Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 15, 2010 at 10:43pm

Majority of Broadcast Meteorologists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis - by James M. Taylor
Majority of Broadcast Meteorologists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis

Climate Change > Consensus
Environment > Top Story
Email a Friend
Written By: James M. Taylor
Publication date: 04/01/2010
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
A majority of broadcast meteorologists are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims and find the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change untrustworthy, reports a new survey from the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.

Funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, George Mason researchers surveyed all broadcast television member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association (NWA). To receive an AMS seal of approval members are required to have a degree in meteorology. To receive an NWA seal of approval members must demonstrate sound meteorological knowledge in a written examination and be approved by fellow broadcast meteorologists. Of the 571 broadcast meteorologists surveyed, 55 percent held an AMS seal of approval and 33 percent held an NWA seal of approval.

According to the survey of broadcast meteorologists:

• 63% believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes, and only 31% believe humans are primarily responsible

• 44% trust the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), while 56% find IPCC untrustworthy

• Only 24% see any evidence of climate change in their local weather patterns

• Less than half (42%) are very worried or somewhat worried about global warming

• Only 20% believe global warming will cause a great deal of harm to future generations

• Only 23% believe global warming should be a high or very high priority for the President and Congress. 48% believe it should be a low priority, and 29% believe it should be a medium priority

• Roughly 90% believe they are fairly well informed or very well informed about the scientific causes and consequences of global warming

• Only 33% say most scientists think global warming is happening, while 61% say there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening

• 42% said the recent Climategate scandal has made them more certain that global warming is not happening

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adrian on April 16, 2010 at 1:04am

Laughable, and if you can't see that, then I really do question your ability to take part in this discussion at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 15, 2010 at 11:19pm

World Cools Toward Warmists

They brought it on themselves with their fudged facts

Environment > Climate: Climategate
Environment > Climate: Realists
Environment > Climate: Science
Email a Friend
Written By: Paul Chesser
Publication date: 02/24/2010
Publisher: The Washington Times
The global-warming industry is getting several bailouts, none of which it wants. Last week, three major corporations - Conoco/Phillips, BP and Caterpillar - bailed out on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership lobbyist collaboration. Arizona bailed on the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) cap-and-trade plan. The Utah House presumably wants to bail on WCI, too, because it overwhelmingly passed a resolution requesting the Environmental Protection Agency to bail on its planned regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Texas and Virginia also want the nation's top environmental regulator to cease and desist.

On Thursday, the Netherlands' Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, resigned. The guru of global-warming diplomacy, after a disastrous December summit in Copenhagen did not produce an international agreement on greenhouse gas reduction, favored bailing over failing.

"I saw him at the airport after Copenhagen," said Jake Schmidt, a climate expert for the Natural Resources Defense Council, to Associated Press. "He was tired, worn out." The summit "clearly took a toll on him."

This followed an admission a few weeks ago by Phil Jones, former University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit director, that he had suicidal thoughts over his role in the Climategate scandal.

On behalf of climate realists everywhere, I beg: Spare us the beleaguered scientists story line. The collapse of the hollow cause they advocated, which spurred a sector bubble probably larger than the 1990s Internet craze and the last decade's real estate speculation combined, was inevitable. Billions of dollars - much of it belonging to taxpayers - were poured into climate-related research and heavily subsidized "green" ventures because of the hype.

Over the same period, global-warming skeptics (including respected scientists and policy scholars) warned repeatedly that there was no authoritative, unified view behind climate catastrophism. But rather than heeding their cautions, large news organizations (and the activist Society of Environmental Journalists) joined environmental harassment groups in marginalizing them. They equated the doubters with disbelievers of tobacco's harm, the moon landing and a spherical earth - you know, crackpots.

Had the media scrutinized the reports of the once-heralded U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than listening to the environoia movement, they would have discovered the fragile ceramics were on the alarmists' shelf. It has only taken a few curious bloggers and some journalists from the United Kingdom to finally scrutinize the IPCC's footnotes, which represented the purportedly rigorous scientific study that undergirded the report's conclusions.

