Scientists, American public disagree sharply over global warming

Actually, I thought the most widely accepted scientific assessment was that the Earth was flat or maybe that one where the sun revolved around the Earth. There are many, many climatologists who say there just isn't enough evidence to claim global warming is man made. Beware of scientists who shun debate on a subject and declare it case closed.

10-31-2006 1:09 PM

Really, can you back that up with references to scientists/climatologists that are NOT backed by industry funding?

I have yet to read a credible report from a source who is not backed by oil & gas, mining, (or the president's science dept) that says global warming is not due to (mainly) human interference.

I've read dozens from independent sources (universities, etc..) and out of the government's environmental agencies (NOAA, etc) that back up the claims that Global Warming is indeed caused by humans.

Are you telling me these scientists are wrong? Or that because a few industry backed individuals say otherwise, they are wrong? I'd rather put my trust in the university & environmental ag...

10-31-2006 1:26 PM

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/inhofe-correct-on-warming

10-31-2006 1:28 PM

http://wapurl.co.uk/?0DEV0PA

10-31-2006 3:36 PM

Sarcose

Wasn't aerosol one of the things blamed for global warming when the theory that humans caused it was first proposed? And here the article says it reflect sunlight, in effect being a global coolant?

10-31-2006 10:15 PM

n2sooners, the NCPA supporting foundations are:
* DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
* El Paso Energy Foundation
* ExxonMobil Foundation
* Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
* Lilly Endowment Inc.
* Procter & Gamble Fund
Its board of directors is a thing of beauty. It includes, among others ,"James Cleo Thompson, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Thompson Petroleum Corp"
From the Integrity in Science Database

10-31-2006 10:20 PM

On your second article, I ran through the first 10 of the 60 scientists. 5 of them are affiliated with institutions that receive significant Exxon funding.

11-1-2006 10:08 AM

Thanks tpq62

Point made I think

11-1-2006 10:16 AM

Did you bother to read who the author was in the first link? Of course not. You would rather attack the source than the science. That is typical of the global warming fanatics who want nothing to do with science and do anything to defend their beliefs (more like a religion now than anything resembling science). The author is funded by the University of Oklahoma where he works. He has degrees in geophysics and geology. He isn't some environmentalist hack who will say anything to keep the global warming funding flowing. The fact that the scientific community wants to stifle any serious discussions of what really causes global warming should send up red flags in the mind of anyone who wants to ...

11-1-2006 10:23 AM

Actually, I did read it. You steel have to prove that the vast majority of non-privately funded (not affiliated with corporations that have a vested interest in stopping laws being put in place to protect the environment) scientists do not support global warming theories.

Don't put words in our mouths or twist what we post assuming you know dick-all about what we have or haven't done.

It only comes out as an ignorant attack.

11-1-2006 10:24 AM

tpq simply pointed out that the article was directly or indirectly funded by exxon and other corps. This removes it as an acceptable counter to my first response.

re:

can you back that up with references to scientists/climatologists that are NOT backed by industry funding

11-1-2006 10:25 AM

try again if you like

11-1-2006 10:30 AM

Why bother? You aren't interested in the science, just defending your beliefs. You would either bash or dismiss anyone I put up. Chances are any scientist who has put down global warming has had their article posted on some site you will somehow link to someone who you disapprove and therefore you dismiss all the science. Let's forget the fact that those scientists are actually making their money supporting global warming and many who don't support it have had their funding cut off. Forget the fact that environmental groups have donated nearly three times as much to politicians than oil companies. This whole thing has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the cult of global warming.

11-1-2006 10:34 AM

n2sooners, David Deming is an adjunct scholar for the NCPA. They pay him. Since 1998 the NCPA has received $390,000 from Exxon. Damn, I'd prostitute myself for that kind of money.

Look Sooners, since you are obviously a huge aficionado of science and know a lot about it, how about citations from scientific journals. I'd go for that more than white papers from hired hacks.

11-1-2006 10:35 AM

You aren't interested in the science, just defending your beliefs.

And I call you a Pot.

Neither tpq or I bashed or dismissed anything.. He simply pointed out that you did not indeed find an article that met the criteria I asked for. I read it (and I'm sure he did too).

many who don't support it (global warming) have had their funding cut off.

Please state your source.

This whole thing has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the cult of global warming.

Right. All these scientists for global warming are just trying to make a quick buck.. all these THOUSANDS of scientists.. mean while these other scientists against global...

11-1-2006 10:45 AM

I am not the one claiming to know what causes global warming. It should worry anyone when a scientist claims they 100% know what causes global warming and that the Earth is headed towards a global warming catastrophe when these same people can't even accurately predict what the weather will be like next week. None of the computer models work and there is NO ONE ON EARTH who can honestly tell you what causes global warming. But it is the scientists who want to keep the discussion open, who want to find all the factors which factor into the global climate who are attacked. Today's global warming community is much like the "scientific" communities of old who shut down any talk of the Earth revo...

11-1-2006 10:50 AM

can't even accurately predict what the weather will be like next week

Do you have ANY idea how complex predicting the weather fro even a day ahead is? or how many millions of factors are involved?

If you did, you'd realize how ludacris that statement is...

Looking at the facts (carbon emissions over the pas 50-100 years vs. changes in the environment, deforestation, etc, is scientific.. and the correlations are very real...

And very few scientists are claiming they are 100% sure.. most are claiming 99%

11-1-2006 11:06 AM

This sums it up better than I could. It also points out that a quarter of all climatologists question the idea of man made global warming, and how the shutting down of debate is poor science.

http://wapurl.co.uk/?9BHYFWY

11-1-2006 11:49 AM

kmcolo

Ah yes. The "skeptics" are out I see. Tell me n2sooners what is your opinion on the banning of DDT?

11-1-2006 12:17 PM

From the article:

Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist.

The article talks about how SOME scientists and media outlets are spinning the global warming issue to extremes (I'm not debating THAT), however this scientist clearly believes that global warming is a fact and that it is indeed due to "human-induced climate change".

You've only solidified my point.

11-1-2006 1:12 PM

many who don't support it have had
their funding cut off.

environmental groups have
donated nearly three times as much to politicians than oil companies.

Sooners, I am calling you on these statements. The first could be true in some sense, but let's go case by case and see. The second statement is untrue.

11-1-2006 1:29 PM

blatantly so.

11-1-2006 3:06 PM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

In 2004, environmental related 527s donated $19 million while oil and gas related PACs only donated $7 million.

11-1-2006 8:28 PM