation review procedures used by the mainstream scientific community (a procedure that would make a mockery of the ‘junk science’ peddled by sites like this that accuse the mainstream of being exactly what THEY are!)
*Vostok Ice Core data shows that the Earth’s climate is normally driven by Milankovitch Cycles. These are basically variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun that naturally drive climate. In response to warming CO2 is liberated from the ocean. Increases in atmospheric CO2 therefore lag temperature when normal mechanisms occur. What’s alarming is that the cores have shown the current level of atmospheric CO2 to be unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. This level of CO2 can only be explained by the human burning of fossil fuels, due to its present magnitude and rapid increase since industrialization.
*The Y2K bugs you claim are another piece of misinformation. And all science is revised when more accurate data comes to light.
*Arguments over use of surface data vs. ocean temperatures are currently ONLY controversial AMONGST DENIERS THAT SEEK TO MUDDY THE WATER AND CAUSE PARALYSIS ON ACTION.
*There are over 180 major bodies in the solar system! It appears to me picking the 2 or 3 that suit your warped agenda is like saying all Congressmen are women, because you can show me three that are!!! This is a classic case of cherry picking the data.
71% Of Americans believe human activity is a significant cause of climate change. Period. That makes you part of a vocal minority, not a silent majority. I pity your ‘leftist’ insistence; it appears to me to be your comfort blanket for every paranoid and xenophobic delusion that exists in your head and for every ill in the world.
The burden of proof doesn’t exist any longer, at least in those of us that don’t clutch at the most flimsy of straws to prove our preconceived ideas. That’s not science, it’s religion. The issue is resolved. The vast weight of evidence is in place and available for anyone who’ll read the peer reviewed works of the vast majority of non-partisan climate experts. The only person who could call sound science ‘junk science’ is one who has already made their mind up, and is only prepared to listen to the junk that fits their machinations.
I want to make it clear to the other readers of this thread that I am not giving Dave here the time of day any more, since the previous postings in which sodomy was a central theme in an inappropriate manner (which he is apparently now claiming he was framed). This may very well be true, or it may not.
Let me just use one of his examples to illustrate my point. It could easily be done with any of them:
Dave uses a Red Herring argument, introducing the notion that there are over 180 major bodies in the solar system, claiming that citing Mars and Juipter are a classic case of cherry picking the data. What he doesn’t say is that the vast majority of those bodies either don’t have atmospheres, are extremely far from the sun as to be dominated by internal heat sources or the planets they orbit, and many have cryogenic climates in which the role of greenhouse gasses (whatever they may be, CO2, methane, water) are obviously not man-made. I would estimate that there are very few bodies that can be compared, perhaps including: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Mars and Jupiter are measurably warming recently, Venus is not (that I am aware of) and attribution of this to global warming is speculative. I am unaware of the state of Saturn at this time.
However, I have neither the time, nor the inclination to endlessly debate points such as these when I am simultaneously accosted with petty arguments like “fluffed your acronyms” (as if my Ph.D. research were relating to art history or journalism, so I am unqualified to discuss matters of scientific and political significance or something like that). Frankly, I don’t care what you think… especially in light of the previous postings/outbursts in your name.
As such, I doubt I will be responding anymore to this thread.
“Science"Data
If increased solar output was to blame for the rising temperatures here on Earth, Mars and Jupiter, then that increased solar radiation would cause ALL bodies in the solar system to warm, not just the few picked by the deniers. Lack of atmosphere or an internal heat source would make no difference. Deniers have also picked up on Pluto’s temperature rising 2C in the last 14 years. If this was purely due to solar output, then the Earth’s temperatures would have to rise hundreds of degrees due to the fact that we’re 40 times closer to the Sun! In fact, this rise is due to Pluto being near the closest point to the Sun in its long orbit.
Your wording once again indicates to me that you have very little grounding in science. Only the 2 gas giants planets (Jupiter and Saturn) and the 2 ice giants planets (Uranus and Neptune) have strong enough internal heat sources that they radiate more energy than they receive. This energy makes virtually no difference to their satellites families.
There are actually 8 planets and their 166 known moons, 3 dwarf planets and their 4 known moons, and billions of small bodies. All would be subject to increased solar output.
