Why do all these Scientists think Global Warming is a crock?

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Anti Global Warming Petition

Names by State

States: AK, AL, AP, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

State: AK
Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Donald F Amend, PhD, David Anderson, MD, Donald N Anderson, PhD, Roger Baer, Alex Baskous, MD, Don Bassler, John Beitia, William M Bohon, James Boltz, John K Bowman, Mike Briscoe, Carrel Bryant, William Burgess, Roger C. Burggraf, Bonnie Carrington, Glen D Chambers, Lowell Crane, Michael Croft, Thomas R Delahunt, Edward M Dokoozian, PhD, Kathleen Douglas, Robert Dragnich, James Drew, PhD, Richard Dusenbery, PhD, William E Eberhardt, Jeffrey D Eckstein, John Egenolf, PhD, William James Ferrell, PhD, Jeffrey Foley, Will E. Godbey, Edward R Goldmann, Daniel C Graham, Lawrence G Griffin, Lenhart T Grothe, David B Harvey, Charles C Hawley, PhD, James Hendershot, Kurt R Hulteen, Lyndon Ibele, Timtohy K Irvin, Steven Jones, Donald Keill, Joseph M Killion, George F Klemmick, Professor Lance, Harold D Lee, Harry R Lee, Erwin Long, William E Long, PhD, Monte D Mabry, Robert Malouf, T R Marshall Jr, Jerzy Maselko, PhD, Jeff Michels, J U Miesse, M Miranda, William W Mitchell, PhD, Jesse Mohrbacher, John Mulligan, Erik Opstad, Walter T Phillips, Bruce Porter, Richard Reiley, Rydell Reints, Kermit Reppond, Donald R Rogers, MD, Allan Ross, Joe L Russell, George Schmidt, Lynn Schnell, Michael Schowen, Glenn E Shaw, PhD, Ernst Siemoneit, Michael Storer, James W Styler, Richard Swainbank, PhD, Tim Terry, Kevin Tomera, MD, Duane Vaagen, Dominique Van Nostrand, Ross Warner, Jean S Weingarten, Michael W Wheatall, Theron Wilson, Frank Wince,

