|
Post by blondie on Feb 1, 2007 17:48:30 GMT -5
Looks like 100% of the consensus is on my side. Do you have even one credible source who will claim that global warming is not going on? Just one? Anybody? Any university? Any government agency? Your personal incredulity and science's open-endedness are poor (actually worthless) arguments. Thanks for showing how sad the pro-pollution, anti-hippie side of this debate is. And will you admit Lee was lying about the 30s being warmer that today? That's a classic case of how the right-wing media spreads disinformation. I mean after all, you repeated it. But that's a topic for another thread. mediamatters.org/
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 1, 2007 18:28:30 GMT -5
come on now blondie, i havent been personal in any way with you so do NOT distort my position and get personal.
YOU are now claiming i say there is no warming that is FALSE, i have clearly and consistently said the natural state here IS CHANGE, and went on to say warming and cooling in cycles, i have said we are in part of the cycles so in NO WAY have i implied or stated there is NO warming.
I have said HUMANS are NO the cause, common sense, IF my position was NO warming, "cause" wouldnt even be an issue.
I have properly stated that any warming is NOT caused by humans AND the radical claims of dramatic change are based on FAULTY data and computer models.
the surface warming since the 90's being shown as the warmest ever is based on LAND readings from urban heat islands much MORESO than they were prior to the 90's, because the USSR broke up and MANY of the rural locations in the northern hemisphere's coldest areas were CLOSED.
i agree the surface readings are higher, BUT the satelite readings DIFFER, finding NO significant change since they have been launched by taking REAL global readings from the whole atmoshpere.
i just noticed you calling me "pro-pollution"....since we are discussing the co2 content and its effects thank you for showing YOUR side of the debate...claiming one of the NECESSARY natural chemicals on this planet is "pollution" shows total ignorance of the most basic science.
i am pro common sense and clearly you are NOT!
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 1, 2007 18:54:39 GMT -5
Looks like 100% of the consensus is on my side. Do you have even one credible source who will claim that global warming is not going on? Just one? Anybody? Any university? Any government agency? Type "debunking global warming" into Google. Those are scientists that wrote those articles.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 1, 2007 19:21:35 GMT -5
"anti-hippie side of this debate is."
That's a first. Calling somebody anti-hippie, like hippies are known for their credibility. LOL.
Don't hippies smoke pot all day? I wouldn't go by any conclusions they came up with other than what's the best pot to smoke.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 1, 2007 21:46:44 GMT -5
Billt finally makes a lucid point.
"I have properly stated that any warming is NOT caused by humans AND the radical claims of dramatic change are based on FAULTY data and computer models."
Since anyone can research this and find it to be incorrect I feel safe is saying.............
.............pwned
Global warming is an easy one.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 1, 2007 23:04:25 GMT -5
"the surface warming since the 90's being shown as the warmest ever is based on LAND readings from urban heat islands much MORESO than they were prior to the 90's, because the USSR broke up and MANY of the rural locations in the northern hemisphere's coldest areas were CLOSED.
i agree the surface readings are higher, BUT the satelite readings DIFFER, finding NO significant change since they have been launched by taking REAL global readings from the whole atmoshpere"
You turned off your radio too eaqrly that day Bill- Matt had a guy on that blew this out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 1, 2007 23:10:03 GMT -5
NOTHING will convince these people, many of whom believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old and there is no such thing as evolution. Its pointless.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 1, 2007 23:34:21 GMT -5
actually i was still listening and for YOU to claim he blew anything away is utter nonsense rich...he DID acknowledge that i was correct BUT added he "thought" there had been some adjustment made to the data, NOT that it DID happen or that it was correct in any way just he "thought" it had been addressed(common sense any attempt to fill in the blanks from UNknown cooler reading points is not possible to be accurate enough to distinguish itself from background noise because of the margin of ERROR)....also the satelite readings made by NASA have found a very slight cooling overall since they went up in the 70's.
rich, i have clearly stated the earth is BILLIONS of years old, so the tactic to discredit shows where YOU are coming from not me.