I’d say the reason you’ve promised not to respond is that I’ve effectively debunked every point you’ve made. Even if you don’t respond, I know you’ll still be checking back!!
I didn’t claim to be scientis.Don’t have a single letter behind my name. How many you got behind yours. I gladly defer to people smarter than I am in areas beyond my scope of learning. Just like you when you need a light bulb replaced or a cabinet built.I was simply saying what I had read. I also didn’t know this was a scientist only forum. I just try to see past the end of my nose.You are a typical liberal. If you can’t dazzle with brilliance baffle them with bulls$!t. Talk about cherrypicking data. Thats all yours was. 71% of american don’t believe that way any more. At least not in polls I have seen. If you want to call me a dumbass just do it. But I reserve the right to come stomp a mudhole in your ass if you will kindly provide a name & address.If you want mine I’ll gladly provide it.Since you are evidently more educated & thereby more wealthy come on down to KY & see me.If you think I’ll back down from a fight you got another thing coming.
Capnraysr,
If you had as many letters after your name as the number you’ve left out in your myriad of spelling mistakes, you’d be a true genius!! It doesn’t really surprise me that you have difficulties changing a light bulb!
Actually, I’m not a liberal. But, as I have said before, everyone must appear to be one from the perspective of the ignorant, brainwashed cracks that post in forums like this. It seems to be your Swiss Army knife to define everyone else in the world with an opinion contrary to yours. “At least in the polls I have seen”. Precisely!
Stop it! You’re scaring me with your fighting talk!!! That’s got to be one of the most toothless and impotent attacks I’ve seen in any forum!!
You have cut me with your rapier like wit. I didn’t use spell check. We here in KY don’t have modern tech like you evidently do.I’m doing this with a stick I burned & sharpened. We live by a campfire, just to put out more co2.But I do have all my teeth & a toothbrush. You are typical gotta tear others down to build yourself up. The offer’s still open to come see me.
I apologize to everyone on this forum. I know better than to let someone like dave get under my skin. Then the redneck comes out sorry. It was not my intent to make myself or anyone that doesn’t agree with global warming look bad or stupid. dave still wont debate without calling names & trying to make others look bad.Good night all
Capnraysr,
Understood. Dave may have spellcheck, but when it doesn’t catch his mistakes (it is ScienceDada, not “Science"Data, and Ph.D. is a perfectly legitimate spelling for the degree of academic achievement referred to as Doctor of Philosophy), nor does it correct *severe errors in reasoning*, like insisting that because asteroids and planets/satellites without atmospheres are not suffering greenhouse effects, that this proves he is right. It is sheer stupidity, or worse—a most pitiful kind of incompetence where the individual lacks the competence to identify his own incompetence, and continues to engage in tasks (like arguing) where he cannot help but back it abundantly aware of what a complete fool he is. Such reasoning can only be addressed by ignoring the individual so as not to feed his ego. Let him think he wins the debate, then he will go away and continue to make his fellow lefties look like the self-congratulatory fools they truly are, and their religion… er, “cause” which encapsulates their dogma that the Earth is a fragile, precious blue dot which has been so devastated by Americans that “the sky will fall” if the US does not fork out three times the size of our economy in the next 30 years.
I would say that invitations to brawl in Kentucky are likely not to solve arguments with these folks. But I *will say* that when the liberals gain momentum to the point where they try to force *you and I* to register our guns under threat of confiscation—just as the Socialist Nazis did in 1930s Germany—then perhaps I will come and visit you. We can have a good old time… crank out some CO2 and methane, and have some target practice, better than a Nintendo
Great comments made by the forum, and I would like to add. That people do use, in their hybirds “Flex-fuel” which means that the car can run any blend up to 85% ethanol as well as regular gasoline. Would’nt it be a even better idea to turn your present auto into a hybrid, there by saving thousands of dollars on a new car payment. And just think you would only need gasoline and water to run your present auto for gas savings up to 42% and will give cleaner emissions for the environment.
Great comments made by the forum, and would like to add.
that people do, use, in their hybirds “Flex-fuel” which means that the car can run any blend up to 85% ethanol as well as regular gasoline. Would’nt it be a even better idea to turn your present auto into a hybrid. There by saving thousands of dollars on a new car payment. And just think you would only need gasoline and water to run your present auto. savings gas up to 42%
and cleaner emissions for the environment.