Top

State: AL
H W Ahrenholz, Oscar R Ainsworth, PhD, Michael L Alexander, Robert Allen, MD, Ronald C Allison, MD, Berard J Anderson, PhD, John Anderson, PhD, Larry D Anderson, Russell S Andrews, PhD, Ann Askew, Larry Atkinson, Brooks H Baker III, Robert Baker, James Baltar, Alan A. Barksdale, Richard Barnes, Kenneth A Barrett, Sidney D Beckett, PhD, Arthur B Reindorff, PhD, M Bersch, PhD, Raymond Bishop, Edward Blair, Jonathan Boland, Theodore Bos, PhD, Wm D Boyer, PhD, William C Bradford, Bradley A Brasfield, John F Brass, Claude E Breed, James M Brown, PhD, Robt A Brown, PhD, Walter Brush, Donald F Burchfield, PhD, Kim A Burke, Kevin Burrows, Eddie Burt, PhD, Michael A Butts, Arnold E Carden, PhD, Charles R Christensen, PhD, Otis M Clarke Jr, Stan G Clayton, William M Clement, PhD, Jack Cleveland, David N Clum, Ty Cobb, W Frank Cobb Jr, W A Cochran, Jr, Ernst M Cohn, Robt B Cook, PhD, Clifton Couey, Sylvere Coussement, PhD, Delmar N Crowe Jr, Joseph A Cunningham, MD, J F Cuttino, PhD, Thomas P Czepiel, PhD, Robert S Dahlin, PhD, Thomas W Daniel, Julian Davidson, PhD, Donald E Davis, PhD, Jimmy D Davis, Michael Day, PhD, David L Dean, PhD, Warren D Dickinson, Wenju Dong, PhD, Thomas P Dooley, PhD, Gilbert Douglas Jr, MD, James A Downey III, Don A. Sibley, PhD, James L Dubard, PhD, Zbigniew Dybczak, PhD, George R Edlin, PhD, Tricia Elgavish, Gabriel Elgavish, PhD, Rotem Elgavish, Rush E Elkins, PhD, Jesse G Ellard, Howard C Elliott, PhD, Arthur Ellis, David Elrod, PhD, Leonard E Ensminger, PhD, Robert D Erhardt Jr, Ken Fann, GL Fish, Julius Fleming, Wm F Foreman, Mark Fowler, R D Francis, PhD, Ronald G Garmon, PhD, William F Garvin, Gautier, PhD, W W Gebhart, Gerard Allen Geppert, Marvin Glass, Mark W. Glenn, Alexander Goforth, Bruce W Gray, PhD, George H Griswold, Ed Grygiel, A M Guarino, PhD, Leroy M Hair, Ben Hajek, PhD, James W. Handley, Gregorg Harris, Douglas Hayes, PhD, James L Hayes, Charles D Haynes, PhD, James E Heath, DVM, Bobby Helms, Ron Helms, Robert L Henderson, John B Hendricks, PhD, William Henry Jr, William D Herrin, Mitch Higginbotham, B Hinton, PhD, William A Hollerman, Mac Holmes, PhD, David Hood, James N Hool, PhD, Stephen K Howard, James W Hugg, PhD, Chin- Chen Hung, PhD, Bob Hunter, Herbert Hunter, PhD, Ray Hunter, Donald J Ifshin, John D Irwin, PhD, Holger M Jaenisch, PhD, Homer C Jamison, PhD, Donald Janes, Kenneth Jarrell, Wm W Jemison Jr, Robt G Jernigan, Danny Johnson, Frank J Johnson, Frederic A Johnson, PhD, Alfred Leon Joly, David A Kallin, James M Kampfer, Robert D Keenum, Paul King, James E Kingsbury, D A Klip, PhD, James Knight, Philip Lamoreaux, John H Lary Jr, MD, Lloyd H Lauerman, PhD, David Laven, William F Lawrence, N T Lee, John Leffler, George R Lewis, Baw- Lin Liu, PhD, Allen Long, MD, James M Long, MD, Joyce M Long, Walter Long, MD, John Lozowski, MD, Linda C Lucas, MD, Wm R Lucas, PhD, Brian Luckianow, Robert A Macrae, I R Manasco, Baldev S Mangat, PhD, Sven Peter Mannsfield, PhD, Matthew Mariano, PhD, Carter Matthews, Paul R Matthews, Charles R Mauldin, David Mays, PhD, Van A Mc Auley, George McCullars, MD, PhD, Randall McDaniel, Wm B McKnight, PhD, Curtis J McMinn, Thomas E McNider, Jasper L McPhail, MD, Joseph P Michalski, MD, J G Micklow, PhD, Randall Mills, Larry S Monroe, PhD, Rickie D Moon, George S Morefield, Perry Morton, PhD, Richard L Mullen, Nelson A Perry, Grady Nichols, PhD, Pat Odom, PhD, JF Olivier, Edward James Parish, PhD, Mitchell Pate, W Quinn Paulk, MD, Nelson Perry, Kenneth F Persin, Tom Pfitzer, David K Phillips, Sean Piecuch, Charles Pike, Peter Pincura, Michael Piznar, Char W Prince, PhD, Ronald O Rahn, PhD, Joseph L Randall, PhD, James Ready, MD, Jerry Reaves, Robert Ware Reynolds, PhD, Richard G Rhoades, PhD, Wm Eugene Ribelin, PhD, Dennis Rich, George Richmond, Logan R Ritchie, Jr, Alfred Ritter, PhD, Ronnie L Rivers, PhD, Harold V Rodriguez, PhD, Robert G Rosser, MD, John S Runge, Leon Y Sadler III, PhD, James Sanford, Ted L Sartain, Robert Schaal, Carl Schauble, PhD, William G Setser, Raymond F Sewell, PhD, Raymond L Shepherd, PhD, Charles Shivers, PhD, Harold W Skalka, MD, Daniel Skinner, MD, Peter J Slater, PhD, David A Smith, Michael Sosebee, D Paul Sparks Jr, Michael P Spector, PhD, Philip Speir, etc etc ad infinitum!

i think it should be basic human logic that we should have as little of an impact on environental change as possible. this petition insinuates that mankind is actually "helping" the environment through our overconsumption of fuel. so, you want to call man made global warming 'junk science'? fine so be it. but they then go on to battle supposed junk science with junk science...and people are falling for it...why? because thats exactly the answer they want to hear.

Originally posted by PVS
i think it should be basic human logic that we should have as little of an impact on environental change as possible. this petition insinuates that mankind is actually "helping" the environment through our overconsumption of fuel. so, you want to call man made global warming 'junk science'? fine so be it. but they then go on to battle supposed junk science with junk science...and people are falling for it...why? because thats exactly the answer they want to hear.

We actually don't know how much impact on Global Warming we are having or even if Global Warming is real. The more you look into it the more you will find this out.

