Global Warming Denialists, 1987-2007: R.I.P.

C

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
1) All of the major scientific bodies and organizations on the entire Planet, who have expertise in climate science, agree that human activities are contributing to global warming/global climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United States National Academy of Science
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

plus, The National Science Academies of:
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
Australia
China
Belgium
Brazil
the Carribean
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Malaysia
New Zealand
Sweden


2) Peer Reviewed Scientific Research.

One of America’s most respected scientific journals (Science Magazine), conducted a huge survey of the peer reviewed scientific literature pertaining to global warming.

Their survey found that since 1993, there have been no (zero) peer-reviewed published research papers that has disagreed with, or debunked, the consensus position on anthropogenic global climate change.*

* http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686



3) All the major world political leaders on the planet - including George Bush - agree than human activities and human greenhouse emissions, are impacting climate change. And that human emissions need to be curtailed, or reduced.
 
I believe this global warming conspiracy theory. It's well summarized in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
The suggestion of a conspiracy to promote the theory of global warming was put forward in a 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel Four in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series,[1] which asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding.[6] Although the program title referred to a conspiracy, Patrick Michaels downplayed the idea, saying[7] "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but certainly a coalition of interests has promoted the greenhouse theory; scientists have needed funds, the media a story, and governments a worthy cause".
Writing in the National Review in 1997, Ron Bailey said "Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of 'global governance' that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans' lives. Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the 'indispensable man' at the center of this creeping UN power grab."[8]. Strong's list of contacts is said by Bailey to include:
Former Vice President Al Gore;
Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn;
James Gustave Speth, head of the United Nations Development Program.
Shridath Ramphal, formerly Secretary General of the (British) Commonwealth,
Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute;
Ingvar Carlsson, former Swedish prime minister
Mikhail Gorbachev; and
President George H. W. Bush.
Bailey remarks "It's not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces -- namely, market forces."[citation needed]
In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003 entitled "The Science of Climate Change",[9] Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" Inhofe has suggested that supporters of Kyoto such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.[10]
Quoting Inhofe, the American Free Press stated "It was an unguarded moment for Chirac. World government is the main goal of the secret Bilderberg group, of which he is a luminary."[11]
A Washington Post article describing the views of global warming skeptics quotes climatologist William M. Gray as having "his own conspiracy theory". saying "He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'" In this article, Gray also cites the ascendancy of Al Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his problems with federal funding. According to him, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stopped giving him research grants, and so did NASA.[12]
The March 1, 2007 issue of Whistleblower magazine, a publication of WorldNetDaily, is entitled ""HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming" and asserts that "all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming".
Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that "Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the 'climate change theory' in order to protect their research funding" and comments "Sounds plausible to us."[13]
Skeptic Tim Ball wrote in a February 2007 interview, "You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on." [4]
Click to expand...
 
there goes cypress kicking sand in the little MS kids face again.
I've never heard you say what you are personally doing about it.
Nearly all Americans with an IQ above room temperature agree with you.
Now how about telling them what you do so they can follow.:clink:
 
Well, see... He works towards making everybody else do the "right" thing by cutting back on their "carbon footprint", that way he doesn't have to do anything. Also, if he gets rich enough, he can pay some chinese person not to upgrade and thus get a "carbon offset" and continue polluting as normal. That's the real solution, paying other people who already don't pollute not to pollute. You can tell that's the solution, they put it in the Kyoto Protocol!
 
Consensus pre-1987, "Global Cooling". I remember newspaper stories about how there was "no end in sight" to a cooling trend.
 
Damocles said:
Consensus pre-1987, "Global Cooling". I remember newspaper stories about how there was "no end in sight" to a cooling trend.
Click to expand...


Consensus pre-1987, "Global Cooling".


Incorrect.

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970's about "global cooling". There were some highly melodramatc pieces in the popular press about it, and no doubt a handful of scientists speculated about the possiblity. You yourself indicate you merely remember the stories from the popular press.

But, the scientific community at large never made a prediction, or a consensus opinion about global cooling.

Don't take my word for it. The foremost scientific body in the United States - the National Academy of Science - in it's 1975 Climate Report, made no predictions about global cooling. They stated that little was known (at that time) about climate change, and further study and research was needed:


The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report.

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
Click to expand...


By the way, scientists now understand why there was a small cooling trend between the 1950s and late 1970s. It's been studied and covered ad naseum. And it had very little to do with a natural cooling cycle. It had to do with particulate pollution, that was a problem until particulate matter was addressed through the US Clean Air Act.
 