I enjoy the forum’s comments, and I would like to add, claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.” I think these claims have merit. Well how can we help reduce green house gases. One way is to release cleaner emissions into the atmosphere. Just think if you only needed gasoline and water to run your present auto. Savings gas up to 42% and cleaner emissions for the environment, with new water
power technology ITS EASIER THAN YOU THINK.
I enjoy the forum’s comments, & I would like to add, claims that human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate. I think these claims have merit. Well how can we help reduce green house gases. One way is to release cleaner emissions into the atmosphere. Just think if you only needed gas & water to run your present auto. Savings gas cost & cleaner emissions for the environment, with new water
power technology its easier then you think.
I agree with the forum’s comment, we must reduce green house gases. And produce cleaner emissions for the environment.
I think this from George Carlin…
“Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat?”
Talk about getting heated up in here. I can’t believe how much you guys are tearing each other apart. The bottom line is something has to be done. Action has to be taken to ensure that the habitat of this world is not completely destroyed which will result in loss of human life as well. Its already happening. I know it may seem like I am not the one to be saying so even though I have a cd rates website, but that doesn’t have to do with the bottom line greed and love of money which causes things to never change.
The problem is that global warming alarmists cannot distinguish between correlation and causation, so they spread propaganda to convince the population that we face a crisis. Instead of building a case that is reasonable, they use junk science and scare tactics. After 30+ years of the hype, people are getting tired of the BS.
Why then should we agree to plans to “fix” global warming when it is really not our fault, and in the process destroy our way of life? Many of those signing the petition do not agree that the planet is as fragile as the alarmists claim it is… and the consensus of alarmists is actually one of anti-corporate globalists than it is of scientists.
Dave June 7 at 5:51 pm #47 said:
“I don’t know where those three comments came from, but they certainly didn’t come from myself.”
*Ahem* OK, folks, who are you gonna believe? Dave?? Or your lyin’ eyes?
Aside from the fact that ‘Dave’s’ attacks sound just like his other posts above, he apparently doesn’t understand that AIM can easily identify posts from the same computer.
But I’m happy to see a True Believer like Dave lose it like that. That means the Alarmists are getting desperate, and resorting to ad hominem attacks because they don’t have the science to back up their “anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic global warming” hypothesis—which has been repeatedly falsified.
The globe is getting cooler, not warmer.
On the contrary, Smokey! My understanding of the principles of Internet protocol, namely TCP/IP, is extremely sound. Maybe I should enlighten you as to the ease of which somebody with a little technical knowledge could fake an IP address, or route their traffic through a proxy to provide a layer of abstraction. You should also be made aware that most ISPs dynamically allocate IP addresses, therefore specific computers are uniquely identified only for short periods of time. Lesson over! It really mystifies me why ignorant people open their mouths in an attempt to sound smart. There again, when dealing with the majority of people in sites like this, I shouldn’t really be surprised!
“True Believer”! “Alarmists”! Your mouth moves (metaphorically speaking) and the same sound bites echoed by the choleric ScienceDada spew forth. Sound bites I might add, created by selfish and greedy corporate entities that wish to sow doubt to precipitate inaction and therefore protect their profits. The wealth of peer reviewed data from an enormous, non-partisan body of worldwide scientists is dismissed at the drop of a hat, just because people like you insist ‘they don’t have the science’ or it ‘has been repeatedly falsified’, with little but discredited ‘junk science’ to back up their claims. “The globe is getting cooler, not warmer.” LOL! Now even our ‘erudite’ friend ScienceDada wouldn’t make such a ridiculous claim! Your clueless insistence alludes to your complete ignorance.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
But I forgot! All these widely respected organizations have been infiltrated by left-wing, liberal nay communist America haters! Better just ignore their ‘junk science’ and believe the insidious trash posted in sites like this!!
