Warning: Illegal string offset 'source1' in /home/zonerspo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-original-source/multiple-source.php on line 121

Warning: Illegal string offset 'source2' in /home/zonerspo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-original-source/multiple-source.php on line 122

Warning: Illegal string offset 'source3' in /home/zonerspo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-original-source/multiple-source.php on line 123

Warning: Illegal string offset 'source4' in /home/zonerspo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-original-source/multiple-source.php on line 124

Warning: Illegal string offset 'source5' in /home/zonerspo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-original-source/multiple-source.php on line 125

Friday, December 9th, 2016

MANY SCIENTISTS DON’T BUY GLOBAL WARMING

8

I found this rather interesting: The Global Warming Petition Project. From their site:

“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.”

I don’t get too hung up on this topic, but it is interesting to see an opposing view. Living ‘greener’ is a great thing to do even if global warming/climate change theories are incorrect. We have a major landfill/garbage problem in this country and we use an inordinate amount of energy.

 

  • http://www.meaninglis.com Lis

    Although I can’t stand Gore I give him props for bringing global warming to the table. This is one of those issues that’s messed up. It should be the conservatives who should be championing the values of conservation and preservation. I don’t understand why conservatives are quick to dismiss Gore’s message just because he’s liberal/democratic.

  • Dan Pangburn

    The message is dismissed because it is wrong. Not because of politics.

    Greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat from the earth’s surface and keep it warm. Except for the minuscule contribution of radioactive decay, all of this heat came from the sun and all must be radiated from the planet for it to retain its average temperature. Climatologists are good at measuring temperature and wind and determining how energy moves about the planet. Apparently, however, their training does not include knowledge of the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat. This lack of relevant training has contributed to the Global Warming Mistake. With adequate training they would be aware of the science that all of the radiant heat from the earth’s surface that is going to be absorbed by greenhouse gases gets absorbed close to the ground (half within less than 24 meters) and is carried up by convection currents to where it ultimately gets radiated to space. The average global temperature is modulated by convection currents. The convection is negligibly influenced by the amount of carbon dioxide. The only effect of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide is that the radiant heat from the surface would be absorbed a few feet closer to the ground. Human activity that puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere never has and never will have any influence on global climate.

    Graphs of climate history presented at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html ) show that carbon dioxide level has had no significant influence on climate. The reason why the carbon dioxide level has no significant influence on climate is revealed in papers by Dr. John Nicol, Dr. Jack Barrett and Dr. Heinz Hug. These papers are available on the web at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc , http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf , and http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm respectively.

  • http://zonersports.com The Zoner

    What was your favorite “Al Gore, pensive and ponderous” shot from “An Inconvenient Truth”? I know! Way too many to choose from!! Gag me.

  • http://www.meaninglis.com Lis

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. Dismiss the message. Dismiss the messenger. Still global conservation and preservation is a moral issue for all us. Broken clocks are still right twice a day.

  • http://zonersports.com The Zoner

    Sorry, but I’m not looking to Al Gore to be the primary messenger on this topic.

  • dhaab

    WOW! I don’t even know how to respond to folks who actually STILL believe global warming isn’t relevant. Yeah, Zoner, that “Inconvenient Truth” movie was just pure BS. (rolling eyes) BTW, just who exactly would suffice as the “primary messenger” on global warming for you?

  • http://zonersports.com The Zoner

    well maybe those 31,072 scientists for a start. And I didnt say the movie was BS, just too much of him in it.

  • dhaab

    All I’m saying is compare the number of Phd’s (and I use this as my barometer because those people have done FAR more research on GW than others who graduated with just a degree in Science) who think global warming is real to those who don’t. The number isn’t even remotely close.

Tweeter button Facebook button Reddit button Digg button Stumbleupon button