Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming

[maineman]

Handful?

There are alot more then a handfull

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

as a percentage of scientists and climatologists worldwide, it IS a handful.

 

[red states rule]

as a percentage of scientists and climatologists worldwide, it IS a handful.

ah, back to running things by polls again

 

[maineman]

ah, back to running things by polls again

just pointing out that, relatively speaking, the scientists who doubt human exacerbated global warming are only a handful.

that's fact.

 

[red states rule]

just pointing out that, relatively speaking, the scientists who doubt human exacerbated global warming are only a handful.

that's fact.

Libs will always go with what the majority says - as long as the majority agrees with the libs viewpoint

 

[maineman]

Libs will always go with what the majority says - as long as the majority agrees with the libs viewpoint

I merely point out that your claims that global warming is a myth or has been PROVEN to be a myth are groundless.

I also point out that your claims that global warming is only something embraced by the far left enviro-wackos is equally groundless.

Do you care to dispute either of those points?

 

[bobn]

Today the media and schools preach that the Earth is billions of years old. They claim this is some kind of "consensus". But geologist says it is only 6000 years old, which proves that noone really knows either way and there isn't a consensus.

Plus look how many scientists support a 6000 year old Earth:
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Ken Ham, Applied Science
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Bodie Hodge, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Paul Taylor, Science Educator
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Here's the source:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12793
Oops, sorry that was a link for a different propaganda inspired list. Here is the url for the above list:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

I guess that the List Of Scientists Who Disagree proves that there is no consensus on the age of the Earth. I guess Noone Really Knows Either Way. The List Of Scientists Who Disagree is also probably growing, or at least I will claim it is because noone can really prove it isn't, and it sounds much more dramatic and convincing if I can imply that scientists are now turning away from the mainstream theory in droves. Makes it sound like scientists are "waking up" to the myth of global warming...ah slip of the tongue, I meant old earth theory of course. Soon a 4.5 billion year old earth will be shown to be a myth I can claim.

Also why don't I just make the claim that scientists only support the theory that the Earth is billions of years old because they'd lose grant funding if they went against it? ie just how climate scientists only believe in global warming because they'd lose their funding if they didn't believe it. I know that kind of contradicts the argument that scientists are abandoning the theory in droves...but who said contrarianism has to be internally consistant?

On that matter did you know that scientists who think the Earth is just 6000 years old are discriminated against, fired from positions and lose their funding? How discriminatory is that when obviously the size of the List Of Scientists Who Disagree proves that the 6000-year earth theory is just as valid as the mainstream theory? (ie Noone Really Knows Either Way) Acedemia shouldn't discriminate against any ideas. If a scientist really does want to go around saying the earth is flat, it would just mean Noone Really Knows Either Way. It would be pure discrimination to fire them for such a belief.

Now take a look at the "consensus" theory debunked by some real Internet-Science:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Ah no messed up again, I meant this one:
http://www.rae.org/revev2.html

Look how technical those arguments and the diagrams appear. That surely proves that it's genuine and not possibily riddled with flaws which of course cannot be corrected because it hasn't been peer reviewed. The only reason this information isn't getting published in scientific journals is discrimination, and you won't hear anything about the real Internet Science from the media.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Al gore is not completely wrong. we need better fuel standards, and we need to protect the environment, but we must use common sense, and realistic approaches to solve the problem, not oh my god were all gonna die, knee jerk, panic striken people trying to solve this problem.

We should use the environment to come together and find some solution, we could actually chip away at this problem. You know what they say, a nickel here, a dime there, soon you got a dollar.

Besides, we can NOT control climate, however, we can try to lessen our impact on it. I think if gore, and others speak about not harming the environment, they should pledge no more private jets, smaller houses, and less energy use personally, because, you cant lecture people how to behave, and then behave oppositely. its like a parent saying, do as i say not as i do.

 

[red states rule]

Al gore is not completely wrong. we need better fuel standards, and we need to protect the environment, but we must use common sense, and realistic approaches to solve the problem, not oh my god were all gonna die, knee jerk, panic striken people trying to solve this problem.

We should use the environment to come together and find some solution, we could actually chip away at this problem. You know what they say, a nickel here, a dime there, soon you got a dollar.

