650 scientists now disagree with man made global warming
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616db87e6
I thought this part was interresting, many of the ones dissenting are former UN scientists.POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
If we were as industrious to become good as to make ourselves great, we should become really great by being good, and the number of valuable men would be much increased; but it is a grand mistake to think of being great without goodness; and i pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous." - Ben Franklin
Imagine what good we can do if we all joined together, united as followers of Christ - M. Russell Ballard
That global warming is hitting here in Houston today, our forcast is to get freezing rain, sleet or even snow tonight. Oh joy! I have lived here 12 years and haven't seen this type of weather...... damn you Global Warming!!!!
Last edited by Sitarro; 12-10-2008 at 03:01 PM.
No matter where I've traveled or how great the trip was, it's always wonderful to return to my country, The United States of America......... me
Everything we do is natural, but not always nature-friendly. Animals are the same way. We have the ability to foresee some of the consequences of our actions. A beaver doesn't. That doesn't mean what we do isn't natural, it just means we have the oppourtinuty to help keep the planet we depend on in a fairly hospitable state.
Unless something we use comes from another planet, it is all natural. Technically.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
~Albert Camus
Just getting in from working out at the airport all night, 32 degrees out. IT SNOWED HERE!!!!!!!!!! REAL SNOW, not the little slushy ice balls...... REAL FLAKES. They were deicing the planes!!!!!!!! I have lived here 12 years and it hasn't done any of that, I am starting a warning to man that we need to pollute more to build our protective "green house" atmosphere......... Global Cooling is here and it's man's fault....... damn Global Cooling!
We even made the headline of the Drudge Report!
http://www.drudgereport.com/
No matter where I've traveled or how great the trip was, it's always wonderful to return to my country, The United States of America......... me
No it isn't. This argument has been thoroughly debunked. You're still working with right wing talking points you were handed a decade ago.
What a genius scientific argument you've just made.The idea that mankind is responsible for changes in the climate is silly egotistical BS.
"I feel like if this theory were true, it would be silly and egotistical. Therefore, based on my feelings and no factual evidence whatsoever, its untrue"
Brilliant!
Its also not 100% honest. Of those 650, not all 650 are currently working. Not all of the 650 are climate scientists. Not all of the 650 are physical scientists. In fact, not all of the 650 are scientists. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=20660 Its a bullshit list.
No one cares what economists have to say about the climate except rightwingers looking for talking points.
Even if all 650 were qualified scientists presently working - do you understand how many tens of thousands disagree with them? See link above. Every single professional scientific organization in the US has issued statements in support of AGW, with the exception of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists who recently changed their statement from "against" to "no opinion either way" after its members started resigning in droves.
Each one of those professional scientific organizations has thousands to tens of thousands of members. The American Chemical Society - for example - has 160,000 members. 160,000 vs. 650