31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:24 PM
By: Philip V. Brennan

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

Gore calls scientists and others who question the reality of human-caused global warming “deniers” and claims they are a tiny minority among the scientific community who he insists almost universally agree that the planet is being threatened by the alleged warming of the earth.

Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."

These 31,072 scientists do not believe the world is flat, and they say there is no convincing scientific evidence that so-called greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.

On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

The petition went on to say, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.

Despite Gore’s extravagant claims, the petition shows that no such consensus or settled science exists.

In 2001, OISM circulated what was known as the Oregon Petition, and according to Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud,” that effort, spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, gathered an astounding 17,800 signatures.

To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the 2001 effort was spearheaded by Dr. Seitz, a towering figure in the world of science.

Solomon wrote, “The(2001) Oregon Petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

According to Dr. Robinson, “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”

Solomon asked, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”
 
astrodon

astrodon

Audioholic
Not this again! Can't you guys let this rest? By the way, I'm a scientist and I have never heard of Dr. Seitz. In what field is he "towering?"
 
Haoleb

Haoleb

Audioholic Field Marshall
Who really gives a damn if we are causing global warming or not. The bottom line is that the steps people are taking to reduce so called global warming are a good thing. Period!. End of story. Enough said!

It doesnt take anyone who calls themself a scientist to have enough common sense to know the things that Gore says cause global warming SURE AS HELL ARENT GOOD FOR THE PLANET

End of rant...
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Here we go... I'm putting my kevlar vest and helmet on now, before the rocks begin to fly. :D
 
I'm a scientist and I have never heard of Dr. Seitz. In what field is he "towering?"
Not to sidetrack this, but according to the article he's past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. And you are...?

I think the only point was that everyone seems to be yelling "consensus!" while there are - now quite obviously - some actual opposing points of view.

I would think that sitting down together and having rational discussions among actual scientists would be better than letting guys like Al Gore and the "hype-and-controversy-loving" news media dictate policy.

If you surround yourself only with people who agree with you, you'll probably end up being very narrow-minded and when you get off base no one is there to tell you. Same goes with science - it's all about peer review and discussion amongst testing.

This shouldn't really be such a hot topic. I welcome both sides of the discussion. If you (the random person reading this) don't, then you may want to re-evaluate just how objective you truly are.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Dear gawd, Rickster71, you will grasp at any straw dangled before you to back up your beliefs.

Simply Google for Phillip V. Brennan, enough said :rolleyes:

Most scientists believe that man is the reason for our current global temperature climb. It can be considered a consensus. While I have seen, and have no problem with the flip side of the debate, I think man is not helping the planet.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Gore is right. They are wrong. It doesn't really matter how many of them there are or what degrees they have, when the truth is obvious to anyone who bothers to look for themselves.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Quoted from the NY Times article:

"When, in 1998, Dr. Seitz issued a statement and circulated a petition attacking the scientific conclusions underlying international efforts to control emissions of industrial-waste gases, the National Academy of Sciences took the extraordinary step of refuting the position of one its former presidents. The petition called for the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty, negotiated by more than 150 countries, imposing limits on emissions of gases like carbon dioxide.

Dr. Seitz’s petition was accompanied by an article concluding that emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, posed no climatic threat. Instead, the article said, the emissions amounted to “a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution” by stimulating atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing plant growth.

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a specialist in this field.”

“Most top scientists in the field disagreed with him, I among them,” Dr. Press said. Asked if Dr. Seitz’s beliefs had shifted in recent years, Dr. Press said they had not.

From 1978 to 1988, Dr. Seitz was a member of the medical research committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. His work for the company was the subject of a 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine that criticized what it called an “overlap” between scientists who deny climate change and “tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking.”

The article, by Mark Hertsgaard, said that Dr. Seitz had helped R. J. Reynolds “give away $45 million to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s,” studies that “avoided the central health issue” of smoking and “served the tobacco industry’s purposes.”
 
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
Not saying we're (mankind) helping...but everyone always fails to remember earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling...Just as it was tropical during the time of dinosaurs and an ice age a few thousand years ago...

Besides-it's been colder than average this spring in most of the midwest. I say bring on a little warming!

Btw-I'm all for energy efficiency, etc. I just think global warming is over-hyped. Saving finite resources and being eco-friendly is never a bad thing. But the hell-fire and brimstone approach to it is a major turn off.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
...
Most scientists believe that man is the reason for our current global temperature climb. It can be considered a consensus. ...
I believe the same thing can be said about the shape of the earth. The general consensus is that the earth is basically spherical, but not absolutely everyone agrees with that theory. Just do a search for the "flat earth society" to read up on this, if you are interested in reading an "alternative theory". I would not be surprised if a few people with Ph.D.s have argued against the mainstream on this matter. After all, sanity and good judgment are not requirements for obtaining a Ph.D., and absolutely nothing beyond already having one is required for keeping one. And if someone's livelihood is dependent upon maintaining some point of view or other, very few would scruple about trivialities like the truth compared with the prospect of one's children starving.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Most scientists believe that man is the reason for our current global temperature climb. It can be considered a consensus.