Besides, we can NOT control climate, however, we can try to lessen our impact on it. I think if gore, and others speak about not harming the environment, they should pledge no more private jets, smaller houses, and less energy use personally, because, you cant lecture people how to behave, and then behave oppositely. its like a parent saying, do as i say not as i do.

When Al Gore starts living his life the way he lectures us how to live our lives - I will believe there is a problem

I do not but the rfact there is a serious problem with global warming, global cooling, or climate change - or whatever the hell it is called

 

[maineman]

have you READ the latest issue of National Geographic? Have you even looked at the pictures?

 

[red states rule]

have you READ the latest issue of National Geographic? Have you even looked at the pictures?

Does it have a picture of the Earth roasting over an open flame?

 

[maineman]

Does it have a picture of the Earth roasting over an open flame?

ba dump bump.... I just flew in from germany....my arms are tired! try the veal, I'll be here all week!

 

[red states rule]

Or do they have pics of Al Gore singing "Burning Ring Of Fire"?

 

[maineman]

oh stop it! you're killing me!


do those jokes work well for you at open mike night at the local comedy club?


I tell you what. when you want to get serious and stop with the inane one liners..... you let me know.

 

[red states rule]

oh stop it! you're killing me!


do those jokes work well for you at open mike night at the local comedy club?


I tell you what. when you want to get serious and stop with the inane one liners..... you let me know.

Libs provide all the good material for MM

I do have to give credit where credit is due

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Maineman believes in Man made global warming, on his own admission, not because he can defend it, not because he can name what is causing it, not because he has any knowledge on the issue at all, EXCEPT a bunch of people tell him it is true. He has FAITH in these people and isn't to concerned about what makes them claim what they do.

Does this sound familiar at all?

Let me help you out.

Science can NOT actually do any more than GUESS what the climate will be like at any time in the future. The guess is based on what trends they have observed and recorded. There are no methods other than looking at what already happened and assuming what will happen based on observed trends.

What does this mean? It means no one knows for sure what will happen next year much less in 10 or 100 years. The reality is the earth has been steadily getting a little warmer for a VERY long time. The reality is that a 1 degree increase in 100 years is not abnormal at all.

Let me help you out Maineman. It isn't the 1 degree that has everyone in a whirl. A good portion of that occurred in 15 years ( something like 1/3 of a degree) , thats what has them all a flutter. But since we do not know what caused the sudden increase, blaming it on man is nothing more than a guess.

Let me help you out as bit more. The current "best" guess as to how man is causing the "runaway" heat increase is Greenhouse emissions. Particlary I believe CO2. The problem with this theory is that scientists can show LARGE CO2 increases in the past with no recipricol rise in temperature. Further man provides, even with industry, only a portion of CO2 emissions.

In the 70's Science was alarmed as now, by a sudden change in pattern ( for the short haul) It was a cooling trend, or so scientists believed, with no more evidence then they have now we were treated to a coming Ice Age and a large portion of the Human life dieing with in 20 years, coupled with a drying out of Oil.

a 15 year change is MEANINGLESS unless one KNOWS why the change occurred. For all we know , or these scientists, the next 15 years could see a much smaller growth in heat increases. Since we have no means to actually figure out what will happen next year with science except wait and see basing huge Economy damaging policies on such a short period of time is patently foolish.

But do tell us with all your vast knowledge WHY we should be worried in 10. 20 or 100 years.

Like I said get back to me in 10 to 15 years, if we see another 1/3 or more rise, we might need to get worried. BUT even then we still need to know what is causing it and we have no clue.

 

[red states rule]

Some of MM's fellow libs are being taken for a ride, since they actually believe this crap



Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved


On the eve of a G8 summit focused on climate change, Nick Davies reveals major flaws in the global system designed to reduce emissions

Saturday June 2, 2007
The Guardian


In autumn 2005, three journalists working for the environmental group the Centre for Science and Environment decided to investigate some of the Indian projects which were trying to break into the lucrative new business of carbon trading.

