Global Warming Theories Debunked by 400 Scientists, Will Salem Witch Trials Begin?

Question

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Answer 1

This is utter nonsense from Senator Inhofe's political staff.

One of the "400 prominent scientists" is based SOLELY on a letter to the editor from a chemist, citing theories long discarded.  Other entries are similarly stupid.

Meanwhile, Antarctica is now melting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s...

This press release is simply a sign of how truly desperate the deniers are becoming, as the scientific evidence clearly shows they're wrong.

Answer 2

Do you know what the beauty of science is? You can come up with any theory you want to, on either side of an issue, and provide ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE to support your stance.

All I know is what I've observed over the last thirty-plus years: higher winter low temperatures, less snow and ice, and ski resorts opening later and later.

Despite what these four hundred 'learned individuals' may say, the planet in my neck of the woods is warming up; and since my particular part of the planet is really all that matters, we have global warming.

pppbbbbbtttt!!!

Answer 3

400 scientists?  I assume you've thoroughly checked into their credentials (I've heard economists & sociologists called "scientists"), possible conflict of interest (i.e. paid by big Oil or other anti-GW industries), and what exactly they are "debunking"?

While there actually are a few non-economist, non-engineers, non-social scientists, non-TV weathermen, on the list with legitimate education and training to comment about climate research issues.  Most of their complaints/disagreements are with poor press coverage, not the consensus position as represented by the latest IPCC report.

edit - leftist - no offense intended toward sociologists or economists (both who can be classified as scientists). The offense was directed at Inhofe who wrongly includes them under the category of "prominent scientists" in the context of climate science.

Answer 4

They already have - catch them every night at this time on "Conservative In Denial.Com"

Answer 5

The amount of ad hominem attacks on those 400 scientists by the warmers here speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Answer 6

The major disagreement between the talking heads for the tree huggers and the rest of the scientific community has always been over the causality of any increase in temperatures.

Given the minuscule content of any pollution we generate, as compared to that put out by just one volcanic eruption, and it is easy to see that we are hardly the cause of "global warming".

Has anyone forgotten that the carbon dioxide that we (humans) release into the air is used by trees and plants to breathe and generate oxygen?

Answer 7

Nope, because we have all been told a bazillion times "Global warming is happening and you're an idiot if you don't believe it."

Answer 8

That was not 400 scientists.  That was 400 scientists in 2007.  

I think its cute when someone trys to associate any scientists to an oil industry.  However, NASA's Hansen's private funding of nearly a million dollars by Senator Kerry's wife is somehow overlooked.

Despite who they may be associated with, I would like to see someone dispute these 400 scientists.  (and someday, have every IPCC scientist sign on EVERY page of the UN reports.)

Answer 9

Try reading the statements made by these "Climate experts", they range from minor gripes to "Climate change has happened before in the earth's history.  Don't worry about it."

The northern half of the united states was once, quite naturally, covered by glaciers.

Because something has happened once before in the climate, whether man-made or not, doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned with it.

A tree can fall on you natural or artificially.  Either way I'd highly recommend getting out of the way.

Don't believe everything you read.  A senate committee once tried convincing the American people that Hollywood was carrying out a communist take-over of a America... the history of congressional reports is not very good, to be entirely honest.

Ken:  Sociologists *are* scientists... same with real meteorologists.  They aren't climatologists, and Social scientists don't deal with hard scientists... but you don't need to be flippant and strip them of their credentials.

Answer 10

Senator James Inhofe's "400 skeptical scientists" list was simply poorly conceived propaganda posted to his personal blog:  

400 scientists deny the importance of global heating

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12...

Inhofe Launchs Denial's Last Gasp

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxon...

If you have read both of those articles, then you know how little that "list of 400" means, you know that many of them are affiliated with the oil industry's desperate attempt to preserve profits, and you are welcome to draw your own conclusion.

Instead, it's best to go straight to the latest research.  The Bush Administration is notoriously skeptical in public about mankind's role in the current global warming, but here are summaries of some of their latest research into carbon cycle science and what to do to mitigate the damage, which is being conducted across more than a dozen federal agencies:

http://co2conference.org/agenda.asp

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...

Gee, why would George Bush be performing carbon mitigation research if the problem didn't exist?  He may be disingenuous (and a lot of people may fall for his delaying tactics), but he's not misinformed and he's not stupid.

Weather in the Sierra still fluctuates, and it may surprise some people to hear that winter has not been magically banned, but if you'd like to talk about climate rather than a partial season of weather events, here are the longer term measured trends in trends in the Tahoe Basin:

-- Cold days are fewer: The number of days with average air temperatures below freezing has dropped from 79 days to 52 days since 1911.

