Mr. Obama, you are wrong, or so say an increasing number of prominent scientists around the world. Are our lawmakers listening? Have politics so completely exceeded the boundaries of common sense and reason that we will allow this myth of man-caused global warming to continue? Let us hope not. Let us spread this message as far and wide as possible.
Peter
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. (source)
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.
Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2
After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3
The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4
Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D.
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
22 comments:
Peter, have you checked the legitimacy of this list? I've spent part of the afternoon looking people up and I'm not even half way through these 100 "prominent scientists from around the world" and found that almost all of them are either unqualified (they are not climate scientists), work for energy corporations, do not seem to exist, or are plain and simply bogus (claiming degrees they do not have, etc.). You also have a business professor and a TV weatherman on this list.
I'm not the only person who has actually done his homework on this list and this issue. Why didn't you before you posted it?
Are you gullible or do you just want Obama to fail so badly you'll believe whatever agrees with your predetermined and apparently layman beliefs?
You've spent "part of an afternoon" checking the above list? Wow, I'm impressed. I've spent hundreds of thousands of hours discovering this "myth" of man-caused global warming.
I have read dozens of articles by people on the above list. In fact, do a search of this blog in their names and you'll find many of them. Is it all-inclusive? No. It does not have to be. Even one person, climate scientist or not, who convincingly demonstrates the idiocy of man-caused global warming is enough. There are hundreds and thousands of such people.
Would you have us believe the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry and Michael Moore on the subject? They not only have no scietific credentials, they're proven liars.
Oh, and do a search on James Hanson. There is no lower bottom-dwelling scum sucker on Earth. He has made a career of selling climate alarmism, nearly all of which is being proven bogus.
I'm not the one with a bias, you are. My opposition to man-caused global warming has nothing to do with Mr. Obama. He is purely a puppet who says and moves to the strings pulled by others. There is a purpose behind scaring the public about "climate change", and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving "Mother Earth". You have much to learn.
"Hundreds of thousands of hours"?? Oh my! Reading up on, no doubt, unbiased peer-reviewed scientific articles? I can tell you must be a climate scientist yourself. Where's your Ph.D. from?
Okay, then, since you are such an informed person, why didn't you check out some of the people on this list?...I'm actually going through name by name and I'll post back with the results. This list is almost entirely bogus.
Michael Moore is a jackass - I won't go to his films because he (like the Cato Institute which paid for this ad) plays fast and loose with the facts. John Kerry, who cares - he's old news. As is Al Gore.
I suspect, my friend, that you are an extremely conservative person politically and personally and this dictates your views on science, which I doubt you really understand. And that is a really funny thing if one things about it - that an ideological belief system determines what scientific facts one buys into. The fact that you posted 115 bogus scientists really speaks to this.
For the record, I don't know if there is such a thing as "global climate change" - but I think it is stooooopid to doubt the climate scientists who dedicate their lives to studying it.
Anon.-------
You don't like the message and all you can do is attack the messenger......(me)????.....laughable and pathetic.
Remember,Geologists are climate scientists and were so long before that sub-science was invented to milk the system for public funding.
To obtain public funding, first you must scare them half to death then you must sell your soul. To survive you must keep up the scare.
Michael Crichton had it right with his book "Sate of Fear".
Still there are some honest and sincere climate scientists....Roger Pielke,Sr. and Roy Spencer to name a couple.
Michael Crichton (4)
look up the articles on Crichton here just for starters........
Obama Nobel Peace Prize??????????
hahahahaha ROFLAO
Well Peter, since I don't know you, I would not attack you personally. If you read closely, I did not (I might point out that you are an equal mud-slinger). So, in an effort to keep things civil...
I do have to wonder at your credentials: do you really, truly have the scientific understanding to determine if climate change is or is not a fact? Do you have a Ph.D. or some other expertise in meteorology or geology or environmental science? I do not have the requisite knowledge to judge this debate...but I know I do not have the requisite knowledge. I leave this up to the scientific community.
