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

the very title of the thread is a lie.
most of the scientific community says that global warming
is a reality. the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

btw, the "little ice age" came abruptly after the last recorded spell of global warming, so perhaps we have that in store for us after all.

Originally posted by PVS
the very title of the thread is a lie.
most of the scientific community says that global warming
is a reality. the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

btw, the "little ice age" came abruptly after the last recorded spell of global warming, so perhaps we have that in store for us after all.

I don't want to start an argument so don't take this personally but actually this statement of yours is not true and is more of a lie, what scientists believe is we have an upward trend in global temperatures over the last one hundred years overall however, even this statement is contentious for numerous reasons which I will explain if you wish. The link to fossil fuels is highly contentious. As for the little Ice age it was after a period of upward movement in temperatures although as stated overall the trends (based on flaw data) iss upward. Statistical relevance of most global warming data = 0 (this can easily be proven by Nasa data ((also flawed)). As Ush stated you can't base economic decisions on flawed data!

Dr Michael Crichton 😉

The precautionary principle

This dogmatic principle argues that if there is even an imagined health or ecological issue associated with some form of technology, then, that technology should be discarded--no matter what benefits are lost, or what harms will have to be confronted without the technology.

The precautionary principle properly applied forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken in terms that are too harsh." He adds: "The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worse, an invitation to totalitarianism."

Certainty is Dangerous

Some have claimed that environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, are committed to the view that all environmental and health woes can be traced directly to the door of "industry." However, research has demonstrated that development leads to reductions in pollution. Moreover, as Crichton points out, sound public policy does not come from organizations espousing dogmatic and close-minded political agendas--unmoved by the existing scientific facts when those facts are at variance with the organization's political goals.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
what scientists believe is we have an upward trend in global temperatures over the last one hundred years overall however, even this statement is contentious for numerous reasons which I will explain if you wish. The link to fossil fuels is highly contentious. As for the little Ice age it was after a period of upward movement in temperatures although as stated overall the trends (based on flaw data) iss upward. Statistical relevance of most global warming data = 0 (this can easily be proven by Nasa data ((also flawed)). As Ush stated you can't base economic decisions on flawed data!

Originally posted by PVS
the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, [b]or just a part of some natural cycle.[/B]

again:

Originally posted by PVS
...or just a part of some natural cycle.

Again 😉

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Dr Michael Crichton 😉

The precautionary principle

This dogmatic principle argues that if there is even an imagined health or ecological issue associated with some form of technology, then, that technology should be discarded--no matter what benefits are lost, or what harms will have to be confronted without the technology.

The precautionary principle properly applied forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken in terms that are too harsh." He adds: "The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worse, an invitation to totalitarianism."

Certainty is Dangerous

Some have claimed that environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, are committed to the view that all environmental and health woes can be traced directly to the door of "industry." However, research has demonstrated that development leads to reductions in pollution. Moreover, as Crichton points out, sound public policy does not come from organizations espousing dogmatic and close-minded political agendas--unmoved by the existing scientific facts when those facts are at variance with the organization's political goals.

Religion of Environmentalism

by Dr Michael Crichton

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are pathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future.

I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why...

Read it all here.

http://www.perc.org/printer.php?id=397&url=perc.php?subsection=10&id=397;

...which proves what? i addressed your contradictory post as meaningless since i acknowledged both sides of the debate. your posted opinion of some scientist is supposed to add to your proof that my statement was false? where does he deny that global warming exists? he doesnt.

the denial is that the global warming trend is MAN MADE is widely held, which is....what i just said. let us address one point at a time.

as for your changing the subject back to my first post on this thread, what of the acknowledgment that fossil fuels are dwindling in supply as our dependancy grows at a staggering rate? i guess thats not happening either?

one more time. read carefully:

Originally posted by PVS
the very title of the thread is a lie.
most of the scientific community says that global warming
is a reality. the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

Originally posted by PVS
...which proves what? i addressed your contradictory post as meaningless since i acknowledged both sides of the debate. your posted opinion of some scientist is supposed to add to your proof that my statement was false? where does he deny that global warming exists? he doesnt.

the denial is that the global warming trend is MAN MADE is widely held, which is....what i just said. let us address one point at a time.

as for your changing the subject back to my first post on this thread, what of the acknowledgment that fossil fuels are dwindling in supply as our dependancy grows at a staggering rate? i guess thats not happening either?

And you miss the point of the thread🙂

Global Warming may just be a temporary fluctuation, what the thread is about is Propaganda. The religion of Environmenatalism and "The Precautionary Principle" Ush alluded to earlier and I expanded on. Even the term "Global Warming" is an ambiguous label.

🙂

Even the data for rising temperatures is flawed.

you missed the point of my post, intentionally it would seem.