What they found beneath the IPCC surface is an error-laden swamp of green groups' promotional materials and amateur compositions by college students instead of the "peer-reviewed" research alarmists had claimed. Climategate spurred subsequent daughter controversies that included "Glaciergate" (Himalayan ice not eroding as quickly as claimed), "Amazongate" (rain forests are suffering from logging, not climate, according to a World Wildlife Fund report) and "Africagate" (a Canadian environmentalist think tank said crop yields would be cut in half because of increasing temperatures). The barrage of revelations has prevented the Big Environment industrial-media complex from controlling the story line.

Climategate data-fudger Michael Mann, the scientist at Penn State University known for the "hockey stick" temperature chart, which rewrote history by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, last week bemoaned this new discourse on global warming. In an interview with the Web site the Benshi, he whined about "an organized, well-funded effort to discredit" the "scientific community," which he said was driven by the fossil-fuel industry. He accused climate realists of conducting "smear campaigns run against scientists for the sole purpose of discrediting them, so as to discredit the science."

Michael should Mann up. Whatever smudges appear on the reputations of warmism-promoting scientists have been applied by themselves. After all, the skeptics aren't the ones who made up, fudged or twisted data or who employed dubious and biased sources as the foundation for their predictions of calamity. And the alarmists had (and still do) a massive funding advantage, amplified by their colleagues at the major news organizations, which helped keep the messaging winds at their backs. Grammies, Oscars and Nobels were part of their rewards.

But now we have another climate bailout. Though the U.S. media is not hunting down the IPCC fallacies the way their British counterparts are, at the same time, they do not defend global-warming proponents the way they once did. They once championed the cause with vigor, but now a lot of big-city journalists have gone mute about the whole thing.

A suggestion to regain the attention: The scientists should undertake a Mark McGwire/Tiger Woods-like apology campaign. Only then can they start on the road to recovery and restore their lost reputations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adrian on April 16, 2010 at 1:07am

It was brought on by wilful misrepresentation by such as yourself! The UK media very much supports climate change theory, and it is widely accepted throughout Europe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 15, 2010 at 10:51pm

More Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism

Environment & Climate News > August 2008
Environment > Climate: Consensus
Environment > Climate: Realists
Environment > Climate: Science
Email a Friend
Written By: Peter Risdon
Published In: Environment & Climate News > August 2008
Publication date: 08/01/2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Despite what many global warming alarmists assert in the media, there are many articles in the world's leading science publications contradicting the assertion that "the debate is over" about global warming. These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming. The following is the second of a three-part list of many such articles. Compiled by Peter Risdon.
'Hockey Stick'

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (Climate Research, vol. 23, 89–110, January 2003) - Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (Energy & Environment, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (Nature 433, 613-617, February 2005) - Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén

Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years" (Science, vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, June 2007) - Gerd Bürger

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (Energy & Environment, vol. 18, nos. 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007) - C. Loehle


Hurricanes

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones? (Science, vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454, 28 July 2006) - Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff

Causes of the Unusually Destructive 2004 Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 87, issue 10, October 2006) - Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray

Comments on "Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme" (Journal of Climate, vol. 18, issue 23, December 2005) - Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Landsea

Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900 (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, vol. 88, no. 18, p. 197, 2007) - Christopher W. Landsea

Hurricanes and Global Warming (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 86, issue 11, November 2005) - R. A. Pielke Jr., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, and R. Pasch

Are there trends in hurricane destruction? (Nature 438, E11, 22 December 2005) - Roger A. Pielke, Jr.

Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 22, no. 33, L09708, 2006) - Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert E. Davis

Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: A Post-IPCC Assessment (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 79, issue 1, January 1998) - A. Henderson-Sellers, H. Zhang, G. Berz, K. Emanuel, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. Holland, J. Lighthill, S.-L. Shieh, P. Webster, K. McGuffie


Kyoto

Time to ditch Kyoto (Nature 449, 973-975, 25 October 2007) - Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner


Medieval Warm Period/Little Ice Age

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability (Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004) - P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz

Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period (Science, vol. 288. no. 5474, pp. 2198 - 2202, 23 June 2000) - Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002) - E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China (Climatic Change, vol. 26, nos. 2-3, March, 1994) - De'Er Zhang

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period (Climatic Change, vol. 26, nos. 2-3, March, 1994) - Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur

Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau) (Paleooceanography, vol. 18, no. 2, 1044, 2003) - Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl

Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability (Science, vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2250 - 2253, 22 March 2002) - Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 209, issues 1-4, pp. 113-125, 6 July 2004) - K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 36, issues 1-2, March 2003, Pages 17-29) - T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, D. A. Willard

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea (Science, vol. 274. no. 5292, pp. 1503 - 1508, 29 November 1996) - Lloyd D. Keigwin

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa (South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126, 2000) - P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss

The 'Mediaeval Warm Period' drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China (Holocene, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 511-516, 2002) - Guoqiang Chu, Jiaqi Liu, Qing Sun, Houyuan Lu, Zhaoyan Gu, Wenyuan Wang, Tungsheng Liu

The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area (Journal of Lake Sciences, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 209-216, September 2002) - Z. Jin, J. Shen, S. Wang, E. Zhang

Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers (Climate Dynamics, January, 2008) - Håkan Grudd

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America (Climatic Change, vol. 26, nos. 2-3, March, 1994) - Ricardo Villalba


Polar Bears

Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the "ultimate" survival control factor? (Ecological Complexity, vol. 4, issue 3, pp. 73-84, September 2007) - M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock


Sea Level

Estimating future sea level changes from past records (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 40, issues 1-2, pp. 49-54, January 2004) - Nils-Axel Mörner

New perspectives for the future of the Maldives (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 40, issue 1-2, pp. 177-182. 2004) - Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley, Goran Possnert

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise (Science, vol. 308. no. 5730, pp. 1898 - 1901, 24 June 2005) - Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna


Solar Influence on Climate (Part I)

A mechanism for sun-climate connection (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, 2005) - Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940s (Physical Review Letters 91, 2003) - Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle (Geoscience Canada, vol. 32, no. 1, March 2005) - Ján Veizer

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? (Geological Society of America Today, vol. 13, issue 7, July 2003) - Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer

Climate Change: The Sun's Role (arXiv:0706.3621, 23 Jun 2007) - Gerald E. Marsh

Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 23, issue 4, pp. 359-362, 02/1996) - Crowley, Thomas J., Kim, Kwang-Yul

Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions (Solar Physics, vol. 205, no. 2, pp. 403-417, February 2002) - M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97, no. 23, 12433-12438, November 7, 2000) - Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? (Advances in Space Research, vol. 40, issue 7, Pages 1173-1180, 2007) - Joan Feynmana

Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth's climate (Astronomische Nachrichten, vol. 327, issue 9, Pages 866 - 870, 10 Oct 2006) - H. Svensmark

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River? (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 111, D21114, 2006) - Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate (Science, vol. 254. no. 5032, pp. 698 - 700, November 1991) - E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen

Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, vol. 49 no. 2, pp. 32–44, June 2007) - W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse

Long-Period Cycles of the Sun's Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies (Solar Physics, vol. 211, nos. 1-2, December, 2002) - M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner

Orbital Controls on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate (Paleoceanogrpahy, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 441–456, 1999) - A. C. Clement, R. Seager, M. A. Cane

Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science (Progress in Physical Geography, vol. 23, no. 2, 181-204, 1999) - Frank M. Chambers, Michael I. Ogle, Jeffrey J. Blackford

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (Science, vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 - 2136, 7 December 2001) - Gerard Bond, Bernd Kromer, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Michael N. Evans, William Showers, Sharon Hoffmann, Rusty Lotti-Bond, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L05708, 2006) - N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L17718, 2006) - N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains (Geology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 263-266, Mar 1999) - Zicheng Yu, Emi Ito

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (Danish National Space Center Scientific Report, 3/2007) - H. Svensmark, E.Friis-Christensen

Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations (Advances in Space Research, vol. 40, issue 7, pp. 1167-1172, 2007) - O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adrian on April 15, 2010 at 11:40pm

Are you really pulling up articles by the Heartland Institute to support your argument? Good grief, you really have completely discredited yourself now! They are notorious mis-representers of scientific research (see PZ Myers thoughts on them!). If you read the actual articles cited, then it is likely that they do not actually support the view put forward by the Heartland Institute; there have been several instances of scientists complaining about the misinterpretation of their research by this group, or being listed as climate change deniers, when they are no such thing. They do have a very bad habit of cherrypicking; a casual reading of the articles titles shows that most are probably not directly contradictory to current climate change theory ( do you actually understand what the word theory means in a scientific context?). Even if all the cited articles did support their view, then there are many, many times more contradicting them.