You took a poll? You have data that supports this POV?

While there is widespread notice of global climate change, and certainly mankind has contributed to the environment, as have all species on this little planet, there is NO scientific consensus as to the repercussions of humans' participation. As I pointed out in another thread, and you all seem to dismiss without thought or discussion...the global warming during the Cretaceous period, roughly 90 million years ago, was far more atmospherically damaging...and there is no model, no evidence as to what caused that one. If you folks believe one side of this question or the other, you're simply NOT looking at the confused data models. We do not have enough information to form a (non-political!) provable hypothesis on the matter.

What's needed is more discourse and research...not political posturing and ranting. But if it rocks your boat to sling insults, it won't be productive, but have at it.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
You took a poll? You have data that supports this POV?

While there is widespread notice of global climate change, and certainly mankind has contributed to the environment, as have all species on this little planet, there is NO scientific consensus as to the repercussions of humans' participation. As I pointed out in another thread, and you all seem to dismiss without thought or discussion...the global warming during the Cretaceous period, roughly 90 million years ago, was far more atmospherically damaging...and there is no model, no evidence as to what caused that one. If you folks believe one side of this question or the other, you're simply NOT looking at the confused data models. We do not have enough information to form a (non-political!) provable hypothesis on the matter.

What's needed is more discourse and research...not political posturing and ranting. But if it rocks your boat to sling insults, have at it.
And YOU took a poll and it doesn't?

Your ascertation flies in the face of:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

National Academy of Sciences

The American Meteorological Society

The American Geophysical Union

The American Association for the Advancement of Science

I am not sure what you guys are driving at... Again global scientific consensus is that man kind and carbon emissions is having an effect outside of normal climate cycles on our environment. It's not like we have ANOTHER planet for a control variable. I would rather stop testing on ours.

P.S What insults? I googled for elements from the OP and found it to be less than credible. At least when I post I do a bit of research first so as not to look the fool.
 
tn001d

tn001d

Senior Audioholic
Can we talk about sound pollution.. at least thats more relevant to this forum :D
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
And YOU took a poll and it doesn't?

Your ascertation flies in the face of:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

National Academy of Sciences

The American Meteorological Society

The American Geophysical Union

The American Association for the Advancement of Science

I am not sure what you guys are driving at... Again global scientific consensus is that man kind and carbon emissions is having an effect outside of normal climate cycles on our environment. It's not like we have ANOTHER planet for a control variable. I would rather stop testing on ours.

P.S What insults? I googled for elements from the OP and found it to be less than credible. At least when I post I do a bit of research first so as not to look the fool.
It's this kind of flippant remark that inflames people, jinjuku. This is an insult and causes me (and probably a number of others) not to want to debate the matter with you. You would do better to try to keep the rhetoric down and the facts complete.

Dear gawd, Rickster71, you will grasp at any straw dangled before you to back up your beliefs.
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
I guess it's too late to say "Don't get your panties in a bunch":)

I posted (without comment of my own) an article that had two opposing points of view. Al Gore was quoted, and conversely, Dr. Arthur Robinson.

The article got me thinking about what H.L. Mencken once said.
“the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
It might be useful for everyone to remember what the word "consensus" means:

con·sen·sus
–noun, plural -sus·es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=consensus

A consensus is not necessarily universal agreement. There may be detractors from a position and it still may be a consensus. Indeed, with over 6 billion people in the world, it is doubtful if there is absolute universal agreement about anything at all. In the case of scientific theories, all that it takes is a majority of the relevant types of scientists to agree on a theory and then there is scientific consensus, no matter how many others disagree. Usually, the majority is right, and the detractors are wrong, though that is not always the case.
 
Last edited:
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
It's this kind of flippant remark that inflames people, jinjuku. This is an insult and causes me (and probably a number of others) not to want to debate the matter with you. You would do better to try to keep the rhetoric down and the facts complete.
If you want to know what is truly insulting it's the article referenced in the original post. It's a nutto quack job of 'journalism'. You fail to address my two specific replies to that effect. Five minutes doing a bit of research showed us that.

Keep the facts complete? You must not be reading my prior posts.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I guess it's too late to say "Don't get your panties in a bunch":)

I posted (without comment of my own) an article that had two opposing points of view. Al Gore was quoted, and conversely, Dr. Arthur Robinson.

The article got me thinking about what H.L. Mencken once said.
“the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
I understand the sentiment about using fear to rule a populace:

Red Communism, Terrorism, Global Warming etc... Dr. Arthur Robinson seems a bit 'out there'. Did you even go to oism.org and check it out for your self?

I don't believe that you posted that with neutral bent in the least.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
...

I posted (without comment of my own) an article that had two opposing points of view. Al Gore was quoted, and conversely, Dr. Arthur Robinson.
...
The article quotes opposing points of view, but that does not mean that the article was unbiased or without a point of view of its own. The title of the article clearly indicates that the article is far from neutral. And by posting it without comment, you appear to endorse the article. Therefore, you cannot be said to be neutral with regard to the present discussion. Do not pretend now to not be pushing one point of view when you clearly have been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top