http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/

If you define scientist to be Republican economist, that report last week would have been accurate. 

400 sounds like a big number, until you realize there is probably 100 times that many scientists in the world.  If you can't even find a qualified 1% to dissent on the subject, it's pretty much a non-story to begin with.  To fake even that 1% is pretty sad.

It's not what is demonstrably true according to tested hypotheses and tested again. 

It's the party line that matters.  Quite Maoist really. 

Republican economists have just branched out into other fields, that's all.  They used to just make stuff up about...
how the economy works!!!
:D

Ain't that right, Uncle Miltie?
And how!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/

If you define scientist to be Republican economist, that report last week would have been accurate. 

400 sounds like a big number, until you realize there is probably 100 times that many scientists in the world.  If you can't even find a qualified 1% to dissent on the subject, it's pretty much a non-story to begin with.  To fake even that 1% is pretty sad.


The numbers I read of were 15,000 disagreed...info can be found on www.pushback.com

The numbers I read of were 15,000 disagreed...info can be found on www.pushback.com


That's an INTERNET PETITION...

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/

Anyone could sign that thing and call themselves a scientist.  Heck, I could fill in a scientists name if I wanted and mail it in... the scientist would never even know unless they stumbled across the page. 

the right wing are really wasting their effort with this cause, i think. train of scientific consensus pretty much left the station. maybe they'd be better off proving the moon's made of green cheese or looking for the lost continent of atlantis or something.

i still cant believe they can take this position on global warming and waffle on the question of whether evolution exists and they're not laughed out of the town hall as crackpots and drunks. hell, we gave em the keys to the car, for chrissakes!

i still cant believe they can take this position on global warming and waffle on the question of whether evolution exists and they're not laughed out of the town hall as crackpots and drunks. hell, we gave em the keys to the car, for chrissakes!


but you can be a scientist if you major in Creation Science.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/12/6651_coming_soon_to_1.html

maybe there's 15,000 or 18,000 or whatever other number they invented this week of those guys...

  It seems to me that we are worse than fools not to assume the worst and act accordingly...

That's an INTERNET PETITION...

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/

Anyone could sign that thing and call themselves a scientist.  Heck, I could fill in a scientists name if I wanted and mail it in... the scientist would never even know unless they stumbled across the page. 


Have you read further the names of authors of published articles with high credentials..Wall St. Journal articles etc... kinda hard to knock them if they are` letting nonsense be published:

Not all scientists agree on global warming
You’ve seen mention of a petition signed by 2,000 scientists and several Nobel laureates saying that they believe global warming exists and poses a significant danger. But were you told about the Heidelburg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments, which stated just the opposite, and was signed by more than 4,000 scientists and over 70 Nobel laureates? It states that our decisions need to be based on “scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions�. Signatures are still being collected by Michel Salomon, 10, Ave. de Messine, 75008 Paris, France (fax: 33-1-42 98 00 59). Portions of the appeal were printed in the Wall Street Journal on June 1, 1992, p. A12. One interesting article that references the appeal is entitled Challenging America’s Inverted Health Priorities, by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, which offers many sane counterpoints to fear-mongering.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore had an honest scientist fired for wanting to properly research global warming
William Happer, then of the Department of Energy, wanted to perform a proper survey of how much ultraviolet radiation was reaching the Earth, to see if the ozone hole was really a problem. Nobody had yet performed such a study, and claims of increased ultraviolet radiation were based on theory. At this suggestion, he was fired by Katie McGintey.

   It seems to me that we are worse than fools not to assume the worst and act accordingly...


Just like the old saying: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
What ever happened to that?

The global warming skeptics I know are in favor of conservation, developing alternative energies, limiting CO-2 emissions, expanding ecological preserves, cleaning up pollution, tougher regulation of industry standards for pollution control, personal environmental stewardship, etc. etc. 

In other words, even if you proved:
a. global warming is a myth
or
b. global warming exists but human activity plays no role in it,
the conscientious among the skeptics would have us behave no differently from the way Al Gore advocates.  However, they are passionate about proving Al Gore wrong.  It's important to them that Al Gore be wrong. 

