UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[StageLeft]

Link

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

---

What I would like to see is a trend indicating the percentage of scientists who were "for" or "against" MMGW over time, to see what the discipline really thinks.

I'm mostly on the fence with it. My greatest criticism is of those who put far too much stock in the patently hopeless predictive models of their champions; the predictions are constantly and woefully inaccurate. I am positive that the scientific community that claims it has a strong knowledge of what's going on is either lying or simply ignorant of its own shortcomings, these shortcomings continually laid bare every year, as new climate date comes out in direct refute with whatever they said would happen. I think we simply know far too little about global warming and about what it would actually mean, so I am glad to see so many reputed scientists here call it for what it often is, an ideology or religion.

 

[LegendKiller]

I am unconvinced and very skeptical about MMGW. The % of effect we may have on the earth is probably very small in proportion to the amount of money we spend discussing, researching, and preventing.

That isn't to say that I support shitting where you eat.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

---

What I would like to see is a trend indicating the percentage of scientists who were "for" or "against" MMGW over time, to see what the discipline really thinks.

According to the article the UN has 52 who say it is happening, the opposition has 650.

That's 8% in favor of MMGW, and 92% against it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

---

What I would like to see is a trend indicating the percentage of scientists who were "for" or "against" MMGW over time, to see what the discipline really thinks.

According to the article the UN has 52 who say it is happening, the opposition has 650.

That's 8% in favor of MMGW, and 92% against it.

I read it as this particular report had 52; it doesn't necessarily mean that 92% of UN related scientists are against it as proposed. I expect thousands more would be in the "for" camp but are not mentioned here.

 

[Throckmorton]

So if one guy authors a report, and 99 oppose him, does that mean the report has a 1% chance of being right? Or is it 1% right? I'm not understanding this math.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
So if one guy authors a report, and 99 oppose him, does that mean the report has a 1% chance of being right? Or is it 1% right? I'm not understanding this math.

I think you're making the math up; nobody is even so much as alluding to that

 

[dphantom]

There is no MMGW. A myth perpetrated by envirowackos who have nothing else to do. Like LK above, I don't mess where I eat. Still, I have a suspicion the quote below may be to close to truth for comfort.

?CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another?.Every scientist knows this, but it doesn?t pay to say so?Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver?s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.? - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I am unconvinced and very skeptical about MMGW. The % of effect we may have on the earth is probably very small in proportion to the amount of money we spend discussing, researching, and preventing.

That isn't to say that I support shitting where you eat.

But if the effect we have persists, however small or large, don't we owe it to future generations to discuss, research, and yes, prevent? Hell, it might take 10,000 years for it to come to a head... but should we bury ours in the sand because it won't ever affect us?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I am unconvinced and very skeptical about MMGW. The % of effect we may have on the earth is probably very small in proportion to the amount of money we spend discussing, researching, and preventing.

That isn't to say that I support shitting where you eat.

Putting 600,000,000 tonne of carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere daily can fuck up the planet, believe it or not.

 

[ThunderDawg]

We should wait until Earth loses 50% of Dry Land and all the frozen tubndra
before we do anything. That'll teach them MuthaF**k**g right wing loonies.

If you De-Politicize the issue, Science will find the right answer.

 

[DealMonkey]

If anything, the anti-MMGW Republicans are just as zealous/religious that man isn't creating global warming.

It isn't difficult to discern their agenda when you contemplate their big business/industry support and contributors. Their agenda is that they and their corporate buddies should be able to fuck up the environment as much as they want in the name of keeping costs low.

Really, how is this any more or less extreme than the opposing side who wants to save the planet at any cost necessary?

 

[fskimospy]

You guys realize that the link is a blog from the minority side of the senate committee page right? That the guy running it is Jim Inhofe, a rabid and radical global warming opponent?

As for the IPCC, there are 52 people who sign it, but the report is contributed to by thousands and thousands of people. The 4th IPCC assessment had contributions from about 4,000 people.

Doubt global warming all you want, but to somehow say that the vast majority of scientists in the field do not support it is fiction.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ThunderDawg
We should wait until Earth loses 50% of Dry Land and all the frozen tubndra
before we do anything. That'll teach them MuthaF**k**g right wing loonies.

If you De-Politicize the issue, Science will find the right answer.

Epic lurking.

MMGW is probably going to be that thing that future generations (and I'm talking 1,000 years out) look back on us and laugh about. "Can you believe they thought humans could heat the globe to a catastrophic level? How droll!" That said, on the offchance that it does happen, would it really be so bad? Sure, ocean levels may rise, but there are more species in the ocean than on land anyway, so it's a net gain for them. Also, as the globe heats, you have better living conditions closer to the poles, and a chance for better ecosystems globally. And hey, if the Atlantic current shuts down and plunges us into an ice age, well that's just us doing our job to replace the rapidly disappearing glaciers. We're bringing snow back to Kilamanjaro baby!