They started looking at four schemes in Andhra Pradesh which were trying to convert biomass - dead plants, animal dung - into fuel. They studied the formal reports which the schemes had commissioned from a UK company, Ernst and Young, to satisfy the demanding requirements of the UN's Clean Development Mechanism. And they noticed a very odd thing.

Each of the four Ernst and Young reports had had to consult people near the proposed schemes to ensure that there was no risk to the local economy or environment. One report quoted three different community leaders, each expressing enthusiastic approval for the project and concluded: "Poor farmers are getting reasonable monitory gains for harvesting the available biomass and supplying it to project activity."

What was odd that with two of the other schemes, each many miles from the other, Ernst and Young quoted three sources who had the same job descriptions, the same opinions, summarised in precisely the same words which even included the same spelling mistakes (Secretry, monitory). In the fourth case, the wording was slightly different, but the opinions were the same, and it too concluded that "poor farmers are getting reasonable monitory gains etc."

for the complete atricle
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093816,00.html

 

[bobn]

Science can NOT actually do any more than GUESS what the climate will be like at any time in the future. The guess is based on what trends they have observed and recorded. There are no methods other than looking at what already happened and assuming what will happen based on observed trends.

Science can do a lot better than just extrapolating past trends. There is another method, and it is very commonly used in climatology. Constructing a physical model allows future senarios of a type that hasn't yet been observed in the past to be predicted.

For example a glass of water on a window sill will cool and warm in a 24 hour cycle. If you've been observing and recording this cycle for a week, you could just extrapolate those past observations to predict the temperature of the glass of water next week at 3am for example. But where this method fails is that it cannot be used to predict future scenarios which haven't yet been observed - for example if a heater is placed next to the glass of water that turns on for 5 minutes every hour.

A better method is to construct a physical model of the glass of water, composed of various physical laws, and feed in projected energy changes from the sun, the heater and anything else. The resulting model will allow you to predict the temperature of the glass of water for future scenarios that haven't yet been observed.

Let me help you out as bit more. The current "best" guess as to how man is causing the "runaway" heat increase is Greenhouse emissions. Particlary I believe CO2. The problem with this theory is that scientists can show LARGE CO2 increases in the past with no recipricol rise in temperature.

There is no such situation in past records where temperature remains flat amid a large co2 increase. The biggest increases in co2 known from the ice core records are increases of about 50% co2, which take place over thousands of years. That isn't even a doubling of co2, and the warming expected from such that increase in co2 is only about 1.5C. If that co2 increase happened and no warming was seen in the record then that would be a problem for the theory. However temperature over these periods rises about 9C.

Further man provides, even with industry, only a portion of CO2 emissions.

Man has increased co2 levels in the atmosphere from 280ppm preindustrial baseline to about 384ppm today, with levels increasing about 2ppm per year. So far that's an increase of over 35%

In the 70's Science was alarmed as now, by a sudden change in pattern ( for the short haul) It was a cooling trend, or so scientists believed, with no more evidence then they have now we were treated to a coming Ice Age

The scientific bodies of the time did not come to that conclusion. It was noticed on a geological timescale that Earth is overdue another glacial period, that was all. The media uses this to make a story that we might be entering an ice age at any moment. At the same time scientists in the 70s were also saying that human activity might affect climate, but whether the net human effect was to warm (greenhouse gas emissions) or cool (aerosol emissions) wasn't known back then.

 

[maineman]

Maineman believes in Man made global warming, on his own admission, not because he can defend it, not because he can name what is causing it, not because he has any knowledge on the issue at all, EXCEPT a bunch of people tell him it is true. He has FAITH in these people and isn't to concerned about what makes them claim what they do.

that, by the way, is a fucking lie. And here I thought they taught integrity in the Corps

 

[RetiredGySgt]

that, by the way, is a fucking lie. And here I thought they taught integrity in the Corps

Well either this is a lie or you were lying earlier in the thread when you claimed that being an engineer you couldn't articulate any of the above. Your choice.

 

[maineman]

Well either this is a lie or you were lying earlier in the thread when you claimed that being an engineer you couldn't articulate any of the above. Your choice.

being unable to accurately ARTICULATE something is not synonymous with 'having no knowledge on the issue".

So I have not lied on this board about this subject, nor any other, for that matter...and you have..... gunny.... fucking liar.