I am using SCIENCE, your side is depending on dogmatic belief/FAITH in computer models. and directly contradicting KNOW science.
in the 20th century the earth had a period of COOLING AFTER and while a BIG increase in co2 was taking place.....IF your side is correct then the KNOWN FACTS are not possible to have happened.
the ONLY logical conclusion is YOUR computer models are WRONG and the KNOWN observed history is CORRECT!
common sense...saying ONE factor(co2) in a system as complex as the earth's atmopsphere has a "causal" effect on the entire system is utter FOOLISHNESS.....and since MOST of the co2 in the air comes from nature, YOUR claim rich is that this TINY component, human co2 contributions has CONTROL over the earth's climate, overriding the SUN, our orbit, the moon, the earth's volcanoe's, and almost INFINITE other factors.
as i stated at the beginning there is ZERO evidence of human CAUSED global warming.
take your shots rich.......i enjoy a good laugh and spreading the TRUTH is also much fun!
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Feb 1, 2007 23:41:44 GMT -5
..addressing global warming has arrived at the consensus that we, homo sapiens, have accelerated climate change via our technological advances made using petroleum products a fuel. Google? If you use Google, you can find hollow-earthers, creation scientists, Paul McCartney is really dead, and a million other fringe theories. Sure, we have periodic shifts in climate; that's a fact. However, the presence of nearly 6 billion people and increased carbon emissions has accelerated this cycle of change.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 1, 2007 23:46:55 GMT -5
i may be mistaken in my usage of common sense....sense doesnt seem common at all anymore!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 1, 2007 23:52:36 GMT -5
how come nobody mentions the obvious BENEFITS of a slightly warmer earth?
MORE livable land and area to grow food, a more stable climate(in the BILLIONS of years past the "warmer" times were the BEST for life to thrive), better ability to accomodate our growing numbers.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 2, 2007 0:51:04 GMT -5
A funny thing I heard on the radio today. A MSM reporter was talking to a scientist discussing the concensus on this issue. He said something to the efffect of it being a rare thing and that scientists are about 90% sure that humans are responsible for the current global warming.
I thought scientists established facts....you can't have a 90% correct fact. Then again, macro evolution has not been proven to be a fact either and it doesn't stop them from saying so.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Feb 2, 2007 2:34:36 GMT -5
Well this has been amusing... I emailed lee some of the numbers from the EPA and a couple of other sources about CO2 emissions, but I don't know if he mentioned any of them in the show. The amount of carbon released into the atmosphere (by fossil fuel burning and other manmade sources) is right at 7 billion tons per year. When combined with the "O2" part, it comes to somewhere around 26.7 billion tons of CO2 that we add to the atmosphere each year. Would a reasonable person entertain the thought that adding that much CO2 might have some effect? re: BillT... "how come nobody mentions the obvious BENEFITS of a slightly warmer earth?
MORE livable land and area to grow food, a more stable climate(in the BILLIONS of years past the "warmer" times were the BEST for life to thrive), better ability to accomodate our growing numbers." Perhaps more livable land area, if Antarctica could scurry back up north a couple thousand miles or so. Otherwise, one would have to realize that in the past, a good portion of the US midwest was an inland ocean, and Florida, Bangladesh, The Netherlands, and a host of other areas would be way under water. And who knows if an area that is now green and fertile might not end up being like the horse latitudes of today, and become permanent deserts? Additionally, some of the areas that would be warmed to good cropland temperatures don't have a soil depth to sustain agriculture. Many areas in Canada would then be warm, but as a result of glaciers scouring away the soil, and the colder average temperatures since then, they only have a few inches of soil above the bedrock. While areas in the US can form an inch of new topsoil in 50-100 years when cropped and maintained properly, it takes thousands of years up north.
Combine that with the fact that there isn't any subsoil to turn into topsoil up there, so you have to actually erode rock AND have enough bacterial action to extract the minerals into usable compounds for plants. That is going to take one heck of a long time.
