Could over 400 Prominent Scientists be wrong about "Man-Made" Global Warming? Are they liars?

Question

When will Americans start to realize, that the real ploy behind this junk science fad called "global warming" is simply an attempt towards international income redistribution and liberal control. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Answer 1

Yes! They are liars!

Answer 2

Stacey had some good points, pity her spelling is so bad they are hard to read through.

So 400 out of how many thousands could easily be wrong, but not necesarily liars.

The weather and global warming are all scientific subjects, however science is not absolute. Science has just as much to do with theories as facts, in fact more so. Even Einsteins relativity is only a theory, he did not really claim it was fact, just a possibility, and he was a greater scientist that any of those "Prominent Scientists", who are only prominent because they have the attention of politicians and greenies who wouldn't know a test tube from a bottle of milk.

Answer 3

Yep 400 could be wrong, "thousands" more are probably right...

With the arrogance and stupidity of many disputing global warming, it will continue while we all argue about it until it gets to the runaway point and "then" it may be too late

Consider this CO2 is absorbed naturally, but we are clearing the forests that absorb it, and now in the last 100 years we increase continually the CO2 we pump into the air, millions and millions of tons of it, and a "ton" of a "gas" is a huge amount, consider what "air" weighs, we are now putting in way more than can be absorbed..

So now if we "simply" are going through cycles as many claim we are, this one will have the billions of tons of extra CO2 in the air...

And if the oceans do warm a bit the methane below them will start to escape into the atmosphere, another greenhouse gas, increasing the effect even more...

We know CO2 holds the heat in, that is simple science, the only debate from a reasonably sane person would be how much and how long before we make a living h**l out of our world

Look at Venus, even on the dark side the heat is not released and it is long into the "runaway" effect, it is hotter on Venus than Mercury yet Venus is almost twice as far from the sun.

What contains the heat on Venus?, it's atmosphere is saturated in CO2

Can anyone else say why it is so hot there if anyone disagrees with what CO2 does?

So while you thumbs down me, tell me where I'm wrong...

Answer 4

WELL, I VOTE BEST ANSWER TO STACEY.  IM GOING TO ADD HER TO MY CONTACTS.

Answer 5

I followed the link but I could only find the names of a few prominent scientists.  One that I recognized was a physicist (not with any expertise on climate science I think) who is rumored to be a member of the Mafia, believe it or not. Now, I'm not sure what stance the Mafia has on global warming, but they're not known for their forthrightness. If you think it far-fetched that a physicist may be in the Mafia, I did attend a party that he threw and he had a bodyguard with a machine gun on either side of him--that convinced me.

Answer 6

if they're denying, or questioning it,  yes.

NAS, NOAA, NSF, NASA, EPA, MIT, and UCLA all agree.  not to mention the IPCC, of course.  AGW is a problem.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

"May 19, 2008: The National Academies have released the 2008 edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change," a free booklet designed to give the public a comprehensive and easy-to-read analysis of findings and recommendations from our reports on climate change."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...  <== here's a good description.

http://www.funnyweather.org/  <== this is a more lighthearted link.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...

http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/  <== not regulated by the government.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cn...

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cn...

http://www.international.ucla.edu/articl...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/clima...

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_war...

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarmin...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

hey,  <<WELL, I VOTE BEST ANSWER TO STACEY. IM GOING TO ADD HER TO MY CONTACTS.>>

so, how right is she?

<<How tall would those ice sheets need to be to raise the sea level noticably of the rest of the earth which is mostly covered in water have to be?>>

http://indexmundi.com/antarctica/area.ht...

Antarctica:  land: 14 million sq km (280,000 sq km ice-free, 13.72 million sq km ice-covered) (est.)

World — Area (Total): 510.072 Million SQ KM

and how much ice is there in Antarctica?

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antar...

Basically, Antarctica is a snow and ice "factory" with ice depths on the Polar Plateau reaching 15,000 feet (the continent's average ice thickness is 7,000 feet).

to calculate how much the ocean would rise, one might calculate

13.72/510.072*7000*0.9

(you don't have to convert sq km because it's just a fraction.  the 0.9 is the rough amount of shrinkage when ice melts.)  using google, we get:

(13.72 / 510.07200) * 7 000 * 0.9 = 169.458429

ie, if the ice in antarctica melts, it'll be enough to put 169 feet of water ALL OVER THE WORLD.

or, if the water is confined to only the ocean, it'll raise the ocean level:

((13.72 / 510.07200) * 7 000 * 0.9) / 0.7 = 242.083471

242 feet.

Answer 7

How true!!  However, we have a lot of people who are stuck on stupid because they have been indoctrinated with global warming BS by our government schools, and lunatic leftist media.

Answer 8

Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth and it causes climate to become cooler when the levels rise. Overall it doesn't really affect global warming. The earth was cooling in the 60's and 70's. It was warming in the 80's and 90's. It has been stable the last several years. Most of the global warming film and debates you see are dated from the late 90's.

Humans do not have a huge affect on this. Animals and insects have been using up oxygen and creating carbon dioxide since forever. Average global temperatures have always fluxuated and never been stable.....ever. The sun goes through cycles of hotter and colder is most of the reason. After all, the sun is a gigantic ball of nuclear fire not an electronic device with stable output. Of course you know the earth is a big rock that hurtles through space at 27,000 mph and slams in to meteors and comets all day. It is irrational to believe temperatures could maintain long term stability under these conditions.