And I assume that you are a very actively conservative person by the way you almost immediately launched into an attack on people like friggin' Moore and Kerry and Al Gore. Usually people do this when they feel a very particular political bent. And to answer your question - no, I would not believe them.
So I have to ask, quite honestly, do your political beliefs make a difference what you choose to believe about a scientific debate? Did you first decide that "global warming" was a hoax when he perceived it to be a "liberal" cause? Do you really, truly give both sides of the (scientific, not political) debate credence? Or do you simply look for people you believe the same way you do and then "cite" them - as you have done with the above list? Do you cherry pick your "facts"?
Which still brings me back to the list at the top of this page. You do realize that several members of the list above are completely unqualified to judge the science involved. Several do not appear to exit at all. And of the scientists, most are mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, physicists, etc. who are no doubt very smart and educated people, but not experts in the field of climate change. And of the few climate scientists, none so far that I have looked at have actually done original research into the debate; they are specialists in, say, marine biology or some other field and have done no publication on the subject of their own. None of them are prominent scientists.
Why, even if you really believe that climate change has something to do with evil Al Gore and "milking" the American people, would you expose yourself by planting an illegitimate list that looks a lot like propaganda on your 'place'?
Oh yeah...and please tell me that you are note citing the author of "Jurassic Park" as philosophical source material.
Dear Anon....
Why should I debate with someone (you) who is either too lazy or too ignorant to do a bit of research on Michael Crichton, even after I held your hand and pointed to where you could find it here on my blog. Consider that Crichton had a high level MD from Harvard. Read what people say about him; he was one of the most honest, intellectual and edcuated people around. No, he was not a "climate scientist", so what? He and most scientists can detect scientific BullShit when they see it, and that is what Man-caused global warming is....Total BS.....
I feel sorry you are so insecure about your abilities that you rush to trust the so- called "authorities". I told you, geologists are the first climate scientists. Most of these "climate scientists" are computer modelers, numbers crunchers, statisticians. What is worse, the stooges at the United Nations are basically just politicians. And Al Gore....oh, don't get me going on him again. Now we have the most incredibly naive President in history winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Can it get any more ridiculous and purely political than that?
If you're not willing to do a little research on your own and learn the truth, then you're just another of Obama's herd of sheep being led to the slaughterhouse.
Oh Peety, Peety, Peety – I’m so disappointed in you. Let me quote you to yourself:
“You don't like the message and all you can do is attack the messenger......(me)????.....laughable and pathetic.”
And you really didn’t answer any of my questions – but if you can live with that, okay. I think it means I hit the nail on the head and you would rather not admit your wingnuttyness…but so be it.
On the other hand (in the words of Jules Winnfield), “Allow me to retort”:
“ Consider that Crichton had a high level MD from Harvard.”
Um, duh. Everyone, my friend, knows that Crichton had an MD from Harvard – he’s kind of famous for supporting himself through med-school on the proceeds of his dime novels. I did not know it was a “high level MD” however – I didn’t even know such a thing exists. Are there “low level MDs” – I hope not.
“No, he was not a "climate scientist", so what?”
Um, duh. It matters that Crichton was not a climate scientist for the same reason that you do not see a meteorologist for a bleeding ulcer. They are different branches of knowledge and training. Much different branches. Crichton was trained on the pathologies and cures of the human body, not on climate science. That is why there is a “so what” that he was not a climate scientist.
“He and most scientists can detect scientific BullShit when they see it, and that is what Man-caused global warming is....Total BS.....”
Well, he wasn’t a scientist. He was a popular pulp novelist. And most MDs are not “scientists” unless they do research – they have scientific training, but they have a “professional degree,” which means they exercise a very specific “high-level” skill set. And “most scientists” don’t consider global warming B.S…
“I feel sorry you are so insecure about your abilities that you rush to trust the so- called "authorities".”
Um, dude – your whole blog is filled with “authorities.”
