Here’s an analysis of the scientists who have signed the “ain’t no such thang as glober warmin” petition:
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
“As a scientist”… REALLY??? A f*cking weatherman on TV is a scientist? really? Really? When’s the last time he *published* anything in the scientific literature?
Yeah, he’s about as much of a scientist as an engineer.
>:(
Engineers do at least work with observable facts.
True… but it’s applied rather than investigatory.
I’m actually surprised there are still four (somewhat) notable climatologists who disagree with AGW.
Actually for quite a bit I was a climate-sceptic. To be fair I really don’t care. I suppose AGW could be true. Although I should probably look up some pro-GW sites and then some sites dispelling anti-AGW. Or maybe even something that will prove AGW is BS.
Meh, I’ll do it when I have time.
As a side note, even if the climate is changing as a result of humanity, I doubt it’d be that bad.
But you’re not claiming to be an authority on it because you have a Computing Science degree or something, right?
I’m studying Law right now. I’m an authority on everything, didn’t you know?
I know layers, they don’t care about the truth. They just make sure others start believing their truth.
Fact is that politicians DO misuse the global warming to get more taxes. NO doubt about this. But it does not change the fact that global warming is real and in effect.
If global warning is bad or good depends on where you live. You as a layer would probably be rich enough not to get bothered. But if you were living in a 3rd world country then you will be cursed.
If you want to know if GW is true or not, don’t waste your time with GW versus AGW sites. Waste of time, go directly to the science papers and try to understand them.
Excellent video! I’m skeptical of AGW (or Climate Change- whichever) but I’m annoyed by the intellectual dishonesty so often displayed by the anti-AGW. 17,000 scientists agree? Great! Now show me why I should care what 17,000 scientists think. Or, for that matter, 17,000 non-scientists. Should everyone become a Christian because 17,000 Christians think that’s the way to go?
Wait, wait, I know! The world should renounce atheism because 17,000 Christians think Atheism is a load of crap! They’re experts on Atheism, right? We can trust them.
Sigh. There are so many other elements to the debate of AGW that are condusive to intelligent disagreement than how many people agree with you.
This is the grown-up equivalent of the “oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!” game.
“Oh YEAH? Well I’ve got 17,001 scientists who agree with ME! HA!”
One thing I do know, if you need a petition with a huge numbers of signatures to try to convince people that you are right, then you have clear signs that you are a fraud since you have no scientific basis like submitted papers for peer review.
As a pesudo scientists you cannot show the real numbers since you get exposed immediately, you have to rely on convincing people using lies and half truths. And hoping people will not start to ask questions.
Nobody should care what 17,000 scientists have to say about the issue. However, if 17,000 climatologists signed that petition, I would take notice, because those are the people who should know what they are talking about.
As it is, no scientific body in the world disputes the general consensus about AGW, and all but one (a petroleum one, I think) support it, so I have good reason to believe it is true. Why? Because unlike Christians, scientists do continuous, scientific, redundant, peer-reviewed research into the issue, write and read thousands of papers, and are generally far more educated on the issue than I can hope to be. This is clearly a case where it is better to trust the scientists than trust your intuition or trust the two, twenty, or even two hundred papers you read about it personally.
- which also has a religion dept. that offers a degree in biblical archaeology.
(what happened to the first half of my post?) What I was commenting on was the guy who said he was a professor of biology at Southern Adventist U., which has a dept. of religion that offers a degree in biblical archaeology.
Did you use any tags that might have eaten it, or copy and paste from another editor, missing the first part?
I said this in the forum, but it’s worth repeating: We have laws against impersonating police, doctors, et cetera, we need one that prohibits impersonation of a scientist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
>:D
I get what he’s saying, but even as a slight sceptic I have to agree that we do make a difference to the environment.
a) I mean, we won’t destroy the planet per se, but I do think we have the capacity to fuck up an environment which is fairly beneficial to us. Life will always exist, but it doesn’t mean we should fuck it up further. It’ll recover eventually, but it’s probably best not to incur any detriment to it now, which will negatively impact on us in the long run.
b) It’s very easy to claim AGW isn’t happening when you’re not in the areas it affects the most. If you’re some dude in New York, then the odds are it won’t affect you in any major way. If you’re someone living in Novaya Zemlya, Soloman Islands or something of that sort, then the melting polar ice caps/rising waters could really fuck you up. Granted it can happen naturally, but there probably is a correlation somewhat between GHGs and those things.
c) What I do agree with him is that, I don’t like the whole doomsday rhetoric suggesting we won’t be able to get through this. We’ve been through quite a few human extinction attempts, this one will probably be so minor it’d barely register to most people. Unless those living in Novaya Zemlya!
So it’d be bad, but not catastrophic.
In the past century, the number of living vertebrates on this planet has been reduced by about one third. That’s not the number of species, that’s the total number. Add that to the increasing shortages of fresh water, droughts that begun to be more frequent and longer lasting in our agricultural areas, and the increasing acidification of the oceans, and yes, I would go with catastrophic. Keep your eye on the small things- krill, bees, frogs- we are knocking the bottom out of our food chain.
I agree, there is no real doomsday and science can actually reverse the effect if they really want to but we need global political will and at this moment politicians don’t care about making this planet a better place, They actually misuse the global warming for personal gain.
Look at the Al Gore video, pure science crap. His video exists to get attention for personal gain. He did not predict it, he just took a lucky shot to get attention. At that time scientists were not convinced, nowadays they know for sure.
Global warming is for real, but the solution is not with taxes and using less energy. Just the opposite, we need science to find new energy sources and the technology to clean the air, water, sees, and,…
Exactly. I do agree with the main gist of what he’s saying — we care about US, not the planet, but where I disagree is when his more fatalistic views start coming in.
And absolutely, we’re having an effect…..on our own chances of survival.
Not to get political here but the USA will always be AGW cause it hurts them not to be for financial reasons. Also the whole Kyoto Treaty thing as well.
The whole climate denialist movement is funded and promoted by people who have a financial interest in keeping the public attention away from the fact that many of the steps that need to be taken to stop man made global warming are steps that we should probably take regardless. whether global warming is real or not reducing pollution is a good think and you should just open the news for a second to see the problem of relying on fossil fuels.