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

that is completely untrue. most scientists acknowledge that the earth is in
a trend of continual rise in average temperature, which is also
known as "global warming". what they argue is whether or not
we have caused/accelerated it, or whether it is simply a part of the
earth's natural cycle. the debate is NOT over whether or not the
earth is in a phase of warming.

is that clear enough?

"Even the data for rising temperatures is flawed."

fact, huh?

The negative effects of massive pollution are not up for debate. The environment suffers at the hands of chemical/resource companies on a daily basis. I've listened to both sides of the global warming debate. And the confusing part for most people seems to be the total destruction of humanity because of our own selfish means. However, the global environment does go through certain constant changes. Those that have been observed by the scientific community have occured over the last 100 to 150 years. This just happens to coincide with the industrial revolution. But, that doesn't mean the industrial revolution was the cause of the climate changes.

However, I believe that there need to be more strict regulations to protect teh environment, and govern big buisness pollution. Because it may one day be proven that corporate pollution has had an effect on teh environment, but so to do teh actions of every day citizens. I might sound like a leftist liberal nut, but clean energy is essential to the ongoing prosperity and security of most modernized countries. I believe it was PVS who said that any reason not to be in bed with the Saudis is reason enough. I agree. Once a resonable/sensible energy alternative is provided, gasoline should be taxed out of existence.

Originally posted by PVS
you missed the point of my post, intentionally it would seem.

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

that is completely untrue. most scientists acknowledge that the earth is in
a trend of continual rise in average temperature, which is also
known as "global warming". what they argue is whether or not
we have caused/accelerated it, or whether it is simply a part of the
earth's natural cycle. the debate is NOT over whether or not the
earth is in a phase of warming.

is that clear enough?

"Even the data for rising temperatures is flawed."

fact, huh?

yup🙂 Temperature data is flawed, this is just one way - don't get me onto UBI and early records of the 20th Century 😉

March 9, 2004
European Hotties
Filed under: Health Effects, Heat Waves —
Summer 2003 may or may not have been Western Europe’s hottest on record. But Europeans should have seen it coming and adapted as Americans have.

Whether or not the summer of 2003 was the hottest on record in Western Europe we may never know. But the heat itself should not have taken Europeans by surprise.

The original research on seasonal temperature changes appeared in the March 5 issue of Science. After reconstructing Western Europe’s seasonal temperature history since the year 1500, a team of Swiss climate scientists headed by Jurg Lauterbacher concluded that summer 2003 was the warmest since the beginning of their reconstruction; the second-warmest summer was about 250 years ago in 1757. (Interestingly, they also determined that winter 2002-2003 was below the average winter temperature of the 20th century, and that only two of the 25 coldest winters have occurred since 1950.)

As warm as 2003 was, probable errors in the early records should have led to a much softer conclusion about whether it was the all-time warmest ever. Yet once again, the reviewers at Science seem reluctant to temper their contributors’ overly strong statements about climate change. (World Climate Report recently discussed some obvious flaws in a 2002 Science paper on Mt. Kilimanjaro.

Figure 1 shows the reconstructed European summer temperatures since 1500, based upon thermometer records and temperature proxies. Thermometer records become increasingly sparse as the record goes back in time (there are none before 1659). “Proxy” records, such as tree rings, become more important in the early part of this history. Such records usually only capture between a quarter and a half of the true inter-summer temperature change, resulting in large potential errors. Lauterbacher et al. note these quite well, but don’t emphasize the uncertainty that proxy records impose—uncertainties that include whether one summer, 2003, was in fact hotter than any other in their reconstructed record.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
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!

Maybe it is a crock. Yeah, I know it probably isn't, but it would be great if it was because then we could just keep on polluting and fart whenever we want and nothing bad would happen. Unless you had to fart but it turned out it wasn't really a fart.

We....we didn't listen!

Originally posted by Uberking Robert
Maybe it is a crock. Yeah, I know it probably isn't, but it would be great if it was because then we could just keep on polluting and fart whenever we want and nothing bad would happen. Unless you had to fart but it turned out it wasn't really a fart.

STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM

Dear:

[ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] Lamer [ ] Flamer
[ ] Loser [ ] Spammer [x] Troller
[ ] "Me too" er [ ] Pervert [ ] Geek
[ ] Freak [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Racist [ ] Fed [ ] Freak
[ ] Fundamentalist [ ] Satanist [ ] Homeopath
[ ] Unbearably self-righteous person [ ] Shoko Asahara

I took exception to your recent:

[ ] Email
[ ] Post to ________ newsgroup
[x] Post to killermovies.com forum
[ ] Broadcast
[ ] Letter
[ ] Book
[ ] Lecture
[ ] Phone call
[ ] Advertisement
[ ] Schematic
[ ] Telepathic message
[ ] Existence

It was:

[ ] Lame [ ] Stupid [ ] Abusive
[ ] Clueless [ ] Idiotic [ ] Brain-damaged
[ ] Imbecilic [ ] Arrogant [ ] Malevolent
[ ] Contemptible [ ] Libelous [ ] Ignorant
[ ] Stupid [ ] Fundamentalist [ ] Microsoftian
[ ] Boring [ ] Dim [ ] Cowardly
[ ] Deceitful [ ] Demented [ ] Self-righteous
[ ] Crazy [ ] Weird [ ] Hypocritical
[ ] Loathsome [ ] Satanic [ ] Despicable
[ ] Belligerent [ ] Mind-numbing [ ] Maladroit
[ ] Much longer than any worthwhile thought you may be capable of.
[x] All of the above

Your attention is drawn to the fact that:

[ ] You posted what should have been emailed.
[ ] You obviously don't know how to read your newsgroups line.
[ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup.
[ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others.
[ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others.
[ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group.
[ ] You don't know which group to post in.
[x] You posted something totally uninteresting.
[ ] You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups.
[ ] I don't like your tone of voice.
[ ] What you posted has been done before.
[ ] Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
[x] You quoted an *entire* post in your reply.
[ ] You started a long, stupid thread.
[ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread.
[ ] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it.
[ ] You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam.
[ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in misc.test
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message.
[ ] You posted low-IQ flamebait.
[ ] You posted a blatantly obvious troll.
[ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll.
[ ] You said "me too" to something.
[x] You make no sense.
[ ] Your sig/alias is dreadful.
[ ] You must live in a skinner box to be this clueless.
[ ] You posted a phone-sex ad.
[ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme.
[ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal.
[ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable. Each line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, making it hard to read.
[ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OL.
[ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don't even own a TRS-80.
[ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON.
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup.
[x] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet.
[ ] You are a loser.
[ ] This has been pointed out to you before.
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed on general principles.

I recommend that you:

[ ] Get a clue.
[ ] Get a life.
[ ] Go away.
[ ] Grow up.
[ ] Never post again.
[ ] Read every newsgroup you crossposted to for a week.
[ ] stop reading Usenet news and get a life.
[ ] stop sending Email and get a life.
[ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it.
[ ] Have your medication adjusted.
[ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor.
[x] find a volcano and throw yourself in.
[ ] get a gun and shoot yourself.
[ ] Actually post something relevant.
[ ] Read the FAQ.
[ ] stick to AOL chat rooms and come back when you've grown up.
[ ] Apologize to everybody in this foum for bumping an ancient thread just to say "ME TOO".
[ ] consume excrement.
[ ] consume excrement and thus expire.
[ ] Post your tests to misc.test.
[ ] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on.
[ ] Don't post until you have a vague idea what you're doing.
[ ]All of the above.

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[ ] You need to seek psychiatric help
[ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else
[ ] *plonk*
[ ] Learn how to post or get off the Internet.
[x] Most of the above
[ ] All of the above
[ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above
[ ] You are so clueless that I didn't bother filling in this

😂

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

that is completely untrue

but it's not completely untrue is it?...because he never posted that all scientists believe global warming is a crock...just the ones listed...hence the word "these"

"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences."

"In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming."

"In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

www.sourcewatch.org

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I_3.html
Not citing sources is called plagiarism.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Actually no they don't read the start of this thread, in case you can't be bothered A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)

www.sourcewatch.org - Harper's Magazine

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

www.sourcewatch.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)

www.sourcewatch.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)

www.sourcewatch.org
ExxonSecrets.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil in 2001. [2] (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html)

StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2003. [3] (http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24)

The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another."

www.sourcewatch.org
ExxonSecrets.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)

www.sourcewatch.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
But for those who have any doubts about the dissenting views of a majority of scientists with respect to the fad of 'global warming' just consult the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (19,000 signatures, of which 2,500 by scientists in Earth Sciences), at www.oism.org/pproject/s33p403.htm

Originally posted by jaden101
but it's not completely untrue is it?...because he never posted that all scientists believe global warming is a crock...just the ones listed...hence the word "these"

so. its not true, hense the lack of the words "man made/influenced/accelerated...etc"
the title implies that these scientests listed all believe that the earth is not in a
trend of warming, which is untrue.

Dunno about that, PVS- quite a few deny warming at all.

xmarks post is not of any great value, being very one-sided. Scientists get their funding where they can- and some of those he lists are those who work for groups that have had money given to them by fossil fuel companies over time. That is too remote to be a biased link; one may as well disassociate a charity for taking money from MacDonalds, saying they would be biased towards fast food. Fact is, fossil fuel companies often will fund such causes for good PR; it has no discernable effect on the objectivity of group members.

Meanwhile, if you looked at how many pro manmade global warming scientists have links to the green lobby, or receive funding because of their views, you will note that just about ALL scientists are 'compromised' in this way.

You cannot simply discount expert testimony for these reasons. Fact remains the existence of a 'consensus' is a fallacy.

As for that Oregon petition though... I do seem to rememeber that has long been a dud.