A "heck of a long time", is not going to be a luxury that all the hundreds of millions of displaced people will have to spare...
re: Phinehas... "I thought scientists established facts....you can't have a 90% correct fact. Then again, macro evolution has not been proven to be a fact either and it doesn't stop them from saying so." No, scientist make a hypothesis based on data, which can eventually become a theory. The theory can be considered a fact by many people, but science encourages people to disprove (or improve) the theory for the benefit of everyone's knowledge. Others don't seem to have any openess to thought or opinions other than their own, and don't want to accept new thought or theories that might make their previous beliefs sound incorrect. That, my friend, is the big difference... As for me, I'm investing in a whole bunch of fishing poles and raft building material... LOL
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 2, 2007 2:43:06 GMT -5
re: Phinehas...
"I thought scientists established facts....you can't have a 90% correct fact. Then again, macro evolution has not been proven to be a fact either and it doesn't stop them from saying so."
No, scientist make a hypothesis based on data, which can eventually become a theory. The theory can be considered a fact by many people, but science encourages people to disprove (or improve) the theory for the benefit of everyone's knowledge.
Others don't seem to have any openess to thought or opinions other than their own, and don't want to accept new thought or theories that might make their previous beliefs sound incorrect.
That, my friend, is the big difference...
As for me, I'm investing in a whole bunch of fishing poles and raft building material... LOL
hmmm, I wonder if these scientists scoff at the noachian flood? You apparently don't. Thanks for clarifying that science doesn't establish facts.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 2, 2007 3:11:24 GMT -5
Here's a good thing about global warming... Seventy degrees in December! Woot!
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Feb 2, 2007 4:03:41 GMT -5
re: Phinehas...
"hmmm, I wonder if these scientists scoff at the noachian flood?"
Don't know which scientists you are talking about... I know that Da Vinci didn't think it was possible, but it would take quite a while for me to find and ask every scientist about it...
"You apparently don't." "Apparently" would be the operative word... You never know, I could be all for it, but I'm not sure there is enough water out there to cover mount everest (unless it was a lot shorter then...) The fishing poles and rafts refers to my youth growing up in a river town with people who lived through the floods every year, and many of them spent most of their time living life on the water. I'm comfortable there... And if everyone packs into a reduced land area, many may need to live that way...
"Thanks for clarifying that science doesn't establish facts."
Facts are in the eye of the beholder, and things can always change...
Even the climate... I think I heard a theory about that...LOL
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 2, 2007 7:47:11 GMT -5
Bill- I'd love to hear you explain the spike in Co2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. For 174,000 years CO2 was in the range of 200 ppm to 270ppm and in 2004 its 377ppm.
If its nature thats causing this explain it. If its a natural cycle how long are these cycles??? Apparently longer than 174,000 years.
If I could Prove a causal relationship I would be on the cover of TIME magazine as would you if you could prove it was some cyclical event. We agree that the environment is a dynamic thing with many variables. So what it comes down to is this. I defer to the experts. I have read article after article in which scientists have study the subject and come to this conclusion. I am more convinced by a majority of these scientists than I am that there is a "liberal media conspiracy" or that "anti-capitalists" are out to sabotage big business. I've SEEN the effects of pollution on rivers and oceans. (i.e. the Cahaba, Prince William Sound) I've SEEN the effects of Urban Spawl on what was once wilderness. I've SEEN where with drift nets, man is over fishing the Oceans to the point Fisheries around the world are collapsing. I've SEEN the water wars in the West and even here between Alabama and Georgia.