Yea well there is always weather. Sometimes its hot, sometimes its cold. We had records set here in central Texas for heat. We have always set records for heat because it is so hot here all the time. Heatwaves in January. If there is global warming we will never know the difference. If you look at the last hundred million years you can see that temperatures today are much cooler, not nearly warm enough to support dinosaurs in Antarctica.

So in FACT the earth is in a very cool state. Any RATIONAL person who looked at the mathematics of the situation has to conclude that the earth's living things are currently victimized by COLD temperatures relative to what most living things have been accustomed to living in according to fossil records. People who want to stop global warming are therefore in fact the enemies of our Mother Earth and favor the freezing of living things and droughts.

Global warming is a scam. the world has had volcanoes, earthquakes, ice ages, meteors, and floods for millions of years. No problem. Now some simple carbon dioxide that is essentially just plant food is going to destroy everything? LoL. This has to be one of the biggest communist hoaxes of all time.

I understand that most of the history of the world has seen warmer temperatures and that we are emerging from the mini-ice age following the Krakatoa volcanic eruption 800 years ago. I think that the earth would be warming right now if humans weren't here. I also know that there has been increased solar flare activity in recent years that may be contributing to temperature increases. The last 25 years has seen very slight temperature increases for ALL the other planets in the solar system as well.

Evaportion is good for living things because 2/3 of the earth's surface is water and what goes up must come down. I don't necessarily believe increases in CO2% will increase plant growth directly as some do because this increase is only a very minor amount and of course CO2 is not generally thought of as the limiting factor in plant growth but more often sunlight and to a less consistent degree water which as I've mentioned should increase with higher planetary temperature. Increased rainfall will balance the water factor enough to increase land mass coverage by foliage. When the volcanic dust blocked out sunlight 800 years ago oxygen levels plummeted as photosynthetic organisms collapsed.leading to a new ice age round of large animal extinctions.

Arctic and antarctic circle animal, plant and human tribe extinctions also occored. The mass migrations out of northern Asia and Scandanavia sparked huge unrest and the northern Asian population has barely begun to recover. As the world recovers from yet another ice age humans have become self aware enough to recognize the dynamic nature of the earth's climate but maybe not enough to percieve all factors.

Al Gore says the oceans will rise up to 25 feet! From just the frozen north and south poles? Are you kidding me? He can't really think think the world is dumb enough to believe that obvious lie. If the caps melt the ocean will rise very little. You see I took GEOMETRY in school. The earth is a sphere. A vast majority of the sphere is not covered by ice. Each half has to be far less than 10% ice covered even in the winter, probably less than 5% in the summer. LOL. It switches year round because of alterante seaons in the north south pole. How tall would those ice sheets need to be to raise the sea level noticably of the rest of the earth which is mostly covered in water have to be? Don't forget that ice expands to a much larger size over the same quantity of water, including the portion that is below sea level which will of course itself contract subsatantially as the arctic is all sea with little land. The answer: It would have to be miles high. It is a proven fact that 1000 years ago there were huge vineyards growning in northern Britian. It is far too cold to grow grapes there today. Guess what the sea level was then? You guessed it (whoever has at least and average IQ) the same as it is today according to coastline sediment formations

Answer 9

As an admittedly extreme example, I will refer you to the words of Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who offers his group’s vision. While this particular vision pre-dated most discussions of AGW, I hope you can see how AGW fear-mongering provides quite a useful vehicle for groups of this type:

"We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.... We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar

panels. Sea transportation should be by sail.... Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary. All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand. Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted.... We need to remove and destroy all fences

and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land.... We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles.... Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very

small percentage of humans...."

Have many of these policies sound familiar as a way of fighting "global warming"

Answer 10

How many "Prominent Scientists" were wrong about the ozone layer?  Huh?  It's funny how that whole crisis dissappeared, isn't it?

Besides, the main argument against Global Warming isn't that man doesn't cause it... but that it's very odd that it has become the consumer's fault.  If what these "400" say is true, then why is it that the governments and corporations aren't really doing anything?  They're telling the consumers to go green, but they sure aren't.  I'm sure you've heard of all of the criticisms Al Gore gets about his house of pollution.

Maybe you need to look back at how science and politics don't match.  When the two get together, scientific findings and resolutions become incredibly distorted.  Look at what happened when politics and science came together during the Cold War: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbw6Nxf8d...

Answer 11

There's only one liar here: Inhofe lackey Mark Morano. In this list, he has:

...padded his list with non-scientists and non-experts:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment...

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/de...

... and misrepresented scientists' actual views:

http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-...

Answer 12

Amen brother.

Answer 13

Carbon Dioxide is good for the planet.

But too much of it is bad.

And global warming is happening at an accelerated process

Answer 14

Yes, they're wrong.  Many are not even scientists, much less prominent ones.  I wouldn't call them liars.

This is nonsense from a political aide of Senator Inhofe (R-OK, also known as "the Senator from Big Oil").

Many of the 400 are not scientists at all.  The listings are pretty much a joke.  One is based solely on a letter to the editor from a "chemist".  How desperate do you have to be to put that on a list?

Others actually agree with the vast majority of scientists that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  They simply disagree with some small detail.  Claiming that says they're against the main theory is a tactic used by Creationists.

The whole thing is debunked here, with a link explaining who each of the "400 prominent scientists" really are.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment...

Note that many Conservatives are very annoyed at colleagues who make Conservatives look bad by denying the scientific proof of global warming:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Answer 15

Theoretically if there were 400 prominent scientists?  Sure, they could be wrong.   But there aren't.  See the 'Lists of skeptical scientists' section in the link below.