Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

20,000 scientists disagree with man made global warming

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. Here is an interesting under published fact that the number of scientists (including myself) have substantial issue with both the methodologies and fundamental analysis of so called global warming.
    Note, this is just reviewers and experiment publishers from the US alone.
    A greater number exist in Europe and the rest of the world.

    So, the IPCC has 2000 signatories. 1600 are bureaucrats, 400 are scientists.
    Verses about 50,000 around the world that have massive issues with the above.


    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. i dont care what 20000 scientists say, its fcukin hot today!

    you really like this topic, dont ya mate?
  3. :LOL: Ya guessed!
  4. I'd like to thank billions of tonnes of Carbon Monoxide for my enhanced enjoyment of cold beer and my swimming pool, today.
  5. you are not making things any easier for me, chris!
  6. At least 20 000 children disagree that their mum is the tooth fairy...
  7. so what are you saying? ....that there isnt a tooth fairy?!? :eek:
  8. I know Jebus would come to earth and stop global warming and protect me if it existed... I don't see jebus anywhere so it must not exist... its perfectly scientific.
  9. Shiite! You mean I traded in my neighbours teeth for nothing! :shock:
  10. Even more interesting article


    It's not even new.

    I'm not sure about you but 20,000 just sounded like too many so i had to look, but if Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell have signed it must be right.

    I don't know where you get

    From its a panel, what is there to sign???

    I suppose even its a complete fiction all we've done is pump less shit into the atmosphere and waste less fossil fuel hardly crimes.
  11. Anybody can sign on a petition dude :roll:
    Its more than 19,500 if you exclude non-scientific people.

    But I know that you've reviewed all the technical papers and literature.
    So sorry for ruining you day!
  12. I think you'll find the point of the Fox and Halliwell comment is that the numbers haven't been checked and frankly seem dodgy.

    I don't have to review the technical papers I wouldn't understand them any way, that's what scientists, government panels, and peer review is for.

    The case has been made and accepted, I love going against the tide as much as the next bloke, but the other side on this one just seems just a bit off...
  13. I think both sides are off... on one side you have a problem that needs to be solved. One way or another man is playing a major role in destroying the planets natural enviroment. You can't really argue that or you are blind. You can argue if it matters or not in a big picture sense but thats about it. On this side of the fence you have a whole bunch of people and companies who have jumped on the band wagon and muddied the water to make money out of dodgey scams and useless items. Hybrid cars, carbon credits blah blah blah. Often left winged hippy types but also often right wingers smart enough to smell dollars and political mileage.

    On the other side of the fence you have a lot of people who are in denial, or have an agenda. eg Farmers, Industry leaders workers etc etc. Usually right wingers... frequently religious (especially US). Frequently scientists with political agendas (backing Americas/Chinas stance). Similar to the scientists that argue smoking is good for you... Also you have the people who just want to argue with everyone over everything and be different... usually the same crowd think 911 was a conspiracy/nuking whales is a basic human right...the list goes on.
  14. :roll: Thankyou for demonstrating why the public are so ignorant!

    The facts are then:
    1. You don't know the subject or the process by admission;
    2. You are assuming that what you are told by the media (not actual scientists0 in great numbers;
    3. The state that the case is made without any basis to make that call, other than what you have been told.
    4. The peer review of which you speak is virtually non-existant (other than by non-scientists.

    As a scientist (with qualifications in earth sciences) I actually have reviewed almost all the documents since 1990. The case is significantly flawed and has no experimental data or contributing findings to back it up. All models and hypothesis.

    However, there are many dozens of papers that actually (experimentally) show indicative evidence contra to the main agrument.

    Happy to forward them to you.

  15. I was going to post an answer to each point but as its a pointless act. I just say one thing accusing people that don't agree with you of ignorance isn't exactly a grown ups method of debate is it.
  16. How'd you come to that conclusion when you acknowledge you got nothing
    to base your views on.

    PP even offerred to provide you with information but you knock it back
    saying you wouldnt understand em (w/out even seeing em). :roll:

    Ignorance with a capital 'I':

    I therefore cannot fault PP's assessment because you clearly demonstrate
    ignorance when you have a particular view & refuse to be shown something
    which will enlighten you.
  17. I've refused nothing. I've read/watched/listened to both sides of the argument (Including PP links to documents and stories off site)and have settled on the Warming side I don't think its cut and dried, but I've found none of the evidence from the denial side compelling.
  18. http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0707/0707sungw.htm
  19. Ok stigger
  20. OK What???