Who out there is saying: "Al Gore is wrong, so let's drive Super-Hummers and dump all the crap into the atmosphere we possibly can!"

Is that what Inhofe thinks?  What gives?
???

Just like the old saying: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
What ever happened to that?

The global warming skeptics I know are in favor of conservation, developing alternative energies, limiting CO-2 emissions, expanding ecological preserves, cleaning up pollution, tougher regulation of industry standards for pollution control, personal environmental stewardship, etc. etc. 

In other words, even if you proved:
a. global warming is a myth
or
b. global warming exists but human activity plays no role in it,
the conscientious among the skeptics would have us behave no differently from the way Al Gore advocates.  However, they are passionate about proving Al Gore wrong.  It's important to them that Al Gore be wrong.   

Who out there is saying: "Al Gore is wrong, so let's drive Super-Hummers and dump all the crap into the atmosphere we possibly can!"

Is that what Inhofe thinks?  What gives?
???


I think Mr. Gore is good to point to the problem but he definately is avoiding the solution. Being from California, it is evident he cries about global warming and having to do something about it, but had continued to let MTBE into the gasoline for YEARS,whenhe was told it was hazardous..Texas even laughed when asked to use it..they declined..and Al G. had the say to stop its use by just saying so and didn't. When I wrote the governor, (Grey Davis) at the time, Mr. Gore gave him the permission to stop it by just saying to stop....yet they are doiung a 'phase out ' plan.

On top of that Mr. Gore (should) knows the major influence to hazardous carbon in the air is from coal burning plants and HE AGREED TO BUILD ANOTHER ONE IN Wyoming and will not let them run one in California, yet CA uses Arizonas' power plant for about 4 hours of power.

And don't get started with the actor brigade that hasn't looked into this (Mr. DiCaprio).   

I think Mr. Gore is good to point to the problem but he definately is avoiding the solution. Being from California, it is evident he cries about global warming


I'll have to let Al know he's from California, I don't think he knew that.

Anywho -


Have you read further the names of authors of published articles with high credentials..Wall St. Journal articles etc... kinda hard to knock them if they are` letting nonsense be published:

Not all scientists agree on global warming
You’ve seen mention of a petition signed by 2,000 scientists and several Nobel laureates saying that they believe global warming exists and poses a significant danger. But were you told about the Heidelburg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments, which stated just the opposite, and was signed by more than 4,000 scientists and over 70 Nobel laureates? It states that our decisions need to be based on “scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions�. Signatures are still being collected by Michel Salomon, 10, Ave. de Messine, 75008 Paris, France (fax: 33-1-42 98 00 59). Portions of the appeal were printed in the Wall Street Journal on June 1, 1992, p. A12. One interesting article that references the appeal is entitled Challenging America’s Inverted Health Priorities, by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, which offers many sane counterpoints to fear-mongering.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore had an honest scientist fired for wanting to properly research global warming
William Happer, then of the Department of Energy, wanted to perform a proper survey of how much ultraviolet radiation was reaching the Earth, to see if the ozone hole was really a problem. Nobody had yet performed such a study, and claims of increased ultraviolet radiation were based on theory. At this suggestion, he was fired by Katie McGintey.


Would this be the same Wall Street Journal that makes a living out of misquoting Al Gore? Most recently when he 'stated' that drug companies spent more on advertsing than research, which is in it'self untrue.. when what he actually said was that drug companies are spending more on advertising COMPARED to research than ever before.

Would it also be the same Wall Street Journal that claimed all global warming information is based on models? When in fact a vast amount of the information that researches have compiled has come directly from an understanding of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and on OBSERVED DATA! As in real data that can be found by simply analysing the earth it'self.

I do love the "Global Warming is - if it really exists - Clinton's fault" spin at the end by the way.

