Wow. You really have significant numbers of GW doubters there in the USA, then?
GW doubting is the new Creationism, it seems.
GW doubting is the new Creationism, it seems.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Global Warming ???
- Thread starter Reverend Rick
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=71006417&CFTOKEN=56442234
There's that phrase "climate change" rather than "global warming" again. Ever so much more convenient since it swings both ways.
I'm not going to read thru the whole thread again to be sure, but I don't believe that Rick claimed that any credible scientists are questioning climate change.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Over seven hundred prominent and credible scientists from all over the world are publically stating that they believe the theory of global warming is flawed.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=71006417&CFTOKEN=56442234
This is in no way limited to the United States.
The silence is telling. :yes:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Rick, I keep posting this report, which has over 700 prominent, very well respected scientists worldwide commenting IN DETAIL about their reservations and even outright denial of the theory of global warming - but so far not one person has commented on this information. I wonder if anyone has even read any portion of this report, which made international news just a few years ago.
The report goes into great detail about many of the scientists, listing their impressive credentials, their country, and their specific issues with the theory - in fact, their own statements in their own words.
One would think this information would be at least interesting to proponents of global warming.
Being the skeptic that I am - in general - I immediately started googling the names of these particular scientists, and from what I could tell, they are indeed well respected and legitimate scientists.
The report goes into great detail about many of the scientists, listing their impressive credentials, their country, and their specific issues with the theory - in fact, their own statements in their own words.
One would think this information would be at least interesting to proponents of global warming.
Being the skeptic that I am - in general - I immediately started googling the names of these particular scientists, and from what I could tell, they are indeed well respected and legitimate scientists.
I stand by my position that Global Warming is a religion. What is interesting is, when confronted with credible evidence, they ignore it in one breath but ridicule other religions for doing the same thing.
GW itself has some faith based beliefs, which hurts its credibility. We have Al Gore saying that GW is irreversible, yet history shows
warming periods always followed by cooling periods. We have believers like Alceste saying that GW will utterly destroy civilization.
This is pure histrionics. It's pretty widely accepted that Earth is warming overall, but there is much argument about the mechanisms &
effects. To divide the issue into pro & anti GW camps is to lose important distinctions.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
[youtube]zyO8_as7k_0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO8_as7k_0&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO8_as7k_0&feature=player_embedded#
dmgdnooc
Active Member
I think that this is the only contrary link posted to which I have not posted a direct answer.
I didn't do so because the links that I have previously posted as replies have not received recognition.
And because it is titled 'US Senate Minority Report'
Now by being signatory to the 1987 Convention on the Ozone Layer the US Senate has already acknowledged that anthropogenic activities are warming the atmosphere and that the warming has an effect on the Earth's weather systems.
And the open admission that it is a 'minority report' demonstrates that it is not the majority concensus.
　
In 1987 the world's governments agreed to the Convention and to all its articles.
Backing out of a solemnly undertaken pledge.
Feigning that the pledge means something other than what it plainly states.
Questioning the conditions that one placed on one's self by making the pledge, after the fact, and refusing to act on those conditions.
These are actions that I hold in contempt.
And my greatest contempt is for my own, Australian, government in this regard.
　
My contempt is reinforced by the fact that behind the public facade of doubt, in the back rooms of power, these same governments are taking actions that confirm their belief in the fact of dramatic, and anthropogenic, Climate Change.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
edit/ add link
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I think you're misunderstanding the content of the report/link. By focusing on the terminology "Senate Minority Report" you are not addressing the content, which is a statement and report by over 700 well respected scientists worldwide who are denouncing or at least seriously questioning the validity of the theory of global warming.
The US Senate didn't make this stuff up. This is information received by them FROM a large segment of the scientific community.
Remember when it snowed in Copenhagen?