Peter Risdon is a geologist, not a climatologist, and seems to mainly work for the oil industry.

H Sterling Burnett is a self-styled "expert" on environmental issues and gun control (no qualifications to support this), a juxtaposition which should tell you a lot about his political outlook, and his think tank (NCPA) is massively funded by the oil industry, particularly by Exxon-Mobil. He's a social scientist, not a real scientist of any sort.

James M Taylor is a lawyer, with no scientific qualification whatsoever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adrian on April 15, 2010 at 11:44pm

Oh, and the Heartland Institute also likes to produce lists of "scientists" who deny evolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 15, 2010 at 11:52pm

Yes...but they are not the ones making the statements. James M. Taylor is interviewing scientists, and he is not actually saying these things. Heartland is unreliable? Well, well....umm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 16, 2010 at 12:05am

Climate Change Reconsidered from Diane Bast on Vimeo.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adrian on April 16, 2010 at 2:02am

The Federal government agency administrations in the US were dominated by climate deniers for most of the last three decades, so the idea that they have pressured scientists to promote it is simply nonsense; the US government (under Bush jnr) has actually edited government scientific papers to make them seem less certain on climate change.

Governments would love for all this to be wrong! It would get them off a very tricky hook. Why would they possibly want it to be true? Trust me, the UK government would also love this to all be a hoax. This is nonsense, and their allegations of funding interests are completely untrue. The opponents are mostly funded by denialists, and so are not disinterested, impartial observers; it is somewhat disingenuous for them to make these allegations. Most climate scientists will have a job regardless of the truth, or otherwise, of climate change theory. Classic case of projection!

The idea that anyone producing critical research is committing career suicide is also nonsense; denialists make a very good living! If you continually seek to publish poor science, then, yes, you will be ignored in the future, and may eventually lose your position. But you will get a cushy job with the Discovery Institute, the Heartland Institute or any other of the myriad industry bodies and think tanks that deny the science. Seriously, most of the sceptics and denialists in climate change retain their posts; their reputations may be dented, but so are those of evolution doubters and the openly religious in science. However, if they produce good work, then that will be accepted. Climate change proponents have also lost their jobs, by the way.

Scepticism is a valuable and intrinsic part of science. We constantly challenge accepted truth. Many are sceptical of specific results, aspects of methodology, modelling processes and asumptions etc. I am amongst them in some respects. Being sceptical is not the same as denialism. Sceptics questioning aspects of current theory is to be expected, welcomed (as long as it is evidence-based), but does not, in and of itself, deny the validity of the basic hypothesis; we do this in all fields of science! That does not mean we doubt the essential validity of all science.

Politicians doing it to further their careers? Don't think so! Poll after poll show that the public are sceptical, and that the environment is a priority for relatively few. As George W Bush showed, the populist approach is to deny it and to tell the public not to worry, yet even he was eventually forced, by the weight of evidence, to admit that it was based in fact.

Again you are relying on the Heartland Institute and their spokespeople for information. They are funded by big polluters and energy producers. Why would you possibly regard this as a credible source?

They state 31000 scientists signed their petition. What proportion of the total in the US does this represent? What kind of scientists are they? How many have relevant experience or qualifications? How many of the NAS fellows support that?

Geologists are not climatologists, and many are linked to the oil industry! TV weathermen are not research scientists. Only one person in this video, as far as I can remember, has any relevant qualification. Who funds him? Christopher Monckton has qualifications in classics and journalism, for goodness sake, and none in science! Come on, use your rational thinking and scepticism! Why would you trust these people more than the ones you so readily dismiss?

Climate change deniers are very clever propagandists. They use out-of -context quotations, selectively edited papers and half-truths to further their cause. Some genuinely believe what they are doing is right, including some scientists, but many are paid stooges, especially the Heartland Institute. You can not, and should not, take what they say in preference to respected scientific research institutes, and national academies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 16, 2010 at 12:06am

How much of this video is true?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NatureBoy on April 16, 2010 at 12:41am

Well, I stand corrected. My apologies, Doone. For almost 6 months I believed them........good thing that I came across this atheist forum. If not, I would still be running around like a headless chicken, with misguided informations, wondering as to why scientists are raising such an alarm.
Thanks, padre! ^^

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page