What happens when a Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research?

Question

Why are they switching sides? Will this be a major story?

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=&IsPrint=True

Answer 1

You're funny!!!

Q: What happens when a Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research?

A: There is new research all the time, but scientists are not becoming skeptics. Quite the opposite, they are agreeing with the theory of AGW.

Q: Why are they switching sides?

A: They are switching sides but from skeptic to agreeing with the theory of AGW.

Q: Will this be a major story?

A: There are 2 major stories. The first is how Inhofe is a denier who cherry-picks information for his bogus claims. The second is how the world is moving in a direction you and the rest of the non-scientific deniers don't seem to care about, clean.

Answer 2

Ah, I see Inhofe's propaganda piece is doing its job nicely.

Wake me up when the denialists have something worthwhile to contribute.

Answer 3

You know all those former believers point to paleontolgical evidence for the reason why so many people believed in AGW prior to 2000.  

They seemed to ignore a lot of other indicators which doesn

t quite fit the AGW theory very well - first the physical properties of CO2 don't justify significant climate change unless you come up with all kinds of speculative positive feedback theories or just plain fudge the figures.  Second it doesn't fit the real climate - the earth heated a lot without CO2 and it cooled when there was a lot of atmospheric CO2.

Despite a lack of scientific evidence, It just seems like a lot of people were prepared to go along with the consensus.

Anyway, virtually all the believers are politically left wing naive types who will either mature or else move on to the next big scare.

Answer 4

There is sufficient evidence that the world is warming, and the consequences of this in terms of drought, flooding, famine, are not greatly changed by the causes of that warming.

We also have but finite supplies of  fossil fuels that we should conserve because we will need them later.

So, conserve fossil fuels is a sound objective.

Make plans to  mitigate the effects of warming that we are unlikely to be able to stop still makes sense, regardless of cause of warming.

That may involve taking strong efforts to conserve water for irrigation, which in addition to mopping up CO2 will also be needed to feed people.

Finding ways to accomplish our needs with less fossil fuel still makes eminently good sense regardless of the significance of fossil fuel to global warming.

Conserving all of earth's resources may still be our most significant no-risk decision.

Answer 5

Everyone with a brain knows that global warming is a joke. Gary England - the #1 meteorologist in the country (you can see him in the movie 'Twister', and he helped develop Doplar radar) makes jokes about these global warming whackos all the time. He said the oceans haven't varied a single degree in the last five years. Scientists make their living off of fear mongering - never forget that!

Answer 6

YOU KNOW WHY?

There is no such thing as Global Warming!

The weather people said so!!

It is a HOAX!!

Scientists must not believe in a God Who is in control of the weather--so they made something up!!

puh!

Answer 7

Ah, the well known petroleum industry Congressional Lobbyist, posted at least once a week.  It must be Monday!

Answer 8

those followers of the church of Al Gore will stomp their feet and pound their fists screaming "the debate is over!"

most people who believe something to be a provable FACT will debate you. however just like religious folks, when you factor in faith, then they at some point wont debate you because they just believe it. sound familiar?

Answer 9

You know what will happen - The believers will make false claims that these scientist were tainted by money from "Big Oil" even though tis is a false and bogus statement.

Then the reputations of these scientist will be attacked by the "brown shirt" believers and they will no longer be a member of the "consensus".

Global warming isn't objective science, it's dogma by force.

Answer 10

You will have the "consensus" morons try to discredit those who made the switch. You can show them all the evidence in the world and they still will not get it.

It does appear however that the smart scientists have waited and examined the evidence before making a decision. Something the "consensus" folks failed to do.

Answer 11

This is political nonsense from a political staffer (formerly a radical right-wing journalist) at Senator Inhofe's (aka the Senator from Big Oil) office.

If anything, it's going the other way.  More scientists are supporting the mainstream view, as the proof gets ever stronger.

This source has utterly NO credibility.

Answer 12

tuba, you are misinformed, and apparantly dont have much logic skill.

If you dont want oil, then fine, dont buy it, dont go anywhere, dont use plastics, dont use any products that used oil in its production, or transportation.

If we are going to make a switch from oil to something else, it is up to someone else to innovate, and create a new market, not the oil companies.  The oil companies are just taking advantage of the high oil prices, since american oil companies dont decide the price of oil.

misinformed liberal...  stop spreading your misinformed point of view.