I don't mean just Al Gore per se.  Now, can we get on with the discussion?
::)

Have you read further the names of authors of published articles with high credentials..Wall St. Journal articles etc... kinda hard to knock them if they are` letting nonsense be published:

Not all scientists agree on global warming
You’ve seen mention of a petition signed by 2,000 scientists and several Nobel laureates saying that they believe global warming exists and poses a significant danger. But were you told about the Heidelburg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments, which stated just the opposite, and was signed by more than 4,000 scientists and over 70 Nobel laureates? It states that our decisions need to be based on “scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions�. Signatures are still being collected by Michel Salomon, 10, Ave. de Messine, 75008 Paris, France (fax: 33-1-42 98 00 59). Portions of the appeal were printed in the Wall Street Journal on June 1, 1992, p. A12. One interesting article that references the appeal is entitled Challenging America’s Inverted Health Priorities, by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, which offers many sane counterpoints to fear-mongering.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore had an honest scientist fired for wanting to properly research global warming
William Happer, then of the Department of Energy, wanted to perform a proper survey of how much ultraviolet radiation was reaching the Earth, to see if the ozone hole was really a problem. Nobody had yet performed such a study, and claims of increased ultraviolet radiation were based on theory. At this suggestion, he was fired by Katie McGintey.



dude.. stop providing cut and paste crap from that awful site.  It's a source for tired old discredited spin that's been around the blog circle a hundred times and thoroughly debunked.  If you do nothing but read conservative blogs, you'll never see when false statements are proven to be such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal

Moreover the Heidelberg Appeal has been, if not specifically misrepresented, at least broadly interpreted out of context, for example, by The National Center for Public Policy which asserts "The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts." Although the Heidelberg Appeal may be open to such an interpretation, as the text below shows it is not what the document said.

Parts of the Heidelberg Appeal do endorse environmental concerns, such as a sentence that states, "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved." Its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists. In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto

You can search further for more links, but if you read the text of the appeal, it makes no mention at all of global warming.

The William Happer thing is so old, all I can find are a bunch of conservative blogs recycling the same old Reason magazine article.  Considering he was appointed by George HW Bush, and he was fired in 1993, it could have been for anything at all.  Probably for conflict of interest, since he's been a board member of the Marshall Institute since 1987, a think tank that is funded by Exxon, who aren't exactly found of the environmental movement.

http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

Looking into the site and why they would give credible written articles by high ranked people.

You can also site other prominent papers misquoting and making up stories I.E. NY TIMES.

If they can back it up then I go with it..if the wsj misquoted, did they correct their error.

Looking into the site and why they would give credible written articles by high ranked people.

You can also site other prominent papers misquoting and making up stories I.E. NY TIMES.

If they can back it up then I go with it..if the wsj misquoted, did they correct their error.


huh?

look, basically the Heidelberg Appeal doesn't say what the global warming deniers think it does. 

here's another breakdown:  http://caractacus.wordpress.com/2007/01/01/the-heidelberg-appeal-a-case-study-in-climate-change-disinformation/

The clever trick about the Heidelberg Appeal was to make it sufficiently vague and to include wording about ecology that many reasonable scientists endorsed, including the 49 of their 72 Nobel Laureates who also signed the World Scientists Warning to Humanity at approximately the same time.

The Warning to Humanity that the people who also signed the Heidelberg Appeal, is basically a "wake up, global warming is real" deceleration. You think someone would knowingly sign two documents that are saying the exact opposite thing?  The Heidelberg Appeal is a PR con game.

Why don't we just clean up industry for the immediate health and ecological reasons instead of bickering over global warming?....

 
  i don't see how anyone could believe global warming to be fake. the only so called "evidence" i've ever heard against it is people claiming that although it's getting warmer in some places, it's getting colder in others. even if that's true, it does absolutely nothing to disprove global warming.

    you see, we know that there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas. we know that these gasses trap in heat from the sun. we also know that C02 is one of these gasses and we know that we are releasing massive amounts of it everyday. now i don't know about you guys but i'd say that's gotta lead to something. whether or not we are seeing the effects of it today is irrelevant. we know it's happening and we know it's our doing. we need to stop before things get really messy and to do that we need to stop arguing and change things.