I Know we are overtaxing the world's resources and so its not an intellectual leap for me to imagine that 100's of millions of cars on the road throwing out carbon dioxide is having a negative effect.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 2, 2007 7:50:14 GMT -5
p.s. There are MILLIONS of acres of Tundra and permafrost that covers a lot of vegetation that does not decompose and release methane into the atmosphere because it is frozen, if it melts, the process will speed up.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Feb 2, 2007 23:53:36 GMT -5
how come nobody mentions the obvious BENEFITS of a slightly warmer earth? MORE livable land and area to grow food, a more stable climate(in the BILLIONS of years past the "warmer" times were the BEST for life to thrive), better ability to accomodate our growing numbers. Because the increase of fresh water dumped into the Gulf Stream will drastically cool North America and Europe, thus possibly causing another ice age type event.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 4, 2007 22:17:41 GMT -5
Lessee... To begin with, chew on this from the National Climactic Data Center: While it is true that five of the last ten years have been the warmest since reliable records began being kept in 1895, five were not, and all of those occurred before 1940! In fact, the warmest year of record was 1931 and, as a whole, the decade of the 1930s were, on average, only slightly less warm than the period 1995-2005. Try blaming the 1930s on SUVs.... Many of the global warming alarmists are merely former socialists/communists/anti-capitalists who, upon discovering that it was their preferred governmental systems that were consigned to the "ash heap of history", merely changed their tack as to how to best bring down the capitalist system. If you do a bit of research, you see that groups like Greenpeace are absolutely riddled with Worker's Party members, PETA fanatics and ELF-types. Their gospel is, of course, the Kyoto Protocol. Were they truly serious about slowing/reversing human-caused global warming, why on earth (literally!) exempt China and India who, by the early part of the next decade, will have passed the United States as the globe's largest polluter (while, I might add, not even coming close to us in terms of production output!). Could it be because what they are really after is punishing the United States for its successes? The extremists on the Left don't want debate on the issue. As is the case with most issues, they seek to muzzle the opposition, prevent their side from being heard at all costs because their position is untenable, if not outright fraudulent. Calling those that disagree with them "Fundamentalist fanatics" or advocating that those who disagree with the sacrosanctity of thier position lose their AMS certification- all the while accusing their opponents of 'censoring' them- is meant only to cower the other side into submission.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 4, 2007 22:21:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 4, 2007 22:26:20 GMT -5
Oh...and as for the debate being 'over'- that global warming is real and definitely caused by humans- you might want to inform these guys: (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus) The Earth is not warming significantly Scientists in this section hold that the the Earth is not warming or has warmed less than the 0.6 ± 0.2°C estimate given by the IPCC.Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this." [4] "The Earth’s surface has warmed slightly, but floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not changed for the worse. The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years. ... Warming, from whatever cause, is more likely to produce economic benefits than economic losses." [5] [edit] The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.Claude Allègre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [6]) Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: " t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3°C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003 [7]) David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [8]) Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5°C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [9] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [10] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14) Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [11])
[edit] The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities.
Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [12]) (See also [13], [14], [15]) Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." [16] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." [17] Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [18]) George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [19]) William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 [20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006 [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more." (Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005 [22]) Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [23]) Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [24]) Tim Patterson [25], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [26] Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [27] Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [28] Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [29] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [30]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link) Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [31]) Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [32] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [33], [34])
But then I guess ALL of these scientists are on the payroll of Big Oil...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 4, 2007 22:33:16 GMT -5
Oh....might want to tell these folks as well that the debate is over: www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htmThis is a link to the famous Oregon Petition which was launched to urge the United States not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As of 2001, there were 19,700 signatories to the petition, including: Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. (link to names: www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm ) Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life. (link to names: www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm ) 7677 SCIENTISTS who disagree with Kyoto. So much for that vaunted "consensus"....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 5, 2007 17:51:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 5, 2007 18:17:46 GMT -5
yea, like ANYBODY is gonna wade through all that crap
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 5, 2007 18:23:06 GMT -5
i agree rich, the ONLY people that would read that stuff are those seeking KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH.
people with an agenda have no desire to look into such things!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:04:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 5, 2007 21:07:57 GMT -5
and FACT is your post above claiming TWO people spann and rush VS EVERYBODY else sums up YOUR SIDE of this issue.
LIES told by LIARS!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:29:15 GMT -5
I'm sorry. The James Spann, Rush Limbaugh, Billt side.
I guess there's three of you.
Why don't you believe in global warming? Do you really believe the EPA, NASA, the UN and the Bush administration are lying to us? Why would they do that?
These people have no motive.
The right-wing folk like Rush are afraid to admit they were wrong 20 years ago. James Spann probably thinks Jesus wants him to obey Rush.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 21:33:38 GMT -5
They, including billt, have not said there is no global warming, just that it has not been proven to be casued by mankind.
|
|