Ah, ScienceDada! A man who’d have you believe that he’s some sort of academic genius, but whose ‘knowledge’ I’ve soundly picked apart in previous posts! I’ve already tried to explain to you how Milankovitch Cycles normally drive climate, and how current trends can’t be explained by increased solar output, but obviously you’re unable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your ‘religion’. It’s weird how people like you who accuse other of ‘junk science’ only have junk science themselves to offer. Like a petition signed by 31,000 of the how many millions of assorted graduates over the past 10 years!? In your deluded mind it’s worth more than all the hard, peer reviewed science from prestigious bodies that you chose to ignore! Your next bilious line of attack usually comes in the form of a predictable stream of insults; liberal, anti-corporate globalist, leftist! The standard array of lame affronts you’d expect from the crazy 50% of Yanks who’ve been totally beaten into subservience by the extreme right-wing, corporate funded, ‘you’re so freer than anyone else’ propaganda machine. They masterfully play on your paranoia knowing full well you’ll swallow every piece of ‘junk science’ they feed you so long as it’s sugarcoated in the usual paranoid, flag waving, ‘they’re out to destroy the USA’ drivel.
As a parting shot, I must give an honourable mention to Theta’s enlightened comment “And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat?”. Take the Aral Sea in Central Asia. Forty years after the Soviets diverted the 2 rivers that fed it for irrigation, it is now less than 25% its former size, creating a local, man-made environmental disaster. To suggest that because we’ve only been around for a small proportion of the Earth’s history, and have only engaged in industry for the past 200 years means that we CAN’T do much damage is obviously a monumentally stupid assumption! ScienceDada, you’re truly in your element amongst like-minded people in this forum! Now, all we need is the impotent Capnraysr to turn up and call me out again, and we’ll have a really good cross section of Yank stupidity on show!!
On the contrary, Smokey! My understanding of the principles of Internet protocol, namely TCP/IP, is extremely sound. Maybe I should enlighten you as to the ease of which somebody with a little technical knowledge could fake an IP address, or route their traffic through a proxy to provide a layer of abstraction. You should also be made aware that most ISPs dynamically allocate IP addresses, therefore specific computers are uniquely identified only for short periods of time. Lesson over! It really mystifies me why ignorant people open their mouths in an attempt to sound smart. There again, when dealing with the majority of people in sites like this, I shouldn’t really be surprised!
“True Believer”! “Alarmists”! Your mouth moves (metaphorically speaking) and the same sound bites echoed by the choleric ScienceDada spew forth. Sound bites I might add, created by selfish and greedy corporate entities that wish to sow doubt to precipitate inaction and therefore protect their profits. The wealth of peer reviewed data from an enormous, non-partisan body of worldwide scientists is dismissed at the drop of a hat, just because people like you insist ‘they don’t have the science’ or it ‘has been repeatedly falsified’, with little but discredited ‘junk science’ to back up their claims. “The globe is getting cooler, not warmer.” LOL! Now even our ‘erudite’ friend ScienceDada wouldn’t make such a ridiculous claim! Your clueless insistence alludes to your complete ignorance.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
But I forgot! All these widely respected organizations have been infiltrated by left-wing, liberal nay communist America haters! Better just ignore their ‘junk science’ and believe the insidious trash posted in sites like this!!
End of story, Human’s aren’t causing climate change.
There’s no doubt, we cause a small portion of temperature flux, but other than that. It’s just EARTH!
After years of reading about this issue, I’m no less confused than I was before I starting following it. This argument seems to me to be a stovepipe argument. It totally discounts advances made in fuels processing and emissions controls. It fails to address other influences on this issue in a meaningful way, such as sunbursts, axis shifts, etc.
But what bothers me the most is the most obvious thing of all. There’s alot of money to be made for government and certain companies as a result of this “mass hysteria.” The one that figures prominently is the esteemed Mr. (I created the internet) Al Gore. Doesn’t it bother anyone that the person who will probably make the most money out of all of them is the person who’s responsible for determining carbon credits?
Yep, you got it, Mr. Gore is in cahoots with the company currently designated to do this for the U.S. (Chicago Climate Exchange.) Imagine that. For that reason, and that reason alone, I believe this whole thing is a hype, which will only end badly for the already overburdened populations of this planet, as everything will cost more as a result.
If you’re interested you can follow this up: “Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C.” of which he is both chairman and founding partner.”
If it wasn’t so sad, I’d be laughing my arse off about how people are being swindled right in front of their eyes, and even demanding it no less.
May 22 at 6:12 pm | #1 | Link
Just for fun, the media should do some research and make a list of all the things created directly from oil and all the industries that benefit indirectly from oil.
It’s not just about cars.