If man is causing global warming, how come more than 17,000 scientists signed the Global Warming Petition?

Question

Are all these scientists wrong? Please see: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm. Or should we look into global warming and be more critical about the commonly accepted explanation that humans are causing global warming?

Answer 1

Why are you dredging up this 8-year old con-trick?

"The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001, shortly before the United States was expected to ratify the protocol."

"The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, the petition's website states that 'scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis.'"

The petition had an attached article fraudulently presented as a peer-reviewed NAS publication and written by a biochemist and his 21 year old son, and two astrophysicists known to be in the pocket of anti-environmentalists. Their conclusions were based on satellite data which has since been proven to be wrongly calibrated and now shows them to be wrong.

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Answer 2

The affects of global warming that has been accepted by the United Nations is that man and the practices of deforestation along with oil drilling and coal mining for power production are the main causes of climate change. It total this represents many billions perhaps trillions of dollars each year in trade.

Now if you are a chairman in one of these industries or someone who makes lots and lots of money (like George Bush) from these practices then it is really hard for them to place the health of the environment over their own bank balance. What's one more...

So now we have these people who studied the environment and have measured the changes occurring, and other people with lots of cash who want to keep the cash flowing. The science of climate is very complicated so it easy for the people with money to other pay scientist to hack, lie and disrepute the findings. Similar to the tobacco industries attempts at survival.

But climate is different to lung cancer, everybody can see it and feel it instead of just the surgeon. The danger is that by the time the people with the power finally admit that there is a problem, it will be too late for the rest of us.

Answer 3

Consider this: the global warming alarmists are basing their predictions on computer models.  The local meteorologists are basing their forecasts on computer models and they can't get the forecast right a good portion of the time.  If the short-term weather can't be accurately forecast using models, how can long-term climate change?  And if that can't be done, how can they claim it's man made?  The same scientists have also said that there is no way to determine to what extent man is affecting the climate.  So how can they say that man is affecting it at all?

Answer 4

The theory of man-made global warming is false, it is based on falsified or incomplete data.  Lets take a look at what the global warming crowd claims, they say that the human output of CO2 is causing the greenhouse effect which is warming the planet.  To see how outrageous this claim is try to guess how much of our atmosphere is made up of CO2, the correct answer is 0.03% of our atmosphere, almost nothing.  How can such a small part of our atmosphere have such an effect on our entire planet, correct answer it can’t.  Greenhouse gases exist naturally and have always been in our atmosphere.  Greenhouse gases such as CH4 (methane), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), and water vapor are all put out into the atmosphere naturally in far greater concentrations than humans could ever match.  Let’s take a look at water vapor, water vapor makes up between 1-4% of the atmosphere far more than CO2.  Water vapor is given off into the atmosphere due to evaporation, so evaporation causes much more global warming than humans ever could.  Other natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and the decomposition of plant and animal matter also put far more greenhouse gases than humans ever could.  

So what is causing global warming?  Well first of all the earth may not even be warming.  http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature...  This is a collection of global temperatures collected by NASA that shows a general cooling trend especially around the polar ice caps.  So assuming the earth is warming what could be causing it, the sun.  Look at this graph also put out by NASA: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/... it shows that the intensity of the sun is directly correlated to global temperatures and recent studies have shown that the sun is now warming than ever before, coincidence? I think not.  Also consider that the other planets in our solar system, Mars in particular, are also warming: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

You have to keep in mind that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, take for example the ice age and later warming of the earth enough to melt the ice.