Last edited:
I still notice you haven't addressed the issue of what you actually do.

I honestly couldn't care less, but heck, some of the members have curiosity. I have no guilt. Al Gore could pay me for some carbon credits.
 
Cypress said:
Consensus pre-1987, "Global Cooling".


Incorrect.

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970's about "global cooling". There were some highly melodramatc pieces in the popular press about it, and no doubt a handful of scientists speculated about the possiblity. You yourself indicate you merely remember the stories from the popular press.

But, the scientific community at large never made a prediction, or a consensus opinion about global cooling.

Don't take my word for it. The foremost scientific body in the United States - the National Academy of Science - in it's 1975 Climate Report, made no predictions about global cooling. They stated that little was known (at that time) about climate change, and further study and research was needed:





By the way, scientists now understand why there was a small cooling trend between the 1950s and late 1970s. It's been studied and covered ad naseum. And it had very little to do with a natural cooling cycle. It had to do with particulate pollution, that was a problem until particulate matter was addressed through the US Clean Air Act.
Click to expand...
It's called sarcasm. Now go and buy some carbon credits.

I've already given my opinion on this. I think there are better reasons than global warming to care about soil your nest and have thus been creating less of a carbon footprint for more than a decade now.
 
It's the poster boy issue of the day for the limosine liberal on the go now that stepping over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur fad has played out.
The richer the limosine liberal the louder they advocte, funny cause they are the ones with the Lock Ness monster size carbon footprints.:clink:

Let's call that False outrage issue #1
 
Topspin said:
there goes cypress kicking sand in the little MS kids face again.
I've never heard you say what you are personally doing about it.
Nearly all Americans with an IQ above room temperature agree with you.
Now how about telling them what you do so they can follow.:clink:
Click to expand...


"I've never heard you say what you are personally doing about it."


I'm engaging in my (and your) favorite pastime: "liberal hypocrisy".


I commute to work in a forty-foot RV that gets 8 miles per gallon.

I drive to my mailbox, to pick up my mail.

I live in a 10,000 sq. foot mansion, and leave the lights on in every room.
 
Just as I thought, Hot air
at least your up to the challenge of taking on mental midgets, all to typical of the wussy democrat.:tongout:
 
Damocles said:
I still notice you haven't addressed the issue of what you actually do.

I honestly couldn't care less, but heck, some of the members have curiosity. I have no guilt. Al Gore could pay me for some carbon credits.
Click to expand...



I still notice you haven't addressed the issue of what you actually do.


That's because this is a little game Topper likes to play ;)

He's asked me, Maineman, and Lorax multiple times what we do to reduce emissions. All of us have answered him multiple times, but Topper likes to pretend he didn't see our responses.


Since you brought it up, I try to list some things I do:


-I never spend more than 60 or 70 bucks a month on utilities: gas and electric. That's for a three bedroom house, and I would guess that only using 60 dollars worth of utilities a month, puts me in the bottom ten percent, at least, of household utility consumers.

-I've never driven a personal car with more than a four cylinder engine

-For work, I drive a low-emissions, flex fuel car.

-My local utility provides my electricity from emissions-free nuclear energy (no, I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against nuclear energy). I'm cool with it. So what little electricity I do use, is emissions-free, or low-emissions.

-I recycle

-I support, and voted into power, a Democratic California legislature that has passed the strongest restrictions on CO2 emissions in the nation.



Now, I think I'll PM this post to Topper and ask him to save it, so next time he asks me "what I'm doing" (and pretends that he forgot what I told him), I'll just refer him to the PM ;)
 
Good stuff Cypress, I do remember main and Lori posting what they do. This is the first I've seen of yours.
I'm on the same side I just don't get the kick you get out of out debating brain dead cons.
 
Topspin said:
Good stuff Cypress, I do remember main and Lori posting what they do. This is the first I've seen of yours.
I'm on the same side I just don't get the kick you get out of out debating brain dead cons.
Click to expand...


I just don't get the kick you get out of out debating brain dead cons.


Your comment about kicking sand in the eyes of an autistic kid cracked me up ;)


You'd be suprised, topper, how many college educated and allegedly rational and intelligent republicans continue to stand against the entire planet's scientific and political leadership, and continue to deny human impact on climate.
 
My opinion is most reasoned people consider the debate over even most repubs. I mean you can't get more oil than Bush & Co and they are on board.
I razzing you, I don't bother with cons too much. I'm just trying to pull the far left to the center a little.:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top