Who started the above petition and why

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Junk Science 😆 ❌

Originally posted by PVS
i think it should be basic human logic that we should have as little of an impact on environental change as possible.

considering that we know how we could possibly be doing harm, and considering that the worst case scenario of acting on an incorrect theory is wasted money (combined with a freedom from dependancy on fossil fuels which should pay back nicely). then consider that the worst case scenario of not acting on a correct theory (infinite possibilities of shittiness)

so how is it illogical to take steps to reduce our supposed impact on the environment? especially if it means we can tell saudi arabia to quit fist****ing us and get lost

Originally posted by PVS
considering that we know how we could possibly be doing harm, and considering that the worst case scenario of acting on an incorrect theory is wasted money (combined with a freedom from dependancy on fossil fuels which should pay back nicely). then consider that the worst case scenario of not acting on a correct theory (infinite possibilities of shittiness)

so how is it illogical to take steps to reduce our supposed impact on the environment? especially if it means we can tell saudi arabia to quit fist****ing us and get lost

I hate theories passed off as fact - I take your reasoning on board and those are good reasons, however the evidence against * global warming being caused by CO2 if indeed it is a result of mans activity at all or even happening are at least as great. You want Atomic Power as a safe alternative and "quick fix" as many Environmentalist Global Warming advocates like this want?

http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php

Good Plan 😐

*(and I have used this project as evidence as it is the most famous of a number of places where excellent Scientists debunk Environmental Sciences)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message54

With the third World increasing it's CO2 emissions "sinks" are more sensible than alternative energy sources.

People talk about 'wasted money' as if it didn't matter.

They forget that the practical effect of this waste that will be caused by implementation of Kyoto is people's livelihoods- jobs lost, people's lives destroyed.

It's a heck of a thing to ask without firm proof of the need. That's in dispute.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
People talk about 'wasted money' as if it didn't matter.

They forget that the practical effect of this waste that will be caused by implementation of Kyoto is people's livelihoods- jobs lost, people's lives destroyed.

It's a heck of a thing to ask without firm proof of the need. That's in dispute.

Agreed!

Well, we just had 60 degree weather in the middle of January here in NY....so something is quite possibly...wrong.

Oh.....[edit] 😂

If there was profit to be made in acknowledging and fighting global warming--rather than denying it--we'd be the healthiest planet in the universe.

Disregarding the so called "effects" Do you wana live in a world that;

Has less and less trees...
Air is mainly smog...
rivers are poluted...
animal stocks dwindling...
and we don't even get snow in england anymore....

I think these VISABLE effects are already here... Should we try to change these???

Yes, before it's too late.......It might already be.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Disregarding the so called "effects" Do you wana live in a world that;

Has less and less trees...
Air is mainly smog...
rivers are poluted...
animal stocks dwindling...
and we don't even get snow in england anymore....

I think these VISABLE effects are already here... Should we try to change these???

Well now, river pollution isn't related to global warming- no-one is saying all environmentalism is bull; environmentalism is a good idea.

But as for no snow- the point is that it is in dispute as to whether anything Man is doing is actually causing anything like that.

Also, frankly, we DO still get snow.

So the case isn't against environmentalism, only against parts of it that might not be true.

While there is plenty of debate about global warming (in Australia people are scratching their head, heat waves where there hasn't been heat waves before, storms at odd times of year, droughts that never end - Global Warming or Not? Both sides have valid points) I would like to see pollution, all pollution, reduced just for the sake of reducing pollution - in order to live in a healthier world.

There may be uncertainty about whether our polluting is destroying the ozone layer and leading to global warming - but we know the things polluting does do - the smog, the acid rains and so forth. And we know the sources of dirty power - coal, oil and the like are not infinite. Eventually, at our rate of consumption, they will run out - and when the oil industry dies alot of people will be out of a job, and a lot of people will be out of pocket. Logically it seems to me it would be wiser to take steps now to make changes, in order to prepare for the future - a cleaner and more secure future.

And if such preparation happens to reduce the theorised risk of global warming it would be a benefit. I mean, drawing parallels in an unsuitable fashion - George W. Bush's administration preached the practice of preempting. Going to war on shaky evidence against a nation that may or may not have been a threat - something that many people supported. Now then we have a theory that has a lot of support from the scientific community, we've found a hole in the ozone layer, we are seeing odd things happening with the weather, they are recording the decline in the ice caps and predicting what that increase of water will do to the worlds oceans. I'll admit I'm not certain, but there seems to be enough evidence to argue rationally that maybe, just maybe, it might be wise to consider the alternatives. To consider erring on the side of caution.

the evidence is pretty fricken obvious unless you don't believe in aerosols and human emissions.

I've released some pretty bad human emissions in my time...

a simple way to think of global warming is the experiment you do in high school with pond weed

put it in water...shine a light on it...and it makes bubbles...the brighter the light, the faster the reaction...the hotter it is, the faster the reaction

the pond weed is using carbon dioxide and producing oxygen

the same happens to the earth as a whole

the more it warms up...the faster the trees etc, convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus help to restore the balance

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

Originally posted by jaden101

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

right. and the eath patches up layers of ozone as well. just that volcanoes dont erupt often enough to make a big difference at this point