lardyl

haha - forgot about him and his mates.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_...e_and_Medicine
the final link is that they came up with the very 31,000 signature petition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Classic

lardyl

....

lardyl

And don't forget more big oil and big tobacco.....(allegedly):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

lardyl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

is a skeptic and agrees that warming will happen due to our activity but at the low end of IPCC and that it will benefit us.

He also doubted that ozone depletion causes increased UV exposure at the surface, although the Nobel Prize winners would disagree and on T-E's scale he is trumped on that one......

lardyl

the petition was regarded by many in the scientific communiuty as a "con", and there was plenty in it to dupe scientists into signing their returns, like fake letterheads, Seitz's name on the front to add credibility, a copy of "slanted" research "paper" enclosed, etc ---- just check out the Wikipedia page and the links therein.

To answer your question about the number of "scientists" in the US.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/#tab1

Indicates over 22,000,000 scientists and engineers in the USA in 2006.



Thats a few more than 31,000 and many of those 31k were not real scientists, being economists, Mickey Mouse, members of the Spice Girls, etc.....

scrubbedexpat094

FWIW, I believe that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming & cooling. However, I do believe that human activity & the population explosion has had a significant effect on the planet in the last two hundred years or so.

For the record, I'm an atheist

BEVS

Have we read the same stuff over the decades ? Did we come from the same womb ? Have we been around as long as each other?

FWIW , I would echo the above post .


Just call us simple or perhaps we just cut to the chase.

seven seas

I know it isn't what you want to hear, and may shatter your illusion of non-culpability (the loaded questions kinda give that away)


but in a closed system, we cannot keep introducing loads of new compounds and changes to ecosystems without it having an effect.

BTW nice graph you got there. Who made it?

Are you aware that climate change is about more than a few years? The scale we are talking about is way bigger than that.

Your graph has tricked you (and possibly some others). It is like using the house pprpice data of the ast few years to 'prove' that property values will decrease forever. Clearly this is but a mere blip, and should be seen within the context of generations rather than a few months.


Graphs and figures like this are favourites of eople with Climate Change Denial because they are inconclusive. The fact that we have clearly f****ed up vast parts of this planet in other ways are not up for debate because it's an open and shut case. But some people rely on these figures to prop up their arguments for continuing to live selfish, contrary lives.

Black Sheep

Does any scientist on either side of the so-called 'A-CC debate' not 'believe' this?? As far as I've understood it for some time now, scientific consensus is that we're in a 'natural cooling cycle' at the moment and we're damned lucky for it as otherwise, because of A-CC, the earth would be experiencing even higher average temperatures (up to as much as a few degrees) than it is now.


Not born Catholic then, I'd guess! (We tend not to get past 'agnostic' )

Perry Groves

I like your thinking, I bet they don't fart as much and make good steaks

Persephone

My opinion is that manmade global warming is very likely, based on the viewpoint of the majority of scientists and the IPCC who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I ever will.
If they turn out to be wrong, all well and good but I appreciate that I do not have the knowledge to be able to digest and fully understand the complexities and science of global warming [apart from the basics]. I can only rely on the opinions and research that others have done. The problem with manmade global warming is that it is not a palatable or pleasant concept to accept. Those who deny it will always be listened to-wishful thinking will not make something true!
I understand the world does go through periods of warming and cooling anyway but that is not the issue here, it's whether man's activities have had an effect on the planet.

Best mate was a Catholic and she has made it into full blown atheism-one of the few maybe

TeamEmbo

My problem with the claim that global warming is man-made isn't that it is unpalatable and unpleasant. Nor is it an argument to continue to live a selfish life. On the contrary, the theory that global warming is man-made has still not been proven as an indisputable fact, despite the years of research and billions of dollars the experts themselves can still not agree and each side claims the others models and research and basic science is flawed. To my tiny little mind, surely by now after all this time and money these experts should have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and formulated a way forward if one was indeed needed.

The fact is this hasn't happened. And whilst these billions yet tided up in the futility of it all, government agencies, police, ambulance, fire, local governments, hospitals, schools are struggling with cutbacks and underfunding, ordinary people even in so called developed countries are living in poverty, there are people homeless and starving, let alone the amount of people in developing countries who still don't have the very basic of clean drinking water. And that, IMHO is the complete travesty. The money that has been wasted on proving something which may or may not exist - and if it did surely it wouldn't take decades to prove.

Me personally? I do all my little bit as far as not wasting electricity, recycling, not polluting etc, not because I think global warming isn't man-made, but because we have a responsibility to use resources wisely, which to me at least is a completely separately issue.

And I still have no idea why mankind, or at least 'mankind on BE' can't hear an opposing view and just accept that someone doesn't agree with their point of view without having to use condescending language and suggestions that you're obviously deluded, irresponsible, easily led etc etc. It's the same for anyone who says, "I like NZ" - you then get inundated with really quite rude comments about not seeing the big picture, not being savvy enough, being naive, wearing rose tints etc. It really would be so refreshing if someone could post an opinion and just have someone reply who holds an opposing view with respect and acceptance rather than belittling comments. Now that really would make it a nicer place.

Cape Blue

Unfortunately the techniques used in the past by the smoking industry and now by the fossil fuel and transport sectors clearly work.

http://www.alternet.org/media/50359

Put out lots contrary scientific evidence, even if it isn't peer-reviewed, pay a few scientists to shout load and hard, discredit the people and organizations against you, all that matters is that you make enough people believe that the science is not yet settled and you buy your sector another 30-40 years.

Fantastic really. Asbestos, smoking and now anthropogenic climate change. Got to admire their skills if not their morals.

seven seas

There's a bit of a difference there. Nobody gives a f*** if you like a certain football team or prefer the products of Dominion breweries to those of Lion Nathan.

The survival of life on this planet is slightly more important. That's why people get agitated about it.

TeamEmbo

And on the other hand everyone knows Governments are pure as the driven snow, never corrupt, never try and dupe the public, have never had hidden agendas and politicians aren't self-serving, never act fraudulently and always act in the best interests of the people who voted them in? Yes, I see that now they would never act in the way you describe the 'opposition'. Governments are reknown for never paying anyone off, not covering anything up and running a crystal clear administration.