“I told you, geologists are the first climate scientists.”
Okay, but now we have real climate scientists who just study climate – why not listen to them?
“Most of these "climate scientists" are computer modelers, numbers crunchers, statisticians.”
What sort of scientists do you expect? What do you think scientists do? How does being any of these things change their findings?
“What is worse, the stooges at the United Nations are basically just politicians.”
Um, yeah, it is a geopolitical organization.
“And Al Gore....oh, don't get me going on him again.”
Really, dude, you need to deal with your obsession – it’s unhealthy.
“Now we have the most incredibly naive President in history winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Can it get any more ridiculous and purely political than that?”
Likewise (see previous retort). This Nobel thing is really sticking in your craw, huh?
“If you're not willing to do a little research on your own and learn the truth, then you're just another of Obama's herd of sheep being led to the slaughterhouse.”
Okay my little droogy, I’m game. I’m going to finish looking up all the people on the list above and then I’ll troll around your blog, see if your “authorities” can convince me – and if you are up for a little engagement, I’ll check out their claims as best I am able. It will take me some time since you have a head start and I’ve actually got other fish to fry, but I will check in now and then.
And I’ll say it once again, real slow like: I. Don’t. Believe. In. Global. Warming. I don’t know what I believe. That’s perhaps the big difference between us.
Cheers for now.
Dear Anon...
You sure go out of your way to find me and try to discredit me. Are you merely looking for an argument, or do you sincerely want to learn something?
I am not the issue here, not my age, sex, religion, looks, philosophy, political party affiliation (which I have none)or sexual preference. The only thing I do claim is to have studied Earth Science, or Geology in some form, for all of my adult life, as much as possible anyway.
There are people I trust and respect who read this blog. So I stick my neck out when I post things here. I am careful (usually) about what I say and print. I work and interact with professionals and I value their respect. What word did you use? My "wingnuttiness"? That's funny.
You also might garner more respect if you didn't use phrases like "hey dude". That doesn't go over well in an interview or in post-pubescent society.
Anon,
Just for fun, read what these "Doctors" (Phd.'s) have to say about man-caused global warming..then discredit them! Go ahead...you'll find articles by or about them on this blog.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (1)
Dr. Bob Carter (1)
Dr. Daniel Botkin (1)
Dr. David Evans (1)
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook (1)
Dr. Fred Singer (2)
Dr. James Hansen (9)
Dr. Jeffrey A.Glassman (1)
Dr. Lance Endersbee (1)
Dr. Martin Hertzberg (1)
Dr. Mitchell Taylor (1)
Dr. Reid Bryson (3)
Dr. Roger A. Pielke (4)
Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr. (1)
Dr. Roy Spencer (16)
Dr. Tim Ball (2)
Dr. Vincent Gray (3)
Dr. William Gray (4)
Dr. William Happer (3)
Dr.Syun-Ichi Akasofu (1)
Dr.Tim Ball (1)
Okay, I will. Obviously it will take a little time, but I will.
I will not try to discredit them if they have legit credentials. And how could I, just another Joe the Plumber out here, hope to discredit a world-renowned scientist? I will simply admit that they know more about the subject than I do.
But I will check them out compared to what other world-renown scientists say...something which I doubt you yourself have done.
I will discredit the list at the top of the page here, however, and that is how I found you. The list was a propaganda coup by the Cata Institute, and the fact that you posted it leads me to doubt your credentials as a reader on climate science.
I actually found an interview from one of scientists listed above, a legitimate climate scientist, who says, 'Yes, it is clear there is global warming - it's just not clear that humans are doing it.' Interesting, no?
Am I looking for an argument? Again, let me quote you to yourself: "Come join me and let's discuss the subject. Let's expose the frauds and reveal the truth. Let's try to recover some sanity from all the hysteria."
Okay, so I'm joining you. Let's discuss. (I am seriously dubious about your claims against taking an ideological standpoint - given that one of the first things you did was begin to rally against democratic politicians and a notably liberal, wacko filmmaker - so forgive me if I mistook you for a hard right wingnut. Sorry, you just sounded like one.)