All told, I think the MMGW kerfuffle is an overhyped to-do, but I still think it's important that we try to minimize our impact on the global environment. Pollution, as a general rule, is bad, and we should do everything we can to curb emission of toxic pollutants or greenhouse gases for the good of the planet and all the species that inhabit it. Except bees. Fuck bees.

 

[winnar111]

But how is Al Gore supposed to sell his carbon credits?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

We aren't contributing to her downfall. The Earth will go on, regardless. MMGW is a human-centric concern about how it will affect our own future.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

We aren't contributing to her downfall. The Earth will go on, regardless. MMGW is a human-centric concern about how it will affect our own future.

I don't know about you, but that's good enough for me. Life will go on whatever we do, but I personally would like to be around to see it.

Honestly I find the zealous opposition to MMGW theory to be kind of strange. Sure, proponents of MMGW theory might be wrong...but I don't think an honest opponent of the theory can say that for certain, and given the importance of the issue, it seems like dismissing it out of hand is a bad idea.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
-snip-
That isn't to say that I support shitting where you eat.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
-snip-
All told, I think the MMGW kerfuffle is an overhyped to-do, but I still think it's important that we try to minimize our impact on the global environment. Pollution, as a general rule, is bad...

Agreed.

And one of my complaints about MMGW is that it is taking our focus off of other enviromental problems like mercury & sulfur etc polution.

Likewise, it has spawned the whole ethonol debacle. I'll stipulate for the moment that ethonol is helpful in CO2 reductions (which I highly doubt), but in the rush to curb CO2 with increase corn production we're now spewing tons of nitrogen based fertilizers into the Gulf of Mexico (via the Miss. river) and creating a huge dead patch killing all aquatic/marine life.

IMO, this whole MMGW mania has just caused even more enviro destruction, but in other ways.

Fern

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

We aren't contributing to her downfall. The Earth will go on, regardless. MMGW is a human-centric concern about how it will affect our own future.

I don't know about you, but that's good enough for me. Life will go on whatever we do, but I personally would like to be around to see it.

Honestly I find the zealous opposition to MMGW theory to be kind of strange. Sure, proponents of MMGW theory might be wrong...but I don't think an honest opponent of the theory can say that for certain, and given the importance of the issue, it seems like dismissing it out of hand is a bad idea.

One of the problems with just accepting that MMGW is true is that the measures required to fight it reduce our productive outputs by re-directing production to fight the causes. One of the biggest themes in my current class on developing countries is that our crusade to create clean energy is literally stealing the food of the plates of the poor in other countries, and that if we continue it will kill millions of people.

It is not a simple question, reducing our production will cause some people to go without and die from a lack of resources, however ignoring global warming if it is real will also kill people, the million dollar question is which will kill more people, and of the people killed which of them do we consider more valuable?

But of course many of the most rabid MMGW deniers are not actually aware of this, some of them really just want to party without considering the consequences.

 

[ElFenix]

AGW damnit

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

We aren't contributing to her downfall. The Earth will go on, regardless. MMGW is a human-centric concern about how it will affect our own future.

I don't know about you, but that's good enough for me. Life will go on whatever we do, but I personally would like to be around to see it.

Honestly I find the zealous opposition to MMGW theory to be kind of strange. Sure, proponents of MMGW theory might be wrong...but I don't think an honest opponent of the theory can say that for certain, and given the importance of the issue, it seems like dismissing it out of hand is a bad idea.

One of the problems with just accepting that MMGW is true is that the measures required to fight it reduce our productive outputs by re-directing production to fight the causes. One of the biggest themes in my current class on developing countries is that our crusade to create clean energy is literally stealing the food of the plates of the poor in other countries, and that if we continue it will kill millions of people.

It is not a simple question, reducing our production will cause some people to go without and die from a lack of resources, however ignoring global warming if it is real will also kill people, the million dollar question is which will kill more people, and of the people killed which of them do we consider more valuable?

But of course many of the most rabid MMGW deniers are not actually aware of this, some of them really just want to party without considering the consequences.

I'm not saying blindly ACCEPT it either, but at least there is some science supporting that position. The zealots on both sides are screwing up an important issue though, I will agree with that. But it's also worth remembering that problems aren't tied to solutions. What you're saying about clean energy is true, but that just means we need better clean energy solutions...not that clean energy is a bad idea. It's too easy to get wrapped around the axle talking about the downsides of current solutions and ignore the possibility of other solutions and ignore the fact that rejecting the current solutions doesn't make the problem go away.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

We aren't contributing to her downfall. The Earth will go on, regardless. MMGW is a human-centric concern about how it will affect our own future.

I don't know about you, but that's good enough for me. Life will go on whatever we do, but I personally would like to be around to see it.

Honestly I find the zealous opposition to MMGW theory to be kind of strange. Sure, proponents of MMGW theory might be wrong...but I don't think an honest opponent of the theory can say that for certain, and given the importance of the issue, it seems like dismissing it out of hand is a bad idea.