[youtube]t0-IOqxAn5M[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0-IOqxAn5M
[youtube]t0-IOqxAn5M[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0-IOqxAn5M
There are also powerful political & economic forces dependent upon AGW too....carbon credit traders, true believers, countries
most affected by sea level rise.... I'd be suspicious of everyone who is overly certain or enthusiastic about their position.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
I had thought this to be the current update of the document that originally appeared as '500 Scientists with Documented doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares' published in 2007 by the Hudson Institute and distributed by the Heartland Institute.
You're right, the US Senate did not make this up, they merely give it the imprimatur of their authority.
　
Yeah, too right, I question the source and its validity.
As do the numerous scientists who demanded, and were refused, to have their names removed from its list.
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
dmgdnooc
Active Member
Even if all 700 scientists are in genuine doubt that does not affect the concensus opinion.
Because for every 700 in their range who say that the IPCC goes too far, is too radical, there are 700 on the other side of the concensus who say that the IPCC does not go far enough, is too moderate.
　
I'm no scientist, let alone a Climatologist, what I can recognise is the broad concensus among scientists the world over.
This does not blind me to the fact that there are scientists who have taken positions on both sides of that concensus.
I'm a mainstream kinda guy at heart, particularly when I, a layman, am dealing with experts.
So I listen to the concensus and take note of the major, nationally accredited, scientific organisations.
NASA, The Royal Society, The CSIRO etc are in very much the concensus position and have fewer of other peoples barrows to push.
Because for every 700 in their range who say that the IPCC goes too far, is too radical, there are 700 on the other side of the concensus who say that the IPCC does not go far enough, is too moderate.
　
I'm no scientist, let alone a Climatologist, what I can recognise is the broad concensus among scientists the world over.
This does not blind me to the fact that there are scientists who have taken positions on both sides of that concensus.
I'm a mainstream kinda guy at heart, particularly when I, a layman, am dealing with experts.
So I listen to the concensus and take note of the major, nationally accredited, scientific organisations.
NASA, The Royal Society, The CSIRO etc are in very much the concensus position and have fewer of other peoples barrows to push.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
Yes, I take all radical, off centre, positions with a grain of salt.
And I am aware that the debate is being steered by powerful forces of self-interest.
　
I do think that most of the dis-information, and most of the evidence of dis-information, points to a conservative and corporate agenda.
The Bush administration's interferrence with and censoring of NASA, GISS etc, the involvement of energy and agricultural lobbying firms like Hudson, Heartland etc, the reports by scientists of pressure being applied on them by commercial and political interests to modify their results and conclusions, all point to an agenda of the powerful.
　
I haven't got a link but, I remember hearing that there is upwards of 100 trillion dollars of oil still in the ground. That's a lot of loot to walk away from.
And oil is not the only industry that is affected by the measures that must be taken.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
There's a real reason that many of us call it climate change now, and it's not just for social reasons, but also because it more accurately reflects what is going to happen (if it hasn't already started).
As true as that may be, 700 scientists is a very, very, very small percentage of the total number. Meteorologists in particular are notorious for being some of the ones to deny climate change science. Hell, I'm sure that there might be the rogue "scientist" that still believes in a flat earth, too.
But are they respected in climate science? It's very similar to the scientists who deny evolution science: They are usually outside the field of biology. Just as it is almost unheard of for a biologist to deny evolution, it is almost unheard of for a climatologist to deny climate change.
Kathryn, here's the thing: You, Rick, and the other climate change deniers can preach pseudoskepticism all you want to us. What I don't think you understand about our reaction is that WE DON'T WANT CLIMATE CHANGE TO BE TRUE. We would much rather it if CO2 were nothing more than a harmless, odorless gas that helps maintain life as we know it. Unfortunately--and this is a well-documented fact, no matter how much you try to deny it--in the concentrations it is in, and especially in the concentrations it is projected to be in, we simply have too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. That is a fact, as well-established as gravity and the roundness of the Earth.
Last edited:
You are hearing WAY too much then, Rev. Even if I were convinced by Kathryn's claim (and I am not) it would still be naive and dangerous to let the matter go.