But because I join does not mean I will agree with you. That remains to be seen. Or were you just looking to "discuss" with people who buy into your worldview.
You still have never answered the essential question: Did you decide that global warming was a hoax and then start reading up on the subject? Or did you look into the subject with an open and curious mind and then decide global warming was a hoax?
People like yourself and your take on complex situations fascinate me.
And please, Pete, stay away from the 'rudeness-will-get-you-no-where' adolescent crap - re-read your earlier ripostes above (who is actually ruder and more aggressive?).
Well, since we are a little short of 1/4 of the way through the list, I thought we should check in. This is what we have discussed so far:
Lomborg: a political scientist. Believes that CO2 is causing global warming -- thus he is a "warmist." Simply thinks that money is better spent elsewhere than on global warming. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: minimal to none.
Carter: a geologist. Seems to know his science from a geologist’s perspective but has some troubling associations and dubious reasoning. Can we trust him to be objective? Unclear. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: unknown for the above reasons.
Botkin: a biologist. Very good guy who made some sound observations from within the perimeters of his own discipline. He neither dismisses nor embraces climate change, but has a more measured response that we should be objective and rational in our discussion; he does appear to be somewhat dubious of computer models. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: strong, but only from a biologist’s point of view.
Evans: an electrical engineer. Nutjob. No peer-review or serious scientific work on climate change. Probably trying to cash in on the political climate. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: none whatsoever.
Easterbrook: a geologist. Solid scientific work. Interesting at the least, compelling if not convincing data which seems to indicate a nature climate cycle. Unclear if he is an objective researcher. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: strong, with reservations noted above.
Anyway, 16 more to go. It is interesting that out of the above 5, 3 are “deniers,” 1 is a “warmist,” and 1 is on the fence; 2 of the “deniers” have serious issues with credibility. You’re right, Pete, I am learning a great deal here.
Simply my 2 cents and not worth more than that, but it is interesting.
Singer: Satellite designer turned climate scientist: outright skeptic. Good scientist, brilliant man; questionable objectivity, is possibly on the take with Big Oil…possibly. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: Unknown for the above reasons.
Hansen: The original scientist who made climate change cool. Also a good scientist and a brilliant man. Has impeccable credentials but has involved himself in the political debate to an unsightly level. Is the only dedicated climate scientist on the list so far, which gives him a lot of weight in the first ten. He is a formidable opponent and this makes him a frequent target of right wingnuttiness. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: very good with reservations noted above.
Glassman: an unknown. Possibly a retired aerospace engineer (not a climate scientist). The (alleged) contribution of this mysterious person is apparently nothing more than a blog post. If one was a novelist, the character name “Glassman” would be a ridiculously overt trope for a guy who one can see right through. Interesting, no? Relevance to the scientific climate debate: unknown but most likely none.
Endersbee: a hydro engineer (not a climate scientist). Probably knowledgeable about the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere but his work on the subject appears to be limited to a single opinion piece. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: slim with reservations.
Hertzberg: an explosives expert trained as a Navy meteorologist some years ago (not a climate scientist). Seems to have given a rather irreverent interview about the atmosphere but little more than that. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: slim to none.
Taylor: supposed to be a polar bear expert. It is unclear if he is a real person, much less an expert on anything. On the other hand, he might be the real thing…we just don’t know. Interestingly, the penultimate statement in the one interview you’ve posted, Pete, runs, “It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change…” Oh, so the mysterious Mr. Taylor is actually not a denier…if he actually exists. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: completely unknown.
Misinformation, misdirection, half-truths, no substantiation, obfuscation, propaganda, and agitprops. And yeah, discredited. I know, I know: the perpetual whine is that I am ‘discrediting the scientists because I can stand the facts’ yadda yadda.