You will very likely be around to see it seeing as the doom & gloom prognostiications of the MMGW alarmists just haven't panned out. IF there is any effect it won't likely be apparent for many, many decades down the road, long after you and I are dead and gone.

The opposition to MMGW arises from the fact that it's unproven. Now I completely agree that some sort of climate change is happening. Whether that change is natural or also partially to do with man-made greenhouse emmissions is still up in the air though. Yes, I also agree that we have to be having some effect on climate. However, loudly exclaiming that man is at fault when the facts are not even close to being in is purely irresponsible. And that's what the MMGW zealots have done, in effect becoming a group of Chicken Littles in the process. It's not so much zealous opposition but a lack of respect because of the fringe faithful, and those who use MMGW as a tool to politicize their cause.

I'd like to see some rational discussion about climate change going on. Unfortunately, like so many issues today, the extremes on both sides have stuck their pitchforks in too deep and it will require a long period of time before they can be extracted.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
To think man can control the planet is pretty damn arrogant. If nature wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth, it will.

And to think we can't contribute to her downfall is pretty damn ignorant.

We aren't contributing to her downfall. The Earth will go on, regardless. MMGW is a human-centric concern about how it will affect our own future.

I don't know about you, but that's good enough for me. Life will go on whatever we do, but I personally would like to be around to see it.

Honestly I find the zealous opposition to MMGW theory to be kind of strange. Sure, proponents of MMGW theory might be wrong...but I don't think an honest opponent of the theory can say that for certain, and given the importance of the issue, it seems like dismissing it out of hand is a bad idea.

You will very likely be around to see it seeing as the doom & gloom prognostiications of the MMGW alarmists just haven't panned out. IF there is any effect it won't likely be apparent for many, many decades down the road, long after you and I are dead and gone.

The opposition to MMGW arises from the fact that it's unproven. Now I completely agree that some sort of climate change is happening. Whether that change is natural or also partially to do with man-made greenhouse emmissions is still up in the air though. Yes, I also agree that we have to be having some effect on climate. However, loudly exclaiming that man is at fault when the facts are not even close to being in is purely irresponsible. And that's what the MMGW zealots have done, in effect becoming a group of Chicken Littles in the process. It's not so much zealous opposition but a lack of respect because of the fringe faithful, and those who use MMGW as a tool to politicize their cause.

I'd like to see some rational discussion about climate change going on. Unfortunately, like so many issues today, the extremes on both sides have stuck their pitchforks in too deep and it will require a long period of time before they can be extracted.

That was my point...the extremes on both sides are making this issue far more political than scientific. The battle between Al Gore fans and the people who hate Al Gore seems to be one of the sillier exercises of the whole debate, as if what Al Gore thinks or says changes the science of the issue even a little bit.

But I will say that I'm a little concerned. We as a race have shown over and over that we have the foresight of blind groundhogs, even when it comes to things that can affect our wellbeing. I'm only 25, I plan on living for quite some time, and I'm honestly not sure we'll confront our potential issues until they are really causing us problems. The wait and see approach is fine, especially if there are questions that need answering, but I get the feeling we're going to wait too long. The enviro-nuts urging us faster aren't helpful, but ultimately the anti-environment brigade might hold us back JUST long enough for environmental and energy problems to become really major before we act.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That was my point...the extremes on both sides are making this issue far more political than scientific. The battle between Al Gore fans and the people who hate Al Gore seems to be one of the sillier exercises of the whole debate, as if what Al Gore thinks or says changes the science of the issue even a little bit.

But I will say that I'm a little concerned. We as a race have shown over and over that we have the foresight of blind groundhogs, even when it comes to things that can affect our wellbeing. I'm only 25, I plan on living for quite some time, and I'm honestly not sure we'll confront our potential issues until they are really causing us problems. The wait and see approach is fine, especially if there are questions that need answering, but I get the feeling we're going to wait too long. The enviro-nuts urging us faster aren't helpful, but ultimately the anti-environment brigade might hold us back JUST long enough for environmental and energy problems to become really major before we act.

I'm not all that concerned. Even though humans have a propensity for waiting until it's nearly too late to address our problems we are amazingly resourceful and resilient when it becomes necessary. Some people may die in the process. Many, many may die. But we will still survive.

Let's find out what the problem really is as well. There is evidence that we may be slipping towards another ice age. Climate variabilities, often wide swings, historically precede such events. Considering our relatively recent climatological past (i.e. - the past 100K years or so), it would appear we've been in a cycle of ice ages and warming periods. It's possible that an excess of CO2 could help stave off or at least lessen the severity and duration. Of course, that's all highly speculative, but it's no less speculative than any of the other doom & gloom scenarios being bandied about in regard to climate change.

We need more data. Too much is up in the air at this time so let's not jump to hasty conclusions.