Advocates of global warming will try and post evidence but the fact is most evidence for global warming comes in the form of general statements like “think of your children/grandchildren” that try to guilt you into agreeing with them.  These ads are devoid of scientific proof and seek to toy with your conscience.  Every once in a while you will see a graph submitted as evidence mostly from http://www.ipcc.ch/.  Take a look for yourself, I search in vain for proof of global warming on this site, sure there are dozens of graphs showing the same data: CO2 rising along with global temperatures but where are the graphs for other greenhouse gases that make up a greater percentage of our atmosphere and are put out naturally, or graphs showing the percentage of greenhouse gases put out by humans verses the gases put out by natural sources.  These graphs are not included because they disprove the theory of man made global warming.  The IPCC has had a questionable past, it has published a deliberately falsified graph, the so called hockey stick graph, which left out a period of warming during the 1400’s.  This warming period in the 1400’s was more dramatic than what we are seeing today, and it took place long before humans industrialized.  This falsification was proven and a reprint of the graph appeared in the journal Nature.  You may have seen claims that there is a scientific consensus on global warming like this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu... this is an absolute lie, do you need proof? Here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm the signatures of over 17,000 scientists who disagree with the theory of man made global warming (check out the report on this site it does an excellent job of disproving global warming).  You may have also seen reports about ice cores supposedly proving global warming, this is not true.  Here is the truth about ice cores http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm.

You may have the question why anyone would support this obviously false theory, the answer is money.  Average people with no scientific background are being converted to the global warming crowd by the dozens due to the repression of evidence against global warming.  This mass of people is the reason why notable people are jumping on the global warming bandwagon.  Politicians are supporting global warming for votes, scientists are joining for media time and grants, and CEO’s are pledging their allegiance to gain customers who want to shop where the environment is being supported.

You may also wonder why I care, you may think we can only help the environment if we agree with global warming what’s wrong with that?  I want to distinguish between global warming and helping the environment.  I have no problem with environmentalist causes, in fact I support them, but global warming is taking this idea to the  extreme.  If you were to follow the guidelines set forth by people like Al Gore your lifestyle would be, these people want to tell you what light bulbs to use.  The main reason however is money, why waste millions on studying global warming when we could be rebuilding third world countries and helping the poor.  Global warming is a fear tactic used to get your money and your vote by unscrupulous members of society.  Hopefully this will just fade away like the global cooling scare which was brought upon us in the 1970’s by the same sort of people using the same tactics.  A last link  http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ possibly the best resource for answering many of the questions raised by global warming.  I urge anyone who believes in man-made global warming to look into some of the resources I have presented.  Do not sacrifice your money, time, vote, and conscience to the greedy members of society who are blinding you to the truth for their own greed.

Answer 5

The "Oregon Petition" is of dubious validity.  Many of the signatures are clearly fakes (celebrities names, etc.) and there are other irregularities.

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

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

"In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed  George C. Marshall Institute , released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”"

This is science.  Opinions don't prove anything.  "logical" arguments don't prove anything.  The data is what's important and the scientific data says global warming is happening and it's mostly caused by us.

Very short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

The best summary of the data available:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Scientists have seen much stranger things than global warming (like Einstein's relativity or quantum mechanics) proved to be true by data.  So the data, not "logical" arguments, is what they go by.  The data is why why the vast majority of scientists agree that it's real and mostly caused by us.  Data about that here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

If you want to know more, here's the best website (warning - it's very big) with lots of data:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

There is a funny thing about the so called consensus on global warming.  It was achieved before the study on the subject even began.  

Contrary to what a lot of environmentalists like to say, there are a lot of scientists who appose the man made theory of global warming. But yet according to the propaganda, there is only dissent in the popular media and not the scientific community.  Well here are some references on scientific journals that do not support the theory.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/document...

This is a criticism of the so called consensus view:

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sc...

We only hear of the western scientists, but the Chinese climatologists think it is garbage.  They have now become the world's leading emitter of co2.  They have no desire to cut back co2 emissions, and are moving forward to open more coal fired power plants. The Russians signed Kyoto under pressure from the Europeans, but they too also have no desired to implement its targets.

Answer 7

if there was 1 single scientist that could stop a rainstorm, hurricane, tornado, or even a gentle spring breeze, then id believe we can cause the world to melt. sorry kids, i m not buyin in on this one. too much money to be made on global warming,power grab too. economies can be regulated carbon credits can be sold.lol  are these dolts for real?