But for Pete’s sake, look at the above list! Am I supposed to take these people seriously? Am I supposed to believe what they say? Are your readers supposed to simply suspend any sort of critical facility here, Pete?
Nice day today...
Anon.
You're an ignorant jerk. Pure and simple. You prove it with every lame attempt at criticism. Why don't you come up with something original, creative, scientific, or anything other than your thinly disguised, whiny snobbery? You're a pathetic intellectual armchair quarterback desperately in need of viagra for your brain.
Yawn...
Ditto....Anon's childish whining is boring.
Hello Anon. So that the crowds can tell us apart, let's give each other names. Let me see...I was going to call you "Son of Pete" but that seemed too obvious and uncreative. I was going to call you "Mookie" or "Biff" or "Winkie" or some sort of diminutive nick-name because, based on your rhetoric and diction, I assumed you were in junior high. But those are extraordinarily goofy sounding. How about "Godzookie." That's Godzilla's son. That seems appropriate to me; Godzookie huffs and puffs but can only blow little radio-active smoke rings; he's a cute little fella who is always willing to join the fray but usually needs to be bailed out by Godzilla. If you prefer something else, let me know.
So, dear Godzookie,
So, Godzookie, is your contention that the above 11 "scientists" are legitimate critics of global warming?
I'm not sure how much of our scintillating repartee you have read so far, but my position is that the debate is still in the lab (no clear conclusion yet) but that sites like this one dilute and poison the atmosphere (play on words, get it?) because posters are so politically motivated that they willingly, uncritically post any sort of opinion - no matter how unsupported, badly stated or poorly researched - which agrees with them
When we get to people like Botkin and the next on the list, Bryson, I can find no real objection to their credentials or positions. But these people are markedly different, both career wise and personally, than the list of marginally credentialed and / or lunatic fringe people listed above.
What say you, Godzookie? Do you actually have an informed opinion or can you only spit adolescent cyber-slurs?
Anon....I say you're a politically motivated, smart-ass idtiot. You're not taken seriously so go find someone else to annoy.
Now Godzookie, I don't know if you know this, but Pete specifically invited me to stay and look at his site.
I guess you answered my question about your ability to do anything other than insult people online...
Well Pete, you will probably be relieved to find out that I will be leaving you for a while. Every year around this time the sheriff taps his most compliant prisoners to work on his family’s ranch over the holidays (I believe this year we are installing a hot tub…wonder if I’ll get to sit in it for a while), so I will not be posting for a period of time. I will be with you in spirit, however, so take comfort in that.
What I will leave you with is an honest question which I assume you will not answer but it would be interesting if you did: is it really that hard to believe that human beings are altering the atmosphere?
Certainly, since you live or have been in Wisconsin, you have flown over or driven through the mid-West a time or two – look at the massive changes to the landscape of what was once woodlands and prairie. We have dammed rivers. We have covered millions of miles with city and roadway. I’m not saying this new human / techno landscape is bad, mind you, just that it has been almost completely altered. Humanity has changed the very essence of the planet. And we have done some very bad things. We have wiped out or almost wiped out entire species. We have denuded the oceans of several forms of live. We know unequivocally that certain parts of the world are so polluted that they are dangerous. The East River, The Wabash, The Mississippi, the Willamette…all these rivers have been heavily polluted, some to the point that they will no longer support life. Now don’t get me wrong (which you almost always deliberately do), I’m not crying eco-disaster here, just pointing out that humanity has very obviously the power to change the nature of the world and has been doing so for quite some time (this is the point that both Botkin and Pielke make, by the way) and that sometimes these changes are for the worst. Is it really that hard to believe that the atmosphere is that much different?
Your website has actually raised this alarm in me which I did not necessarily have before. I began looking at the things your “authorities” said and then I began looking at the things other “authorities” have said…and your people really scare me almost as much as the possibility of disaster.
Till we meet again, my hard headed little conservationists - I hope the season treats us all with a bit more dignity that we treat it.
Post a Comment