-- Nights are warmer: Night low temperatures have risen more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1911.

-- Less precipitation falls as snow: The percentage of snow in total precipitation has decreased from 52 percent to 34 percent since 1911.

-- Lake water is warmer: The average July surface water temperature has increased almost five degrees, from 62.9 degrees F. to 67.8 degrees F., since 1999. The lake's surface waters were the warmest on record on July 26, 2006: 78 degrees F.

source: UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center

Answer 11

From: Misunderstood Universe:

In the past 100 years scientists have debated back and forth as to whether the world was cooling or warming. During the 1930's there was a pronounced warming trend which caused great concern. Then, during the 1960's and 1970's there was a pronounced cooling trend. The April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek predicted the coming of another ice age, and that we were just six degrees away from a "drastic decline in food production... The resulting famines could be catastrophic." Newsweek reporter, Peter Gwynne, went on to state that scientists felt that drastic measures were necessary to stem these "ominous signs" such as "melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot."

Most scientists felt sure that the extended cooling trend was attributable to the activities of mankind. By the late 1980's these scientists did a complete turn-around; changing their minds again, deciding that the new warming trend was attributable to the activities of mankind. Luckily no one had acted on their previous cataclysmic warnings and had started spreading gigatons of that black soot all over the north and south poles!

Now this great debate has entered the political arena with those on the left, the tree-huggers, wringing their hands, saying: "The end of the world is at hand!" and those on the right, the coal-diggers, in their blind, quizzical manner, saying: "What, me worry?!"

Neither are right. The quiet truth lies somewhere between these two distant polarized viewpoints.

Answer 12

Don't let the rest of the "Chicken Little's" who answered your question sway your opinion.  Global warming (or Global cooling, or whatever the liberal left is wringing it's collective hands over THIS week) has nothing to do with man's contribution to the environment.  It has EVERYTHING to do with the political agenda of the Democratic (Socialist) Party.  This can only mean 1) higher taxes 2) loss of freedoms.  When Al Gore passes the Kool-Aid, refuse it.  Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, when none of the predictions come even close to being accurate, liberals will be beating us to death with something totally different yet equally inane and unsubstantiated.  Unfortunately, simply ignoring them will never make them shut up.  You see, there's too much money to be made off of the gullible...

Answer 13

The theory is not debunked by this list.

Just do some simple math.  There are 20,000 climate scientists alone in the world.

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/...

Even if these 400 were all climate scientists (which they are not), that would only be 2% of the total number of climate scientists.

Of course, the list includes a vast array of fields (most of which have little to do with climate science), such as chemistry, biology, geography, mathematics, etc. etc.  Considering the millions of scientists in these fields, 400 is a tiny fraction of a percent.

So basically this list says that Inhofe looked around in every field he could think of for any comment regarding skepticism of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW), and could only come up with 400 such statements.

On top of that, this list included anybody who made any kind of skeptical statement about any part of the AGW theory.  They could have said "I think the theory is true, but sea levels won't rise quite as high as we think", and they got put on the list.

So basically when you really analyze this list, it's a fraction of a percent of mostly non-experts who are expressing any kind of doubt about any part of the theory.  Not only that, but the report itself contains zero scientific data.  It's just a list of names and brief explanations about their skepticism.

If that's the best debunking of the AGW theory you can find, you might as well just accept the scientific reality of the situation now.

Answer 14

Old but with just a short glance and researching of some of the names on this list will tell you that much of this is out of context quote mining, statements from already known skeptics paid by Oil interests and other misc. "scientists". And to top it off this is all from Senator James Inhofe a well known opponent of GW paid by the Oil industry. It is safe to treat Inhofe's conspiracy theories like any other conspiracy theory, a manipulation of the facts to fit his own goals.

Answer 15

The witch trials have already started, just ask anyone who disagrees with gores lies.

Answer 16

Sounds like another 400 scientists who realized it's more lucrative to be a talking head for the energy industry than it is to conduct real, unbiased research.  

Sell-outs.

Answer 17

That's all fine and well. But I don't see any debunking in your link. I see a bunch of repeated names, emeritus professors (read: no longer researching their respective fields), and... retired architects? If you can't produce any debunking, you  could at least have been honest about your actual number of scientists.

Also, when real scientists want to do a study on something like this, they publish their work in a peer reviewed journal, not the Internets. 'Nuf said.

And Senator Inhofe: Lol.

Answer 18

sounds like your rubbing salt in the wound